Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Ordinance 035-15
r-� I RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043 35 -15 Ordinance No. Pass d 20 AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 152.2 ACRES FROM R, RURAL DISTRICT AND R -1, RESTRICTED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE WITH UP TO 185 SINGLE - FAMILY LOTS AND APPROXIMATELY 76 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE ON THE WEST SIDE OF AVERY ROAD, NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH BELVEDERE GREEN BOULEVARD UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ZONING CODE SECTION 153.050 AND A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 185 SINGLE - FAMILY LOTS, RIGHTS -OF- WAY, AND OPEN SPACE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 152, THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (CASE #14- 068Z /PDP /PP). NOV�(�THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, of its elected members concurring, that: Section 1. The following described real estate, (see attached legal description, Exhibit A), situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 2. The application, including the list of contiguous and affected property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance there within. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law. Passed this _ day of 2015. or - Presiding Offi er ATTEST: 0_'_' 01ALL-_ Clerk of Council City of Dublin Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1090 Memo Phone: 614- 410 -4400 • Fax: 614- 410 -4490 To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager Date: June 4, 2015 Initiated By: Megan D. O' Callaghan, PE, Public Works Director Paul A. Hammersmith, PE, Director of Engineering /City Engineer Steve Langworthy, Planning Director C. Aaron Stanford, PE, Senior Civil Engineer Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II Re: Ord. 35 -15 - Rezoning approximately 152.2 acres from R, Rural District and R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District for the potential development of the site with up to 185 single - family lots and approximately 76 acres of open space on the west side of Avery Road, north of the intersection with Belvedere Green Boulevard under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050 and a preliminary plat for 185 single - family lots, rights -of -way, and open space in accordance with Chapter 152, the Subdivision Regulations (Case #14- 068Z /PDP /PP). Ord. 36 -15 (Amended) - An Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Enter Into An Infrastructure Agreement with Davidson Phillips, Inc. for the Riviera Development Summary Both ordinances were introduced at the May 18, 2015 City Council meeting. Council members requested the applicant reconsider addressing tree preservation by relocating or removing Lots 40 and 41 from the preliminary development plan, and provide additional requirements in the architectural standards for the proposed development. Council members requested information regarding landmark trees, asphalt driveways, open space maintenance, proposed sanitary sewer upgrades and the benefits and funding of the Hyland -Croy Road connection. Memo re. Ord. 35 -15 Riviera — Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/Preliminary Plat and Ord. 36 -15 Riviera Infrastructure Agreement June 4, 2015 Page 2 of 6 Rezoning Tree PreservaG"on The applicant has revised the development text and the preliminary development plan to address some of the requests by Council. To preserve the trees on Lot 41, the applicant has decreased the size of Lots 30 through 40, as they exceeded 100 feet in width in the previous plan. The revised lots still meet the text requirement of 100 -foot lots within this Subarea but allow the location of Lot 40 to adjust away from the trees. A lot was relocated between Lots 86 and 93 to adjust the location of Lot 41. The revised plan continues to show 185 lots on the 152.2 -acre site for an overall density of 1.22 units per acre. The lot relocation also adjusted the distribution of open space, however, the overall number remains the same at 76.1 (50 %). The Zoning Code defines a protected tree as a tree that is 6 inches in diameter or larger. Replacement is required for such trees removed that are in good or fair condition. There is no definition for Landmark trees, however, when Tree Waivers are requested of Council, Landmark trees are listed as those over 24 inches in diameter. Several years ago, there was a community volunteer effort that inventoried landmark trees in the City, which was translated into a GIS database. However, at this point much of this data is over 20 years old. The current proposal more effectively preserves significant trees. The applicant has made efforts to identify those trees that existed prior to the development of the golf course (around the stream and the two large oak trees). To ensure tree protection during construction, the development text includes requirements for metal or wood fencing around landmark trees and City inspections and approval of tree protection fencing prior to issuance of construction permits. In addition, the development text indicates more detailed tree protection measures with the final development plan, which is appropriate, as more details regarding utilities and grading as well as tree conditions will be available. SECrION 3-2 _ IU SECUM4\ Y % SEOnON SECIION4 L\ trees. A lot was relocated between Lots 86 and 93 to adjust the location of Lot 41. The revised plan continues to show 185 lots on the 152.2 -acre site for an overall density of 1.22 units per acre. The lot relocation also adjusted the distribution of open space, however, the overall number remains the same at 76.1 (50 %). The Zoning Code defines a protected tree as a tree that is 6 inches in diameter or larger. Replacement is required for such trees removed that are in good or fair condition. There is no definition for Landmark trees, however, when Tree Waivers are requested of Council, Landmark trees are listed as those over 24 inches in diameter. Several years ago, there was a community volunteer effort that inventoried landmark trees in the City, which was translated into a GIS database. However, at this point much of this data is over 20 years old. The current proposal more effectively preserves significant trees. The applicant has made efforts to identify those trees that existed prior to the development of the golf course (around the stream and the two large oak trees). To ensure tree protection during construction, the development text includes requirements for metal or wood fencing around landmark trees and City inspections and approval of tree protection fencing prior to issuance of construction permits. In addition, the development text indicates more detailed tree protection measures with the final development plan, which is appropriate, as more details regarding utilities and grading as well as tree conditions will be available. Memo re. Ord. 35 -15 Riviera - Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/Preliminary Plat and Ord. 36 -15 Riviera Infrastructure Agreement June 4, 2015 Page 3 of 6 Open Space Provision and Maintenance Tartan West (42% of the site) is maintained by the HOA. The proposal continues to include all open space to be owned by the City of Dublin, exceeding the required open space dedication in the Subdivision Regulations by 63 acres. The central open space will provide an important preservation of the stream corridor and a community connection to the open spaces in Belvedere and Shannon Glen and farther south to Avery Park, Westbury Park and the Metro Park as well as to the north in Tartan Ridge. The City will maintain approximately 55 acres of open space, which consist of the largest reserves around the stream in the center of the site and the reserves containing stormwater management ponds. The Public Services Committee of Council recently met to discuss the topic of Homeowners Association maintenance of City- owned open space. It is noteworthy from that discussion that the maintenance responsibilities of Homeowners Associations vary widely in the City; for example, all of the open space in Oak Park (50% of the site) is maintained by the City, while all of the open space in Staff has re- evaluated the anticipated cost associated with maintaining the open space for both the City of Dublin and the HOA. The estimated costs are only for maintenance and do not include any costs for improvements or equipment such as pond aerators, landscaping and furnishings. Additionally, the current proposal does not include a landscape plan or park development plans for which costs could be estimated as these details will not be required until the final development plan stage. Staff has used current contract pricing for all the estimates. Memo re. Ord. 35 -15 Riviera — Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat and Ord. 36 -15 Riviera Infrastructure Agreement June 4, 2015 Page 4 of 6 City of Dub /in owned and maintained- - approximately 55 acres - approximately 6 acres of ponds - assumption of approximately 50% of land being managed in a natural state - assumption the remaining 50% to be in mowed and routinely maintained turf Annual projected maintenance costs = $90,000/ year City of Dub /in owned /Home Owner Association maintained: - approximately 21 acres - assumption of 1 pond (no stormwater function) - assumption of 100% of the land to be in mowed and routinely maintained turf - also assumes an entry feature and somewhat routine landscaping Annual projected maintenance costs = $60,000 With the proposed 185 lots and the assumption that each lot has the same HOA dues, Staff estimates that each lot owner would incur $325 per year for open space maintenance fees. Development Text The applicant has revised the development text to require four -foot wide walks from the home to the public sidewalk. Asphalt has also been added as a permitted driveway material. The Planning and Zoning Commissions requested in their approval recommendation that asphalt not be a permitted driveway material. The Code requires hard surface for driveways and permits asphalt, concrete and pavers. Staff has conducted research and found that Subarea C of the recently approved empty- nester Deer Run development does not permit asphalt as a driveway material. Other Planned Districts refer to the Zoning Code for permitted materials. Pre /iminary Plat The proposed preliminary plat subdivides 152 acres of land into 185 single - family lots and thirteen reserves of open space. The plat also provides rights -of -way for eleven public streets. The Subdivision Regulations require the dedication of 13 acres (8.5 %) of open space based on the size of the site and the maximum number of units proposed; however, the applicant is providing 76 acres (50 %). The plat includes reserves labelled A through M. Infrastructure Agreement This proposed development provides the opportunity for a public roadway connection from the western edge of this development to Hyland -Croy Road. This connection will help disperse traffic to multiple access points and to reduce the traffic that would utilize existing roadways in adjacent residential neighborhoods. The developer will dedicate all right -of -way necessary to construct this roadway on property that they control. The City will assume all costs to acquire additional necessary right of way necessary for the connection. The City will coordinate and fund the design and construction of this roadway connection, as well as a southbound left and northbound right turn lane on Hyland -Croy Road, as identified in the Traffic Impact Study. These Memo re. Ord. 35 -15 Riviera — Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat and Ord. 36 -15 Riviera Infrastructure Agreement June 4, 2015 Page 5 of 6 improvements will be programmed prior to the approval of a final plat that includes the Firenza Place connection to Tartan West. As previously mentioned to Council, staff will propose a 25% TIF to pay for this improvement. Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis As previously indicated, a detailed sanitary sewer capacity analysis (study) of the North Fork Indian Run Sanitary Sewer trunk was required for this development. The applicant retained a consultant to perform this analysis who modeled the entire tributary area consisting of 3,740 acres. The analysis concluded there are modeled system deficiencies in the North Fork Indian Run trunk south of I -270 near the Cardinal Health campus, yet north of the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC). These deficiencies could possibly cause sanitary sewage overflows north of I -270, even without the Riviera Development. The study conclusions provided four alternative solutions to the capacity deficiencies, including preliminary cost estimates for each alternative. The preferred solution is Alternative #3, an augmentation parallel relief sanitary sewer which provides new pipe segments parallel (and adjacent to) existing pipe segments located south of I- 270 near OCLC. The effect of this improvement is to provide additional system capacity within this portion of the trunk sewer. The City will fund this improvement and the preliminary cost estimate is $420,200. The developer previously funded $47,740 toward this analysis. Recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan to City Council on April 9, 2015 with the conditions listed below. The applicant has addressed the conditions requiring development text updates (Conditions 5 — 11), a revision to the TIS was submitted fulfilling Condition 3, the plans have been updated to address Condition 12, and Condition 13 will be addressed at the final development plan stage. All other conditions need to be addressed as part of the Infrastructure Agreement. Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Conditions 1) That the applicant enter into an infrastructure agreement with the City, prior to submitting the first Final Development Plan, for development thresholds and public project contributions including the necessary sanitary sewer system improvements; 2) That the applicant work with the City to program a direct site connection to Hyland -Croy Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the approval of a Final Plat that includes the Firenza Place connection to Tartan West; 3) That the developer update the traffic impact study to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior a City Council hearing of the rezoning; 4) That as part of the development of Section 1, the applicant provide a northbound left -turn lane on Avery Road into the site and a pedestrian crossing system for Avery Road, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 5) That the development text be revised to eliminate vinyl as a permitted window option and allow the applicant to request approval of specific vinyl window products at the Final Development Plan stage if so desired; 6) That the development text be revised to eliminate vinyl as a shutter material; Memo re. Ord. 35 -15 Riviera — Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat and Ord. 36 -15 Riviera Infrastructure Agreement June 4, 2015 Page 6 of 6 7) That the development text be updated to eliminate asphalt as a permitted driveway material; 8) That the development text be updated to address the language on page AS -1 in accordance with the Commission comments; 9) That the development text be updated to limit all siding as the building material to 25% of the total homes within Subareas A and B; 10) That the development text be updated to limit stucco to no more than 50% of the primary fagade of a home; 11) That the development text regarding the review authority of the Architectural Review Committee be updated to revise page AS -1, Section II. B. 1. to add architectural character and level of detail of architectural elements to the review authority of the ARC; 12) That the stormwater management areas be maintained by the City of Dublin and the development text and plans be updated accordingly; and 13) That consistent mailboxes be submitted for review and approval at the final development stage. The Planning and Zoning Commission also recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat to City Council on April 9, 2015 with the condition listed below, which has been addressed in the submission to City Council. Preliminary Plat Condition 1) That the applicant ensure that any minor technical adjustments to the plat, are made prior to City Council submittal. Recommendation Planning recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 35 -15 at the second reading /public hearing on June 8, 2015. Planning also recommends City Council approval of the preliminary plat on June 8, 2015. Staff also recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 36 -15 at the second reading /public hearing on June 8, 2015. Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat RIVIERA D u b l i n, O h i o Draft Submittal for Approval: Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission, OctoberZg, 7014 Approved. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission, April 9, 7015 Approved. Dublin City Council, June 8, 7015 - Ordinance 35 -15 Land Planning/ Developer: Legal: Landscape Architecture: Engineering: Davidson Phillips Smith and Hale The EDGE Group EMH &T 4020 Venture Ct Suite D 37 W Broad St, Ste 460 330 West Spring Street, Suite 350 5500 New Albany Road Columbus, OH 43228 Columbus, OH 43215 Columbus, OH 43215 Columbus, OH 43054 Phone: (614) 777-9325 Phone: (614) 221-4255 Phone: (614) 486-3343 Phone: (614) 775-4460 Contact: Charles Ruma Contact:Jeff Brown Contact: Greg ChiLLog Contact: Diane Marin Draft Submittal for Approval: Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission, OctoberZg, 7014 Approved. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission, April 9, 7015 Approved. Dublin City Council, June 8, 7015 - Ordinance 35 -15 SECTION I - Exhibits PDP -1 REGIONAL CONTEXT MAP PDP -2 VICINITY MAP PDP -3 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH PDP -4 BOUNDARY MAP/SURVEY PDP -5 EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP PDP- 6 SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS MAP PDP -7 SURROUNDING LAND USE MAP PDP -8 SURROUNDING DENSITIES MAP PDP -9 SURROUNDING UTILITIES MAP PDP -10 CONSERVATION DESIGN - PRIMARY CONSERVATION AREAS PDP -11 CONSERVATION DESIGN - SECONDARY CONSERVATION AREAS PDP -12 CONSERVATION DESIGN - DEVELOPABLE AREAS PDP -13 CONSERVATION DESIGN - ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN PDP -14 SUB -AREA PLAN PDP -15 PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION PLAN PDP -16 OPEN SPACE PLAN PDP -17 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN 1/10 TREE SURVEY 2/10 TREE SURVEY 3/10 TREE SURVEY 4/10 TREE SURVEY 5/10 TREE SURVEY 6/10 TREE SURVEY 7/10 TREE SURVEY 8/10 TREE SURVEY 9/10 TREE SURVEY 10/10 TREE SURVEY 1/4 PRELIMINARY PLAT - PHASING PLAN 2/4 PRELIMINARY PLAT - SITE PLAN 3/4 PRELIMINARY PLAT - SITE PLAN 4/4 PRELIMINARY PLAT - PAVEMENT SECTIONS 1/2 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PLAN 2/2 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PLAN SECTION (- Exhibits I I I BELVEDERE GREEN 9( 0 i r f 0 V yr (�� O R 0 AS 1 / 1 , 1 /y 0, ow 2p �w p0 W F2 U� 2 CL z UJI Ef zs Wl H 00 0 Q W PDP 1, 2 J / I 1 0 , I I 1 I I ti �J j" , / DEER RUN E.S. & \ GRIZZELL M.S. DELAWARE COUNTY FRANKLIN COUNTY 7e n Oti �O J � m w � w 0¢ Q U d n a� w O Q ~ a 1► 7 �W W =Pe PDP SmatM in Me Sbm of Ohio, Counties m union, Franklin and Dehvmrc, City M Dublin, in Virginia Mlllmry Survey Numbers 1935 and 5161, helm, Fart ofthommum, oflath come edm Amerlmn Italian Golf Amodauon by deeda of ratan In Dead Book 2600. Page 393 (Franidin (Dunn, Deal Book 315, Page M Nemwa a County), Deed Book 316, Page 68 (Union County) and Dent Book 713, Page 495 (Union Cmnyj, and more wNmlady boundM and deerlbM m fouoxs Beginning at Me noRlavestarly comer of Me sMMsion emglnd Eei a Jere Segari 3, threw! in Mat Book S. Page 38 (union County), In the mangy line ofgmt nett mrwe* to The Small of Edumtlon mMe Dublin City School Dlebid by &ad of recOm in Official Remm 78, Page 334 (Union County); Memo North 03 °11'05'West,Mth raid mangy Uneedlgence m330.3) fig m the nommeeerly rl,f I II I —1 a a mmertlmlmf, Mena South 84.57.58' Wan, Mth Me notherty line geld School Obofa tmq a dlsmnn of 435.11 fart: I theme croming mid Ammtan Italian Goll mclatlon thacm Me mllcmnq Counea and Moement / \ NOM OS° 49' 46' Weg a distannaf 103889 het; i North W' 33'Ee M.dUMg.a%1fA0fmg �� \\ NoM 01.03' 58' Wee, a dbtanmof6Q00het; ant i South D. andJ talyn Mt, a de by deof85]Shrt m the mlBhoonly YCamerof Met baammryetlm 1 / \ Sevin D.antlhmlyn Cuim by amtla mrecmtl in Official. Remrtls 117, Pape 183 (Union County) ma 804, Page 118 Nnion Caumy); \ � u' p�m there., North 05. 51'10' West, with Me eagerly line efeaid Mullins meant Me embody tine mthe autence of enMhd Tt w Wee Sennrt Porter mremmIn Mrtynel WPare118mb,[wnty),a mgance (We4L by dMe smmmestedy mmamMgbacomryedm Tartan tyMpmem eomwnr lWea4.1u by ama mleeom in olfigg Remm 663. Page )a1 Nnion emntn; theme North 81 °3)'01' Eas, with Me mutherly Une of mld Tartan Dmgopmm ,Comwnytmg Me soutlmrlY Une mSavma COndominlum rtTartan West ThlMAmeMmem,mremmin (nntlo Phb BOOk S, exaa Page 339 Nnion County), the mYMe gy Une m Sayma Condominium a Tartan WOg Fifth Amermem,M record In UndOMe Book 5, Page 164 Nnion Caumy), Me southerly Une m that ma conveyetl m WOM a Run Panders, ILC by ded of nmm in Official Rmom 999, Page 154 Nnion County), Cw aeuthedy Une of a� e Sawn Condominium at Tartan Wert Sigh Amendment threw! in Condo Plat Book 5, Page 3)6 Nnim $ €yi g Counen,aMtlmsmmler1y UneofthattmamnvryMmTh Bmd&M4 rongthe Dublin Cky Sthml Sx 'a R'a = »- WARE i.011FfiY Dlebia by&a& of recOm in OlfiWl Rmmtl 8831D10(Fnnein County) ant Dml Book 485, Pae 3M pB FRARKLIN COUP Nehwae Conty), a todaanm m 1148.39 feet m a win: Ififi„ m theme North 74-30-22' Eag MM Me mmM1erly Une amid Sc3m01 DWd WMa dammed 167646 feRm a Point in Me mmerline OAywy Road; theme South IS° IEO7' East,wM vltl ameN�Ie a disnme m3033.31 hrtm a Fain; theme South )4 °38'46' West, Mth the noMMy Une mthesuMMAm emlded °Ibe Celtk Esmns M Avery. of recom In Plat Book 105, Page 30 (Fmnklln County%a d dwcie m354.19 feet to the northxegerly tamer thereof, theme South )4 °36'05' Wert with Me noMedy Una of Me mWirylslon ent8htl'Belvelen Saglon 1', of room in Mat Book 9i, Page 6 (Frangin County), Me nommTy rim of Me subtlivuion enfinea 'Beteadve Section 3', of room In Plat Book 98, Page 74 (FmnlWn County), and Me noM,M ime 0mid Belvedere Section 3,a dlgema of383).44 feet to POINT OF BEGINNING, wnamini, 153.193 acres of lord mom or laws �ww.a w NMxxa�K me '. x ��m�E 1 1 \ I 1 A 111 ' I sa•sasrw amsu' _ ^ II mmaw 134 PA, a lar zar_ xm•sssrw )mm m7km m I I I I I i I I I I I men MSS on x HOUSE I k II � �,aroa W N. pe;uo' PW `wµw•rean I I I I I � SEINEOERE GREEN 8C w� \ \ g \ \ 6 ` BEI'`1��e`w man \ \ /a R E o i G o, O "' �O �w m0 W TOT QaQ F2 U? 2 a Q Q> C� Z D IM B � W - W roe I PDP I 4 r G �n7m v ) 9 0 NOTES: niA� 1. TIEREARE NOWETANOS ASSHOI ON SITE Z. TIESUTEARRODO 114 ASSHOWN IS THE ' IN EE T:O WATER NINASDEFINEDRYEMH6T IN TIE STORM WATER MANAf£MEIR REPoRT I 0' 100' 300' 900' NORTH 510 \e � • � a + a A a L h Ilk ' � :(� 0 t , , a # 14 TUSCANY [)K c'10 RN E t R RURAL DISTRICT PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT �• � 1 try PLAN NE DEVELOPMEI tIkt=N /A \\ Dub Iin \� .let ine Hi yh 1 school U 0• 100• zoo• 400' NOM \ L I I X00 - r- d , l'z Esc ✓ (Ivk, ♦\ c, �• r ' r PLR PLANNED LOW DENSITY f RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT tf t 4: • r :A % z 5 o - 02 R PUD Flartt entary Q T RURAL DISTRICT • PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT c It oo f �; I J �' O¢ �z 02 PUD PLANNED UNIT VELOPMENT DISTRICT TUSCANY [)K c'10 RN E t R RURAL DISTRICT PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT �• � 1 try PLAN NE DEVELOPMEI tIkt=N /A \\ Dub Iin \� .let ine Hi yh 1 school U 0• 100• zoo• 400' NOM \ L I I X00 - r- d , l'z Esc ✓ (Ivk, ♦\ c, �• r ' r PLR PLANNED LOW DENSITY f RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT tf t 4: • r :A % Vf z� F N � � Q 002 z D z v+ p N W 41 W N 0 PUD PLANNED UNIT i DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 4 PDP 6 mFm z 5 o - 02 Q pp LL ; O¢ �z 02 PUD PLANNED UNIT VELOPMENT DISTRICT Vf z� F N � � Q 002 z D z v+ p N W 41 W N 0 PUD PLANNED UNIT i DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 4 PDP 6 mFm �J- r Y n� SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY I I' Iv 4N Y : i 1. .QI* RN F 1 � PARK/ OPEN SPACE [' C �c G r Y t'• W INEM� SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY ucci Ruii Elementary CIVIC /PUBLIC school ASSEMBLY /` •_ "Zell I h1 School SUBURBAN /RURAL RESIDENTIAL PARK/ SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE LOW DENSITY CIVIC /PUBLIC ASSEMBLY 1� Dublin Jetorne High I' school o• ioo• zoo- aoo• NOM a ' • . •, app o' SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY r, pZ G SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY R`� , c v �aypt'a60 d o� aw a J 0 pp LL ; O¢ a 02 CL Z Ei < Z N o oc 0 Z LA g W W >�r a4 4�c'a a� PDP 0 _�.... _ 1.r, o�.i �9e i A v kL 0 TARTAN RIDGE (07) 1.56 DU /AC DETACHED S.F. _ ATTACHED M.F- COMMERCIAL KIT RICK RD. MUIRFIELD 1.50 DU /AC � -H . D;. ' TARTAN WEST (03) DET/1 1.74 DU /AC ' DETACHED S.F. ATTACHED M.F. 'r COMMERCIAL. i - _ MUIRFIEL - I- '1.40 DU /AC E TACI-ED 5. F.� J5' -85' LO7 2.96 D r DETACHED O• 60' -65' LOTS 3.28 DU ZELL ATTACHED 3/4 UNITS 1.89 DU /AC - DETACHED S.F. 70' -100' LOTS PROPOSED 1.22 DU /AC \ _ SINGLE FAMILY y �I�• RESIDENTIAL < z _ m MUIRFIELD `.. 1.47 DU /AC R o DETACHED S.F. „CELTIC CROSSING (13 ATTACHED M.F. 1.57 DU /AC COMMERCIAL DETACHED S.F. I. DUBLIN JEROME BELVEDERE SCHOOL HIGH DETACHED SR00' OATS 90 AK kR-K (06 1.76 DU/AC DETACHED S.F. ATTACHED M.F. COMMERCIAL._ SHANNON GLEN 2.00 DU /AC DETACHED S.F. 75'-85' LOTS E d o� oz 2f a J 0 cr �w 0 W pp i o cc a 02 r tD CL Z_ Z N 0 F- Z Lu LA 0 N 0 'n e pam Lu PDP 8 ti >q ti4 — t ?I J ,.. 1 � I I fl !v w- . Ir �' ►� KEY SANITARY LINE uSTORM MAIN II WATER LINE Ir i I •I I lr`'i �I illl Dublin Jerome High f--1 'I School L1 V `J• 'P• lao• zoo• aoo• ruoaTx N 7 Qu �D �1 S t I i t UCCr r[Url Elementary School Grizzell fit'Odl i'' Z)nannun GI--ii Park ,, Y1( % s N1 la 1. IIU I to I b 9 �-,. D o° o ati d _ R n 7e d o� ow < J 0 cr Dw 0 W_ O¢ Q 02 0 CL Z CQC G Z D W O H F W 4 .gym W =Pe POP 9 IL rL:'•'L �� � 1!i r•� � i r' I UCCr r[Url Elementary School Grizzell fit'Odl i'' Z)nannun GI--ii Park ,, Y1( % s N1 la 1. IIU I to I b 9 �-,. D o° o ati d _ R n 7e d o� ow < J 0 cr Dw 0 W_ O¢ Q 02 0 CL Z CQC G Z D W O H F W 4 .gym W =Pe POP 9 r! `1I, I MAN -MADE POND V 1 1� STREAM i i ♦ MAN -MADE POND OPEN SPACE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN STREAM CORRIDOR PROTECTION ZONE (S.C.P.Z.) � I 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN ` S. C.P.Z. WETLANDS: THERE ARE NO WETLANDS ON SITE 0 THERE ARE NO NATURALLY OCCURRING PONDS ON SITE n TWO JURISDICTIONAL STREAMS EXIST ON SITE rc THERE 15 NO RIVER FRONTAGE ON SITE FLOODPLAINS: A 100 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN EXISTS ALONG THE TWO JURISDICTIONAL STREAMS A STREAM CORRIDOR PROTECTION ZONE HAS BEEN PLACED OVER THE TWO JURISDICTIONAL STREAMS STEEP SLOPES: I z og 0 Q �o cc mw 0 W O p O¢ � Q U� z0 2 P: In Q W z W N O z W j0Q CC W CC cQc z C O a W m THERE ARE NO STEEP SLOPES ON SITE. THE SITE IS GENTLY SLOPING I PDP FROM 1% TO 3% 10 0 o E p 5. z, SCENIC VIEWS /— a SETBACK , , oW cc > {• SIGNIFIQrANT p` r_ TREES* * + y p r VIEW, \ 1 • • �� 4b • INTO SITE / s •• cc �• �i ••� ` , ora z WI Zn cc r �'�. J � • i• • , , cRnclEnaLCr O Q Z p0 WIL[IftEiCtRRID /• • , Q p > r • M SIGMFICANT TREE' • SCENIC VIEWS/ > w s • • i • SETBACK w " N •� "i o u • • • • ` MEMpR'P,Oa • , SIGNIFICANT ,�•► r�• JoM • =� TREES /BUFFER W'^ • •� •• • f I ♦� p v z. 00 00 SPECIMEN TREE • % r 400 ♦ " 0 • • - •� • • i • � • � • '�. r 00 00 pW �A BEY p� _ • Ge�� P ' • ' SOILS: THE PREDOMINANT SOIL TYPES ARE BLOUNT AND GLYNWOOD, A TYPE C/D SOIL SIGNIFICANT * �- TREES /BUFFER ' —� \ j� WOODLANDS: THERE ARE NO WOODED AREAS OR "WOODS "ON SITE 00 ow ` FARMLAND: AGRICULTURAL LAND /FARMLAND 15 NOT PRESENT ON SITE �' �, '� VIEWS: THE CURRENT CLUBHOUSE IS LOCATED ON A HIGHPOINT AND i wo EXISTING TREE - 25" CALIPER OR GREATER ♦ v9 _ HAS PROMINENT VIEWS ALONG AVERY ROAD °y • t 00 - p SIGNIFICANT OPEN SPACE VIEWS EXIST FROM SHANNON GLEN w € op 'N 2F2 PARK ALONG THE STREAM CORRIDORS rc o o O EXISTING TREE - 24" CALIPER OR LESS A SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITATS OF THREATENED OR ENDANGERED WILDLIFE SPECIES HABITATS: DO NOT EXIST ON SITE SUMMER HOUSE DR WILDLIFE TRAVEL CORRIDORS EXIST ALONG THE STREAMS HISTORIC FEATURES: THERE ARE NO BUILDINGS, RUINS, EARTHWORKS, STONE WALLS "`ET PDP OR OTHER RESOURCES WITH HISTORIC, ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR _ / \ CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE ON SITE 00 00 _' ♦ a d d � � a d '� 1 • d I � � `♦ DEVELOPABLE AREA ` 1 ♦ ' ♦ B 1 1 ♦ 1 �� f � ♦ �� DEVELOPABLE AREA ` ` 00 ' d 1 i% 1 0 y °I 3a a J i � y of I' ♦ , ` `� DEVELOPABLE AREA ♦ `� r f d 1 1 1 1 1 _ 1 1 1 • 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 I </ ,7e N O 5 o� oz ? Q O C m o W O p ; O¢ � U� Z N l7 Q N W W cc � Q Z W 0m ~ a zO w z W O° V `C jV PDP 12 r Y. OO40 o Q Q Q o I o ❑ ❑ ❑_ ❑_ ❑_❑ •ao0 OZ," - O + • VA - r� E 7e o, ow J 0 CC ,w 0 W_ > O¢ Q 02 ..f.. , Z o,.•�� . -o °� DO °10 • Ik W V W N �n _ L OAV � V — � 0 0 ❑ oil �m o � � a�o 0 M 00 go 9 04 0 ❑O° °° D �,.•� LLP Q • QQ _ -�� ,J PDP �. 13 � B 129 138 ` 185 139 184 153 152 140 183 182 154 � � 151 141 \ 181 42 155 � 150 143 \100 y 156 149 1444 171 78 157 � 148 147 146 1'15 165 \ — 158 166 i 159 167 163 164 160 161 162 3 0 w F y zo i 90 89 08 87 Bb 93 92 91 / - S@_ 75 75 \ 96 - 97 79 78 - ' -74- 101 100 99 98 / 82 81 73 \ \ 102 83 72 \\ 10.'1 58 / 10 71 4/ /57 59 b, 85 05 62 \ 67 68 \ 66 106 56 63 y1 107A \ 55 41 100 54 43 42 \ 46 45 44 47 40 48 39 49 i 7 37 2 3 2 \ \ 51 36 / 6 5 4 20 \V A 35 V 7 19 \ \\ 8 \ UBA "B" � 1 9 SUBAREA "A" e \ \\ 15 j 17 ffi 1p j4 15 A 31 A A 12 13 �� 21 29 27 26\ \25 175 28 J� 1774 � 9sr`�pR O� � L Est $ 5 ','V y G� G o, 0 c �o �w p0 W pp LL ; o� U? 2 QZ J a W Q m D IA d � W- W 1 0- _ 7 PDP 14 7d -jl- \ : \ 0 ffB SIWIEDUSE COENDTIONIO Ill MIOOUeSOgOL 93 94 N, 90 89\\81 - _ 96 i 78 -' 98 97 Ib 79 82 81 ' 01 103 102 83 i l 60 104 � 59 114 61 � 113 57 105 62 68 a 129 112 66 106 56 65 fi3 y} 67 X30 110 107 55 31 41 1 108 54 43 42 76 \ 75 \ 73 J 72 70 71 69 KEY SIDEWALKS EXISTING SHARED -USE PATH ---- ---- -- PROPOSED SHARED -USE PATH DU PA a �o �w p0 W 0o LL � 44 a7 48 ; 37 2 1 \ i ZZ 53 52 51 8 % 5 4 6 20 \ Z J� c% O 8 138 185 pill PATy 34 9 18 ESSMNG W PMPOSm SXNREDUSE 0 PROPOSED 139 184 PATH(IPPJ SIMREDIISE 153 152 140 183 A\ 33 vA NJ U VAIN "PJ 17 d V 182 \ 0.0PONO 32 16 154 151 141 \ 10 15 �. 142 181 E \♦ AT103'PJ 14 31 12 13M 155 150 143 100 It \ I 11 21 N 156 149 144 17� \._ �' \♦ ; 30 24 23 ` 178 __ 148 147 146 145 165 ♦. �� \ ?9 27 26 17b 175 Slo n4 \ 159 164 E 167 E ♦ s 160 161 162 169 ♦ O yMyEY DB �� \ p �N 173 AN @3 1\ sluNEo-usE Yno 1 9 771 172 mxIMMONM \ SHMNOM GUN \\ X170 PARK MEM aSgEW \ J ��SU MER HOUSE OR 5 3 0 yu� w 'o 2 w 0 N' NORTH vOi K 4� �wtEl ro 4 a POP 75 Reserve Size Ownership Maintenance A 2.4 Ac. city HOA B 0.1 Ac. city HOA C 5.0 Ac. city HOA D 1.7 Ac. city HOA E 2.1 Ac. city HOA F 4.0 Ac. city city G 0.1 Ac. City HOA H 3.0 Ac. city HOA 1 1.0 Ac. city HOA 1 5.9 Ac. City HOA K 30.0 Ac. city city L 5.8 Ac. city city M 15.0 Ac. city city iN 57 45 = 159 163 164 i 10.1 A 0 E W NOM vii i 178 . .... 25 2y 26 6 177 176 1 ... ... . ... .. 28 27 . .. . .... . .... . .... . .... .. . .... . .... . ..... ... . ..... . .... . .... . ..... ..... 167 .... . .... . .... .... . . . . .... . .... . .... . ... . .... . .... ... . .... . .... 173 . . .... 171 .... . .... . .... . .... . .... . .... — ` L �st, ot ',IV R g, , Z 0 0 0 LU �Z iA :5 Z CL LU CL 0 LLI P 9 LLI POP 16 10.1 A 89 8B RESERVE T' 90 yl 92 3l n A, 91 ........... 80 .......... 95 T. 100 102 )3 104 61 57 105 62 106 64 07 55 ESE 30. 105 �3 -12AM ........ . 49 50 2 3 5 6 ....... ... ........... 20 7 ... .. ..................... .... .. . .... . .... . .... . ..... ...................................... .................. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ........................................ B- - - - - - - - - - ..... 9 .. .. .. ................ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .................................... 13 ............................................... ............. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 17 32 15 1 13 2 1 22 23 24 178 . .... 25 2y 26 6 177 176 1 ... ... . ... .. 28 27 . .. . .... . .... . .... . .... .. . .... . .... . ..... ... . ..... . .... . .... . ..... ..... 167 .... . .... . .... .... . . . . .... . .... . .... . ... . .... . .... ... . .... . .... 173 . . .... 171 .... . .... . .... . .... . .... . .... — ` L �st, ot ',IV R g, , Z 0 0 0 LU �Z iA :5 Z CL LU CL 0 LLI P 9 LLI POP 16 0 EXISTING TREE REPLACEMENT TREE STREET TREE p ■B W e7 on Ng .s 00 O O v ��•�oa .. ,4w 0� a pa p C 00 = ^•V'e. o . m` al ° o° ;;ee1 o a p o p ° a .�•�,;,.° o o. iO � .�+�4. . OO \ �,0 ��p, O ♦A 00 .tQ��ow•o•° i _ - n •Y•J n• 4.� WC ' �gol^ oho.:. O � ©p0.. ,0 ° Op �O ,C" \�'. O °�♦ � #���•`'✓'✓ o• •_ 0000 Op � � < <i>'OO J• °dort `° � A pv Oww_ - =•_. ,.,; O O ;� ;@ * ♦ v.4, v .. .. 0 O °p 3v :O °DO Op ° � _. ✓• >♦ � a.o e. �C \e._ v:,s..: e., O OO \ - -e•D -_ �..; °.aO pQi ' �...� • .O O °° op `` \W" V`1 �i gium ffiwo" R ; � •v.� iii . O p � •fs 3. :. 00 p� � �l( 00 ;4� 4 - - e : a °'v'•� - _ - _ _ _ "� ^ °�° ae v ( @ \c a � ±�� ¢ as ° rer. +, •.w: e _ a 0 w F w m 171 w0 WKW R y G o, o Z 26 a 0 �w p0 W )0? Q2Q F2 U? a cc Qa LY Z th LU a cc CL J W Ef W I H_ PDP 17 VIII I IIII I I 5 6 II I o I I I B99 I I p I° I o I _ I � 954 ICI o I� I m IX952 950 940 ,� I 96, 9" ^ 964 I L I��� 09z i \J E4Nfug Hatlu 94a g}B 9 ]MM9 93526 x943 963 944 t } F ��77' 0- 599 995 { 9]2 F 9J, 923 fL 053 153 55' 152 S2 B � \ \ 0 5, B60 154 �6 OS 155 \ 1 OI p5 V 156 9qs 9 o+ m 157 9oz 94 158 \ 159 92 92] 92, 99 SM - 150 149 905 9,J 9s 0148 147 KEV MAP LEGEND= <24" good oo, LEGEND -2G' &> a II 0 0 0 w �w a� �x g`� F s� �f 0 ill pa AP 2015 GRAPHIC SCALE I m,h - 50@ee, rvQ M13 IMB 1/10 I I 706 —'' ' ],oRESERVE "J " ; —� ts�� - -- - -- __ -� _ -_ -- _- _ -- - _ - -- -- - -- �- - - —_ �_ - ,m j0 i `�t�!E�s � � s��ss � � �, r� RESERVE "I' I ^9 ]� 1 633 2 5 623 l t 8 p 1 1 / I I 1 ]1{ 1 1 1 6,6 123 122 121 fie 116 � r � � 119 B ]22 ,6 0 620 0 1 fill j0 E Ba \ fi U ]�]26 ]71 62P Ir ]2P 619 1 \ \ 115 \ \ 104 TA y _ _ TA FIX NZAPLACE _ 114 V V A ]92]90 \ � ]31 t X 9, 113 ] n V ------------ - 124 125 126 ne 6 }3 1,2 gP2 105 129 \ + 'I \ 74 \ ]4] ] 6M3 6P6 ]PS \ 64 130 X652 106 2 10 RESERVED' 131 y2 \ 0$"i ° 65s — T T T T T 6 fi56 I O ]63 ]0P \ BavrD r ]5651 �\ �\ \ \ 09' ,fig ' 6 \ 6 �, 134 132 \ 32 \ �\ 1 1 \ _ 7 ]6 ���� 133 P'' W sn ,62 ,64 ,3��E� 135 ]fil I v664 o I\ o y KT 136 6fi6 691 ]00 ]]]2 II \� 137 � / / �i 690 -- • � r �" / i 4 $�+ ]]3 B 0 _ F -- n0 SYS VE �l 69P �f/ gg, 5 P ,6P65 I 63 RESERVE L 0P6 5 a 6 206 KEV MAP Ll> 60 6p6 66] \ I \ \ 200 � - I 469 y yyy r oo j L LEGEND 24 4"60, oor �FY� I � P cnccwo _ 6]P \ 7 24 6, � dNE e e s a, 9 669 67} \ 03CI0 g }\ \ 4p 2015 i Y RESERVE "K" / M1 GRAPHIC SCALE A R � zs so 1m zr.'a J 625 026 1 _M 138 1'..�. =56 feel n J ®PO \� z 6° i fins o0 185 g1z \\ \ \\ 5 .... 63P _ � 2613 -1i'0 �lV g16 ex g D,l� 599594fi00 2/10 �. 'ilk �5 0 m 0 \ zF 45 44 43 42� QQ C� C� I o s s ba z F I f If i I b(Wj �5 0 m 0 \ zF 45 44 43 42� QQ C� C� II I,f f l J J r 3s� 23e RESERVE 'K' z,a 23, z 0 `a rrI 0 m 0 0 zF o a rs] QQ C� C� o s s ba z F O b(Wj IffiV MAP jfG O O } a LEGEND— <24" " © M LEGEND =24 &> oo. aP.u,2ols GRAPHIC SCALE INh —s0r„ rvo 201313. 3/10 94 — --------------- - _ 95 ea 96 97 / R &L� ao 131 � 82 12eF O,a2 81 83 1 84 1B O II 64 m 0 :F o a rs] QQ� 3rK�� 2 s a z CG zo F b s b I I I I jf O O IffiV MAP } a LEGEND— <24" coda g�p� LEGEND 24 oir 4 201155 oo� GRAPHIC SCALE 1oth- 50fee1 .1._M JMNQ 301313'0 4/10 RESERVE "E" I 46 45 44 43 42�- 41 0� � Ii'y II n , J �aa ss RESERVE Y e �J 32V ]-� � 5 � � iVAR➢ J I RESERVE "& r h 38 265 39 181 40 ° °sl III li 37 / 266 ao'', ,22' 2 aazaas V _ — _ _ 5 _� RESERVE o Q IT 36 2. _ Ili O II m 0 :F o a rs] QQ� 3rK�� 2 s a z CG zo F b s b � ' jf O O IffiV MAP } a LEGEND— <24" coda g�p� LEGEND 24 oir 4 201155 oo� GRAPHIC SCALE 1oth- 50fee1 .1._M JMNQ 301313'0 4/10 5 - 411 X45 wLanNESE axrac e38 37 ��� I1 LEGEND =2G" &> �2 36 / 35 65 I „ 2�4 6 / 2 gal 95 34 " III Oe xe ao1 ev 4N.2015 " 390 ea3 l �� 4 n 33 l 36e 63 22 32 I� III �y GRAPHIC SCALE ow 27 i a6 —��� 2S� 24 23 31�� 21 453 I 4�4 A 1 � 10 361 � g 36 631, 30 359 \ 11 ?r 1 ill � ' Ili iVAWI p ^ III � FFF RESERVE "8" I � I 39 661 L 40 268 36 � �\ ry1 I, III l RESERVE 'A' J 0 z � Illl k � AL &ANESE CIRCLE Y g II 4 @ I III r 6 5 4 � /3 2 365 II I II I 503 li 61 VIII 434 4 I III 501 / F i/ 416 20 i/ Ip l I �J II I I 4 BT III I' 4�6 499 �1 II ggYY O- / RESERVE "C., 19 �i o o22 III w s� F ar5 5rt 3-g4 6 7 TI,II I, I,� Se &,^m �'My VIII z 6 22 I I , gF 0 4] KEYMAP 4] m 4, a r I 19 17 73� li 1 13 14 15 16 6711 4e�— I����� LEGEND= <24 "09 a66' -III II I� aI, r I € 46 29 - 411 wLanNESE axrac ��� I1 LEGEND =2G" &> 396 / 462 I gal 402 III Oe xe ao1 ev 4N.2015 " 390 ea3 l �� 4 l 22 I� III �y GRAPHIC SCALE 28 27 i a6 —��� 2S� 24 23 21 453 I 4�4 A 1 26'r� a . ` 456' 3 �l i finch =50 feel 1 '0 ae 43, - N/N`3�J J ,® ----- -_- -' a .450 _ __ _— _— _- 20 101313'0 _ r - Me_ _Lic - � • I`l � � I I r� I I -III � � I 9R �a3 S�10 f G rt RESERVE "K" 351 292 3s2� 63� 3611M 358 -351 0333 356 z 0 �a II 0 0 m O f o a rs] Q � u C� a 3 WF^Vp „K 2 Ga W bq�a 5 i> F Wk� 6 1 7 ( G bWj jf O KEY MAP O � a LEGEND= Covtl $$pFg�g� Poo, LEGEND =24” &> jppY is EFL! o r 4 2015 GRAPHIC SCALE JMNQ l inch -50 k,t 201313. 6/10 154 6,9 812 i �w 2 2050 611 VN \\ \ B 8 1-84 B3 IIf 06 lsl lae�_ s 15 � � 183 692 J 150 141 15 RESERVE "M" 182 RESERVE K" 99] 9W6 a 149 ' 095 997 I I 913 915 9p7 0 01 157 I 6 3a9 ]9B \ l • 690 143 9.6 4 _ �_ —_- 910 \ ' / 91A 177 6 I �2 148 80 \ ; 1 158 147 � \ s53 146 3� _ _ __ _ ;��5�G6Ig2',1nI'z`, , /aa1 /4 \ 145 _- 179' i 23 159 \ ' 921 _ \ 160 178 'W° 533 � � ' ' 165 910 544 — 161 22 926 162 5fi, 631 I 166 \ 163 62 / R�'Eeve�M� 16 � I _ A /i I / 177 176 __ ______ All i , 528 ______ _ _ \\ \ a9 - / RESERVE "M" ------ — — 6, 1681 �..\ 618 — 1 � 520 "'519 616 / 509 516 5n j \ sty / s .� /169 � a \ �a 171 172 170 I 1 i _ --- —a r r � _ __ — I � III II I y �a II 0 0 d F� W 3 E W s W C� KEYMIW b iz WWW L� H z4 b (Wj ?Gf 0 0 a LEGEND <24' - LEGEND =24" &> fioo5 9oor __ bPM1913 GRAPHIC SCALE Both -50&,t JOBNQ 101313. 7/10 14 R 74. ape e MEESURVff meewxve wnwk alnk .ak e� ��P wmnrM vm�. 0 8 $ dW oW� S Q m J� gqq{{¢ d. Ih IF @f@;RRe ©iiiiiiZBCI Me ow Aa 2 @15 mj $ /10 . mio meewxvtr wnwk alnk .ak e� ��P wmnrM vm�. mECwxver wnwk alnk TIFF RU0.VFY Harder litlniyme fgmmm hnOMm M] Pannb 4M Ymr MN4 ro�.b. xnNnex mww MaLm . rw wer Mulum bJ M bm MmNm ie Fubw MMm TP Ymr mn MMr nasM1� mmrOwrMUm k Pwm all rermmmm.x slre 4om .N.N m woe mmrOmmm W mniMw ena0i Dwr GN a wive rox.xnNea mwm w wxeemrno m'noWmwoe X.NnxO� naM1 ]ur �;,Mwe, rni L,Nm Mm enaYl NH ReMmeMi yN enaM nffi Garr 01bn�se°tl 4.N a~P �w;m.�.� ¢r 45 GYJnrLwmn gw..Lemru esv Mn I Gwr mnrlm wr.kermu eu F°n P °Ym ^ &us GuE w NNxazM1le xl tto MEE Will TIEERURl all Nal ol Arorooloarrorroo al Nora. Nor all "o—la"I'll-oa Groo—a Poor will, Pool orra For Paoo 'l roor Naa �@ Nall 9 N Nor, e loo—oroor, For Poor all on Na000N,o No. a, I For al For Na No— No —pal Eard oloaral all al Na oula al No No I Far 0 8 dW oW� a Q m gJ� ¢;e ©g!p! m ep xo]s �9Q0 TIFF RURVFY xuNei latlnrvme Caniuriaee RntlMm 41P Mn mMn PM 14 fmtl IxE fiW 4vA S%P � �nln x 4reenlaM1M 14 For re all el s acme Ww: 4ttJ � a.aa�.„,e rwa ¢woaa m x luxrrtx D GeM uNOmWr pmmrtlmrt+em 4Mrm ]6 4M Po WihXOdn 6XemwM ]b]6]6 6aW PO panasrvOm PMwk Pmr s MMn ]FL m rim wP�:. roar Las m 5ffi °� pwmen 6T] Wvtl ate; ry u F�Ir m Lam., m ate; ry v Poe, w elm„m re..m Poe. �• ax. :rvaX .ea`ocM1 woa FaMv � Lw 4rtenmM1 ]8 4rtenz naM1 %] L° iMMa 4reena 6 rvns MMO enaM1 emi MnFn 4reenaM1 erns M � naM1 Y mns L°nN ]8 � Na m .an .ar nm.me ep ry cave P .NFp �P Ares 4ztl ,: WxmxrvFp 6LP utl°Mpre1 $ne ^a s8 W-0 P PwnworzMnw Far ammuHmm fuJ 66 P °x U jl� 16 °Pomir �r &us ry GaeE &5 G MP — xlMer u utlniyme ( (grviuriure pN h hnOMm ]bH 4 4N pmr o 6wtl °I� GN Ptl0. 6W P 4M �0. d TIFF RU0.VFY Harder litlniyme fgmmm hnOMm M] Pannb 4M Ymr MN4 ro�.b. xnNnex mww MaLm . rw wer Mulum bJ M bm MmNm ie Fubw MMm TP Ymr mn MMr nasM1� mmrOwrMUm k Pwm all rermmmm.x slre 4om .N.N m woe mmrOmmm W mniMw ena0i Dwr GN a wive rox.xnNea mwm w wxeemrno m'noWmwoe X.NnxO� naM1 ]ur �;,Mwe, rni L,Nm Mm enaYl NH ReMmeMi yN enaM nffi Garr 01bn�se°tl 4.N a~P �w;m.�.� ¢r 45 GYJnrLwmn gw..Lemru esv Mn I Gwr mnrlm wr.kermu eu F°n P °Ym ^ &us GuE w NNxazM1le xl tto MEE Will TIEERURl all Nal ol Arorooloarrorroo al Nora. Nor all "o—la"I'll-oa Groo—a Poor will, Pool orra For Paoo 'l roor Naa �@ Nall 9 N Nor, e loo—oroor, For Poor all on Na000N,o No. a, I For al For Na No— No —pal Eard oloaral all al Na oula al No No I Far 0 8 dW oW� a Q m gJ� ¢;e ©g!p! m ep xo]s �9Q0 TIFF RURVFY xuNei latlnrvme Caniuriaee RntlMm 41P Mn mMn PM 14 fmtl IxE fiW 4vA S%P � �nln x 4reenlaM1M 14 For re all el s acme Ww: 4ttJ � a.aa�.„,e rwa ¢woaa m x luxrrtx D GeM uNOmWr pmmrtlmrt+em 4Mrm ]6 4M Po WihXOdn 6XemwM ]b]6]6 6aW PO panasrvOm PMwk Pmr s MMn ]FL m rim wP�:. roar Las m 5ffi °� pwmen 6T] Wvtl ate; ry u F�Ir m Lam., m ate; ry v Poe, w elm„m re..m Poe. �• ax. :rvaX .ea`ocM1 woa FaMv � Lw 4rtenmM1 ]8 4rtenz naM1 %] L° iMMa 4reena 6 rvns MMO enaM1 emi MnFn 4reenaM1 erns M � naM1 Y mns L°nN ]8 � Na m .an .ar nm.me ep ry cave P .NFp �P Ares 4ztl ,: WxmxrvFp 6LP utl°Mpre1 $ne ^a s8 W-0 P PwnworzMnw Far ammuHmm fuJ 66 P °x U jl� 16 °Pomir �r &us ry GaeE &5 G MP — xlMer u utlniyme ( (grviuriure pN h hnOMm ]bH 4 4N pmr o MEE Will TIEERURl all Nal ol Arorooloarrorroo al Nora. Nor all "o—la"I'll-oa Groo—a Poor will, Pool orra For Paoo 'l roor Naa �@ Nall 9 N Nor, e loo—oroor, For Poor all on Na000N,o No. a, I For al For Na No— No —pal Eard oloaral all al Na oula al No No I Far 0 8 dW oW� a Q m gJ� ¢;e ©g!p! m ep xo]s �9Q0 TIFF RURVFY xuNei latlnrvme Caniuriaee RntlMm 41P Mn mMn PM 14 fmtl IxE fiW 4vA S%P � �nln x 4reenlaM1M 14 For re all el s acme Ww: 4ttJ � a.aa�.„,e rwa ¢woaa m x luxrrtx D GeM uNOmWr pmmrtlmrt+em 4Mrm ]6 4M Po WihXOdn 6XemwM ]b]6]6 6aW PO panasrvOm PMwk Pmr s MMn ]FL m rim wP�:. roar Las m 5ffi °� pwmen 6T] Wvtl ate; ry u F�Ir m Lam., m ate; ry v Poe, w elm„m re..m Poe. �• ax. :rvaX .ea`ocM1 woa FaMv � Lw 4rtenmM1 ]8 4rtenz naM1 %] L° iMMa 4reena 6 rvns MMO enaM1 emi MnFn 4reenaM1 erns M � naM1 Y mns L°nN ]8 � Na m .an .ar nm.me ep ry cave P .NFp �P Ares 4ztl ,: WxmxrvFp 6LP utl°Mpre1 $ne ^a s8 W-0 P PwnworzMnw Far ammuHmm fuJ 66 P °x U jl� 16 °Pomir �r &us ry GaeE &5 G MP — xlMer u utlniyme ( (grviuriure pN h hnOMm ]bH 4 4N pmr o ) � � ); ,) ƒ � ) [ MEESURM IM lt k m lm /| 2- 13M D& // SAVONA CONDOMINIUM lU He ��(SSX, Ald,O 011BtIN I II OI iHIRD��DM ME > < Be ip�t�UGiION OG➢iJHtIN e'R SIX fo Acrn 3 3Cr10 IX Ifiankfn Cn3 TUSCANY DRIVE All ET19 0 0 ,� ox ee3ln o +amm�o Az. 185P SANWpj�APl eRp AM pN°M4wi v na 3n S.anun cU/ RESERVE "G" S#HUnwDMwi C5A ROPY, (Oefa wareco) �.1 AC. PaSEZic R AN3?MCO N _ 89 88 87 86 o SECTION 3 -2 94 93 92 91 90 1 O AT wed ±1.0 AC 96 — DICESARE LOOP for RESERVE "J" g7 z w RESERVE " \" w ,� o a m e 1 X5.9 AC. 102 101 100 99 98 80 79 7 ' 76 75 B �o�n" 2ss AC. <v N N N 82 81 ��- FIRENZA PLACE p, 83 FIRENZA PLACE >> 1 104 60 �h O'0�L 58 59 G1 84 RESERVE "F' �ExmlNe euw 73 R` 61 D� +q,O AC. MOtliM1entl lM1Seclf 72 US 129 112 105 57 2 RESERVE "L, O. 85 E 25.8 AC� nn�2l 1131 1109 107 55 RE oAEC��� 63 m 64 65� °O 6��� 69 70 71RESERVE" CLOSE.uaD KEVINMUFFL �� w w w N 108 O 54 SECTS N TIMBLE FAL RESERVE "B" +2.1 Ac, VWSSiROBIE SOCKYNMUWNGS ,p l' I Eiannc. A5bAC. -X m `° 43 42 41 401 Ac. OR 67 P. FEB (U.... CO, O.R111,P1�(IT��o��a) - 3 -1 44 C R 1015 P. SIR(Iir CO. OR 804, P. 218(Iinion CC. 1 45 `2 THE DUBLVILLAGE N OF 46 RESERVED" 5 gouLelna� DUaue, OHIO 47 ±1]AC. O ITo MXdC. Be � RESERVE "A " y oRe�z(r.`,e„we aa) 48 1 C Cos, a9 40 v� CIA Ac, < CACCHIO LANE 1 1 N 53 52 51 50 38 39 � A 138 1 1-C IR 37 ALBANESE C D 185 1 RESERVE "M' 36 4 3 2 1 O aoo AC 6 152 5 I 0::)" �N' E 7 ±SOAc, 20 n 153 139 184 � 35 —�. 154 151 140 142 Q3 181 G� Ie�In wilM1Sec 11 i VIRINS 41 2�T 82 SECTION4\ 432 8 ECT� BASIN i RESERVE "C' 19 T 155 150 �Gr 33 9 156 149 143 P�� 180 ->1 ON 18 157 148 44 174 158 147 146145 178 31 10 15 16 17 165 '` � 11 12 13 14 1 159 CORNA COURT 166 1 30 RESERVE G ESOA' M" CIRCLE 177 176 175 ALBANESE RIVE I 160 161 162163 164 22 21 M[3nORIA6D � ���� 167 ED l 174 �� /_.. 29 25 24 23 pLp,CE aasN P' ETNI'a 27 26 1 EunlNe euw ExmlNe euw 28 e SECTION 4 d etl� "edw,th 9ASIN E Sec41 Sec 11 ) U ExmlNe erSIIN ] 9 173 �..� w z iz is mECaxic rsiA� . /, IMediReawlM1Sec4I 171 172 e 9 iX m> "IAl"?� r 1170 ee -uwFeE Rg 9 ..P 6 NI �/ALLE� N^ 68 BFA.V EO RE 69 E•E' I SECRO z BELLO �� ROARD OF E9UC ZION FpUBI1N 58 pB. 90. 14 mcuscH of Dl RIa IS d116A. -OR P. dSN'on Lb.) w zsma P.s N o„ce\ J Tai iaz i� O — l1 1 oe cal Inyj \ iaa aav mE o P'ae P S 8 Px U t O 99 L()()P O Z A /V - _----------------------------------- _ _ —_ 1N\ � \ F ROSS BAD GREEN L� 9 � n o �l� _ - -_ S MMI I I �h' e�v��� PHASINC To1Ol LOTS Sedlou 1 Sec11on2 Secllon3l Secllon OR Sec 4 PLAN GRAPHIC SCALE 185 8 100 200 .0 40 Lois &Avery Road Torn Lane 45 2 1NCM1 =2001. 29 48 BMY1 RAILROAD SPIKE SET IN EAST SIDE OF UTILITY POLE ON WEST SIDE OFJEROME ROAD AND BEDS' +/_ NORTH SIDE OF INTERSECTION OF ROSTRICK ROAD AND JEPCMEROAD. ELEVATION = 1011.72 BMY2 RAILROAD SPIKE SET IN SOUTH SIDE OF 12' TREE, 25' +/_ SOUTH SIDE OF SECTION LINE AND SJO' + /_ WEST SIDE OF JEROME ROAD. ELEVATION =93254 BMY3 RAILROAD SPIKE SET IN SOUTH SIDE OF IB' TREE, 1AM +/ EAST SIDE OF HYLAND CROY ROAD AND 15' +/_ NORTH SIDE OF SECTION LINE. ELEVATION = 100232 SITE 0 NO SCALE DEVELOPMENT DATA TOTAL ACREAGE +152.2 AC NUMBER OF LOTS 185 GROSS DENSITY: ±1.22DU /AC OPEN SPACE PROVIDED: ++76.1 AC (53.3%) RESERVE "A ": +2.4 AC RESERVE B: OCT AC RESERVE C': +50AC RESERVE D': +1.7 AC RESERVE E i21 AC RESERVE F TOY AC RESERVE G ": OCT AC RESERVE IT +3.0 AC RESERVE I; UAC RESERVE J': +5.9AC RES FREE "K': s33.0AC RESFREE L 05.3 AC RES FREE "M': +_15AAC PROPOSED ZONING: PUD PERMITTED USES: O SINGLE FAMILY DEAC NED HOMES, PARKS, OPEN 4 SPACES AND A0MMUNItt GARDENS. PERMITTED USES AS OUTLINED IN THE R- 1, RESTRICTED SUBURBAN O �U W RESIDENTIAL DI STRICT IN THE DUBLIN ZONING CODE. �EF U' W DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS o� SUBAREA "A "(Section 1) MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK: 25' Z MINIMUMSIDE YARD SETBACK: 8' IF�� MINIMUM BEAR YARD SETBACK: 25' N MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 35' SUBAREA "B" (Section 2, 31, &4) w MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK 25 "' MIN IMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK: 6' MINIMUM BEAR YARD SETBACK: 25' MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 35' SUBAREA "C' (Section 32) MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK: 20' MINI MUM SIDE YARD SETBACK: 6' e MIN IMUM REAR YARD SETBACK: 15' f� MAXIMUM RUN [DING HEG Hi: 35' Ell Except along CamFlo Lane which kfll' E NOTES ©€ NOTE "A': HYDRANT LOCATIONS TO BECOORDINATED VNTH WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP FIRE DEPARTMENT. OAiE NOTE "B ": ACCORDING TO THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 'SFLOOD NagM15 INSURANCE RATE MAP (DATED JUNE 17,2038), i HE SUBJECT PARCEL STOWN HEREON LIES PAT IT IN ZONE X COMMUNITY PANEL NO. 39049C00 18C NOTE "C': POST LAMPS PAY BE INSTALLED ON DEC H SINGLE FAMILY LOT. RPZLEE NOTE "D': RESE2VESA,B4O,GE,G,H,1 &J VNLLBEOWNED BYTHECITYOFDUBLINAND MAINTAINED BY THE RIVIERA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. RESERVES E C L, &MTO AsNoWd BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF DUBLIN. RESERVE F,1 C L, & M WILL ALSO C A L BETHE NECESSARY STORMWATER FACW ➢ES FOR TIE DEVELOPMENT AS SHOWN HEREON ,ALL STORMWATER STREAMS, AREAS, STRUCTURES, AND PONDS, IN ALL RESE DOES , SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF DUBLIN U. NI NOTE "P': THERESHALL BEA STREAM CORRIDOR PROTECTION ZONE AS INDICATED ONTHE ml PRELIMINARY PLAT. A DEFINITION IS CONTAINED VNTHIN THE CITY OF DUBLIN CODIFIED ORDINANCE SECTION 53200 FOR THE AREAS DESIGNATED AS "STREAM CORRIDOR PROTECTION ZONES ". SECTIONS 53.210- 53.240 9IERT NOTE "P': JHEEGHi FOOT WIDE CONCRETE SAWCUT FRONT IN ALL OTHER JOINTS LOTS. HER LOCATIONS PATHS iATCHARED USE PARRS 1/4 T AND RY IN W SHALL BEASPHAE AND VARY IN VNDiH (5' MIN.) i0 MARCH EXISTING CART PATHS EASPH TO RESERVE'G" 10.1 Ac. SF' & ss. c1ERACf .1a91 SFx ao easF aom6s 5c ��' iio' �u —� se __ _ = 93 92 RESERVE "J"_ w Its - % 0 89 �H 88 87 _ 86 +�,9Ac 96 11011F xm5m1F xlo6vsF 11OSss1F �.I-- 6 I j4 6 x1012 S F \ � 15 1 LDING SIFB CK � 1oz 1m 10o ss 93 97 a�7SF � � .nmo SF a xnmo SF 4xnmoSF a x11moSF 4 n9mSF � yl u u .c .2' nc I\ Ncs�eaa Iz/ \ x1a989SF e u' ulwlNC SF1B cK i5 uDICESARE LOOP m� m 4 r 9I1>�� a §F o es �' �. m f -� 104 es' N 7a 26 Bm we sRBAC �� o 113 yl / 1nen1F �� as a> 8 79 78 +12041F 1120mSF �nl.SF .lamaoaF �o20401F� 75 112 17 ��� ae'eml we SF1BACK 60 -Fl 83 x1282SF 81 H6669SF �� 222222 bm SIS696SF u �, +1arz0iosF s 58 a 59 x1S2.I.� C .46SF a 57 - "a21 as SF -x111 assF w w Q c1�} ".F% H6762SF fro 74 AA _ i �ty ��I .uasdIF /7 s .o' $ 84 61 110 1 ' 106 m 1ep' S .1SF m Q 1,nmo SF m '' RESERVE 'F' 1 ' m 1 amrzsSFi x i56 w. o �' �� ±4D AC. % 1�7� EwmsF m- RESERVE "FP' O BASIN C' ° .1290 SF ° O 104 w ? 07 �� w.OAC. 62 �� f- m SECTION 2 x10pIF9 o m7SECTION OmSF� m j ' ° =; «1155 6 I I1 a.i O B 129WSF m 15 j ss' _°08s Q " �V �- I g 63 L , ea ea ea �� w GRAPHIC SCALE R U .1auoSF �_ _ ,gg. -- y o so Be zoo � - - ° � � xliovSF S 12ANSF °M—s s 67 68 s s .1z6m SF .1 dim SF R '1651e sF xwmSF- .lzwosF -.. r A 5' g 16'BIIILFi SETBACK / 16 BUIIDING SFiBf(�iK \ lmN =]m leM J BQ -y' 3 Y ii ee' ee m F5 DRIVE 'TIMBLE 1 _ � a o K� Ve, e6 c I� ae B LDC sFl RESERVE 'E' / 4 �_ a 4 �.. "J 42 45 44 43 42 41 � +2.1 Ac. �a2a7SF xn 626 SF a1mo SF xn61oSF xn61oSF - aigrCSF" �. � a 47 w_ ±30.1 AC. �.1rz 3s \` a. ar Os N$�11mo s.F -.11e osf- -?,°• ®� RE +15ACD R+30.1 Ac. a9 - -- / s2 s / s6' vA D SF 1.IF goo RESERVE B C' / ��ooCgS 10' �w 37 v x1nm F �i6mSF _.1� S sF S' Q +0.1 Ac.. r /.- \ _c y xls092 SF SECTION 4, 36 �➢. L ,3 '193A4 SF � e ALBAN ESE CIRCLE E� q �' zb ulwlNC SFrBA S •-,�� � � e5 35 � - x21n2SF 7 9 x1n9SF 99 a 4 ,�� - 21 JJ99 SF ✓A947SF 144 114499 SF 21J499 SF x189101F m 34 e 99 SF �I6161SF, BASIN "A^ '1.92SF 8 20 III 4 i F V i' �® IS �' xs9500SF �� s # RESERVE "A'� L33 o I� �9 II oa oa �� gQw��w H� a� �w 130.1 Ac. S 8 /aa�SF o ( t HJ SF 0 i / \ / SECTION 1 9 g B, 145 178" V a a ae7so IF 4 } " \ ; w RESERVE "C" III a rs � e .1 9 _ .1amo SF �� e wl 35D AC_ � = �c8. � / I m 9 _ - 18 m ®c S177 V6 V ximsssF +14S 175 �? © � 14021 F\ 2� 4 § �66 i ms m' Too' 1m' is: OAiE `37 s �+ P n1v1sF 2 13 14 15 16 17 rvlay.MIS _ AA \� 3-� � � 30 y A1q�E.F ry +152251F 9 r2ao>a SF w x17as6 SF IS auoo SF ry .lacoo SF y xlasb SF �i 174 0 29 / - - ry8 SF \ \ / 26' Bl1BDING SERA K ' / SCALE �Qt 1 1 / 1 =100 L —�— — c�csn SCPZ = F� s wr % I 0 3 a. BASIN \ v ALBANESE CIRCLE ��_ �. 119106SF ��- Stream Corridor BASIN "B" n' w' 6 dtl 171 R �omsF/ j 7� Protecton Zone. roe N0. i/ 172 m / �� { 3 0 26 Bu wws sElBAar See Note E j x1 mu SF / / `� RESERVE �' `� 28 21 III w1�i / + ,2a ®7SF e xvlsa SF 11.14SF 25 E 24 ¢� 23 .1969 SF 5 msa2SF n 1 30.1AC. 1 A A x1B16aSF xw9aSF x1s7mSF 1 E AcA RIVE -- S�Er 1`. F — % m 117 ill `� Z — 2�Y �9' x15160 F �_... ��A s 161 \ x1zwSF .�� F ewN F � 163 w xl163 wunue eAeN g 164 'l SF /RESERVE M / 1153AC. TION m etl No 90 168 ¢m167 mSF _ 169 .126mSF _ �r 170 x1z6m1F s s �\ 112.SF H CK g �llI1DN65� � J���jLrl l w I g 3 1^ 171 1 'a 518187SF i �TCHLEYE 4 01 SEE SHEE 172 m 1,11FG 6AIN 185. r x129A3SF / / r1l; II 11111 -- SBRRENTQE -0UR7 -- � I I 1 II 154 SCP� \�� 1551`l � SIT "8SF ry% A SL1I85SP�� Bl' 8 l58 a1s�a SF P" S 156 153 SIJf51 SF 1141971F 1IYP61F f �y <4/ 23 6 X13 TK= s g �1o=F a �24F ar' �' ie2 II398SF 152 - � 25 BIIILDING3R ALY. 11 / 125 xe1m1F irosF C-.4 'a u 2 148 a 149 a 150 5 1 SI5111 SI8162SF 11.SF Il.sF ^SF yq '8 1m' .6 ec z `p8 m w w, g .1147 SECTION 4 138 = R@ 111'7.1F 9 m �m 139 R_� 2 146 m ® RESERVE "M.. xlszolF o1F ±153 AC. � IN 2 145 a�irzoaolF 1 a0 90 lzdp^ySF 141 a 141sF — 185. r x129A3SF / / r1l; II 11111 -- SBRRENTQE -0UR7 -- � I I 1 II /�.. s e00 SF 84 144 �'"m1F � me m SF 6 xa1mSF s� 1 � � 9s P�� /wF xuauSF �/ I 182 3 (/ sss 1z6m1F � w �1msF w 13 166 o S .1z6mSF � � � 133 xa16oSF ,n / 81WSF N9J]SF 6ry y 179 2SF RESERVE Kr. 110 xlzswlF _ /OMONCOUNT', INI o u+30O1 Ac. "I ^' Nc 109 a1m1F s — _ �C "' ;,ill IF , 19;S F � t n 176 � �I J/ RESERVE +30.1 Ac. w �z.e1ro9FO' e oq ?F yy a��99 � �.118.U° 1ni F E g€ R 117 asnlF �w 1 e SCPZ = Stmom Corddor xilronlF C �� I Rmlecloe Zane, ©� %�� ry r See Note E j m OAiE NR = Nan Radol wsa71F M,yzau s N9J]SF S \ G 113 : swF.a n6asSF q ° �I'i w . RESERVE J m < 5.9 AC �A rf`M IN - — GRAPHIC SCALE eoa rvo. SEE SHEET 2/4 o so loo 200 zau>3� CJUNp — imm =ono [®r r3/4 SCP� F+ RESERVE L f �y <4/ 23 6 X13 TK= s g �1o=F a �24F a \ / 125 xe1m1F irosF C-.4 8 y 126 r q- �lWSF u 2 Me 1 � xe,m °F /�.. s e00 SF 84 144 �'"m1F � me m SF 6 xa1mSF s� 1 � � 9s P�� /wF xuauSF �/ I 182 3 (/ sss 1z6m1F � w �1msF w 13 166 o S .1z6mSF � � � 133 xa16oSF ,n / 81WSF N9J]SF 6ry y 179 2SF RESERVE Kr. 110 xlzswlF _ /OMONCOUNT', INI o u+30O1 Ac. "I ^' Nc 109 a1m1F s — _ �C "' ;,ill IF , 19;S F � t n 176 � �I J/ RESERVE +30.1 Ac. w �z.e1ro9FO' e oq ?F yy a��99 � �.118.U° 1ni F E g€ R 117 asnlF �w 1 e SCPZ = Stmom Corddor xilronlF C �� I Rmlecloe Zane, ©� %�� ry r See Note E j m OAiE NR = Nan Radol wsa71F M,yzau s N9J]SF S \ G 113 : swF.a n6asSF q ° �I'i w . RESERVE J m < 5.9 AC �A rf`M IN - — GRAPHIC SCALE eoa rvo. SEE SHEET 2/4 o so loo 200 zau>3� CJUNp — imm =ono [®r r3/4 4fi -fi Q 53 -6 3 o' 13' -0• 17'-0• Paving section 12� ]Y -o" 'i (reeso rvel 1 2° 24' -0• Paving section I v'_o• 15' -6° 15' - 0' -a' 9' -G° MIN. 2 -0' 6" R' -G" 9' -G° ON 4' -0' Grass Tree Lu wn 12 12 6' Ise Low. Grace or 6" sap e: Earth Probe le greae Probe ole Slope �y 3 /Ifi' /ft 3 1fi' /(t 10. 448 3/16" rt u a 3/16 it K Slope: 3:1 Max. fi fi fi Slope: 3:1 Max J - No. SJ S `L City of Dublin- curb te n J Per totemic 16" 99 re9 ate 5 4 3 2 1 .Y \N N o J O � 2 3 4 5 stra „, �,`,' to curb r C Dublin concrete e99re 9 ate N \ 4f ux brain ]0]31 0 Or. A n or00 OJ`33 ]O J.31 L� comb gutter RD or 707.33 ENTRANCE o TYPICAL BOULEVARD SECTION Not to Scale x m of of 5a R in ba ba 25' 25' 3' 11' -0 14' -0" ection 14' -6" root- a=ction 10' -5 3' No Wolk or Bike Path will be Mm. 2' -0" 19 12' 9' -6. 4' I' " PmviN.1 along in. east se. of coma om.= or Roaaa loop whore smewalk Per Ro -os aai /sent to R=ae rvea A k C. Pe, aG -os Eo,tn Pmbe g,m= m sl... : Snipe: sap.: sap=: ]] /1fi /R /(f 3 /lfi' /ft 3 16 " /ft 3 /lfi " /!4 3 /1fi " /(t 3/1fi /ft slope: 3:1 Moe. 6 b o e City combination oamm = =beta o N ambl -oath am 2 gaper RD-02 No. 57 n - DRAT If4" sub brain aggregate TYPICAL N item 707,31 J' p Jm.a3 28'B/ SECTION50'R J' or 2' Not to Scale 2 fi an B' O Z stager eo-ospath smotleareRp @Oepoln slap.: a�i s:�fl 3 /1�fi' /n. w W a Streets as Streets with B'kepoth Left with B'kep akh R'0,�t 05 r� is oQ W �aa[ �gx{c�� y a� PAVEMENT LEGEND M an Q Item 448, 1.25" Asphalt Concrete, Surface © %�€ Course, Type 1, Pg 64 -22, Medium Traffic. " Qz Item 448, 1.75" Asphalt Concrete, Intermediate uAiE Course, Type 2, Pg 64 -22, Medium Traffic. Mzy, Cd1 QItem 301, 3" Bituminous Aggregate Bose Course. © Item 304, 6" Aggregate Base. Q Item 204, Subgro tle Compaction. Q Item 553 - 3" Topsoil Furnished And Placed, Nye Q Item 659, Seeding And Mulching, JOB NO. * NOTE: 448 Surface course to he installed within 7 days of Intermediate c o or provide tack coat (407) ® 0.15 gal W]3ll53 per sq, yd. at contractor's expense. 9IEE! 4/4 —_ - ^ ODL DISTRICT.: ' :' s t N p, t _ f ANEY SA AND {III II I -g - VJJEY STROBLE E.iscln a 9 Basin �: I nl - " BOARD OF EDUCATION - OF )J DUBLIN - ! � < LOCAL SCHOOL i T� DISTRICT i, i I. h 4^ III N , I I — - i T , t i � � ! D -. ..... ;,1 KEVIN D. AND Eaxnng ss" sanimiy \. 157 i� Ii JOCELYN MUWNGS 1s � t x, � sewer � T '� Eaxnng smnn .. ;�ik9 sas'la TARTAN wPNT 152 - - _ .� g wM SE 148 -,,,149 t � IO N6 i f b.i Flootlploin xh.wn in b ... d on EMH &T xtudiod ...ly,ix ,bluing fibld survey d,to o,d x,bj,,t to Reriew o no Moroval by City of Dublin. GRAPHIC SCALE o so mo :nn lile II W z W Agw�w� a w x o. Min OATS npru, 2l SCALE r-1m' JOB NO. 201 Dl�L�l` T 9IEE! ............... FOR APPROVAL 2/2 7 7 � - ��.�������«: - »° �r t. �� -- .. — - �: � ��a . ; gym � � Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat RIVIERA D u b l i n, O h i o Developer. Davidson Phillips 4020 Venture Ct. Suite D Columbus, OH 43228 Phone: (614) 777-9325 Contact: Charles Ruma Legal: Smith and Hale 37 W Broad St, Ste 460 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 221-4255 Contact: J eff Brown Land Planning/ Landscape Architecture: The EDGE Group 330 West Spring Street, Suite 350 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 486-3343 Contact: Greg ChiLLog Engineering: EMH &T 5500 New Albany Road Columbus, OH 43054 Phone: (614) 775-4460 Contact: Diane Marin Draft Submittal for Approval: Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission, OctoberZg, 7014 Approved Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission, April 9, 7015 Approved: Dublin City Council, June 8, 7015- Ordinance 35 -15 SECTION I - Development Overview I. LOCATION AND SIZE DO -1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND CHARACTER DO -1 III. ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCES FOR DO -2 IV. CONSERVATION DESIGN DS -1 IV. EXISTING LAND USE DO -4 V. PROPOSED LAND USE DO -4 VI. INCORPORATION OF CONSERVATION DO -5 VII. DESIGN TECHNIQUES DS -6 VII. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE DO -7 VIII. PROVISION OF UTILITIES DO -7 DC. ACCESS AND CIRCULATION DO -9 X. PHASING DO -9 SECTION II - Development Standards I. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DS -1 II. PERMITTED USES DS -1 III. DENSITY DS -1 IV. LOT STANDARDS DS -1 V. STREET ACCESS AND /OR DS -4 IMPROVEMENTS M. STREET STANDARDS DS -6 VII. UTILITIES DS -6 VIII. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT DS -7 DC. TREE PRESERVATION, REMOVAL DS -7 AND REPLACEMENT X. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE DS -8 XI. LANDSCAPING DS -9 XII. HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION DS -11 SECTION III - Architectural Standards I. ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS AS -1 II. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AS -1 III. ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER AS -2 IV. ARCHITECTURAL DIVERSITY AS -5 V. PERMITTED BUILDING HEIGHT AS -5 VI. PERMITTED EXTERIOR MATERIALS AS -6 VII. PERMITTED EXTERIOR COLORS AS -7 VIII. CONFIGURATION OF MATERIALS AS -8 DC. ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS AS -9 SECTION I- Development Overview RIVIERA I. Location and Size Development Overview A. The site is located completely within the City of Dublin corporation limits and in three counties, Franklin, Union and Delaware Counties. B. The site is located at 8205 North Avery Road, on the west side of Avery Road, approximately 3,175' north of the intersection of Avery Road and Brand Road, immediately north of the Shannon Glen and Belvedere subdivisions. The property is the largest remaining parcel along Avery Road that is undeveloped between the Shannon Glen, Belvedere, Tartan West and Muirfield subdivisions. C. There is approximately 2,020' of frontage along Avery Road. D. The site measures approximately 3,400' east/west and 2,020' north south and is generally rectangular in shape. E. The site is ±152.2 acres in area. II. Existing Conditions and Character A. The site is currently operating as the Riviera Golf Club, a private, full- service golf course with wedding and banquet facilities open to the public. The golf course is an 18 -hole championship golf course with tree lined fairways, tees and greens, asphalt cart paths, ponds, driving range and rough areas. B. 907 trees exist on the site. Of the 907 trees, 658 (73 %) are in good or fair condition and 249 (27 %) are dead or in poor condition. C. The site is located in the North Fork Indian Run Watershed. The site generally drains from the west and from the east to a centrally located stream that flows from north to south, outletting into Shannon Glen Park. D. Portions of the site are located within the 100 -year floodplain, which has been indicated on the Preliminary Plat. E. A preliminary investigation found two (2) jurisdictional streams and no jurisdictional wetlands on the site. The study was performed by Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. in October, 2013. The report, "Preliminary Jurisdictional Waters Determination ", has been submitted separately. F. Sanitary sewer from the clubhouse facility is currently handled by a package plant. On- course restrooms utilize a septic system with a leach field. The plant, septic tanks and leach field will be removed in Phase I. DO -1 RIVIERA Development Overview G. Several wells exist on -site and are used for irrigation. These wells will be capped in accordance with the proper procedures if they cannot be reused as pond recharge wells. Capping or re -use of the wells will occur in Phase I. H. The site is generally flat; sloping between 1% and 3 %. There are no steep slopes. The eastern high point is at the 960 elevation, the western high point is at the 944 elevation and the low point is elevation 920. A large clubhouse, banquet facility, cart barn and parking lot exist at the highpoint near Avery Road. A maintenance facility exists on the southern boundary at the end of Tantallus Drive. Several other small comfort stations and shelters exist around the site. III. Analysis of Natural Resources for Conservation Design A. Conservation design practices are based on the natural resources of the site and provide for the preservation of open space. Sites with woods, streams, river frontage, steep slopes and other natural features or which otherwise provide significant open space will be considered as prime candidates for employing conservation design techniques. B. Primary Conservation Areas 1. Wetlands a. There are no wetlands on the site, per the "Preliminary Jurisdictional Waters Determination" report. b. There are no naturally occurring ponds on the site. Several ponds have been created as part of the development of the golf course to serve as irrigation storage, playing hazards and general aesthetics. Ponds have been added or modified in shape over time to accommodate golf course operation. c. Two jurisdictional streams exist on the site as identified in the "Preliminary Jurisdictional Waters Determination" report. d. There is no river frontage on this site. 2. Floodplains a. A 100 -year floodplain exists along the two jurisdictional streams identified in the "Preliminary Jurisdictional Waters Determination" report. b. A Stream Corridor Protection Zone has been placed over the two jurisdictional streams to protect the flood plain. RIVIERA 3. Steep Slopes Development Overview a. There are no steep slopes on the site. The site is gently sloping from 1% to 3 %. C. Secondary Conservation Areas 1. Soils a. The predominant soil types are Blount and Glynwood, a Type C/D soil. b. On -site sewage disposal is not proposed for this development, eliminating the need to define areas for filtering effluent. 2. Woodlands a. There are no wooded areas or "woods" on the site. However there are a large number of trees on the site. b. Areas of original forest cover have been cleared long ago for agricultural purposes. Aerial photography from 1959 shows limited numbers of trees along the streams and fencerows. c. As the golf course developed over time, several hundred trees were planted to define fairways, influence playability and for general aesthetics. A select number of these trees have become specimens and warrant preservation. d. A tree survey has been performed, identifying 907 trees in various conditions on the site. 3. Farmland a. Agri cultural land /farmland is not present on this site. b. Farming of the property ceased with the development of the site as a private golf club in 1970. 4. Views Into and Out from the Site a. The current clubhouse is located on a highpoint and has prominent views along Avery Road. b. Significant open space views exist from Shannon Glen Park along the stream corridors. 5. Significant Wildlife Habitats a. Habitats of threatened or endangered wildlife species do not exist on the site. DO -3 RIVIERA Development Overview b. Wildlife travel corridors exist along the streams. These corridors are linkages to areas used as food sources, homes and breeding grounds. 6. Historic, Archaeological and Cultural Features a. There are no buildings, ruins, earthworks, stone walls or other resources with historic, archaeological or cultural significance on the site. D. The primary and secondary conservation areas are generally located along the stream corridors and within floodplain areas of the site as well as along the property perimeters. With most of the natural resources located within these areas, larger, contiguous development zones are defined east of the streams, west of the streams and between the forks of the streams. IV. Existing Land Uses A. The City of Dublin GIS mapping identifies the site as "parks /open space." The Riviera Golf Club currently operates as a private, full- service golf course with wedding and banquet facilities open to the public. B. The site is currently zoned in two districts. The area situated in Union County is zoned R -Rural District. The area situated in Delaware and Franklin Counties is zoned Rl- Restricted Suburban Residential District. Both districts permit 40,000 square foot single family lots, schools and parks. C. The site is bordered by the Tartan West Subdivision to the north and west, Deer Run Elementary and Grizzell Middle Schools to the North, Muirfield to the east, Belvedere and Shannon Glen Subdivisions to the south, Shannon Glen Park to the south and Dublin Jerome High School to the south and west. D. Surrounding land uses include: suburban residential low density, suburban residential medium density, suburban /rural residential, civic /public assembly, parks /open space and vacant/undeveloped. E. Surrounding densities range from 1.41 du/ac. to 3.28 du/ac for residential uses. F. Portions of the Riviera site are near the Jerome High School stadium. This is a very active facility with year round activities. Any homes near this facility will likely be affected by noise and light that typically accompanies activities at the stadium. V. Proposed Land Uses A. Proposed uses are single family residential, parks, open spaces, community gardens and permitted uses as outlined in the R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District in the Dublin Zoning Code. RIVIERA Development Overview B. The proposed zoning classification is PUT) —Planned Unit Development. The proposal is to develop the tract with 185 single - family lots oriented around a significant park /open space system. C. Fee simple single family lots in widths from 60' to 100'+ will provide a range of residential products, from low maintenance, age targeted homes on 7,200 square foot lots, to custom homes on 14,000 square foot lots. D. Subarea A proposes a minimum thirteen thousand (13,000) square foot, one hundred (100) feet wide fee simple lot with typical setbacks. Custom and semi - custom single family homes will provide a high quality built environment. E. Subarea B proposes a minimum nine thousand seven hundred fifty (9,750) square foot, seventy -five (75) feet wide fee simple lot with typical setbacks. Single family homes in this sub -area will provide a high quality built environment. F. Subarea C proposes a minimum seven thousand two hundred (7,200) square foot, sixty (60) feet wide fee simple lot. Single family homes in this sub -area will provide a high quality built environment. Reduced setbacks, first floor master floor plans and common maintenance target a buyer looking to downsize and reduce maintenance. G. When compared to homes in surrounding neighborhoods, Riviera will provide homes having equal or higher quality and character. VI. Incorporation of Conservation Design Techniques A. Provision for a variety of housing styles and designs. 1. Rivera provides three subareas with different housing styles and designs. 2. Subarea A provides custom and semi- custom homes on 13,000 square foot lots. 3. Subarea B provides higher end, traditional single family homes on 9,750 square foot lots. 4. Subarea C provides an age targeted home on 7,200 square foot lots. B. Preservation of open space and natural resources. 1. Natural resources have been preserved in large, contiguous, visible and accessible open space areas. 2. Open space areas have been distributed throughout the development. C. Consideration as prime candidates for employing conservation design techniques. RIVIERA Development Overview 1. Even though this site only exhibits one of the criteria (streams) to be considered a prime candidate for conservation design, conservation design techniques have been employed in the analysis and planning of the site. D. Conservation layout should generally adhere to the following principles: 1. Conservation design projects should strive for at least 50 percent open space. a. A total of 76.1 acres preserves 50 percent of the site as open space. 2. Conservation design should strive to have at least 75 percent of the dwelling units directly adjacent to open space areas. a. 166 of 185 lots are directly adjacent to open space areas. This represents 90 percent of the total units. 3. Conservation design projects should attempt to provide large setbacks from existing streets, especially designated scenic roads. a. Avery Road has been designated a scenic road. The development has approximately 2,020' of frontage along Avery Road. b. A 100' wide scenic setback has been provided along Avery Road. 4. Create a separate area identity surrounded with open space areas specifically preserved in the development of these projects. a. The Riviera site is an infill site. Location and type of development within the site is dictated by bordering developments. Proposed uses are complementary to the adjacent uses. b. The preservation of 76.1 acres of open space, its location within the project and its programming potential create an identity not only for this site, but for the surrounding area. 5. Whenever possible, the street system should have a curvilinear pattern that will minimize traffic speed, support the housing development pattern and protect natural features. a. The Riviera street network provides connections to surrounding neighborhoods at 3 points and provides for 1 new connection. The road layout discourages cut through traffic, speeding and is generally curvilinear in form. b. The road network minimizes stream crossings and has been designed to avoid/preserve trees and other natural features. RIVIERA VII.Parks and Open Space Development Overview A. A total of 76.1 acres (50.0 %) of the development will be preserved for parks and open spaces. B. The parks and open space system within the Riviera development will be developed around the existing stream corridor and extend to all areas of the development. These areas will function as both passive and active green spaces and designated park areas. C. A prominent central park area 29.6 acres in size becomes the organizing element for the neighborhood. This park provides easy access and visibility to the preserved natural features on the site and areas for programmed park development for the new development as well as surrounding neighborhoods. D. A shared -use path system, within the open space areas, will provide access to the greater citywide system, will provide multiple walking /running loops within the development and provide safe alternative access to schools. E. The Riviera parks and open space system will complete a significant greenway link in the regional park system, connecting Avery Park to the south to the 1,000 acre Glacier Ridge Metro Park to the northwest. F. Parks and open space areas within the development will be owned by the City of Dublin and maintained by the City of Dublin and the home owners association. VIII. Provision of Utilities A. General 1. All utilities, including sanitary sewer, water, telephone, electric, and gas, are available at this site. 2. All utilities will be designed and constructed to meet the standards established by the City of Dublin Engineer, which includes the City of Columbus standards as required. 3. A comprehensive storm water management system will meet City of Dublin design criteria. 4. All utilities shall be placed in appropriate locations on the lots that will best preserve the existing trees in good or fair condition. B. Sanitary Sewer 1. Sanitary sewer service to Riviera will be provided from two locations. DO -7 RIVIERA Development Overview 2. The southeastern portion of the proposed development will be serviced from an existing 8 -inch sanitary sewer line that is stubbed to the southern property line at the end of Tantalus Drive in the Belvedere Development and was designed to accommodate approximately 33.9 acres of tributary area 3. The remainder of the development will connect to the existing 18" sanitary sewer line which is located onsite, along Riviera's southern property line and was designed to accommodate the remainder of the site 4. A sanitary sewer analysis, "Capacity Analysis for the North Fork Indian Run Sub - Trunk ", determined a capacity deficiency which warrants downstream sewer improvements. This study has been funded by the developer and has been submitted separately. 5. Any required off -site sanitary sewer improvements and developer percentage contributions shall be identified and included in an infrastructure agreement between the developer and the City of Dublin, as approved by City Council. C. Water 1. An existing 16 -inch water main along the east side of Avery Road should be adequate to provide service to this site. 2. Public water mains will be constructed along the proposed roadways within the development. 3. The existing 8 -inch water mains stubbed at the end of Firenza Place, Timble Falls Drive and Tantalus Drive will be tied into the new public system which will aid in service to this site. D. Storm Water Pre Developed 1. The predominant soil types are Blount and Glynwood, a Type C/D soil, corresponding to a pre - developed runoff curve number of 74. E. Storm Water —Post Developed 1. In the post - development condition the site drainage will be handled by four retention basins that will accept drainage from impervious areas such as roadways, driveways, roofs, and sidewalks and some back yard drainage. The total developed tributary area to the basins is approximately 130 acres with a composite runoff curve number of 81. The analysis was conservatively run with a 10 -year critical storm. The outlets of the basins drain to the existing stream running through the site. Water quality is provided by the use of the wet basins per Ohio EPA and City of Dublin requirements. The outlet for each basin will be a three -stage outlet, with the first stage providing the required 24 hour water quality drawdown. The second stage controls the 10 -year event, and the third stage the 100 -year event. RIVIERA Development Overview 2. Stream corridor protection zones, as required by City of Dublin, have been placed on both jurisdictional streams as indicated on the Preliminary Plat. 3. All stormwater management areas will be maintained by the City of Dublin. IX. Access, Circulation and Improvements A. Vehicular access to the site will be from a single access point on Avery Road and from 3 existing streets stubbed to the property, connecting to the surrounding neighborhoods. B. A full service, site access drive from Avery Road will provide primary vehicular access. C. Tantalus Drive extends from the Belvedere neighborhood to connect with Riviera. D. Timble Falls Drive extends from the Belvedere neighborhood to connect with Riviera. E. Firenza Place extends from the Tartan West neighborhood to connect with Riviera. F. Cacchio Place street stub will provide for a potential connection to Hyland -Croy Road. G. Primary vehicular circulation through the neighborhood provides easy access to three subareas providing different single family product types while discouraging cut - through circulation. H. Pedestrian connections will provide access to the neighboring schools, surrounding bike path network and regional parks /open space network. 1. A pedestrian crossing system on Avery Road will be provided. J. A northbound turn lane shall be provided at the Avery Road site access as detailed in the TIS. K. The developer will enter into an infrastructure agreement with the City, prior to submitting the initial final development plan, for any applicable development thresholds and public project contributions, including the Avery Road pedestrian crossing. X. Phasing A. This project has been divided into five (5) Phases. Phasing will start with Section 1 and progress in order through Section 4, as indicated on the Preliminary Plat. B. Phase 1 (Section 1) will include removal of the clubhouse, parking lot and maintenance facility, wells, sanitary plant, septic system and leach fields and other associated infrastructure, construction of a northbound Avery Road left turn lane, Avery Road pedestrian crossing, main site access drive, RIVIERA Development Overview street connection to Tantalus Drive, Reserves A, B and C, Basins A and B, and 40 lots in Subarea A. C. Phase 2 (Section 2) will include Reserves D, E, F and G, Basin C, and 45 lots in Subarea B. D. Phase 3 (Section 3 -1) will include Reserves H and I, and 23 lots in Subarea B. E. Phase 4 (Section 3 -2) will include the street connection to Firenza Place, Reserve J, Basin D, and 29 lots in Subarea C. F. Phase 5 (Section 4) will include the street connection to Timble Falls Drive, Reserves K, L and M, Basins E and F, and 48 lots in Subarea B. DO -10 SECTION II- Development Standards RIVIERA I. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Development Standards Basic development standards are addressed in this text regarding 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 A. Single - family detached homes. B. Parks, open spaces and community gardens. C. Permitted uses as outlined in the R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District in the Dublin Zoning Code. III. DENSITY A. A maximum of one hundred eighty five (185) residential dwelling units shall be permitted in this PUD. B. A maximum gross density of 1.22 dwelling units per acre shall be permitted in this PUD. IV. LOT STANDARDS A. Subarea A 1. General Character a. Dwellings may be custom and semi - custom single family homes on traditional lots with fee simple ownership, having equal or higher quality and character when compared to homes in surrounding neighborhoods. 2. Lot Size a. Lot Area: Thirteen thousand (13,000) square feet minimum. b. Lot Width: One hundred (100) feet minimum. c. Lot Depth: One hundred twenty -five (125) feet minimum. 13131 RIVIERA 3. Lot Setbacks Development Standards a. Front yard: Twenty -five (25) feet minimum. Staggered setbacks on adjacent lots are not required. b. Rear yard: Twenty -five (25) feet minimum. c. Side yard: Eight (8) feet minimum. d. Avery Road: There shall be a minimum building setback of one hundred (100) feet, as measured from the proposed Avery Road right -of -way. Streets, utilities, storm water management, landscaping, shared -use paths, open space, park amenities and entry features may be located within this setback to enhance the rural character of the Avery Road corridor. B. Subarea B 1. General Character a. Dwellings may be single family homes on traditional lots with fee simple ownership, having equal or higher quality and character when compared to homes in surrounding neighborhoods. b. Portions of Subarea B (west) are near Jerome High School. The school and associated sports fields are very active facilities with year round activities. Any homes near the school will likely be affected by the noise and light that typically accompanies activities at the school. 2. Lot Size a. Lot Area: Nine thousand seven hundred fifty (9,750) square feet minimum b. Lot Width: Seventy -five (75) feet minimum. c. Lot Depth: One hundred twenty -five (125) feet minimum. 3. Lot Setbacks a. Front yard: Twenty -five (25) feet minimum, except for Cacchio Lane which is twenty (20) feet minimum. Staggered setbacks on adjacent lots are not required. b. Rear yard: Twenty -five (25) feet minimum. c. Side yard: Six (6) feet minimum. d. Avery Road: There shall be a minimum building setback of one hundred (100) feet, as measured from the proposed Avery Road right -of -way. Streets, utilities, storm water 1310 RIVIERA Development Standards management, landscaping, shared -use paths, open space, park amenities and entry features may be located within this setback to enhance the rural character of the Avery Road corridor. C. Subarea C 1. General Character a. Dwellings may be single family homes on traditional lots with fee simple ownership, having equal or higher quality and character when compared to homes in surrounding neighborhoods. Reduced setbacks, first floor master floor plans and common maintenance target a buyer looking to downsize and/or reduce maintenance. 2. Lot Size a. Lot Area: Seven thousand two hundred (7,200) square feet minimum. b. Lot Width: Sixty (60) feet minimum. c. Lot Depth: One hundred twenty (120) feet minimum. 3. Lot Setbacks a. Front yard: Twenty (20) feet minimum. Staggered setbacks on adjacent lots are not required. b. Rear yard: Fifteen (15) feet minimum. c. Side yard: Five (5) feet minimum. 4. Lot Coverage a. The maximum lot coverage shall be seventy (70) percent. D. On -Lot Stream Corridor Protection Zone 1. Portions of the Stream Corridor Protection Zone may be platted on individual lots. 2. 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 an "On Lot Stream Corridor Protection 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 therein. 3. No tree maybe removed from the "On Lot Stream Corridor Protection Zone" except for the removal of dead, diseased, decayed, or noxious trees and other understory vegetation or as 131%1 RIVIERA Development Standards may be required for conservation or in keeping with good forest management practices. Areas without trees or understory vegetation on the lot may be maintained as lawn. 4. The developer will work with planning staff to determine a method of physically delineating any on -lot SCPZ area and /or ensuring the property owners are aware of the presence of the on -lot SCPZ and its restrictions. If an on -lot SCPZ's is present, final design and/or details for delineation or notification will be included in the final development plan. V. STREET ACCESS AND /OR IMPROVEMENTS A. Access 1. Avery Road: a. A full service intersection shall be provided as indicated on the Preliminary Plat. 2. Tantalus Drive: a. Tantalus Drive shall be extended northward from the Belvedere neighborhood to connect with the Riviera street network as indicated on the Preliminary Plat. 3. Tim ble Falls Drive: a. Timble Falls Drive shall be extended northward from the Belvedere neighborhood to connect with the Riviera street network as indicated on the Preliminary Plat. 4. Firenza Place: a. Firenza Place shall be extended eastward from the Tartan West neighborhood to connect with the Riviera street network as indicated on the Preliminary Plat. 5. Cacchio Place: a. As indicated on the Preliminary Plat, a street stub, Cacchio Place is provided to allow future access to Hyland -Croy Road. The developer will work with staff to provide a sign at the end of the stub indicating the intent of the future connection. 6. Pedestrian Access to Schools: a. Off site pedestrian access to Grizzell Middle School shall be provided as permitted by Dublin City Schools. b. If so desired by the Dublin City Schools, the developer will provide a pedestrian connection to Jerome High School. 171%1! RIVIERA Development Standards c. Any permitted off -site connection points to existing path networks on school properties shall be coordinated with Dublin City Schools. d. Final design details of any connections will be provided in the Final Development Plan. 7. Private Driveways a. Vehicular access shall be limited to one (1) driveway curb -cut per lot. b. Corner lots generally should provide driveway access to the anticipated lesser traveled street, except lots 25 and 26 as indicated on the Preliminary Plat. Lots 25 and 26 shall have driveway access limited to Albanese Circle. c. Permitted primary pavement materials include concrete, brick, concrete pavers, colored and imprinted concrete, or natural stone pavers or flagstones. Asphalt is not permitted. The use of gravel as a driveway material is not permitted. Secondary materials such as brick or stone may be used for driveway borders or insets. B. Improvements 1. Avery Road Site Access: a. A northbound left turn lane shall be provided at the Avery Road site access, as detailed in the TIS, as part of Section 1. 2. Avery Road Pedestrian Crossing: a. A pedestrian crossing system across Avery Road shall be provided as part of Section 1 and coordinated with the City Engineer. Final details of this crossing shall be provided in the Final Development Plan. 3. Hyland -Croy Connector Road: a. The developer will work with the city to program a direct site connection to Hyland - Croy Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the approval of a plat that includes the Firenza Place connection to Tartan West. 4. Off -Site Traffic Improvements: a. Any required off -site traffic improvements, including the Hyland -Croy connector, and developer percentage contributions, based on the findings of the US, shall be identified and included in an infrastructure agreement between the developer and the City of Dublin, as approved by City Council. 131M RIVIERA VI. STREET STANDARDS A. Public Streets 1. Right-of-Way Width: Fifty (50) feet minimum Development Standards 2. Pavement Width: Twenty -eight (28) feet minimum for all public streets, as measured back -of -curb to back -of -curb 3. Drive Lanes: Two (2) 4. Parking Lanes: Parking shall be permitted on one side of public streets internal to the site opposite the waterline and fire hydrants. 5. Tree Lawn: May vary based on existing vegetation, but shall in no case be less than eight (8) feet in width. 6. Sidewalk: Four (4) feet wide minimum; sidewalks shall be concrete and located on both sides of the street. 7. Shared -use path: Eight (8) feet wide minimum; shared -use paths shall be constructed of asphalt, except when located in front of lots. When located in front of lots, the path shall be constructed of concrete with saw cut joints. VII. UTILITIES A. Design and Construction 1. All utilities shall be designed and constructed to meet the standards established by the City of Dublin Engineer, which includes City of Columbus standards as required. 2. Required off -site sanitary improvements and developer percentage contributions shall be identified and included in an infrastructure agreement between the developer and the City of Dublin, as approved by City Council. B. Location 1. All utilities shall be placed in appropri ate locations on the individual home lots that will best preserve the existing trees in good or fair condition. 1301 RIVIERA VIII. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT A. Design and Construction Development Standards 1. A comprehensive storm water management system shall be developed, following the Ohio EPA and City of Dublin storm water management policies. B. Location 1. Storm water management facilities may be located in any reserve areas. Final design and details will be provided in the Final Development Plan. C. Stream Corridor Protection Zone 1. There shall be a Stream Corridor Protection Zone as indicated on the Preliminary Plat. A definition is contained within the City of Dublin Codified Ordinance Section 53.200 for the areas designated as "Stream Corridor Protection Zones ". Sections 53.210 — 53.240 describe uses and facilities that are permitted and prohibited within the Stream Corridor Protection Zone. D. 100 -year floodplain (Zone A) 1. The developer shall provide a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) and supportive materials in the Final Development Plan that includes lots in FEMA designated 100 -year floodplain (Zone A), subject to approval by engineering. E. Maintenance Responsibility 1. All stormwater structures /areas shall be maintained by the City of Dublin. IX. TREE PRESERVATION, REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT A. Tree Preservation /Removal 1. It is the intent of the developer to preserve as many good and fair condition trees as possible on site. A good faith effort will be made to preserve existing trees in good and fair condition where indicated on the preliminary development plan. Tree replacements will be made in accordance with the Zoning Code, except as noted. The developer will work with staff at the final development plan stage to identify appropriate measures and best practices to ensure continued preservation. 2. A Tree Removal and Preservation Plan will be provided as part of the Final Development Plan. 131VA RIVIERA Development Standards a. Tree protection fencing shall be shown on the Tree Removal and Preservation Plan at or beyond the critical root zone of all trees to be preserved. b. Chain link, wire or two rail wood fencing shall be used to protect special, selected landmark trees identified to be preserved and located in or near the path of direct site development. 3. City approval of tree protection fencing locations shall be required prior to the issuance of construction permits. 4. If critical root zones of preserved trees cannot be maintained during construction, those impacted trees shall be replaced in accordance with code. B. Tree Replacement Plan 1. Tree Replacement shall be per code, with the following exceptions: a. Replacement trees shall be deciduous or evergreen trees. Deciduous trees shall have a minimum caliper size of two and one -half (2 11 /z) inches. Evergreen species shall be seven (7) feet in height minimum and count as two and one -half (2 1 /z) inches. b. Evergreen trees shall be limited to no more than thirty (30) percent of the total caliper inch replacement requirement. 2. Replacement trees may be located in all open space reserve areas. X. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE A. Dedication 1. The open space will meet that which is required under code. 2. The code required open space shall be dedicated to the City B. Maintenance 1. Reserves A, B, C, D, E, G, H, I, and J shall be maintained by the homeowners association. Stormwater structures in these reserves shall be maintained by the City of Dublin. 2. Reserves F, K, L and M shall be maintained by the City. Stormwater structures in these reserves shall be maintained by the City of Dublin. 17.x:1 RIVIERA C. Programming Development Standards 1. All reserves shall be programmed in conjunction with city staff as passive and active areas at the time of anticipated open space development. It is the intent of the developer to consult residents in open space programming decisions. 2. Open space programming may include the following options and amenities: a. Reserve A, E, G and L multi -use path, trash/recycling /bike racks, bench seating, landscaping and /or FICA maintained gardens (bird/butterfly /honeybee or prairie) b. Reserve B: Landscaping c. Reserves C, F, H and J: bench seating, landscaping, multi -use path and /or FICA maintained gardens (bird /butterfly /honeybee or prairie) d. Reserve D: gathering plaza, gazebo /shelter, landscaping and/or FICA maintained gardens (bird/butterfly /honeybee or prairie) e. Reserves K, L, and M: parking, restrooms, platform tennis /basketball court, open play fields, bocce, cricket field, lacrosse /soccer field, multi -use path, trash/recycling /bike racks, bench seating, picnic grove /tables, public art, playground, obstacle course, rental shelter, shelter /gazebo, climbing structure, outdoor fitness equipment, labyrinth, fishing pier /dock, landscaping and /or FICA run/maintained community gardens (bird/butterfly /honeybee, meditation or prairie) 3. Future design and development of parks and open spaces shall be permitted with administrative approval based on the above programming standards. D. Shared -Use Path System 1. A shared -use path system shall provide connections between Shannon Glen Park and Tartan West, connections to Grizzell Middle School and the Avery Road pathway. It shall also provide multiple internal loop systems within the open space reserves. 2. Portions of the shared -use path system may incorporate sections of the cart paths that currently exist on site. Existing path sections that are to be utilized shall be evaluated and upgraded to City standards, if necessary. Evaluations will be performed with each phase of development and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. XI. LANDSCAPING A. Entry Features 1. Entry features may include integrated project signage, landscaping, and irrigation. 131%] RIVIERA Development Standards 2. Final location, design, and standards for entry features and related landscaping and signage details shall be presented and approved during the Final Development Plan phase. 3. All entry features will be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. B. Street Trees 1. Street trees shall be installed in accordance with the City of Dublin Code. Final type and location shall be determined by the City Forester. C. Auto Courtyards 1. In those instances where a garage location creates an auto courtyard in the front of the house; a minimum thirty (30) inch high wall or hedge shall be installed and maintained along the courtyard pavement parallel to the street. D. Private Sidewalks 1. A minimum four (4) feet wide sidewalk shall be required for every residence. This private side walk shall extend from the front door to the driveway, where applicable, as the driveway may abut the front door. E. Mailboxes 1. Mailboxes shall be consistent in design and style throughout the development. A mailbox design shall be submitted for review and approval at the final development plan phase. F. Cul -de -Sac Islands 1. Cul -de -sac islands shall be landscaped with lawn and/or plant material. 2. Any lawn and/or plant material located within an island shall be maintained by the HOA. G. Avery Road Landscape Treatment 1. A landscape treatment shall be installed in the setback along Avery Road to enhance the rural character of the corridor. 2. Plantings shall create a natural woodland effect and may consist of deciduous trees and shrubs, ornamental trees, perennials or any combination thereof. This effect shall be installed across the Avery Road frontage. 3. Any trees, meeting the replacement tree standards, planted in this treatment, shall count toward the overall replacement requirement. 4. Masonry piers, stone walls and/or fencing may be included as part of the landscape treatment. 113/3181 RIVIERA Development Standards 5. A sign and/or entry feature maybe located within this setback. Details shall be provided for approval as part of the Final Development Plan. 6. Pedestrian pathways, multi -use paths, water features and pond access may be provided in this treatment. 7. Final design and details of the landscape treatment shall be provided for approval as part of the Final Development Plan. H. Mid -Block Shared Use Path Access 1. Shared use paths that are located mid -block between lots shall be landscaped to provide a barrier between the pathway and adjacent private yards. 2. Landscaping shall include lawn, deciduous shrubs, evergreen shrubs, deciduous trees, evergreen trees and fencing or any combination thereof. Design and details shall be provided and approved in the Final Development Plan phase. 3. The final locations where shared -use paths cross public streets will be evaluated by the City Engineer to minimize mid -block crossings and included in the appropriate final development plan. XII. HOMEOWNERsASsocIATION All residential property owners located within the Riviera PUD shall be required to join and maintain membership in a forced and funded homeowners association, which will be formed prior to any lots being sold. Homeowners association responsibilities shall be detailed within Declarations of Covenants and Restrictions as approved by the City of Dublin before being duly recorded in the office of the appropriate County Recorder. These Declarations of Covenants and Restrictions shall run with the land and shall include, without limitation, the requirements imposed upon the homeowners association in this text. 1131351 SECTION III- Architectural Standards RIVIERA I. Architectural Standards Architectural Standards A. Architectural standards are addressed in this text regarding plan approval, character and styles, diversity, permitted materials and colors, configuration of materials and architectural elements. B. Unless otherwise set forth herein, all structures shall meet the City of Dublin Zoning Code Residential Appearance Standards. C. Images have been included as supportive information to the written text to express the design intent and architectural vision for the development. Limitations shall be expressed in the written text The included imagery shall not be used to interpret limitations or exemptions of any standards, but are intended to generally exhibit the minimal level of detail of described architectural features and embellishments and to provide pictorial examples of architectural reference styles. II. Architectural Review Committee A. The Master Developer shall retain the right of individual plan approval for all single family homes within the subdivision. B. Architectural Review Committee 1. The developer shall form an architectural review committee (ARC) to ensure that all dwellings and accessory structures comply with or exceed the architectural standards set forth in this development text Prior to filing for a building permit with the City of Dublin for the construction of, or any addition or major alteration to, each primary or accessory residential structure in this development, the owner or builder shall be required to subject the exterior architectural elevations and the site plan to a review by the ARC. The ARC shall undertake a review of these elevations and plans for compliance with the commitments made in the development text such as (but not limited to) setbacks, building heights, diversity, architectural character, level of detail of architectural elements, types of materials, and colors. The ARC shall approve only those structures that comply with or exceed the requirements set forth in this development text. The City of Dublin shall not be required to issue a building permit for any affected residential structure in this development without written evidence of approval of such structure from the ARC. 2. Rules and regulations relating to the membership of the ARC and the conduct of its affairs shall be the responsibility of and implemented by the developer. At least one member of the ARC shall be an architect registered in the State of Ohio. The requirement for the ARC review and approval shall be evidenced through the developer recording deed restrictions with appropriate County Recorders prior to the commencing construction on any residential structure in this development The developer shall ensure that the deed restrictions require adherence to the architectural standards in this text and may choose to implement even stricter architectural requirements than are found herein. 3. The ARC shall be composed of at least three members, including a developer representative, a registered architect and a registered landscape architect. The developer shall provide membership information for the ARC to the satisfaction of planning staff as part of the final development plan. AS -1 RIVIERA Architectural Standards III. Architectural Character A. The character within this development shall be traditional in nature. Its vocabulary shall employ Classical, Colonial Revival, Midwestern Vernacular, European Country and American Period Revival styles. Continuity of element and scale and the commonality of building materials between the referenced styles will reinforce an architectural cohesiveness while providing architectural diversity within the site. These styles can be found throughout the neighborhoods surrounding the Riviera development. Incorporating these architectural styles will complement the surrounding development pattern and allow the new homes to "fit in" to the character of the area. B. Architectural Styles Defined 1. Midwestern Vernacular — The character of Midwestern Vernacular architecture evolved throughout the mid - to late 19th and early 20th centuries and makes reference to a broad range of styles. Greek revival references incorporate simplicity and permanence of form while retaining versatility, while "farmhouse vernacular" is characterized by Gothic influences and verticality of proportion common to Early Victorian examples. The Midwestern Vernacular style reiterates local forms, strong examples of which are indigenous to Dublin and may also be found in Bexley and Upper Arlington. 2. Colonial Revival — Late 19th century examples of the Colonia 1 Revival style draw inspiration from Renaissance, Georgian, and Neoclassical styles, as evidenced by symmetrical, tightly organized, and well- defined exteriors and restrained ornamentation. Surfaces tend to be pale and smooth; clapboard siding is typical of the Colonial Revival style. AS -2 RIVIERA Architectural Standards 3. Classical — Traditional early American styles such as Colonial, Federal, and Georgian fall under the heading of Classical. Although individual styles evolved throughout the late 17th and whole of the 18th century, Classical residences are characterized by precision in execution, balanced, symmetrical compositions, and careful attention to detail. Main blocks of residences are often finished in brick, although regional variations employing alternate materials such as stone or clapboard do occur. Entry surrounds integrate the Classical Orders through use of columns or pilasters with pediments. 4. European Country — Inspired primarily by provincial country homes in France, American examples of the European Country style first appeared in the 1920s. Characterized by the use of stone and stucco as cladding materials, the European Country style also employs deep recesses and reveals for doors and windows as well as steeper roof pitches and flared eaves. Forms tend to be simple and rectangular and tall, well - proportioned windows are common, resulting in a simple, elegant residence. 5. American Period Revival — The late 19th and early 20th century saw the emergence of American Period Revival styles, including Shingle Style and Craftsman. These styles tend to be informal yet disciplined and employ simpler massing and vernacular forms. Broad gables and gambrels are common, as is the incorporation of porches and balconies. Traditional cladding materials are used and include cedar shakes or shingles, wood, and stucco. Fenestration is characterized by horizontal window groupings, shed or arched dormers and glass is often incorporated in the front door. AS -3 RIVIERA C. Age Targeted Homes Architectural Standards 1. Single family homes located in Subarea C will be targeted to buyers looking to downsize and /or reduce maintenance. 2. Homes in this subarea would be on traditional lots with fee simple ownership. Reduced setbacks, greater lot coverage, common maintenance and first floor master floor plans are common elements associated with the age targeted market. 3. Home styles will adhere to the defined architectural styles. An architectural theme is permitted in this area. Home product details will be provided in the final development plan for this section. 7 D. Single family homes shall provide a high quality built environment as recommended in the community plan. Homes in Riviera shall have equal or higher quality and character when compared to the homes in neighborhoods immediately surrounding the development. AS -4 RIVIERA IV. Architectural Diversity A. 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 a cul -de -sac bulb. Architectural Standards B. Corner lots apply to the street on which the home's front facade is situated. C. Open Space areas may provide similar separation as lots within the influenced area. In this case, the open space area may be considered as influenced lot or lots. D. A lot diversity matrix will be presented for approval at the final development plan phase. E. Individual homes in Subareas A and B, utilizing siding as the only cladding material on all facades, shall be limited to 25% of the total number of homes in Subareas A and B. F. Themed Communities 1. Themed or architecturally coordinated communities featuring a specific architectural style with one or more builders may be permitted and are not subject to the diversity schedule outlined above. In the event that such a community is proposed, the developer shall file a single final development plan for that community with illustrations of representative building elevations and anticipated product mix for review by the Planning Commission. G. Administration of Standard 1. Due to the mix of homebuilders to be found in this development, an advance matrix of "substantially similar" building elevations is not possible. Therefore, it will be the responsibility of the Architectural Review Committee to evaluate each house plan in the development for compliance with the diversity standard. Compliance with the diversity requirements shall be required for the approval of the construction of each new dwelling within the PUD. V. Permitted Building Height A. Maximum of thirty-five (35) feet, as measured per code. AS -5 RIVIERA VI. Permitted Exterior Materials A. Cladding Materials Architectural Standards 1. The exterior cladding of all structures shall be finished using all natural materials, including brick, stone, manufactured stone, wood, stucco, fiber - cement siding products or any combination thereof. 2. All exposed foundations shall be clad with brick, stone or manufactured stone. Siding Brick AS -6 RIVIERA B. Trim Materials Architectural Standards 1. Wood, aluminum, PVC, urethane foam, EIFS, copper or fiber - cement products. Shutters shall be considered as trim for the purpose of meeting the Residential Appearance Code requirements. C. Roofing Materials PVC Trim Detail E®' PVC 1. All homes shall utilize dimensional asphalt shingles (minimum 30 -year warranty), wood, slate, concrete, or tile. Standing seam metal roofs are permitted on porches and secondary roofs. Dimensional Dimensional Asphalt Shingles Asphalt Shingles VI I. Permitted Exterior Colors A. Cladding Colors 1. Natural earth tones and /or neutral colors, including white, as represented in the Sherwin - Williams "America's Heritage" collection and/or Benjamin Moore "Williamsburg" collection, or similar color collections by other manufacturers. Benjamin Moore Williamsburg Collection 2. High - chroma colors are not permitted. AS -7 RIVIERA B. Trim Colors Architectural Standards 1. Natural earth tones and /or neutral colors, including white, as represented in the Sherwin - Williams "America's Heritage" collection and/or Benjamin Moore "Williamsburg" collection, or similar color collections by other manufacturers. 2. Complementary or contrasting to siding color. C. Roofing Colors 1. Natural earth tones and /or neutral colors, including black. 2. High - chroma colors are not permitted. VIII. Configuration of Materials A. Four -sided architecture shall be required so that similar architectural design elements and details shall be consistent throughout all elevations of the structure. All building elevations shall be articulated with a consistency of detailing. B. The application of exterior wall materials shall be continuous around corners. C. Changes in cladding material shall occur at logical locations, typically at interior corners where one building mass meets another. Material transitions at exterior corners are permitted with a minimum 16" material return and trim detail. D. When used, wood siding and fiber cement siding products shall be in the pattern of clapboard, dropsiding, tongue and groove, board - and -batten or shingles. ff,i Tounge and Groove M RIVIERA Straight Edge Shingles Staggered Edge Shingles Architectural Standards E. Walls shall show no more than two (2) cladding materials (excluding trim) unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Committee. Brick and stone may be combined. F. Individual homes in all Subareas shall be limited to the amount of stucco utilized as a cladding material on the primary fagade of each home. Stucco shall be limited to a maximum of 50% of the area of the primary fagade. IX. Architectural Elements A. Four -sided Architecture 1. Similar architectural design elements and details shall be consistent throughout all elevations of the structure. �� V1 AS -9 RIVIERA B. Prominent Facades Architectural Standards 1. Corner lots, end lots, pie- shaped lots and lots adjacent to large open spaces present highly - visible, side facades (Lots 1, 7, 9, 10, 11, 17, 21, 40, 41, 54, 55, 64, 65, 69, 70, 72, 76, 87, 108, 109, 123, 124, 132, 137, 138, 145, 164, 170, 171, 177 and 185 as indicated on the preliminary plat). Each street- facing elevation on these lots must contain at least three (3) design elements, in any combination, as defined in the Dublin Zoning Code 153.190. C. Roofs 1. Primary roof pitches shall have a minimum slope of 7:12 rise over run. 2. Secondary roofs, such as minor gables, dormers and porch pediments shall be permitted to have minimum slope of 4:12 rise over run. When the primary roof pitch is a gable with the pediment end oriented towards the street a less roof pitch shall be permitted. 3. Flat roofs are permitted, but must integrate strong cornice lines. 4. Roof penetrations, including, without limitations, vent stacks, shall not be located on the front roof slope and shall be painted to match the color of roof. D. Dormers 1. Dormers shall have gabled, hipped, arched, or shed roofs. 2. Dormer windows shall either match the standard window size of the house or smaller. 3. Dormers may be no larger than necessary to hold their windows and framing unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Committee. F'4 AS -10 RIVIERA E. Gutters and Downspouts Architectural Standards 1. Traditional half -round gutters and/or ogee gutters with downspouts shall be used and shall be made of aluminum materials that match or compliment the color of the home's trim. 2. Gutter and downspouts shall be placed at the corner of the building that is least visible from nearby streets. F. Chimneys 1. "Cantilevered" or "through- the - wall" chimneys are not permitted. 2. All chimneys shall be built on an integral foundation. 3. All exterior portions of chimney shall be finished masonry, consisting of brick, stone, and/or manufactured stone. 4. The use of stucco, siding and wood shall be prohibited. G. Garages 1. All single - family dwellings shall have an attached or detached garage of sufficient size to accommodate a minimum two (2) standard sized automobiles, side by side. 2. Side loaded garages are encouraged. 3. Front loaded garages, not part of a court load configuration, court loaded garages and side loaded garages are prohibited to have garage doors facing Avery Road. 4. All garage doors shall be decorative in appearance, such as "carriage- style" doors. AS -11 RIVIERA Bonn j -- Decorative garage door Architectural Standards Side Loaded Decorative garage door Decorative garage door C � A garage Court Loaded 11 Decorative earase door No Decorative garage door Decorative garage door AS -12 6 r Front Loaded -- Decorative garage door Architectural Standards Side Loaded Decorative garage door Decorative garage door C � A garage Court Loaded 11 Decorative earase door No Decorative garage door Decorative garage door AS -12 RIVIERA H. Windows Architectural Standards 1. Windows shall be constructed either of wood, painted aluminum, fiberglass or composite materials. Painted aluminum clad and vinyl clad windows are permitted. Vinyl windows are prohibited. Applicants may present and request approval of specific vinyl window products at the final development plan stage. 2. Windows shall be single hung, double hung, operable casement, awning or transoms oriented horizontally with vertically proportioned panes of glass. 3. All double -hung windows shall have the appearance of divided light. 4. Window grids are to be proportionally similar on all windows with vertical orientation. 5. Window surrounds and/or trim appropriate to the architectural character of the home are required. 6. Cantilevered bay windows are not permitted. Awning •w u�u�••u•H•• Arched Top Casement Double Hung Casement Double Hung AS -13 RIVIERA I. Shutters 1. Shutters shall be sized to fully cover the adjacent window. Architectural Standards 2. Shutters that are operable or appear as such shall utilize appropriate shutter hardware (s -clips and hinges). 3. Shutters shall be constructed of wood, PVC or fiber - cement and shall be painted or have integral color. 4. Raised Panel, flat panel, louvered and board - and -batten are permitted shutter styles. Raised Panel J. Roof Eaves Flat Panel Louvered Board and Batten 1. Eaves shall be continuous. Eaves which overhang less than one (1) foot shall have closed soffit AS -14 RIVIERA K. Front Porches Architectural Standards 1. Front Porches, when utilized, shall be covered and open. Glass and screen enclosures shall be prohibited. L. Lighting 1. Each unit shall have a minimum of one (1) approved yard post light near the sidewalk of front entry. 2. Each unit shall have lighting on each side of or above the garage door opening. Yard Post Lights 1i 11 II Light Above Garage Opening Lights Beside Garage Opening AS -15 C-OIRAZON� R f UD UD t\i do �� UD t 2 r„ Ate♦ • * A P♦ t � � M Y ♦�CIT EIRE'NZA -PL ♦ O� � �4 � � 4 � ❑ EO M E TWP � (S Q � d�yoafl 4 p 6 �CE 44Z'.CS BA C Q a°\cowdO\ \o �Yyfrl �° O o e oe LR op i% ❑ q �e.ELV.EUFRF�J E ON Bp�pDp R QQQ zPEl p4C�� p ~ _p oddooN3 ° AD ❑ aQ o d PLR ° %y'1 �� � a a ° ❑a - ❑ a❑ fl q� d p o pC7 a Q ° ° sow ! P ��A_aP b�la!z 2 a;w4 PLR 0�� ❑ y LOMBARD y �Ci y.�• ].• ❑ ❑I I� ° ❑QCa o-�doo9Fp �� i ❑ ❑� �❑ ��0 °❑ ° ❑ ❑'� O a of y] ❑ iO ❑ �'I 'n Z ❑ 6 ❑ ❑NCO MITCF fl/o❑ io ❑ff ❑CIO b d �j �DRURYRDZ❑ abb ❑�LO_OPjm11�aa • DOdJo 4w0 b3 tC ❑y�T 0� @ i Qpfl a�DD (4 L7 ❑��° fl30 �E- IW /TT R E; p P o >♦?'a9 P -RD °'C'Oa INam 0 R -1 1 �qj �� D•Gt D Di .RD a a3o o0 0 P PL o R -1 p o oosaev 9 PLR a > ❑iiv Q pY. U[R , � o 14 -0nary Development Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan/ Preliminary Plat 0 400 800 mossommE� City of Dublin Riviera Feet 8205 Avery Road CITY OF DCBI IN. Iona ur o"a lone Renpe rlaWnp SFln •r...ann +nna Ouwn Gio+S:: ISI: h..rv. Ip0 eu 41 +A&X 4'rn S!rt wwm n.n:n rn .n 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) Q Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning ❑ Corridor Development District (COD) (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) I] 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. U. PROPERTY INFORMATION: This section must be completed. Property Address(es): 8205 Avery Road, Dublin, Ohio 43017 Mailing Address: 8205 N. Avery Road, Dublin, Ohio 43017 (Street, City, State, Zip Code) Tax ID/Parcel Number(s): Parcel Size(s) (Acres): 60033406034 4.3 273 -000401 99.3 137 -00 -00-049 48.6 Existing Land UselDevelopment: Parks/Open Space - Riviera Golf Club IF APPLICABLE, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: Proposed Land Use /Development: Single Family Residential, Parks, Open Space Total acres affected by application: +/- 152.192 111 r11RRFNT PRr1PFRTY [IWNFRIRI' Pleeee effech wddiennnl eheefe if needed. Name (Individual or Organization): American Italian Golf Association Mailing Address: 8205 N. Avery Road, Dublin, Ohio 43017 (Street, City, State, Zip Code) Daytime Telephone: 614 - 778 -2534 Fax: 614 - 889.5820 Email or Alternate Contact Information: Jesse D. Oddi, Jr. joddijr @yahoo.com Page 1 of 3 IV. APPLICANTS): This is the pemon(sl who is submitting the application if different than the property (wirm isl hated in part lit Please complete if applicable Name. Charles J Ruma Applicant is also property owner yes ❑ no ❑ Organization (Owner Developer. Contractor. etc ) Davidson Phillips, Inc. (developer) Mailing Address, 4020 Venture Court. Suite D. Columbus, Ohio 43228 (Street City Slate Zip Codel Daytime Telephone 614. 777.9325 Fax Email or Attemate Contact Information C)ruma @aol Cam V. REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF APPLICANT 1 PROPERTY OWNER: This is the personis) who is submitting the application on behalf of the applicant listed in part IV or property owner hated in part m Please complete it applicable Name Ben Hale, Jr Organization (Owner, Developer Contractor. etc ) Smith and Hale. LLC Mailing Address 37 West Broad Street. Suite 725. Columbus, Ohio 43215 (Street City. State Zip Code) Dayoma Tiflophon , 614 - 221 -4255 Kax 614221.4409 Email or Alienate Contact Information bhale ®smdhandhate com VI. AUTHORIZATION FOR OWNER'S APPLICANT or REPRESENTATIVE(S)! If the applicant ra riot the property owner this section must be completed and notarized Jesse D. Oddi. Jr., President AIGA the owner hereby aut hoore Charles J Ruma and/or Ben Hale Jr to act as my applicirit or mpresentatwelsl in all matters pet<am g to the processing and approval of this application including modifying the project I agree to be bound by all representatioty( and ilgreements made by the designated representative Signature of Current Property ow*-tr,— 17AIJJJJ'.IC— I Date ❑ Chock this box it the Authorization for Owners Applicant or Repnhmntative(s) b attached mant Subsciibed and sworn before me this .2.rtq day of �. f &ff 20 /Ss, ( -`' DEBORAH T WAU(EF • . ti I, hit OF ON State of �r/�O ., r •n n , of iUIFT 7 County of tc"AOL.is. Notary Public �AiALiL•t.�� *yr` •i�i /r Vil. AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROPERTY: Site Wells to the property by City representatives are essential to process this 7 application The OwneVApplicam as noted below hereby authorizes City representatives to vish photograph and post a notice on the properlydedescribed in this application I VBfte .b. odd: i, Jrt . R.[' /� _ the owner or authorized representative hereby authorize City representatives to visa photograph and pasta notice on the property described in this application Signature of applicant or authorized mpmsontativel,�l I Date VIII. UTILITY DISCLAIMER' The OwnerlApplicant acknowledges the approval of this request for review by the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission and/or Dublin City Council don not constitute a guarani" or binding Commitment lbat the City of Dublin will be able to provide essential services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by said OwnerApplicanl. I t re5sq .�%. ��i , jI� Aes. /��A _ the owner or authorized rapresanuitive. ackrowledge that approval of th request dap not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able to provide essential services such as water and sower lies when needed by said Owner/Applicant Signaturo of applicant or authorized represenativw IX. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT: This section must be I tJ4TSlo 1/. Ua I read and um1erstand the con ems of this appficalk information submitted is complete and in all respects Signature of applicant or authorized representative Subscribed and sworn to before me this State of ON�G County of ..YL•.� Notary Public Date: and notarized. ZCj I!7 the owner a authorized representative have information contained in this application attached exhibits and other correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief Date DEBORAH T WALKER igtNn fit," SIAIE OF OW fly EOIRRSSIIOR Eu1e65 NE Z HIS WORCEn1111111606aa1111R FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Amount ReceivedI/ry' if Application No: ( ^'.� y lf/f/� vVr+ P&Z Dalelsl: q�q l l S Y� PSZAction: ftPPtb jfQ I I 1h Receipt No: 13111 /ty Map Zone: F Dale Received. —�I S Received By � City Council (First Reading): OS-14'- I $ v`+ City Council (Second Readingi: 0 Y/ City Council Action: Ordinance Number: 3 f — I S Type of Request: L1 //7llh I V1 �y rt1iml na r A,tve(o pWRt �a h Pre I ire • PI N, S. E. W Circle) Side VW "'V//((AAW/////*lll S, E. W (Circle) Side of Nearest intersection: ft On&L LWIVC Distance from Nearest Intersection: 4)-t It 1 1mwo 1 Existing Zoning District: D_J 01-1 Requested Zoning District: PU D 1 Page 3 of 3 152.000 ACRES Situated in the State of Ohio, Counties of Union, Franklin and Delaware, City of Dublin, in Virginia Military Survey Numbers 2925 and 5162, being part of those tracts of land conveyed to American Italian Golf Association by deeds of record in Deed Book 2600, Page 393 (Franklin County), Deed Book 315, Page 64 (Delaware County), Deed Book 216, Page 68 (Union County) and Deed Book 223, Page 495 (Union County), and more particularly bounded and described as follows: Beginning at the northwesterly corner of the subdivision entitled "Belvedere Section 3 ", of record in Plat Book 5, Page 38 (Union County), in the easterly line of that tract conveyed to The Board of Education of the Dublin City School District by deed of record in Official Record 78, Page 234 (Union County); thence North 02 °21'05" West, with said easterly line, a distance of 230.37 feet to the northeasterly corner thereof; thence South 84 °57'58" West, with the northerly line of said School District tract, a distance of 435.11 feet; thence crossing said American Italian Golf Association tracts the following courses and distances: North 05° 49' 46" West, a distance of 1028.89 feet; North 84° 07' 22" East, s distance of 660.32 feet; North 02° 02' 58" West, a distance of 60.25 feet; and South 84° 06' 53" West, a distance of 229.51 feet to the southeasterly corner of that tract conveyed to Kevin D. and Jocelyn Mullins by deeds of record in Official Records 117, Page 182 (Union County) and 804, Page 218 (Union County); thence North 05 °51'20" West, with the easterly line of said Mullins tract and the easterly line of the subdivision entitled "Tartan West Section 6 Part 2 ", of record in Plat Book 5, Page 218 (Union County), a distance of 896.35 feet to the southwesterly corner of that tract conveyed to Tartan Development Company (West), LLC by deed of record in Official Record 663, Page 741 (Union County); thence North 82 °37'01" East, with the southerly line of said Tartan Development Company tract, the southerly line of Savona Condominium at Tartan West Third Amendment, of record in Condo Plat Book 5, Page 239 (Union County), the southerly line of Savona Condominium at Tartan West Fifth Amendment, of record in Condo Plat Book 5, Page 264 (Union County), the southerly line of that tract conveyed to Wood Run Partners, LLC by deed of record in Official Record 949, Page 154 (Union County), the southerly line of Savona Condominium at Tartan West Sixth Amendment, of record in Condo Plat Book 5, Page 276 (Union County), and the southerly line of that tract conveyed to The Board of Education of the Dublin City School District by deeds of record in Official Record 8831D10 (Franklin County) and Deed Book 485, Page 379 (Delaware County), a distance of 1148.34 feet to a point; thence North 74 °30'22" East, with the southerly line of said School District tract, a distance of 1676.66 feet to a point in the centerline of Avery Road; thence South 15 °16'07" East, with said centerline, a distance of 2022.21 feet to a point; thence South 74 °28'46" West, with the northerly line of the subdivision entitled "The Celtic Estates of Avery", of record in Plat Book 105, Page 30 (Franklin County), a distance of 354.19 feet to the northwesterly corner thereof; thence South 74 °26'05" West, with the northerly line of the subdivision entitled "Belvedere Section 1 ", of record in Plat Book 96, Page 6 (Franklin County), the northerly line of the subdivision entitled "Belvedere Section 2 ", of record in Plat Book 98, Page 74 (Franklin County), and the northerly line of said Belvedere Section 3, a distance of 2837.44 feet to POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 152.000 acres of land, more or less. EVANS, MECHWART, HAMBLETON & TILTON, INC. CASE # 14- 068Z /PDP /PP *Jeff Brown *American Italian Golf Assoc. *Charles Ruma Smith and Hale LLC Avery Road Davidson Phillips Inc 37 W. Broad St, STE 460 u Dubl, Dublin OH 43017 4020 Venture Court,STE D Columbus, OH 43215 Columbus, OH 43228 Board of Education of Dublin Local District School Di s Country Club at Muirfield Village Ryan &Susan Read c/o Todd Hoadley Ph.D 8715 Muirfield Drive 8305 Davington Drive 7030 Coffman Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Efiea ^mss Ian & Maya Dsilva 6341 Memorial Drive P44n, 0144401T Dublin, OH 43017 o,.,... p" ! -84-h- fifle McC814 William & Raynon Serfaty 6450 r,r,......,.rial prig,,. 6342 Memorial Drive P44n, 014 4401T Dublin, OH 43017 Randall & Carole Johnson Robert & Pamela Birkenholz 6353 Cragie Hill Court 6360 Cragie Hill Court Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Muirfield Assoc Inc. Dennis & Ann Straily Attn: Sue Leonard 6308 Bellow Valley Drive 8372 Muirfield Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43016 Corey & Paula Moritz James & Patricia Seaton 6292 Bellow Valley Drive 6284 Bellow Valley Drive Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43017 Summit & Lekha Shah Jon & Tawnya Ewert 6268 Bellow Valley Drive 6260 Bellow Valley Drive Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Terrence Lyden 6347 Memorial Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Stephen & Carolyn Francis 6345 Cragie Hill Court Dublin, OH 43017 Jill Love 6352 Cragie Hill Court Dublin, OH 43017 David Dematteo 6300 Bellow Valley Drive Dublin, OH 43016 Timothy & Andrea Barton 6276 Bellow Valley Drive Dublin, OH 43016 Brent & Julie King 6265 Ross Bend Dublin, OH 43016 Lisa Maxwell Sriram Tharmapuram Maria Helena Bast 6293 Bellow Valley Drive Rupa Narayanan 6277 Bellow Valley Drive Dublin, OH 43016 6285 Bellow Valley Drive Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Susan Rapp Family Trust Daniel & Michele Helbig Timothy & Cara Albright 6269 Bellow Valley Drive 8141 Summerhouse Drive West 8145 Timble Falls Drive Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Stephen Joseph & Amanda Medve Thomas & Ardith Tait Balaji Vishwanath 8153 Timble Falls Drive 8158 Timble Falls Drive Shrividhya Krishnamurthy Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 8150 Timble Falls Drive Dublin, OH 43016 Andrew & Kimberly Eilerman Jeffrey & Valerie Kaser Monica Smith 8142 Timble Falls Drive 8147 Grafton End 8155 Grafton End Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Tara & Brian Meadors Mark & Lisa Weaver David & Leslie Grimm 8164 Grafton End 8156 Grafton End 8148 Grafton End Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Jessalyn Fiutem City of Dublin Muhammad & Siddrah Amir 8140 Grafton End 5200 Emerald Parkway 8179 Avery Road Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Bevilacqua Builders Inc John & Jennifer Maloney Jeffrey King 5930 Cleveland Ave 8429 Davington Drive 8393 Davington Drive Columbus, OH 43231 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 David & Katherine Mankin Kevin Pettitt John & Lori Von Cannon 8357 Davington Drive Martha Duerstein - Pettitt 8411 Davington Drive Dublin, OH 43017 8447 Davington Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 E'er William & Jeannine Sabo Steven & Jodi Rhodes 8375 Davington Drive 6475 Green Stone Loop T'41i- Oil 43017 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43017 Mark & Kimberly Mace Sung Yong & Anna Kim Robert & Kelly Darrow 6469 Green Stone Loop 6465 Green Stone Loop 6461 Green Stone Loop Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Gregory & Mara Smith Jeffery & Amie Swaddling Reynold & Joan Kulchar 6457 Green Stone Loop 6453 Green Stone Loop 6464 Green Stone Loop Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Lawrence & Mary Grandey Kevin & Jocelyn Mullins Barbara & Laney Stroble 6456 Green Stone Loop 8600 Hyland Croy Road 8622 Hyland Croy Road Dublin, OH 43017 Plain City, OH 43064 Plain City, OH 43064 Norman & Josephine Malik Stewart & Clare Olson Matthew & Jennifer Mazza 8640 Hyland Croy Road 8798 Sorrento Court 8790 Sorrento Court Plain City, OH 43064 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Jose & Trang Fojas Arthur Dvorkin Jordan & Elizabeth Matola 7872 Sorrento Court 7025 Firenza Place 7033 Firenza Place Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Zhong Lin & Weisun Lu Jagadeswar Boggula & Joseph & Kimberly Avcoleo 7049 Firenza Place Swapna Pasham 7057 Firenza Place Dublin, OH 43017 7041 Firenza Place Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Tartan Development Co West LLC Thomas Harb Ryan & Megan Greer PO Box 650853 6793 Vineyard Haven Loop 6797 Vineyard Haven Loop Dallas, TX 75265 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 William & Rebecca Klosterman Linda Long Takashi & Kiyomi Jurita 6801 Vineyard Haven Loop 6805 Vineyard Haven Loop 6809 Vineyard Haven Loop Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Katherine Sheperd Chase &Megan Blackburn B° ' 6829 Vineyard Haven Loop 6833 Vineyard Haven Loop 693 Vin@ , d 14a-N-en T eop Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, Oil 43017- Wade & Gail Barghausen John & Dora Duff Richard & Margaret Goebel 6841 Vineyard Haven Loop 6845 Vineyard Haven Loop 6849 Vineyard Haven Loop Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Harvey & Rita Hook Todd & Beth Herman Larry & Amber Taylor 8831 Vineyard Haven Loop 8827 Vineyard Haven Loop 6789 Vineyard Haven Loop Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Margaret Lavalle James & Joyce Hendershott Robert & Susan Brueggemeier 6810 Vineyard Haven Loop 6814 Vineyard Haven Loop 6335 Memorial Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Joseph & Edith Tomei Brian White Current Resident 6336 Memorial Drive 6339 Cragie Hill Ct 6344 Cragie Hill Ct Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Resident Irma Khouw Current Resident 7858 Tullymore Drive 8139 Grafton End 8187 Avery Road Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43017 Current Resident Michael & Melisa Myers Donald & Rosalia Deperro 8195 Avery Road 6449 Green Stone Loop 6448 Green Stone Loop Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 M®rrento 'ura ati n x dana Erik & Amy Onifer Daniel 8PAAAicyb4 tudldy 8793 Sorrento Ct 8785 8� Ct Qt Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Jose and Trang Fojas Jeff Oleski Grizzell Middle School 8782 Sorrento Ct 7013 Post Preserve Blvd c/o Principal Corinne Evans Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 8705 Avery Road Dublin, OH 43017 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 8875 Vineyard Haven Drive 8871 Vineyard Haven Drive 8867 Vineyard Haven Drive Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 8863 Vineyard Haven Drive 8859 Vineyard Haven Drive 8847 Vineyard Haven Drive Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 8843 Vineyard Haven Drive 8839 Vineyard Haven Drive 8835 Vineyard Haven Drive Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 8831 Vineyard Haven Drive 8827 Vineyard Haven Drive 8823 Vineyard Haven Drive Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin Jerome High School Current Resident Current Resident c/o Principal Cathy Sankey 6782 Vineyard Haven Loop 6778 Vineyard Haven Loop 8300 Hyland -Croy Rd Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Belvedere Homeowners Assoc Savona Condominium Celtic Estates Kip Rosier, President at Tartan West 8079 Alimoore Green 7115 Calabria Place bl Calabria Place Du Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Tartan West Park Place /Post Preserve HOA Shannon Glen HOA Steve Simonetti, President Marian Vordermark, President David Allen, Trustee 7115 Calabria Place 6834 Stillhouse Lane 6466 Ringsend Court Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Muirfield Association, Ina Muirfield Village Civic Assoc Current Resident Jeff Stucke, President PO Box 381 6786 Vineyard Haven Loop 5610 Loch More Court West Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43017 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 6797 Vineyard Haven Loop 6781 Vineyard Haven Loop 6782 Vineyard Haven Loop Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Current Resident Current Resident Kevin & Shelley Walter Wi67,*I-tVuRygrdairwAbnnbnop 670&htifirfiaMddaven Loop 6289 Ross Bend 5Fhd)II1a1-t9MQaO1kTNorth OMiViW.4ta4d(Ikven Loop Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43016 .'_ Current Resident r _iffetA nesidetA 6:77' Vine °fa 14a- en Loop 6810 Vineyard Haven Loop 6006 Vine afd HaA -e. T eop Publin nu 4 -4016 Du m, OH 43016 r 4n nu 43016 Current Resident Current Resident 6773 Vineyard Haven Loop 6769 Vineyard Haven Loop 9974 Vine afd 14a.ve. Loop Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 P44n, 014 43016 Current Resident 6:774 Vine afd 14 en T eop 6770 Vineyard Haven Loop 6'766 V inn afd 14 en T eop Dublin nu 43016 Dublin, m, OH 43016 Dublin nu 43016 Current Resident 665 Vine afd 14 en T eop 6761 Vineyard Haven Loop 6:75:7 Vine °fa 14 en T eop Dublin nu 43016 Dublin, m, OH 43016 Dublin nu 43016 Current Resident Current Resident 6753 Vineyard Haven Loop 6745 Vineyard Haven Loop Dublin, OH 43016 �' 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Current Resident Current Resident 6740 Nlitie�afd Haven Ineep 6732 Vineyard Haven Loop 6728 Vineyard Haven Loop Dublin, 014 T3016 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Current Resident Current Resident 6729 Vineyard Haven Loop 6714 Vineyard Haven Loop 6713 Nlifle�flfd Haven 1788P Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, 014 z3016 Michael Bickley Clifford Ursich Lisa Judson 5839 Moray Court Flexible Pavements of Ohio 8018 Summerhouse Drive West Dublin, OH 43017 6205 Emerald Parkway Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43016 Kristina Ledford 6329 Cragie Hill Court Dublin, OH 43017 Jesse Oddi, Jr. 3118 Adena Point Ct Columbus, OH 43221 Roland Kohlman 8622 Davington Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Brett Bohl 5735 Whitecraigs Court Dublin, OH 43017 Claudia D. Husak From: Tim Albright <tim @columbusequipment.com> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 5:12 PM To: Claudia D. Husak Subject: Riviera Develpment To Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission- My name is Tim Albright. I live at 8145 Timble Falls Drive (Belevedere Subdivision) with my wife, Cara Albright and 4 children. I have been at most of the public meetings but have chosen not to contact you because I believed our subdivision should have one voice and that for the most part was Kevin Walters (friends of Dublin). Although I agree with the most of the revisions from the initial plan, I do have concerns that will uniquely impact our family and the home owners who currently live on Timble Falls Drive. I will try to briefly highlight my concerns as it relates specifically to Timble Falls Drive. 1) Safety concerns because of Increased traffic specifically from high school students. a. Like basic principles of electricity, High School students will find the path of least resistance when driving to school. Since Avery /Brand Road is so congested to southbound traffic on Avery Road, it can add an extra 10 —15 minutes to drive to Jerome High School. Students have figured out a path through Belvedere can reduce that to about 3 minutes. The same experience can be predicted if the current version of the Riviera development is approved. EVERY high school student from Riviera's 185 homes on their way to Jerome will access Belvedere to get there and I would guess a bunch of them will choose Timble Falls Drive because there are no stop signs. 2) Effect of Quality of Life a. A mature Tree line extends along the entire boarder of Belvedere and Riviera. A natural and beautiful buffer from the golf course. Can Dublin or the Developer guarantee that these trees will be saved during development? 3) Property Value a. Lot sizes on in the proposed plan along Timble Falls Dr. are much smaller than those existing Timble Falls lots in Belevedere . About 30% smaller from what I have calculated (lot 164 —169). 1 had hoped that these would be estate style lots. Obviously, these are not that, but I would think these lots should be same size or larger. My concern is that these homes will be smaller, or homes will be too close together and negatively impact our home values. Best Regards, Tim Albright Claudia D. Husak From: Gary P. Gunderman Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 3:09 PM To: Claudia D. Husak Subject: FW: Contact Planning [ #78] Name Neal Wood Email * nhwoodii@vahoo.com Subject * Ruma Riviera Request Comments * Commissioners -- Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the meeting this evening. My wife and I urge that Mr. Ruma's revisions to the Riviera development plan be turned back to him. He has failed to comply with or include many, many of the requests of the Commission at its last meeting (including his back - tracking on agreements at that meeting). His actions clearly demonstrate that all aspects of the development need to be clearly delineated prior to any P &Z approval. His promises to clarify or act later seem to be hollow. Thank you for your diligence and consideration. 1 Claudia D. Husak From Bob Fathman a rtathmanibcolumbus . rcmm> Sent: WedneSday,Apn108,201512'. 41 AM TO Claudia b. Jack, Stem Langwomy Cc: Cherie Sure, Jeff Brown, Greg Cullog, Dana L McDaniel Su Biel Riviera Concerns Group response to the latest Riviera Application to P & Z Xi V u ?a lial aaWim remmFJ sM1m, tid sari m.marar it i 41 u uirfieldvlllasemi To Claudia Husak, Steve Langworthy, and please forward to P &Z Members Cc Charlie Buma, Jeff Brown, Greg Chillog, Dana McDaniel Bee Members of the Rviea Concerns Group From Bob Fathman, Char, Civic Action Committee, MICA Our Coait on of nine community civic associatlons met once again tonight, and we are sending you what we will be presenting as our continued concerns about Mr. Buma'a proposal, which he was land enough to send me Fnday evening. I imagine we missed the disthlomon to P At ZMembers witls their packets this week so we would appreciate it if you could please forward His e-mail to them to give He Commissioners a chance to look at our concerns purr to the meeting Thursday. Overall we have to say that we were disappointed in He revision, as so many things did not change Garble Falls was straightened as staff requested and pictures were included but most other items requested by P At Z did not get done. Here are items that the Planning and Zoning Commissioners and/or staff had requested things that did not get accomplished 1. There was d ear direction from Commissioners that asphalt drives not be all owed only concrete and paver stones, yet the text is unchanged Asphalt needs to be deleted and specifically prohibited 2. Commi ssi oners wanted welling of trees. Mr. Buma agreed verbally, but that agrvent ent needs to be documented in He text 3. The pictures are ni ce but there i s no text that defines the features G splayed in He photos, features that need to be mandated of the builders by adding wording to He text 4. Commissioners agreed with us that Here should be hardsaping or fencing to delineate pathways to open are so that adjacent homeoners not encroach d so that residents feel welcome to access these areas w an That needs to be specify ed in text Claudia D. Husak From: KLOS <klos @mac.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 4:23 PM To: Steve Langworthy; Gary P. Gunderman; Tammy J. Noble - Flading; Jenny M. Rauch; Claudia D. Husak; Rachel S. Ray; Devayani Puranik; Joanne L. Shelly; Marie K. Downie Subject: P &Z Commission Meeting - Riviera Attachments: My Point of View.pdf; ATT00001.htm; Riviera.jpg; ATT00002.htm [I will not be able to attend tomorrow night's meeting. I would ask that my letters at least be submitted for review.] To the Members of The Planning and Zoning Commission: As a Dublin resident who is probably MOST affected by your decision tonight, I can only ask that you hear me out. And if I'm not the most affected, I would say I'm in the top 2 or 3. So, if my comments come off as a bit snarky ... or bitter ... I'm OK with that. Because I am. With all due respect to the "Friends of Dublin" and the "Friends of Muirfield," I'm quite sure if this meeting's agenda was on the sale and parceling of The Country Club at Muirfield, this building would not be large enough to hold the number of people who would be attending. Because there would be a lot of people and I would hazard to guess the topic of conversation would not be centered on the traffic on Avery Road! That would affect hundreds of Dublin residents. This, however, only focuses on 16 homes. SIXTEEN. Sixteen Dublin residents who purchased land that backs up to Riviera. For the same reason that residents built their homes on The Country Club of Muirfield. All I'm asking is that they give some consideration (please) to those sixteen homes. Some kind of buffer zone ... anything. Please review the attached PDF. Thank you again for your consideration, Bill and Becky Klosterman 6801 Vineyard Haven Loop Dublin, OH 43016 614.504.2203 MY POINT OF VIEW INSTEAD OF SEEING THIS... IF THIS WERE YOUR VIEW... WOULDN'T YOU BE SICKABOUT IT? YOU SAW THIS? [ACTUAL VIEW -FROM CURRENT RUMA SUBDIVISION (BORDERING RIVIERA)] ORIGINAL PROPOSAL CURRENT PROPOSAL IMPACTED EVERY HOME STILL IMPACTS EVERY HOME THAT BORDERS RIVIERA THAT BORDERS RIVIERA CURRENT PROPOSAL OFFERS GREEN SPACE OR PARK SETTING TO NEARLY 60V OF HIS NEW DEVELOPMENT Friends of Dubin Report I Case 1+0068Z/PDP I Riviera Thursday, Mardi 26, 20151 Page 1 of 26 Title: Friends of Dublin Analysis Report — Riviera Development Case Number: 14- 0068Z /PDP Report Author: Friends of Dublin Summary: In response to the application for redevelopment of the Riviera Golf Club, a community group consisting of 9 homeowners associations, organizations or community groups formed. The steering committee represented the following entities: • Muirfield Village Civic Association • The Savona Condominiums at Savona Village • Belvedere HOA • Brandon HOA • Tartan West HOA • Celtic Estates • Wellington Place HOA • Park Place /Post Preserve HOA • Friends of Dublin Organization The group, along with individuals from across Dublin have come together specifically to address community concerns regarding the development of the Riviera Golf Club. Support for the organization was surveyed in the summer of 2014 and the geographic distribution of the group's support is widespread throughout the City of Dublin and is represented in the chart below: Q o 1 .e o 0 o• 0 e �P s y 1 n Rd ht oW o „m. eID — Folu In response to the overwhelming community concern connected to this Friends of Dublin Report I Case 14- 0068Z /PDP I Riviera Thursday, March 26, 20151 Page 2 of 26 proposal, the Friends of Dublin has compiled an alternative analysis and report to those provided by both City staff and the developer. The report evaluates the Riviera development proposal against the sixteen criteria that will be used by Planning and Zoning as articulated in Dublin City Code. Questions: Questions regarding the information contained in this report should be addressed to Kevin Walter, kevin(cbwalter4dublin.com Friends of Dublin Report I Case 14- 0068Z /PDP I Riviera Thursday, March 26, 20151 Page 3 of 26 Table of Contents Quality and Character (Principles 1, 6, 7, and 9) .................................. ............................... 4 Density.......................................................................................... ............................... 4 RuralCharacter .............................................................................. ............................... 4 Traffic............................................................................................. .............................10 StreetDesign .................................................................................. .............................12 Qualityof Place ............................................................................... .............................13 Connectivity (Principles 2, 8 and 10) .................................................... .............................14 Integration (Principles 3, 4 and 5) ........................................................ .............................14 Sustainability................................................................................... .............................14 Analysis.............................................................................................. .............................17 Recommendation................................................................................. .............................21 Friends of Dublin Report I Case 14- 0068Z /PDP I Riviera Thursday, March 26, 20151 Page 4 of 26 From the outset, we would stipulate and agree with the Developer's right to develop the Riviera property under the existing zoning and subdivision regulations as defined in Dublin City Code section 152. We would support and advocate for this right. However, the developer is requesting a change in the current zoning classification from Rl to Planned Unit Development (PUD). This document represents our opinion in response to that planned change in zoning. The Land Use Principles were included in the Community Plan to serve as a basis for evaluation of future development proposals and to set common design objectives and directions for land use policy in Dublin. The ten Principles are grouped and summarized below. Quality and Character (Principles 1, 6, 7, and 9) High quality design for all uses, recognizing density has important economic implications, but is essentially an outcome not a determinant of creating a quality place; preserving the rural character of certain area of the community, including the appearance of roads, as well as the landscape; developing streets that create an attractive public realm and make exceptional places for people; and creating streets that contribute to the character of the community and move a more reasonable level of traffic. Density The proposal calls for a density of 1.22 dwelling units /acre. The proposal attempts to compare the density of the application to surrounding densities, most specifically Muirfield. During the public Planning and Zoning meeting held on Thursday, March 13, 2014, Ms. Husak stated that Muirfield density was approximately 1.27 du /acre. Several Commission members, including Mrs. Kramb, Mr. Fishman, Mr. Taylor and Ms. Amrose- Groomes all expressed that they would hold the applicant to a standard of density that was at or below the Muirfield Density. The current application at 1.22 du /acre meets the bar set by Murifield. Rural Character In Objective 13 of the Land Use Strategies in the current Community Plan, City Council spells out the concept of Conservation Design. In this Objective, the Plan attempts to strike a "clear balance between economic potential and development character' in Northwest Dublin. Specifically, the Objective calls out Resolution 27 -04 as passed by City Council in 2004. "In 2003 and 2004, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolutions 48 -03 and 27 -04 (Amended), which endorses the utilization of residential conservation design in outlying areas as a means to encourage greater open space provision and alternative land planning techniques." Resolution 27 -04 describes, in detail, the elements of Conservation Design and where it should be applied. In part, the resolution says that Conservation Design sites should be: 1. In the northwest section of the City 2. On the outskirts of the City 3. With proximity to Glacier Ridge Metro Park Friends of Dublin Report I Case 14- 0068Z /PDP I Riviera Thursday, March 26, 20151 Page 5 of 26 Further, Resolution 27 -04 specifically describes how a developer is to preserve and protect the natural characteristics of a development. This includes a 50% open space requirement and for the remaining 50% of the development, 75% of those lots should be directly adjacent to the open space. The resolution shows in words and in pictures how roads should weave through natural features and how lots should be laid out in order to maximize the use of open space. Riviera is: 1. In the northwest section of the City 2. On the outskirts of the City (within 1,000 ft. of the City Limits) 3. With proximity to Glacier Ridge Metro Park (within 1,100 ft. of the Metro Park) As evidenced by the graphics below contained in the Community Plan Mid -range growth scenario, the Riviera Property has been designated as a Conservation Design Zone. Modeled to nd use Cate0des COnservA.s SUbdMaon(1.5usro /ac) M gmldeMial MuM -Tyre A(4unds /ac) PesideMal MA Type B 16 units/ad) PnldeWal MuM -Tyye 0(10 unis /ac) D Mind Use NCQlbaftod Center Mixed UseV01age Center Mlaed USeiown C., arse, Ught lndusblal CrAc /InsObMonal OpeaSpm /Pads PlanningArea 0 3 Mlles Friends of Dublin Report I Cape 140051 1 RNttrs Thursdep March 26,, 20151 Pace 6 of 26 These two graphics are evidence of City Council's desire to implement Conservation Design standards on the Riviera property. Dublin City Council passed resolution 27-04 affirming Conservator Design as a desired development pattern for areas Nor di and West in Hie city and specifically spells out criteria Hiat need be in place for a development to contain characteristics of Conservator Design. The resolution reads, in part ..... WHEREAS, the City of Dublin encourages creatve site planning and design flexibility to establish interesting and aesthetically pleasing residential environments, and housing should be provided inthemost livable and design senshve mannerpossible and WHEREAS, quality of life and sense ofplace are important economic assets to retain existing businesses and attract new economic development within the Qty of Dublin, and WHEREAS, procedures for Planned Development District, are intended to provide vacations from typical development standards and conventionid subdivision design in order to create higher quality developments to enhance the Qty of Dublin, and WHEREAS, Planned Development District proposals must recognize that esidential development is an important facet in the overall development and livability of the City of Dublin, and each proposal must function both within the confines of its own boundanes and within the context of the announcing area and Friends of Dublin Report I Case 14- 0068Z /PDP I Riviera Thursday, March 26, 20151 Page 7 of 26 WHEREAS, the decisions in the Dublin Community Plan were based in large part on the measurable impacts of development, and WHEREAS, the Community Plan recommends the protection and preservation of rural character in outlying areas in the northwest and elsewhere, and WHEREAS, the Community Plan recommends the preservation of natural features and open space, and WHEREAS, the Community Plan designates areas for lower - density residential development along the River Corridor and in outlying areas, and WHEREAS, the Community Plan encourages amassing a large Metro Park to create a greenbelt and a definitive City "edge" to avoid a mass of continuous development, and WHEREAS, the Community Plan recommends revising Dublin's ordinances to facilitate the preservation of rural character, and WHEREAS, the Community Plan recommends the use of cluster residential development adjacent to the Metro Park to preserve open space and rural character, and WHEREAS, the Community Plan includes a Land Use Map based on the "preferred scenario" from computer modeling of the impacts of development, and WHEREAS, many residential subdivisions have been developed in the City of Dublin that exhibit similar layout characteristics, with similar appearance, and provide similar housing stock, and WHEREAS, continuing this development pattern will create a repetitious environment for the City as a whole and limit the housing choices of the residents, and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin desires to broaden the housing choices available to its residents, and remains committed to high quality in all housing options to serve existing and future residents, and WHEREAS, the community desires to avoid repetition and to create a diverse and dynamic environment as the City continues to develop, and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin desires to preserve natural features of the land, the open vistas, and open space in general whenever possible, and WHEREAS, conservation design practices are based on the natural resources of the land being developed and provide for preservation of substantial open space, and WHEREAS, conservation design practices should be employed to further both the open space and housing goals of the City of Dublin, and WHEREAS, the Dublin City Council and its Planning and Zoning Commission have indicated support for such practices on a continuing basis, Friends of Dublin Report I Case 14- 0068Z /PDP I Riviera Thursday, March 26, 20151 Page 8 of 26 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Dublin, of the elected members concurring, that: Section 1. New development shall provide a variety of housing styles and designs and preserve open space and natural features. New development proposals need to conform to the density ranges and impact recommendations in the adopted Community Plan based on a gross density calculation for the development. The upper limits of the density ranges should be considered only where public facilities support it, where important natural features are being preserved, and where not inconsistent with existing or future, neighboring land uses. The City will require all new residential proposals where a planned development district is requested to provide a layout based on conservation design practices, indicating at least fifty percent open space for evaluation. Section 2. Sites with woods, streams, river frontage, steep slopes, and other natural features or which otherwise provide significant open space will be considered as prime candidates for employing conservation design techniques. Additionally, conservation design techniques should be incorporated wherever possible for development sites located along the River Corridor, at the outskirts of the municipality or with proximity to the Glacier Ridge Metro Park. Section 3. Conservation layouts being submitted for evaluation should be based upon and adhere to design criteria for conservation design that calls for the clustering of available density onto smaller, grouped, individual building areas. Conservation layout should generally adhere to the following principles: • All conservation design projects should strive for at least 50 percent open space areas. • All conservation design projects should strive to have at least 75 percent of the dwelling units directly adjacent to open space areas. Dwelling units should be clustered in patterns that preserve sizeable open spaces and still disperse the dwelling units to permit a high percentage to be directly adjacent to the open space. • All conservation design projects should attempt to provide large setbacks from existing streets, especially designated scenic roads, and to create a separate area identity surrounded with open areas specifically preserved in the development of these projects. • Wherever possible the street system should have a curvilinear pattern that will minimize traffic speed, support the housing development pattern, and protect natural features. • Historic sites and their cultural landscapes may be included as part of the required preservation area. Cultural landscapes required to preserve an historic site's integrity shall be maintained. We believe that this application is subject to Resolution 27 -04 and as such, should meet both the spirit and letter of the Resolution. Applicability and Enforceability of Resolutions Resolutions are, in fact, "legislative actions" taken by Dublin City Council. (DCOA sec. 4.01). Further sec 4.O1b states that "Council shall use a resolution, where practicable, for any legislation of a temporary, informal or ceremonial nature ". The question comes to what is the definition of "temporary"? Dublin City Code is silent on the definition of temporary. Some Friends of Dublin Report I Case 14- 0068Z /PDP I Riviera Thursday, March 26, 20151 Page 9 of 26 communities (ex: Avon Lake, OH) pass all zoning legislation through Resolution. Ohio Code is also silent on the definition of temporary. Thus we must turn to the US Supreme Court. On April 23, 2002, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Tahoe - Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,' a case involving the question whether a temporary building moratorium that prevents all economically beneficial uses of property during its effective period amounts to a taking of private property requiring just compensation. While the Riviera development plan is in no way considered a taking, this case does deal with the meaning of "temporary" with respect to zoning regulations. In 1981, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency passed a "temporary" moratorium on development activities. Temporary was considered not - permanent but did not have any defined end date. The case revolved around what the economic impact of that "temporary" moratorium was. Temporary can be defined as that which is to last for a limited time only, as distinguished from that which is perpetual, or indefinite, in its duration. So, as temporary legislation, a resolution remains in place until a permanent ordinance is enacted to replace or supersede it. Or, a resolution might be time boxed by the resolution itself. Given that Resolution 27 -04 is not time boxed and the fact that it is codified by its inclusion in the most current Community Plan update in Ordinance 54 -13, it is clear that Resolution 27 -04 remains in effect; We believe that in this most recent version of the plan, the applicant has substantially met the burden required by Resolution 27 -04. Friends of Dublin Report I Case 14 -0068Z /PDP I Riviera Thursday, March 26, 20151 Page 10 of 26 * * ** Please note — the applicant has not submitted any revised traffic studies for the newly revised plat. * * * * ** Information as of the previous application The traffic study summary produced by the applicant contains several errors or omissions. The applicant has used Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Code 210. The applicant has provided a traffic study that depicts AM peak and PM peak trip generation. A detailed review of the study reveals that the applicant summary has severely understated the traffic impact of this development Square Land We Feel ITE Time ITE Total Trips Tripe or Units Code Period Formula Trips Entering Exiting Single Family - Detached 248 210 ADT Lr(T(= 0.921n(x) +2.72 2,422 1,211 1,211 units AM Peak T= 0.70(x( +9.74 183 46 137 PM Peak LnM= 0.90Ln(x) +0.51 238 150 88 On page 93 of the September 24,2014 study, the report concludes that the development will generate 2,422 trips per day. Additionally, the report indicates that the AM peakfor trips exiting the development is 137 trips while the PM peak for trips entering the development is 150 trips. The AM and PM trip count, while in line with Land Use Code 210 estimates do not match anticipated conditions. The development will include 247 properties. One could reasonably expect that especially in the AM, given multiple cars owned by families, that the traffic count would be equal to or greater than the actual number of dwellings. This underestimation of traffic volumes is further supported by the applicants own traffic study. Please note AM Peak is defined as: 7:OOAM — 9:OOAM. In the diagram below (2024 AM Peak Hour — Full Build) from page 15 of the traffic study, the traffic counts anticipated from the new development making movements that would indicate potential trips to Dublin Jerome High School will total 38 trips. Friends of Drib in Retort I Zane 14M68Z/PDP I Riviera Thursday, March M, 20151 Page 11 of M As noted in the diagram above, ambient traffic from the existing Belvedere subdivision of 154 homes generates 113 night turns from Abbie Glenn Blvd onto Brand Rd heading towards Dublin Jerome High School at the southern exit of the subdivision. It is not reasonable to assume that a subdivision of 154 homes generates 113 trips while a subdivision of 247 homes will only generate 38 trips. Using data provided by the Dublin City Schools, which estimate that there will be 1.24 students /home, we can expect this development to generate 306 students, of which they estimate 25% to be of high school age. Therefore one can assume there will be 76 high school students in the Riviera development. A traffic study that anticipates only 38 movements with any potential of reaching the high school fails to consider the immediate surroundings and how those surroundings would impact the trip generation data. According to a US Department of Transportation report entitled: Development and Application of Trip Generation Rates - Final Report, local factors (collected through in person interviews) can significantly impact trip generation rates. Further the specific impact on trip generation rates of "High Value" residential units shows a significant statistical different over "Low" or "Medium Value" residential units and should be taken into account when using ITE Trip standards. This traffic reports makes no consideration for local factors nor home value in calculating AM and PM peak trips and thus should be viewed with some discretion. Further the Department of Transportation indicates that Trip Generation models should be used to help determine a development's share of needed infrastructure improvements. This application does not account for any improvements that may be required of surrounding intersections. Specifically, the traffic study estimates that 2,422 new trips generated daily. At the concept plan meeting, The Friends of Dublin presented traffic estimates of 2,044 new trips generated from the site. Adding those trips to existing traffic counts as provided by the City of Dublin at the Avery/Brand Rd intersection of 10,320 trips per day, we could easily expect to Friends of Dubin Report I Case 14 -0068Z/PDP I Riviera Thursday, Mach 26, 20151 Pace 12 of 26 realize upwards of 12,300 trips through the intersection. The cost associated with supporting the safe and predictable movement of this 19% increase in traffic at the Avery /Brand intersection should be considered in the impact analysis of this rezoning. Revised Friends of Dublin Traffic Estimates Based upon the revised plat, the Friends of Dublin estimate that the 185 homes in this version will generate 1,332 new trips daily. This is down significantly from the previous estimate of 2,422. Without a more detailed traffic study, we cannot draw further conclusions. However, we do believe that the applicant should still be required to pay into a fund for future enhancements to the Avery Rd /Brand Rd intersection. Street Design The proposed development does meet the Land Use Principles with respect to street design through the application of Conservation Design principles. In Chapter Two: Character and Environment of the Dublin Community Plan, Dublin espouses a desire to "Implement Conservation Design... in appropriate locations and adopt planning practices and regulations that will result in high quality, more compact and varied housing. Conservation development patterns can preserve substantial open space, creating regional greenway networks and providing significant views from designated roads." Resolution 27 -04 specifically illustrates the nature of street layouts that should be used to enhance the public access and enjoyment of open spacewhen contained within a Conservation Design District. As an example, Figure A.2.1 contained within Resolution 27 -04 below demonstrates a typical approach to open space design and street layout. This is very reminiscent of the current Riviera application. I i A.2.1 — Conventional subdivision layout with mix of large single - family lots and typical frontage open space and individual park spaces. Conversely, figure A.2.2 below depicts Council's goal of providing better access and enjoyment Friends of Dubin Report I Case 14 -0068Z/PDP I Riviera Thursday, Mach 26, 20151 Pace 13 of 26 of open space contained within a Conservation Design District. A.2.2 — Conservation Design Layout including a range of single - family lot sizes and cluster homes with a continuous open space system linked with pedestrian connectivity. The current application has met the intent of Quality and Character components of the Land Use Principles. We would like to see the street design better accommodate the ultimate development of the 15 acre subdivided parcel directly to the west of this parcel. We would recommend the potential intersection at lot 185 be replaced with a neighborhood -sized roundabout and would call for the elimination of lot 185. This would accomplish two objectives: 1) Creating more access to the view -shed facing the Indian Run Creek and 2) creating a safer traffic pattern for cars, bikes and pedestrians navigating the future connection point. Quality of Place The current application does not guarantee a quality of place as established by surrounding developments. Developments at Muirfield, Belvedere, Corazon, Tartan Ridge, and Oak Park all have significant development texts that accompany their applications. The development text for Riviera is scant in comparison and simply defers most details to Dublin City Code. The entire concept behind granting a Planned Unit District instead of straight zoning is to trade increased density allowances for a higher standard of development. The development texts makes comments such as "Dublin Residential Appearance Code will be adhered to" when discussing Architectural Elements (section XI E of the Development Standards). By contrast, the Tartan Ridge Development Standards passed by Dublin City Council on March 19, 2007 indicate that they will also follow the Dublin Residential Appearance Code, but further spell out an Architectural Review Committee as well as six separate and distinct Architectural Styles and included a pattern book describing each style in detail. The Quality of Place that will be established by Riviera is not to the standard established by the surrounding community. While we do not expect the same development text as Tartan Ridge, the level of specificity of the Tartan Ridge development text assures that future developers understand not only the letter of the text, but the intent behind it. Especially given that fact that multiple home builders will be engaged at Riviera, it is crucial that the architectural standards of the development text Rinds of Dubin Report I Case 14 -0068Z/PDP I Riviera Thursday, Mach 26, 20151 Pace 14 of 26 approach the same level of specificity as the text of Tartan Ridge. We would expect the developer to have at least three major community themes to account for integration with the Belvedere subdivision, the Tartan West subdivision and the relatively non - contiguous section in the eastern portion of the plat. Connectivity (Principles 2, 8 and 10) Creating places to live that have a stronger pedestrian environment, connections to convenient services, and are conducive to multi- generab "onalliving and social interaction,' creating better connected places, in part to improve the function of the street network and also to better serve neighborhoods, and providing opportumb "es to walk and bike throughout the community. * * ** Please note — the applicant has not submitted any revised traffic studies for the newly revisedp /at, * * * * ** The current application fails to meet the Connectivity Principle of improving the function of the street network and to also better serve neighborhoods. While this application does provide for neighborhood connectivity, it does so at great cost. Again, one only needs to look at the traffic study to see examples of unusual anomalies in the conclusions drawn by the study. As an example, in all scenarios listed, the number of cars that would make a movement from the Avery Rd. exit of the site onto Memorial Dr. is exactly zero. It simply is not reasonable to assume that there will be no traffic impact to Memorial Drive from a 240 home subdivision located immediately north of Memorial Drive. Integration (Principles 3, 4 and 5) Creating places with integrated uses that are distinctive, sustainable and contribute to increasing the City's overall vitality, providing some retail services in closer proximity to residential area as an important amenity to residents; and creating a wider range of housing choices in the community, as well as in new neighborhoods. Sustainability As discussed above, the Riviera development proposal does meet the specific criteria spelled out for Conservation Design standards as articulate by Dublin City Council in Resolution 27 -04. Specifically, the application does meet the following standards described in the Resolution: Friends of Dublin Report I Case 14- 0068Z /PDP I Riviera Thursday, March 26, 20151 Page 15 of 26 Section 1. New development shall provide a variety of housing styles and designs and preserve open space and natural features. The development does sufficiently provide a variety of housing styles. The application considers only traditional single family detached homes. While the application fails to consider, smaller multi - family units or condominiums, the use of patio homes to cluster development in the northwest of the development is admirable. The premise of conservation design is that the City will offer higher overall density in certain parts of the development in exchange for a conservation of the natural features and elements of the property. The City will require all new residential proposals where a planned development district is requested to provide a layout based on conservation design practices, indicating at least fifty percent open space for evaluation. The application calls for approximately 76 acres or approximately 50% open space. This is as required under Resolution 27 -04. Section 2. Sites with woods, streams, river frontage, steep slopes, and other natural features or which otherwise provide significant open space will be considered as prime candidates for employing conservation design techniques. Additionally, conservation design techniques should be incorporated wherever possible for development sites located along the River Corridor, at the outskirts of the municipality or with proximity to the Glacier Ridge Metro Park. As discussed earlier, the site is called out specifically as a candidate for Conservation Design in two different graphics within the current Community Plan. Further, the site would qualify for Conservation Design based upon the principles extolled above. The site contains streams, ponds, natural vistas is on the outskirts of the municipality (977ft from Jerome Township) and maintains proximity to the Glacier Ridge Metro Park (1062ft at its nearest point). Section 3. Conservation layouts being submitted for evaluation should be based upon and adhere to design criteria for conservation design that calls for the clustering of available density onto smaller, grouped, individual building areas. Conservation layout should generally adhere to the following principles: • All conservation design projects should strive for at least 50 percent open space areas. As mentioned above, the application meets the 50% Open Space threshold. • All conservation design projects should strive to have at least 75 percent of the dwelling units directly adjacent to open space areas. Dwelling units should be clustered in patterns that preserve sizeable open spaces and still disperse the dwelling units to permit a high percentage to be directly adjacent to the open space. In the current configuration the application meets the 75% threshold with 174 lots or 94% meeting this requirement. 172 lots are directly adjacent while 2 are across a public street. Dublin Code does not directly define "directly adjacent' but infers the meaning that a parcel must abut open space to be considered directly adjacent. Friends N Dublin Reach I Case 14 036FA of I nmaa Twsday, Mardi 26, 20151 Pace 15 of 26 Section 153.02 0) OPEN SPACE TYPE FRONTAGE. The orientation of aloe pre, baddingfasade or block face directly adjacentto an open space Mr, wid, no interval ports or private street. To meet the 75% criteria, the application would need to have at least 139 lots adjacent to Open Space. The application meets Hie most stringent definition of "directly adjacent'. (g SCC11ON L ` l . Adfzaeot � ,<°s � GlreNyAdaoent )°- r ...• IF ov • s .. SECTION1 NOT IN •� V ' ZONING �.,, a ,� _ SECTION y • All conservation design projects should attempt to provide large setbacks from existing streets, especially designated scenic roads, and to create a separate area identity surrounded with opm areas specifically preserved in the development oppress projects The application attempts to integrate the Riviera development into the existing built environment. The application proposes lots that complement the surrounding developments with lot lines that are directly adjacent to existing developments without creating a "separate area identity surrounded with open areas'. A naturalized buffer area surrounding the entire property could meet this requirement. • Wherever possible the street system should have a curvilinear pattern that will minimize traffic speed, support the housing development pattern, and protect natural features. This application has protected every pond on the parcel and most of the most prominent bees on the parcel as well. While it is concerning that a number of the largest trees are in the westernmost portion of the site (outside of the control of this application), the appliant has made substantial accommodations to preserve the trees on the site. SIS Process Friends of Dublin Report I Case 14- 0068Z /PDP I Riviera Thursday, March 26, 20151 Page 17 of 26 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 Dublin Zoning Code 2) Conformance with Criterion met adopted Plans Friends of Dublin Report I Case 14- 0068Z /PDP I Riviera Thursday, March 26, 20151 Page 18 of 26 3) Advancement of Criterion met with conditions: general welfare and orderly development There are major concerns regarding this development and its impact on the surrounding roadway systems without major improvements. Given the anticipated overall traffic counts, the intersection of Avery Rd and Brand Rd will likely need improved. The application does not account for any contribution by the developer to the cost of those intersection improvements. Further, cut through traffic continues to be a very large concern for residents of surrounding neighborhoods. Traffic coming and going to Dublin Jerome High School overwhelms the Avery Rd /Brand Rd intersection causing vehicles to seek alternatives routes through Belvedere. Given the reduced number of lots in the subdivision, we do believe that the connection point to Belvedere at the eastern edge development between lots 25 and 26 should be eliminated, allowing these lots to be enlarged. A walking path should be maintained between the lots. However, this will discourage traffic from leaving Avery Rd, travelling through Riviera, through Belvedere and to Brand Rd. While maintaining the Timble Falls connection, it is significantly less likely that traffic will abandon Avery Rd for Timble Falls or the current cut - through route of Belvedere Green. The Friends of Dublin strongly requests that the City of Dublin accelerate plans to improve the Avery Rd /Brand Rd intersection which will eliminate all cut through traffic. Friends of Dublin Report I Case 14- 0068Z /PDP I Riviera Thursday, March 26, 20151 Page 19 of 26 Analysis Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan 4) Effects on adjacent Criterion met with conditions: The elimination and subdivision of the 15 uses acres to the west of this property is positive. However, the Friends of Dublin maintains that the ultimate disposition of that land should ensure that an east -west connector to Hyland Croy is built to better service that parcel, especially if it should develop for an institutional use. In order to accommodate that connection, we believe that a neighborhood sized roundabout should be added at the potential intersection with Timble Falls, near lot 185. A roundabout will better facilitate turns at the intersection during peak hours for institutional uses including special events. We believe that this will require the reworking of lots 136, 137 and the elimination of lot 185. Lot 185 should be eliminated to not only facilitate the roundabout, but also to open the view shed to the Indian Run creek for vehicles and pedestrians utilizing the connector road. 5) Adequacy of open Criterion met space for residential development 6) Protection of Criterion met with conditions: As mentioned above in #4, we believe natural features and that lot 185 should be eliminated in order to preserve the view shed to the resources Indian Run creek. 7) Adequate Criterion met with conditions: We believe a neighborhood sized infrastructure roundabout be built at the future connection point of Timble Falls and an East -West connector located approximately at lot 185. 8) Traffic and Criterion met pedestrian safety 9) Coordination & I Criterion met with conditions: integration of building Ne would like to see a landscape plan that incorporates hardscape features & site relationships (fencing, walls, stones, etc) that adequately define walk paths to common paces and private property. We look to encourage the public use of open paces and not the casual integration of the pathways to open spaces into neighboring yards. dditionally, we would like to see connection maintained to the walking paths on the western portion of the parcel. 10) Development layout and intensity 11) Storm water management 12) Community benefit 13) Design and appearance 14) Development phasing 15) Adequacy of public services 16) Infrastructure contributions Friends of Dublin Report I Case 14- 0068Z /PDP I Riviera Thursday, March 26, 20151 Page 20 of 26 riterion met with conditions: In several areas, lot sizes should be icreased to better integrate with the surrounding neighborhoods and to nsure that houses can be properly situated on the lot. We recommend the limination of 2 lots from 170 through 176 and spreading the remaining lots cross the same area. Further, we recommend the elimination of 1 lot from 51 through 163 and spreading the remaining lots across the same area. inally, we recommend the elimination of 1 lot from 164 through 169 and preading the remaining lots across the same area. met: met: 3n not met: The proposed text permits vinyl or other PVC s as exterior building materials and the Commission has sly stated that vinyl is not a building material that exemplifies as a high quality community. Vinyl should not be permitted as a material. e criterion stresses the importance of meeting or exceeding the quality of lding designs in the surrounding area. The most recent and applicable ✓elopment text due to the age and size of the development would be the ✓elopment text submitted for Tartan Ridge. This development text is nprehensive including detailed architectural design criterion and standards. e development text includes sample elevations, examples of structural ments, diagrams depicting the intent of the language contained in the text well as a strong diversity in housing types and architectural styles. current application fails to meet or exceed the quality of the building jns of this nearby development. ACriterion met Criterion met a riterion met with conditions: The applicant should be required to pay into a fund to support the improvements at Avery Rd /Brand Rd. Recommendation Approval with conditions Friends of Dublin Report I Case 14- 0068Z /PDP I Riviera Thursday, March 26, 20151 Page 21 of 26 with Preliminary Development Plan —1pe recommend approval with the conditions stated below: J 1) Elimination of lot 185 2) Elimination of the connection to Belvedere at Tantalus Dr. 3) Elimination of 2 lots between lots 170 and 176 4) Elimination of 1 lot between lots 151 and 163 5) Elimination of 1 lot between lots 164 and 169 6) Construction of a neighborhood -sized roundabout at lot 185 7) Hardscape delimitation of access paths to common open space 8) Continued walk path connection to western section of the parcel 9) Substantial additional specificity to the Architectural Standards of the Development Text 6234 Balmoral Dr. Dublin, OH 43017 November 28, 2014 Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission 5800 Shier Rings Rd. Dublin, OH 43017 Chris Amorose Groomes, Chair Victoria Newell, Vice Chair Richard Taylor Amy Kramb John Hardt Todd Zimmerman Amy Salay, Council Member We attended the November 13th hearing on the proposed Riviera development and are writing this letter to express our appreciation for your careful review and assessment of the re- zoning request and proposed development plan. The proceedings were conducted in a fair and organized fashion. It was apparent that the members of the Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed and analyzed the proposal in great detail, even to the extent of Chris Groomes' mapping the mature trees onto the proposed plat to show their location with respect to the proposed housing. Amy Salay's historical perspective on Dublin Council's resolution 24 -07 brought to light the intent of the council in maintaining this area as a green space and the definition of Conservation Design contained therein. Mr. Taylor identified the lack of architectural detail in the plans. We were quite dismayed, however, that the city planning staff did not appear to present a balanced, thorough analysis and recommendation to the P &Z commission. We believe it was their job to call out the inadequacies in the proposal such as: lack of architectural detail, importance and location of mature trees, and errors /concerns with the traffic analysis. More importantly, the staffs view that Resolution 24 -07 was just a guideline versus a requirement and ignoring its requirement for 50 percent open space was a major disappointment. Instead, it was up to you, the P &Z commission members to do the detailed review. That the planning staff presented such a different view on these key issues than the P &Z commission members is difficult to understand. We commend you for your in -depth review of this proposal and urge you to reject development of the Riviera Golf Club. We recall that in the March 13, 2014 P &Z Commission meeting on this proposal that the developer, Mr. Ruma, mentioned that he would consider selling the property to the city. We encourage the P &Z commission, staff, and the Dublin City Council to identify and examine other potential uses for this parcel which would be in keeping with Resolution 24 -07 to keep this as a green space. Sincerely, Joseph Mercer & Roseann Mercer Claudia D. Husak From: MLewis8305 @aol.com Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 8:24 AM To: Claudia D. Husak Subject: Planning and Zoning Tonight Claudia, I'm concerned by the email's that have been received by the Dublin Community in the past few weeks Evite invitations should be reserved for baby shower's, surprise birthday parties, and neighborhood cocktail get together's. Personally I'm appalled, by the use of this email device to try to bring out citizens for civil unrest in regards to Riviera Golf Course. This leads me to believe that the folks trying to organize against the project are not interested so much in community involvement to improve the City of Dublin, as much as to create a circus atmosphere around what, should be a presentation of the pros and cons, presented to the committee. I'm worried that we are going to end up on the 11:00 o'clock news looking like a bunch of spoiled teenagers, hoping to create enough of a ruckus to get elected to homecoming court. The instigators in this, seem to have an agenda unrelated to the matter at hand, and I hate to see the city's reputation, pay for their hysterics. They do us all a disservice by the show of disrespect, that they show those that disagree. I hope that at tonight's Planning and Zoning meeting the discussion can be based on the facts of the situation. The plan seems to have been very well vetted between the city and the developer, and after reading the proposal, I'm in favor of moving ahead with the development. Thank you, Mary Lewis Claudia D. Husak From: Bob Gellenbeck <rsgellenbeck @aep.com> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 10:47 AM To: Claudia D. Husak; Marsha I. Grigsby; John Reiner; Mike Keenan; Amy Salay; Tim Lecklider; Rick Gerber; Greg S. Peterson; Marilee Zuercher Subject: Riviera Golf Club Property Development I am writing to you again to state my opposition to developer Charlie Ruma's proposal to erect 238 homes on the Riviera Golf Club property, on Avery Rd. This is only slightly less than he originally wanted, and does not at all appear to be in sync with the P & Z members' statements that they want this development to be less dense than the best area adjacent to it. This will add over 300 school kids to our already crowded school buildings, and the property taxes generated come nowhere close to covering those costs, causing an unfunded expense of about $2 million per year for the Dublin schools that we Dublin school tax payers will ultimately have to make up! As a long time Dublin resident whose property backs up to Glick Road, I am extremely concerned about the increase in traffic that this development will cause with the additional homes and their families. This could add as many as 750 more cars and trucks to the already overcrowded Avery and Glick roads, decreasing my and all property values along Avery and Glick roads and increasing the risk to property and the safety of my fellow Dublin residents in the area. In addition, as a once long time member of Riviera Golf Club, I am very much aware of the many large historic trees, streams, ponds and wildlife that make up the "green space" on the Riviera Golf Club property, that will be lost to our community because of this development. I agree and support the coalition of 9 subdivisions that have been working together to express our concerns and oppose this development to P & Z Members and Dublin City Council. In my opinion, there are more negative impacts to our community because of this development, than positive ones. I urge each of the P &Z members to NOT APPROVE Charlie Ruma's proposal and further I urge each of you to oppose any future proposals that eliminates this much needed "Green Space" from our community. Sincerely, Bob Gellenbeck 6320 Tanera More Court Dublin, Ohio Claudia D. Husak From: Anne C. Clarke Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 2:51 PM To: Claudia D. Husak Cc: Kyle M. Kridler; Michelle L. Crandall; Jennifer L. Delgado Subject: FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #462] From: Contact Council [mailto:no- reply @wufoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 2:50 PM To: Anne C. Clarke; Judy K. Beal; Jennifer L. Delgado Subject: Contact Dublin City Council [ #462] Name * Paula Thompson Email * thomosonoaulac@amail.com Phone (614)325 -0377 Number Subject * Please block development of the Riviera Country Club land Comments * Dear Council Members, As a resident of the Brandon subdivision, I do not live in close proximity to Riviera, but I do care what happens to the land. Due to a scheduling conflict, I will be unable to attend the council meeting this evening. Thus, I am taking a few minutes to write to share my opinion. Placing a development on the Riviera land would represent a departure from the Community Plan for the land and a loss to the City of Dublin and her residents. My husband grew up in the footprint of the Dublin Schools (he attended Deer Run, Sells, and Coffman back in the days when there were only one middle and high school). I grew up in the suburbs of Cleveland, but as a family we have called Dublin home for almost ten years now. Dublin has many wonderful attributes (the schools, the people, etc.), but one of the things that I (and I would guess many others) love about Dublin is the city's green spaces and the city's efforts to be environmentally aware and responsible. There is no shortage of single family homes in the Dublin area, but a piece of land like that upon which the Riviera 1 Country Club sits is a rare gem. If you are able to stand in the way of this development, please do so. In one hundred years (or ten years, for that matter), one may look back on a decision to repurpose the Riviera Country Club land as a public golf course or community garden (or similar use) as a forward thinking, family friendly, and environmentally responsible move. Such a parcel of land will stand out as an amenity unique to and typical of Dublin. Another housing development, on the other hand, will certainly result in decreased green space, increased traffic (the Brand /Avery intersection is already dangerous), and potential overcrowding in schools. Thank you for your service to the community, Paula Thompson 7700 Haverhill Ct. Dublin I would Mayor Michael Keenan (At- Large) like my Vice Mayor Richard Gerber (At-Large) message Greg Peterson (Ward 1) to be Marilee Chinnici - Zuercher (At- Large) sent to the following Council Members. N Claudia D. Husak From: mggarage @columbus.rr.com Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:06 AM To: Claudia D. Husak; Marsha I. Grigsby; John Reiner; Mike Keenan; Amy Salay; Tim Lecklider; Rick Gerber; Greg S. Peterson; Marilee Zuercher Subject: Riviera Development Plan Over 200 Dublin residents attended the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on the preliminary development plan for Riviera Golf Club this past spring. Individuals unanimously voiced their opposition to this development citing, among other items: Annual costs to the city above projected tax revenues; Increased traffic on Avery Road, as well as through the surrounding communities when school is in session; Additional burden on Dublin schools; Housing density greater than the surrounding developments; Development was not in accordance with the city development plan to retain this area as a green space. The Planning and Zoning Commission at that meeting also voiced concerns that the density was too high - the aim for new developments should be less density than the surrounding developments, citing Muirfield as a maximum. At that meeting, we were also informed that the Dublin school board had not agreed to provide land for a western access to Hyland Croy Road. We are deeply concerned upon learning that the City Planning staff is recommending that Planning and Zoning Commissioners approve this new subdivision. The revised plan for the Riviera development still has density higher than the Planning and Zoning Commission members requested in the spring meeting; is not in agreement with the city development plan for this area to remain a green space; will still lead to increased traffic on the existing roads. As nearby residents, we dread the additional difficulty accessing Avery Road at morning and evening rush hours, particularly when school is in session. [And no, I don't believe a future roundabout at Brand and Avery will alleviate this last concern about access to Avery as there would no longer be stop signs to throttle or slow the traffic down.] We are also concerned that the latest revisions to the development plan appear to reflect some sort of deal that has been made outside of this public planning process to provide Dublin with land for a new school in return for a western access to Hyland Croy. For the above reasons, we request that the Planning and Zoning commission as well as the Dublin City Council listen to the residents of Dublin and reject this development and seek other alternatives to retain this land as green space in accordance with the city development plan. Joseph & Roseann Mercer 6234 Balmoral Dr., Dublin, OH Claudia D. Husak From: Neal H. Wood, II <nhwoodii @yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:07 AM To: Claudia D. Husak; Marsha I. Grigsby; John Reiner; Mike Keenan; Amy Salay; Tim Lecklider; Rick Gerber; Greg S. Peterson; Marilee Zuercher Cc: Robert Fathman Subject: Riviera Club Site Plan Hearing Commission Members — I recommend that the Ruma / Davidson - Phillips development proposal for the Riviera Club site should not be approved at this time. My review yesterday and this morning of the current state of the proposal suggests that numerous proposed responsibilities of the developers have yet to be flushed -out and monetarily quantified. The developers' direct wherewithal to fund these commitments, and /or acquire bonding to cover default risk, has yet to be fully disclosed. Until the referenced studies are completed and the developers' assured ability to meet these financial and execution commitments are fully understood, the developers' proposal should be tabled or denied. Respectfully, Neal Wooc19377 Culross Court Dublin Claudia D. Husak From: Gary P. Gunderman Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 8:51 AM To: Claudia D. Husak; Steve Langworthy Subject: FW: Contact Planning [ #65] Looks like info only Gary P. Gunderman Planning Manager City of Dublin Ohio Phone 614 - 410 -4682 E -Mail oounderman(cbdublin.oh.us From: Planning [mailto:no- reply @wufoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 10:08 PM To: Gary P. Gunderman Subject: Contact Planning [ #65] Name * Amy Onifer Email * eoamv@aol.com Phone (614) 354 -4274 Number Subject Negative impact of proposed Riveria Devolpment * Comments * I am deeply saddened to read the proposed rezoning and development plan for the Riveria area. Being a homeowner in the Tartan West neighborhood this will directly impact my family. When we purchased this lot we were told that even if that land was sold it was designated green space. just a short time later, we are hearing that not only may this area be turned into a residential site but that it may connect through our neighborhood. The thought of additional traffic, noise, crowding of schools and other nuisances is really bothersome. I urge you to strongly consider all of the negatives and really think if this is really in the best interest of the Dublin community. Thank you, 1 Amy Onifer 8793 Sorrento Court Dublin. Ohio 43016 Claudia D. Husak From: Dick /Diana Evans <dievans2002 @yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 5:41 PM To: Claudia D. Husak; Marilee Zuercher; John Reiner; Greg S. Peterson; Tim Lecklider; Mike Keenan; Amy Salay; Marsha I. Grigsby Subject: Riviera Golf Club Housing Please do not consider allowing the density of houses in the area currently called Riviera Golf Club, that the developer is proposing. The schools are crowded, the proposed homes are close together, and the green space not adequate. The City of Dublin will have to put in walking /bike paths or sidewalks, traffic signals and how will it effect our water pressure? Will it require another water tank? Dublin is trying to grow to the East lets put the emphasis on that and downtown Dublin. Diana Evans Claudia D. Husak From: Jeremiah Gebhart <jeremiahgebhart @yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 12:13 PM To: Claudia D. Husak; Marsha I. Grigsby; John Reiner; Mike Keenan; Amy Salay; Tim Lecklider; Rick Gerber; Greg S. Peterson; Marilee Zuercher Cc: Jessica Gebhart; cac @muirfeldvillage.org Subject: Please take a moment to read my Protest to New divelopment in Dublin To All Those Concerned, Do not approve more multiple home developments in Dublin. Home owners are aging and moving out creating sustainable room for new area residents. Land sold to individuals who want to build a home for their families is justifiable, a developer acting as a planner for a community is all together wrong for Dublin. Building up Dublin with multiple new homes, all within a small time period, ensures the need for large tax increases. Many homeowners are on fixed incomes and others are young blossoming families that are already stressed from steadily increasing prices. The developer has proven he is not willing to work with the people who live here currently, he has not adjusted the number of homes downward to reflect 15 fewer acres deducted from the project; but has significantly shrunk the lot sizes. This is example of a developer attempting to sell multiple undersized lots during a housing price upswing. Look to Gahanna and Blacklick area schools and roads, these areas are struggling to support the influx of so many so quickly at the expense of the workers (supporting their families) and children (attending those schools). Those areas were over developed too quickly by developers that didn't care beyond building and selling as many homes in an as small a space as possible. The communities left behind after the builders left are now charged with attempting to best fix now impassable roads during most hours of the day and develop their children for the future in an already overburdened school system. There are just so many problems with this plan. There is no language in the plan, no agreement recorded, and no deeds have been transferred to ensure the developer is giving the schools 15 acres of land, behind the Jerome football stadium, for a future replacement of Deer Run Elementary. It is not in keeping with either the Community Plan which shows this as green space forever, nor with the "principals of conservation design for new subdivisions" that had previously been enacted by our Council. Many landmark trees will be cut down. Trees 30 years and over are the only trees that make a measurable affect on the oxygen in the air, developers cut down and replace our community trees with trees that will not affect our air cleanliness until thirty years after planting. The coalition is very concerned about overcrowding of already jammed schools, possible redistricting, probable increased taxes to educate the over 300 new students produced by these homes, more traffic clogging Avery at Brand, Muirfield, Post and Perimeter Drives as well as Glick and Memorial. To read the submitted documents, go to this website: http: / /dublinohiousa.Qov /pzc/ 14 -068/ 1 "Who benefits from this plan besides the developer? How is this good for Dublin ?" Do we allow over development to risk ruining the human ecosystem that is unique to our area? Does adding many new homes into a green area increase the health of our families who already pay to live here? V/R Jeremiah Gebhart 5590 Carnoustie Circle Dublin Ohio (614)493 -7853 N Claudia D. Husak From: Bob Clawson < bobclawsonl @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 10:45 AM To: Claudia D. Husak; Marsha I. Grigsby; John Reiner; Mike Keenan; Amy Salay; Tim Lecklider; Rick Gerber; Greg S. Peterson; Marilee Zuercher Subject: Riveria Property I am writing you in regards to the proposed use of the property currently known as the Riveria Country Club. A few years back I represented the seller of the property at 8050 Avery Road, right down the street from the Country Club. Several of you were there and made a decision on this property. The Buyers proposal was to build patio homes on this property since there are really none for residents of Muirfield and the area to step down into. We had done surveys and this was something the community really liked. It was voted DOWN because of 2 reasons, one was the increased traffic and the density was just over the allowed density. Now we have the Riveria proposal and it will bring way more traffic and a higher density. It also serves no real purpose for the community. The community has spoken again and is against this development. The last time you went against the Communities wishes and I certainly hope you do not do it again. As a Realtor it would be a good thing for me to sell some more houses, but as a Dublin Resident this could not be a worse idea. The schools are already overcrowded and there are already so many housing developments that are not even close to being completed. There will be too many new houses and not enough infrastructure. This development will take many years to be completed. Also the Ruma's have proven they really don't care what you tell them about the trees and surrounding areas they will do whatever they please. Look at what they have done with the Wellington project. It has been a whole bunch of misrepresentations and telling you what you want to hear and then changing to do what they choose. Please turn this development down since it is bad for the city as a whole and also why can you decide this is acceptable when nobody but the developer wants it when before you denied the 8050 Avery road project when the community really wanted it. I still have at least 10 people who would love a patio home in Dublin that still does not exist! Sincerely, Bob Clawson Realty Experts Your Home Consultant For Life 614- 595 -1144 bobclawsonl CEDema i I.com www.bobclawson.com Claudia D. Husak From: Jerry Merrell <merre1100 @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 8:30 AM To: Claudia D. Husak; Marsha I. Grigsby; John Reiner; Mike Keenan; Amy Salay; Tim Lecklider; Rick Gerber; Greg S. Peterson; Marilee Zuercher Subject: Riviera Golf Club PLEASE! do not approve this 240 lot subdivision, it will play havoc on Avery road. Also, as I understand the proposal the the increased costs to our schools is not close to being neutral, meaning the rest of the community must pick up the tab. WHY? Thank you for your consideration. Jerry & Frances Merrell 8742 Craigston Court Dublin, Ohio 43017 Claudia D. Husak From: Anne C. Clarke Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 10:11 AM To: Claudia D. Husak Subject: FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #458] From: Contact Council [mailto:no- reply @wufoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 10:03 AM To: Anne C. Clarke; Judy K. Beal; Jennifer L. Delgado Subject: Contact Dublin City Council [ #458] Name * Steve McElroy Email * ohmcelrov@vahoo.com Phone (614)886 -9395 Number Subject * Riviera Development Comments * I'm concerned that we have lost site of the City Plan for Development. I have looked at all of the information objectively several times, and this does not make sense to me. This has been a topic of conversation with a lot of people that I run into around town, and in board meetings and community events. As a citizen, a small business owner located in Dublin, a father of children who go to school here, President of my Home Owners Assoc. here in Dublin, and an active member of a church here in Dublin. I ask "Why ?" This is so far from what the citizens want that they are all wondering if we have the right leaders. People ask me if there is some sort of back channel deal going on? Is there money exchanging hands some how? The schools are so full in that section of town that our Superintendent is concerned, and has had several webinars and put out memos about it. The only way to truly fix this problem is another levy, and most people that I know will not vote for another Levi. Please do not let this developer get wealthier at the expense of your citizenslll Lets do this right - lets hold our ground - lets make this a special neighborhood. Not a crowded, small lot, run of the mill development. 1 I would All City Council Members like my Mayor Michael Keenan (At- Large) message Vice Mayor Richard Gerber (At-Large) to be Greg Peterson (Ward 1) sent to Tim Lecklider (Ward 4) the Amy Salay (Ward 2) following Marilee Chinnici - Zuercher (At- Large) Council John Reiner (Ward 3) Members. Claudia D. Husak From: Tom Gosiorowski <goscorp @columbus.rr.com> Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2014 11:28 AM To: Claudia D. Husak Subject: Fw: BETTER ALTERNATIVE FOR RIVIERA To Dublin P &Z Committee via C Husak, The revised Ruma plan is still not desirable. Dublin needs more green space not more high density developments. The Riv property is one of our last chances to continuing to be "Definitely Dublin ". There is another developer /investor interested in converting part of Riv to approx. 100 single story patio homes for over age 55 owners and a 12 hole city owned golf course /greenspace. Such a redevelopment of Riv would be in line with all parties best interests except Ruma's. • no additional public school age residents would reside • conservation of 2/3's of existing the golf course that would be owned by Dublin and leased out like DGC recently was + compliance with existing zoning + "Definitely Dublin" firsts - +An Over 55 private residence community and +an inviting 12 hole golf course where players could play a round in 2 -3 hours. This alternative plan is worth looking at and considering before a decision is made. Let's move in a better direction . How do we get started ? Tom Gosiorowski 8846 Locherbie Ct Dublin, OH Claudia D. Husak From: Marsha I. Grigsby Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 4:10 PM To: Anne C. Clarke; Claudia D. Husak; Michelle L. Crandall; Kyle M. Kridler; Jennifer L. Delgado Subject: FW: Proposed Riviera Golf Club Development FYI From: Inez Paglieri [mailto :ipaglieri @aci- industries.com] Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 3:25 PM To: Marsha I. Grigsby Subject: Proposed Riviera Golf Club Development Marcia Grigsby, Dublin City Manager: I am writing this letter as the current resident and property owner of 8000 Avery Road, Dublin, Ohio. I would like you to know that I am very much opposed to the proposed development of the Riviera Golf Club property by developer, Charlie Ruma, on Avery Road. From my understanding this area was meant to be a green space forever, according to the Community Plan and I also feel that this proposed development does not follow the "principals of conservation design for new subdivisions" that had previously been enacted by Council. The thought of the removal of so many beautiful mature trees which would be necessary to construct the homes, is terribly disheartening. In looking at the diagram of the proposal, it seems to me that crowding over 240 homes on these small lots will make this new proposed neighborhood extremely congested. The additional traffic produced by over 240 new families on Avery Road will be horrendous. The current traffic on Avery Road near our home is very busy already. Many days, at various times of the day, it is nearly impossible to exit our driveway onto Avery Road due to the heavy volume of traffic as it is now. Adding this many new residents to the development with one of the main access roads being Avery Road, will make this stretch of Avery Road even more congested and dangerous. Our schools in this area are already full to capacity. Adding this as many as 300 new students to these schools will most likely cause an increase to our already high taxes. It opens up the possibility of redistricting as well, which most residents will be opposed to. I cannot see how this proposed development will enrich the lives, offer any benefit or enhance the property values for the existing residents of this area. Please do not approve this development. Sincerely, Inez H. Paglieri 8000 Avery Road Dublin, Ohio 43017 Claudia D. Husak From: Roland Kolman <rhkolman @aol.com> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 4:18 PM To: Claudia D. Husak; Marsha I. Grigsby; John Reiner; Mike Keenan; Amy Salay; Tim Lecklider; Rick Gerber; Greg S. Peterson; Marilee Zuercher Subject: Planning and Zoning Regarding the Riviera Golf Property Dublin City Council Members and Planning and Zoning Members It is understandable that our city's Planning and Zoning Commission wants to actively "plan and zone." Such activity signals to Dublin residents their Commission is diligently doing their job, making our city a better place to live. However, sometimes the Commission's best work is not approving certain plans /projects- -those that take away from our city's "livability" and create long -term problems and expenses. Such is the situation with the Riviera Golf Club rezoning. The many, many problems that will be created if the developer gets his way have been thoughtfully explained in the last several months. Dublin residents are overwhelmingly against another "me, too" housing project - -there are too many other forward - looking uses of the land which can continue to make Dublin a wonderful place to live and work - -and, importantly, the Planning and Zoning Commission can and should be the leader in planning and developing those projects Dublin wants and needs on the Riviera property. Yours sincerely, Roland H. Kolman 8622 Davington Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Claudia D. Husak From: Joan Burgess <jburgess @aci - industries.com> on behalf of Ralph Paglieri <rfpagl ieri @aci -i nd ustries.co m> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 6:54 PM To: Claudia D. Husak Subject: Opposition to Riviera Gold Club Development To the Dublin Planning and Zoning members (via Claudia Husak): As the property owner and current resident of 8000 Avery Road, Dublin, Ohio, I am sending this email to let you know that I strongly oppose the proposed development of the Riviera Golf Club property by developer, Charlie Ruma, on Avery Road. I oppose this for the same reasons as many other residents. The extra traffic will be unbearable on Avery Road. As it is now, there are many days that I wait up to 10 minutes for a break in traffic to leave my own driveway during rush hour. Adding this many new residents to the development with one of the main access roads being Avery Road, will make this stretch of Avery Road more dangerous and extremely congested. The development itself appears to be overly congested with over 240 homes on small lots. I understand that this will increase the number of students to as many as 300. Our schools in this area are already full to capacity. Adding this many new students to these schools all at one time will most likely cause an increase to our already high taxes. Lastly, I believe this land should remain a green space forever, as it was intended to be. I also object to the removal of the many mature trees which would be necessary to construct the homes. This development does not appear to offer any benefits or advantages to the existing residents of this area. Please do not approve this development. Sincerely, Ralph F. Paglieri 8000 Avery Road Dublin, Ohio 43017 FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #446] - Claudia D. Husak FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #446] Anne C. Clarke Tue 11/4/2014 2:30 PM To Claudia D. Husak <chusak @dublin.oh.us >; m: Contact Council [mailto:no - reply @wufoo.com] t: Monday, November 03, 2014 9:18 AM Anne C. Clarke; Judy K. Beal; Jennifer L. Delgado ject: Contact Dublin City Council [ #4461 Name * (Marilyn Economou Email * Phone Number ((614) 389 -5195 Subject * Riveira Country Club Development Page 1 of 1 Comments * Please vote against the proposed development of the above property. I live on Loch Maree Court and, therefore, need to drive he streets that would be affected by this development on a regular basis, particularly when driving to my grand childrens' schools. dding this many houses along Avery Road would be a real headache for such a narrow roadway, not to mention school over - rowding, etc. I would like my message to be sent to the All City Council Members following Council Members. * https :Houtlook.office365.com /owa/ 11/5/2014 FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #455] - Claudia D. Husak FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #455] Anne C. Clarke Tue 11/4/2014 2:55 PM To Claudia D. Husak <chusak @dublin.oh.us >; m: Contact Council [mailto:no - reply @wufoo.com] t: Monday, November 03, 2014 9:33 PM Anne C. Clarke; Judy K. Beal; Jennifer L. Delgado ject: Contact Dublin City Council [ #4551 Name * IEric Berschet Email * Subject * (Riviera CC development Comments * Page 1 of 1 As a long time Dublin resident of over 25 years, I believe that Dublin has done a great job of managing the overall development mix throughout the area. The one exception in my opinion would be the development of this golf course. My vote would be for it to be owned by Dublin and continue to be a great golf course. Not knowing the overall costs, etc., it would seem that the course, if managed properly, could at least break even and at some point be a revenue source back to the city. I believe the last thing Dublin needs is 200 more expensive homes crammed into a now open space. Living near the golf course, I believe the traffic issues and the needed road improvements are not something we need. Just my thoughts. I would like my message to be sent to the All City Council Members following Council Members. https :Houtlook.office365.com /owa/ 11/5/2014 FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #443] - Claudia D. Husak FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #443] Anne C. Clarke Tue 11/4/2014 2:29 PM To Claudia D. Husak <chusak @dublin.oh.us >; For your handling ... per Marsha. m: Contact Council [mailto:no - reply @wufoo.com] t: Monday, November 03, 2014 8:53 AM Anne C. Clarke; Judy K. Beal; Jennifer L. Delgado ject: Contact Dublin City Council [ #4431 Name* Email * ke Gunnarson Phone Number (614) 403 -3163 Subject * Comments * Rezoning Page 1 of 1 Even as a successful Realtor in the Dublin area and living on the Avery corridor, I oppose the Riviera rezoning to residential. We have had a great struggle with school redistricting over the past 2 decades and the School District has a wonderful plan and has worked out all of our issues. If this development is approved, it would change all of these plans and ultimately put another levy on the ballot to build a new school. There is plenty of development allotted for Dublin in the Jerome Village Community for the next 10 -1 S years. There is affordable housing nearby and Ruma's idea of affordable housing in the $500s is ridiculous. This area is zoned as green space and should be kept this way. Ruma will go in and clear cut the 156 acres only to fight with you to replant the trees he removed. Lesson learned from Wellington Reserve? Vote no for Charlie Ruma. I would like my message to be sent to the All City Council Members following Council Members. https :Houtlook.office365.com /owa/ 11/5/2014 FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #445] - Claudia D. Husak FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #445] Anne C. Clarke Tue 11/4/2014 2:29 PM To Claudia D. Husak <chusak @dublin.oh.us >; m: Contact Council [mailto:no - reply @wufoo.com] t: Monday, November 03, 2014 9:14 AM Anne C. Clarke; Judy K. Beal; Jennifer L. Delgado ject: Contact Dublin City Council [ #4451 Name* Email * Hiller Phone Number K216) 346 -2189 Subject * Comments Hello Council - Development Page 1 of 2 I'm writing to inquire why the Council enacts principles, but then doesn't maintain the principles is enacts, specifically in regards to the Riviera development. We love Dublin for so many reasons, one of which is the well planned aspects of the community and the strategy for development implemented by Council that make this a'special' place to live. So for us, and many I think, it's really a head - scratcher, that City Council It is not in keeping with either the Community Plan nor with the "principals of conservation design for new subdivisions" when it comes to Riviera. What makes this area of Dublin different or beyond the rules /standards you've set? I hope as a resident, City Council doesn't start going outside it's established standards as regular practice. We already pay significant taxes and we want to protect the city. If this continues, we'll start realizing that Dublin is not what it once was and the expense of living here will no longer be justified. https:Houtlook.office365.com/owa/ 11/5/2014 FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #445] - Claudia D. Husak Thanks for listening to a concerned resident. - -ken hiller I would like my message to be sent to the All City Council Members following Council Members. Page 2 of 2 https:Houtlook.office365.com/owa/ 11/5/2014 FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #449] - Claudia D. Husak FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #449] Anne C. Clarke Tue 11/4/2014 2:31 PM To Claudia D. Husak <chusak @dublin.oh.us >; m: Contact Council [mailto:no - reply @wufoo.com] t: Monday, November 03, 2014 9:44 AM Anne C. Clarke; Judy K. Beal; Jennifer L. Delgado ject: Contact Dublin City Council [ #4491 Name * IDiane Minns Email * Subject * Page 1 of 1 Comments * Hello. I am wondering what the average size of the homes? How many garages will most homes have? Will the homes have first floor masters? I am wondering if the development is meant for young families, or might be targeted for people with older children or empty nesters? I think we could use a neighborhood with single family homes that encourage people with older children to move ks I would like my message to be sent to the All City Council Members following Council Members. https :Houtlook.office365.com /owa/ 11/5/2014 FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #451] FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #451] Anne C. Clarke Tue 11/4/2014 2:31 PM To Claudia D. Husak <chusak @dublin.oh.us >; m: Contact Council [mailto:no - reply @wufoo.com] t: Monday, November 03, 2014 12:26 PM Anne C. Clarke; Judy K. Beal; Jennifer L. Delgado ject: Contact Dublin City Council [ #4511 Name * Scott Shanline Email * Subject * Riviera Development Page 1 of 1 Comments * e are against the too -dense development plan for up to 244 homes in the Riviera area. Don't we already have enough vercrowding in the Dublin schools, traffic problems, and ever- king real estate taxes? Please say NO to the developers and use is land for green space and /or a park. Thank you for considering opinions! - -Scott and Veronica Shanline I would like my message to be sent to the IAII City Council Members following Council Members. * https :Houtlook.office365.com /owa/ 11/5/2014 FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #450] - Claudia D. Husak FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #450] Anne C. Clarke Tue 11/4/2014 2:31 PM To Claudia D. Husak <chusak @dublin.oh.us >; m: Contact Council [mailto:no - reply @wufoo.com] t: Monday, November 03, 2014 10:03 AM Anne C. Clarke; Judy K. Beal; Jennifer L. Delgado ject: Contact Dublin City Council [ #4501 Name* Email * Michael Brothers Phone Number (614) 873 -7763 Subject * Comments * Zoning Page 1 of 1 I am absolutely against the proposed plan to re zone the parcel known as Riviera CC to allow for a housing development. I would see this as incredibly irresponsible and not in the best interests of residents of this part of Dublin. I also have issues with this development and the pressure it puts on the school district, traffic, which is already a problem at the 4 way stop at Brand and Avery where I live, and the amount of money it would take to build out proper infrastructure. I have been watching this issue closely and intend to hold responsible those zoning members and members of council that vote in favor of this project for the issues and problems that will surface if this is allowed to move forward. I would like my message to be sent to the IAII City Council Members following Council Members. * https :Houtlook.office365.com /owa/ 11/5/2014 FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #448] - Claudia D. Husak FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #448] Anne C. Clarke Tue 11/4/2014 2:30 PM To Claudia D. Husak <chusak @dublin.oh.us >; m: Contact Council [mailto:no - reply @wufoo.com] t: Monday, November 03, 2014 9:26 AM Anne C. Clarke; Judy K. Beal; Jennifer L. Delgado ject: Contact Dublin City Council [ #4481 Name* Email * Casey Phone Number (614) 761 -2449 Subject * Zoning Page 1 of 1 Comments * I've had the privilege of living and working in this remarkable city Imost twenty years and during that time many tough issues have ome before P &Z, the Dublin Schools as well as City Counsel. This 'Riviera' issue is no different and believe that you each will vote not only with your head, heart but also with the overwhelming majority that believe that the entire project is just wrong ... I respectfully request that you vote no to the plan(s) presented ks P Casey I would like my message to be sent to the All City Council Members following Council Members. https :Houtlook.office365.com /owa/ 11/5/2014 FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #447] - Claudia D. Husak FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #447] Anne C. Clarke Tue 11/4/2014 2:30 PM To Claudia D. Husak <chusak @dublin.oh.us >; m: Contact Council [mailto:no - reply @wufoo.com] t: Monday, November 03, 2014 9:25 AM Anne C. Clarke; Judy K. Beal; Jennifer L. Delgado ject: Contact Dublin City Council [ #4471 Name* Email * Cassidy Phone Number (614) 571 -5958 Subject * Development Page 1 of 1 Comments * I do not beleive that Ruma's plan is the best use of the riviera's land and it is not in Dublin's best interest. It would make a beautiful park for various recreation and sports as well as provide land for a future school campus. do not approve this plan. We do not need more houses I on top of each other. I would like my message to be sent to the All City Council Members following Council Members. https :Houtlook.office365.com /owa/ 11/5/2014 FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #444] - Claudia D. Husak FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #444] Anne C. Clarke Tue 11/4/2014 2:29 PM To Claudia D. Husak <chusak @dublin.oh.us >; For your handling ... per Marsha. m: Contact Council [mailto:no - reply @wufoo.com] t: Monday, November 03, 2014 8:53 AM Anne C. Clarke; Judy K. Beal; Jennifer L. Delgado ject: Contact Dublin City Council [ #4441 Name* Email * Izzo Phone Number (614) 339 -3080 Subject * Comments * Page 1 of 1 I don't understand why you would change the zoning for this parcel of land. There was a reason to limit the houses to 162 (my numbers may not be exact). To increase that in anyway is not keeping the community in mind. Personally, I think the city should buy it for the $2 million and make it a huge park. Why not! You could extend Memorial through to Hyland Croy and avoid some of the traffic at Brand /Avery where you refuse to put a circle in and avoid the cut - through of Corazon. Since I know you want the tax dollars from houses, I know this isn't an option. Therefore, looking at this parcel from a resident perspective, I would be very very upset if we get only 30 acres of green space instead of 50. 1 don't count the future deer run school land as a benefit to a resident. Vote wisely. I would like my message to be sent to the IAII City Council Members following Council Members. * https :Houtlook.office365.com /owa/ 11/5/2014 FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #452] - Claudia D. Husak FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #452] Anne C. Clarke Tue 11/4/2014 2:32 PM To Claudia D. Husak <chusak @dublin.oh.us >; m: Contact Council [mailto:no - reply @wufoo.com] t: Monday, November 03, 2014 12:40 PM Anne C. Clarke; Judy K. Beal; Jennifer L. Delgado ject: Contact Dublin City Council [ #4521 Name* Email * Wenger Phone Number 1(614) 504 -5362 Subject * Comments * Re- Zoning Page 1 of 2 I am a homeowner in Belvedere and would like to voice my objection to the current plans for rezoning and development of the land currently occupied by Riviera Country Club. The plan proposed by Mr. Ruma's group is clearly intended to maximize profit with no consideration for the effect on surrounding areas or the community as a whole. It is violation of the letter of the Dublin Community Plan and the spirit of conservation design required of new subdivisions. We just managed to get the students out of trailers at Deer Run, now we want to add a large number of new students to an already stressed school and district? Grizzell and Jerome would of course be similarly impacted. How does this development benefit the community of Dublin? A high - density /small -lot development devalues the surrounding homes and makes our city an overall less desirable place to live. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of such homes being rented (not occupied by owners) or sitting vacant in the Columbus metropolitan area, why should we add to that tally at the expense of our otherwise very desirable location? Simply put, I would not have purchased a home in Belvedere had I known it would soon become adjacent to a mega- subdivision, rather than the green space my wife and I found so appealing in this area. Don't un- Dublin Dublin) Please remember you represent the citizens of our community, not the interests of a developer with a https:Houtlook.office365.com/owa/ 11/5/2014 FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #452] - Claudia D. Husak Page 2 of 2 "buy first, zone later" mentality. The last thing our town needs is another subdivision, especially one with such a high - density, nature - unfriendly layout. I would like my message to be sent to the All City Council Members following Council Members. https:Houtlook.office365.com/owa/ 11/5/2014 FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #456] - Claudia D. Husak FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #456] Anne C. Clarke Tue 11/4/2014 2:34 PM To Claudia D. Husak <chusak @dublin.oh.us >; m: Contact Council [mailto:no - reply @wufoo.com] t: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 11:31 AM Anne C. Clarke; Judy K. Beal; Jennifer L. Delgado ject: Contact Dublin City Council [ #4561 Name* Email * d DeLong Phone Number 1(614) 733 -0545 Subject * Comments * Page 1 of 2 County Club Rezonging and proposed development I am a resident of Belvedere Subdivision. We built our home in 2003. The appeal of the neighborhood was the less traveled nature of the area surrounded by green space provided by Riviera CC. Whille it is still that somewhat, currently, Belevdere Green Blvd. has become a short cut for motorists and high school students to cut through the neighborhood to and from Jerome HS, speeding, causing a safetly hazard for motorists and neighborhood children, not stopping at the stop sign at the intersection of Bevedere Green Blvd and Summerhouse Drive. Our home sits at this intersection and we obsevre this every day. The police very infrequently are in the area to deter this behavior. The traffic on Avery road and the intersection of Avery Road and Brand is already a concern causing frequent congestion with the traffic from Avery Park and surrounding areas. Adding 250 or so more homes to an already crowed area -- for no apparent good reason other than a developer wants to build more homes would seem ill advised based on the master city plan. The proposed plans that I have seen would connect the development from Rivierea to a street in Belvedere so now that adds 250 or so more motorists to our neighborhood. More neighbors using our neighborhood as a shortcut. https:Houtlook.office365.com/owa/ 11/5/2014 FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #456] - Claudia D. Husak Page 2 of 2 There does not appear to be a lack of new housing in the Dublin area, with Jerome Village and other new development areas underway. Why would we want to give up precious mature green space and park like setting, for more homes that really aren't needed. The Riviera property is a gem in the green space and park setting it provides to the city. The Dublin City Schools have already stated schools in the area are already beyond capacity with plans in place to address current over crowding needs. Why then again would we intentionaly add to this burden by bringing 250 or so more families and school age children to this area? I respectfully ask council and the zoning committee to not approve the re- zoning request from this developer. I would like my message to be sent to the All City Council Members following Council Members. * • Mayor Michael Keenan (At- Large) • Vice Mayor Richard Gerber (At- Large) • Greg Peterson (Ward 1) • Tim Lecklider (Ward 4) • Amy Salay (Ward 2) • Marilee Chinnici - Zuercher (At- Large) • John Reiner (Ward 3) https:Houtlook.office365.com/owa/ 11/5/2014 FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #453] - Claudia D. Husak FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #453] Anne C. Clarke Tue 11/4/2014 2:33 PM To Claudia D. Husak <chusak @dublin.oh.us >; m: Contact Council [mailto:no - reply @wufoo.com] t: Monday, November 03, 2014 1:54 PM Anne C. Clarke; Judy K. Beal; Jennifer L. Delgado ject: Contact Dublin City Council [ #4531 Name* Email * Howell Phone Number 1(614) 873 -0889 Subject * Comments * Sub Division Plans Page 1 of 2 My family is concerned about the lack of planning by Virginia Homes developer, Charlie Ruma. His proposed development of the Riviera Golf Course into a sub - division of 240 homes should not be approved. It is obvious he has not considered the community when designing his plans. The amount of homes considered would have a certain negative impact on our existing school system, flow of traffic and current quality of life. Any new development should at a minimum mirror the lot sizes of the adjacent developments and have ample green space. Does Dublin need another housing development in an already congested area? Like our neighbors, we are concerned about the negative impact to existing home values in and around the proposed development. Is this really the best use of this land? Like many others we decided to build our dream house in Dublin. We like the numerous parks, walking paths and the spaciousness that comes from living in a well - planned community. If the plans for this development are approved, I can no longer say I am fortunate to live in Dublin. I would like my message to be sent to the All City Council Members following Council Members. * • Mayor Michael Keenan (At- Large) • Vice Mayor Richard Gerber (At- Large) https:Houtlook.office365.com/owa/ 11/5/2014 FW: Contact Dublin City Council [ #453] - Claudia D. Husak • Greg Peterson (Ward 1) • Tim Lecklider (Ward 4) • Amy Salay (Ward 2) • Marilee Chinnici - Zuercher (At- Large) • John Reiner (Ward 3) Page 2 of 2 https:Houtlook.office365.com/owa/ 11/5/2014 Anne C. Clarke From: Sent: To: Subject: Name * Todd Lacksonen Email * tacksonen @att.net Phone (614) 582 -3003 Number Subject * Riviera Comments * Good evening Contact Council <no- reply @wufoo.com> Monday, November 03, 2014 9:29 PM Anne C. Clarke; Judy K. Beal; Jennifer L. Delgado Contact Dublin City Council [ #454] I am writing to share with you my strong opposition to the proposed housing development at Riviera Golf Club. I have lived off of Glick Road for 15 years and the traffic has grown tremendously in part because of the Jerome Village and Tartan Fields developments and this would further exacerbate this. In addition I believe there needs to be this green space versus housing in order to keep the "nature" of Dublin and not have row after row of housing. To be honest if these homes were to be built we most likely would move. Please feel free to contact me. Kindest regards, Todd Lacksonen I would All City Council Members like my message to be 1 Claudia D. Husak From: jpartridge @nisource.com Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 2:00 PM To: Claudia D. Husak; Marsha I. Grigsby; John Reiner; Mike Keenan; Amy Salay; Tim Lecklider; Rick Gerber; Greg S. Peterson; Marilee Zuercher Subject: Please the Riviera Golf Course Housing Development plan We have been residents of Muirfield since 1989. We currently live on Pitlochry, off of Memorial Dr Thank you for all you do for our Community. Please continue to protect us by denying this over crowded development. What is the benefit of this to Dublin? Who benefits beyond the Developer? Thank You. Jack and Anne Partridge 8531 Pitlochry Ct Dublin, OH 43017 614 -561 -4363 1 Claudia D. Husak From: Jennifer MacDonald <mommymac6 @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 10:44 AM To: Claudia D. Husak; Marsha I. Grigsby; John Reiner; Mike Keenan; Amy Salay; Tim Lecklider; Rick Gerber; Greg S. Peterson; Marilee Zuercher Subject: Riveria Golf Course Development Plan Hello Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission, I would like to express my disagreement to the proposed development of the Riviera Golf course. When my husband and I chose Dublin when we moved here 5 years ago, one reason was for the wonderful, well - organized community plan of residential, business, and green space. Please do not consider the current proposal of the development of the Riviera. It is not the best plan for the citizens of Dublin and our tax money. Thank you, Jennifer MacDonald Claudia D. Husak From: Marsha I. Grigsby Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 11:40 AM To: Claudia D. Husak; Anne C. Clarke; Michelle L. Crandall; Kyle M. Kridler; Jennifer L. Delgado Subject: FW: riverlea FYI, this was sent to me only. From: Lori Sturm [mailto:lori @sturm.us.com] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 11:38 AM To: Marsha I. Grigsby Subject: riverlea As a resident in the area, very disappointed still that the city could not find a way to acquire the green space for future generations. The Bublin golf course would have even had a great use a city golf club. But if development is the only answer, please have a reasonable no of homes. We don't need more traffic and high density. Even with the bike lanes and the Shawnee Hills changes, still way too much traffic. And what about making this area of town more walkable with a library and coffee or small udf type market. Somehting useful that benefits the community. Please insist on more green and less density ar the very least! Lori Sturm 5511 Aryshire Ct. Dublin, OH 43017 Claudia D. Husak From: Barbara Kadunc <barbarakadunc @att.net> Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2014 7:26 AM To: Claudia D. Husak Subject: Green space /Riviera CC Please do not approve the 244 houses proposed for this land that should remain as green space. Is Dublin building a beautifully planned community OR fostering building houses that benefit only the developer? Barbara Kadunc Sent from myiPhone November 2, 2014 City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, OH 43016 To whom it may concern I am writing to ask that you REJECT a proposed re- zoning of 168 acres comprising the Riviera Golf Club property (e.g. 14- 068Z /PDP /PP) from its current R and R1 status to PUD (Planned Urban Development District) which would allow a developer to construct 240 residential houses on the property. I am strongly opposed to the re- zoning request and respectfully ask the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission to DENY the proposed request. My wife and I have lived in our home (in Muirfield Village) which is directly east (across Avery Road) of the current Riviera Golf Club driving range. One of the main reasons that we purchased our home 12 years ago was the view that we enjoy looking over Avery Road and across the Riviera Golf Course. Allowing residential homes to be built on the property would forever change the tranquil view that we enjoy and quite likely reduce the property value of our home as well as the other homes adjacent to the property. A reduction in home values would be expected to generate less property tax revenue, which would in turn have an adverse effect on services and amenities supported by property tax revenue in our city. In addition to the personal financial loss that we and adjacent homeowners would expect to incur, there are a number of others `costs' that should be considered with regard to a re- zoning petition. There is the added cost of educating the students who would live in the homes built on the property. Preliminary estimates suggest that property tax revenues from the new homes would be insufficient to cover the additional costs of educating the students who will live in those homes. Therefore, we can anticipate an unintended additional burden on the Dublin School District to reallocate funds, or increase taxes to cover the additional costs. Neither of these alternatives should be forced upon the Dublin Public Schools by a re- zoning decision, especially when such a decision does not meet the standard of serving the greater good of our community. From my perspective, it appears that the developer is the only entity who would be expected to benefit from a re- zoning decision. The residents, schools, and city infrastructure will be the ones to bear the financial burden as a result! In summary, I strongly urge the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission appropriately represent the interests and needs of Dublin residents, especially those of us who will be most directly impacted by the proposed re- zoning request. Although my preference would be for the property to remain a golf course, and possibly open to the general public ... at a minimum, the acreage should remain green space as designated in the Community Plan. If houses are allowed to be built on the property, it is highly unlikely that the area would ever be reverted back to green space. The option before the Dublin Planning and Zoning Committee is clear ... there is sufficient land area less than one mile further north and west of the existing Riviera Golf Club that could be used for residential development. It would not be in the best interest of the city of Dublin, Dublin Public Schools, or the home owners adjacent to the Riviera Golf Club property to re -zone the land and allow residential homes to be built. Therefore, I respectfully request that you and other members of the Planning and Zoning Committee muster the courage to make a decision that is BEST for Dublin ... and vote to REJECT the Riviera property re- zoning request! Thank you for your consideration, Robert I Birkenholz 6360 Cragie Hill Court Dublin, OH 43017 (614- 323 -9903) cell cc: Dublin City Council Robert Fathman Claudia D. Husak From: Andrew Graham a andreWignexusproductionnet, Sent: Saturday, November 01, 20141230 PM TO Claudia l. track 'Marsha I Grigsby, John Reiner, Mike Keenan, Amy Salay, Tim Leakiest Rick Gerbep Greg S. Peterson, Marilee Zuercher Su bjM: Opposition to Riviera GC Housing Plan I'm extremely disappointed I understand and can appreciate due process and the idea of giving Charlie Ruma his say on the matter, but I havent heard one advantage to building houses on this golf course land nor have I meta single individual or household that has shown support forthis building initiative Hard to believe its even gotten this far t One almost gets the impression that the Qty of Dublin is more concemed about the increased tax benefits to putting houses on this land than what the actual residents have to say on this matter. I do hope the City of Dublin does the RIGHT thing and opposes Charlie Rum as idea to overpopulate our beautiful city. ANDREW GRAHAM M78 DUadlnealon Drive STRATEGIC PARTNER Dublin, 0ho43017 T 614.8762132 M 614.5654104 wwwasuffireflayrriffilreflarrourni F 8882310560 andrew @nexusproduvtion.nel Claudia D. Husak From: Linda Hupp <la.hupp @gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 12:42 PM To: Marsha I. Grigsby; Claudia D. Husak; Amy Salay; Tim Lecklider; Rick Gerber; Greg S. Peterson Cc: jreiner @dulin.oh.us; mkeenen @dublin.oh.us; Marilee Zuercher Subject: Rivieria Golf Course Re- development. My husband & I oppose the redevelopment of Rivieria Golf Course by Charlie Ruman and his son, Charles. This will be very costly & very inconvenient for all residents of the City of Dublin. Linda Hupp Muirfield Village Resident Claudia D. Husak From: Alexandra Nielson- Joseph <znzpug @yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 12:54 PM To: Claudia D. Husak; Marsha I. Grigsby; John Reiner; Mike Keenan; Amy Salay; Tim Lecklider; Rick Gerber; Greg S. Peterson; Marilee Zuercher Subject: No To Current Riviera Development Proposal Dear City Council Members, As a resident of North West Dublin I am adamantly opposed to the current Riviera Development proposal. Eight years ago, I moved to Dublin because of it's non congested safe neighborhoods with ample green space and award winning schools with my young family. The present proposal has no infrastructure to support the addition of the population that these homes would bring. Over the past 18 months the increase of traffic due to the already growing home sites in Jerome Village, Tartan Ridge, Corazon, etc have adversely impacted the routes my family commutes through for work, school, and other family activities. Non the least concern is the impact to the present elementary, middle and high schools. When my son started kindergarten his class at Deer Run Elementary was an ideal, only seen in private school ratio of 18:1. Currently, class room sizes have increased close to 30 students per teacher. These ratios are unacceptable, it hyper extends the resources each school has for the students, is ripe for chaotic learning environments and does not promote trust that our children's academic needs are being met. When my property taxes help pay for 91% of the Dublin School budget and proposals such as these are considered it makes me question the representation I am receiving from elected members. I escaped California to bring up my children in an idyllic setting that Dublin offered. Not only do I live in Dublin but I own 2 businesses that pay taxes to the city of Dublin. I am not against growth. However, successful population of these areas must be maintained by proper urban planning and civil infrastructure of which none have been provided by the current Riviera Development proposal. I have voted positively on every levy increase to support and maintain the schools that my children have grown in. I need to know that my trust in you is well placed, and that Dublin as we know it is not becoming diluted. The reason people want to move into Dublin, are the same reasons that I had when I chose to move my family here. It is my understanding that this development is opposed by many and not supported by anyone. I hope that you hear us, the current residents and tax payers who are opposed and that you will represent us accordingly and thoughtfully. Thank you for your time, Alexandra Nielson- Joseph Muirfield Resident Rachel Rhodes 6475 Greenstone Loop Dublin, OH 43016 October 14, 2014 Chairman Chris Groomes Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, OH 43016 Dear Madam Chairman, My name is Rachel Rhodes and I am junior at Dublin Jerome High School. I am writing you concerning the proposed new subdivision to be built on the Riviera Golf Course. As a resident of the Belvedere subdivision and a Jerome High School student, the addition of the proposed two hundred and eighty four new homes would heavily impact me as a citizen and student. I imagine there are multiple considerations as you and the board entertain the developer's request to change the zoning from RI to PUD, which will allow considerably more homes to be built on the property. In fact, changing the zoning will result in housing density that is worse than the surrounding neighborhoods. First, the traffic around the Avery and Brand road area is already heavy. With the addition of two hundred and eighty four homes, the traffic will increase significantly. Does the city of Dublin initiate its own traffic studies to ensure the road system can handle the increased traffic? Second, it is unfortunate that the city of Dublin will be losing a beautiful piece of land. Progress is generally good, however, not at the cost of losing needed green space. Does the city of Dublin ensure that there is sufficient green space in the development and that we do not lose mature trees, ponds and streams? Lastly, I am concerned about school overcrowding. I have attended Deer Run Elementary, Grizzell Middle School, and I am currently enrolled at Jerome High School. All three schools are already beyond capacity. Additional students will impact the class size and the learning environment, and if we need to add on to the schools or build new schools, the citizens of Dublin will pay higher taxes. Does the city of Dublin take into consideration the impact on schools, class sizes and taxes? Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. Growing up in Dublin Ohio, I am interested in ensuring we carefully take into consideration the impact of growth on our community and schools. I appreciate your dedication and look forward to your response to my questions regarding the proposed development of the Riviera Golf Course. fAVA Rachel L. Rhodes 8819 Nairn Court Dublin, OH 43017 October 13, 2014 Ms. Claudia Husak Land Use and Long Range Planning City of Dublin 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, OH 43016 Ms. Husak: I am writing to you because I reside in the City of Dublin and would like to inquire about new developments in Muirfield Village. I am a resident of this neighborhood, and I have always respected the decisions of the City of Dublin regarding internal improvements and new property developments. However, I am interested in learning more about the motives for constructing Stansbury at Muirfield Village on the Buckner Farm property. I understand that you are the planning contact for this proposal, and I hope that you will be able to address my concerns. I am aware that this decision has already been passed. Despite the approval, it seems as though no one really knows for sure what is to become of the property. So I am requesting, as an interested citizen of Dublin, to know why the land will be developed, when it will take place, and what we can expect to see when the project is finished? Additionally, why did the city decide to construct houses instead of an alternative like converting the land into a small nature reserve or park? After living near this property for 17 years, it is clear that the wildlife is abundant throughout the 11.5 acres; what plans will go into effect to protect these animals? Lastly, what are the benefits of building houses on the site? Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing back from you soon. Kind regards, I I (IP Lauren Stephanic 6461 Green Stone Loop Dublin, OH 43016 October 9, 2014 Chris Amorose Groomes 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 Dear Chairman Groomes, My name is Hanna Darrow, I am a junior at Dublin Jerome High School, and I am concerned about the future of Riviera golf club. I am aware it has been sold to Mr. Charlie Ruma, although I do not think building houses on it is an appropriate use of its land. Riviera golf club is the oldest golf club in Dublin, and is a part of our history we should not lose. According to the current community plan, Riviera's land is zoned as a green space. Building houses on it would not only violate this, but it would also increase our taxes, increase traffic, and add students. Nearby schools are already crowded, and would not be able to support the increase of students, which would lead to redistricting. Like any golf course, Riviera is filled with beautiful ponds and landscapes, not to mention habitats for all kinds of animals and plants. Do you really want to have all that destroyed? Would adding a new neighborhood here actually be beneficial to our community? I urge you to reconsider any alternatives dealing with the land of Riviera golf club, for example: conversion to a city park, wetlands, or continue operating it. Riviera has had a dramatic increase in business and revenue since opening to the public. For these reasons, I believe Riviera golf club should remain undeveloped. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter, I look forward to your response. Sincerely, *UM& --I Hanna Darrow Claudia D. Husak From: Bob Gellenbeck <rsgellenbeck @aep.com> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 8:58 AM To: Claudia D. Husak Cc: Cathy Gellenbeck (catjg @wowway.com) Subject: Opposition to Development of Riviera Golf Club I am writing to you to state my opposition to developer Charlie Ruma's proposal to erect 247 homes on the Riviera Golf Club property, on Avery Rd. This is only slightly less than the 288 he originally wanted, and does not at all appear to be in sync with the P & Z members' statements that they want this development to be less dense than the best area adjacent to it. This will add over 300 school kids to our already crowded school buildings, and the property taxes generated come nowhere close to covering those costs, causing an unfunded expense of about $2 million per year for the Dublin schools that we Dublin school tax payers will ultimately have to make up! As a long time Dublin resident whose property backs up to Glick Road, I am extremely concerned about the increase in traffic that this development will cause with the addition of 247 homes and their families. This could add as many as 750 more cars and trucks to the already overcrowded Avery and Glick roads, decreasing my and all property values along Avery and Glick roads and increasing the risk to property and the safety of my fellow Dublin residents in the area. In addition, as a once long time member of Riviera Golf Club, I am very much aware of the many large historic trees, streams, ponds and wildlife that make up the "green space" on the Riviera Golf Club property, that will be lost to our community because of this development. I agree and support the coalition of 9 subdivisions that have been working together to express our concerns and oppose this development to P & Z Members and Dublin City Council. In my opinion, there are more negative impacts to our community because of this development, than positive ones. I urge each of the P &Z members to NOT APPROVE Charlie Ruma's proposal and further I urge each of you to oppose any future proposals that eliminates this much needed "Green Space" from our community. Sincerely, Bob Gellenbeck 6320 Tanera More Court Dublin, Ohio Claudia D. Husak From: William Dopp <wdopp @yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 9:17 AM To: Claudia D. Husak Cc: Mary Lyons -Dopp Subject: Riviera (case 14 -068) Claudia, I've read the update on the City of Dublin web site regarding the rezoning and development plan for the Riviera Golf Course. In the write -up it states, "all application materials are considered to be drafts until they have received final approval by City Council." Does this mean the application received a preliminary approval? Is the approval a foregone conclusion? Does the public have a real say in the approval process? It seems like there are a few dominos which are about to fall. The developer has a plan to build on the property and there's not a competing commercial or economic use for the land. Therefore, he gets the rezoning. I would imagine once it's rezoned, the City Council must approve or the developer would have a pretty good legal case against the City. The property owners in the area impacted by the housing project feel powerless. From the outside, it seems like this will get approved regardless of what the community wants. In the end, the homeowners in Dublin will he handed a lengthy construction project in our backyard, potentially lower values for our homes, higher property taxes to cover infrastructure needs, more traffic, and overcrowded schools. The developer, on the other hand, will walk away with a load of cash. Any insight on how the community can stop this process would be appreciated. Cordially, Bill Dopp Belvedere Property Owner Claudia D. Husak From: Doug Helmreich <doughelmreich @yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 7:11 PM To: Claudia D. Husak Subject: Yet another anti - Riviera email Dear Ms. Husak, We're sad to see the green space go but understand some kind of development is inevitable. We only ask the the Riviera development meet the criteria already established by the Planning & Zoning Commission before gaining approval. The Community Plan should not be modified; overburdening our infrastructure is not welcome. We also need appropriate setbacks from the middle and high schools. Something closer to 175 homes, with ample green space, tree preservation, school setbacks, and maybe even a direct Avery- HighlandCroy bike path would be more welcome. Best of luck with the process, and thank you for taking our feedback. Sincerely, Doug and Julie Helmreich 6600 Deeside Dr. Dublin, OH 43017 Claudia D. Husak From: Mark Mace <MarkMa @Crane- Plastics.com> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 9:24 AM To: Claudia D. Husak Subject: Riviera Meeting Hi Claudia -my name is Mark Mace and I attended the first P &Z meeting regarding Mr. Ruma's proposed development of the Riviera golf course. I thought I heard you specifically address Mr. Ruma and told him to bring back a plan that was less dense than the nearest neighbor and had better use of green space. I believe the least dense was Muirfield at 1.29 homes /acre. Why is Mr. Ruma submitting a plan for up to 247 homes (per notice of meeting from the planning and zoning commission) when this is not in accordance with your instructions? I believe a density of 1.29 homes /acre would yield about 216 homes. Does this mean the Planning and Zoning Commission will not approve Mr. Ruma's revised plan or has the Commission reversed its stance from the first meeting? I'm looking for some clarity here as I don't fully understand the process. Thank you Mark Mace City of Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410,4747 w .dubllnohiousa.gov PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION APRIL 9, 2015 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: MOTION: Ms. Newell moved, Mr. Brown seconded, to accept the documents into the record as presented. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: The documents were accepted into the record. RECORDED VOTES: Victoria Newell Yes Amy Salay Yes Chris Brown Yes Cathy De Rosa Yes Robert Miller Yes Deborah Mitchell Yes Stephen Stidhem Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION Uia4, d 1AAa Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II Iof Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 phone 614.410.4600 RECORD OF ACTION fax 614.410.4747 www.dublinohlousa.gov APRIL 91 2015 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Riviera 8025 Avery Road 14- 068Z /PDP /PP Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan Preliminary Plat Proposal: A rezoning of approximately 152 acres from R, Rural District and R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District for the potential development of the site with up to 185 single - family lots and approximately 76 acres of open space. The site is on the west side of Avery Road, north of the intersection with Memorial Drive. Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council of a Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan application for a Planned Unit Development District under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050. This is also a request for review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a Preliminary Plat under the provisions of the Subdivision Regulations. Applicant: Charles J. Ruma, Davidson Phillips, Inc. Planning Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4675, chusak @dublin.oh.us MOTION #1: Ms. Newell moved, Ms. Mitchell seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for a Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan with 13 conditions: 1) That the applicant enter into an infrastructure agreement with the City, prior to submitting the first Final Development Plan, for development thresholds and public project contributions including the necessary sanitary sewer system improvements; 2) That the applicant work with the City to program a direct site connection to Hyland -Croy Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the approval of a final plat that includes the Firenza Place connection to Tartan West; 3) That the developer update the traffic impact study to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the City Council hearing of the rezoning; and 4) That as part of the development of Section 1, the applicant provide a northbound left -turn lane on Avery Road into the site and a pedestrian crossing system for Avery Road, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5) That the development text be revised to eliminate vinyl as a permitted window option and allow the applicant to request approval of specific vinyl window products at the Final Development Plan stage if so desired; 6) That the development text be revised to eliminate vinyl as a shutter material; 7) That the development text be updated to eliminate asphalt as a permitted driveway material; 8) That the development text be updated to address the language on page AS -1 in accordance with the Commission comments; (Continued on Next Page) Page 1 of 2 1. Riviera 14- 068Z /PDP /PP 8025 Avery Road Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Preliminary Plat 9) That the development text be updated to limit all siding as the building material to 25% of the total homes within Subareas A and B; 10) That the development text be updated to limit stucco to no more than 50% of the primary facade of a home; 11) That the development text regarding the review authority of the Architectural Review Committee be updated to revise page AS -1, Section II. B. 1. to add architectural character and level of detail of architectural elements to the review authority of the ARC; 12) That the stormwater management areas be maintained by the City of Dublin and the development text and plans be updated accordingly; and 13) That consistent mailboxes be submitted for review and approval at the final development stage. *Mr. Ruma agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: The Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan was recommended for approval with 13 conditions. RECORDED VOTES: Victoria Newell Yes Amy Salay Yes Chris Brown Yes Cathy De Rosa Yes Robert Miller Yes Deborah Mitchell Yes Stephen Stidhem Yes MOTION #2: Ms. Newell moved, Mr. Brown seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for a Preliminary Plat with the following condition: 1) That the applicant ensure that any minor technical adjustments to the plat, are made prior to City Council submittal. *Mr. Ruma agreed to the condition. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: The Preliminary Plat was recommended for approval. RECORDED VOTES: Victoria Newell Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION Amy Salay Yes Chris Brown Yes Cathy De Rosa Yes Robert Miller Yes Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II Deborah Mitchell Yes Stephen Stidhem Yes Page 2 of 2 City of Dublin Land Use and Long PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Range Planning 5800 Shier Rings Road MEETING MINUTES Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 APRIL 9, 2015 w w.dublinohiousa.gov AGENDA 1. Riviera 8025 Avery Road 14 -068Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan (Approved 7 — 0) Preliminary Plat (Approved 7 — 0) The Chair, Victoria Newell, called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Other Commission members present were: City Council Representative Amy Salay, Christopher Brown, Robert Miller, Deborah Mitchell, Cathy De Rosa, and Stephen Stidhem. City representatives present were: Jennifer Readler, Philip Hartmann, Steve Langworthy, Alan Perkins, Gary Gunderman, Claudia Husak, Tina Wawszkiewicz, Aaron Stanford, Marie Downie, Sue Burness, and Laurie Wright. Administrative Business Motion and Vote Ms. Newell moved, Mr. Brown seconded, to accept the documents into the record. The vote was as follows: Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mr. Miller, yes; Ms. Mitchell, yes; Mr. Stidhem, yes; Chris Brown, yes; and Ms. Newell, yes. (Approved 7 - 0) The Chair said there were no consent cases on the evening's agenda. She said two cases were postponed, prior to the meeting; they are expected to be heard on May 7, 2015. Previously Tabled 1. Riviera 14 -068Z /PDP /PP 8025 Avery Road Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Preliminary Plat The Chair, Ms. Newell, said the following application is a request for a rezoning of approximately 152 acres from R, Rural District and R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District for the potential development of the site with up to 185 single - family lots and approximately 76 acres of open space. She said the site is on the west side of Avery Road, north of the intersection with Memorial Drive. She said this is a request for review and recommendation to City Council for a Rezoning with a Preliminary Development Plan and also a request for review and recommendation to City Council for a Preliminary Plat under the provisions of the Subdivision Regulations. As City Council is the final authority on these requests, she said applicants do not have to be sworn in. Claudia Husak said there are quite a few steps for the applicant in the approval process after tonight's meeting. She explained this is step 2 of the Planned Unit Development process, which is the Rezoning with the Preliminary Development Plan as well as a Preliminary Plat. She presented a process overview and said two actions were being requested this evening: 1) Recommendation to City Council on the Rezoning with the Preliminary Development Plan Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 9, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 25 2) Recommendation to City Council for the Preliminary Plat Ms. Husak presented the site and pointed out the three Dublin schools adjacent to the site: Deer Run Elementary, Grizzell Middle School, and Dublin Jerome High School. She said the major residential developments surrounding the site are: Tartan West, Muirfield Village, Shannon Glen, and Belvedere. Ms. Husak presented the plan as it was reviewed by the Commission on March 26, 2015, and ultimately tabled to take care of a lot of the conditions as well as the concerns that were raised by some of the residents and the Commission. At that meeting she said, 15 conditions were proposed for the Preliminary Development Plan that Planning had identified as areas of concern that would need to be taken care of as the application moves forward to City Council. She added there were two conditions proposed by Planning for the Preliminary Plat. She said the major four points that were requested to be changed and the applicant has taken care of as part of this proposal were relocation of Lots 135, 136, and 185, which she indicated on the slide. She said the concerns were mainly about the Hyland -Croy street connection and traffic hitting Lot 185 and opening up some areas just north of that street connection to open vistas. She said the other points commented on were the architectural standards, tree preservation, and the alignment of Timble Falls, which she indicated on the slide. She explained that many of those conditions from the meeting on March 26, 2015, have been eliminated. She said 11 conditions were either taken care of in the revised development plan or the applicant has incorporated the requirements /requests in the development text. She said infrastructure agreement conditions were left because those are a separate action with City Council. Ms. Husak said Staff had requested the following: • Realignment of Timble Falls Drive • Update all the street names and noted correctly in all of the plans • Add language in development text to require all the existing cart paths to remain to meet City standards • Show willingness to work with Dublin City Schools to provide a path to Jerome High School • Include garage limitations for lots that are facing or side - loaded to Avery Road • Provide membership information for the Architectural Review Committee • Add language on tree preservation to identify appropriate measures at the Final Development Plan Ms. Husak said it is a very subtle change in the proposed development plan but the applicant has relocated those three lots area to the north and south of Timble Falls Drive, west of the Avery Road entrance. She said the applicant has removed one of the access points between the lots to the interior open space in Reserve X, which allows for more open space and tree preservation. Ms. Husak highlighted the architectural character. She said the applicant has taken cues from the Tartan Ridge development text. She stated they have listed and shown examples of: Midwestern Vernacular, Colonial Revival, Classical, European Country, American Period Revival, and Age Targeted styles of architecture. She said there are a lot of additional requirements and illustrations within the development text that the applicant has provided to show the kind of style and architecture they are proposing within this development. Jeff Brown, attorney with Smith and Hale, representing the applicant, expressed his thanks to Staff and the neighborhood partners. He said we have a much better project to present to the Commission than what they started with. He said when they left the meeting last month there were two major concerns expressed by the Commission: 1) where the three lots would be relocated to; and 2) architecture better described in the development text with language and illustrations. He said the documents that have been submitted to the Commission and reviewed by Staff addressed those points and a lot of the other Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 9, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 25 conditions that Staff had identified with the previous report to the point of elimination of those conditions. Greg Chillog, Edge Group, 350 W. Bridge Street, Columbus, Ohio, showed where three lots had been relocated to at the front of the development in Sections 1 & 2. He explained that Lot 69 will require reshaping of the pond and Lots 40 and 41 were flip - flopped. He covered the elements that were added or deleted from the text relative to the architecture. He said vinyl has been eliminated as a trim material, driveway material text has been added "permitted primary pavement materials include: asphalt, concrete, brick, concrete pavers, color imprinted concrete, prohibits the use of gravel, and permits secondary materials as accents: brick or stone ", added text language relative to Avery Road pedestrian crossing, and added images. He said a picture is worth a thousand words but it is also worth a thousand interpretations. He said they clarified the text to state the images are included as supportive information to express the design intent and vision for the architecture but they should not be used to interpret what the limitations of the text represent or even the exceptions. He said they have added material samples, colors, styles, intent of material configurations, four -sided architecture, decorative garage doors, awning style windows, lighting and accessories. Charles Ruma, Davidson Phillips, said at the March 26 meeting, they looked at Tartan Ridge as a gold standard for architectural standards. He said they now have 13 pages of architectural standards that spelled out their intent and includes diagrams or pictures. He said vinyl windows were discussed at the March 26 meeting and recalled saying he would eliminate vinyl windows but he has talked to a dozen builders in the past two weeks and all of them use vinyl windows. He said there are vinyl windows in Tartan Ridge, Wellington, Wellington Reserve, Tartan West, Belvedere, and Shannon Glen. He said they are permitted in Celtic Crossing, which has been approved, which is the last zoning this Commission approved. He indicated it comes down to the choice of individual homeowners; a lot of customers like vinyl over wood per the maintenance. Mr. Ruma noted Lot 41 where there is a concern about two trees on that lot, one of them being a 28 -inch Red Oak. He said they purposely put these lots up front to get them away from the back of the community and more likely to be using Avery Road rather than Timble Falls or Firenza Drive. As a result, he said they considered those two trees specifically. He said the 28 -inch Red Oak is sitting in a triangle between three cart paths that come together at the end of the 18"' hole and where it goes down to the 10"' hole and across to the 9"' hole. He indicated when those cart paths are removed and grade changed, the tree will probably be lost. Mr. Ruma reiterated that they have 76 acres of open space and the preservation of trees on this site is phenomenal because of the large amount of open space. He restated that 800 plus trees were planted by the owner and the 28 -inch Red Oak is one of them. He said there are other places he can relocate a lot if that becomes an issue but he believes the lots are in the right location. Ms. Husak said the application has been reviewed based on all of the 16 criteria for the Rezoning with a Preliminary Development Plan, which is detailed in the back of the Planning Report. She noted the applicant has incorporated a lot of key requirements that Planning previously identified into the development text. She said approval is recommended with four conditions, as proposed in the Planning Report as well as shown on the slide: 1) That the applicant enter into an infrastructure agreement with the City, prior to submitting the first Final Development Plan, for development thresholds and public project contributions including the necessary sanitary sewer system improvements; Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 9, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 25 2) That the applicant work with the City to program a direct site connection to Hyland -Croy Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the approval of a Final Plat that includes the Firenza Place connection to Tartan West; 3) That the developer update the traffic impact study to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to a City Council hearing of the rezoning; 4) That as part of the development of Section 1, the applicant provides a northbound left -turn lane on Avery Road into the site and a pedestrian crossing system for Avery Road, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; Ms. Husak said approval is recommended for the Preliminary Plat to be forwarded to City Council with one condition: 1) That the applicant ensures that any minor technical adjustments to the plat are made prior to City Council submittal. Ms. Husak said that concluded her presentation The Chair invited public comment. Tim Albright, 8145 Timble Falls Drive, said he is one of five homeowners that live on Timble Falls Drive. He said he had three concerns: 1) safety — because of increased traffic, specifically high school students. He said high school students will find the path of least resistance. He indicated since the Avery/Brand Road intersection is such a mess that could encourage the student coming southbound on Avery Road to cut through Belvedere to cut down on drive time. He indicated the same can be predicted if this plan goes forward. He said all of the all the high school students in the 185 houses, will probably use Timble Falls Drive to go to high school because it is the path of least resistance and there is no stop sign; 2) effect of quality of life — there is a beautiful buffer zone of mature trees that line the border of Belvedere and what used to be Riviera Golf Course. He said he was not certain if it could be determined who owns those trees but some are right in the middle, right on the property line. He asked if Dublin or the developer could guarantee that these trees will be saved; and 3) property value — lot sizes in the proposed plan along Timble Falls Drive are much smaller than the existing lots on that street, approximately by 30 %. He said he had hoped if this property was ever to be developed, it would be estate lots and that obviously is not the case. He said it appears there will be smaller lots with smaller houses. Mike Bickley, 5839 Moray Court, Dublin, said he had three concerns: 1) cost - he feels he has been robbed as a taxpayer. He said Mr. Ruma met with the City Schools and offered to give them 15 acres for free. As a taxpayer, he said he votes for school levies, his kids and grandkids go to school in Dublin, and they all support the schools. He indicated Mr. Ruma offered the schools this land based on the student demand for this development. He said it feels like a card trick. He said Mr. Ruma has taken it off the table and hidden it now. As a citizen he said, Mr. Ruma should stand up to his word and follow through on that commitment. He said the taxpayers are being asked to subsidize this for profit development now; 2) trees - what Mr. Ruma did at Wellington cannot happen again to the trees in the City of Dublin, clear cutting a site like that was criminal. He said in this case, we have even better trees. He said the most impressive and historic trees in the City of Dublin are left today on this site. He said they are beautiful because they were planted and the canopies were left alone to grow, absolute specimens. He said early on, there was a discussion about the City hiring an arborist to supervise the trees and that is important. He said an independent person inspects all these trees and reports back to this Commission or City Council and holds Mr. Ruma accountable for these trees. He recalled Mr. Ruma stating at the March 26 meeting how lovely the trees look in Wellington. He said they look like the trees in the nursery parking Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 9, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 25 lot, an inch and a half or two inches in diameter. He said his house is Phase 1 of Muirfield, and he finally has shade on his front driveway, 40 years later. He said they are beautiful trees but it took 35 — 40 years to accomplish. He suggested that the Commission somehow address, based on Mr. Ruma's previous experience, to take the tree preservation to a different level. He said Mr. Ruma cannot be trusted on trees; and 3) Hyland -Croy connection — he said everyone but Mr. Ruma agrees there should be a road here. All the residents, he said, reluctantly are accepting this proposal. He indicated they do not like it but it is happening, it has improved drastically, but we have to live with this for a long time. He said there is going to be five to six years of construction traffic. He asked the Commission to consider creating a service entrance. He said there will be dump trucks, gravel trucks, and concrete trucks creating dust, dirt, and noise. He noted the busiest park in Dublin; he said sometimes you can hardly get down Avery Road because of the soccer traffic. He noted the schools, daycares, and churches. He pointed out the failing interchange, which he knows Dublin is looking into something different, problem is, it takes a couple of years to build a roundabout. He said during those years, this will be restricted to trucks so what is the detour. He said at 7 am in the morning, you have gravel trucks racing kids to high school. That is why he said he is recommending a service road be built right away; it can be gravel or a base coat and be finished in a couple of years. He summarized that the residents are reluctantly accepting this and asked that the service road be considered as a solution. Kevin Walter, 6289 Ross Bend, said he represented a coalition of nine neighborhood groups, homeowners associations, and civic groups from across northwest Dublin. He thanked Mr. Ruma for his willingness to work with his group. After the last meeting, he said it was clear to his group that the Commission is well - informed and is generally in alignment with their thinking. He reported at this late stage in the proceedings, they have decided to change their position from one of advocacy to one of vigilance. Rather than to push for changes and alterations to the plan, he said we chose to act as stewards of the legacy of Riviera Golf Club and stand watchful. He requested that the Commission keep a running tally of all the agreed upon items and conditions to this application. He said he wanted attention paid to 11 items: 1) Asphalt driveways — he said in the last meeting, there was near unanimous support for the elimination of asphalt driveways. He asked that the development text be changed to require concrete or paver driveways only and eliminate asphalt as an acceptable paving material. 2) Welling of trees — where grade changes will impact the tree base, that trees be protected by the use of tree wells rather than simply re- grading. 3) Architectural renderings — the development text now includes pictures that depict the text, but the pictures have no text that link the pictures to the development text. He said the pictures need to be captioned or annotated. 4) Mailboxes and lamp posts — he referred to AS15 in the lighting section of the development text showing three lamp posts; the text does not indicate which posts would be used and at what location in this development. He asked that the lamp posts be consistent within each subarea and that mailboxes be uniform throughout the development. He asked that the lamp posts be gas or photocell that are non - switched to ensure they will always light the way. 5) Side - loaded garages — he asks that the development text appropriately reflects the Commission's desire for side - loaded or carriage garages indicated by subarea or lot number. 6) Vinyl — He asked that vinyl be categorically eliminated as an acceptable material for windows and shutters. 7) Percentage of materials — he asked for further discussion and clarification 8) Open space removal — he said there is this change in the plans that removes the open space that was set between Lots 17 & 18. He said he does not understand Staff's recommendation and asked that it be returned to the plan. 9) Open space hardscaping — he said the developer verbally committed to delineate the open space that exists between the private lots between 17 & 18 so he asked that a condition be added requiring that hardscape. 10) Lots 40, 41, & 69 — he asked that these lots be eliminated and referred to the tree survey. He said by relocating lots 40 & 41 the community will lose not only open space but also three large Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 9, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 25 trees in good condition. He said trees 26, 27, & 442 will be lost by the relocation. He said tree 442 is a 28 -inch Oak Tree. He said as a slow growing specimen, it is special. He said it can grow to reach hundreds of feet tall and would be a wonderful landmark tree for the community. He said the other two trees are smaller at 17 and 22 inches in diameter but they have been there for the life of the course. He said Lot 69 was added across the street and it appears the water basin has been shifted in size and shape in order to accommodate this lot, which would be substantial. Additionally, he said the view shed would be greatly reduced. He indicated the view sheds will be the hallmark of Riviera. 11) Hyland -Croy connector — Mr. Ruma objected to the need for this connector but said if he was forced by the City he would build it. He asked the Commission to require the applicant to pay 50% of the cost into an infrastructure fund to support the development of that connector as recommended by Staff. Mr. Walter thanked his planning group, City Staff, the Commission, and Mr. Ruma for bringing forward what they hope to be a development worthy of the legacy of Riviera. Mike Bickley said windows influence how a building looks and there is a long list of windows in the development text. He said he went to the WDMA website (Window and Door Manufacturing Association) where they listed the same so Mr. Ruma listed every single window available in North American today as a suitable window for his site. He said a real standard would be like an "Anderson 400 - series Low -E4 glass, clad or equivalent "; something that really tells us a quality product. He said this is not a list of standards; this is a list of available building materials. Lisa Judson, 8018 Summerhouse Drive West, said her home is at the T- intersection with Abbey Glen, and when construction is started for a roundabout at Avery/Brand, she asked how construction vehicles will get up to where they are needed and how much of it is going to go through Belvedere, specifically in front of her home. She asked about refurbishing Brand Road. She asked if big trucks would travel up through Hyland -Croy from Post Road, the road there on the right side traveling north is giving way and crumbling already. She asked how soon any of this, like a four -lane highway would be taking place to support all of this. Clifford Ursich, Flexible Pavements of Ohio, 6205 Emerald Parkway in the Camden Professional Center, said he is with a trade association, the asphalt paving industry. He said they have been in Dublin since 2008. He said he wanted to address the issue of the driveways. He said he is the President and Executive Director. He said he is a civil engineer by education, a registered professional engineer, and practiced in transportation engineering field for 32 years. He indicated he has had the opportunity to work with Dublin's engineering staff and ensure the performance of Dublin's roadway network, which is composed entirely of asphalt from the top of the pavement to the base. Mr. Ursich said he wanted to address the elimination of asphalt in the Riviera development. He said Dublin has fared well with its performance of its roadway system while Columbus and other communities are struggling to keep their roads in good shape. He reported Dublin serves as a model for a cost - effective and efficient roadway system. He indicated he understands the issue is driveways, not roadways. He said it is a fact that asphalt pavement can provide long -term durability and owner satisfaction. He said concrete or other driveways are not a panacea. He said with concrete, there is a scaling and flaking of the surface from road salt deposit from automobiles; pop out of stone and driveway surface; rust stains from aggregate; broken and tilted slabs; and reflectivity. He said fixes for these problems are substantial in cost and commotion. He noted sustainability is to reduce, reuse, and recycle. He said most recyclable material in the US is asphalt pavement, more than paper, aluminum, and steel. He noted each asphalt driveway paved in Dublin, Ohio contributes to the City's efforts to being a sustainable community. He juxtaposed that every broken slab of failed concrete driveway ends up in either a construction demolition debris landfill or a bone pile such as the one at interstates I -70 and I -270 on Columbus' west side, all to be repurposed as a non - specification aggregate or slope protection. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 9, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 25 Mr. Ursich said there appears to be no legitimate justification for eliminating asphalt and requiring concrete or other such material. He said property values are not impacted based on driveway pavement types; the auditor does not give consideration of this in property valuation. He indicated Dublin would suffer no economic hardship using asphalt driveways; however, concrete pavement requirement would increase homeowner costs. He noted communities of the caliper of Dublin regularly use asphalt driveways; communities that have residences that exceed a million dollars in valuations. He said as a Dublin local business, choice made regarding this matter does have a direct monetary impact on his association and business, Flexible Pavements of Ohio. He indicated restricting the use of asphalt pavement for driveways on Riviera development will affect their revenue since their association income is based on the number of tons of asphalt produced. He indicated as an association, they have provided pro -bono service to the City of Dublin, by assisting on issues pertaining to the specifying and construction of the City's asphalt roadway system. The Chair invited other public commit. [Hearing none.] She closed off the public comment portion of the meeting. Steve Stidhem indicated this is his first time being a part of this and inquired about the area to the west of Section 4. Ms. Husak said that area is currently owned by the Riviera Golf Club and not included in this proposal tonight. She said the western portion of Riviera is zoned R, Rural, which permits single - family homes on 40,000- square -foot lots and various agricultural uses. As part of this proposal moving forward, she said this would be a 15 -acre lot that would be created by this area being zoned, which could be used for a variety of uses as permitted by the Zoning Code. Chris Brown said we all know the applicant's history of Wellington Reserve; he is sure it is regrettable now and does not want to see the applicant repeat that. He said there are trees that join the associated neighborhoods that are designated as being preserved and the applicant has obligated himself to the City to come up with the proper means to do so. He said he counted at least 32 major trees on specific lots and emphasized the preservation is a condition that will go through the Final Development Plan. He restated the applicant has a reputation; he has done well in the past but not the last time out. Mr. Ruma said there were 120 trees saved in Wellington. He explained they needed to get engineering approvals and it took him nearly six months to get engineering plans approved in the City of Dublin, which included grading plans that dictated where streets went and what the grades were. He explained that site fell severely from west to east, so much so, that every time it rained, the backyards of those lots that abutted the property in Wellington pooled up to the amount of two to three feet. He said that grading caused the destruction of those trees. He said he fulfilled his obligations of replacing those trees required under the law. He indicated he knows a 30 -year old tree does not grow back in two years. He said Wedgewood was an entirely different situation because grades were different. Mr. Brown said if you go back to when Wellington Reserve was being reviewed, if the Commission at the time knew that was going to happen, they probably would have said no to the plans. He said what the Commission is trying to ascertain here is whether that is going to repeat itself or whether we can go through specific measures to make sure that does not happen. Ms. Husak explained Wellington Reserve was an 18 -acre site that was wooded throughout and there were more trees preserved than were shown on the plans to be preserved. She reported there was one tree in question that truly was not supposed to be removed and it was, now whether it was the contractor or the builder, it was not supposed to be removed. She said the site had to be graded out throughout based on the shape of the site, utility requirements, and whether a road was going to go on that site. She said the trees in the center of Wellington Reserve were always shown to be removed. She Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 9, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 25 said the view of that site, as an adjacent resident, as someone driving through it, is a shock she said but the tree removal was part of the development. Mr. Brown said he understands tree removal in the center of the site but his understanding was there was supposed to be a tree buffer up against the adjacent neighborhood. Ms. Husak said there is. She explained that once there is scrub cleaned out, and clean up taken care of, that will have a very different look to it. She added Wellington Place had drainage issues way beyond what any neighborhood should experience in the City today. She said a lot of stormwater management pipes were put into the rear of the lots. She reported the applicant has worked with each and every resident to put in the buffer that was approved by Planning and Zoning Commission to the point of staking areas and determining exactly where trees should be planted. She said there is a lot of information out there in the community that as a Staff, we have worked hands -on with a lot of those residents and any time we have received a complaint they have taken care of those concerns. She said that development is still under construction and does not look very pretty with all the runoff into both of those stormwater management areas. She said after four days of rain while something is under construction, it is not something you want to put on a postcard; but it is going to get better. Mr. Ruma said they did install two storm sewers on properties that were adjacent to Wellington Reserve, not on our property and fairly extensive to end their stormwater problems. He said he submitted the Final Plat that the Commission approved and the tree removal plan was part of it. Mr. Brown said there have been trees there for 45 years that were planted; those are important to him; not just the ones that were originally there. He believes they are important to everybody in this room including the golf club. He said through the Final Development Plan, he wants to preserve as many of those as possible and will be addressing all of them. Victoria Newell indicated as an architectural professional, when looking to develop this land, she would prefer it stay as a golf course. She said she feels for the residents that expected and anticipated this to be a golf course for the future but un- built -on land does not always remain the way you envision it; just like living next to a cornfield. She restated this site is zoned for residential so even if our applicant is not here to develop this property, and we do not change this to a PUD, it does not mean it will not develop. Ms. Newell said the applicant made a concerted effort to preserve trees. She said she has saved each of the applications and has reviewed the tree preservation aspects of each. She said every large tree cannot be preserved while developing this site. She said for Staff's comments to realign the drive, it curved before because the applicant was preserving trees that are now going to be lost by straightening out that "wiggle ". She said she has to consider Staffs recommendation to straighten the drive for safety; that is more important than salvaging those trees. She said from an aesthetic standpoint, she would have preferred the drive exactly as it was presented by the applicant. She said the other trees now getting affected are the ones that are up at the front of the site, specifically where Lot 41 was relocated. She said there was due diligence on the applicant's part to preserve trees. As an architect, she said when she sees a tree on a site where a house is to be built, she does not anticipate that tree is going to get salvaged. She said the reality is the applicant has to be able to grade that site to provide a proper drainage way for the residents. She said trees that are right next to the property line, she would expect those trees to remain; those would all be salvageable. Mr. Ruma pointed out the various tree stands on the perimeters, and assured the Commission they are absolutely going to be safe. He also noted a cart path along the 8"' hole that will also be preserved as that grade is not changing. He said the most significant trees are along the creeks. Mr. Brown said he did not mean to infer that the applicant had not done a good job of laying out the lots. He said his reference to some trees are in fact on the edge of those building lots so depending on Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 9, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 25 grading, some of those trees most likely can be preserved. He said his point /intent is that when the applicant is doing that, if they could be preserved and welled, then leave it to the eventual owner whether that stays or goes. Mr. Ruma said that is why we have an Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and why the developer is part of it, but at the same time, we need to make sure when we engineer the site, that engineering requirements do not step on a zone. Amy Salay said she did not know what happened with Wellington, but knows what can happen here. She said what the Commission is called to do because of these trees on this site is not a wood lot where you cannot see individual trees; this site is all about the individual trees. She said where we are committed to saving a tree, we as City and Staff, need to figure out a way to ensure the trees are fenced and preserved when the contractor is doing the work. She said a developer cannot control what a contractor does on site as the developer is not there 24/7. She said between now and the final, she would like Staff to come up with a very detailed plan. She said it would be a shame to develop Lot 41. Ms. Salay said she was at the Council Retreat on March 26 and when she left the Council Retreat she went home and immediately got on her computer to watch the live- stream so she caught the last hour or hour and a half of the meeting. She said she heard the discussion about moving the lots. She said there are three trees on Lot 41, which should be saved in her view. She suggested a lot be added to the applicant's senior /empty- nester product or maybe get rid of the lot altogether. She said she is not sure about the re- grading of the pond with Lot 69 but if trees are being impacted, she is not in favor of developing that lot. Ms. Newell indicated if Lot 41 was eliminated, aesthetically, you would want to look at Lot 40 to preserve that line; it would look out of place to leave Lot 40 sitting by itself. She said she does not think Lot 69 impacts any trees. Mr. Brown said his impression of it is where the clubhouse sits and the way they would have to probably grade that, it is going to be a struggle. He said he hates losing any tree that size, obviously, but does not mind the lot relocation. Ms. Salay said the Commission can ask that the tree be welled when they do the re- grading Mr. Ruma asked to address these comments and the Chair invited the applicant to speak. Mr. Ruma said they have alternate positions to put two lots. He said they can move Lot 41 across the street and if they desired to move both, could replace Lot 41 behind Lot 165 at the entrance of the court, and in both cases, trees would not be affected at all. Ms. Salay said view sheds are affected and that is the whole point for the space between Lots 145, 144, 164, and 165. Mr. Ruma said in his last proposal, they had lots all along there. Ms. Salay said that plan was not accepted, the applicant tabled the application, went to rework the plan, and she asked that we talk about this plan. Mr. Chillog said with regard to view sheds, 90 feet will be lost on either side but also gaining back on the other sides. He said they are not taking it away, it is being moved around. He said you get more open space in the front at the cost of less open space here and the applicant maintains the lot count. Ms. Salay suggested two lots could be lost or t single - family homes in Dublin are not need Commission looks at the impact on the schools, said the one thing that stands out while driving the park land. She recalled that was a very long approved. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 9, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 25 here is space in the empty- nester section because more ed so much as empty- nester products. She said the traffic, and view sheds, which are absolutely crucial. She through Belvedere today are the beautiful view sheds of process the Commission went through to get Belvedere Mr. Ruma said it is give and take. He stated he cannot lose three lots. He said they are at 1.22 units per acre; there is no such thing as this density anywhere in the City, except for River Forest that is 80 years old. He restated he cannot lose three lots. Cathy De Rosa asked if there was potential around Lot 64 or 55 Mr. Ruma said there are big trees there. Deborah Mitchell said she agrees with the need for empty- nester housing. She said from an economic standpoint, that preserves the applicant's number of lots. Ms. Husak said in the senior housing area the pinch point there is the stream and Stream Corridor Protection Zone. She said there may be an area for one lot if all the other lots were reduced in size; it is tight in terms of open spaces. Ms. Salay agreed. She asked how wide the lots are on the top of that curve. Mr. Ruma answered they were 60 -foot lots. Ms. Husak said it appears for least impact would be to remove the one lot with the trees and relocate it. She recommended keeping the other one in place. Mr. Brown said he believes it is the lesser of all evils'. Ms. Newell agreed. She said there is one really significant tree, the 28 -inch Red Oak. She said taking away the views at the other areas to relocate those two lots, that is worse than losing the one Red Oak, as beautiful as that tree may be. Mr. Walter noted the point -by -point debate. He said the Commission is not obligated to make this financially work for the applicant but are obligated to make this work for the residents and the City. He said if the applicant loses three lots, you can make that up through a lot premium of $5,400 spread across other lots. He indicated we will be here for days and they have not addressed asphalt, vinyl, or anything. He said he would like to hear how the balance of the Commission feels, make conditions, and let the applicant accept or reject them. Ms. Newell said she appreciated his input and was happy to move onto architectural issues. She said her biggest heartburn is leaving vinyl in the text. She said the Commission has asked a lot of applicants who have come forward recently to eliminate vinyl. She said her concern with vinyl windows is the text does not address quality. She said when you leave vinyl, in particular, while she would admit, professionally there are good quality vinyl windows, it is also one of the most affordable windows you can put in residential or commercial because there are so many lower -end windows available. Ms. Salay asked Ms. Newell as an architect, if she has a specification for vinyl windows. Ms. Salay recalled discussing vinyl siding being a certain thickness as a quality material. She said she is open to vinyl windows; they are in the finest homes. She suggested the Commission could specify a type or certain quality. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 9, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 25 Ms. Newell said requiring a thickness to how that window is constructed is not a good way to delineate that. She the problem is you are identifying them more for manufacturer and then there is the risk that the same manufacturer makes a very low end product and high end at the same time. Mr. Miller asked Ms. Newell if she set a basis for design for a project that includes a window schedule that you line out for a commercial project that sets a standard for equal type products for that design project. Ms. Newell said she would but generally you are picking out specific manufacturers. She said you can look at any window manufacturer and they will run a gamut of quality of products they offer. Mr. Miller asked if a basis could be set for a design minimum that would allow the Commission to be comfortable. He stated he thought vinyl windows were fine; they are found in $800,000 to $1 million homes. He suggested the low -end vinyl windows could be eliminated by setting a basis for design. Ms. Salay asked if some windows could be specified during the Final Development Plan. Ms. Husak explained that typically for a single - family development, the architectural details for each lot are not provided at the Final Development Plan. She said in certain areas of the City, there have been allowances for alternative materials or alternative types being permitted with demonstration of high quality at the Final Development Plan stage. She said that is something the Commission could entertain. She said it is then going to have to be applicable to however many lots are included within that Final Development Plan. She said if the applicant is amenable to that we could do that; allow everything that is proposed except for the vinyl windows and then have some language added that with the proof of high quality provision, that could be approved at the Final Development Plan. Mr. Miller said there are a lot of different ways to specify a window and one thing we never touch on, but certainly accentuates a house are the muntins. He said it is a very difficult to specify at this level; hopefully the rest of the architectural standards are high enough that the better home builders are attracted that provide a better standard anyway. He said drawing the line on this is difficult to put into text. Ms. Newell said that is why she has always sided on just eliminating vinyl and Staff has to enforce what is written into this text. She said the fair and reasonable thing to do would be to eliminate that product. Ms. Husak said if vinyl windows were eliminated at this stage, that would not mean the applicant could not come at the Final Development Plan with an acceptable specification where the Commission could then do a text modification to allow that specific type of vinyl window. Ms. Newell confirmed Ms. Husak was suggesting eliminating it now but allowing it to be brought back. Mr. Brown said he would support eliminating the complete vinyl window but not opposed to a vinyl clad. He said he is opposed to a vinyl shutter. He asked if a condition could be written in those terms he would be supportive. Ms. Newell said it sounds like the Commission needs to eliminate vinyl altogether. Mr. Ruma said vinyl shutters should not be in the text; it was an oversight on their part. Mr. Ruma restated that every major builder in the City of Dublin uses vinyl windows and listed them. He said they use windows by well -known manufacturers. He said the Commission is dictating a buyer's choice. He said we are in zoning, not building a house. He said this is still America you know, with certain Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 9, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 25 freedoms and one of them ought to be at least to choose windows that are good high quality and are being used throughout any other single - family communities this Commission has approved. Ms. Newell said she did not agree. She said the Commission has this same issue with vinyl siding that they constantly eliminate from text for the same reason; there are inherent problems with vinyl; it does not hold up tremendously well in the long -term. Mr. Ruma emphasized that vinyl windows are better in terms of maintenance, they are long lasting, and better materials in terms of longevity and energy efficiency. He said wood is great but vinyl windows are equally as good. He told the Commission not to diminish the product without getting a real sense of it. Mr. Brown reported he was an architectural building product representative for 15 years, which included representing 12 different lines of windows. He said he knows a thing or two about windows. Mike Hanson said Silver Line Windows is a division of Anderson Windows. He said he appreciated the gentlemen's endorsement of our 400 - series, which is a great product but vinyl is also something very acceptable. He said the Commission speaks of thickness and things like that of your concern and words cannot define a vinyl window unless it includes certain things. He said there is a better quality of product depending on the manufacturer themselves. He said through attrition of years of some of the brands you heard here today, whether it is Silver Line, Simonton, or Jen -Weld, they all have good brand identification as a result of performance. He said there is never painting and it does last a long time. Ms. Newell restated her concern with regards to a vinyl window is that she cannot control the quality in the text. Mr. Brown said he is not entirely opposed to vinyl windows but he would take Ms. Husak's recommendation and maybe help Mr. Ruma write a Final Development text that defines a quality standard that the Commission can find acceptable. The Commission as a whole agreed. Ms. Newell said eliminating asphalt was discussed at the March 26"' meeting. Mr. Miller said he thought there was a 100% agreement on eliminating asphalt as a permitted pavement material for driveways. Ms. Newell said asphalt still appears in the applicant's text. Ms. Salay recommended that asphalt be removed from the text as a permitted driveway material. Ms. Newell said she appreciated that the applicant added the elevations of the buildings but asked that they expand on their text in regards to how those should be interpreted. She said in architectural standards, AS -1, it says "images have been included as supportive information to the written text to express the design intent and architectural vision for the development. Limitations shall be expressed in written text. The included imagery shall not be used to interpret limitations or exceptions of any standards." She said she would like to entertain revising that text as a condition so that it read "the included imagery shall not be used to interpret limitations or exceptions of any standards but are intended to exhibit the minimal level of detail of architectural features and embellishments and provide pictorial examples of architectural reference styles." She said she thought that made the standard more complete where it was lacking description in regards to images and still related to the text. Ms. Salay said she appreciated that language and would like to add a "certain percentage of masonry on the fronts of the houses ". She referred to the European Country Homes, the two on the right where there Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 9, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 25 is way too much stucco and the windows are really small. She said she did not want an all stucco home with just a stone water table. She said one scattered throughout, or 10 or 20 in the development is okay. Ms. Newell asked if the text stated there had to be two materials. Ms. Salay said there is not a percentage for building materials. She said if you have a stone water table, the rest of the house can be siding. She said a number of neighborhoods are popping up like that; she appreciates the classical farmhouse if it is not every house. She said people that may desire the most inexpensive way to build a house use siding and so you end up with a neighborhood of mostly siding. She said high quality neighborhoods around Dublin and most of the homes in Tartan Ridge have mixed materials, for the most part. She said she would like to call out a percentage of masonry, on the front, of 75% of the homes or something like that so we get that mixture and level of quality that she is after. Ms. Newell reminded everyone that there is going to be an Architectural Review Committee (ARC). She said she does not object to an all- siding home. Ms. Salay said she did not either, just did not want the neighborhood to build out like that. She asked if there was a standard that could be added like "no more than 20% of the homes will be all siding." Ms. Husak said from a staff approval perspective, percentage per home is extremely difficult to administer. She said Ms. Newell kind of hinted to that; there is the architectural diversity matrix required, which will eliminate that style repetitiveness. Ms. Salay questioned whether the matrix requirement would give her the result she is asking for. She restated she wanted more stone and masonry on the front of homes. She said she does not see a problem with requiring this in the text. Ms. Husak said maybe it is one of those things where the styles have to be evenly distributed. She said if you had enough of one style and not another you would get there also. Ms. Mitchell said she wondered if the houses can be categorized by type rather than the literal interpretation in the matrix. Ms. De Rosa asked if the goal of the Architectural Review Committee is to manage this particular issue. She said personally, she likes all the farmhouses with all siding. She said if that is the goal of ARC then they can do an effective job of fixing that. Ms. Salay said it is but language has to be added to the text so that mix happens, otherwise things left to the market and if the market wants all siding, then that is what we will end up with. Ms. De Rosa asked how this can be accomplished with sufficient latitude to the committee. Ms. Mitchell asked if it is possible to define types by the percentage of the degree of which there is siding versus something else. She said then it is type not as much by style as it is by the composition of the materials and have a design matrix based on the composition of the materials. Mr. Ruma said the words in his text are exactly the same as what is written in Tartan Ridge Ms. Salay said you can always do better. She said Tartan Ridge has a lot of other features. Mr. Ruma said he did not know how to give the Commission the criteria to define they are not going to have all siding houses on every street. He said what he says is subject to what the ARC is going to be doing, looking at each and every plan. He said there will be all custom houses in Section 1, expecting Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 9, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 25 those houses to start at $750,000 using a myriad of materials. He said the age- targeted housing area is expected to be a themed community. Ms. Salay said they just approved a theme community of empty- nester style housing and they required a percentage of stone; it was a European Country style on the fagade but she did not remember what that percentage number was. She reported they had said there is too much stucco on this house just like we would have said there is too much siding. Mr. Ruma said he could do that with a themed community because they will be proposed as a specific style. Ms. Salay said she has spent a lot of time in Jerome Village. She recalled a section where the homes start at $750,000, had a very small water table of stone, and then the rest of it is siding, and that is the community. She said there was a home in there that sold for upper $900,000s. She indicated they are very high -end homes but there is too much siding, which is not attractive, not Dublin, and not what she is hoping for, for this site. She indicated this is a gem. She said the applicant is creating one of the finest neighborhoods in our community ever. She said she wants to make sure the architectural standards are there. She said she appreciates that the applicant is going to have an Architectural Review Committee but she does not want a street where the houses have all siding. She said the homeowners will spend their money maxing out the inside. She wants this to be the absolute best quality she can get. Mr. Ruma suggested "no more than 25% of the houses that are outside of the age- targeted group can be all siding." Ms. Salay said that was fine with her. Ms. Newell asked if that would be enforced then by the ARC and not going back to the Staff. Ms. Husak said she would be satisfied with that arrangement. Mr. Ruma said if there is any change to that, they will have to come back before the Commission to gain approval of a variance. Ms. Newell questioned the Architectural Review Committee section. She started to read in the middle of the paragraph "...The ARC shall undertake a review of these elevations and plans for compliance with the commitments made in the development text such as built not limited to setbacks, building heights, diversity, types of materials, and color." She said right in between the words materials and colors she said the following should be inserted "architectural character, level of detail of architectural elements ". She said this will relate it back to the styles to make it a little more concrete when you are the ARC looking at what is in this text and how it is going to be enforced. Ms. Newell showed Ms. Husak what she had written and said for clarity Ms. Salay asked to discuss Mr. Walter's point to the lights and eliminate the yard light posts that are wood, vinyl, or whatever. Mr. Brown said the light posts do not bother him, but the mailboxes having consistent form does. He indicated if he had a Colonial Revival home, he would want a Colonial Revival lamp post and not a community standard. Ms. Newell agreed the lamp posts should match the individual character of the homes Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 9, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 25 Ms. De Rosa inquired about the strength of the language in AS -11. She said side - loaded garages had been discussed and not front - facing garages on Avery Road. She said the wording is "are encouraged and that did not feel strong enough for her as that is a requirement. Mr. Chillog said the next line, G3, specifically addressed Avery Road garages. Ms. De Rosa confirmed side - loaded garages are prohibited. Mr. Chillog explained front - facing garages are eliminated unless they are court- loaded configuration and if there was a side -load, it would face west. He said the some could have north or south facing sides. Ms. Salay confirmed front - loaded garages are not permitted on Avery Road. Mr. Stidhem inquired about the mounds on the south side of the site, asking how much of that will be maintained. He said it would create a natural buffer between neighborhoods. Mr. Ruma said most of those mounds are going to be in the building pad of those lots. Mr. Stidhem referred to Lots 170 and 171. He said it is hard to see the existing trees there again, between the neighborhoods and is assuming nothing will be removed there. Mr. Stidhem inquired about the location of the Avery Road pedestrian crossing and how it would be affected by the hill. Mr. Ruma said it is taken directly across from where the Memorial Drive intersection is. He said it has to be moved north of that intersection by about 15 to 20 feet. He explained that the grade change between the existing cart path and Avery Road is about two feet. He said he anticipates a 25 — 30% grade going back out to the road. He said on the other side it is basically level, falling down just a little, but it has to go around because there is a storm sewer, light, and landscaping and connects to a private path. He said public people are being put onto a private path that is restricted to Muirfield residents. He emphasized he is against this. Ms. Wawszkiewicz said the access drive is farther north on Memorial Drive and the Muirfield path on the east side of Avery Road is significantly east of the road; it does not come up along the edge of the road. She said Engineering thought this would work out a little easier as far as connections and existing facilities. She said it does have existing paths on both sides. Mr. Stidhem inquired about the land uses noted in the development text in section DO -4. He said it states proposed uses of the residential open space /community gardens. He asked if that would be similar in the maintained by the homeowner's association. Ms. Husak explained Planning has been working with the Parks and Open Space staff on all of the language for the potential future development of the open spaces. She indicated that if there was a community garden permitted, it would be the homeowner's association responsibility. Mr. Stidhem indicated he was a big fan of community gardens and assumed the ponds would be maintained by the City. Ms. Salay stated she would like to put that in as a condition. She indicated there are some neighborhoods where the homeowner's association is required to maintain the pond and it is problematic; there are questions of how it is maintained and it is technically part of the City's stormwater system and that is a burden to put on homeowners. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 9, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 25 Mr. Stidhem inquired specifically about the one in the northeast corner, near Lots 69 and 70. He said it was laid out in the plans that it would be maintained by the homeowner's association. According to the plan, he said the rest would be maintained by the City. Ms. Salay said all ponds that are part of our stormwater system should be maintained by the City. She said at the end of construction, we could ask that someone dive in and retrieve all the construction debris recalling an issue in Ballantrae where a pond was clogged with construction debris and did not function correctly. Mr. Stidhem asked about the timing of the programming referred to on BS -8. He said there are a lot of possibilities in the open space and depending on the type of neighborhood, especially if you look at 123 — 109 area. He said some interesting things can be done to create community for that target market. Ms. Husak said at this point there is not really a timeframe established but it would be the Parks staff identifying when programming would occur and she is not sure when the threshold is to engage the community. Mr. Stidhem said he is sure great things will happen and the community will be involved. He referred to the very top of that same page where it states "generally wire or two -rail fencing shall be used to protect special landmark trees." He asked if that was a temporary condition. Ms. Husak confirmed it would be temporary fencing. She said in normal circumstances, orange silt fence is used for tree protection, which is not very sturdy; wind, rain, or a backhoe could knock it down. She said that fence is a sturdier, more permanent fence to protect trees on any temporary condition during construction. Ms. Husak explained it is being done now at the Stansbury at Muirfield Village site where inspectors are working with the developer to identify areas for the more heavy -duty fence to protect the existing trees. Mr. Miller said he is good with the application and believes the developer is really close. He stated he is not opposed to vinyl windows. He indicated he has had wood windows and would not again but giving the homeowner the opportunity to choose is okay. He said he really appreciates the four -sided architecture but there was a letter submitted by a resident, which included a picture of a home in the Virginia Homes section of Tartan West, and said this is not four -sided architecture. He said he does not interpret the text as defining this as four -sided architecture and not what the residents are looking for. Mr. Ruma said he had nothing to do with the approval of Tartan West. He said all he did was buy those lots and sold them to his son. He said the house Mr. Miller is referring to is the house they built for Home for Hope' for The James Cancer hospital and he said he did not know if they had four -sided architecture requirements in Tartan West or not but the plans submitted were approved. Mr. Miller said he wanted to bring this up because the residents took the time to write a letter to the Commission and there were multiple purposes for his letter but one of the areas is the lack of aesthetics. He said he believes the all masonry fireplaces, the masonry material on the fireplaces itself is going to help carry the four -sided architecture around the home is going to help. He said he does not have a problem with it; he just wanted to say there is a resident out there that does not believe this is four -sided architecture. He said he did not think that is what Mr. Ruma's text is inferring; he just wanted to go on record with that information. Mr. Miller asked about a flood plain study that was coming or would come after because some of these homes are currently in the flood plain. He asked if a new study would be presented to Council. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 9, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 25 Ms. Husak said the requirement is that there will be a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) for changes to that flood plain boundary submitted to us and subsequently to the Commission at the Final Development Plan stage when the applicant had a chance to finalize the grading for those lots and get in touch with FEMA to get that taken care of. Ms. Newell said with regards to four -sided architecture, if the text is silent in regard to something, it refers back to the provisions that are in our own Zoning Code. Ms. De Rosa asked about the Hyland -Croy Road connection. She read the condition "to work with the City to program a direct site connection ". She asked if that meant "it will be done" or it will be "prepped to be done ". Ms. Husak said it means it will be done; it just depends on by whom and exactly where Ms. Wawszkiewicz added "programmed" is a very specific term that engineering uses with City Council for projects that are included in the Capital Improvement Plan in a five -year window. Ms. De Rosa asked about "to accelerate" or "make sure" whatever possible that the improvement at Brand and Avery Roads get into the plan because that has been stated over and over again. She noted the safety concerns that were brought up and she shares that concern. Ms. Husak said Staff had a meeting this morning with residents in Belvedere where that was one of the discussion topics that we honed in on because the avoidance of that intersection causes a lot of the internal traffic within Belvedere so she said she hoped that Council was aware of that need and to move it up in the CIP. Ms. Salay said that was definitely on Council's radar and believes Engineering is working on a design and as soon as they are ready with a design, Council would support construction. Mr. Miller said one of the residents brought up using that anticipated road as a construction entry and he thought that was very logical. He asked if that is something that can be included here. Ms. Husak said the tough thing about it is that the first phase of development is intended to be this southeastern section so having 1,500 feet of drive just to get to the site plus another 1,500 feet to get to the construction area, might be a tad difficult. She said the construction staging area /entrances will be something that Engineering takes a look at as part of their acceptance of the construction drawings. She said they will get it out of the main roads of travel but will traffic have to take Avery Road to get there, most likely that is going to be the route. Mr. Brown addressed the Hyland -Croy connector. He said part of the land that Mr. Ruma does own, if working with the City to connect that, how is that particular property that needs to become a road, deeded, accessed, or granted permission by the City to fully utilize and take over for road construction. Mr. Ruma said he thought it would all be part of the infrastructure agreement. Mr. Ruma addressed something mentioned earlier when he said he had no problems specifying mailboxes and lamp posts. He said they have done that in the past and generally includes it in the deed restrictions to ensure homeowners comply. He said they generally specify a brand and a picture and state this is what the homeowner is to put in front of their house. He said it was fine with him to add it to the text, if that was requested. Ms. Newell asked if there were further questions or concerns. [There were none.] Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 9, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 25 Ms. Husak said there were originally four conditions proposed that are included in the Planning recommendation shown on the screen, and conditions 5 through 13 have been added. She read the conditions: Ms. Husak said approval is recommended for the Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan with 13 conditions: 1) That the applicant enter into an infrastructure agreement with the City, prior to submitting the first Final Development Plan, for development thresholds and public project contributions including the necessary sanitary sewer system improvements; 2) That the applicant work with the City to program a direct site connection to Hyland -Croy Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the approval of a Final Plat that includes the Firenza Place connection to Tartan West; 3) That the developer update the traffic impact study to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior a City Council hearing of the rezoning; 4) That as part of the development of Section 1, the applicant provide a northbound left -turn lane on Avery Road into the site and a pedestrian crossing system for Avery Road, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 5) That the development text be revised to eliminate vinyl as a permitted window option and allow the applicant to request approval of specific vinyl window products at the Final Development Plan stage if so desired; 6) That the development text be revised to eliminate vinyl as a shutter material; 7) That the development text be updated to eliminate asphalt as a permitted driveway material; 8) That the development text be updated to address the language on page AS -1 in accordance with the Commission comments; 9) That the development text be updated to limit all siding as the building material to 25% of the total homes within Subareas A and B; 10) That the development text be updated to limit stucco to no more than 50% of the primary fagade of a home; 11) That the development text regarding the review authority of the Architectural Review Committee be updated to revise page AS -1, Section II. B. 1. to add architectural character and level of detail of architectural elements to the review authority of the ARC; 12) That the stormwater management areas be maintained by the City of Dublin and the development text and plans be updated accordingly; and 13) That consistent mailboxes be submitted for review and approval at the final development stage. Ms. Newell referred to the second paragraph that she suggested editing was under the ARC paragraph B- 1. She asked Ms. Salay to confirm what her issues were. Ms. Salay said siding and percentage of stucco were her issues. Ms. Newell said right now, what that applies to is siding. Ms. Salay said she was interested in masonry on the front of the house. Ms. Husak suggested "and that homes using the European Country style use high level of masonry on the fagade ". Ms. Salay suggested "75 % ". Ms. Husak said she did not think it was feasible to calculate percentage of materials during permit review. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 9, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 25 Mr. Brown asked if it would be easier to designate that "any particular elevation not be completely stucco ". Ms. Salay said the problem is the whole elevation. She asked Ms. Husak to recall what was stipulated on the recent Deer Run application. Mr. Ruma said we can eliminate all stucco houses. He suggested "on 75% of the houses there will be masonry features on the front." Ms. Salay asked if masonry was the primary material. Mr. Ruma said not as primary; it may be stone and siding on the side. Ms. Salay said that is what she wanted to get away from; she does not want too much siding. She clarified she wanted most of the homes in this neighborhood to have masonry fronts the primary material; you might have siding or stucco accents but when the house is viewed, it will be a brick or stone house. Mr. Ruma suggested "75% of the houses will have facades with at least 50% stone or brick' Ms. Salay said we are tied into the percentage of materials calculations. Mr. Ruma said he is not trying to create all stucco or all siding houses but there will be some houses that will be mostly siding. Ms. Salay said what we are after is a very high quality built environment that you see the stone and the brick and do not see the stucco. She noted some examples in the applicant's development standards that do not work for her because there is too much stucco. She said the text needs to be modified. Mr. Ruma indicated we are on dangerous ground. He said the best thing is to leave it up to the Architectural Review Committee. Ms. Mitchell said a moment ago, someone said at least half must be masonry or stone and siding or stucco could be accents. She asked if that was a solution. Ms. Husak said Staff would be comfortable having a requirement for having masonry for certain styles. She said all European Country homes have to have that, which is fairly easy to administer. She said what is difficult is when it gets to 75% of the homes have to have that because for 185 homes minus the empty- nester homes, we have to have a matrix in the office that says this home in this area affects this home over here, and this over there, etc. She said if you have to take into account the 50 homes that have already been approved that dictate what the 51" home has to have, it gets difficult. Mr. Brown said of all the pictures of homes that are represented, the only one he has an issue with is the middle one on AS -3, European Country. Ms. Husak said for Tartan Ridge there was some language in there for the prominent facades because that is the piece that sticks out the most out of that entire elevation. Ms. Salay noted "the prominent fagade has to be stone or brick ". Ms. Newell said she reviewed the architectural diversity standards and understands Ms. Salay's goal that a whole bunch of stucco or siding homes is not what she wants to be left with but it is ok to have a home that was predominantly siding. She suggested "The architectural character of the community must Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 9, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 25 provide diversity of styles and use of materials so that for the overall development, does not create a predominant use of a single material'. Ms. Husak said it has to be except for the siding because on the Colonial elevation, it is appropriate. Ms. Newell said she meant throughout the whole development. She said her intent was if there are four homes in a row, there would not be four homes that were all going to be siding so viewing the development as a whole, stucco was not repeated throughout the development. She said in the architectural character, they would have to make that assumption. She explained as the building gets out, and there is a resident that wants to come in and there is a lot of siding homes, someone on that ARC has to say that the home needs to be a different material because of a predominance of a single material. Ms. Newell invited public comment. Robert Fathman, 5805 Tarton Circle North, said on this most recent discussion, he heard the applicant say he is okay with 50 %. He noted Ms. Husak said she has some difficulty working with it but personally he said he liked what Ms. Salay said about 75 %. He said somewhere between 50% — 75% is okay and most of the Commission seems to want that. He suggested picking a percentage and go with it since Mr. Ruma agreed to work with it and let us be done with that issue. Mr. Fathman said he did not see on Ms. Husaks list here a point #13, which is Lots 40 and 41. He said there has been a great amount of discussion and then we moved off that and he would like to see those lots eliminated. He said our group of these nine homeowner associations wanted to eliminate six lots and Staff wanted to eliminate three lots. He said he would like to see at least those two eliminated. Ms. Salay suggested "75% is stone or brick on the front fagade." Mr. Brown said he did not want to eliminate the Colonial Revival style. Ms. Newell said she did not have an objection to a home being all siding Ms. Salay said she did not mind either but in Jerome Village there is very high -end homes and it is a fine look and she does not have an objection; it is just when you get too much of it. Ms. Husak said the problem we will run into is if a certain style of home or architectural character is required then nobody builds that particular home. She said we had that happen at the Conine property there off Summit View where the text required if there was masonry used on the front; it had to be on all sides. She said it ended up being that nobody used masonry on any of the homes. Ms. Salay restated her primary concern is with front facades. She said we have the four -sided architecture and the pictures of sides and rears; she does not want too much stucco on a fagade of a house. Mr. Brown suggested "no primary fagade should contain more than 50% stucco." Ms. Newell reminded everyone that we do have an ARC that will be making judgements. She said it is hard to regulate architecture that is why we are all struggling to come up with the proper text language. Mr. Brown agreed. Ms. Newell said it is equally hard for Staff to enforce that because there will be a quantitative and a subjective decision needed to be made in regards to what those provisions are, which is equally the task Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 9, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 21 of 25 of the ARC. She said if the goal is not to end up with a predominant material throughout the development that we simply just add that to the text. Ms. Salay said we covered the siding. Ms. Newell said that would apply to whether it was siding or stucco, equally would apply then if there was masonry. She said that would not limit the materials but it would limit every single house in the development from being masonry. Ms. Salay said if every single house in this neighborhood is either the 25% siding farmhouse style and every other home was brick or stone, it would not be a bad thing. Ms. Husak said she tried to incorporate what Mr. Brown was suggesting in condition #10. "That the development text be revised to limit stucco to no more than 50% of the primary fagade of a home." She said what this does not get at, to some extent, is if people then chose not to build any of the European Country styles because they would have to add more masonry to it. She said there is the diversity requirement that similar facades cannot be across from each other, next to each other, and so forth that would potentially get us more of the styles that do not use stucco primarily as a building material whether that is the more Craftsman style home or the Colonial Revival home. She said that would be the only issue she would foresee with that language as such that this could potentially eliminate the European Country style from the neighborhood or diminish it. She said people may build less of it. Ms. Newell said she would agree with that comment. Mr. Ruma said he is getting to the point where we are taking away the architect's ability to create. He said if somebody wants to build a farmhouse with different sections of architecture showing some stone, some siding, vertical siding, or some copper roofs, we are trying to diminish the ability of the architect to be creative. He suggested simplifying things by stating "no all stucco homes and we will have no more than 25% of all siding houses" and leave the rest alone and leave it up to the ARC. We need it simple for our Staff and those builders and architects that come along to build here. Ms. Newell agreed she did not want to limit any architect's creativity. She said if the applicant is comfortable with the 25% and no home will be completely stucco. Ms. Mitchell asked if "no homes will be primarily stucco" could be written in the text instead of "all stucco ". Ms. Salay suggested "no primary fagade is more than 50% stucco." Ms. Mitchell said and then "no more than 75% of the homes in the development will be all siding." Everyone on the Commission and the applicant agreed to that language. Mr. Ruma noted the problem in condition #9 is primary. He interprets that as the whole house. Ms. Husak said we are basically saying that the true Colonial Revival style of all siding with a stone water table can only be 25% of the homes within the entire development of Subareas A and B. Mr. Ruma said his concern by stating primary material as it infers there is another material or secondary material. He said it should say "25% of the total homes ". The Commissioners agreed. Ms. Newell asked the Commission if they wanted to tackle Lots 40 and 41 that came up previously in discussion. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 9, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 22 of 25 Ms. Salay made a motion to eliminate Lots 40 and 41 from the plan and restore that to open space to preserve trees. Ms. Newell said she is ok with leaving Lots 40 and 41 and the reason is because it would only preserve one tree and considering the overall development, we have asked the applicant to substantially limit the amount of lot coverage on this site and they have brought it down to 1.22 units per acre. She said the review criteria standards do not provide a reason to tell the applicant to eliminate those two lots. She said the applicant has met everything we have asked of them. Ms. Salay said she made a motion and we can just take a vote and she would be fine either way. Ms. Newell said she was looking in terms of people felt strongly enough than it can be added as a condition. Jennifer Readier said if this is to be addressed it should be in the conditions so we could get a consensus. Ms. Newell said that is what she is trying to ask if there is a consensus of whether it should be included in the conditions or not. She confirmed there are three trees and one is of significant size. Mr. Brown said he did not think it was necessary to eliminate those two lots. The last five members agreed the lots did not need to be eliminated. The Chair asked if the applicant was in agreement of the conditions. Mr. Ruma said he did not want to eliminate asphalt. He noted currently in Belvedere, two - thirds of the homes driveways are paved with asphalt. He said all of the houses in Tartan West that are adjacent to this site and the Verona condominiums are all asphalt. He said the driveways in Tartan Ridge are probably 50/50. He emphasized some people do not want concrete and that was the only condition he had an issue with. Mr. Brown said he did not have a problem with asphalt. Mr. Stidhem asked what the issue is with asphalt. Ms. Salay said durability, longevity, and appearance. Ms. De Rosa said she recalled this was agreeable by everyone at the meeting on March 26"' Mr. Ruma said he did not agree with concrete. He said that was the one thing he held fast on. He said he made a mistake when he said vinyl windows but he definitely opposed concrete driveways because he does not like the material as a driveway. He said he has had a concrete driveway, it stained, it settled, and then it flaked. He explained that after it settled, it then cracked with the weight of a car. He said the only way to fix it is to remove and replace it. He said that was expensive and replaced it with asphalt and he was happy, but that was his personal opinion. He said he has seen good concrete driveways that have lasted a long time because they are on proper bases and sealed consistently. He said it is a matter of preference. He asked what if someone did not want a concrete driveway in this neighborhood. He said neighborhoods consisting of all concrete driveways are somewhat ugly. He said it is like all stucco houses. Ms. Newell said she did not think the condition was "concrete was the only option" because brick and pavers are in the text already. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 9, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 23 of 25 Ms. Salay said she has had a concrete driveway for 23 years and it is in perfect condition. She said she has neighbors with asphalt driveways and they have to do something with it every year to keep it looking good. She agreed it was a personal preference but she wanted to see asphalt eliminated as concrete is a higher quality material. She referred to the person that spoke about asphalt; we appreciate the business in Dublin and will continue to make all of our roadways asphalt. Ms. Mitchell recalled a discussion about the mix of paving materials. She said if there is asphalt, concrete, and pavers all in the same area it is not good aesthetically. Ms. Newell said they did but she walked Lewellyn Farms South earlier this week because it is a really nice development and thought for sure all of the driveways were mix of pavers and concrete and she was wrong. She said they are predominantly pavers and concrete but there are three asphalt driveways in that development so it makes her want to fall on this one a little bit. Mr. Brown said concrete can sometimes be a little glaring or jarring almost like the big fagade of stucco; it depends on the style of the house and what blends in appropriately. He said people throw salt on concrete driveways and then they pit and flake. He agreed it is a personal preference and he is not opposed either way. Ms. Newell pointed out that what is consistent is all of the curb cuts and all of the aprons are all concrete, which is a standard in all of Dublin. The Chair asked legal counsel what is done when the applicant does not agree with one condition. Philip Hartmann said you cannot force an applicant to agree to a condition or put a condition on the property that is not agreed to. The Chair asked to see what condition number that was. Mr. Brown asked if there needed to be a separate motion. Mr. Hartmann said he did not want to do anything separate in voting but it would be good to get a consensus where everybody stands whether you want to keep it up there or not. The Chair asked Mr. Hartmann if he recommended a formal vote Mr. Hartmann said no, just get an idea where the Commission would stand if you want to leave that condition in but if there is 4 or 5 of you that want to take it out, then it is probably advisable to take it out and vote on it. Ms. Salay said she would keep asphalt out as a permitted driveway material. Mr. Miller agreed. Ms. De Rosa said she is not an asphalt fan and would keep it out. Mr. Brown said he did not care either way; asphalt is fine. Ms. Newell said she is with the asphalt. Ms. Mitchell said she would keep it out. Mr. Stidhem said he would keep it out. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 9, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 24 of 25 The Chair said the consensus on the Commission was that asphalt should remain out. She asked the applicant again, in regards to those conditions, if he can accept all of the 13 conditions. Mr. Ruma said he can have vinyl windows but would have to come back with a specific window and quality of those windows that will be ok. The Chair said we do not know 100% that they would be okay. She said vinyl windows could be asked for in the Final Development Plan, which would allow an opportunity to make a better presentation on the product intending to use or level of quality. Mr. Ruma said he would give up on concrete driveways if he could get vinyl windows. He asked if they could say Anderson windows of a certain specification and Jen -Weld of a certain specification or similar. Mr. Brown said not to speak on the behalf of the Commission but he spoke earlier that right now vinyl windows are eliminated but if you come back with specific language that allows a certain quality level of vinyl windows in the Final Development Plan phase, most people are agreeable to that. Ms. Salay said she feels the applicant is going to get the quality. She asked the anticipated price point of these homes. Mr. Ruma said it depends on what section. He said in Section 1, where there are 40 large lots, probably be $750,000 - $1 million. Ms. Salay said someone is not going to spend that kind of money on a home that have low - quality vinyl windows. Mr. Ruma agreed. He said Virginia Homes sold a home at $920,000 in Wellington Reserve and it has vinyl windows. Mr. Brown said they are probably well- specified detailed vinyl windows to which Mr. Ruma agreed. Ms. Mitchell said she thought the concern tonight was the word vinyl with nothing around it, making people nervous. Ms. Newell said that was her concern. Mr. Brown said so we are saying that we perceive that the applicant will get that in the Final Development Plan if returning with a good qualification on what determines a good quality vinyl window. Mr. Ruma said he agreed to the conditions to get this done. Ms. Husak confirmed the 13 conditions apply to the Rezoning with the Preliminary Development Plan. Motion and Vote Ms. Newell made a motion of approval for Rezoning with a Preliminary Development Plan with 13 stated conditions, Ms. Mitchell seconded. The vote was as follows: Mr. Stidhem, yes; Mr. Miller, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mr. Brown, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. Mitchell, yes; and Ms. Newell, yes. (Approved 7 — 0) The Chair requested the conditions for the Preliminary Plat be shown on the screen. She asked the applicant if he was in agreement with the condition. 1) That the applicant ensure that any minor technical adjustments to the plat are made prior to City Council submittal. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission April 9, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 25 of 25 Mr. Ruma agreed. Motion and Vote Ms. Newell made a motion for approval of the Preliminary Plat with one condition, Mr. Brown seconded. The vote was as follows: Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mr. Miller, yes; Ms. Mitchell, yes; Mr. Stidhem, yes; Mr. Brown, yes; and Ms. Newell, yes. (Approved 7 — 0) The Commission thanked everyone and Mr. Ruma thanked the Commission for their time and effort and reaching a compromise on the situation. The Chair adjourned the meeting for a three minute break. The Chair reconvened the meeting. Communications Ms. Husak said a sheet was being routed through the Commission to add their names and phone numbers if they so choose for the contact list for Seattle, WA. She pointed out the travel folders that contain money that has been allocated for the meals per diem at the APA Conference. She noted there has been an APA folder created in Dropbox that will contain the contact list as well as a sample schedule of sessions that might be interesting to the Commission such as parking, downtown redevelopment, and form -based codes, etc. She said Staff noted speakers that they know are engaging. She explained there are two staff members that are presenting, herself and Devayani Puranik who has collaborated with Justin Goodwin who used to be on staff with the City of Dublin. In May, Ms. Husak said Planning was hoping to have another training session for the Commission and was considering an informal setting the week of May 11"'. She entertained the idea of meeting at 5800 Shier Rings Road for dinner prior to the session and discussing APA. She said MORK might also provide a presentation about the housing trends. Ms. De Rosa said she would be out of the country that week. Ms. Salay suggested the last week of April. Ms. Husak said April 301h at 6 pm had been agreed upon by the Commission members but she would check the City Calendar for any conflicts. Ms. Husak noted a fairly large neighborhood meeting to occur on April 23rd. She said there is going to be a Parks and input meeting as part of that for Riverside Park. The Chair adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on May 7, 2015. City 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.dublinohiousa.gov City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Planning Report Thursday, April 9, 2015 Riviera Case Summary Agenda Item 1 Case Number 14- 068Z /PDP /PP Site Location 8205 Avery Road West side of Avery Road, north of the intersection with Belvedere Green Boulevard Proposal: A rezoning of approximately 152.2 acres from R, Rural District and R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District for the potential development of the site with up to 185 single - family lots and approximately 76 acres of open space. 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, and a preliminary plat under the provisions of the Subdivision Regulations, Chapter 152. Applicant: Charles Ruma; represented by Smith and Hale. Planning Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II 1 (614) 410 -4675, chusak @dublin.oh.us Planning Recommendation: Approval of the rezoning with pie /iminary development plan wfih four conditions; and Approval of the preliminary plat with one condition, In Planning's analysis, the rezoning with preliminary development plan proposal complies with the rezoning /preliminary development plan criteria and the existing development standards within the area. The proposal for the preliminary plat complies with the preliminary plat criteria and a recommendation to City Council for approval of both requests is recommended. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 14- 068Z /PDP /PP I Riviera Thursday, April 9, 20151 Page 2 of 26 Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Conditions 1) That the applicant enter into an infrastructure agreement with the City, prior to submitting the first final development plan, for development thresholds and public project contributions including the necessary sanitary sewer system improvements; 2) That the applicant work with the City to program a direct site connection to Hyland -Croy Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the approval of a final plat that includes the Firenza Place connection to Tartan West; 3) That the developer update the traffic impact study to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior a City Council hearing of the rezoning, and; 4) That as part of the development of Section 1, the applicant provide a northbound left turn lane on Avery Road into the site and a pedestrian crossing system for Avery Road, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; Preliminary Plat Conditions 1) That the applicant ensure that any minor technical adjustments to the plat, are made prior to City Council submittal. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 14 051 1 RNloa Thursday, April 9, 20151 Page 3 of 26 14 063l Preliminary Development amend Plan/ Pfellmmary Plat o 400 aoo amend City Of Dublin 8205 nuz�y Road Feet City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 14- 068Z /PDP /PP I Riviera Thursday, April 9, 20151 Page 4 of 26 Facts Sites Total site: 152.2 acres • Frontage: 2,020 feet (Avery Road) II • The site is comprised of two parcels, with the eastern parcel in Franklin County, and Delaware County and the western parcel in Union County. Zoning Existing East: R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District (99t acres) West: R, Rural District (53t acres) The R and R -1 Districts permit a density of just over 1 unit per acre (40,000- square- foot lots and 150 foot lot widths). Uses included agricultural uses, schools and parks, and child care. Conditional uses include churches, mobile homes, boarding and care of animals, and agricultural accessory uses. JProposed PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Riviera) Surrounding North Zoning and Uses East South West: Grizzelll Middle = PUD El I School and Deer Run Elementary School zoned R -1. % \ Single family and multiple family \ , o sections of Tartan West, zoned PUD,' \ Planned Unit \ Development j District. Muirfield Village,° zoned PUD, across Avery Road. JPUD Residential ®� subdivisions including Celtic Estates (zoned PUD) and Belvedere (zoned PLR, Planned Low Density Residential District). Shannon Glen is farther to the south (also zoned PUD). Large lot single family homes, accessed from Hyland -Croy Road (one home shares a property line with the golf course). Dublin Jerome High School is to the southwest and is zoned PUD. Site Features . Generally rectangular site with 2,020 feet of frontage on Avery Road. • Significant natural features include two tributary streams to the North Fork of the Indian Run, which converge at the center of the site flowing south into Shannon Glen Park. • A wooded area is in the northwest portion of the site with tree rows along the western and southern site boundaries. There are many mature trees existing on the site most of which were planted over time with the development of the golf course. Facts I Site Features I City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 14- 068Z /PDP /PP I Riviera Thursday, April 9, 20151 Page 5 of 26 I • The western fork of the stream has significant floo_ dway and a Stream Corridor Protection Zone (SCPZ) borders the stream. • The site was developed as a golf course 40+ years ago with many constructed features such as ponds, fairways, greens, cart paths and varying topography. • There is a two -story clubhouse and banquet facility with a large parking lot along the Avery Road frontage. • The site currently has two access points from Avery Road serving the parking lot for the clubhouse. Site Background March 12, 2015 The Planning and Zoning Commission tabled, as requested by the applicant, this application for review and recommendation to City Council of a rezoning with preliminary development plan and a preliminary plat for a 152 -acre site to be developed with 185 lots and 50% open space. The Commissioners complimented the applicant for all the revisions made to the proposal since the last review in November 2014. After hearing feedback from the coalition of 9 neighborhoods and several other adjacent residents, the Commissioners requested the applicant provide additional detail in the architectural requirements section of the proposed development text, strengthen the language regarding tree preservation November 13, 2014 The Planning and Zoning Commission heard the request for rezoning with preliminary development /preliminary plat. Residents attending the meeting voiced concerns regarding such issues as traffic impacts, natural feature protection, and housing density. The Commission noted those concerns and raised additional questions about tree preservation, the applicability of conservation design and extent of architectural standards. March 13, 2014 The Planning and Commission reviewed a concept plan for this proposal on for 284 single - family lots with 58 acres of open space. The Commissioners evaluated the proposal with respect to compatibility of proposed land use, appropriateness of proposed density, compatibility of the proposed development with adjacent parcels, and appropriateness of proposed open space size and location. The Commission determined that the proposal was a compatible land use given adjacent uses and existing zoning on the property. The Commission commented that the density of the proposal should be reduced to be equal to or less than adjacent developments. It was also noted that the plan would benefit from more usable open space. The Commission also commented that special consideration should be paid to how the site layout works with the adjacent schools specifically addressing some of challenges like noise and light. Members from the public expressed their concerns about the proposal in terms of the Community Plan designation of Parks and Open Space, the increase in traffic and attendance at nearby schools. Public comments also included suggested alternative options such as a land purchase by the City for open space. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 14- 068Z /PDP /PP I Riviera Thursday, April 9, 20151 Page 6 of 26 Facts Update Since the Planning and Zoning Commission review on March 12, 2015, the applicant has been working with staff to address the concerns voiced by the Commissions members and the public. This report contains updates discussing the most recent changes. In summary, the applicant has made the following revisions: • Provided separate booklets for the development text and the preliminary development plan drawings • Updated the development text to incorporate many of the conditions previously proposed by Planning and the Planning and Zoning Commission as development requirements into the development standards • Relocated Lots 135, 136, and 185 to the eastern portion of the development • Included images into the development text to demonstrate and illustrate architectural requirements • Addressed Commission discussions in terms of architectural elements and materials such as windows, shingles, driveways, trim materials, and empty nester examples • Updated the preliminary plat to include open space maintenance responsibilities Following the November 13, 2014 meeting, in preparation for the March 12, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the applicant made the following changes: • Reduced the area to be rezoned from 167 acres to 152 acres • Reduced the number of lots from 240 to 185 • Reduced the proposed density from 1.44 to 1.22 units per acre • Increased the open space from 63 acres to 76 acres • Incorporated Conservation Design Principles into the plan • Increased tree preservation, including the preservation of a 72 -inch Chestnut Oak and a 54 -inch Red Oak Neighborhood The applicant has been in contact with residents from Tartan West as well as Contact representatives from nine adjacent HOAs. The association of nine subdivisions prepared an alternate report and requested the Commission consider that as part of the record for the last Commission, which continues to be included with the meeting materials. The City has continued an extensive web presence for this development to address inquiries from interested citizens, which included concerns about loss of open space and natural features, traffic, impacts on utilities, school capacity and property values. The site has been updated with the most recent development proposal. No other correspondence from the public was received for this meeting. Dublin City School The developer and Staff have continued to engage the Dublin City Schools to ensure Contact coordination between the development and adjoining schools. This included discussion about connection points for walk-ways and responsibilities for City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 14- 068Z /PDP /PP I Riviera Thursday, April 9, 20151 Page 7 of 26 Facts Dublin City School construction. While the previous application proposed a 15 -acre land donation to Contact Dublin City Schools for the potential reconstruction /relocation of Deer Run Elementary, the current proposal excludes this land from the rezoning /PUD. The land will remain zoned R, Rural District, as earlier described. The property is Jcurrently under the ownership of the applicant, who is responsible for ensuring that City Codes are met on the property. tails Rezonin Development PIM Process A 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. A preliminary development plan is also required. Extensive engineering analysis is also been conducted for this proposal. All studies, reports and plans are posted on the City website for this application. The proposed development text establishes a new Planned Unit Development District (Riviera). The text creates three subareas and includes development regulations that apply to the entire site. SECTION 3-2 J 185 1 '^ 153 152 I39 M y 190 183 I.£1 1Sa I51 PI 193 je _ 1 5 9 b I50 193 191 10 6 19 0 F3 SECTION 4 15, Ine 1M 1 u9 ip 196 us n8 16 159 N6 IM 1 IT IJ 175 ^ ie�iu. IM1D 161 163 6l IM CJ 1M1J J 174 SECTION 4 1 4 1 173 1,3 I SECTION 1 This is a proposal for a residential development with a maximum of 185 single family homes, with sidewalks, a multi -use path system, and an open space network. The proposal includes approximately 76 acres of reserve /park space including preserved tree stands, paths and ponds for use by the neighborhood and the community. Details City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 14- 068Z /PDP /PP I Riviera Thursday, April 9, 20151 Page 8 of 26 Rezoning with Prelimina4WOMe op6ent Plan Main access is from Avery Road on Riviera Boulevard, which ends at a 1.5 -acre central open space. Connections are provided through Tantalus Drive and Timble Falls Drive south to the Belvedere subdivision, and Firenza Place west to Tartan West. A stub street is placed at the west edge of the site to provide for a future street connection to Hyland -Croy Road with a later development phase of Riviera. The Avery Road frontage provides a large setback bordered by internal streets in the development. Homes are planned in pods along the north, south and western boundary. There is a larger lot area, Subarea A to the south; medium sized lots in Subarea B in the northeast and west portions of the site; and smaller, single family lots targeted at empty nesters in the northwest as Subarea C. An approximately 30 -acre open space is proposed in the center of the site, including the two tributary streams to the North Fork of the Indian Run and the Stream Corridor Protection Zone over the western fork. Community Plan Thoroughfare Plan The Future Land Use Map in the Community Plan designates the area as Parks /Open Space. Prior to the 2007 Community Plan update, the 1997 Future Land Use Map identified the west half of the site as future Metro Park and the east half as 'Residential — Medium Density' [1 -2 dwelling units per acre]. Adjacent residential development approved during that time provided street stubs to the site, including Firenza Place in Tartan West, Timble Falls Drive and Tantalus Drive in Belvedere. Through the public review process during the Plan update, the property owner requested the current designation and City Council approved the Parks /Open Space designation. The majority of the residential developments around this site are in the Residential Medium Density future land use classification. This permits a density of 1 -2 units per acre. At 1.22 units per acre, this proposal is generally less than surrounding densities. The Avery Road setback is as provided in the Community Plan for a Rural roadway, which is characterized by: • Application of generous setbacks ranging from 100 to 200 feet; • Integration of open views and vistas into adjacent development perhaps greater than 200 feet in some areas to increase the sense of openness; • Provision of informal landscaping that focuses on native plant species and naturalized forms (meadows, wildflowers, grasses, wetland areas etc.); • Use of trees, fencerows and woodland plantings to provide additional screening City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 14- 068Z /PDP /PP I Riviera Thursday, April 9, 20151 Page 9 of 26 Detail Rezoning with Preliminar;3=veloprnent Plan Community Plan and sense of enclosure; Thoroughfare . Preservation of historic farmsteads, barns or outbuildings that emphasize the Plan agrarian history of the area; • Creation of meandering bike paths and sidewalks that are informally designed as to not be entirely visible from the roadway; • Design of naturalized ponds with aquatic plants and informal edges; • Use of stone walls and split rail fences that are traditionally used in the countryside; • Integration of "rural" road design that may include berms, swales and /or variable medians; and • Provision of shared entrances to minimize curbcuts and maintain openness. Conservation Design Details of how these characteristic may be achieved will be included in the final development plan for the first Section of development. The development text requires a 100 -foot setback along the road and describes that the amenities permitted within the setback will enhance the rural character within the area. At the November 13, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the public and many Commissioners discussed the applicability of a Council resolution passed in 2004 regarding "Conservation Design." City of Dublin Resolution 27 -04 encourages, but does not require, certain conservation design criteria for future residential developments in all appropriate locations. Based on the feedback from the Commission and the public, the applicant has revised the proposal to address the applicable Conservation Design Principles as outlined in the resolution, including: • Preserving large natural areas (stream corridor and centralized open spaces). • Striving for 50% open space: 50% (76.1 acres) provided. • Striving for 75% of lots adjacent to open space: 90% (166 of 185 lots). • Providing large setbacks from scenic roads (Avery Road setback is 100 feet). • Creating curvilinear street pattern wherever possible: Required street connections somewhat limit the street pattern however the site is designed to minimize to the extent possible cut - through traffic to adjacent neighborhoods. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 14- 068Z /PDP /PP I Riviera Thursday, April 9, 20151 Page 10 of 26 Details !zoning with Preliminary eve o�t Plan All proposed streets are public and the names have been approved by the City. The main access point, Riviera Boulevard will provide site access from Avery Road and ends at Devito Way adjacent to the central park. Devito Way provides north and south access to Subareas A and B. Several streets loop through the development to provide access to smaller pods of homes. Street connections to existing stubs in surrounding developments include Firenza Place to the northwest, and Timble Falls and Tantalus Drives to the south. A street stub (Cacchio Place) is provided at the west edge of the site to allow for a future connection to Hyland -Croy Road. Planning requests the applicant include with the final development plan that a sign be posted at the stub street indicating the future planned connection for this section. Planning and Engineering will require the connection to Hyland Croy Road be made prior to the approval of a final plat that includes the connection of Firenza Place in Tartan West. I he applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) as required for a rezoning application with the original application submission. That study assumed a much higher number of lots. At this point, the TIS was not required to be updated with the reduced number of lots to 185 due a lesser traffic impact with less density. However, the traffic impact study must be accepted by the City Engineer prior to the City Council hearing of the rezoning. The TIS identified the need for the developer to construct a northbound left turn lane along Avery Road into the Droposed site and install an anhanced pedestrian crossing system for Avery Road, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. These are still - equired and accounted PM kHur Orn (G� muum FmjeR Traffic Wumg Y^ for in the development text. Details Traffic Impact Study City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 14- 068Z /PDP /PP I Riviera Thursday, April 9, 20151 Page 11 of 26 Rezoning with Preliminary eve o�t Plan Off -site transportation impacts will be addressed through a separate infrastructure agreement with the City. The applicant will contribute financially to off -site improvements based on the percent site traffic contributions listed in the TIS and adjusted based on the final number of lots permitted for the development. Locations included in the agreement include the Avery Road and Brand Road intersection, the Hyland -Croy Road and Post Road intersection, the Jerome Road and McKitrick Road intersection, the Hyland -Croy Road and McKitrick Road intersection, and the Hyland - Croy Road and Brand Road intersection. As noted in the TIS, distribution of trips across the roadway network improves the safety and efficiency of the transportation system. About 40% of the site traffic is distributed to and from the west. Connectivity for vehicles, bikes, pedestrians, deliveries and services will all be improved with the connections to the planned access to surrounding streets and a future route to Hyland -Croy Road. Once all connections are in place the surrounding neighborhoods are likely to see less cut - through traffic. Other adjacent streets and intersections also carry fewer site trips with the Hyland -Croy Road connection. The conditional requirement of a connection to Hyland -Croy Road will require additional land acquisition. D This is a single family residential development with 185 lots and 76 acres of open De space in 13 Reserves. Use Development The 185 lots on 152.2 acres results in a density of 1.22 units to the acre. The Details surrounding Shannon Glen, Belvedere and Tartan West developments range in Density density from 1.5 to 1.98 units per acre. The applicant has included a detailed map Compatibility showing surrounding densities for various areas. The map shows the density of the adjacent Muirfield area as 1.41 units per acre. This number is slightly higher than a previous assessment by Planning that showed 1.27 units per acre. The applicant's density calculation appropriately excluded commercial /non - residential areas from the density area. Development Details Minimum Lot Requirements Minimum Lot Requirements Subarea A B C Area (s q. ft. 13 000 9-17-50 7 200 Width ft. 100 75 60 Depth ft. 125 125 120 Front Yard ft. 25 25/ 20 on Cacchio Ln 20 Rear Yard ft. 25 25 1 15 Side Yard ft. 8 6 5 Lot Coverage 45 (Code) 45 (Code) 70 City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 14- 068Z /PDP /PP I Riviera Thursday, April 9, 20151 Page 12 of 26 Details Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Subarea A Subarea A is in the southeast portion of the site and includes the Riviera Boulevard entry off Avery Road as well as the lots adjacent to the Belvedere subdivision. The proposed 40 lots are served by Devito Way, Albanese Circle and Tantalus Drive. This Subarea includes the largest lots proposed for Riviera. Subarea A Reserves: Reserve A - 2.4 acres along Avery Road; Reserve B - 0.1 -acre boulevard island in Riviera Boulevard; and Reserve C - 5 acres interior to Lots 1 through 17. The layout of this Subarea includes lots 6 lots adjacent to lots in Belvedere in the southeast portion of the site, which are slightly larger than those in Belvedere. Passive open space is placed to the rear of Lots 1 through 17 with access provided through Albanese Circle in one location, which was revised since the last meeting to address tree preservation concerns from the Commission. Subarea ti has 11b lots are in the northeast, central, and western portions of the site. The northern portion of Subarea B provides a path connection to Grizzelll Middle School. Access to the northeast and central portions of the site includes: • Timble Falls Drive, the principal east -west street which extends south in the western portion of the site to connect to the existing street stub in Belvedere. The street name spelling has been updated on all plans. • DiCesare Loop connects north off Timble Falls Drive and provides primary access to all lots in the northeast. Gatto Lane creates another street connection. Two culs -de -sac are proposed in the southwest portion of the site, Coma Court is to the west and provides access to 20 lots, Oddi Place is to the east and seven lots will have access from this cul -de -sac. Cacchio Place is proposed as the eventual connector to Hyland -Croy Road, as noted above. As recommended by Planning, the applicant has removed and relocated Lots 185, 135 and 136 (as numbered on the previous plan) to avoid creating isolated lots and create additional open space in Reserve L. Two lots were relocated to Section 2 adjacent to Lot 68 and 42 and one lot was relocated to Section 1 adjacent to Lot 39. All lots have been renumbered accordingly. Subarea B Reserves: Reserve D — 1.5 acres, a central green at the intersection with Riviera Boulevard; Reserve E — 2.1 acres along Avery Road; Reserve F — 4 acres interior to Lots 63 through 83; Reserve G — 0.1 -acre, open space connection to Grizzelll Middle school; Reserve H — 3.0 acres behind Lots 53 through 62, north of Timble Falls Drive; Reserve K — 30.1 acres in the center of the site; City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 14- 068Z /PDP /PP I Riviera Thursday, April 9, 20151 Page 13 of 26 Details Sezoning with Preliminary eve o�t Plan Subarea B . Reserve L — 5.8 acres in the northwest portion of the site); and Reserve M — 15 acres in the western portion of the site) Engineering was previously concerned that the proposed layout of Timble Falls Drive between Lots 140 and 165 may be difficult to maneuver and the applicant has straightened this portion of the street. Engineering will continue to work with the applicant to finalize some minor adjustments to the roadway alignment as part of the final development plan and final plat. AIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Subarea C is in the northwest portion of the site with 29 lots the applicant intends to target for empty- nesters. These 7,200 square foot lots are permitted 70% lot coverage similar to those of other recent developments for smaller, more intensely developed lots. The smaller lots reduce the maintenance responsibilities, which is normally a desired feature for this living style. The applicant has indicated that the housing product for this Subarea is likely predominantly a ranch -type home with a first floor master bedroom. However, the development text does not limit the story height to allow buyers' flexibility and additional rooms as desired. Subarea C Reserve: J — 5.9 acres includes a portion of the Stream Corridor Protection Zone. Development Details Open Space Character Avery Road Frontage The open space along Avery Road is 100 feet deep and arranged so that no homes back up to Avery Road. This is consistent with the Community Plan element described earlier for a Rural Roadway. The applicant has updated the development text to development to require garage placement away from the Avery Road frontage. Vistas The larger expanses of open space are concentrated in the center of the site, including water features, the streams and major tree stands. Wide, open space vistas through this area are an important amenity for this project. Connections There are other open space connections made to other surrounding active and passive recreation areas, and trail connections are provided at various points around the site. Some concern was expressed about the utility of some open space areas, such as parts of Reserves I and 1. These are necessary to accommodate the pathway system, part of which is the former cart path used by the golf course. Some areas have been set aside as open space with connections to the adjacent streets. The final development plan will include additional details regarding the design of these connections, particularly when they are between home sites. A path connection to Grizzelll Middle School is provided and the development text indicates that the developer will coordinate with the Dublin City Schools for the location and construction of the connection into the school properties. The applicant City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 14- 068Z /PDP /PP I Riviera Thursday, April 9, 20151 Page 14 of 26 Details Rezoning with Preliminary eve o�t Plan Development High School property if so desired. The developer is responsible for the construction Details of these connections and paths through the schools' properties. O P en S P ace Character A path previously provided through the property to the west of the site has been relocated to ensure that all connections remain with the rezoned area. Open Space Use Large areas have been set aside for potential active use, while allowing extensive passive areas. These areas are intended to be reactive to the needs of the residents, as is the City's practice. Other amenities may be added by the City if desired by residents. Reserves The development text includes development details for each Reserve, which can be administrativelv approved to allow for resident input after homes are built. Stream Corridor The site includes a Stream Corridor Protection Zone (SCPZ) over the streams. This Protection Zone Zone is intended to preserve the flood water capacity of existing drainage ways, limit stream erosion and preserve riparian habitats. The width of the Zone is determined by the contributing drainage area upstream of the segment. The applicant has submitted a study from the engineering firm EMH &T that models this zone using HEC -RAS software. The SCPZ regulations prohibit activities such as disturbance of natural vegetation, buildings, and stormwater management facilities. The applicant has included the zone, as required within the development plans, and shown it on the preliminary plat. Consideration was made to locate lots outside of the boundary of the SCPZ. The final plat will delineate these zones further and include the required regulations. As the boundaries of these areas are not always clear to the adjacent property owners, some method either physically delineating these areas, and /or ensuring the property owners are aware of the presence of the SCPZ and its restrictions should be considered and the development text has been revised to indicate the applicant and staff will coordinate these details at the final development plan stage. Tree Preservation The applicant has provided a preliminary tree survey indicating size and health of existing trees. Detailed removal information is required with the final development plan. Given the open nature of the site and the number of trees planted as part of the development of the golf course, as well as the requirement of pushing development areas away from the streams, significant replacements will be necessary. The City's tree replacement requirements dictate that trees larger than 6 inches in diameter in fair and good condition be replaced inch - for -inch on -site. The text allows for a 30% replacement with evergreens to allow for some more effective perimeter buffering. The current proposal more effectively preserves significant trees. The applicant has Details City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 14- 068Z /PDP /PP I Riviera Thursday, April 9, 20151 Page 15 of 26 Rezoning with Preliminary eve o�t Plan Tree Preservation made efforts to identify those trees that existed prior to the development of the golf course (around the stream and the two large oak trees). Aerial photography from 1959, 1979 and 1989 show the progression of development of the golf course and the trees planted as part of the course. 19 To ensure tree protection during construction, the development text includes requirements for metal or wood fencing around landmark trees and City inspections and approval of tree protection fencing prior to issuance of construction permits. In addition, the development text has been revised to indicate more detailed tree protection measures with the final development plan, which is an appropriate time, as more details regarding utilities and grading as well as tree conditions will be available. Architecture and Architectural standards make up the most significant update to the development Building Materials text. The applicant has detailed permitted home styles and provided local examples of these styles, which include Classical, European Country, American Period Revival, Midwestern Vernacular, and Colonial Revival. The applicant has provided character examples as potential products for the empty- nester area, which will likely be a themed subarea and as such require architectural approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The text further requires four -sided architecture with a similar or higher quality character of architectural character as surrounding neighborhoods. Permitted exterior building materials are brick, stone, manufactured stone, wood, stucco and fiber- cement siding. Natural and earth -tone colors are required. Prominent facades (facing larger open spaces) require additional detailing. Material transitions are required to have a 16 -inch minimum return. Permitted trim materials are wood, aluminum, PVC, urethane foam, EIFS copper, or fiber- cement products. The text requires chimneys to be clad in brick, stone, and /or manufactured stone, and prohibits cantilevered / through the wall" chimneys. Roofing materials are required to be natural 30 -year dimensional asphalt shingles, wood, slate, concrete or tile, with natural earth tones and /or neutral colors (including black). Other roof requirements are provided to allow for additional detailing. Other standards are provided for design details, such as dormers, gutters /downspouts, windows, shutters, and porches. In addition, the homes will be required to meet the other Appearance Standards of the Zoning Code not addressed by the development text. Side - loaded garages are encouraged and the text requires a 30 -inch tall hedge in front of parking areas for auto - court -type garages. The text should be clarified as to where this hedge is required and ensure it does not inhibit sight triangles at Detail ' Architecture and Building Materials City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 14- 068Z /PDP /PP I Riviera Thursday, April 9, 20151 Page 16 of 26 Rezoning with Preliminary eve o�t Plan encouraged and garage placement for lots with Avery Road frontage has been addressed. The text addressed architectural diversity requirements and requires the master developer to approve individual elevations. An architectural review committee is also required and must approve individual elevations. The development text has been updated to require the applicant to provide membership details with the final development plan. 12 -inch water line is on the east side of Avery Road. This will be the main nnection point for this development to obtain public water service. Looping of the iter line system will be accomplished along any new streets as well as connecting the existing 8 -inch water lines in adjacent subdivisions. These connections will ovide adequate public water service for development of this property without Iverse effects to existing users. ie North Fork Indian Run sanitary trunk sewer is along the southern and western iundaries of this property. This 18 -inch sewer line was installed to provide service land to the northwest of this site as part of the development of Tartan West. hen the extension was made in 2003, an analysis was performed that indicated pacity issues downstream in the trunk sewer with full build -out considered for the id in northwest Dublin. This analysis assumed that the Riviera property would main as a golf course. With the proposed change in use of this property from golf urse to single family housing, the impact of this change on the City's trunk sewer is separately studied. lowing that there is a system deficiency, the applicant modeled the proposed ;velopment impact on system deficiency and proposed improvements. The plicant will partner with the City via the infrastructure agreement to ensure the ;cessary sewers to mitigate the impacts of development on the sanitary sewer stem are in place and the development text has been updated to reflect this quirement. ie development will be required to follow Chapter 53, the Stormwater Regulations. ie existing ponds on the property could be used for this if enough investigation is me and the correct modifications are implemented to demonstrate compliance. ie tributary for the North Fork of Indian Run provides ample outlet opportunities r managing the stormwater on this property. The latest FEMA maps show that this butary has a 100 -year floodplain bisecting the site. Adherence to the requirements Chapter 151 is required for this area. At the northern side of the site, an area that outside of the FEMA designated floodplain, along one of the streams, will need to Ilow the Stream Corridor Protection Zone regulations in Chapter 53. Existing ;velopments in this area have been arranged so that any new lots are not being Bated in the designated floodplains. This minimizes the need for flood insurance Quirements for future residents. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 14- 068Z /PDP /PP I Riviera Thursday, April 9, 20151 Page 17 of 26 Details Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Utilities " Currently, this development proposes portions of lots in existing FEMA designated Stormwater 100 -year floodplain (Zone A). A Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA), accompanied by Management a detailed engineering study will be required to be submitted and approved by FEMA with the final development plan details for these lots the development text has been updated to reflect this requirement. Analysis ng 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 Criterion met: This proposal is consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable with Dublin development standards of the Zoning Code requirements except as altered in the Zoning Code proposed development text. The proposed size of the lots and development standards associated with each Subarea are similar to recently approved developments. z) conformance with adopted Plans 3) Advancement of general welfare and orderly development Criterion met: As previously discussed, the Community Plan shows the site as Parks /Open Space as the owner at that time of the 2007 Community Plan Update requested that no development be shown. As a proposed development site, a more appropriate land use classification needs to be considered. As with the past reviews of similar rezonings, the applicant was asked to provide an appropriate density taking into account surrounding development. The majority of the residential developments around this site are in the Residential Medium Density future land use classification. This permits a density of 1 -2 units per acre. At 1.2 units per acre, this proposal is at the low end of this classification's density range and is consistent with, and generally lower than, the density of adjacent developments. Criterion met: I his proposal is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods and will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding areas. The proposal preserves the streams and their associated protection corridors on this site, and the proposed layout creates an attractive public realm by providing ample and usable open space and preserving trees within these open spaces. The streets and paths and the connections proposed contribute to walkability and continue the distinct high quality development character as evident in surrounding developments. The Avery Road setback will be enhanced with park amenities and landscaping that continues the rural character of the road. Street connections to surrounding stub streets will provide for additional ways for people to travel to destinations in the community. It will be increasingly important at the site develops to provide a direct connection to Hyland -Croy Road as previously discussed. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 14- 068Z /PDP /PP I Riviera Thursday, April 9, 20151 Page 18 of 26 Analysis oning with Preliminary 4) Effects on Criterion met: The development is appropriately located within the city and is adjacent uses compatible with existing development. Homes are required to be of similar of higher quality as surrounding areas and the applicant has included larger lots with larger setbacks adjacent to existing homes. The development text has been updated with a significant architectural requirements section that will ensure a high quality development. The applicant has updated the development text to include language highlighting that Riviera is proposed near a very active high school and middle school with year round activities and that homeowners will likely be affected by the noise and light that typically accompany these activities. 5) Adequacy of Criterion met: The site provides an appropriate mix of passive and active open open space for I I spaces. The relocation of Lots 135, 136 and 185 in Subarea B has created more residential open vistas. At the final development plan stage, the applicant will have to provide development details regarding the open space treatment of areas with paths between residential L lots. 6) Protection of Criterion met: The development text requires tree replacement per Code. The lots natural and proposed infrastructure are laid out to preserve tree stands, streams, floodplain features and and natural vegetation to the greatest extent possible. Many existing ponds will be resources retained and enhanced to function as stormwater management ponds to reduce the need to further disturb the site. 7) Adequate infrastructure Condition 1 As the boundaries of the SCPZ areas are not always clear to the adjacent property owners, the applicant has revised the text to indicate the developer will work with Planning to determine a method of either physically delineating these areas, and /or ensuring the property owners are aware of the presence of the SCPZ and its restrictions. The development plan proposes lots in existing FEMA designated 100 -year floodplain (Zone A). A Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA), accompanied by a detailed engineering study will be required to be submitted and approved by FEMA with the final development plan details for these lots and the development text has been updated to indicate this requirement. J Criterion met with Condition: The proposal includes adequate and necessary utilities, roads, drainage, and retention facilities to serve the proposed development and not adversely affect the functionality or provision of utilities outside of the site. The applicant will be required to enter into an infrastructure agreement with the City to mitigate off -site traffic impacts and address the required sewer upgrade and the development text has been updated to require this. Analysis AM 8) Traffic ian pedestrian safety Conditions 2 -4 City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 14- 068Z /PDP /PP I Riviera Thursday, April 9, 20151 Page 19 of 26 ezoning with Preliminary eve o�nt Plan Criterion met with Conditions: Street connections to surrounding stub streets will provide for additional ways for people to travel throughout the community. It will be increasingly important as the site develops to provide a direct connection to Hyland -Croy Road to distribute traffic more evenly throughout the area. The additional access points and street connections are designed to minimize traffic congestion on the surrounding public streets and to maximize public safety. The applicant will need to work with the City to provide a direct site connection to Hyland -Croy Road and necessary improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to be completed before the plat can be approved that includes the Firenza Place connection (Section 3 -2). The proposed street and path system will accommodate adequate pedestrian and bike circulation so that the proposed development provides for a safe, convenient and non - conflicting circulation system for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians. As outlined in the development text and /or TIS, the applicant will be required to enter an infrastructure agreement with the City to help to mitigate off -site traffic impacts, and ensure the installation of a turn lane and pedestrian crossing on Avery Road. The traffic impact study must be updated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to a City Council hearing of the rezoning to address the lower number of lots. 9) Coordination & Criterion met: The proposed development coordinates the relationship of integration of proposed lots and the sensitive areas of the site. A majority of the lots has open building & site space adjacency and all open space areas include access points to avoid relationships exclusiveness to the lots adjacent. Analysis City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 14- 068Z /PDP /PP I Riviera Thursday, April 9, 20151 Page 20 of 26 Rezoning with Preliminary eve o�nt PIaIR 10) Development Criterion met: This proposal meets the criterion for ensuring that the plan is layout and overall acceptable and will not hinder the orderly development of land within the intensity city. The density, use, setbacks, open space and public infrastructure have a bearing on this proposal being acceptable as a high quality development within Dublin. The proposed layout includes streets in accordance with City standards including bikepaths and sidewalks as well as adequately sized tree lawns. Street connectivity as discussed in the Community Plan is provided within the development and to surrounding neighborhoods and with the inclusion of the street connections and the Hyland -Croy Road access. The proposed streets and paths within the development and the connections proposed contribute to walkability and continue the distinct, high quality development character evident in surrounding developments. The applicant is proposing shared paths throughout the development and has committed to ensuring that existing cart paths intended to remain on site will be tested and upgraded if necessary to ensure compliance with City standards. Pedestrian connections will also be provided to adjacent Grizzelll Middle School and to Jerome High School if desire by the Schools and the applicant has worked with the Dublin City Schools to provide for off -site connections. 11) Stormwater Criterion met: Adequate provision is made for stormwater management, storm management drainage within and through the site to maintain usual and normal swales, water courses and drainage areas. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 14- 068Z /PDP /PP I Riviera Thursday, April 9, 20151 Page 21 of 26 Analysis Rezoning with Preliminary eve o�nt Plan 12) Community Criterion met: The proposal will provide additional housing options and as stated benefit above, the design and site arrangement of a majority of the proposal is consistent with the intent of the Planned Development District regulations. The inclusion of smaller single family lots intended to target empty nesters provides an additional housing option that can encourage multi - generational living within Riviera. The proposal preserves many of the natural features on this site, and the proposed layout creates an attractive public realm by providing ample open space. The Avery Road setback will be enhanced with amenities and landscaping that continues the rural character of the road. Street connections to surrounding stub streets will provide for additional ways for people to travel throughout the community. Connections for vehicles, bikes, pedestrians, deliveries and services will all be improved with a direct route to Hyland -Croy Road. The surrounding neighborhoods are likely to see less cut - through traffic by providing this connection. As with any new residential development, additional students will be part of this project. At 185 units the count would likely be somewhat proportionately less than the previous 284 lot plan. Based on that plan, the Dublin City Schools' calculation for students showed the following. If reduced proportionately, the lower number of students is also shown. (The effect of the empty nester homes was not taken into account in either calculation; they were included in the same manner as the other homes to yield the most conservative number.) School Aged Children Previous Plan Current Plan Elementary School 145 94 Middle School 102 66 High School 105 68 Totals 352 228 These counts would be absorbed over the build -out period of the development (typically 3 -5 years) as students move from one school level to the next. The Dublin City Schools has stated that they will continue to serve this student population. 13) Design and Criterion met: The proposed architectural requirements meet or exceed the appearance quality of the building designs in the surrounding area and all applicable appearance standards of the City. The requirements include high quality materials, four -sided architecture and architectural diversity. Additional architectural details have been provided as requested by the Commission. 14) Development Criterion met: The development plan includes a phasing plan that shows build -out phasing over five phases. As outlined in the proposed conditions, certain infrastructure improvements are tied to these phases. Analysis 11 15) Adequacy of public services 16) Infrastructur contributions Condition 1 7 City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 14- 068Z /PDP /PP I Riviera Thursday, April 9, 20151 Page 22 of 26 Rezoning with Preliminary eve o�nt Plan Criterion met: There are adequate services for the proposed development existing and /or planned. Necessary public improvements will not impair the existing public service system for the area. The applicant will partner with the City on the infrastructure agreement to construct the necessary sewers to mitigate the impacts of development on the sanitary sewer system. Criterion met with Condition: The applicant will be entering an infrastructure agreement with the City to mitigate off -site traffic impacts and address the required sewer upgrade. Recommendation ezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Approval In Planning's analysis, this proposal complies with the rezoning /preliminary development plan criteria and the existing development standards within the area. Approval with four conditions is recommended. Conditions 1) That the applicant enter into an infrastructure agreement with the City, prior to submitting the first final development plan, for development thresholds and public project contributions including the necessary sanitary sewer system improvements; 2) That the applicant work with the City to program a direct site connection to Hyland -Croy Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the approval of a final plat that includes the Firenza Place connection to Tartan West; 3) That the developer update the traffic impact study to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior a City Council hearing of the rezoning; and 4) That as part of the development of Section 1, the applicant provide a northbound left turn lane on Avery Road into the site and a pedestrian crossing system for Avery Road, to the satisfaction of the Citv Engineer. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 14- 068Z /PDP /PP I Riviera Thursday, April 9, 20151 Page 23 of 26 Details 177 1) Plat Information and Construction I Requirements Condition 1 2) Street, Sidewalk, and Bike path Standards ary Plat I Df land into 185 single - family he preliminary plat are public rights -of -way. Bikepaths or is -of -way included in the plat ad development sections and s as well as the appropriate ;pace acreages but needs to iminary Plal The Subdivision Regulations identify criteria for the review and approval for a plat. Following is an analysis by Planning based on those criteria. Criteria met with Condition: The applicant has included all necessary information and construction requirements appropriately on the preliminary plat. The applicant should ensure that any minor technical adjustments to the plat are made prior to City Council submittal. Criteria met. The plat includes a street section for the streets. Sidewalks and bikepaths are provided throughout the development. Criteria met: The plat makes appropriate provisions for utilities and the location future utilities. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 14- 068Z /PDP /PP I Riviera Thursday, April 9, 20151 Page 24 of 26 Analysis inary PId 4) Open Space Criteria met: The Subdivision Regulations require the dedication of 13.22 acres of Requirements open space based on the size of the site and the maximum number of units proposed. The plat includes reserves labeled A through M, which range from small open spaces in boulevard and landscape islands to large, expansive open space in the center of the site. The total open space amount provided is 76 acres, all of which will be dedicated to the City. The provided open space exceeds Subdivision Regulation requirements by 62 acres. Recommendation Ir Approval This proposal complies with the preliminary plat criteria and a recommendation to City Council for approval of this request is recommended with one condition. Condition 1) That the applicant ensure that any minor technical adjustments to the plat, are made prior to City Council submittal. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 14- 068Z /PDP /PP I Riviera Thursday, April 9, 20151 Page 25 of 26 REZONING/ PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN CRITERIA 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. 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; 8) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on the surrounding public streets and to maximize public safety and to accommodate adequate pedestrian and bike circulation systems so that City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 14- 068Z /PDP /PP I Riviera Thursday, April 9, 20151 Page 26 of 26 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 CRITERIA If approved, the preliminary plat will be reviewed at e Commission disapproves the preliminary plat, it must state the preliminary plat is effective for 24 months and authc construction after meeting all Engineering requirements. I later review the final plat for each phase, generally after that it conforms to the preliminary plat. later date by City Council. If the its reasons for doing so. Approval of �izes the developer to proceed with ie Commission and City Council will nfrastructure is complete, to ensure 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. City of Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 w w.dublinohiousa.gov PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION :10101 IN 9X01 MARCH 26, 2015 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 4. Riviera 8025 Avery Road 14- 068Z /PDP /PP Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan Preliminary Plat Proposal: A rezoning of approximately 152.34 acres from R, Rural District and R -1, Amy Salay Restricted Suburban Residential District to PUD, Planned Unit Chris Brown Development District for the potential development of the site with up to Cathy De Rosa 185 single - family lots and approximately 76 acres of open space. The Bob Miller site is on the west side of Avery Road, north of the intersection with Deborah Mitchell Memorial Drive. Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council of a Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan application for a Planned Unit Development District under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050. This is also a request for review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a Preliminary Plat under the provisions of the Subdivision Regulations. Applicant: Charles 1. Ruma, Davidson Phillips, Inc. Planning Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4675, chusak @dublin.oh.us MOTION: Ms. Newell moved, Mr. Zimmerman seconded, to Table this application. VOTE: 6-0. RESULT: The application was Tabled. RECORDED VOTES: Victoria Newell Yes Amy Salay Absent Chris Brown Yes Cathy De Rosa Yes Bob Miller Yes Deborah Mitchell Yes Todd Zimmerman Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II City of Dublin Land Use and Long PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Range Planning 5800 Shier Rings Road MEETING MINUTES Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 MARCH 26, 2015 w w.dublinohiousa.gov AGENDA 1. Stansbury 10799 Drake Road 14- 009FDP /FP Minor Text Modification (Approved 6 — 0) Final Development Plan (Approved 6 — 0) Final Plat (Approved 6 — 0) 2. Dominion Homes Planned Unit Development — Pulte Sign 4900 Tuttle Crossing Boulevard 15- 009AFDP Minor Text Modification (Approved 6 — 0) Amended Final Development Plan (Approved 6 — 0) 3. Riverside PCD North, Subarea A3 - The Centre at Perimeter - Hand and Stone 6510 -6570 Perimeter Drive 15- 016AFDP /CU Minor Text Modification (Approved 6 — 0) Amended Final Development Plan (Approved 6 — 0) Conditional Use (Approved 6 — 0) 4. Riviera 8025 Avery Road 14- 068Z /PDP /PP Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan (Tabled 6 — 0) Preliminary Plat (Tabled 6 — 0) The Chair, Victoria Newell, called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Other Commission members present were: Todd Zimmerman, Robert Miller, Deborah Mitchell, Christopher Brown; and Cathy De Rosa. Amy Salay was absent. City representatives present were: Jennifer Readler, Philip Hartmann, Steve Langworthy, Alan Perkins, Gary Gunderman, Claudia Husak, Joanne Shelly, Tina Wawszkiewicz, Aaron Stanford, Marie Downie, and Laurie Wright. Administrative Business Motion and Vote Ms. Newell moved, Mr. Zimmerman seconded, to accept the documents into the record. The vote was as follows: Chris Brown, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mr. Miller, yes; Ms. Mitchell, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Ms. Newell, yes. (Approved 6 - 0) The Chair said there were three cases eligible for the consent agenda this evening: Stansbury, Dominion Homes, and Hand & Stone. She briefly explained the rules and procedures of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Chair said Ms. Salay was not able to attend this evening but prepared a letter she had sent out to her fellow Commission members and read her concerns in the letter: Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 26, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 26 I apologize, as I will beat a City Council Annual Retreat tomorrow evening and thus not in attendance of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. She has a few comments she would like to share about three of the cases. Stansbury I know that Muiffield Assn, will have 'jurisdiction" over the appearance of the homes. However, I am curious what the requirements are in Muiffield with regard to exterior materials and the mix of materials on homes. My point is that in their text it is specked that the homes will be "high quality': The text disallows vinyl, but I assume does not prohibit any other building materials. I think one of the keys to a high quality neighborhood is a mix of materials (in most cases) on homes. For example, in Jerome Village there are many large homes that are quite expensive, but some of the homes are clad in cementitious siding exclusively, and the appearance of the overall neighborhood suffers and appears of lower quality. I think the same is true when there are homes consisting of all stucco, unless of a certain architectural type. I think it makes sense to require a certain percentage of stone or brick with the likely stucco and siding in order to discourage the all- siding or all- stucco look on most of the homes. The southernmost section of Tartan West and the new neighborhood off Brand that Virginia Homes built is another example of the "all siding" look that I think we should avoid. The newest section of Ballantrae that we recently approved is building out this way, too. (Schottenstein Homes, I think) My thoughts on exterior cladding also apply to the Riviera development, when /if we get to that point with them. Hand and Stone I just want to verify that this massage salon will be occupying the westernmost tenant space on the opposite end of the building from the future Starbucks? Mr. Ghidotti had assured the Commission and council that a restaurant use was forthcoming in that space, if I'm correct in my assumption of its location. I am curious where or if any restaurant uses will be, If this salon takes this 3000 sf of tenant space, leaving what appears to be much smaller spaces left Riviera This application has come a long way since we last saw it, and I would complement Mr. Ruma on his efforts with the neighbors and with the site and lot layout. I do not however, believe that this plan is ready for passage at this point. Some of my concerns: I'm not sure why we have aerial photos of the site from 30, 40 and 50 years ago. The site as it exists today is quite special to the community because of its beautiful trees, recreational open space use, and lack of rooftops and traffic generation. These are the aspects that the Dublin Community Plan addresses in its future land use, and I don't believe the site's appearance years ago is relevant to our discussion today. Approval to deviate from the Community Plan requires a very special situation and a great design done with a deft and sensitive touch on this site. Claudia, would we be able to get an "overlay" of the proposed lots /neighborhood layout on top of the existing topography and existing trees? In using conservation design with this site it seems to me that the specimen trees and existing topography are what we would be looking to "conserve'. I cannot easily ascertain where the trees all are in relation to the house sites. I think we need to know the locations of the trees and where they are in relation to the proposed lots and home sites so that we may protect the trees and site the homes appropriately, with the goal being to conserve these trees and being careful not to disturb the topography any more than absolutely necessary. We don't want to cause any storm water or other problems with the surrounding homes. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 26, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 26 The text is weak and I believe it needs to be re- worked to insure that we get a very high quality neighborhood that will enhance and improve the area. Building materials (and the variety and mix of same), exterior landscaping requirements for the homesites and overall landscaping for the development need to be better and more thoroughly addressed. The fact that the applicant wants very small lots means that we have to be very vigilant on the quality of the exterior materials. Also, I am VERY uncomfortable with the language in the text that addresses tree preservation. We want to make sure that the applicant goes way above and beyond: 'A good faith effort to preserve as many good and fair trees as possible 'and "where appropriate' This language does not give me comfort, especially given the recent experiences in new developments where large trees were inappropriately removed. We need to be hyper - vigilant about the trees on this site, again since the applicant is looking to use conservation design to gain approval, and the "conservation "in this case being largely all about the trees on the site. I think we also need to have a discussion about the types of housing this neighborhood will have. I am very sensitive to the fact that this part of our school district is being over saturated with single family homes that will attract families with school -age children. We have neighborhoods within Dublin, and especially outside of Dublin city boundaries that are going to result in many, many students added to the school district At the same time, retirees, singles and empty nesters in Dublin are saying they don't have many options for housing that fits their needs. The Bridge Street District will satisfy some of this demographic, but the BSD style of housing won't fit everyone who wants to "downsize" or "rightsize" their housing situation. It seems that this may be a good location for some of this type of housing, but more work would need to be done with this application. Council and PZC toured Franklin, TN years ago and there was a neighborhood there (Westhaven?) that had some great examples of alternative housing types and different home styles and lot layouts that could be appropriate here. Again, simply putting smaller lots in a neighborhood won't address this issue effectively, and the quality and layouts would need to be re- worked. I am hesitant to add "roof tops" to this part of our city, unless the homes are filling a need besides family homes and we are assured of high quality and high value to protect the adjacent neighborhoods. At minimum I think the development text needs to be tightened up and offer much more detail. For these reasons, I hope that the Riviera application will be tabled. There is too much outstanding to pass this rezoning at this time. The Chair decided the two consent cases would be heard first and then Riviera and last will be Stansbury. The minutes will reflect the order as presented on the agenda. I.....1 4. Riviera 8025 Avery Road 14- 068Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Preliminary Plat The Chair, Ms. Newell, said the following application is a request for a rezoning of approximately 152 acres from R, Rural District and R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District for the potential development of the site with up to 185 single - family lots and approximately 76 acres of open space. She said the site is on the west side of Avery Road, north of the intersection with Memorial Drive. She said this is a request for review and recommendation to City Council for a Rezoning with a Preliminary Development Plan and also a request for review and recommendation to City Council for a Preliminary Plat under the provisions of the Subdivision Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 26, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 26 Regulations. As City Council is the final authority on these requests, she said applicants do not have to be sworn in. Claudia Husak said Tina Wawszkiewicz, Traffic Engineer and Aaron Stanford, Civil Engineer, will also be presenting for this case. Ms. Husak provided a presentation outline. She said even though there have been a lot of people in the room that have attended the meetings on this case throughout the process, she would provide a lot of detail for the benefit of the new Commission members. Ms. Husak explained the formal steps involved in the PUD process. She said the PZC reviewed the Concept Plan in March 2014. She said the rezoning step is being presented this evening and the Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat are also included in this step. She said this step was completed in November 2014 but it was tabled by the Commission. She explained the PUD requires a development text be part of the zoning so that is the booklet the applicant provided to the Commission. Ms. Husak said the applicant is requesting two actions from the Commission: 1) recommendation to City Council for the Rezoning with the Preliminary Development Plan that Planning is recommending approval with 15 conditions; and 2) recommendation to City Council for the Preliminary Plat that Planning is recommending approval with two conditions. Ms. Husak presented the site, which has decreased in size slightly from what was previously previewed. She said it is 152 acres and on the east side is Avery Road. She reported there are three City of Dublin schools adjacent to the site: Deer Run Elementary, Grizzell Middle School, and Dublin Jerome High School. She said the major residential developments surrounding the site are: Tartan West, Muirfield Village, Shandon Glen, and Belvedere. She described the site as having 2,020 feet of frontage on Avery Road and has been a golf course since the 1970's. She said the applicant has provided the aerial views to address Commission questions from the November meeting about the trees on the site prior to the development of the golf course. She said there are two existing access points off of Avery Road and there are streams that run through the site. She noted the site includes a floodway and a Stream Corridor Protection Zone (SCPZ) over the streams. She said there are many existing mature tree stands and tree rows as part of the golf course development as well as the ones that existed along the creek bed. She explained the existing zoning of the site is split and the site is also split by counties: Union, Franklin, and Delaware. She said the area in Union county is zoned R, Rural District; Franklin and Delaware are zoned R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential. She said both districts have very similar zoning allowances for land use and the other permitted uses in the district are agriculture, parks, and public schools. Ms. Husak presented the Future Land Use map from the Community Plan that guides development decisions for the future of the City. She said the site is shown as Parks and Open Space, which stems from a request from the owners in 2007 when there was a major update of the Community Plan. She indicated some consideration was made for future connectivity to future developments. Ms. Husak said the surrounding developments ranged in density from 1.27 units per acre in Muirfield Village, 1.5 units per acre in Belvedere, and 1.8 units per acre in Tartan West. She said these numbers follow what was written in the Community Plan as 1 — 2 units per acre. Ms. Husak presented the plans the Commission previously reviewed. She noted the Concept Plan that proposed 284 lots at a density of 1.7 units per acre with 35% open space. She indicated the Preliminary Development Plan that was tabled, which reduced the number of lots to 248 with a density of 1.4 units per acre and 38% open space. She said this plan also included Subarea D to be dedicated for a potential elementary school. She said there have been discussions with the school district regarding the absorption of potential students within this development. She reported that Deer Run Elementary is one of the oldest schools in the City and the Schools may want to rebuild that school so that is why the applicant was working with the school superintendent to find a potential site within the neighborhood. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 26, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 26 Ms. Husak said the applicant has been working with Staff to address many of the comments made by the Commission and the residents when the two previous plans were reviewed. She presented the summarized comments, one of which was the applicability of a Council Resolution passed in 2004 regarding "Conservation Design" that takes into account existing natural features, such as woodlots, steep slopes, and other natural features that might exist on various properties. She reported the applicant has revised the proposal to adhere to the Conservation Design Principles as outlined in the Resolution. Another issue has been density she said. The applicant has reduced the density significantly she reported down to 185 lots so there is now a proposed density of 1.22 units per acre and the open space has increased to 50% for the entire site. She explained the site boundary has decreased by 15 acres that the applicant will retain and not include in the proposed plan. Traffic impacts were another great concern she said with the adjacent neighborhoods and the larger intersections within the area. She said there was a push to have more protection of natural features, specifically tree preservation. Architectural standards were also a concern she said. Jeffrey L. Brown, attorney with the firm Smith & Hale, representing the applicant, said several consultants are present to respond to any questions. He thanked staff and leadership of the various civic associations that have both given a lot of time and have a lot of interest in terms of this development. He indicated what is being presented this evening is a positive resolution of those issues raised in November 2014. He said one of the key conditions /requests was what happens if the Conservation Design Principle was used. He indicated they started from scratch to address this issue. He explained that this area was originally a farm field including two streams and the trees were primarily along that stream corridor. He presented aerial views of the site over the years. He said the more natural features such as ponds and additional trees were all created as part of the development of the golf course. He pointed out the SCPZ on the property. He said the applicant overlaid the potential development with the trees and found the developable areas. He confirmed this follows the Conservation Principles in terms of how a piece of property is evaluated. He said the applicant then overlaid the proposed lots. He presented a slide that showed how this all worked together. He restated that the density has dropped to 1.22 units per acre, which is below the density of any surrounding neighborhoods. He noted on the slide the trees to be preserved. He summarized the applicant has less units, lower density, and a better protection of natural resources, including the trees. The one other interesting thing about this site he said was young family's children could walk to school as a Kindergartener all the way up through high school since an elementary school, middle school, and high school were all within walking distance of this location. Charles Ruma, real estate developer and builder, said he has not built many homes in the past five years but is still developing land, which he has been doing in Central Ohio for the past 45 years in the excess of 10,000 lots. He said he was the developer of Wedgewood in Powell, Ohio, and several developments in Dublin, Ohio, including the Metro Center, Waterford Village, Deer Run, Wedgewood Hills, Wedgewood Glen, and most recently, Wellington Reserve. Mr. Ruma said Riviera started looking for land in the 60s by the American Italian Golf Association that have been in existence for approximately 80 years. He said they pieced together 67.1 acres to develop a golf course, which was originally opened in 1971. He presented a site plan of this piece in 1959 to show there was nothing anywhere but noted a Chestnut Oak tree that is still standing today. He presented a slide of the site from 1979 to show where some of the trees were planted. He reported the American Italian Golf Association has planted over 800 trees on this site over a ten -year period. He presented a slide showing five ponds that were built. He presented a slide showing the development of Deer Run Elementary School and Muirfield Village that were the first developments in the area, surrounded by farm land. Lastly, he presented the current site and the surrounding developments noting Dublin Jerome High School directly adjacent to the golf course, Tartan West, Grizzell Middle School, Belvedere, and Shannon Glen. He said now this is an infill lot of 167 acres completely surrounded by development. He restated that all of the densities around Riviera are higher. He said he has met the objective of being lower in density than every development in the surrounding area. He indicated he had been working on this plan for 28 months, which included two traffic studies, sanitary sewer analysis, soil studies, environmental Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 26, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 26 studies, ecological studies, tree surveys, stormwater analysis, stream corridor protection analysis, five different separate layouts, and participated in 70 — 80 meetings. He believes they have come a long way. Mr. Ruma thanked the Planning Commission for their indulgence and the feedback received from the residents. He said this culminated in a Conservation Design that has not been used in any other development since the Resolution in 2007. He indicated he hopes Riviera will be the first one. Mr. Ruma said this is a dynamite site and does not see any better site for residential living in Dublin or anywhere in Ohio. He said this site has walking and cyclist availability for school age children from Kindergarten to high school graduation. He explained that it is 76 acres of open space that includes a park the size of Goodale Park in Columbus, Ohio. He indicated he has created a community that is just as good as anybody could ever put on paper. He said there is over a mile of multi - purpose paths connecting Riviera with all the schools, local parks, Belvedere, Shannon Glen, and Tartan West. This he said meets the objectives of connectivity. Mr. Ruma said tree preservation has been a main issue. He reported the plan saves the Chestnut Oak mentioned earlier, a Red Oak that is sitting in the middle of the north side of the site, as well as the trees along the stream corridor. Mr. Ruma said at the entrance, the first house from Avery Road is 600 feet away, which equates to two football fields. He reported that 900 trees were identified in the survey of which 185 are Ash trees. He said they intend to preserve approximately 50 — 60% of the trees as a result of this design. Mr. Ruma said architecture was another huge concern. He emphasized his experience. He said he is prepared to go point by point on the specifics of Tartan Ridge Architectural Standards, which he has been told is the guideline for what is expected for this site. He said he compared his text line by line to the architectural text of Tartan Ridge. He said there were 18 specific areas: 1) Dublin Appearance Code — the language was written by the same people, the Edge Group. 2) Architectural Review Committee — exactly the same. 3) Architectural Character — the words are exactly the same as Tartan Ridge but they have two pages of description styles with pictures. 4) Architectural Diversity — exactly the same. 5) Architectural Massing — he said this is not included in his plans and does not desire to include it as it is difficult to build to. He explained if they are to fit into neighborhoods that abut them, they do not believe they should do different looks except they want to make sure the quality is a good as or better. 6) Exterior Materials — exact same language. 7) Configuration of Materials — same except for Tartan's text calls for a transition of materials around a corner up to 8.5 inches, which he does not have. He said the base for Tartan's water table is 22 inches and his is 36 inches by Code. 8) Trim Materials — exact same words and specifications. 9) Shutters — same text except Tartan's text includes pictures. 10) Roofs — materials and pictures are the same. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 26, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 26 11) Eaves, Dormers, Gutters, and Downspouts — exactly the same. 12) Exterior Paint — his text states natural colors, Tartan's specify Benjamin Moore or Sherwin Williams paint colors permitted. 13) Front Door Design — different. He said Tartan's four pages are magnificent along with columns and transoms and he does not do that. 14) Chimney Design — exactly the same. 15) Lighting — language the same but he puts lights on garages. 16) Front Porch, Windows, Soffit and Fascia — language is exactly the same. 17) Garages — same except for the setbacks that coincide with Tartan's massing. 18) Gates and Posts —he does not see these as being part of this development. Mr. Ruma summarized by saying he hoped they have done everything in their power to meet the objections /requirements /suggestions that have been expressed. He said he is prepared to address the earlier questions about traffic and said what was reported is accurate. He added they were prepared to address any flood plain issues or stormwater protection concerns. Diane Marin, EMH &T, said she wanted to explain what was in the stormwater management memo report provided. She noted Zone A, of the FEMA designated flood plain; she said there was no flood base determined so no FEMA designated flood way was on this property. As a result she said, sometimes areas that are not really in the flood plain are mapped as such. She said as part of their study, a detailed flood plain analysis has been completed and provided but it will be fine -tuned and resubmitted again. She said the report shows the actual flood plain and lays out the Stream Corridor Protection Zones. She indicated there are a few areas where the lots are within the FEMA designated Zone A that actually are not in the flood plain. As a result, she said they will be submitting a LOMA, which is a Letter of Map Amendment to FEMA to get those areas out of a FEMA designated flood plain. She explained they are not really in the flood plain based on the study and this is a common practice when FEMA maps things that are vaguely close. She said prior to the Final Development Plan, they will be working to get those removed from the FEMA designated flood plain. Todd Zimmerman asked if there would be any lots that would require flood insurance. Ms. Marin said there will be no lots that are within the FEMA designated flood plain. He asked if any lots would be within the 100 -year flood plain. Ms. Marin confirmed not as the site is developed. Chris Brown inquired about detention /retention basins. Ms. Marin said they were retention basins as they are wet. Bob Miller asked for more information about the answer Mr. Zimmerman received. He asked if any of the lots are currently in FEMA's defined flood plain. Ms. Marin answered affirmatively. He clarified that FEMA will be requested to remove that designation from the property. Ms. Marin confirmed a LOMA will be submitted and it will not be based on fill, it will be based on a map amendment. Mr. Zimmerman asked if those lots will receive a letter for future use stating they are out of the defined flood plain when they go for resale. Ms. Marin replied there would be something on record with FEMA and she volunteered to provide that information. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 26, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 26 Ms. Husak said the applicant is proposing three subareas for the site, which she presented. She noted the lot area sizes and setbacks permitted for each area. Mr. Zimmerman asked about side - loaded garages. Ms. Husak said for example in Ballantrae, all 100 -foot lots are required to have side - loaded garages. She said a courtyard garage, which has been seen recently in development styles could be accommodated on a lot of that site. Ms. Husak presented the proposed phasing plans, with the first phase being Subarea A on the southeast side, which would include the demolition of the existing clubhouse and left -turn lane off Avery Road at the entrance. Ms. Husak presented a map of the reserves of open spaces. She said the requirement for this site is 13 acres or 8.5% of the site per the Subdivision Regulations within the City of Dublin. She said the applicant has stated with the Conservation Design approach to this site, they are providing 50% open space and that is 76 acres. She pointed out the areas that are proposed to be maintained by the City of Dublin as well as the areas to be maintained by the homeowners' association. She said all the open spaces and reserves within the development will be owned by the City of Dublin. She explained that as the plats come forward, those areas will be dedicated to the City and the City will have ownership of them. Ms. Husak said the applicant is being asked to make changes to the Preliminary Plat to ensure the open space maintenance requirements are also included on the Preliminary Plat. Mr. Brown asked how it is determined that the City maintains a specific open space designated area. Ms. Husak said the applicant has met with the City's Director of Parks and Open Space prior to coming to the PZC. She explained it is more or less areas that have less maintenance required and the more natural areas /less programmed, which is specifically the case here. She noted an area where there is not a lot of City maintenance envisioned because it is intended to be more natural. She said it is the park staff working with the applicant. She explained that the draw for the open spaces is also examined. She gave an example where a person would park along the road to use one of the paths connected throughout the community, which makes it appropriate for the City to maintain as opposed to more interior spaces to the neighborhood itself. She said the development text includes potential programming for all of the open space reserves. Ms. Husak presented the path connection map showing all the sidewalks /bike paths and proposed shared paths or existing shared paths. She said the applicant is willing to work with engineering specifically to ensure the existing paths, which were built as golf cart paths, not built to Dublin path standards that will be evaluated and rebuilt if necessary. Tina Wawszkiewicz presented the overview of the intersections that were focused on in the traffic impact studies prepared by the applicant. She explained the purpose of having a traffic impact study during a rezoning process is to understand the impacts of the proposed land use on the roadway infrastructure. She said it is a tool used to determine the developers' responsibility for their site access points and off - site intersections. She presented a snapshot of the proposal with 185 lots and the 24 -hour volume on normal weekday is expected to be about 1800 trips and that is from the ITE Generation that matches up well with our City counts around town. She highlighted the am /pm peak hours, which are one hour out of a two -hour count; the pm peak is the higher of the two. She said these counts are significantly different than the last time this application was reviewed as it is 25% less. She presented a table to show the potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood streets. She noted that Firenza Place is one that stubs to Tartan West the other two are to the south that extend into Belvedere. She said this help illustrate the need for that connection from the site directly out to Hyland -Croy Road. She said projecting volumes on Hyland -Croy Road out 10 years and adding the site without the Hyland -Croy connection shows poor levels of service and emphasized the need for the connection. She said this would also provide benefits Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 26, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 26 for the Belvedere and Shannon Glen areas. She said this allows students to get to the high school. She noted fewer trips for the Avery Road /Brand area with this connection. Ms. Wawszkiewicz said the phases are expected to run from Avery Road west and Staff is recommending a condition with the rezoning to have the Hyland -Croy connection programmed prior to the approval of a Plat for section 3.2, most critically, the connection to Tartan West. She said Staff is also suggesting a sign at the end of the stub street to indicate a future extended road. Mr. Zimmerman asked if the connector would be a cost for the developer Ms. Wawszkiewicz said that could be determined with the infrastructure agreement. She said Staff needs to state this connection is needed as it is important from the perspectives of transportation and the roadway network. She said Staff also wants the developer to commit to entering into an infrastructure agreement. She said the details of all those dollar amounts can be worked out at the City Council level. Ms. Wawszkiewicz noted the alignment of Timble Falls Drive where staff requested a change. Ms. Newell requested further explanation. Ms. Wawszkiewicz explained that when small curves that go back and forth are introduced, a driver is going to tend to take the path of least resistance. She said a northbound driver would hug the outside of that curve and vice versa for the southbound driver and this interaction between the vehicles is not desired. She said it also makes the lot layout a little awkward, which could impact the footprint of those homes. She said it generates awkward geometry for the roadways. She said a gentler curves are desired to alleviate the back and forth, back and forth action. Ms. Wawszkiewicz said the Avery Road /Brand intersection have been included in the Capital Improvement Plan regardless of the status of this application. She reported the Avery Road /Brand intersection is currently in the preliminary design phase. She explained it had not been programmed for construction yet but the typical phase is cost estimate for construction and then Council will decide when to program the construction. She said it appears that a roundabout will be the solution for this intersection. She indicated the current level of service is a grade C, which is acceptable from engineering's perspective, with or without site traffic. She said projecting 10 years out, the intersection fails with or without site traffic. Ms. Wawszkiewicz summarized that based on the future traffic projection, which are nearly double in ten years, and distribution presented in the traffic impact study, the site is expected to increase traffic at this intersection by about 3 %, with the Hyland -Croy connection. Ms. Wawszkiewicz noted the overview for the infrastructure prompts asking the developer to be responsible for the Avery Road improvements at their site intersection including the turn lane required there, the connection to Hyland -Croy Road, and a pedestrian crossing system across Avery Road that would include some sort of an electronic sign. In addition, she said to Avery Road /Brand intersection, other off -site intersections could be included in the infrastructure agreement. She suggested the recent infrastructure agreement with Avondale is a good example of what kind of agreement could be expected with this application. She noted various other intersections that could be included in the agreement. Mr. Miller said when he considers the Hyland- Croy /Brand roundabout then he thinks of Tuscany Drive, and this connector coming into Hyland -Croy; there are three events occurring there. He said he anticipates Hyland -Croy to become four lanes in the not -so- distant future. From an engineering perspective, he asked if that would solve the problem right now but create a mess later on. Ms. Wawszkiewicz said Staff analyzed it with respect to the intersection that will be developed with Celtic Crossing. She said there are a series of intersections but Staff feels the spacing would be okay to include Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 26, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 26 this new access point. She said consolidating private driveways could also help with some of that access management as this area is realigned, not to say it will not change eventually. Cathy De Rosa said the first phases of this are going to go on /off of Avery Road based on Phase 1 & 2. She said she is trying now to overlap the bike paths and the sidewalks to this. She asked if there will be bike paths and sidewalks up and down Avery Road on both sides. Ms. Wawszkiewicz said there is an existing bike path on the west side of Avery Road, which will probably have some reconstruction along with the widening of Avery Road when the turn lanes are built. She is assuming those connections north and south of the boulevard to be constructed with the phase they are adjacent to. Ms. De Rosa said the first couple of phases are going to be the route to get in /out and the movement in /out to the park. Aaron Stanford said he wanted to provide an overview of the utility system proposed with this development. He confirmed there is an existing FEMA flood plain on the site. He said the one important thing to note about that flood plain is what we would call a Zone A, which is a flood plain that is not as a result of a detailed study; it is a preliminary guess of the 100 -year flood plain in that area. As part of this development, he said we have required the applicant to do a detailed study of that area that will become the basis of an analysis of what that flood plain is from a much more detailed study. Mr. Stanford said the applicant is putting in a series of public storm sewers, catch basins, curb inlets, and stormwater ponds to meet the Code stormwater requirements for quantity and quality control. Mr. Stanford said this site will gain access to sanitary sewer service by connecting into the North Fork Indian Run trunk sewer and that exists to the south and the west of this development. He indicated with different phases, the developer will construct new sanitary mains and services to each of the individual lots. He reported that much further downstream from this development, in the North Fork Indian Run trunk sewer, we have begun to see a long -term capacity issue with that sewer. As a result, he said the applicant was asked to do a pretty extensive study already on the sanitary sewer system for this entire sewer shed, which is over 2,000 acres of which 426 of those acres are undeveloped. He said Staff has analyzed what would happen to those undeveloped areas as well as this development in terms of impact on the sewer system after a few years. He reported they have a very good idea of what that impact is. He said the City also recommended four separate solutions or mitigation measures to improve the system. He said they intend to look at that improvement, start considering programing, and if there is cost sharing, that could be wrapped in that infrastructure agreement, similar to the transportation improvements. Mr. Stanford said the applicant will gain access to public water for domestic and fire protection service through connecting to a 16 -inch main that exists along the east side of Avery Road and also by connecting to 8 -inch mains at each of the three street stubs. He explained that loop system will help maintain water pressure throughout the district and will provide better circulation. He said they have adequate water pressure in these areas and would not experience an adverse effect on the existing system. Ms. Husak said Staff is outlining all of the conditions tied to the review criteria into the development text. She pointed out that there have been discussions by the Dublin City Schools with regard to the vicinity specifically Jerome High School but also to some extent Grizzell Middle School to this proposed development. She said the schools have informed Staff that Jerome High School is very heavily used throughout all seasons. She said there are camps in the summer, sporting events, band activities, and a lot of activity overall even outside regular school hours. She said Staff has suggested that the applicant include language in the development text that highlights that to which they have agreed. She said that is Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 26, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 26 not always something that prospective buyers read when they purchase a home but it is definitely something that gives Staff some comfort of being able to point to, to demonstrate this development is near a very active school. She said people should be made aware of the noise levels associated with such activities. Ms. Husak added Staff is concerned about the location of proposed Lot 185 at the T- intersection there of what will eventually become the Hyland -Croy connector to the development. She said having headlights come into this lot is something Staff is quite concerned with so a condition has been proposed that this lot and the two lots to the north of proposed Cacchio Lane be eliminated from the proposal for this reason. She said it would also open up the view of the open space on the northern piece of Timble Falls Drive. Ms. Husak said Staff wants to ensure the applicant works with Planning during the Final Development Plan stage to ensure lots that are adjacent to the SCPZ have some demarcation so that people do not start mowing into the zone, which is intended to be undisturbed. She said this has been done with a small sign or marker in a couple of areas of the City where SCPZ exist. Ms. Husak said Staff wants to ensure the applicant is willing to work with the schools on a path connection to Jerome High School, should that be desired by the school. Ms. Husak said Ms. Wawszkiewicz had mentioned many of the other conditions that are related to the traffic impact study and the infrastructure agreement as well as the "wiggle" so those are all outlined in detail in the Staff Report in our recommendation section. Ms. Husak said there are other amendments or changes requested for the development text expected from the applicant: o Garage locations for lots adjacent to Avery Road o Architecture for garages o Architecture Review Committee member information Ms. Husak said approval is recommended for the Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan with 15 conditions: 1) That the development text be updated to include language highlighting that Riviera is proposed near a very active high school with year round activities and that homeowners will likely be affected by the noise and light that typically accompanies such activities; 2) That Lots 135, 136, and 185 in Subarea B be removed to provide larger open space vistas; 3) That the applicant work with Planning to determine a method of either physically delineating the Street Corridor Protection Zone (SCPZ) area, and /or ensure the property owners are aware of the presence of the SCPZ and its restrictions; 4) That the applicant provide a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) and a detailed engineering study approved by FEMA with the Final Development Plan that includes lots in FEMA designated 100 - year floodplain (Zone A), subject to approval by Engineering; 5) That the applicant enter into an infrastructure agreement with the City, prior to submitting the first Final Development Plan for development thresholds and public project contributions including the necessary sanitary sewer system improvements; 6) That the applicant work with the City to program a direct site connection to Hyland -Croy Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the approval of a plat that includes the Firenza Place connection to Tartan West; 7) That the alignment of Timble Falls Drive between Lots 140 and 165 be realigned to eliminate the proposed curvature, subject to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 26, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 26 8) That the developer revises the traffic impact study to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to City Council hearing of the rezoning; 9) That as part of the development of Section 1, the applicant provides a northbound left -turn lane on Avery Road into the site and a pedestrian crossing system for Avery Road, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 10) That the plans be updated to accurately name all proposed streets; 11) That the applicant place a sign at the proposed stub for Cacchio Lane indicating future connectivity to Hyland -Croy Road and indicate this on the Final Development Plan; 12) That the applicant evaluates existing cart paths intended to remain on site and upgrade if necessary to ensure compliance with City standards; 13) That the development text be updated to indicate a willingness to provide a path connection to Jerome High School; 14) That the development text be updated to address garage locations for lots adjacent to Avery Road as outlined in the Planning Report; and 15) That the applicant provides membership information for the Architectural Review Committee to the satisfaction of Planning as part of the Final Development Plan. Ms. Husak said approval is recommended for the Preliminary Plat to be forwarded to City Council with two conditions: 1) That the applicant ensure that any minor technical adjustments to the plat are made prior to Council submittal. and 2) That the Preliminary Plat is updated in terms of open space ownership and maintenance responsibilities prior to Council review. The Chair invited public comment Kevin Walter, 6289 Ross Bend, asked Ms. Readier about the exclusion of the 15 acres, and if that area needed to be subdivided to allow a different zoning on that parcel. Ms. Readier said that would be done as part of the Plat. Mr. Walter thanked the Commission for allowing the public to participate in this process. He said he represents a coalition of nine neighborhood groups including homeowner associations and civic groups from across northwest Dublin. He said as a voice behind the Friends of Dublin, he is committed to helping to build the best Dublin possible, respecting our history and building our future. He said it was one year ago this month that we met for the first Concept Plan discussion and they have continued discussion ever since. He said originally, the group was overwhelmingly opposed to this development but they are now supportive of most of the elements of the current application. He thanked Charlie Ruma and his team for taking a critical look at the plan, listening to the residents of Dublin, and producing a significantly better plan that will result in the preservation of a heritage and unique beauty that is Riviera. Mr. Walter requested a few alterations to the application after mentioning the real benefits in both aesthetic and financial terms: o Elimination of multiple lots in addition to what Staff has proposed o Remove responsibility from the applicant for the improvements at the Avery/Brand intersection to be placed on the City o To not connect the stub street of Tantalus Drive and only expand a multi -use path o Clearly delineate a future connector to Hyland -Croy both in the development text and physically on property o If an elementary school is built on the designated 15 acres, that the T- intersection at Timble Falls Drive and Cacchio Place be replaced with a neighborhood size roundabout. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 26, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 26 o Add hardscape elements to the slivers of open space such as fences, stonework or paver walks to ensure the public understands these are to be used as open space access points and not private property o Provide a descriptive pattern book for homebuilders that clearly expresses the character of Riviera rather than mirroring the specificity of the Tartan Ridge Architectural Standards Mr. Walter said they understand the applicant is a developer and not a homebuilder and he will negotiate with multiple homebuilders to build on this site. He said it is critical that the architectural standards section of the development text be strengthened. He said the level of quality needs to be clearly communicated for homes built now and into the future. Mr. Walter concluded stating they are requesting that the application be tabled this evening to work on the details of the development text. Lisa Judson, 8018 Summerhouse Drive, said the presentation was very exciting and thanked the applicant for going back to the table to create a new design. She indicated she was not originally from Dublin but has been residing in Dublin for the past 8.5 years. She said she is raising six adopted daughters. She said the bottom line has been affected by the development but she believes her family's bottom line will be affected as well. She said she has been told by her realtor that her property will decrease in value by approximately $100,000 from when it was purchased in 2006. She said this is considered a lot of money for someone raising eight children. She said her lot is at a T- intersection at Abbey Glen and Summerhouse Drive. She challenges the traffic numbers as there is a huge traffic problem with students going to the high school, which is also a safety issue for children. She said the high school students do not walk to school, which adds to the traffic numbers. She said it is dangerous crossing Abbey Glen in the walking path. She is requesting speed bumps or flashing signs, etc. She indicated she has a concrete front porch because if a driver misses the stop sign, they could head right into her porch. She has witnessed that most people view the stop sign as a yield sign. She said there have been multiple accidents there, which usually involve the students. She said she has to be on alert all the time. Robert Fathman, 5805 Tartan Circle North, said he endorsed everything Mr. Walter said. He said when Mr. Ruma and his team were at his home two weeks ago meeting with our nine neighborhood associations, he said Mr. Ruma's son, who builds Virginia Homes will build part of Phase 1 and the rest he plans to sell to M/I Homes. He said they want to ensure there are sufficient detailed architectural standards in the development text that MI Homes would have to follow. Kristina Ledford, 6328 Cragie Hill Court, said she is new to Dublin and her house is directly across from the proposed development. She said her concern was with impact on the neighboring schools. She stated she understands the benefit of children being able to walk to the schools but does not believe that will necessarily be the case. When she enrolled her children in the system she said, the concern was that Deer Run and Grizzell were already at capacity and was concerned her children would need to be shipped to other schools on the other side of Muirfield Village. She said this is still very dense, appealing to single - family homes. She indicated she appreciates the empty nester portion of this proposal as this is a growing need. Kip Rosier, 8079 Alimoore Green, said he is the president of Belvedere HOA. He said one of the big concerns their neighbors had was the traffic situation as the traffic is currently horrendous in their neighborhood at 7 am. He asked the Commission to consider a connector to the high school. He asked if the 15 acres that are off the table, if they were going to stay in their current form. He questions what it will look like if left barren that allows weeds to grow and become unsightly. Mark Mace, 6469 Green Stone Loop, said traffic on Abbey Glen is a problem in the mornings and questioned the traffic impact study stating there would only be an addition of four cars cutting through that neighborhood from the 185 homes proposed for Riviera. He said even if there is a Hyland -Croy Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 26, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 26 connection, students will figure out it is harder to make a left turn onto Hyland -Croy than it is to make two right turns to get to the high school coming through their development. He stated he is also concerned about the noise levels for empty- nesters. He said he can already hear the broadcasts from the sports activities while sitting at his dining room table. He said he did not understand why his tax dollars should maintain the significant amount of that green space when he pays HOA dues for their green space in their neighborhood. Roland Kolman, Davington Drive, Dublin, said he had been neighbors with Charlie Ruma many years ago. He said he is familiar with Tartan West as it is the route he takes for walking. He indicated he has seen it develop over the years. He said he believes this is the same house as what was built at Tartan West, just with a few minor changes. He noted the architecture is very dull. He indicated the small single floor houses are just like Levittown on steroids, which is not interesting. He said when Charlie promotes he did Tartan West, it causes him concern because he wants Riviera to be better. Brett Bohl, 5735 Whitecraigs Court, thanked everyone, and commented on Mr. Ruma's passion. He emphasized it was not Mr. Ruma's mismanagement of that club that got us to this point in the first place. Adversely, he said, Mr. Ruma came in and saved the day and should be applauded for that. In Dublin he indicated, sports are celebrated, and many of the teams win championships. He said he wanted to go on record to offer an olive branch to Mr. Ruma as there is a consortium with the American Italian Golf Association and he would like to talk. Jesse Oddi, Jr., 3118 Deer Point Court, Hilliard, stated he is the president of the American Italian Golf Association. He indicated they had no desire to be in the state they are in; this is driven purely by economics. He said over the last 15 years, there have been eight golf courses created within five miles of Riviera and two of them have fallen under hard times. He said the families that started this organization had a dream to just play golf somewhere. He explained the American Italian Golf Association was formed before there ever was a golf course. He said Riviera is their legacy and this is very difficult for them. He indicated there were people in attendance tonight that started this organization. He explained they have to sell or lose everything they have. He said they selected Mr. Ruma from a group of developers that are well respected within the community. He asked the Commission to consider this application so they can move on and move forward. He said his children and grandchildren are proud of who they are and the legacy of the American Italian Golf Association. He said there are first and second generation Italians in the association and they worked hard to be a good neighbor to the City of Dublin. He said Dublin was a Village when they first arrived. He said a lot of the members came to Dublin and still live here. He said the American Italian Golf Association and Riviera brought people to this community. He reported they had the first professional golf tournament, the LPGA. He said this is not a 'get rich quick scheme' for them but an opportunity for them to continue their legacy. He asks that they be treated like everybody else. He said the homeowners are passionate about where they live and we are passionate about what we have. He said it has always been an honor for the American Italian Golf Association to be a part of Dublin. Mr. Ruma said the 15 Development Plan conditions in the Staff Report had not been addressed: 1) That the development text be updated to include language highlighting that Riviera is proposed near a very active high school with year round activities and that homeowners will likely be affected by the noise and light that typically accompanies such activities; Mr. Ruma said that was in their text already and they will be notifying homeowners of that situation. 2) That Lots 135, 136, and 185 in Subarea B be removed to provide larger open space vistas; Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 26, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 26 Mr. Ruma said he was at the end, had no more to give and he was already underwater on the deal. He indicated he would gladly remove those lots as long as he can replace them in another area in this subdivision. He said there are plenty of places to put these lots if he is asked to move them and they would not deduct anything from the open space. 3) That the applicant work with Planning to determine a method of either physically delineating the Street Corridor Protection Zone (SCPZ) area, and /or ensure the property owners are aware of the presence of the SCPZ and its restrictions; Mr. Ruma said he agrees and will clearly mark these areas on deeds or plats. 4) That the applicant provide a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) and a detailed engineering study approved by FEMA with the Final Development Plan that includes lots in FEMA designated 100 -year floodplain (Zone A), subject to approval by Engineering; Mr. Ruma said he would. 5) That the applicant enter into an infrastructure agreement with the City, prior to submitting the first Final Development Plan for development thresholds and public project contributions including the necessary sanitary sewer system improvements; Mr. Ruma said he would. He said they have contributed considerably to the sanitary sewer system already, providing a $60,000 study. He said these are problems existing today and not because of any future development. He said this serious problem needs to be solved whether he develops Riviera or not. 6) That the applicant work with the City to program a direct site connection to Hyland - Croy Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the approval of a plat that includes the Firenza Place connection to Tartan West; Mr. Ruma said he is against a Hyland -Croy connection because of what it is going to do to Riviera. He presented a traffic situation that is going to be created by putting a connection through to Hyland - Croy Road. He explained that if there is a direct connection between Avery Road and Hyland -Croy, a thoroughfare that goes through this site. He said in the morning and afternoon, there will be 200 — 300 cars going to /from the high school. He said if there is a football game, this will be the place to go to the football game. He said this is not the thing to do for Conservation Design and the people living in Riviera. He noted the multiple paths of traffic that converges onto the high school that would go through this proposed connection. He said the Brand /Avery Road intersection is the problem and there needs to be a priority on that to get it fixed. He said he has done everything in his power to make this a beautiful living space and now a Hyland -Croy connector is requested to go through here that is going to devastate citizens that live in Riviera. He said we might as well make it Morse Road and add gas stations and fast food establishments. He emphasized it was wrong. But saying all that, he said he would cooperate with the City because he wants to get this application approved but will fight it as much as he can. He said he does not want to be part of it, especially the way it is being designed. 7) That the alignment of Timble Falls Drive between Lots 140 and 165 be realigned to eliminate the proposed curvature, subject to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; Mr. Ruma said he would straighten out the road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 26, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 26 8) That the developer revises the traffic impact study to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to City Council hearing of the rezoning; Mr. Ruma said he would update the traffic study to the satisfaction of the City. 9) That as part of the development of Section 1, the applicant provide a northbound left- turn lane on Avery Road into the site and a pedestrian crossing system for Avery Road, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; Mr. Ruma said he would build a left -turn lane on Avery Road but has a problem with the pedestrian crossing as it goes nowhere. He explained that across the street where he is being asked to put it, there is a storm outlet that is in the way and there are no sidewalks on Memorial Drive so there is no connection to anything other than going to a path that is private, restricted to Muirfield residents. He asked why someone would want to make that crossing. He said if the point is to go north of the school entrance, he recommended a different path. He said if he is forced to do it, he will participate and take care of it in the infrastructure agreement with the City but again, does not believe it is the right thing to do. 10)That the plans be updated to accurately name all proposed streets; Mr. Ruma said he thought they were correct but if there was anything he needed to do he will. 11)That the applicant place a sign at the proposed stub for Cacchio Lane indicating future connectivity to Hyland -Croy Road and indicate this on the Final Development Plan; Mr. Ruma said he hopes he does not have to but if he does, he will. He said he does not believe there should be a sign stating there is going to be a future road if there is not going to be a future road. He said he does not know what is going to happen with those 15 acres. 12)That the applicant evaluates existing cart paths intended to remain on site and upgrade if necessary to ensure compliance with City standards; Mr. Ruma said he would ensure the paths comply and are high quality. 13)That the development text be updated to indicate a willingness to provide a path connection to Jerome High School; Mr. Ruma said he had already committed to doing that. 14)That the development text be updated to address garage locations for lots adjacent to Avery Road as outlined in the Planning Report; and Mr. Ruma said he will not have any garages facing Avery Road on the lots that are opposite facing Avery Road. He said there are only 12, 75 -foot lots in this area. He said all the other lots are 86 feet or larger and all the lots in Section A are 100 feet or larger. He said homes in Section A will be custom -built homes. He said he was sure his son would be building on those lots but there will be other builders, too. He predicts that will be a very expensive area ($750,000 - $900,000). He said the homes planned for Section B will be $550,000 - $700,000; and the empty- nester homes should probably be in the $600,000 - $700,000 range and maybe higher. 15)That the applicant provides membership information for the Architectural Review Committee to the satisfaction of Planning as part of the Final Development Plan. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 26, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 26 Mr. Ruma stated there will be an architect, a developer, and a landscape architect on that committee to determine approval of the plans. Mr. Ruma said he has 20 reasons why the Commission should approve this site. He emphasized he needs approval to move ahead, out of PZC and get to City Council. He said the American Italian Golf Association needs an answer. He said the association can either buy another golf course or they can get themselves out of debt and plan on their own future. He said the association needs to know what to do with their golf course in this upcoming season. He indicated this is been a real problem and apologized for taking this long to return to the Commission. He said this is a new Planning and Zoning Commission, they are here, and are asking for a decision. Mr. Ruma said he would work on architectural renderings, provide pictures, and will deal with the neighbors to fix problems. He said if someone would tell him what is wrong, he could fix it. He concluded his comments by asking again for approval. Todd Zimmerman said he has been to a few APA conferences, has listened to Randall Arendt, and the applicant has made the numbers for Conservation Design. He asked Staff if the design is there that Dublin would expect. Ms. Husak said she had to refer back to something that Mr. Ruma said earlier in his part of the presentation, that we do not have in the City a single development that has met the Conservation Design resolution principles to the point, each and every one of them that is there, that alone sets this development apart from anything else that we have. Mr. Zimmerman asked if this was a vision for what Staff would have expected for Conservation Design. Ms. Husak replied yes. She said there have been a few comments at City Council when we have taken residential products forward in the last couple of years (Links of Ballantrae comes to mind and Avondale Woods specifically where some of the Council members had concerns about lack of open space behind lots or lots backing up to open space). She said in this instance, each and every lot has open space behind it. Mr. Zimmerman said he brought this up for the other members on this Commission that have not had the experience of APA or heard different talks on Conservation Design. He said he wanted to ensure that Staff was comfortable with this proposal and it was as good as it gets. Ms. Husak said the site is somewhat unique that the Conservation is really all man -made features except for the streams; there is not a large woodland area in this site. She said there are areas you cannot build on anyways but you have to preserve them. Mr. Zimmerman said the topography of the site has a lot of grade changes. Mr. Zimmerman indicated he would like to see a minimum 30 -year asphalt shingle added to the roof materials required as part of the architectural standards. He referenced the windows on #2 and asked if an awning style window could be added to the text. He said he would like to see vinyl and PVC shutters removed. Mr. Ruma said the latest and best material for shutters is PVC as it does not warp or peel and holds its color. He said he would be glad to remove vinyl as a permitted material for shutters. Mr. Zimmerman indicated that is fine because he has seen vinyl over time lose its color very rapidly Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 26, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 26 Mr. Brown stated the PVC shutter does hold up Mr. Zimmerman questioned the configuration of materials. He asked if a house had to be clad in two materials or if there could be an all brick or an all stone house. Ms. Newell said there is similar text and terminology in our Architectural Review Standards. She said an all brick home is considered lovely. She indicated there are incidences where an all siding home can be very attractive. She said she believes that text was added to prevent the repetitiveness of having three homes in a row with siding. She said when you try to put architectural elements in text alone, it is difficult to illustrate the result. She said for eliminating one thing, you are taking away another possibility but there was good reason why that language was added. Ms. De Rosa said she recognizes this has taken some time and many of us were not here when this was started. She said she has seen the past recordings, as she assumes her fellow new members have, so as a "newbie" on this, it has been incredibly heartwarming to see how well the work has advanced and how hard everybody is working together. She said she believes this was worth the time and effort as we are getting close to having something that seems to work around the ring. Ms. De Rosa said there have been discussions about ensuring diversity in the architectural design. She said based on your experience, the drawings, the discussion, the requirement to have diversity it sounds to her like that is what the community is stating is the piece that is missing. She said she believes it is more about putting it on paper than disagreeing about what it is. She indicated we are in agreement but maybe we do not see it yet on the paper. Mr. Ruma said there will be a matrix set up so no two similar houses can be beside each other, or two houses away, or across from each other so there is a guide for builders and the Architectural Review Committee. Ms. De Rosa asked Staff if a matrix is something the Commission would expect to see at this level Ms. Husak said the architectural diversity requirements are currently in the development text and the matrix is due at the Final Development stage. Mr. Brown inquired about transition on corners; he asked if that was returnable materials off the main fagade to an adjacent fagade. He asked what that specifically addressed. He inquired about garage setbacks related to massing. Mr. Ruma said there would be a variety of garage locations. He said some will be behind the front fagade, some tied into a porch, and a lot of them will be side - loaded. He said on the 100 -foot lots there will be side - loaded with garage doors to the outside, a number of the interior lots /Section B lots will be courtyard where garages would be off a courtyard toward the front door, and some will be front - loaded garages. Mr. Brown referred to Mr. Walter's comments about the development text where one shows pictures and the other does not. He asked where the main contention is between the two, between Mr. Ruma's text and Mr. Walter's perspective including the whole Dublin Association. Mr. Ruma said regardless of if they are approved tonight, he plans to sit down with Mr. Walter and figure it out. He said the language is all the same; and the pictures are the difference to describe what they want to see. Ms. Husak reported in the Tartan Ridge text, each of the styles permitted in the development text has a picture illustrating that style. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 26, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 26 Mr. Brown indicated he had seen those in a lot of planned communities. Mr. Ruma said we have mentioned those styles in the text but have not shown pictures Deborah Mitchell said it makes sense to her that the residents would want to see pictures, and she would like to see the quality detail in pictures as well; something along the lines of the Tartan Ridge model. She said that would be an important piece given everyone's comfort level. She indicated that words are powerful but can also be ambiguous. She stated the more pictures the better. Ms. Mitchell inquired about condition #6 because Mr. Ruma had said the connector would be a real threat to the integrity of Conservation Design. Ms. Wawszkiewicz said it is important to look at the big picture on this one because the more connections you make, the better you disburse traffic. She said we have been talking about this in the Bridge Street District and it fits this scenario where the more options given to drivers the better the traffic works everywhere. She said the connection to Tartan would suffer if there was not another way to get out to Hyland -Croy. She anticipates the cut through traffic in Belvedere would become worse. She said engineering knows that the Avery/Brand Road intersection is a problem and are addressing it. Ms. Mitchell asked if Staff sees a trade -off between the integrity of Conservation Design versus the need for traffic management. Ms. Husak said it is still part of the Community Plan and there are streets stubbing into Riviera for a reason because Planners before us have realized the importance of connections being made throughout the community regardless of the kind of design. Ms. Mitchell asked for clarity; she said Staff does not believe it is a trade -off. Ms. Husak said the traffic safety and distribution is a higher priority. Mr. Ruma said what we are really talking about is neighborhood to neighborhood traffic verses traffic coming from off -site, unconnected, through this site because it goes to the high school; that is the difference. He said we are really saying we are taking traffic from off -site and bringing it through this area to go to the high school rather than directing it to the collector streets where it should be. He reiterated he needed to get this application approved. Mr. Brown said he is not a traffic engineer but he tries to drive down Coffman Road in the morning and frankly he would rather have high school traffic on the collector roads than driving through the neighborhoods. He said there is some merit to what Mr. Ruma is saying. He said he does not totally disagree with engineering as he always sees the merit in additional connections but knows how the students drive through neighborhoods and again would rather have them on the collector streets. Mr. Ruma said if the City fixes the Brand /Avery intersection by putting the right kind of traffic control circle there, and traffic moves constantly, there will not be students going through Belvedere. Ms. Mitchell said the intent of this neighborhood is walkability and family orientation other than the empty nesters of that area. To that point, she said people cutting through would be more of a threat to walkability. Mr. Ruma agreed with Ms. Mitchell's statement. He said most of the high school students probably walk or ride a bike. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 26, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 26 Mr. Brown said they drive Ms. Newell said more children probably do drive because many of them go to sports activities immediately after school, and many have jobs after school. She said her two daughters lived within walking distance of the school, needed to be there at the same time but both drove separately because they needed to go separate directions after school for sports activities. She believes that happens a lot in the City of Dublin. She said she has never seen a lot of kids walking in her particular neighborhood. Ms. Newell said there is public perception that there is a lot of cut - through traffic on Tara Hill, assuming to get from one direction to the other. She said she knows traffic studies were done on that area. She asked if other such studies have been done in other periods. Ms. Wawszkiewicz said Tara Hill is the most intense. She said through that process, a revised traffic calming program was developed that is in place now and part of that program sets out some limitations and some expectations for cut - through traffic and where there seems to be an acceptable threshold. Ms. Wawszkiewicz said a connector with three right turns to get from Avery Road to Hyland -Croy is not going to be all that attractive. She said there will be a lot of mutual benefits for neighborhood connectivity. She believes the traffic from Avery Road directly to Hyland -Croy would be low. Ms. Newell thanked Mr. Ruma for the effort he has made. She noted the substantial changes he had made based on the Commissions comments thus far but she still has some reservations about the architectural details. She compared the text from the November proposal to today's proposal and said the vast majority of the text is the same. She indicated she went through the Architectural Standards noting the vinyl siding, roof slopes, and decorative garages. She said while the words are wonderful, the words do not provide a visual illustration of what is associated with the meaning of those texts. She said we see that so often and there have been some cases recently where it is wonderful to get this far with a development but sometimes developments do not always proceed. She said it was the architectural illustrations that provide the Commissioners with something to refer back to when property had changed hands and being developed by new applicants. She said having those illustrations added something to the property owners so they knew exactly what was expected. She said that was the one thing she had hoped she would see along with this application. Ms. Newell asked where the pedestrian crossing is supposed to be. Ms. Wawszkiewicz said the applicant reviewed this proposed pedestrian crossing in their traffic impact study. She said the location is not tremendously obvious because there is not an immediate bike or pedestrian facility right along the eastern edge of Avery Road. She said there is a decent location down at the Memorial Drive intersection where the Muirfield path could be tied in on the east side and the existing Avery Road path on the west side to help integrate these communities. Ms. Newell asked about that intersection and asked if there were walks on one side Ms. Wawszkiewicz said there are not any current curb ramps and that would be part of the applicant's responsibility to actually bring the connection to Avery Road itself. Mr. Miller asked if there was a sidewalk on Memorial Drive. Ms. Wawszkiewicz answered there was not. Mr. Miller clarified the pedestrian would cross over to a well. Ms. Wawszkiewicz said there is a path that takes off to the north. She indicated Muirfield in general lacks the roadside pedestrian access. Mr. Miller asked if going under Avery Road was an option. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 26, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 21 of 26 Ms. Wawszkiewicz said there is a tunnel at the north end of the schools by Grizzell Middle School. Mr. Miller asked if the crossing for Avery Road at Memorial Drive is located at the driving range. He said he was envisioning crossing Avery Road at St. Bridget's Church on a Sunday morning. He said he was not sure how to stop people that want to cross Avery Road. Ms. Newell stated it is really important to have that interconnection between neighborhoods, especially with the amount of conservation land and park land that will be owned by the City, available to all residents. Mr. Brown agreed there should be a crosswalk there but also the path that connects Albany Circle that juts out towards Avery Road; it would be nice to swing that around to the south. He said engineers always do paths rectilinear. He said people do not walk that way. He said every college campus has learned you put in a building, you let people walk, and then a path is constructed. Ms. Newell said aluminum, vinyl, and PVC were listed in the development text for allowable trim materials. She said the Commission has asked that vinyl be removed from most of our text recently. She said she has the same concern with PVC; it can be a really good product but there are no qualifications to what the vinyl or PVC material would be. She indicated there can be a lot of very good products of PVC, and admitted it was easier to omit certain materials 20 years ago, it is harder now because there is a lot more variety of better quality materials. She said as a Commissioner making decisions, we cannot discern the quality of one material to another when there are not examples. She said there are issues with PVC being painted. Ms. Husak confirmed what the text stated. Ms. Newell asked if the development of the Architectural Standards be brought in at the Final Development Plan stage or if they needed to be considered in the application this evening. Ms. Husak said she did not know how to defer that. Jennifer Readier said if the Commission wants illustrations to be part of the text, that is what the Commission is being asked to approve right now. She explained text modifications could be made at the Final Development Plan but typically they are minor in nature. She said it was possible to make the illustrations a condition and bring in samples at City Council. Ms. Newell said if the Commission did that, they would be asking Council to make decisions on architectural elements and design, which are really the Commission's task and responsibility. She said she would be more comfortable to see those illustrations and examples now. Mr. Ruma said he recently remodeled his house on Cape Cod facing the northeast, subject to heavy winds, rain, snow, and salt water. He explained they had oak corner boards and but had to constantly replace them until they installed PVC. He said PVC boards are straight, strong, hold color, and are of extraordinarily good quality. Ms. Newell admitted she replaced the wood boards on her house a lot. She restated her concern with architectural text not specifying materials and also not having those illustrations of what is intended by the text to be judged against. She said text alone only leaves it more open- ended. She said she looked at what they are giving up when not passing the zoning this evening and compared the proposal with what would be allowed under current zoning. Mr. Ruma said it is not fair to do that. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 26, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 22 of 26 Ms. Newell said it is fair in terms of what the criteria /standards are that the Commission is being asked to judge this project against. She said she was stating that because one of the criteria is that you are meeting or exceeding the standards for which the Commission would accept that development. She stated the only thing missing for her and her fellow Commissioners is the final development of those architectural details. Mr. Ruma said when he reviewed the architectural standards for Belvedere, there was practically nothing; the architectural standards for Tartan West contain just a half a page and most of it was architectural diversity; the standards for Celtic Crossing, which was approved last year; and the standards of Tartan Ridge. He said when he reviews what the Commission has approved in the past, he assumed he would be in line if he did the same kind of thing. He said we did that in November and then expanded it for this meeting. He indicated he has gone well beyond what is really necessary here. He said he can understand the Commission's desire to feel comfortable. He said he is committed to adding pictures /illustrations but they would not change the words. Ms. Newell said his commitment for the illustrations makes a difference. She said they illustrate to the Commissioners and the developers what that exact intent is, and sometimes that intent in the text is not always communicated clearly. She stated she would like to see pictures /illustrations before she cast her final vote, otherwise she is very supportive of the project. She emphasized she wanted that complete package. Mr. Ruma asked the Commission if they were in support of him replacing the lots rather than removing them. Ms. Newell said if she knew where they were going to go, that would potentially make a difference. She said she does not see where he is going to put them at the moment. Mr. Ruma said there are several locations. He said he wanted to study the tree survey before he places them. He said he is certain he has more than enough space to fit three lots that will not affect tree preservation. He said more than likely, the entrance part will be diminished by 100 feet. Ms. Newell said she would like to see the results of that. She indicated there is a little bit of give and take there between Staff's requests of eliminating the lots and Mr. Ruma's desire to keep them. She said she is not opposed to keeping the lots as long as something else is not sacrificed. She emphasized the importance of tree preservation. She asked Mr. Ruma to allow the Commission to review this further. Mr. Brown said he is not opposed to lot replacement. He indicated he did not think the entry part was fundamental to the whole development. He said he reviewed what was planted versus what was original in the flood plain. He noted one of the pictures shown of what the site looked like initially and what it looked like 30 years later where the trees showed up. He said he hates waiting 30 years for trees that are removed to develop something and replaced to come back to that same scale. He said a phenomenal job of tree preservation was done at Wedgewood. He said there are a lot of great trees that were planted four years ago, that have matured. He indicated he would hate to see the lots cleared prior to a builder starting to develop on that lot. He said there are so many great trees on that first fairway that are mature, salvageable, and can be worked around. He indicated if he was buying a premium lot and he could buy something with mature trees, that is what he would want. Mr. Ruma said you can well those trees as they did in Wedgewood to protect them and change grade elevations. Mr. Brown said it is up to the builders to well them Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 26, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 23 of 26 Mr. Ruma noted Wedgewood Hills, which is in Dublin that is phenomenal. He said it is exactly what Mr. Brown is saying; he saved 90% of those trees on those lots. He explained a house has to sit someplace. He understands if you put a foundation too close to a tree it is going to die. Mr. Brown said the mistake that is still sticking in everyone's mind is Wellington Reserve. He said he drives by that every day and cringes. He said he hates the detention pond, the retention pond, the buffer that was cleared against the neighbors, and the mature trees that were knocked down. He said no one stood up and protected those trees. Mr. Ruma said Wellington Reserve had a 20 -foot drop from west to east and all of that water was flowing down into the backyards of those who lived on the backside of Wellington Reserve. He said that was a serious problem and the water had to be stopped. He said when you start changing grade, you start losing trees. He indicated it was a shame to lose a good sense of those trees but they are all being replaced. Mr. Brown said 30 years from now they will look decent. Mr. Zimmerman inquired about driveways and sidewalks as there is nothing listed as a permitted material in the architectural standards and he would like to see brick, concrete, or pavers and not the use of asphalt. Mr. Ruma said he does not use concrete for driveways because it does nothing but go bad (flakes, cracks, stains). He said if a buyer asked for concrete however, he would give it to them. He said all the sidewalks would be concrete, brick, or pavers. Mr. Zimmerman said he has had asphalt twice and been discouraged by it and with the house he is building right now he is using concrete. He said the cost factor right now is $200 - $300 a driveway; it is pretty close. He said it is hard to maintain and take care of, same as asphalt. Other members said they agreed. Ms. Newell said she had a personal preference. She said she had an asphalt driveway that really needs to be replaced but she takes good care of it but when it becomes time, she would replace it with pavers. Mr. Miller asked Ms. Husak to alter the colors she used on her plans as it was hard for him to distinguish certain colors. He said this is a great project. He said he was sorry he was not here in November to address some of these issues. He stated the connector is a 'got to have' for a yes vote from him. He said he thinks Mr. Ruma would agree to the connector. He said Subarea C is an opportunity to really make this project pop. He inquired about the appearance intent of the cluster /empty- nester homes. He stated that is a type of housing that is going to be of value and can really make this a special place. He said he has a hard time understanding what that is going to look like. He said if it is a bunch of ranches on a bunch of skinny lots, he would not be supportive. Mr. Ruma said more than likely the cluster /empty- nester homes will be a story and a half. Mr. Brown said if he could just see that, he would be a lot more comfortable. He said if Mr. Ruma can make Timble Falls Drive less of an enticement to cut through by putting those lots in some way, shape, or form, he would be very supportive of that. Mr. Brown said he hopes Ms. Salay's comments were entered into the record and hoped they would get addressed in some way, shape, or form. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 26, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 24 of 26 Jeff Brown said, in terms of that senior housing /empty- nester housing, the text calls for that. He said if that happens, when they do the Final Development Plan they would bring in building architecture for the Commission to review at that time. Mr. Brown confirmed that is not a commitment to doing that. Mr. Ruma said it is a commitment for them to come back with that product to show the Commission. The Chair asked Mr. Ruma what he would like to do. He said he did not believe he would get the Commission's approval vote if he did not do something about pictures. Ms. Newell restated for herself, the pictures are not completing this package for her. She commended Mr. Ruma for his time and knows he has a financial expenditure. She said she appreciates that he has been working with Staff and the community. Mr. Brown said he has been contentious but with the effort Mr. Ruma has put forth, it is a great project. He said he believes the applicant is doing the right thing and is so close to the finish line. He said it has to be super emotional for the American Italian Golf Association. He thanked all the neighbors that have stepped up and cooperated and had all these meetings with the applicant; he said this is tremendous input and this is how this process is supposed to work. Mr. Ruma asked if the first PZC meeting he would be eligible for would be April 91. Ms. Husak confirmed that date but would need materials on Monday, March 301. Mr. Oddi said this is a tremendous financial burden for them; every day they bleed thousands of dollars. He said they were prepared for an 18 month process and now they are at 28 months. He said he understands the Commission wanting to see the pictures. He said two more weeks is not a big deal but it is. Because that two weeks turns into two more weeks after that, and they are going to lose everything they have. He said he knows there are no guarantees but is asking for respect and not anything the Commission would not give anybody else. He said it is not just the money it is who they are; every day is depleting. He said if they could return April 91 and everybody is happy, they will be happy. Ms. Newell said if Mr. Ruma follows through with what he was going to do, and presents good quality, that would complete this package. Ms. Mitchell agreed that was the only thing missing for her. Mr. Ruma asked if there was some way he could submit and receive feedback before returning to the Commission. He said he will fix things and make things happen. He said the feedback is really helpful. Mr. Ruma asked that the application be tabled until April 9, 2015. Ms. Husak asked for clarification on a few things before moving forward: • Return materials at corners — Ms. Husak asked if an 8 -inch return was the standard desired; the text states 8 — 12 inches. Ms. Newell said 12 inches is not a typical masonry dimension but rather 8, 16, or 24 inches. Ms. Newell said 8 inches is a little weak; she would rather see 16 inches. Mr. Brown said he was not opposed to the latitude of 8 inches but more is better. He said sometimes there is a weird corner to be contended with. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 26, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 25 of 26 Two cladding styles — Ms. Husak indicated she did not get a consensus on that. She said there are colonial homes in Tartan Ridge that have siding with a brick course. She asked if that was considered two cladding materials. The answer was yes. Driveways — Ms. Husak confirmed the permitted materials were concrete, pavers, or brick, which can all complement each other; no black asphalt. Mr. Brown asked for verbiage about tree protection. He said he was not certain how to define or check that but would appreciate some comfort on that. Mr. Ruma indicated he thought he had tree protection language. Mr. Ruma asked Ms. Husak when he would have to submit his materials that were requested this evening. She responded the materials would need to be submitted by the end of the day on Wednesday, April 1 because the materials go to the Commission for review on Friday, April 3. Ms. Newell asked if a concession could be made for the timing of materials to arrive later than normal. She said she would be happy to have less time to review and would do her due diligence if her fellow Commissioners would support it. She said she appreciates her applicant's willingness to work with us and understands the time constraint on the owner of the property as well. She said she would be happy to make a concession on the arrival of her packets to allow the applicant more time for submission. Ms. Husak said that could certainly be worked out. Ms. Newell asked if it was acceptable to everyone else. The Commission agreed to the concession. Ms. Husak asked if the waiving of the material deadline be stated as part of the motion. The Chair agreed. Mr. Walter said he did not want to be an impediment to the timeline that is being established for material submittal. He said the things Mr. Ruma said tonight are things the neighborhoods support and would look to have codified. He said their largest concern is that the phases down the road will be developed by other developers and so while the applicant is stating wanting to well the trees, M/I Homes may not. He said he wants to see a picture this body agrees with such that future builders understand the intent of the Commission tonight. He emphasized the need from a neighborhood perspective. Motion and Vote Ms. Newell motioned, Mr. Zimmerman seconded, to Table this case and additionally for the applicant waiver for the timeframe for the return of the next application so they can be heard at the next meeting on April 9, 2015. The vote was as follows: Ms. Mitchell, yes; Mr. Miller, yes; Mr. Brown, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Ms. Newell, yes. (Approved 6 — 0) Communications Ms. Husak said this was Todd Zimmerman's last meeting. She said he did not want a plaque so a treat basket was presented to him from Staff. She reported Mr. Zimmerman had been on the Planning and Zoning Commission for over 10 years, appointed first in 2002. She told him how much Staff has enjoyed working with him, he has been a great mentor, and stuck it out all these years. She said he will truly be missed. Todd Zimmerman thanked Staff; it has been a great last nine months. He said he has enjoyed working with everyone and said Victoria Newell was doing a great job as Chair. He told the new Commission members attending the APA Conference that they will find how good a staff they have. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 26, 2015 — Meeting Minutes Page 26 of 26 Victoria Newell said it has been a real honor to serve with him and one of her favorite Commission members when she was on the other side of the bench because he treated applicants fairly. Mr. Zimmerman said it is so important that everyone is comfortable on both sides. The Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:49 p.m. As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on 2015. City of Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 RECORD OF ACTION phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 www.dublinohlousa.gov NOVEMBER 13, 2014 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. RIVIERA 8025 Avery Road 14- 068Z /PDP /PP Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan Preliminary Plat Proposal: A rezoning of approximately 168 acres from R, Rural District and R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District for the potential development of the site with up to 240 single - family lots and approximately 60 acres of open space. The site is on the west side of Avery Road, north of the intersection with Memorial Drive. Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council of a Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan application for a Planned Unit Development District under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050. This is also a request for review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a Preliminary Plat under the provisions of the Subdivision Regulations. Applicant: Charles Ruma, Davidson Phillips, Inc. Planning Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4675, chusak @dublin.oh.us MOTION #1: Mr. Taylor moved, Mr. Zimmerman seconded, to TABLE this Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan with it conditions: 1) That the development text be updated to include language highlighting that Riviera is proposed near a very active high school with year -round activities and that homeowners will likely be affected by the noise and light that typically accompanies such activities; 2) That the development text be updated to describe the intent of the ownership of Subarea D; 3) That Lots 43 and 240 in Subarea A and Lots 144 and 169 in Subarea B are removed to provide larger open space vistas; 4) That the Development Plan and text be updated to consistently name the reserves and provide accurate information regarding their sizes; 5) That the applicant work with Planning to determine a method of either physically delineating Stream Corridor Protection Zone (SCPZ) areas, and /or ensuring the property owners are aware of the presence of the SCPZ and its restrictions; 6) That the applicant provide a direct site connection to Hyland Croy Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to be completed with Section 5 of the proposed development; 7) That the applicant enter into an infrastructure agreement with the City, prior to submitting the first Final Development Plan, for development thresholds and public project contributions; 8) That the developer revises the traffic impact study to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to a City Council hearing of the rezoning; Page 1 of 3 City of Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 5800 Shler Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 RECORD OF ACTION phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 www.dublinohlousa.gov NOVEMBER 13, 2014 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting; 1. RIVIERA 14 -068Z/ PDP/ PP 8025 Avery Road Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan Preliminary Plat 9) That as part of the development of Section 1, the applicant provide a northbound left turn lane on Avery Road into the site and a pedestrian crossing system for Avery Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 10) That the applicant evaluates existing cart paths intended to remain on site and upgrade if necessary to ensure compliance with City standards; and 11) That the development text be clarified as to the required location of the hedge for court- loaded garages and that sight visibility triangles will be maintained. VOTE: 5 - 0 RESULT: This Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan was TABLED. RECORDED VOTES: Chris Amorose Groomes Yes Richard Taylor Yes Amy Kramb Absent John Hardt Absent Todd Zimmerman Yes Victoria Newell Yes Amy Salay Yes Page 2 of 3 Ici of Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 5800 Sher Rings Road Dublin, Oho 43016 -1236 RECORD OF ACTION phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 ohlousa.gov NOVEMBER 13, 2014 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. RIVIERA 14- 068Z /PDP /PP 8025 Avery Road Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan Preliminary Plat Motion #2: Mr. Taylor moved, Mr. Zimmerman seconded, to TABLE this Preliminary Plat with 1 condition: 1) That the Preliminary Plat be updated in terms of open space dedication, prior to Council Review. VOTE: 5 - 0 RESULT: This Preliminary Plat was TABLED. RECORDED VOTES: Chris Amorose Groomes Yes Richard Taylor Yes Amy Kramb Absent John Hardt Absent Todd Zimmerman Yes Victoria Newell Yes Amy Salay Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II Page 3 of 3 Ci1yofDobBn pEqRRINING NIRRD ZCiN4QNG CCMMISlil Land Use and Land Range Manning 5800 star Rings Road MEETING MINUTES Able, Ong 43016 1236 Hong 614410400 h.,,,.e. 61441 4747 NOVEMBER 13, 21314 AGERRDN 1. Rivera 8025 Avery Road 14-06OZ /POP /PP Rezoning / Pelim inery 0evelopm en [ Plan (Tabled) Preliminary Plat (Tabled) The Char, Chris Amorose Groomes, panda He meeting to order at 530 p.m. and lad He Pledge of Allegiance Other Commission members present were, City Council Representative Amy Salay, Todd Zimmerman, Richard Taylor, and AMrld Newell. Amy itrsmb and John Hardt were absent City representatives present were Jennlfar Readlep Steve Langworthy, Claudia Husak, Tina WxeveRh wic2, Aaron Stanford, Gary Guntlerman, 0evayanl Pul Marie Downie, Sue Bumeg, Newer Messina, Rich Martin, Paul Hammersmith, and Laurie Wright. Admmiabaeve Business Moron and vote Mr. Taylor moved, Mr. Zimmerman seconded, to accept the document into He record . The vote was as follows'. Ms. Stlay, yes, Ms. Newell, yes, Ms. Amorese Groomes, yes, Mn Zimmerman, yes, and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Approved 5 -0) The Char briefly explained He rues and procedures of He Planning and Zoning Commission. She said Here was only one care on He agenda tlrls evening Pipe said Staff will give a presentation first, next the apparent will be invttatl to make any additional comments ALL respect to der care, and lastly, public comments will be beard . Pipe reported that 10 people had signed up to speak and would be beard first but Dan anyone else wishing to address the Commission would have the opportunity. She indicated that 45 letters had been received by He Commission from members of He community, and they have all read Nam and were made part of He public record . She requested that comment be limttatl to information Hat had not already been stated by previous speakers . 1. Rivera 8025 Avery Road 14-06OZ /POP /PP Rezoning /Prelim inery Oevelopm ent Plan Prelim inery Plat The Char, Ms. Amorose Groomes, nooduced The application for a request fora rezoning of approximately 158 acres from R, Rural DistrIRand R -1, Restrleted Suburban Residential DefiR to PUD, Planned Unit Development District for He potential development of the site ALL up to 240 single family lots antl approximately 50 acres of open space . Pipe said Desire Is on the west side of Avery Road, Todd of He intersection ALL Memorial Drive. The Chair swore in anyone intending N address He Commission on this care. Claudia Husak said several staff members will also be part of This presentation . Pipe presented a slide explaining the process of a Planned Unit Development Pipe reported He Planning and Zoning Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 20 Commission reviewed a concept plan in March 2014 for the Riviera Club proposal, which is the first step in a PUD application for establishing the planned district. She said a planned district means the request is for a rezoning to a district that is not currently in the Zoning Code but will have its own development regulations. Ms. Husak said that at that meeting, feedback was given and public testimony heard but no votes were taken at that time. She said the second step of this process is the rezoning with a Preliminary Development Plan and a Preliminary Plat that is the first formal stage step to establish a PUD. She said this includes a development text, with development regulations that will be applicable to this site from here on out. She added it also includes a Preliminary Development Plan, which has the site layout, the access, street design, open space locations, pedestrian circulation, a preliminary tree survey and the replacement information and utility plan as well as the Preliminary Plat. She said at this stage, the Planning and Zoning Commission provides a recommendation to City Council as this requires legislative action; approval by City Council would constitute the rezoning to a Planned Unit Development District. She said the third step is the Final Development Plan and Final Plat, which includes all final details for the development and those usually happen in stages or sections. Ms. Husak presented the site that is adjacent to three Dublin City Schools: Dublin Jerome High School to the southwest, Grizzell Middle School and Deer Run Elementary School to the northeast. She added adjacent neighborhoods include Belvedere and Shannon Glen to the south, Tartan West to the north, and to the east is Muirfield Village. She noted the county boundaries and the site is in three counties: Franklin, Delaware, and Union. Ms. Husak described the site that is 167.1 acres but is shown on the county's website as 168 acres. She said it has been surveyed and verified that 167.1 acres is accurate. She said it has 2,000 feet of frontage on the east side of Avery Road and has been a golf course since 1970. She indicated there are two access points on Avery Road that are accessing the parking lot for the clubhouse and banquet facility. She stated that natural features include two tributary streams to the North Fork of the Indian Run, which converge at the center of the site flowing south into Shannon Glen Park. She added a wooded area is in the northwest portion of the site with tree rows along the western and southern site boundaries and there are many mature trees existing on the site. Ms. Husak showed a view of the concept plan that the Commission reviewed in March. She said the proposal included 284 single - family lots at a density of t1.7 units to the acre with 35% of the site dedicated to open space. Ms. Husak showed a view of the Community Plan that showed the site as parks and open space. She said this site was dedicated as Parks and Open Space in the 2007 Plan update, which staff did specifically at the request of the ownership of the golf course at that time. She explained the Parks and Open Space designation is described as land used for public or privately owned parks and recreational uses that allows the land to be preserved in a natural state. She said this classification may include portions of private lands that have been identified Open Space designations for future development projects but not necessarily targeted for public dedication or acquisition. Ms. Husak showed the surrounding densities of the site that are 1 to 2 units per acre. She explained the zoning of the site is R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District and R, Rural District, which both permit single - family lots and have the same development standards, which are 40,000- square -foot lots with 150 - foot lot depth. Permitted are agricultural parks and public schools, she said. Ms. Husak addressed the relationship between the Community Plan and the Zoning Code as it is critical to this application and commonly misunderstood. She explained the Community Plan is a statement of policy while the Zoning Code is a law. She added the Community Plan is a document, which states general principles and no specific issues upon which development and the City is evaluated. She explained the plan itself has no direct legal authority and its adoption does regulate or change the use of land while modifications of the Zoning Code can change uses to which the land may be developed or altered in the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 20 regulations that affect the site. She said the Community Plan affects the future use of land while the Zoning Code affects the use of land today. Ms. Husak presented a map that Staff provided during the concept plan review where analysis was provided on how the proposed development would fit within the surrounding context in terms of density. She said the research has been done based on plats that were provided for the northern developments and for Muirfield; Staff did a calculation based on picking an area and counting rooftops based on aerial photography. The density results she said were 1.27 units per acre, which included also the commercial lands within that area. Ms. Husak presented the proposed Preliminary Development Plan that includes 240 single - family lots with access from Avery Road on Riviera Boulevard that terminates into a 2.1 -acre central open space around which single - family lots are located. Secondary connections she said are provided through Tantalus Drive and Timble Falls Drive south to the Belvedere subdivision and Firenza Place west to Tartan West. She added a stub street is proposed on the west edge of the site to provide for a future street connection to Hyland -Croy Road. Ms. Husak reported that Subarea D at the southwest corner of the development is programmed as a potential elementary school with associated improvements. She said if Dublin City Schools does not elect to use the site, it would remain as 15 acres of open space reserved to be owned by the City of Dublin. Ms. Husak provided a map that the applicant prepared showing the surrounding densities, which resulted in 1.4 units to the acre for Muirfield Village and is probably more accurate than what Staff has provided. In March, she said, 284 lots were proposed with a density of 1.7 units to the acre, and tonight two numbers are proposed: 1) 240 lots with 1.5 units to the acre with the school site taken out; and 2) 240 lots at 167 acres for the total site that equates to a density of 1.44 units per acre. Ms. Husak showed the four subareas the applicant is proposing and noted the locations on the map and explained the lot sizes and setbacks are very similar to the surrounding neighborhoods. She presented a map of the open spaces proposed and she noted the 52 acres, which the City of Dublin will own and will maintain, and the other 11 acres of open space will be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. She said Planning is concerned that lots within a couple of these subareas impede views into the open spaces and has conditioned the removal of Lots 144 and 169 in Subarea 'B', and Lots 43 and 240 in Subarea 'A' to establish a greater open view corridor connecting Reserves '3', 'H', and 'I'. Ms. Husak said Steve Langworthy has some remarks regarding Conservation Design. Steve Langworthy said Staff has been asked about the Conservation Design resolution that Council passed in 2004. He reported the concept of conservation design was first put forward by Randall Arendt in his "Conservation Design for Subdivision: A Practical Guide to Creating Open Space Networks," published in 1996. He indicated the guidebook was used by many communities to revise their zoning regulation (particularly planned development regulation) to take into account existing natural features such as woodlots, steep slopes, and other natural features that might exist on various properties. He explained this book set forth an elementary design process of identifying potential conservation areas, locating home sites, designing street alignments and trails, and filling in lot lines accordingly. He added the potential conservation areas noted were unbuildable wetlands, floodplains, and steep slopes, and where present, historic, cultural, or scenic features that cause them to stand out. Mr. Langworthy said sometimes this Conservation Design has been mistaken as being a type of subdivision when in fact it is a process to derive a subdivision. He added this process was also used for farmland in the east as a farmland conservation method. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 20 Mr. Langworthy stated he has seen a lot of subdivisions developed during his term with the City of Dublin and said this was the first time the Conservation Design was considered for an application. He said early on, the developer was asked to provide maps of the site's natural features and how they were treating them as part of their development. He said the developer used this process and planned the house sites around the natural features. He said Staff believes the concepts highlighted in the City's Conservation Design Resolution have been incorporated by the developer to the extent possible. He noted on maps to show where and how the developer applied the conservation design principles. He said aerial photos showed what was on this property before it was developed into a golf course and some of the natural features had been disturbed back then. Ms. Husak said one other plan that was included within the Preliminary Development Plan is a path connection illustration, which shows all the shared use paths and sidewalks. She said the developer plans to use some of the cart paths on the site but certain standards will have to be met. She indicated the applicant has also worked with Dublin City Schools to provide paths for walking or biking to the adjacent schools to which she highlighted on the map. Ms. Husak introduced Tina Wawskiewicz, traffic engineer. Ms. Wawskiewicz said the traffic study for any rezoning process is for Staff to understand the impact of the proposed land use on the roadway infrastructure and it is a tool to help determine the developer's responsibility for their site access points as well as their impact to off -site infrastructure. She presented the locations that were studied for the Riviera site. She said with the proposed rezoning, the majority of the site is single - family homes and the potential school site would add trips to the existing infrastructure. She said realistically there would also be some reductions with the existing golf course being converted. She pointed out the ITE trip generation rates were used to develop these and they concentrated on the peak hours (1 hour taken out of a 2 -hour period of a count). She said a traffic count would be taken from 7 — 9 am, the highest 1 -hour volume within that 2 -hour period would be used. She said a benefit of potentially moving the school internally, connecting to the homes, alleviates the trips outside of the roadway network, such as Avery Road, Brand Road, and Hyland -Croy. She said it is important to have a direct connection to Hyland -Croy Road to help distribute the trips in the area and she presented graphics to highlight her point. Ms. Wawskiewicz said the developer would be responsible for improving Avery Road at their site drive and would need to connect with Hyland -Croy Road. She added a pedestrian crossing would be requested for Avery Road. She said for off -site contributions, percentages would be calculated based on site traffic and applied to the cost estimate for that improvement; this would be presented to the developer through an infrastructure agreement with City Council. She said one of the off -site locations to get a lot of interest is the intersection of Avery Road and Brand Road. She explained that City Council has this intersection included in the Capital Improvement Program. Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired about the current design fees. Ms. Wawskiewicz said the construction monies have not been programed yet; just the preliminary designs are in the 2014 CIP. Ms. Wawskiewicz reported they are seeing a little more than 10,000 trips per day using this intersection site traffic and expect an increase of about 7 percent, assuming the school will be on the site and a direct connection to Hyland -Croy. She said without the connection, the increase would be 8 percent. She said currently the intersection operates at a 'C' level of service overall with or without site traffic. Projecting 10 years out, she said, staff anticipates the intersection would fail, with or without site traffic. She noted the other intersections to be included in the infrastructure agreement: • Post Road and Hyland -Croy Road • Jerome Road and McKitrick Road • Hyland -Croy Road and McKitrick Road • Hyland -Croy Road and Brand Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 20 Aaron Stanford provided a quick overview of the utility system from a map highlighting the proposed public water and fire protection. He explained this development will get access to public water by means of the installation of these new public water mains and fire hydrants and will connect into both existing 16 -inch public water mains at the Avery Road connection just north of the access drive as well as three other connections to Belvedere and Tartan West. He added there will not be any adverse impact onto the existing water pressure services. He said analysis from an engineering consultant recommends new public storm sewer mains, a series of stormwater management ponds, and the installation of new public sanitary sewer mains. He said the site is unique as it was previously identified as Stream Corridor Protection Zone (SCPZ). He said natural areas would be preserved to help the flood carrying capacity. He concluded the consultant's analysis has been submitted and reviewed with four solutions and cost estimates for pipes and will be factored into the infrastructure agreement to be approved by City Council. Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired about the Stream Corridor Protection Zone (SCPZ). She asked if the ponds were an integral part of SCPZ or could the ponds be reverted back to streams. Mr. Stanford answered there is probably flexibility to do either depending on how the utilities are set up. He added while the ponds are important for stormwater management, Engineering also considers preserving the natural habitat for vegetation and wildlife to thrive. Ms. Husak said that all of these maps and analysis were part of the Preliminary Development Plan. She said the other piece of this application is the proposed Preliminary Plat that includes the phasing information, which ties to some of the infrastructure requirements, in particular, the Hyland -Croy Road connection. She explained the Zoning Code includes criteria for approval of the rezoning with the Preliminary Development Plan and Staff has identified 11 conditions: 1) That the development text be updated to include language highlighting that Riviera is proposed near a very active high school with year -round activities and that homeowners will likely be affected by the noise and light that typically accompanies such activities; 2) That the development text be updated to describe the intent of the ownership of Subarea D; 3) That Lots 43 and 240 in Subarea A and Lots 144 and 169 in Subarea B are removed to provide larger open space vistas; 4) That the development plan and text be updated to consistently name the reserves and provide accurate information regarding their sizes; 5) That the applicant work with Planning to determine a method of either physically delineating Stream Corridor Protection Zone (SCPZ) areas, and /or ensuring the property owners are aware of the presence of the SCPZ and its restrictions; 6) That the applicant provide a direct site connection to Hyland -Croy Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to be completed with Section 5 of the proposed development; 7) That the applicant enter into an infrastructure agreement with the City, prior to submitting the first Final Development Plan, for development thresholds and public project contributions; 8) That the developer revised the traffic impact study to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to a City Council hearing of the rezoning; 9) That as part of the development of Section 1, the applicant provide a northbound left -turn lane on Avery Road into the site and a pedestrian crossing system for Avery Road, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 10) That the applicant evaluates existing cart paths intended to remain on site and upgrade if necessary to ensure compliance with City standards; and 11) That the development text be clarified as to the required location of the hedge for court- loaded garages and that sight visibility triangles will be maintained. Ms. Husak said the above conditions come with a recommendation of approval for Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 20 Ms. Husak said the Preliminary Plat carries different criteria and approval is recommended to City Council for approval with one condition: 1) That the Preliminary Plat be updated in terms of open space dedication, prior to Council review. The Chair invited the applicant to step forward and state his name and address for the record. Jeff Brown, attorney with Smith and Hale, 37 W. Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio, said he would be speaking along with Greg Chillog and Charlie Ruma. He said the applicant has been working diligently with Staff and neighbors to make revisions to this plan. He reported the number of units has decreased from 284 units to 240 units, and five acres of open space has been added. He recalled that density was a big question during the Concept Plan Review as to how it relates to the areas surrounding the site. He said the properties to the north are between 1.89 and 3.28 units per acre, to the south 1.58 and 2.0 units per acre, and Muirfield across the street has 1.47 units per acre. He said if the applicant was to decrease the development by four lots as part of one of the conditions proposed by Staff, it brings this proposal down to 1.412 units per acre. He concluded the applicant density is below the neighbors and they have more open space than adjacent property owners. Mr. Brown said Conservation Design has also been part of the conversation. He said Riviera is the hole in the donut'. He said it was developed as a golf course, and things happened as a result of that such as pavement; the clubhouse and maintenance facilities; and the ponds that have been created. He believes the applicant has incorporated the conservation designs into the planning of this development as shown in the preservation of the stream corridor, the pond area, and the wooded areas with this property. Mr. Brown said contact was made between the school system and Charlie Ruma. He said with the schools adjacent to this site, and the desire to build another, the applicant redesigned their plan and as a result, committed 15 acres as open space that backs up to the high school to create a better buffer between the homes and was dedicated to the City of Dublin. Mr. Brown concluded that Charlie Ruma has a long history with Dublin and has done many wonderful projects. He said in this particular development, Mr. Ruma has tried to work with the community, numerous changes have been made as a result, and he understands the community standards of Dublin. Greg Chillog, The Edge Group, 330 W. Bridge Street, Columbus, Ohio, said the proposal is not just 240 single - family homes on 167 acres. He said there are both external and internal influences on this site. He said they have identified the surrounding uses, the densities, and the proximity to this site and believes the applicant is meeting or exceeding the standards. He noted the connection to the surrounding open spaces /parks as well as the internal conservation areas and tree stands. He restated some of the earlier descriptions of this site made by Ms. Husak and Mr. Brown. Additionally, he pointed out the walking paths and their lengths along with entry features. He concluded that this site fits into the neighborhood and products were placed where they need to be. Charlie Ruma said he has been developing in central Ohio for the past 35 years, including 50 developments, somewhere in excess of 10,000 lots, most notably, Wedgewood Hills. He said he is strict about architecture control, adheres to the Dublin Appearance Code, and hires an architect to approve all of his plans. He indicated he is planning a very high quality program for Riviera with attention to detail. He explained the lots are going to be 100 - foot -lots and similar to the high end product of Wedgewood Hills. Mr. Ruma said he does not want see Riviera Golf Club go away as it has been part of the Dublin Community for the past 50 years but the American - Italian Golf model is not working anymore. He said due to the heavy competition of other golf clubs in the area, membership has dropped significantly. He said the golf course will lose $250,000 this year and cannot continue to operate. He said Riviera just Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 20 wants the same opportunities and rights that their neighbors had to develop this last remaining site in the area. Mr. Ruma reiterated what was requested at the Concept Plan in March: buffer area to the high school; usable open spaces; connectivity to the schools; age- targeted housing for empty- nesters; Avery Road protected; vistas and setbacks; and lower density. He said the product being proposed tonight connects neighborhoods and allows for a child to go from Pre -K to graduation via the bike or walking paths. He said they will remove the four lots suggested by Staff, which equates to 236 lots on 167.1 acres at 1.412 units per acre for density that meets or exceeds what has been done in the area. He said the connections had been made. He also mentioned his conversation with the Superintendent of the Dublin City Schools where he was asked to reserve some space for a future school, which he has also done by dedicating this open space to the City of Dublin. He concluded this is a very commendable proposal and one of the best developments they have ever put together; they have utilized the land well, and there is a good mix of product. The Chair announced that the Commission has reached the public portion of the meeting and explained the procedures. Kevin Walter, 6289 Ross Bend, Dublin, Ohio, thanked the City of Dublin for allowing the citizens to formally address the Planning and Zoning Commission. He stated he represented a coalition of nine homeowner's associations, and various community groups. He said their group is more than a parochial voice concerned about their own backyard. He shared results of their survey over the development of the Riviera Development. He said 2,771 people were surveyed and 696 residents responded with address information allowing the coalition to visually depict the strength of concern over this issue. He said the group's primary objective is opposition to the rezoning. Mr. Walter said their version of an alternative "staff report" was submitted by his group with the same Dublin City Code review criteria but with vastly different recommendations. He said they recommend disapproval. Mr. Walter said in 1988, Riviera was depicted as Parks and Open Space. He said in 1997, 83 acres of the site was designated as Parkland in anticipation of its inclusion in the Glacier Ridge Metro Park. In 2003 he said, Council provided a rezoning to the R -1 classification through Ordinance 65 -03. He said in 2007, the owner of the Riviera Golf Club requested that depiction of Parks and Open Space on the Community Plan and Council agreed to change the visual representation to the use of Parks and Open Space with an R -1 classification. He said when the Community Plan was updated in 2013, the R -1 classification was affirmed. He said his group supports this classification and all its uses. He said they understand the Community Plan is a guide that is malleable, but is also the stated intention of Dublin City Council and as such, deviation from the plan should be considered against not only the developer application but also balanced against the stated intent of Council and the general welfare of the community as a whole. He said when the classification was affirmed in 2013, Riviera was depicted as appropriate for conservation design subdivision in map 3.2 B. He said Council reviewed three trend build -out scenarios and preferred the mid -range scenario; Riviera was designated as a conservation design development. Mr. Walter said the Staff Report picks and chooses what parts of the conservation design elements and Community Plan are used as it applies to the development application. He said in 2004, City Council passed Resolution 27 -04, affirming conservation design as a desired development pattern with specificity. He said the Staff Report cannot be more wrong on its discussion of the requirements for the Riviera application to conform to conservation design principles. He argues that the Resolution does not just encourage conservation design but compels it. He said the passage about the meaning of Randall Arendt's discussion on golf courses was completely backwards. He proceeded to read Resolution 27 -04 and shared a graphic of curvy- linear street patterns for conservation design and said Riviera's proposed street grid did not look like that. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 20 Mr. Walter said a Resolution maintains the same force of law as an Ordinance. He quoted the City Code as stating "Council shall use a Resolution where practical for any legislation of a temporary, informal, or ceremonial nature." He said Resolution 204 was enacted by the City of Dublin to express what conservation design is, where it applies within the City, and how to use it with very prescriptive modeling. He said it is clear Resolution 27 -04 applies to the Riviera property. He said City Staff is not at liberty to dismiss the importance of the resolution. Its applicability to the Riviera property would indicate the developer generally followed Randall Arendt's process. He said his theories are completely irrelevant to this application. He said City Council has spelled out in words, pictures, and legislative action on numerous occasions that conservation design is important and the developer must, and the City will, require conservation design principles on new development in northwest Dublin. Mr. Walter indicated he has read the traffic reports and has done research to find that it appears the traffic study was conducted appropriately and to industry standards but has found some anomalies. He said Belvedere residents incur a significant amount of cut -thru traffic due to the high school. He showed images of backed -up cars. He said the traffic report states Belvedere is a community of 154 homes, it generates 113 right turns from Abbey Glen to Brand Road headed toward the high school. He said Riviera, a community of 240 homes will only generate 38 trips headed to the high school across all exits and only 4 additional trips at Abbey Glen. He said the traffic study shows the number of cars exiting Riviera at Avery Road and turning left onto Memorial Drive, is 0. He said he finds these types of assumptions out of the scope of reality and questions the overall validity of the entire traffic report with regards to the impact the development will have on neighboring traffic volumes at critical intersections such as Brand and Avery Roads. Mr. Walter said it is clear that the Riviera development text is simply lacking in detail. He said the review criteria for design standards states that the proposed development must meet or exceed the quality of building signs in the surrounding area. He believes the development text is very weak and lacking in specificity and only rises to the bar of meeting City Code. As an example he said, the architectural section of the development text is expressed in 522 words, including 30 words of headers. In contrast he said, the architectural section of Tartan Ridge development text is 4,046 words with 69 pictures and diagrams providing a visual representation of the text. He said the level of detail in the development text assures Dublin that a quality development will become reality. He said today the applicant said it is his "intention" to do that; for Tartan Ridge it was put into words in the development text. He added the development text is the blueprint that is the basis for all building within the development. He said review criteria 13 requires evaluation of the development based on comparable designs in a surrounding community. He said Tartan Ridge offers a wonderful template for acceptable development text, as further example, Tartan Ridge has an in -depth discussion of four -sided architecture. He said the full discussion of architecture in the Riviera application consists of two basic points that are very limited. He believes Riviera should be held to a standard equal or greater than set by Tartan Ridge. Mr. Walter concluded their recommendation is for disapproval of the Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan as the application fails to meet review criteria 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, and 13. The Chair thanked the Homeowners' Associations for their coordinated effort and providing a united front, which will hopefully avoid some repetition during this meeting. She explained the timer will be used for subsequent presentations. The Chair decided that Phase 2 of the Homeowner's presentation should commence first. Christine Gawronski, 7691 Worsley Place in the Brandon subdivision, said she was the current president of the Brandon HOA and she has been a part of the coalition of concerned citizens comprised of the nine HOAs. She thanked the Commission for their time and allowing the concerned citizens the platform to participate in the community planning. She indicated she has heard the comments that "we're drawing up the draw bridge in Dublin and not letting anyone else in" and that is not what is happening. She agrees with all of Mr. Walter's presentation. She said she hopes the Commission finds this proposal is not Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 20 keeping with the Community Plan, is not consistent with conservation development, and that it fails to meet all 16 criteria used to evaluate a development in Dublin and as a result, reject the proposal. She asked the Commission if they do decide to go ahead with the Rezoning, several conditions are requested to be imposed as conditions of approval in addition to what the Planning Department has recommended. 1) Density: The density numbers used for Tartan West and Muirfield Village are not an apples -to- apples comparison. She said those include condominiums and should just be matching single - family density, which would be 1.27 units per acre for Muirfield. She believes the 1.412 density number provided by Mr. Ruma includes the 15 acres being donated to the school and asked that the density be based without that 15 acres. 2) Building Design: Meet or exceed the surrounding area and that means single - family homes. 3) Lot Sizes: She said some lots in the proposal are as small as 55 feet wide and the majority of lots are about 70 feet wide. She said this number of small lots is simply unacceptable. She said for single - family homes in the surrounding neighborhoods, lots are in the 85 — 110 foot range, featuring side - loaded garages or three -car garages. She said the lots appear to be arranged for maximum density by forcing them together. She said the concerned citizens are requesting a minimum lot width of 85 feet, requiring a three -car garage, and keeping parked cars off of the street. 4) Inter - development Traffic: She said by placing the school area in the back of the site this proposed development will force significant traffic through Amicon Drive, and Devictor Way and converge on Firenza Place. She said if the land is not used for a school, the placement of the open space is poor and should be spread throughout the development consistent with the conservation design. She said she understands it is generous of Mr. Ruma to dedicate the land to the schools but also knows this was the most problematic portion of the property for his use. Ms. Gawronski asked that this proposal be sent back for a complete reconfiguration. She said they agree with the Planning Department for a connection with Hyland -Croy Road. Ms. Gawronski continued: 4) Buffering and Parks: Too many lots intrude upon the stream and keep the stream from truly being open space. She said the open space should be a community amenity, unfortunately there is no buffering for Grizzell Middle School. She said they are requesting a 50 -foot buffer from all homes as in Belvedere where there is a 30 -foot no build zone and 20 -foot drainage easement and 60 feet next to Grizzell Middle School similar to what exist adjacent to Karrer Middle School plus better access to open space parks. 5) Trees: She recalled comments made at the March meeting regarding the Wellington Reserve Development. She said when that was approved, Mr. Ruma promised the landmark trees would be protected and he was amazed in March to hear that they were not. She said when the development was sold to his son, and the subcontractor began work, there were at least two historic trees, one of which was approximately 200 years old. She said when the contractor was bringing it down, residents told him it was a protected tree but he went ahead and removed it. She said there are multiple landmark trees on the Riviera property and we cannot afford to let that travesty be repeated here. We ask that the developer find a temporary staff member for the City who would be tasked with monitoring and protecting landmark trees and other natural treasures. Ms. Gawronski concluded this proposal is still inadequate. Jeffrey Oleski, 7013 Post Preserve Blvd, said he did not have the opportunity to meet with Kevin Walters. He indicated the last three years he has been in search of a new subdivision throughout Columbus, Powell, and have resided in Dublin for nine years. He said when Riviera has the opportunity to become an amazing community. He stated he has played the Riviera Golf Course. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 20 Mr. Oleski said Subarea B was originally 30 acres and is now down to 15 acres and being transformed to an elementary school, which resulted in all of the 280 homes being shoved forward and reduced to 240 but the homes have not changed at all. He said the density is nowhere near where it needs to be. He said the opportunity is here to get it right and to be well under 200 homes. Mark Mace, 6469 Green Stone Loop, said on behalf of the four homes bordering the course, we would prefer Riviera remain green. He said should this rezoning pass, they strongly believe in the proper buffering and preservation of Riviera's natural beauty and habitat is paramount for this development to ensure environmental sensitivity we respectfully request the ponds bordering Belvedere and natural feature surrounding these ponds remain in place while providing needed buffering and green space. He said he commends Mr. Ruma on the proposed plan to address the concerns by preserving the ponds and the surrounding features attributing to the areas natural beauty and habitat. For these reasons he said, we commend Mr. Ruma and the proposed plan as it relates to preservation of ponds, natural features and a green space bordering Belvedere. He thanked Belvedere homeowners on lots 100, 101, 102, and 103. Andrew Eilerman 8142 Timble Falls Drive, said he and his wife moved to Dublin in 2012, and lived prior to that in Grove City, at the time we were searching for a safe place to raise children. He said his wife works in Dublin as a pediatrician in Muirfield Square. He asked what was in the hearts, souls, and minds of the residents that live near this area. He said there are tons of children that live in Belvedere and surrounding subdivisions and he is concerned with the retention ponds that are near, especially the proposed elementary school. He said he is concerned about the traffic which is already experienced around his subdivision but going through our subdivision to get to Jerome High School or over to Hyland - Croy. He asked the Commission to do right by our children, who are our future, and keep Riviera green. Joe Di Cesare, 7636 Worsley Court, said he has been a member of Riviera for 40 years and has been in Brandon for 25 years. He said he is speaking on behalf of the developer and staff, who have worked on this a long period of time. He indicated he is aware of all the HOAs, and wanted to support Riviera becoming a subdivision. He said Mr. Ruma has worked with the schools, Commission, and staff, to present a lot of curvy- linear moves and saw the conservation design. He said the first thing listed is 1.5 units per acre for density, which Mr. Ruma is under. He asked the Commission to vote to allow Mr. Ruma to continue. Emily Williams, 6290 Belvedere Green Blvd, said she agreed with Andy Eilerman and Kevin Walter. She said she and her husband have lived on Belvedere Green for the last decade and the traffic is horrible. She said they are currently working with the City of Dublin Police on traffic calming solutions but nothing has been achieved yet, and she cannot imagine one more car, turning on that road as a cut through to Jerome High School. She said she is worried about the kids and personally has witnessed two accidents right in front of her house in the past year and that is two car accidents too many in a 25 mph zone. She asked that the Commission take traffic as a serious consideration when voting on this proposal. Bob Fathman, 5805 Tarton Circle North, Dublin, Ohio, said he read in the Planning Report that Phase 5 would be held up pending approval of a road all the way through to Hyland -Croy Road. He said the whole doggone plan should be "deep - sixed" until that is guaranteed. He said he supports everything Mr. Walter said earlier and the plan should be rejected for all the reasons he outlined. He said per the letter from the schools stating under no condition would the school have any interest at all in selling land of the north edge of Jerome High School to the developers to put an access road in. He stated there is no guarantee that the roads will be built to alleviate traffic. He is concerned if the first four phases go through, what happens if the road is not built. He asked if the project would be stopped at that point. He asked that Mr. Ruma be required to show documentation that a road had been secured before starting the project. Susan Gruber King, 7015 Tuscany Drive in Tartan West, said she is concerned with the impact this development and road to Hyland -Croy Road will have on traffic. She said there are currently other areas Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 20 developing that are causing more traffic on Hyland -Croy Road. She brought up access roads cut through developments to get to main streets. She said Tuscany Drive is 25 mph and during the mornings, they have a constant flow of traffic coming from Glick Road onto Corazon, turn left on Tuscany, going all the way up Tuscany Drive and then turning left onto Hyland -Croy Road to get to the High School, moving at about 45 — 50 mph. She said that traffic goes on days, nights, and weekends. She said the Police have patrolled periodically and hand out tickets but if a connector road is built to Hyland -Croy Road, when that road backs up, the traffic will come back around through the development onto Firenza, onto Tuscany, so they can make a left turn onto Hyland -Croy Road to get to the High School or up to the US 33 and SR 161 to go to work. She said she does not think the traffic impact study correctly reflects the traffic density numbers. She said with 240 homes for this proposal, consisting of families, there will be at least one wage earner, probably two, and there may be a caregiver taking kids to school or a teenager to High School because even if the kids can walk, they may want wheels. She believes there will be a lot more traffic than currently anticipating. She asked if Hyland -Croy will be widened to accommodate all this additional traffic or the speed limit lowered. She said traffic will be a nightmare. Mike Galeano, 6253 Muirloch Court South, said if this Commission decides to deviate from Resolution 27- 04's green space requirements, he wants to know exactly why they plan to deviate, what has changed from 10 years ago to articulate why it is today any less important at 50 percent than it was. Leslie MacLeod, 8034 Balmoral Court, near the Avery-Brand intersection, said she has lived on this street for 13 years, and it has been increasingly hard to exit from our street, much more so the last few years. She said even tonight at 6:30, trying to come to this meeting, it was difficult to turn onto Avery Road. She said traffic is a nightmare at all rush hours. She has witnessed accidents right in front of her as kids are going to Jerome High School. She said she agreed with Mr. Fathman that a plan to provide access to Hyland -Croy Road has to be distinctly spelled out as far as how it is to be achieved and be required to be part of the initial development, if in fact it is approved, which she opposes. She said she cannot see justification on any level per public safety and the severe impact this development would have on the character of the environment of the area. She said she still has one student attending Jerome High School and has been very active with the school over the years. She said they have supported many levies that have been passed as this school district has grown. She said it is good to hear there is a site being donated for a possible school in the future but all of us here have to support and fund the construction and operating levies that will be required in order to have the school so that is a very big consideration here. She reported that Jerome High School is already over capacity and there are other schools as well. She said what the Commission's role should be to address the density from the current zoning requirements. Greg Waina 6157 Avoset Court, in Hawk's Nest subdivision, said many good points were brought up tonight. He said the proposal has a certain amount of designated green space but his concern from the Hawk's Nest HOA, the green space that is passive, but one of the jewels we have in Columbus, which is our active green space, for example, Avery Park. He said Avery Park is probably at capacity in terms of what it can withstand right now in terms of activities, and what is needed in that park to rejuvenate the green grass after soccer is played on a regular basis there. He suggests that before this proposal goes forward, that an impact study is done on the City's active recreational spaces in addition to the passive spaces here. The Chair said the discussion was closed off to the public to hear Commission comments. She said two Commissioners were not available to be with us this evening; Ms. Amy Kramb provided her thoughts in the way of a memo dated November 10, 2014, and will read those comments to be placed in the record. Ms. Kramb Memo I apologize for missing tonight's meeting. I've spent considerable time reviewing the Applicant's materials, the Planning Staff Report, the Friends of Dublin Report, the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 20 Position Report, and all the resident correspondence received as of Friday, November 7, 2014. Based on my review, these are my comments: 1) Discrepancy in Plans needs corrected /clarified a. Several of the lot numbers on the tree survey plans don't align /match with the lot numbers on the Preliminary Development Plan. For example, on page 6/11 of the Tree Survey, the lots on the south side of Timble Falls Drive are labeled west to east as 230, 240, 241 and 242; yet, the same lots on page 1/2 Preliminary Development Plan identify the lots as 229, 230, 231 and 232. 2) Density a. Calculation for density should not include the 15 acres the developer is allotting for the school. Thus, the calculation should be for the remaining 152 acres (not 167 acres) and 240 residences, so 1.58 dwellings per acre. b. The density must be 1.41 units per acre or less, which is the lowest surrounding density. C. Open space calculation should also be based on the 152 acres and should not include the 15 -acre school site, which when developed, will no longer be 15 acres of open space. 3) Conservation Design Principles a. I disagree with the Planning Report regarding the applicability of the Conservation Design Principles. This site is exactly what the conservation design principles are meant to protect; full compliance with these principles is absolutely appropriate for this site. b. Conservation design seeks at least 50% open space. At 240 units on 152 acres, the 63 acres of open space is insufficient. The open space should be at least 76 acres. C. The roads and lots need to be adjusted to protect landmark trees and preserve as many trees as possible. This most likely means a significant reduction in the number of lots on this site. 4) Trees a. Trees are not man -made and should not be treated as golf course additions like cart paths and sand traps. Many of the trees on this parcel existed prior to the creation of the golf course, because I cannot image that a hardwood tree would be 40+ inches in diameter on a 40 year old golf course. The well maintained trees that have been on the parcel for the last 40 years (and longer) are ingrained into the landscape and should be considered natural conditions deserving preservation. b. Protect tree #899 at all costs — it is a 72 -inch Chestnut Oak in Good Condition (see comments below regarding Subarea D /Preserve L). C. Protect Tree #216 — it is a 72 -inch Swamp Oak in Fair Condition at the rear of Lot 112. The lot lines need adjusted and /or the Stream Corridor Protection Zone needs extended to include this tree. d. Protect Tree #171 — it is a 54 -inch Red Oak in Good Condition at the front of Lot 132. e. Lots need adjusted or removed to ensure greater tree preservation. For example, Lot 139 has 3 landmark Oak Trees in Good Condition (Tree #161 — 36 inches, Tree #162 — 28 inches and Tree #163 — 28 inches). Lot 139 should be removed to protect the trees. In circumstances where Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 20 there is one large landmark tree on a lot, the lot should be positioned or designed to ensure preservation of the tree. For example, Lot 98 has a 40 -inch Silver Maple in Good Condition (Tree #41). The narrow front of Lot 98 would certainly result in the removal of this landmark tree. The Lot and /or the adjacent lots should be adjusted to ensure the tree remains protected; and, language should be added to the development text to ensure preservation of these landmark trees. 5) 100 -year Floodplain a. Lots should not lie within the 100 -year floodplain. Lots 43, 44 225, 232, and 239 (on the Preliminary Development Plan) are completely in the flood plain and no house can be built on the lot without being in the floodplain and needing flood insurance. These lots should be eliminated. b. Lots 118, 140, 240, 238, 237, 236, 235, 234, 233, 224 (on the Preliminary Development Plan) should be adjusted to not be in the floodplain. 6) Elimination of Lots (Planning's condition #3) a. Planning recommended removal of Lots 43, 240, 144 and 169 to open vistas. I agree with the elimination of these lots but for a different reason. I agree with the elimination of Lots 43, 240 and 144 since they are in the floodplain and have landmark trees. I also agree with the elimination of Lot 169 because according to the tree survey the lot has 26 -inch and 29 -inch Oak Trees in Good Condition (tree survey calls the lot 243). 7) 15 acre Subarea D /Reserve L a. The 15 -acre school site should be removed from the development plan calculations. b. The 72 -inch Chestnut Oak in Good Condition (Tree 899) needs protected. According to the tree survey, the tree lies within Reserve L at the rear of Lots 190 and 191. If the canopy and thus the roots of Tree 899 extend into Lots 190 and 191, then I suggest altering or removing these lots. Tree 899 is the largest tree on this site and it needs preserved for everyone to enjoy. Language needs added to the development text to ensure protection before any construction begins and protection no matter what becomes of Reserve L. 8) Development Text a. Section XI. Architecture: i. This Section is not specific enough. There is too much default to the Residential Building Code. If this property is rezoned, the new zoning must create a development better than what existing zoning provides. ii. There should be percentages associated with permitted and secondary building materials to ensure lots of brick and stone and less stucco. iii. Allowable roofing materials, like dimensional asphalt shingles, should be described as having a specific thickness, quality, warranty, etc. Likewise, the quality of secondary materials, such as vinyl, should be detailed. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 20 iv. The Four -Sided Architecture requirement section needs more detail so that more is required than just continuing a one -foot high brick water table around the sides and rear of a house. v. The text should come with renderings and sample architectural design showing the diversity and high quality that will make these homes as good as or better than the surrounding neighborhoods. b. Section IX. Tree Preservation /Removal L I don't agree that evergreen trees are an acceptable replacement tree. Existing evergreens being removed may be replaced with evergreens, but removed deciduous trees should not be replaced with evergreens. ii. I disagree with allowing 30% of the replacement trees to be evergreen, especially since the text allows trees within the Avery Road buffer to count as replacement trees. Preferably the trees in the Avery Road buffer would not count towards replacement trees. c. Additional, specific text needs added regarding Tree Preservation. Specific landmark trees, such as the three largest trees on the site ( #899, #216, #171), need called out in the development text to ensure protection. d. The Conservation Design Principles need added to the development text to ensure compliance. 9) Traffic Study a. The public comments and concerns regarding the traffic study need addressed. The numbers need explained and reconciled and this information needs shared with all. In general, I feel this application needs significant re- working to apply the Conservation Design Principles and justify the rezoning of this parcel. I am sure there are additional issues /concerns I have failed to mention above, but I am confident my fellow commissioners will have plenty to add and I suspect we will see this application again. If I were present at tonight's meeting, I would vote NO on case 14- 068Z /PDP /PP because, at a minimum: • It fails Criteria 6: The proposal does not respect and protect the unique characteristics of the natural features and natural resources on the site. The roadways and lots should avoid the landmark trees and make all efforts to avoid the good conditioned, hardwood trees. This site is unique, because these trees have been given room to grow; these trees have well- maintained, large canopies that are not typically found in heavily wooded areas. • It fails Criteria 2: The proposed plan is not in conformity with the Community Plan, which defines this parcel as a Park/Open Space. If I were to grant a rezoning, the new zoning would at least need to conform to the lowest surrounding residential density. Furthermore, questions remain as to whether or not this development will place an unreasonable burden on the existing street network. • It fails Criteria 5: The proposal does not have sufficient open space to meet the Objectives of the Community Plan, which calls for this to be a park/open space and Conservation Design Principles, which urge developments to have at least 50% open space. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 20 • It fails Criteria 13: The proposal does not have enough detail to ensure that the building design meets or exceeds the quality of adjacent neighborhoods. The Chair said she would like to thank Ms. Kramb for her well- addressed thoughts and is a reflection of what this Commission tries to do in looking at all the issues presented. She called for the comments from the balance of the Commissioners. Amy Salay said what strikes her the most is from the very beginning of this application being thought of or the rumor coming out that this site might be developed, we began to hear from our residents. She said the most important and sacred trust that is placed in Planning Commissioners and City Council is the fact that we were elected to be the voice of the citizens. She said democracy was mentioned and this is how it works at the local level. She said she appreciated that everyone came out tonight and that you place your faith in us to listen to all sides and make decisions accordingly. She indicated that there is a very functional government in Dublin and she is proud of this Commission and our City. She said we are the citizen's representatives so we have to first and foremost, reflect community sentiment and there seems to be almost universal dislike and mistrust with this proposal. Ms. Salay said she did not know about all the problems with the project off of Brandon Road and when she heard that the trees that we had talked extensively at City Council and the Planning Commission spent a lot of time talking about preserving these trees, and that was sort of one of the only reasons I supported that development because she thought they were getting a lot of trees and then to find out that a contractor just went out there and hacked down a 110 -year old tree, that is completely unacceptable. She said there are trees that are gone that should have been saved. She said she would acknowledge that this developer has done some very beautiful neighborhoods in our community and he has done some neighborhoods that are much more traditional and less appealing. Ms. Salay indicated what she has noticed in other neighborhoods and what she sees happening here if we do not tighten up the architectural descriptions and details; we are going to have way too much HardiePlank. She said if there are going to be homes built on this site, they need to be primarily brick and stone and the other materials would be for trim. She cited an example of Tartan Ridge as being a neighborhood that when we saw the pictures while rezoning it and pictured it in our heads with beautiful renderings provided, you drive through that neighborhood, it looks like what we saw when we rezoned it. She said she appreciated that level of detail when we were approving it and now that I see it built, I really appreciate that level of detail. She said a site like this, we absolutely have to have that level of detail, if not, we might end up with something we are not as pleased with. Ms. Salay stated there are way too many 75 -foot lots. She disagrees with the citizen group that said they should have a minimum of 85 -foot lots; the minimum should be 100 feet. She indicated when you look at some of the neighborhoods in our community that have 100 -foot lots, the houses grow to fit barely on those 100 -foot lots so you end up with a very claustrophobic feeling in the neighborhood. She reported she had walked, biked, and driven by this site in all seasons when she knew this proposal was coming, envisioning what it needs to look like. She said this proposal leaves this site completely unrecognizable and that is very unacceptable to her because of the condition of the trees and you can see and appreciate the individual trees and how amazing they are. She said that is where we apply Conservation Design. She reviewed the tree survey and lots and tried to overlay them and said she would not list all the lots she could see and a number of streets need to be rerouted and at least 70 lots need to be eliminated in order to preserve these individual trees. She said a tree cannot be reproduced. She explained her neighborhood is 20 years old and are just now getting to the point where our trees provide a little bit of shade cover when taking a walk on a warm afternoon. She said it will take 30 years before they get a canopy that is truly providing shade cover. When she looks around the City at immature trees she said this place is going to be amazing in about 50 years when we get the tree growth. She said our children are going to thank us. She said right now, we have this area with so many beautiful large Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 20 specimen trees, landmark trees that we cannot possibly get back. She stated she really liked Ms. Gawronski's idea about having an individual who reports to the City of Dublin, and our City Forrester, charged with protecting the trees. She indicated that is the only way to ensure that our trees are not cut down by accident or however it happens. She said once these trees are damaged, they are damaged forever and they are gone forever. Ms. Salay said she does not believe another typical single - family neighborhood is needed, not here, not now. She said she recognizes the overcrowded school system but believes that can be resolved so children can attend the best school district in Ohio. She said it is our responsibility to not contribute to the overcrowding. Ms. Salay said she was disappointed in Staff's analysis and finds herself agreeing with the citizen's analysis when it comes to the Community Plan. She recalled a City Council meeting where this area was debated while updating the Community Plan in 2007. She said folks very stridently insisted that we not put anything on this Golf Course but Parks and Open Space so that is what City Council did. She is very happy with that decision and does not see a compelling reason to go against the Community Plan. She stated our community is so carefully planned with our residents, consultants, planners, and ultimately developers come forward and generally speaking, conform to the Community Plan and that is why our community is great. She said in this case, it does not come anywhere close. She said she understands this land may develop at some point but does not think this is the right development. She stated she cannot support the rezoning and cannot even get to the Preliminary Plat or any of the other stuff subsequent to that because she cannot support the rezoning. She indicated she has never voted against the Community Plan. Todd Zimmerman said he has been in that audience for years and understands what it is like to be out there. He thanked Claudia and Staff because the report was good. He said he was not here for the first preliminary, but was on PZC ten years before and understands what is expected. He asked if all the golf club buildings were being removed and what was the timeframe. Ms. Husak answered the removal of buildings would be in Phase 1. Mr. Zimmerman inquired if there have been any drainage issues reported by area homeowners coming from Riviera. Ms. Husak said she had not. The Chair noted that Mr. Hammersmith shook his head no from the audience. Mr. Zimmerman said for him to consider approval of this proposal all home lots would need to be removed from the Stream Corridor Protection Zone and /or 100 -year flood plain and it would be determined by Staff as to what lots those would be. He said architectural wise, for a PUD, the applicant would need to do better than the Appearance Code providing a higher quality of materials on the exterior trim and roof materials. He referred to condition #6 and asked when the applicant is to provide the details of the direct site connection to Hyland -Croy Road. Ms. Husak said the site connection to Hyland -Croy Road would be worked out during the Final Development Plan. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the development text states that it would happen prior to Phase 5. Mr. Zimmerman asked when the applicant would have to tell us; obviously sometime before we would have to vote on it. Ms. Husak said yes the Commission would be told where the connection would be, how and when Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 20 Mr. Zimmerman inquired about condition #1. He suggested adding Grizzell Middle School. He questioned Reserve L for the potential elementary school. He asked if the existing basin would need to stay. Ms. Husak said if the school were to be developed, there would need to be some stormwater management on that site. Mr. Zimmerman asked if it would have to be as large as it is currently. Ms. Amorose Groomes said schools normally do not store water on site for safety and it would probably become a dry basin. Mr. Zimmerman said he agreed with Ms. Salay's points on Conservation Design. Victoria Newell said she has said this before and will say it again, when looking at the site, her comments were that she would support zoning for a PUD as it gives an advantage of protecting the land. She indicated Mr. Ruma spoke very passionately at the Informal Review of how he was going to develop it and so she was surprised when she looked at the plan. She said she envisioned larger lots because that was her takeaway from the presentation. She said she agreed with Ms. Salay with needing larger lots, closer to 100 feet. She said there are a lot of inconsistencies and the sites are numbered incorrectly. She said the density in the Muirfield development is noted once from Staff as being 1.27 units per acre and included in our Planning Report and the presentation given tonight Muirfield's density is listed as 1.41 units per acre. She said she is left wondering what the true impact of the surrounding is on the other site. She said she cannot support going above the lowest density of any of the surrounding properties. She said the Muirfield site in particular is the largest body of area that seems to have the lowest building development. Ms. Newell said she spent a lot of time looking at the landmark trees on this site. She reported she tagged all of them that were on the plans. She agrees with Ms. Kramb's comment that there are several more pieces of property on this site that need to be eliminated just for the sake of the trees that need to be preserved on them, especially Lots 144, 143, 142; there is a very significant grove of trees within those areas. She said as she went around this site, there were a number of significant or landmark trees that fall right next to a drive of a street. She said it appears in the plans as though there is an attempt to preserve the tree but there is so much root going to be cut away from those trees and fears in the end, there are going to be a lot more trees lost with the way this site is laid out. Ms. Newell said along the stream corridor with a lot of the trees that are getting preserved, in the tree report, many of them are actually noted as being in poor condition so in the end, where we are preserving that area she said over a period of time those trees are actually going to be lost She said a lot of them were identified as Green Ash, will be gone from our city in very short order. She said that makes the other trees on the site that much more important. Ms. Newell said in terms of the architectural character and the development, she thought the text portion to that site was actually very weak. She said Mr. Ruma had used Wedgewood as an example of how the architecture would be geared and judged on this site. She said he also reported he had used Mr. Apel to have done the architecture review. Ms. Newell said she had the pleasure of working with Bob Apel for 14 years as an employee so she is very aware of the process that went through him. She said Mr. Ruma had some very significant architectural standards and guidelines that he judged that the architecture too for Wedgewood that do not exist in this application. She said that would need to be developed for her to support rezoning. She said she thought PUD would be a better way to go than the R or R -1 classification. She said nothing is compelling her to change the zoning. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 20 Ms. Newell said as she read the text description for each of the parcels, only one of the subareas was there any reference to lot coverage and it was the most dense of the subareas. She said these all need to go hand in hand in the text. Ms. Newell said she uses the walking system all around Dublin on a regular basis. She said it really adds to the character of community. She said the walking /bike paths on the site stop and are not continuing. She suggested as the site is developed, that is taken into account. She also noted a few short loop paths and suggested a more continual path instead of covering the same ground. Ms. Newell concluded she cannot support rezoning per her comments stated. Richard Taylor thanked everyone for coming out this evening. He also thanked Mr. Ruma for addressing some of the concerns that were expressed by this Commission in particular at the Informal Review with regards to fewer lots, path connections to the schools, and providing some accommodation for other segments of our community for empty- nester lots. Mr. Taylor said when the Commission members receive this packet of information a week before this meeting, we receive it independently and each review it independently and do not come together to discuss it prior to the meeting. He said it is tremendous that all the other members share a lot of the agreement on this application. Mr. Taylor stated there is still a lot of work needed to be done on this subdivision before it can move any further. He said the 15 -acre site should be removed from the calculation for determining density. He said the trees were the most dramatic issue with this application. He said there are a couple of trees on the site that are tremendously large and there are a whole bunch of trees that are very good size. Unlike the trees on Wellington Reserve he said, where it was scrub land /semi- forest, these trees on Riviera have been nurtured, fed, watered, trimmed, and protected for forty years. He said on paper, they may considered as Good Condition', that is as high of a rating you can get on a tree survey. He indicated a lot of the trees, if there were to be such a category would be rated as Spectacular'. He said some of them were probably world -class specimens of that type of tree at that age because they have been so well cared for. He said there are several trees that would probably fall in the Landmark category because they are extraordinarily large trees. He said the science of determining the age of a tree without cutting it down and counting the rings is imprecise for sure but there are a lot of commonly accepted guestimates for that. He said 72 -inch trees by any measure are at least 200 years old and could possibly be 400 years old in some cases. He said that makes them irreplaceable. He said the larger trees (2 at 72 inches, 1 at 54 inches, several that are 48 inches, and a couple that are 40 inches, and on down the line) not only should not be impacted by this development but should be preserved. He does not want to see one of these trees in someone's back yard and a kid nails a tree fort within it. He indicated streams can be rerouted to be preserved but trees that have been there for 300 years are irreplaceable so extraordinary measures should be taken for the design of this development to protect those trees. Mr. Taylor said he is in favor of the empty- nester homes in Subarea C and does not have a problem with the lot size or lot coverage there but somehow there must be a stipulation whereas first floor master bedrooms are required, or something like that. Mr. Taylor said his concerns in Subareas A and B are the side yards that step back from the Zoning Code quite a bit. He said in Belvedere for example, the side yards are a total width of 18 feet with a minimum of six on a side, which is similar to the R -3 designation but what is being asked for is just six feet on each side and that is a difference of up to eight feet between two houses. He said the side setback needs to be much closer to the Zoning Code right now so the houses do not get too big on these lots and start to squeeze the lot sizes down. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 20 Mr. Taylor said a lot of his comments are with the development text regarding the architecture and are mirroring what the other Commissioners have stated. He said "meeting or exceeding the Appearance Code" is far too generic and we need to go beyond that. He said the percentages of materials needs to be noted. He said he did not understand copper as a trim material and pvc /foam and vinyl needs to be cleaned up. He said shutters need to be composite or wood, not vinyl. He said roofing needs to be bumped up. He said a definition of four -sided architecture needs to be further defined. He said he had comments on chimneys, garages, architectural diversity, and Plan Approval. He said we need to do a development text and plan review process here because this is such a special site at the same level as places like Tartan Ridge. He said there are still references in the text about cul -de -sacs, which need to be removed. Mr. Taylor said the elevations along Avery Road need to be enhanced somehow and if we are going to develop that strip of land along Avery Road, it is an opportunity to relocate the multi -use path there and get it further away from the road. Mr. Taylor said he is unhappy with the Open Space; at the Informal Review he stated he would like to see those as more positive space and less as leftover space in the homeowner's backyards. Mr. Taylor said he is not able to totally discern what all the traffic studies mean. He said according to the chart in the Planning Report, even with the Hyland -Croy connection, the traffic on Firenza is predicted to almost double the traffic and quadruple traffic on Summerhouse Lane. He indicated he thought it was the result of the layout of the streets. He said there is enough twists and turns in this that in some cases, easier to leave the development to get out and not go straight out to Hyland -Croy or Avery Road. He said a more direct arrangement of streets might reduce some of the traffic flow on other streets. He said there is a lot of impact on other neighborhoods that could be avoided if this were laid out differently. Mr. Taylor concluded that the Community Plan and sentiment are of paramount importance as we make decisions here. He said this body is a representative of the public in that regard. He said we do not always follow the Community Plan direct but when we do, the bar is pretty high. He said this proposal has a long way to go before he is willing to go against the recommendations that others have made before us in the Community Plan. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the flood plain in this area is at 927 feet; she said she highlighted all the contour below 927 feet and some lots in their entirety are in the flood plain. She said this will have to be addressed. She agrees the 15 acres for the school site needs to be removed from the Open Spaces. She reported there are 968 trees on this site and there are 56 trees that are worthy of designing around as they predicated the golf course. She shared some photos taken of the trees to show the true size and excellent condition of the trees relative. She said tagging Landmark trees was started by the Kiwanis Club for our area about 25 years ago and every year, every Brownie, Girl Scout, and Boy Scout Troop, and all the folks that serve our communities so wonderfully took responsibility for a grid and tagged every tree that was greater than 24 inches. She said they may not have gotten every tree but a lot of terrific information came forth. She said this put a stake in the ground that said this is who we are and at this point, we have an inventory of what we have. She said there are 19 Landmark trees on this property. She shared a graphic where the 56 trees were located that likely existed before the golf course did and some of them might be upwards of 300 years old. She said it shows us some hot spots of areas to design around. She said this property cannot be developed and still save every one of these trees but as the proposal stands, 25 percent is not nearly enough in her estimation. For Conservation Design she said, the bar needs to be much higher in terms of the trees that we are committed to saving. Ms. Amorose Groomes indicated she had a great experience this summer, as a monitor for one of the foursomes at the tryouts for the Dublin- Jerome Girls Golf Team. She said it was a hot August day and she walked this course and watched four unbelievably talented High School golfers play a round of golf at Riviera. She said she was able to walk from tree to tree and stood in the shade throughout the entire golf Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 20 course. She said that made for a really great afternoon with her nine -year old. She said this speaks a lot to this property and the condition of these trees. She indicated she is a self - proclaimed tree hugger with a degree in Horticulture so she knows a little bit about trees and can better appreciate these trees. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she has some concerns about the traffic engineering report; a slide stated 7 percent of the 10,000 trips would give an increase of 7 percent to the existing 10,000 trips which equals 700 trips in 240 homes with 2.91 trips per home. She said a trip leaving your home is one trip and when you return, it is another was her understanding. She said she did not disagree with the guiding principles of the engineering study and how they might work in other neighborhoods but when we have a neighborhood that almost all of the traffic is going to head to the south and to the west we might need to change our modeling a little bit because she does not know that it captures the fact that cars are not going everywhere, they are all going to the same place. Ms. Amorose Groomes said you asked the Commission to cut out a piece of the pie in Subarea D and in Muirfield you wanted to cut out all of the pieces of the pie that reduced the density and we cannot do that. She said we have to take the pie as a whole, when we are looking at our adjoining neighborhoods because they are whole developments and contributes to the feel or the experience of a neighborhood. Therefore she said, Subarea D cannot be calculated in this. She said although the offer from the applicant is very generous of transferring it to the City, or for the school for maybe a dollar, at the end of the day, there will be a school there and that is no longer Open Space. Ms. Amorose Groomes concluded for the applicant that they have heard a lot from the neighbors, heard from the Commission. She said we have some decisions to make. She said there were 11 conditions in the Staff Report, including some high hurdles this evening but the applicant is always given the opportunity to pursue a vote or take advantage of some time they might have to fine tune the plans to some concerns raised during the meeting. She invited the applicant forward to state his thoughts. Mr. Brown said he appreciates the comments from the Commission and the neighbors. He said given the difference of opinion between some of the Commission members here and the Staff Report, the only thing to do is to ask that this application be tabled to allow the applicant to respond to the additional issues that have been raised. The Chair verified with the applicant their desire to Table both the Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan and the Preliminary Plat. Motion and Vote Mr. Taylor moved, Mr. Zimmerman seconded, to Table the Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan. The vote was as follows: Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Tabled 5 — 0) Motion and Vote Mr. Taylor moved, Mr. Zimmerman seconded, to Table the Preliminary Plat. The vote was as follows: Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Tabled 5 — 0) The Chair adjourned the meeting at 9:43 p.m. As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 5, 2015. City of Dublin Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 4 301 6 -1 236 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 ww . Dublin ohiousa. gov AGENDA 1. Riviera Club 13 -114CP PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MARCH 13, 2014 8205 Avery Road Concept Plan (Discussion) Chris Amorose Groomes called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Other Commission members present were Richard Taylor, Amy Kramb, Warren Fishman, Joe Budde and Victoria Newell. John Hardt was absent. City representatives present were Jennifer Readler, Steve Langworthy, Gary Gunderman, Claudia Husak, Marie Downie, Jonathan Russell, Andrew Crozier, Barb Cox, Aaron Stanford, Velma Coen, Alan Perkins, Dana McDaniel, Paul Hammersmith, Sue Burness, Yazan Ashrawi, Sandra Puskarcik, Jason Nahvi, Josh Adkins, and Laurie Wright. Administrative Business Motion and Vote Mr. Taylor moved, Mr. Fishman seconded, to accept the documents into the record as presented. The vote was as follows: Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Budde, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Approved 6 — 0) Motion and Vote Mr. Budde moved, Mr. Fishman seconded, to accept the February 6, 2014, meeting minutes as presented. The vote was as follows: Mr. Taylor, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; and Mr. Budde, yes. (Approved 6 — 0) Motion and Vote Mr. Taylor moved, Mr. Budde seconded, to accept the February 20, 2014, meeting minutes as presented. The vote was as follows: Ms. Newell, abstain; Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Budde, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Approved 5 — 0 - 1) Ms. Amorose Groomes said there was just one case on agenda tonight and that would be the order. She briefly explained the rules and procedures of the Planning and Zoning Commission. 1. Riviera Club 8205 Avery Road 13 -114CP Concept Plan Chair Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this application for a request for review and non - binding feedback for a Concept Plan application for a potential new subdivision with approximately 284 single - family lots, 58 acres of open space and associated site improvements on 168 acres located on the west side of Avery Road, north of the intersection with Belvedere Green Boulevard. Ms. Amorose Groomes provided a breakdown of the order of tonight's process. She said, we will hear from our staff first, providing a presentation they have prepared with respect to this application; following that, the applicant will come forward and make any additional comments or corrections with respect to the staff presentation; a letter from the schools will be read by Steve Langworthy, our Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning; public comment will begin starting with those that signed in on the sheets 14- 068Z/PDP /PP Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan/ Preliminary Plat Riviera 8025 Avery Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 16 out in the lobby, stating name and address for the record. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she will then close the floor and the Commission will have their discussion; and finally, there will not be a vote taken this evening as it is a Concept Plan. She further explained that recorded minutes are filed with each case; that the proposals are heard; public comment is heard; and all the information is gathered and heard in a public forum so everyone hears the same information at the same time from all of the parties involved. Claudia Husak said we are here for a Concept Plan Review for the Riviera Club application. She provided a process slide to outline the steps the applicant goes thru to receive approval from all the reviewing bodies. She said the Concept Plan is the first step to establish a planned district and requires Planning and Zoning Commission review for complex projects. She said the applicant may elect to get feedback from City Council. She explained the second step would be the Preliminary Development Plan that is rezoning as well as the Preliminary Plat that is the first formal step in the establishment of Planned Unit Development District that entails a development text and a preliminary development plan, which requires a vote by the Commission as well as City Council. She said the last step would be the Final Development Plan and Final Plat, which is the last step in the process which would be required before an applicant could file for a building permit and includes all final details which again the Commission would review and approve and City Council is the final authority on the final plat. Ms. Husak presented a slide that outlines the site of 168 acres, including three counties — 5.7 acres in Delaware, 66.6 acres in Union and 93 acres in Franklin. She said the site has 2,000 feet of frontage on Avery Road. She said it was developed as a golf course in the 1970's with amenities like cart paths, ponds, fairways, and trees. She said there are two existing access points off Avery Road, in the center of the site providing access to a clubhouse and banquet facility. She said the site also has natural features such as two streams that are east and west going south toward the Shannon Glen Park that contribute to the North Fork of the Indian Run as well as a floodway and a Stream Corridor Protection Zone that requires further analysis. Ms. Husak presented a slide that reflects the location of Dublin Jerome High School, Grizzell Middle School and Deer Run Elementary School. She said there are single - family subdivisions surrounding the site: to the south — Celtic Estates, Belvedere and Shannon Glen; to the east is Muirfield Village; and to the northwest is Tartan West. She said the site zoning is split between Union and Franklin County. She said on the west side it is zoned Rural (R) on the east it is Restricted Suburban Residential District (R -1) which both permit single - family homes and requirements are a 40,000- square -foot lots at 150 feet wide. She said this 168 acre site could yield approximately 180 homes, not considering required infrastructure and open space dedication requirements. She noted that agriculture, parks, and public schools are also permitted in these districts. Ms. Husak highlighted the Community Plan history that showed there was no Future Land Use map in 1988. She noted the schematic plan, a Land Use Element that showed large areas of the City with a land use designation upon it and focused on the site being discussed that reflected rural residential. She explained the plan has land use paragraphs from which she read a portion that stated: ...an anticipated use of portion of land adjacent to Muiffleld Drive extension will be a mixture of residential development of varying density, some office and minima/ commercial. The predominant land use is to be single - family residential extending all the way to Brand and Avery Roads. A# development west of Avery Road is to be single - family at two units per acre or less. She said the City updated the Community Plan in 1997, whereas the western portion of the site would be part of the metro park and the City secured land with Franklin County Metro Parks, west of Hyland -Croy Road where the metro park is currently located. She said the eastern portion of the site at that time was shown as residential, medium density that allowed one to two dwelling units per acre.... Ms. Husak noted there were developments approved during that time which were Belvedere and Tartan West that provided street connections toward Riviera. She said in 2007, the City updated the Community Plan again, and the growth scenario for the entire City assumed that the Riviera Country Club could 14- 068Z /PDP /PP Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan/ Preliminary Plat Riviera 8025 Avery Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 16 develop under a "conservation subdivision" land use type that equated to 1.5 dwelling units per acre. She explained that during the public review process of that Community Plan, the property owner of the club at the time requested that the designation show current use of the land as a golf course so staff was directed by City Council to avoid identifying the site for redevelopment on the Future Land Use Map and the open space designation was adopted. Ms. Husak said the current Community Plan carried forward this Parks /Open Space classification, described as "Land use for public or privately owned parks and recreational uses, or lands that are to be preserved in a natural state. This may include portions of private lands that have been identified for open space preservation as part of future development projects, but not necessarily targeted for public dedication or acquisition." Ms. Husak noted the first discussion question: Is the proposed land use appropriate? She said many times the Commission asks staff as to how the development fits within the surrounding areas. She reported staff has analyzed the density of the adjacent subdivisions: Tartan West was approved at 1.83 units per acre; Belvedere approved at 1.5 units per acre; Shandon Glen 1.7 units per acre; and estimated density for Muirfield at 1.27 units per acre. She said tonight's proposal is for 1.7 units per acre. She said current zoning would allow t 180 homes but 284 units are being proposed which prompts another discussion question as to whether or not the density is appropriate. Ms. Husak said the Concept Plan does not show individual lot lines but shows pods of development with varying lot dimensions. She said the pods have been placed to either mirror or exceed the lot sizes and the widths of adjacent developments with the smaller lots concentrated to the north and west with larger lots to the south adjacent to Belvedere. She noted the main access point is off Avery Road, in the center of the site, it is proposed as a boulevard entry and the secondary connectivity is proposed through Tantalus Drive and Timble Falls Drive to the south within the Belvedere subdivision and Firenza Place to the west through Tartan West to Hyland -Croy Road where the street stubs exist today. She said no access to Hyland -Croy Road is being proposed with this Concept Plan. Ms. Husak said the third discussion question posed was whether the relationship of development areas to surrounding uses was appropriate. She said the Concept Plan includes 58 acres of open space or 35 percent of the site. She said the larger open spaces are concentrated along Avery Road and the streams. She noted the large wooded area to be preserved and smaller open spaces contemplated within the development but appear to be too small to have much usefulness or visual effect. She reported the fourth discussion question was whether the open space was appropriately located. Ms. Husak noted the lack of buffers to the more intense uses at the high school sports area as well as Grizzell Middle School. Ms. Husak read the discussion questions again: 1) Is the proposed land use appropriate? 2) Is the proposed density appropriate? 3) Is the relationship of development areas to surrounding uses appropriate? 4) Is the open space appropriately located? 5) Other considerations by the Commission Ms. Amorose Groomes invited the applicant to come forward. Charlie Ruma 4020 Venture Court, Columbus, Ohio 43228, said he had been a developer in central Ohio for 45 years. He said his family grew up here, been married 48 years, has three children with six grandchildren, and they all live here. Mr. Ruma said he was no high falutin developer to pillage the land. He said he had developed a number of communities throughout central Ohio, most notably, the Wedgewood Golf and Country Club area that included over 1,000 acres of office, multi - family, and retail. 14- 068Z /PDP /PP Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan/ Preliminary Plat Riviera 8025 Avery Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 16 He has had dealings with land in Dublin since 1972; he started the North by Northwest Business Center that later became Metro Center. Mr. Ruma explained that in 1963, the American /Italian Golf Association was searching for a new home for their golf course. He said they had a nine -hole course located in Groveport, Ohio, that sometimes flooded when they had heavy rains. He said in 1964, they bought parcels in several counties and ended up with 168 acres. He said they planned a golf course and modest clubhouse well before the inception of Muirfield Village and Muirfield Golf Course. He reported that many developments and golf courses came later. He said the clubhouse has not been updated with a swimming pool or tennis courts and the greens are not built to PGA standards. He said it was in its heyday in the 70s but they have since experienced severe financial difficulties. He noted other clubs that experienced the same financial problems. He reported that they cannot operate this golf course beyond this year; it is going to close. He said they are currently operating on funds he provided through a deposit for further acquisition of the land. Mr. Ruma said he had considered this property years ago. He believes this is the best property that is remaining in Dublin and said it is the last that can be developed in the northwest area. He reported that he submitted a proposal to the American /Italian Golf Association (the owners) a year ago along with seven other developers and they chose him to do what was best for the land, best for the owners, best for the community, and hopefully a good opportunity for himself. He requested the help of the Commission to learn if his proposal makes sense and if they should proceed ahead. He asked how he could ensure this was approved to be better for the community and better for everyone. He reported that they have done studies: wetland, corridor, and started a traffic study. They have taken soil samples, did a tree survey, and met with the schools, the fire chief, and neighbors. Mr. Ruma said he put together what he thought was the best possible team to work on this proposal. He noted the site was surrounded by all levels of Dublin schools within walking distance, making it the best attraction for a residential community. He said there was a multi -use path up Avery Road. There are paths going through Belvedere and Tartan West that stub into Riviera. He said if they are successful, they will create a pathway system that connects to all the schools. He said they reviewed the density levels of the communities around this site. He said they would like to mirror the wetland at Belvedere. Mr. Ruma said they considered age- targeted housing for empty nesters but did not want to propose at this time until he received feedback from the Commission. He said if the Commission looked upon that favorably, he would make sure he incorporated that into his plan. He said the overall density of their proposal is 1.67 units per acre, 1.4 units to the south. He said homes that abut Belvedere would have a minimum of 100 feet as frontage for custom builders. He said areas that abut schools and condominiums will be developed in the more standard 75- to 80 -foot lot size. He said the major ingress /egress points, will have a double boulevard effect; that single point is halfway on Avery Road. He said they are proposing at their cost to build a road to the west to connect with Hyland -Croy Road. He said they met with school administration and they are taking this under consideration. He said the green area along Avery Road will be t 300 feet from the front of any house from Avery Road and somewhere between 400 to 500 feet from the houses at Muirfield. He understands this process will take at least a year. He said in 2015, they may be able to proceed with engineering drawings and in 2016, before they even start to develop the site, possibly finishing in late spring so there will be no houses until then. He said the pace may be to build houses over 7 - 8 years: in good years they may build 30 lots per year or 10 — 15 per year in slow years. He emphasized that the impact would not be immediate. Mr. Ruma said the prices would range from $550,000 - $700,000 for the standard lots and $700,000 - $900,000 for the estate lots. He said one year ago he was before the Commission to discuss Wellington Reserve and the anticipated prices were to be in the $500,000 - $600,000 price range. He contends that there is a huge demand for good quality new housing with amenities. He again asked for guidance and input. Ms. Amorose Groomes invited Steve Langworthy to read a statement provided from the Dublin Schools 14- 068Z /PDP /PP Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan/ Preliminary Plat Riviera 8025 Avery Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 16 Steve Langworthy read the following statement from Dublin City Schools regarding the proposed Riviera development: There has been a significant amount of information regarding this proposed project circulating in our community. Some of that information has directly mentioned possible impact on our schoo /s. We have been asked to provide accurate information to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The information District officia ls have received to date regarding the proposed Riviera subdivision has a/ /owed us to make pre liminary enrollment calculations for the proposed development, using the student per household ratios of the adjacent subdivisions of Belvedere and Shannon Glen. While we have not been given any time line for the fu// bur /d -out of the proposed development, our Planning Department estimates of the number of students produced by the proposed Riviera development at fu// build-out are listed below- Elementary School -145 Middle School -102 High School -105 We understand that the ultimate rezoning of the Riviera Golf Course will be a City of Dub /in decision and "impact upon schools" is not a major factor in the decision - making process. With that being said if this development is ultimately approved, we would ask the Commission to consider the proximity of some of the proposed homes to the Dub /in Jerome football stadium and to the Grizze // Middle School property. School properties are in heavy use throughout the year The same is true with any ava//ab /e green space at the middle school level. For example, practices at our facilities requiring stadium /fights may go on as /ate as 11 p.m. Many events require the use of public address system. Additional /y, there is little break during the summer. Jerome will be hosting the nationally recognized Top Gun Football Camp again this year as an example. Residents who five near Coffman'; football stadium or the Jerome baseball field can attest to the heavy, year -round use of these facilities and the noise that often emanates into these neighborhoods. As part of any approval plans for this development, a green space buffer zone and sound mitigation steps would benefit the District and any future city residents of this area We would like to clear up any pub /ic misinformation regarding easements. Our District has not granted the property owner any easements associated with this project and we do not plan to grant any easement requests onto the Jerome High School property in the future. As a public school district, it is our job to educate any students who live within the boundaries of Dub /in City Schools and we will complete that task regard less of any decisions made regarding the Riviera property. Mr. Langworthy said that concludes the statement. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that statement will be available on the City of Dublin website as early as tomorrow. Ms. Amorose Groomes began the public comment portion of the meeting and explained the five - minute timer being used. Mike Mess 8823 Vineyard Haven Drive, thanked the Commission for the opportunity to present comments. He said he was a long time resident of Dublin, currently residing in the Savona condominiums in Tartan West that is on the north side of the golf course. He said he was the President of Savona HOA. He said in the summer of 2013, a group of Homeowner Associations started meeting. He said today they have eight HOAs participating in a discussion group representing 3,430 homes, represented on a map. He said they wanted to publically express their views tonight on this proposed development and he asked 14- 068Z /PDP /PP Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan/ Preliminary Plat Riviera 8025 Avery Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 16 the Commission to consider a quote from one of his favorite characters, Spock. "The needs of many outweigh needs of the few". He said the other speakers from his HOA group believe keeping Riviera green best fits the needs of the entire community. He said the topics they plan to cover are: 1) Maintaining the integrity of the current Community Plan; 2) Addressing potential overcrowding of the schools; 3) Impacts on traffic; 4) Impacts on infrastructure and taxes; and 5) Potential options to keep Riviera green. Mr. Mess emphasized that their group could help decide what is best for the many and not just for the few. Kevin Walter 6289 Ross Bend, representing the Friends of Dublin comprised of 3000 individuals that actively participate in the community initiative. He cited Section 153.002 of the Code; it defines a concept plan as an opportunity for discussion to determine if the proposed development is "generally consistent with the Community Plan ". He said it is our position that this development is fundamentally not consistent with the Community Plan. He said Riviera was designated as parks and open space in the 1988 — 2007 and newly adopted 2013 Community Plan that describes this vision of the community as approved by City Council. He said it is used by city staff when discussing new projects with developers, councils, and residents. He said the Community Plan is the key policy guide for City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission as they evaluate the character, location, extent of proposed public and private developments in Dublin. He said it is critical that councils throughout the years have expressed in words and in picture the desire for Riviera to remain classified as parks and open space. He named a list of council members that have approved this. He said the developer will tell you this was always thought that this would be developable by pointing to the City ordinance 65 -03, which zoned the land to R -1, which designed to bring multiple properties into zoning compliance. He said there was no specific intent to develop as a residential development. He said in the 1997 Community Plan, the only plan that shows this as residential, 83 acres of the site were shown as metro parks and with subsequent updates reflect parks and open space. He stated the Community Plan is changeable, but the bar is set high to change classifications; it should not be a slam -dunk for a developer to come in and change classifications that have been voted on by generations of Council. He said if we allow this, we lower the bar by which Community Plan can be updated. He said the developer stating the justification of closing a donut hole is not a compelling enough argument. Mr. Walter said City Council has affirmed that this property should not be filled. He said this was the only major parcel of undeveloped land in northwest Dublin, and as such, great care should be taken. He noted a memo dated June 11, 2013, "staff was directed by City Council to avoid identifying this site for redevelopment on the future land use map ". He said City Council has made several classifications and discussions about this, calling it a vital green area of the community with beautiful vistas. He contends this proposal is in direct opposition to the Community Plan. Bob Fathman, 5805 Tartan Circle North, the Chair of the Civic Action Committee, Muirfield Village Civic Association, addressed the impact on the schools if this were to develop and reflected on a slide: Deer Run ES — 149 Grizzell MS — 52, and Jerome HS — 341 students over capacity. He asked if this was good for the school district, children, or parents. He said absolutely not. He is opposed to turning this property from green space to housing. He referred to a slide showing the Operating Expenses of the Dublin City School District. He explained that in 2013, it cost $12,790 to educate one student; the state reimbursement is $1,035, leaving local property taxes to pick up the balance of $11,755. He said estimates were based on 1.24 students per home, as provided by the school district, which will cost $14,567 per home to the school district if this proposal goes through. He said a $400,000 home property tax would be $7,000 per year. He said additional property tax will be needed at $7,567 per home to educate the children. He asked by a show of hands, how many people attending the meeting tonight live 14- 068Z /PDP /PP Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan/ Preliminary Plat Riviera 8025 Avery Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 16 in the City of Dublin. He said those with hands raised will have to pay more taxes to operate the schools per year. His final comment referred to the slide, which showed the capital expense to add new students. He referred to classrooms needed and the overcrowding this will impose. By his estimates, it will cost $11 mil to upgrade. He emphasized this was not a good plan for the schools, the children, or the tax payers of Dublin. Kip Rosier, 8079 Alimoore Green, President of Belvedere HOA, said recently their board voted to oppose this Riviera plan. He said they are concerned with the major is traffic impact. He said based on the 2003 traffic counts, they expect the 284 homes proposed, the will see additional 2,044 trips added to the area that represents a 20 percent increase in traffic. He noted the major intersection at Avery Road and Brand where in 2012 there was a very bad accident where a child was thrown from the vehicle and seriously injured. He noted in 2013, a multi -injury accident at this same intersection. He said during peak times, taking your kids to soccer practice, baseball practice, it is not safe as it is often confusing. He emphasized their position that this development will add more traffic and problems. He said Belvedere is also concerned about the additional cut - through traffic. He said this is a land- locked area, conducive to choose this route to come out. He said a former City Council member said the streets should not be stubbed at the golf course. He said there are additional traffic impacts all along Avery Road, coming out Perimeter to access 33. He mentioned several other streets that would be impacted by additional traffic. He concluded by saying traffic is a major concern for Belvedere and surrounding neighborhoods. He asked the Commission to please consider this plan very carefully. Scott McCort, 8155 Avery Road in Celtic Estates, said initially they thought this plan would bring more houses, more taxes, and more revenue for the City but they also recognize the cost to the City to support these houses. He said the City produced a Land Use Study for residential housing in Dublin, and found the cost is three times more than they generate in revenue which equates to $1,700 per household, annually, and will impact the tax payers. He said the analysis shows this type of housing produces the worst fiscal results. He said they also looked at the other infrastructure impacts such as traffic, sewer, and water. They concluded that there is adequate water supply but not adequate sewer capacities. He said this land was planned for always being green space. He noted the estimated costs to adjust the infrastructure for this plan to go forth. He said there is a financial benefit to the current owners and the developers but not to the City and its residents. He said there would be an additional burden to the community and would be detrimental to the environment to remove the green space. He contends, this is in direct violation of the current Community Plan and sees no reason to rezone and amend the city plan. Christine Gawronski 7691 Worsley Place, President of Brandon HOA, said the trend around the country is many golf courses competing and it is more difficult for coursed to remain profitable. She said Dublin can be a leader in solutions. She proposed options other than flooding the area with homes: sell to the City for passive parkland; partner with the Schools to turn this into a nature or learning lab as landmark trees and streams are on this property. She said she worked with Mr. Ruma on the Wellington Place development that abuts to Brandon and landmark trees that were promised to be preserved have been removed. She said a previous Community Plan showed the west half of the property becoming part of the Glacier Ridge metro park. She said it would be far less expensive for the City and schools to purchase this land than to service 284 homes on this site. She noted an article from the December Columbus Dispatch, describing a place in Casselberry, Florida that was preparing to buy a closed golf club and turn the area into public parkland with nature trails and an article about a golf course in Granville, Ohio where the Village and Township combined, chose to buy a conservation easement, guaranteeing the land would never be developed, the club can keep the title to the land to continue to operate if they so choose or sell as parkland. She said whether the City buys this land or it remains in the hands of the Riviera owners, some of the land could be configured to wetlands and used in a corporate trade through the wetlands bank. She said the owner could realize a gain of $17,000 - $65,000 per acre and still operate as a golf course but some of the land would need to be converted to wetlands. She said Dublin contributed to extend Glacier Ridge, a consortium could avoid the cost of buying the property outright, and instead, purchase over time before ultimately owning the land and extending the life of the golf club if they wish 14- 068Z /PDP /PP Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan/ Preliminary Plat Riviera 8025 Avery Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 16 or allowing them to buy it back. She concluded there are a few options to converting this land and does not need to be converted to unwanted housing. She contends that another housing development does not benefit Dublin. She said just because it is the last parcel in northwest Dublin to be developed, does not mean it should be. Rick Goebel, 6849 Vineyard Haven Loop, said he has lived in Columbus over 35 years and in Dublin for the past seven years. He said he lives in the Savona development in Tartan West. He said his property is adjacent to the golf course. He reiterated that the needs of many outweigh the needs of the few. He summarized what was discussed earlier: revenue will not offset expense due to study; traffic congestion is already a problem; and schools will be overcrowded and expensive. He said there is a number of empty properties and room for expansion elsewhere. He said this proposal is not consistent with the Community Plan. He said the solution is for green space: a golf course, a bike path, a park, or wetlands. He said that as a community, they could identify a better fit to preserve the beauty of Riviera. He asked attendees that support parkland or green space to raise their hand or clap. By the applause received, it confirmed their support. Mike Ensminger, 7502 Kilbrittain Lane, said what has been discussed is appropriate for a theoretical concept plan but wanted to diverge into reality. He reported that in November, 2011, the City notified Wellington Place residents that the applicant would be purchasing the undeveloped tract to the west of their subdivision on Brand Road to build 28 high -end single - family homes. He said now that the applicant is interested in purchasing Riviera Golf Club, we thought it would be an appropriate forum to highlight the challenges that Wellington residents continue to face, 2.5 years later, after that initial application was submitted. He shared the overall disappointment and accountability of follow- through by the applicant and the builder. He said in 2011, the applicant promised multiple custom homebuilders, but Virginia Homes is the only builder of all 28 houses. He said Mr. Ruma is not the builder and closely related to the proposed builder but he has not heard from Mr. Ruma since City Council approval despite his continued assurances to remain actively involved in the project. He questioned the applicant's commitment to keep the rural nature of the Brand Road corridor. He explained they are left with a gaping, treeless space that does not fit with the rest of the natural landscape. He said there was an "accidental" destruction of a 100 -year old tree on Brand Road and the dry basin ponds are eyesores. He said the area has been pillaged. He said there were over 1,100 trees on that property but there is not much left. He said he was shocked when speaking with the Virginia Homes project manager, who freely admitted he was unaware of the opacity requirements for the landscaped borders. Mr. Ensminger said this was a heavily negotiated point nearly two years ago. He said multiple homeowners contacted Virginia Homes about the flooding and run off in July, August, and October and were told each time it was a 100 -year rain. He reported it took them eight weeks to provide a temporary and inadequate solution, which was to put up an orange fence not approved by EPA. He shared some pictures of his lawn. He said they basically destroyed his back yard; ruining bushes and grass to where he cannot even let his dog out. He said Virginia Homes promised re- grading of his backyard, shrub replacement, mulching and sodding but nine months later, they have just backed - filled with ungraded dirt, without his permission on 6:55 am on Saturday. He said they only sought permission from his neighbor to be on his property, not him. He said just last summer, they witnessed a Virginia Homes representative, swinging from a limb and tearing it off of a tree that the City Arborist designated to preserve. He said the subcontractor verbally assaulted two residents. He said they were reassured that their neighborhood would not be used as a construction entrance but the dump trucks sped down the street, damaging the roads and frustrating the residents. He reported that construction started as early as 6:45 am, in violation of City Code, even on weekends. He said they continue to be disappointed with this 28 -home development and tried to imagine these problems magnifying 10 -fold with the introduction of nearly 300 homes proposed for Riviera. Jamie Davitt, 8169 Summerhouse Drive West, said she lived there almost three years with their children. She referenced the movie "It's a Wonderful Life" and the character George Bailey, who had said it was 14- 068Z /PDP /PP Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan/ Preliminary Plat Riviera 8025 Avery Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 16 the people who do most of the paying in spending in this community. She gave the group of attendees a round of applause for their passion. She compared the financial struggles of our first golf course, Riviera to the movie where the same thing happened in the movie with the savings and loan building. George Bailey reached out and said "Give it time." She asked that we give Riviera time; it does not have to be developed right now. She said it experienced financial distress not unlike many industries. She explained you cannot un- develop what you start with Riviera. She noted the Dublin brand and reputation and how Riviera is a $10 million asset. She said there were a lot of developments started and undeveloped within a mile of Riviera: Oak Park, 69 percent; Tartan Ridge, 39 percent; Tartan West /Sienna, 70 percent; and Jerome Village, 91 percent. She said that equates to 2000 lots available within one mile of Riviera Golf Club so why destroy Dublin's oldest golf course. She said we are known for green space, parks, and golf courses. We have 168 acres of landscaped green space so why build homes when there already is abundance? She noted there are 91 trees left over from 1,100 that were chopped down in Wellington for 28 houses. She concluded with a Chinese proverb, "One generation plants the trees; another generation gets to benefit from the shade ". Greg Smith, 6457 Green Stone Loop, in the Belvedere subdivision said he moved to Dublin four years ago from Upper Arlington. He said after his third child was born and needed a larger house, they chose Dublin for the schools and green space views, which they paid a huge premium to live near designated green space. He is now concerned that he would be forced to go back to Upper Arlington. He admits that is dramatic but Upper Arlington will not overcrowd the schools. He said his daughter's classroom at Deer Run was a trailer last year and his other daughter at Deer Run was told she was lucky to have desk. He asked the Commission if they are trying to mess up Dublin's high rankings. He said he has not seen numbers from anyone that show Dublin can support the children that would come from these additional homes and make it work with the schools. He said Upper Arlington made mistakes a long time ago and wish they can have green space back. He said he was 100 percent confident; they would not build over golf courses there. He summarized stating the proposed development would destroy nearby schools, and green space we could never get back. He asked the Commission to protect Dublin's most important assets. Jamie LaRue, 8494 Glenalmond Court, thanked the Commission for allowing him the opportunity to speak the thanked them for their service to the community. He said he recently relocated to this community, which is fifth house. He said the development of 284 homes on Riviera would drastically change the character of Dublin, have an adverse effect on schools, traffic, and taxes. He said Dublin schools were the driving force for selecting their home after looking at New Albany, Powell, and Westerville. He said had Deer Run, Grizzell, and Jerome been overcrowded, taxes higher, and traffic worse, their decision may have been quite different. He said the Commission could ask the applicant to provide more buffer zones for the schools, to donate land to the schools to enable development, or to fund construction of sewers, roads, and subsidize infrastructure or simply keep it green. He asked that they protect the integrity of the Community Plan. Ed Siddell, 8153 Summerhouse Drive West said his family has resided in the Belvedere subdivision for the past ten years at the intersection of Timble Falls and Summerhouse Drive. He reported the traffic is already pretty bad in the morning because it is a cut - through for the high school traffic from 7:20 am - 8 am. He referred to a slide which shows Summerhouse Drive as an oval that turns to Abbey Glen and the kids go around both sides of the circle, which blocks the way to work. He said it continues up through Grizzell and Deer Run. He showed a video that revealed that the students do not stop at Belvedere Green and Summerhouse Drive intersection, using it as a racetrack, which is dangerous. He said the City of Dublin put out a speed check on the left side and the traffic got so backed up, they were no longer speeding because they could not due being backed up. He said Timble Falls is the proposed cut - through street for these additional 284 homes; that is a recipe for disaster. He said that Dublin police said they could not and will not put officers there every day. He said they cannot put speed bumps there as they cannot afford the man hours or the resources. He asked the Commission how it could be afforded with additional homes when it is not affordable now. 14- 068Z /PDP /PP Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan/ Preliminary Plat Riviera 8025 Avery Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 16 Mark Mace, 6469 Green Stone Loop said 12 years ago, he and his wife decided to move to a better school district for the benefit of their children and thought the Dublin school system would be the best fit for special needs child. He said additionally, they wanted a community that placed a special importance on parks, green space, and bike paths. They chose Belvedere due to the close proximity of parks, bike paths, and the beautiful view we have of the Riviera Golf Course. They were pleased to learn later the site was identified as parks and open spaces. He said both of his children have attended Deer Run, while their special needs son is currently at Grizzell. He said they fought for years to obtain the services we now enjoy for the first time. He said they finally have an excellent intervention specialist and are satisfied with the services they are receiving. He said for every Riviera child that attends Deer Run ES, Grizzell MS, or Jerome HS, a child currently enrolled will most likely be sent elsewhere. He said school redistricting is an almost certainty. He said if his child is sent to another school, he will lose everything they have fought for all these years. He said intervention specialists do not follow your children, they stay at the schools. He said with almost 8 - 12 percent of kids on individual education plans, many families will be affected by the loss of their intervention specialist, who is a key to the entire IEP process. He asked the Commission not to rezone this property; there are too many homes and people against this project. He asked that they please listen to their residents. Ms. Amorose Groomes said there were no more speakers listed on the sign -up sheet but as promised, that does not preclude anyone from speaking. She asked that they raise their hand and she will invite them to come forward, stating your name and address for the record. Bryan Faller, 8703 Finlarig Drive said he fought against this plan but after hearing Mr. Ruma state his reasons for this to be approved because Riviera is no longer a good golf course does not mean we should develop this green space by adding 284 homes in that area. He said Mr. Ruma claimed this was the last good piece of land to develop but to restate what someone said earlier, should it be developed. He said that Mr. Ruma said he already started a traffic study but did not state the results. He said he did not hear him disagree with what other presenters have said about the increase in traffic. He said he met with school administrators but again did not disagree with the overcrowding statistics that have been shown. He said he wants to develop a community with walking distance to the schools but did not say how the traffic will create impediments to children walking to schools who live across Avery Road. He said Dublin is a big cycling community. He said to have t 2,000 more cars per day traveling on these roads should be taken into account. He said he came here tonight with an open mind but nothing convinced him that the community should support this development. He said that he thought it was telling that not a single person in this community has said we should do this. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked the public if anyone else would like to address the Commission. She explained they would not field questions this evening. She said once they close it off to public comments, the Commission will have a discussion as a result of what has been heard this evening and respect to the speaking points made earlier. Jerry Williams, 6290 Belvedere Green Boulevard said if not questions can be heard, he came into this with a completely open mind without an agenda. He asked the Commission, other than Mr. Ruma, what would be good about this? Ms. Amorose Groomes responded that is a great question that will be addressed in our discussion points following public comment. She asked if anyone else present that would like to speak with respect to this application. [Hearing none.] She said that concludes the public comment portion. Ms. Amorose Groomes explained there are five questions posed by staff and the purpose of tonight's meeting is to gather all of the information and begin to sort through it. She said the applicant will have the opportunity to ask any points of clarification after their discussion. She stated first, they wanted to get the input of their residents and second of all, she wants the applicant to walk away with a clear 14- 068Z /PDP /PP Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan/ Preliminary Plat Riviera 8025 Avery Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 16 message that you heard from the public and the Commission. She reiterated that staff had provided five discussion questions but the Commission probably had a list of their own as well. Amy Kramb said she had been on this Commission for six years and this is the most people she has seen attend one of her meetings. She said as a lifelong resident of Dublin, she appreciates passionate people coming out to show their support /lack of support for an application. She said she graduated from Dublin and has a son in the school system. She recommends the public take this to the school board. She referred to the presentation made by Ms. Gawronski, which provided alternative options for this property. She said, unfortunately, the Commission does not have the authority to do anything with those options but since they are on the record, she hoped that City Council would hear them. She said the Commission is tasked to answer questions for the applicant. She explained that they cannot say, build a park; the City has clearly stated they will not build a park but suggested if they keep talking to City Council, maybe things will change. She said one of the big questions being asked is what the benefit of this application is. She reminded everyone, this is still private property, still zoned residential, but sometimes it is favorable to do a Planned Unit Development rather than straight zoning, which allows more control as to what happens on that property. She said this Concept Plan as presented today could be better. She said a PUD could provide much better opportunity for this piece of land instead of staying as existing zoning. She said it is probably not going to be the 181 homes that technically are there by the time you have your EPA guidelines and so forth but could be 80 — 100 homes but the Commission does not have control over what those look like. Ms. Kramb addressed the discussion questions: 1) land use is appropriate as being zoned residential and would not rezone it PUD because there is too many houses under the current plan, which falls under the next question; 2) way too dense to be considered open green space or a conservation subdivision since they would need to be under the lowest number at 1.27 units per acre; 3) is appropriate to the surrounding uses but the school letter is a great reminder of the need for large buffers between athletic fields and homes because residents do not like the stadium lights and noise when they were there, first; 4) there needs to be a lot more open space that is usable, not necessarily just passive, a more park -like space with trails; and 5) Mr. Ruma's suggestion of empty- nester housing is a wonderful option for this property as they would not have children attending schools, which takes a huge burden off the schools but asked if they would want to live next to schools with loud stadiums. She said traffic is always a huge issue for her; she likes to see traffic reports. She said she understands this would be done at the expense of the developer but would like to see required to expand the scope of the traffic study, more than what is normally required. She explained that will all come later along with the agreements for the cost of roads and sewers. She reiterated that tonight is to cover basic questions. Victoria Newell thanked everyone that spoke as well as the applicant. She said she was saddened to see loss of Riviera Golf Club. She said she was a long time resident of the City of Dublin and was attracted to the ability to raise a family here. She said they had a good school system and close walking distance to schools and parkland. She noted that original parks were neighborhood parks. She envisioned when she moved there that someday, there would be an "emerald necklace" of parks, all of them interconnected with bike paths. She said when an applicant proposes a development on a very large beautiful piece of property; everyone wants it to stay naturally as parkland. Ms. Newell addressed the discussion questions: 1) it is currently zoned residential; if they choose to sell and zoned residential, it can be; straight zoning will get whatever will come; as a PUD, there is more control to preserve some of the natural aspects of this site; it is appropriate use if it cannot be preserved as park land, cannot preserve it as a golf course, can preserve as a great residential neighborhood next to other great neighborhoods; 2) density is not appropriate, she would rather see more green space with lower density and the green space to feel like a park that is contributed to the entire community of Dublin, not just a park associated with a development; 3) relationship to surrounding uses needs buffers along school property; 4) yes, open space is appropriately located but street frontage along Avery Road needs to have a more natural character, undulation will be helpful 14- 068Z /PDP /PP Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan/ Preliminary Plat Riviera 8025 Avery Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 16 being able to see into the green space and being preserved where you have flood lands in the center of the site and would like more interconnection off of Avery Road. Joseph Budde stated that he does not support the Concept Plan as presented and requested rezoning, he does not support. He agrees that the existing zoning would allow the developer to develop and all interested parties would be well served by participating and working with the developer so a PUD could be put together. He does not believe the proposed land use is appropriate but zoning precludes him from saying he cannot support it. He said the density as proposed is many more houses than what should be developed. He stated the relationship to the surrounding uses should be appropriate. He agreed with fellow Commissioners that the buffers along the school properties would need to be developed. He said he was very concerned about the impact on the schools, the schools impacting the residents that would live there, and the traffic on Avery and Brand Roads as he bikes with groups of people through there all the time. He recognizes that some kind of development will happen here and encouraged the developer to work with all the interested groups and those that came tonight and work it out. He was adamant that there needs to be cooperation amongst all the parties. Warren Fishman said he was really proud to be Dublin resident. He said Dublin is one of the smartest cities in the world, rated 6"' or 7"' smartest and it really shows tonight. He applauds the preparation of speakers to provide statistics and logical reasons for your beliefs. He said whether anyone agrees or disagrees with you, he thought it was commendable. He noted the thousands that volunteer in Dublin that do not have an interest. He said the Irish Festival and the St. Patrick's Day parade could not happen without all the volunteers. He appreciated the civil meeting expressing passionate and emotional beliefs. Mr. Fishman skipped around the proposed discussion questions. He said the proposed density is not even close. He said Muirfield is 1.27 units per acre and it is 2,300 units. He noted that one of the traditions they have in Dublin is to make things better and better; the next subdivision knocks our socks off. As Mr. Ruma so aptly said, this is the last piece we have. He encouraged his colleagues on this board and City Council that if it ends up a subdivision that it should be incredible and surely less than 1.27 units per acre. He said it is appropriate given it is zoned residential and not much we can do about that. However, he said sometimes if they wait, better things happen. He said yes and no to the relationship of the houses in the area but there are schools, crowded roads, and there could be a better relationship. He stated that the open space needs to be usable open space. He said developers take land that cannot be developed anyway, the land around the water, the flood plain, need to have a set back from Avery Road but do not consider that free open space. He said if the developer's heart is in the right place, 3.8 acres is the size for a useable park. He said open space scattered throughout the development needs to be useable. He said the space around the water and next to the roads is a given and should not be counted. He does not believe this is properly located. He said the audience has done a terrific job of talking about other considerations. He said if this was perfect world he would like to see that a park because there is no major park in that area but it is zoned residential and the possibility of becoming residential. He said Mr. Ruma is doing what he has the right to do by making a proposal and has heard a lot of information from intelligent people tonight and hopes he takes that into consideration. Richard Taylor said Mr. Fishman did such a wonderful job of complimenting you all, that he would just ditto his comments. He threw a little compliment to Mr. Ruma's group for coming before the Commission with a true Concept Plan. He said this is still wide open here with just one drawing to see what we can make better. He said he would prefer this remain a golf course and preferably a public course and ideally, a municipal golf course. He said it is awkward that a city that was born out of golf and markets itself so heavily around golf and invests so heavily in golf...how much did we pour into the President's Cup this year? He said he read again today in Business First about Shamrock to be developed as housing and there was little opposition, where he even learned to play golf and where families go to play golf together. He said to replace a recreation destination with houses seems awkward and would hate to see that happen here. 14- 068Z /PDP /PP Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan/ Preliminary Plat Riviera 8025 Avery Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 16 Mr. Taylor addressed the specifics with the plan. He said the issues that were a concern to him were all brought up by speakers this evening. He noted he would take a different tack. He said it was easy to put up a chart and say traffic congestion is caused by houses. He said car trips cause congestion, having to go somewhere like shops, schools, work, church, and recreational activities when none of that is readily available by foot or bike. He said the nearest shopping in Shawnee Hills is a 2.5 mile drive from Riviera Golf Club. He said if he wanted to mail a package, the Post office is a 10 -mile round trip. He said because of the street layout design, all of these developments follow the traffic onto the same handful of roads. He said on top of that, this section is very homogenous type of housing; families about the same age, about the same number of kids, about the same income, they work about the same place at the same time. Everyone leaves about the same time to go to work, take the kids to school, to go shopping in the middle of the day, leaves again to pick up kids from schools and everyone leaves to come home from work at the same time causing bubbles of traffic congestion. What was interesting to him he said on this particular location was that this bounds all three schools but there is no useful way to get to this development to any of the schools without going through somebody's yard and does nothing to make the travel easier from the existing neighborhoods to the south. Mr. Taylor said when he was a kid, he could walk on residential streets and sidewalks the entire way to his school one mile away. He said his first job, two blocks away at a restaurant where he bused tables; he walked to every day so his mom did not drive much at all. He said if a development happens here it has to connect to the schools so kids can safely walk to school and not have their parents drive them, keeping them inside the development and off of Avery Road. He suggested it would also allow the developments to the south to do the same. Mr. Taylor said it was possible this land could be developed as housing and wants to make sure if that comes to pass that we give Mr. Ruma some comments about this that will help him to go in the proper direction. He said the needs of the community have to be addressed, first and this is not 284 single - family houses. He said to reduce traffic congestion is neighborhood level services to reduce car trips. He said a prime example is the Tara Hill / Muirfield Drive development where that United Dairy Farmers is one of the busiest in the country where the traffic stems from walk -ins and bicycles. He said housing for underserved citizens in our community is needed like those that would use the roads the least. He cited his parents as an example. He said after living in Muirfield a long time but as they age there is no suitable place to downsize to in Muirfield and the next step will be to a retirement home. He said what would have been more suitable would be a flat in Muirfield so they could stay close to their friends, close to their family, and let their family house go to another family. He said his folks do not drive much and certainly do not get early in the morning to drive to work or drive kids to school and trips shopping are very few. If we could use a significant number of units to serve that underserved population, we could reduce the traffic congestion and prevent further traffic congestion. He said the proposal does not address any of his concerns, if further isolates the existing neighborhoods from adjacent schools, and do not allow itself access to the schools and only has one type of housing. Mr. Taylor reported he had heard comments previously that were not mentioned tonight about solutions to widen streets and improve intersections. He does not believe those are solutions to traffic congestion. Lastly, he said, what Mr. Fishman touched on was parks and open space; it is not the space that is left over between people's backyards, which is what this plan shows, not easily accessible to the public. He emphasized it has to be planned, designed, and useful space. The term conservation subdivision design is an old concept, which means you group all the houses together in pods and you landscape what is leftover. Mr. Taylor addressed each discussion question: 1) because this is an informal review he does not feel bound to say the land use is appropriate, a golf course or park would be better; 2) density is far too high; 3) no proper relationship to the existing uses that are schools and that needs to be addressed; 4) as Mr. Fishman said, it would be better off to be useful parks or a series of smaller parks as an "Emerald Bracelet" rather than a necklace; and 5) his personal preference is to remain a golf course; as a planning 14- 068Z /PDP /PP Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan/ Preliminary Plat Riviera 8025 Avery Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 16 commissioner, not necessarily opposed to development of the site but it has to be much different, more intelligent, and cannot just be a reaction as Mr. Fishman said to the current market place. Ms. Amorose Groomes thanked several speakers for their coordinated efforts and wonderful representation of a community working together to bring forward valid outstanding points presented in an exceptional way and depict what the issues are for the residents surrounding this piece of property. She said the members of those HOAs are certainly fortunate. She expressed her joy seeing the room filled with folks passionate about their community, which leads to their community getting better. Ms. Amorose Groomes described the difference between the Community Plan and Zoning Code. She said zoning on this piece of property would allow roughly one unit per acre on 168 acres, but some space will be deducted for streets, etc. She said the Community Plan is guiding document for the way land is used when rezoning is under consideration. She said if Mr. Ruma wanted to develop that land tomorrow, he could move forward with the zoning that is in place now. She said his intent is to "up zone "; to build more houses. She explained that what happens on that property right now is the zoning that is in place. She said Ms. Kramb stated that if we entertained a rezoning of that, it is a give and take relationship. What we typically give is more density and what we take is a higher standard. She said if he were to build homes on that today, it would just need to meet the letter of the building code, which typically in the city is a much lower standard than PUD codes. She explained that materials are typically upsized from what is in the straight Zoning Code. She cited the relation of the architecture of your home and the detail to different architectural elements. Ms. Amorose Groomes summarized that Mr. Ruma is looking for an upzoning and that has yet to be seen if that will happen or not. She said it was very concerning to hear what happened at Wellington Place. She said we have wonderful folks that have the ability to take that all to Code Enforcement and she will follow up as well. She said as a Commission that approved that zoning, promises were made to us as well; we want those to ring true and come to fruition. Ms. Amorose Groomes reported that this room has been filled to capacity when they talked about the Jerome baseball diamonds; the difference between a baseball game and football game is severe. She said any homes that back up to a football field must understand how loud it can get. She said when the baseball folks were here, they complained about how they could hear shouting from individuals that were offensive to them. She said as a Muirfield resident, on the other side of Muirfield Drive, she could sit on her back patio in the evenings of September and October and tell you who carried the ball. She emphasized that it is loud and we need to be sensitive to that. She thought the schools probably put a football field there figuring it would be the least likely place a development would be adjacent to. Ms. Amorose Groomes remarked that as a City, we like to tout our horn that we are a wonderful city but first and foremost, I am a parent. She confirmed we are a wonderful city and people come here because of our schools. She said we do many great things as a city but what we do well is educate our young people. She said that has to be on the forefront of our minds if we do this: not necessarily applicable as Commissioners but to certainly consider what is good for our city. She said we typically hold a developer to a standard higher than their neighbor; should be less dense than Muirfield. Ms. Amorose Groomes began to address the discussion questions: 1) yes, because of zoning in place but it is not desirable; she wants it to remain a golf course; 2) no, the density is not appropriate; 3) no, as Mr. Taylor did an outstanding job of illustrating the connectivity issues, which need to be resolved and possible ways of reducing the number of trips required in and out of this neighborhood on a daily basis; 4) no, as Mr. Fishman talked about the set back on Avery Road; open space must be dense and usable and she gave an example of holding soccer practices on space not designated a soccer field; and 5) numbers show we are all the drain on the system every time someone has come to zone where you live, they could have made the same arguments, it is all of us; we owe great volunteerism to our schools and to our city at large. Again she said she would prefer to see this as a golf course but not in the zoning 14- 068Z /PDP /PP Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan/ Preliminary Plat Riviera 8025 Avery Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 16 for this piece of property at present. She said the charge before us is to make it as good as we possibly can. She had hopes and dreams this would be a wetland's preservation as well that deserves some exploration. She stated at the end of the day, it is zoned residential. Ms. Amorose Groomes invited the applicant forward. Jeff Brown, Smith and Hale, representing the applicant said, he appreciates the Commissions comments and understands the existing zoning; in a perfect world this would remain as open space. He said he will continue the dialogue with the schools since three are within walking distance. He said even if a path system is created you may have the conflict between child and parent as to whether they should walk. He said they also appreciated the explanation of the advantages of the PUD. He said a tradeoff of getting density vs getting higher standards is something Dublin has used to the advantage of the neighbors and the city on various projects. He said they came with a Concept Plan because they knew this would be controversial; always the last piece is thought to be left open. He said there were changes for the golfers when the schools were built. He has played golf up there and understands the noise level as he could hear every song the bands were practicing through the four hours of playing his round. He said they will need time to react to the comments heard this evening. He stated the traffic and sanitary sewer studies are required and EMH &T have been working on a solution. He concluded that he knows what the issues are and are committed to meeting and resolving as many as they can with the neighbors. Mr. Ruma thanked everyone for showing up. He said he had been through this a couple of times and appreciates the respect and guidance shown here. He said he plans to react as best as he can as he plans to develop the property. He said if there is a better way to do it then the property can be sold at the same price to others; it needs to be sold at fair market. He said if someone wants to make an offer, if the City wants to buy it as a park, then they should approach him and he will pass on his cost without making a profit. Mr. Ruma said he was really bothered by and will look at the problems at Wellington Reserve. He said these were sold to his son; he plans to build 28 homes and within the first two weeks, he had 38 deposits. His son is now writing contracts after going through a lottery for lot selection. He said the first few contracts range from $750,000 - $900,000. He said he just found out about the mistake of the 100 - year old tree. He said that is not his style and the pictures you saw were during construction. He said despite what the situation was, he will look into it to ensure trees are planted and the water is handled so it is not a burden on the neighbors. He said he will stand by his commitment and work with staff. He expressed his appreciation of the Commission's time given to the community. Ms. Amorose Groomes said if there are no other questions from the applicant, there is no vote to be taken this evening and this will conclude the portion of the meeting dedicated to this Riviera project. She stated they will take a five minute break and resume at 9:10 pm. Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that today is the conclusion of Warren Fishman's term. She reported he served six years on the Board of Zoning Appeals; served a total 17 plus years on the Planning and Zoning Commission, not all consecutively; and served as a resident representative for the Bicycle Task Force. She thanked Mr. Fishman for his service and commitment to the City. She said he has assisted and aided in the community becoming a more beautiful place. He received a standing ovation. Ms. Amorose Groomes presented the award to Bea Fishman for sharing Warren with all of us and invited stories from the Commissioners. Mr. Taylor shared his story of appreciation for Warren. Ms. Kramb said she would miss him and think about him as she drives past bike paths, water features, and sandwich boards. Ms. Newell said it was an honor to serve on this board with Warren; he left a good mark on the City of Dublin. Mr. Fishman said he had tremendous respect for everyone on the board and thanked them for their service as well. Mr. Budde said he never saw a project he did not like but cited one instance where he did and tonight he said he did 14- 068Z /PDP /PP Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan/ Preliminary Plat Riviera 8025 Avery Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission March 13, 2014 — Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 16 not agree with the plan. They shared mutual admiration for each other. Ms. Amorose Groomes said it was a privilege to serve with him and it was a lot of fun. Communications Mr. Langworthy said on behalf of staff, how much of a gentleman Mr. Fishman has always been and it translates out to the audience, the applicants, and the rest of the City. He said this speaks well for the Commission as a whole. He said Mr. Fishman will be missed very much. Mr. Langworthy said they should have all received an invitation to the City Council Work Session. He said the Resolution that was passed was placed in the Dropbox that came out as a result of the Council Retreat that describes some of the improvements for design on some critical projects. Mr. Langworthy said they finally got to answering Amy Kramb's questions as related to traffic and also placed in the Dropbox is a City Council Resolution. He encouraged review before attending the work session. Ms. Kramb expressed her appreciation. Commission Roundtable Discussion Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there were any items for a roundtable discussion. [Hearing none.] The meeting was adjourned at 9:29 p.m. As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 3, 2014 14- 068Z /PDP /PP Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan/ Preliminary Plat Riviera 8025 Avery Road I I RECORD OF Dublin Mayor Chinnid- Zuercher stated that Dublin residents appreciate the library's presence within the community. Council would be interested in actively participating in the master planning process and in looking at a variety of ways in which the City could partner in the funding of a possible expansion, either on the library's present site or another. CITIZEN COMMENTS John Bevilaoua President American Italian Golf Association and Riviera Country Club. 8205 Avert Road stated that he is present to respond to the City's proposed Community Plan provision for the westward extension of Memorial Drive through the Riviera Country Club property to Hyland -Croy Road. Since 1970, this has been the site of a golf and social club. Their course opened 15 years prior to the Village of Dublin becoming a city. They have paid their taxes, have employees, maintain their property, and provide entertainment via golf and social events to citizens of Dublin and surrounding communities. This site consists of 165 acres of primary greenspace surrounded by sprawling growth. Their intention is to remain a permanent entity at this location. Over the years, Riviera has survived the economic recession of the late 1970's and the deep stock market slide at the turn of the century. Currently, they are enduring the glut of an over abundance of golf communities in and around central Ohio. On Saturday mornings, spring and fall, they tolerate the above - normal speaker noise from the sports announcers at the Dublin Jerome sports fields, which abut the Riviera property to the west. In addition, it has been necessary to periodically deal with rumors of the club being for sale. In the midst of these detriments to long -term success, they have now become aware of the City's long - range Community Plan that provides for the extension of Memorial Drive westward through their property. This would destroy their golf course and greenspace. Obviously, computer- generated hypotheticals and models have been run, which have been both costly and time consuming. In their opinion, that money and effort would be better spent elsewhere. He respectfully requests that City Council remove from the Community Plan, forever if possible, any and all discussions, scenarios, and plans, etc. that call for the extension of Memorial Drive through Riviera Golf Club. The members of the Italian Golf Association and members of Riviera Country Club plan to survive here in Dublin. They are actively pursuing a full membership. They do not need additional obstacles to impede their growth and long -term viability in this community. Discussions with Council involving the extension of Memorial Drive westward through the Riviera property have become an annoyance to them and to the building and retention of membership. Mayor Chinnid- Zuercher stated that she was not present at the Community Plan workshop where this topic was discussed. When she indicated to the City Manager that Mr. McCash's recollection of direction given at that meeting was that the traffic modeling was not to occur, Ms. Brautigam noted that the minutes of that meeting indicate the travel model was desired. Ms. Brautigam stated that when staff conducts long -range thoroughfare planning, they run tests on many scenarios. In this case, they tested to see what would occur with traffic if, in 30 years, there were to be a connection from Avery Road to Hyland - Croy Road. The minutes and the meeting recording indicate that Council members expressed concem about the study, but at the end of the discussion, the understanding was that the study would be performed both with and without a westerly extension of Memorial Drive. Ms. Salley stated that during the meeting, it was obvious that both City Council and the Planning Commission expressed support of the continued presence of the Riviera Country Club at its present location. Part of the City's focus is on greenspace, beautiful vistas and recreation. Riviera provides all three. She apologized for any anxiety this discussion caused for Mr. Bevilaqua and the Riviera membership. In her view, this suggestion Is focused on very long -range planning -- 20-00 years in the future. Council hopes that this site remains a golf course and club forever. Council has no designs on that property for the future. Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan/ Prelirrnary Plat Riviera 802 ryRoad RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council _ -- March 5, 2007 Page 4 Held 20 Mrs. Boring stated that when the discussion occurred, she was totally opposed to it. She did not support such modeling going forward — no matter what the results should ' be. She believes that a provision should be placed within the Community Plan that this site should be forever preserved as greenspace — that no road should ever be built through the site. Furthermore, she believes it is very detrimental to the Golf Club to have this in the Community Plan. People will not join the club, nor will they buy homes next to this site because of the Plan. When Council fails to give clear direction that this land should forever remain greenspace, what results is a disservice to the golf club and to the citizens of the community. She suggested that Council give staff direction at this time not to spend more time on this particular modeling. She would never support this concept. Mr. McCash stated that when the meeting ended, he had the impression that this was an idea that was considered, similar to several others, but that it would not be pursued further. Several years ago, he served on Planning Commission when the Belvedere development, a subdivision to the south, was approved with a street stubbed at the Riviera property line. He argued at the time that this was not vacant land, but rather had a designated use and that the street should not be stubbed at the golf course. He lost that argument. He was surprised to see a continuation of that road. He sees no purpose for the road extension. Ms. Salay moved that consideration of an extension of Memonal Drive westward through the Riviera Club property be forever removed from the Community Plan. Mr. McCall seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher, Yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher requested that Mr. Bevilaqua share this information with the golf club members. Wallace Maurer. 7451 Dublin Road, stated that he would defer comments on his usual topic to the next Council meeting. LEGISLATION SECOND READING /PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCES Ordinance 11 -07 Authorizing the Provision of Economic Development Incentives to Xcelerate Media, Inc. to Induce the Retention of its Current Workforce and the Further Expansion of the Xcelerate Media, Inc. Workforce within the City of Dublin and Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development Agreement. Ms. Gilger stated that this ordinance proposes an economic development agreement that provides for a $31,000 work force expansion and performance incentive. In return, Xcelerate Media agrees it will create approximately 62 new jobs by December 31, 2011, which equates to an annual payroll of nearly $4.5 million. The president of Xcelerate Media is present to respond to any questions from Council. Bob Mahaffey President Xcelerate Media Inc stated that his company provides ethics and compliance training to corporations. Their offices are located adjacent to Starbucks in the Historic Distinct. They will be expanding their office space in pods of 12 -17 employees at other locations within the District. He noted that the company has no debt; their only expense is related to people. A recent capital investment made in his company will be used to add new employees. The intent is to grow the company within the Dublin community. Vote on the Ordinance: Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boling, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road noted that on page 3 of the agreement, section F, second to last line, there is a typo. The word "retain" should be "retaining' Ms. Gilger responded that this would be corrected, Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /Prat irrnary Plat Riviera 802 ryRoad