146-03 Ordinance RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legaf Blank. Inc. Form No. 30043
Ordinance No. 146-03 Passed . 20
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 43.55
ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF RIVERSIDE
DRIVE AND THE SOUTH SIDE OF HARD ROAD,
APPROXIMATELY 900 FEET FROM THE RIVERSIDE
DRIVE AND HARD ROAD INTERSECTION, FROM: R-1,
RESTRICTED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO:
PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (CASE
NO. 03-1552 -RIVERSIDE WOODS).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin,
State of Ohio, ~ of the elected members concurring:
Section 1. That the following described real estate (see attached map marked Exhibit
"A") situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned PUD, Planned
Unit Development District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures
contained in Ordinance No. 21-70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances) the City
of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto.
Section 2. That application, Exhibit "B", including the list of contiguous and affected
property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
Exhibit "C", are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and
said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance therewith.
Section 3. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the
earliest period allowed by law.
Passed this day of _ , 2004.
Mayor -Presiding Officer
Attest:
Clerk of Council
Sponsor: Planning Division
I hereby certify that copies of this
Ordinance/Resolution were posted in th
City of Dublin in accordance with Sectio
731.25 of the Ohio Revised Code.
D ty Clerk of Council, Dublin, Ohio
Department of Development
Division of Planning
5800 Shier-Rings Road • Dublin, Ohio 43016
CITY OF DUBLIN Phone: 614-410-4600 • Fax: 614-410-4747
Memo
TO: Members of Dublin City Council
FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager S , ~
DATE: June 16, 2004
RE: Reconsideration for Rezoning Ordinance:
Ordinance 146-03 (Case No. 03-1552 -Riverside Woods)
INITIATED BY: Gary P. Gundermar~' sistant Planning Director ij
UPDATE: ~
On March 15 Council made a motion to disapprove this ordinance with a 4-3 vote. This
disapproval was based on discussions regarding density and tree preservation. On April
5 Council voted to reconsider this previous action regarding this case, and made a
second motion to schedule this matter for rehearing within 90 days of that date.
Based on the Council discussion the applicant has made changes to the plan.
Specifically the density dropped to 1.15 dwelling units per acre and the front boulevard
road has been reconfigured to preserve more landscape trees.
SUMMARY:
Riverside Woods is a 43.55-acre site, and is currently zoned R-1, Suburban Residential
District. The site is located on the east side of Riverside Drive and the south side of Hard
Road, approximately 900 feet from the Riverside Drive and Hard Road intersection. The
application requests a change in zoning from R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential
District, to PUD, Planned Unit Development District for a residential development of 52
single-family lots.
A tree replacement fee waiver accompanies this rezoning request. However, it was not
advertised and will need to return for approval. Staff recommends approval of the waiver
and the second bullet under "Front Yard Trees" in the text needs to be removed in
accordance with the language of the staff recommended tree replacement fee waiver.
Finding it to be consistent with the Community plan and the approved concept plan the
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning on February
5, 2004, with 17 conditions. Conditions 2, 3, 9, and 11 have been addressed.
Conditions 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 will be monitored as the site
develops.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval by motion of Riverside Woods rezoning, subject to the 17 conditions adopted
by the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 5, 2004 with an amendment to
Condition 14: That lots identified as inappropriate for walkout basements be
restricted from having walkout basements, and the two additional conditions which
were discussed at the previous Council hearing for this rezoning:
Condition 18. That the second bullet point of the text on page DS-2 be eliminated if
the tree waiver is granted, and
Condition 19. That blasting be prohibited on this site.
aew
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS APPENDED BY COUNCIL 6/21/04
Modification of Condition 14.
That lots identified as inappropriate for walkout basements be restricted
from having walkout basements.
Condition 18.
That the second bullet point of the text on page DS-2 be eliminated if the
tree waiver is granted.
Condition 19.
That blasting be prohibited on this site.
Condition 20.
That Lot 52 be shifted to be adjacent to Lot 41
-1 R-1
-1
PUD
R-1
R-1
R-1
° PUD
PUD
R-1
R-
R-1
R-1
-1 R-1 R-1 _1 R-1
R-1 R
03-1552
City of Dublin
Division of Planning Riverside Woods N
0 260 520eet
~ i
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
_ _____Deyt_an_Legel_Bledc Co. _ Form No 3003
14G-03
~i Ordinance No. Passed
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 43.55
I ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE
AND THE SOUTH Sll)E OF HARD ROAD, APPROXIMATELY
900 FEET FROM THE RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND HARD ROAD
INTERSECTION., FROM: R-1, RESTRICTED SUBURBAN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO: PUD, PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (CASE NO. 03-i55Z -RIVERSIDE
WOODS).
'i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State
i ~ of Ohio, _ of the elected members concurring:
Section 1. That the following described real estate (see attached map marked Exhibit
Iii "A", dated 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)
I~ the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto.
Section 2. That application, Exhibit "B", including the list of contiguous and affected
property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
i~ Exhibit "C", are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and said
real estate shall be developed and used in accordance therewith.
Section 3. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the
earliest period allowed by law.
Passed this day of , 2004.
Mayor -Presiding Officer
Attest:
I
Clerk of Council
I
Sponsor: Planning Division
I
i
A~ 5U~M11 I tU I U LUUIVI;iL
FOR NtEETlNG ~N ~
/ p~? p
iT" E~I~li~l~ ~r p rr
O
REZONING AF'PLICATI®N
(Code Section ',53.234)
TO EXPIRE
ORDINANCE NO. ~ ' 0
OivisionofPlanning CITY COUNCIL 1ST Reading ~ Gc. IZ, ZQ~
SHOO Shier-RingsRaad CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING In d~l ny
8ublin,ahio43o16-1236 CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Phone/iD0:614-010-4600
Fax: 614.161.6566 .
41eb Site: wxw.duhlin.ofi.us
I FOR OFFICE USE ONLY '
P&Z Date(s): P&Z Action: ~ ~ri~,%7r;~~-
Amount Application No: ' = ' _ ~
Received: = ~ ~r,~ `
Receipt No: MIS Fee No: Date Received: Received By:
i
~ Type of Request:
NOTE: Applicants are highly encouraged to contact the Division of Planning at 410-4600 for assistance to discuss the P&Z
review process prior to submitting a format application.
CHECK THE TYPE OF APPLICATION:
? Composite Plan (§153.058)
Preliminary Development Plan (§153.056)
? Other (Please Describe) - -
FAX CONFIRMATION WILL FOLLOW THE SUBMISSION OF THIS FORM
PROPERTY INFORMATION: ~Q
273 Oog$8~ ~ Parcel Size: , • ' 23 ~ Ate'
Tax ID%Parcel Number: Acres) ~ (D. Z~a~ P+`.~.
_ 2.23 - Oo888`( I 2. - -
Property Address: ~i11et's~ (.i~+ ~iVe
Side of Street (N, S, E, VV): ~j~ ~
Nearest Intersection: (~;~t's~ae Dr~v~ * fi~1e~ C~
Distance from Nearest intersection: ~QtJ FEET, N. O EO, (Circiel !r~~`~a~t~~~~~~
-
Existing Land Use Development: «1dl~Ue~O~ l~ ~ ~Ut`~
- --~~1~~~ ~
( 1• pT ~ p l
Proposed Lard Use Ceve!opment: ~°5,~~•'~~ @ E ( t ~ ~ ` I
Number cl Acres to be Rezoned.
Current or Existing Zoning District: R2Guested 7_on:ng DisDt: `~'~Q~
R ~ ~ i-------lp-'y, L~ -1
Page 1 of 5
Rezoning Statement:
Slate briefly how the proposed zoning and development relates to the existing and potential future land use character of the vicinity.
Z[X1ing GOCIt'ifk3c7~ioC~ OF ~S ~'O
SO ~ 1n~- ~S~n~(e '~'~~'1 ~ ~ des~~r~ o~ rna~ure
vl de5 le seJ#-~a~ks al ~
-ice . ~'o ~
V~~P~ coeds.
State briefly how the proposed zoning and development relates to th ;Dublin Com_mun;=y Plan• ' r
L ~o~ C.o~u 12~ ern ' l ~c'~c'le ~o 'two clw~bl~~
ca ~ ~ ~ 1.2~ c~v~a~
v~~~s act~~ 71/te Pro~~ clev~f~
~o% are co?~ s~s~f wig'' ~
aid ~
~bl~~~ Com cn~ n. tan .
Previous Application:
Has an application for rezoning the property been denied by the City Council within the last two (2) years?
11 Yes, When?
State the basis o! reconsideration:
1F A PLANNED DISTRICT IS REQUESTED, IS A COMPOSITE OR PRELIMINARY PLAN ATTACHED? YES NO ?
IF A PLANNED GISTRICT IS REQUESTED. IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT ATTACHED? YES ~ NC ?
..i t +JJ
Page 2 0l 5 h ~ ~ C t ~ L ~ ~`i
t'""
IV. PLEASE SUBMIT T'HE FOLLOWING:
? TWO (2) ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATIONS AND THIRTEEN (13) COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION
~~~IfT
? 14 COPIES OF LEGAL DESCflIPTION Q B~ ~ ~ Z
Legal description of the property to be zoned consists of ~ page(s). Se
? 14 SETS OF A SCALED, SITE/STAKING PLAN (NOT GREATER THAN 24" x 36") AND 14 SETS OF REDUCED SITE
DRAWING(S)
(NOT GREATER THAN 11" X t7") SHOWING:
a. The site and all land 500 feet beyond the boundaries;
b. North arrow and bar scale;
c. Locations, size, and dimensions of al! existing and proposed conditions and structures (significant natural features,
landscaping, structures, additions, decks, access ways, parking, etc.);
d. Proposed Uses (Regional transportation system, densities, number of dwellings, building/unit types, square footages,
parking/open space, etc.);
e. Existing and proposed zoning district boundaries:
f. Size of site in acres/square feet; and
g. All property lines, setbacks, street centerlines, riyhts-of-way, easements, and other information related to
the site.
? 14 COPIES OF COUNTY TAX PARCEL ID MAP; (NOT LESS THAN 8'/z" X 11" AND NOT MORE THAN 16" X 20")
Showing contiguous property owners within 500 feat from the perimeter of the area to be rezoned.
? 14 SETS OF SCALED, DETAILED ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS (IF APPLICABLEI
? FOR SIGNS, 14 COPIES OF ACCURATE, SCALED DRAWINGS SHOWING:
a. Location of sign and sign type (wall, ground, projecting, or window)
b. All dimensions of sign, including letter sizes and proposed distance from sign fo grade
c. Proposed copy layout and lettering styles (fonts)
d. Materials and manufacturer to be used in fabrication
e. Total area of sign face (including frame)
i. Type of illumination
? MATERIAL AND COLOR SAMPLES (color chips, photos, plans or brochure of product information). Include manufacturer name and
number.
~~~EIVEC~
~!rr ~ 2~U3
Page3of5 4~ ~ '!9~~1..~~~
CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS:
List all neighboring properly owners within 300 feet from the perimeter of the property. Information must be in accordance with the
County Auditor's current tax list. Electronic copies of property owner lists are encouraged. (Use additional sheets as necessary.)
PROPERTY OWNER
(not Mortgage Company or Tax Service) MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE2IP CODE
t ( S
~ See ~~a ~ }a
I ~
---I -
1
' _ i
'
i
i
-----1
i
Page 4 of 5
VI. PROPERTY OWNER /APPLICANT INFORMATION:
t
Cu+rent Properly OwnerrAppGcart t ~ j'~ ma
v I n ~a - , tad
Mailing Address:
(Street, City, State, Zip Code)
Daytime Telephone: Fax:
lL v ~
VI1. OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE INFORMATION:
Representative if different from property owner or applicant:
{Also complete Section IX)
Mailing Address:
(Street, Daytime Telephone: City, State, Zip Code)
Fax:
Daytime Telephone:
E-MAIL ADDRESS (IF AVAILABLE)
Vlll. PRIMARY CONTACT:
Who is the primary contact person?
(If different from Owner's Representative and Applicant)
IX. AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROPERTY: Site visits to the property by City representatives are necessary in order to
process this application. The Owner/Applicant hereby authorizes City representatives to visit, photograph and post a notice on the
property described in this application.
X. UTILITY DISCLAIMER: The City of Dublin will make every effort to provide essential services to the property as needed. However,
the rapid growth of the City of Dublin and northwest Franklin County has stretched the City's capacity to provide these services to the
limit. As such, the City of Dublin may be unable to make all or part of said facilities available to the applicant until some future date.
The Applicant/Owner acknowledges that approval of this request for rezoning by the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission and/or
Dublin City Council does not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able to provide essential
services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by said Applicant.
XI. OWNER AUTHORIZATION FOR AGENT/REPRESENTATIVE:
I ~O ~ ~[~Y f p~~ the owner/applicant,
her(e~bJy"al+ut'horize~ r, r~~~;~~~~^
~1llf
~~~1~
1~~~'~y~~
~J (1 to act as my agent/representative in all matters pertaining to
the processing and a oval of th+s application +ncluding mod+fy+ng the project, and I agree to be bound by all representations and
a reements made b the desi Hated a ent.
Date: 1 Z - 02 ' ° 5
Signature of µrrent Property wne~
/ n L-- /Z- ~i - ~3
XII. APPLICANT'S AFFIDA T:
U• ~ ~ U l ~ the applicanUauthorized
I, ~ ~ 1G
representative, have read and u derstand the contents oft s apple lion. The information contained in this application, attached
exhibits and other information submitte s~omplete and in al; respects true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief.
/ Oate:
Signature of Applicant or J \
Authorized Representative: ~ ~ J
V'~ t da o1 ----~U~1~-( ,.-~~~-v t, . 20_x' ~ _
Subscribed and sworn to before me this Y ~
Nb ~ r b
~il_.~' 20G3
OEBORAN T VIII Date t t /2s/os
Pa 5 of 5 flOTARY
Rezoning Application Q'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g My ~Q ~Y ~S
.
.
02230501 August S, 2002
DESCRIPTION OF• 16.26.1 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED
ON THE EASTERLY SIDE OE RIVERSIDE DRIVE
' (STATE ROUTE 257) AND SOUTH OF HARD ROAD,
IN THE CITY OF DUBLIN, COUNTY OF FRANKLIN,
' 'STATE OF OHIO •
Situated in the State~of Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Dublin,.being in Quarter
Township 2, Towtship 2, Range 19, Uttited States IvTilitary Lands and containing 16.261 acres of
land, more or• less, said 16.261 acres being all of the residue of that 18.662 acre tract of land
described in EXHIBIT "A" jn the deed to Kenneth V. Gatto and Nancy Henceroth- Gatto, of
record in Official Record O'4558A04; Recorder's Office; Franklin County, Ohio, said ] 6.261
acres being moropartictilarly described •as fbliows:
Beginning, for reference, at a.railroad spike set in Riverside Drive (State Route 257) at
the original southwesterly corr<er• of said,18.662 acre tract, the same being the original
northwesterly comer.of that'2'7:777.8 acre #act of land described in the deed to Deborah J.
McCullough, Trustee, of record in Official record 04216G14 and Official Record 27487E04,
said railroad spike also being thc: southwesterly comer, of that 0.645 acre tract of land designated
as PARCE]',•2'WD and describedinEHI-TITBIT' "A" in the deed to the City of Dublin, Ohio, of
record in Official Record 30279H2O, xhe'same also.being the northwesterly corner of that 0.525
acre tract of land described in the decd to•Tfie City of Dublin, Ohio, of record in Official Record
50466F19, all being of record in the Recorder's Office, Franklin County,,Ohio, said railroad
spike also being located 1.50 feet ca~terly, from, as measured at right angles, the centerline of
said Riverside Drive; thence S89 ° T9'S6"E, with.the southerly line of said 18.662 acre tract, with
the northerly line of said 27.7778 acre tract,•with the southerly line of said 0.645 acre tract and
with the northerly line of said 0.525 acre tract, a distance of 62,(1 feet to a 3/4-inch (I.D.) iron
• pipe set at the trrie point of beginning at~the•southeasterlycomer ofSaid 0.645 acre tract and the
northeasterly comer of said 0.525 acre tract;
Thence, from said true point of beginning, northwardly, with the easterly right-of--way
boundary of said Riverside T)rive; the same being the easterly boundary of said 0.645 acre tract,
• the following three (3) courses and distances: • .
1. N3°01'47"E, a distance of 118:74 feet to a $/8-inch solid iron pin found;
2. Nl4°05'25"E; a distance of71:83 feet to a 5/8-inch solid iron pin found;
' 3. N3 °55'19"E, a distance•of 29:14 feel to a 5/8-inch solid iron pin found at the
southwesterly comer'of that 1;740 acre tract of land described in EXHIBIT "A" in
the deed to The Board of Trustee of Washington Township, Franklin, .Delaware
and Union Counties, Ohio, of record in Instrument No.'199811190298640,
Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio;•
Thcnce 589°20'00"E, with the southerly line of said 1.740 acre tract, a distance of 423.63
feet to a S/8-inch solid iron pin found at the southeasterly. corner of said 1.740 acre tract;
Thence NO°41'35"E, with the easterly line of said 1.740 acre tract, a distance of 175.16
feet to a S/8-inch solid 'trop pin found at the northeasterly corner of said 1.740 acre tract in the
' northerly line of said 18.662.acre iFact, the same being the southerly line of that 2.785 acre tract
of land described in EXHIBIT"A" in the deed to The Board of Trustees of Washington
Township, Franklin, Delaware~and Union Counties, Ohio, of record in Instrument No.
]99811190298642, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio;
Thence S89° 19'41 "E, with the northerly line of said 18.662 acre tract, with the southerly
line of said 2.785 acre tract and with We southerly right-ofway line of Hard Road, as shown on
~ the plat of Dedication of Hard Road, of record in Plat Book 78, Pages 1 I, 12 and 13, Recorder's
Office, Franklin County, Ohio, a distance of 156$.09 feet to a 3/4-inch (LD.) iron pipe found at
the northeasterly corner of said 18.662 acre tract, the same being the norl}t}~eS,tc~lyfc,ortne,~.of that
35.814 acre tract of land,described•in EXHIBIT "A" in the deed to Rockford~Hdmes; ihcl•; bf
record in Instrument No. 200202190045030, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Oltio;
C~ 3 iss z-
PAGE 1 OF 2 PAGES ' ~,t ~ ~
r,;4'•
~~fr""'~ o223osot August s, 2002
DESCRIPTION OF 16.261 ACRES OF IrAND LOCATED ON THE EASTERLY SIDE OF
RIVERSIDE DRIVE (STATES ROiiTE 257) AND SOUTH•OF HARD ROAD -(CONT'D)-
Thence S2°47'32"W; with the easterly line of said 18.662 acre tract and with the westerly
line of said 35.814 acre tract, a distance of 392.91 feet to a''/3-inch (I.D.) iron pipe found at the
• southeasterly comer of said 18.662 acre tract, the same being the northeasterly corner of said
27.7778 acre tract;
Thence N89 ° 19'56"W, with the southerly line of said i 8.662 acre tract and with the
northerly line of said 27.7778 acre tract, a distance of 2000.48 feet to the true point of beginning
and containing 16.261 acres of land, more or less. • .
Subject to all rights-of-way;•easements and'restrictions, if any, of previous record.
We hereby state that the foregoing description was prepazed from information obtained .
from an actual field survey conducted•by Bauer, Davidson & Merchant, Inc. in July and in
August of 2002. •
All of the survey markers noted in the foregoing description were in place in August of
2002.
The bearings given in the foregoing description are based on the bearing of S 89 ° 19'41 "E
as given for the southerly right-of-way line of Hard Road. .
BAUER, DAVIDSON & MERCHAj~~'.;.l~C.
Consulti Egginecrs ~ O F• Oy/O
• Qatis Erenpreiss ERENPREISS
Professional Surveyor No. S ~ 557
,y~
1'
PAGE•2 OF 2 PAGES
02230502 August 5, 2002
i DESCRIPTION OF 27.238 ACRES.OF LAND LOCATED
- - ON THE EASTERI;Y SIDE OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE
(STATE ROUTE 257) AND: SOUTH OF HARD ROAD,
TN THE CITY QF DUBLIN; COUNTY OF FRANKLIN,
STATE OF. OHIO ~ •
Situated in the State of Ohio, Gounty of Franklin, City of Dublin, being in Quarter
Township 2, Township 2, Range 19, United •States Military Lands and containing 27.238 acres of
• land, more or less, said-27.238 acres being aU of that 27.7778 acre tract of land described in the
deed to Deborah J. McGtitllough, Trustee; ofrecord in Official Record 04216G14 and in Official
• Record 27487E04, both being of record in the Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio, said
- - 27.238 acre area of~land being.more particularly described as follows:
Beginning,.for reference,.at~a~iailroad spike set in Riverside Drive (State Route 257) at
the original northwesterlycomer ofsaid 27.7778 acre tract, the same being the original
• - .southwesterly corner
gf'the 16.261 acre residue of that 18.662 acre tract of land described in
;Exhibit "A'! in the deed to Kenneth V: Gatto and Nancy Henceroth-Gatto, of record in Official
Record 04558A04, said railroad spike also being the southwesterly comer of that 0.654 acre tract
' of land designated as PARCEL 2 WD an~ described in EXHIBIT "A" in the deed to City of
Dublin, Ohio, of record in Official Record 30279H2O and the northwesterly comer•of that 0.525
acre tract of land referred to as PARCEL 1 Wp in the deed to The City of Dublin, Ohio, of
record'in Official Record 50466F19, all being of record in the Recorder's Office, Frankin
County, Ohio, -said railroad spike also being•located 1S0 feeteasterly from, as measured at right
angles, the centerline of said Riverside :Drive; thence S89° 19'56"E, with the northerly line of said
origina127.7778 acre tract, with the northerly line of said 0.525 acre tract; with the southerly line
of'said origina118.662 acre tract and with a southerly line of said 0.654 acre tract, a distance of
62.61 fee[ to a 3/4-inch (l.D'.) iron pipe set at the true point of beginning at the northeasterly
comer of said 0.525 acre tract and the southeasterly comer of said 0.654 acre tract;
Thence, from said true point of beginning, S89° 19'S6"E, with the northerly line of said
• 27.7778 acre tract and with the sotitherly'line o£said 18.662 acre tract, a distance of 2000.48 feet
to a''/z-inch solid iron pipe found at the northeasterly comer of said 27.7778 acre tract, the same
being the southeasterly comer of said 18.662.acre tract and in the westerly line of that 35.814
acre tract of land described in EXHIBIT "A" in the deed tq Rockford Homes, Tnc., of record in
Instnunent No. 200202190045030, Recorder's•Office, Franklin County, Ohio;
Thence S2°47'1 S"W, with the easterly line.of said 27.7778 acre tract and with the
westerly line of said 35.814 acre tract, a distance of 677.03 feet to a S/8-inch solid iron pin found
at the southeasterly comer of said 27.7778 acre tract, the same being the southwesterly comer of
said 35.814 acre tract, said 'trop pin also being the northwesterly corner of Glenbriar, the
subdivision plat of same being shown of record in Plat Book 38, Page 76, and the northeasterly
comer of Hanna Hills No. 2, the spbdivision.plat of same being shown of record in Plat Book 63,
Page-81, both being of record .in the Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio;
ThenceN86°47'23"W, with the•southemmost line of said 27.7778 acre tract, with the
• northerly line of said Hanna Hills No. 2 and with-the northerly line of Hanna Hills, the
subdivision plat of same being shown of record in Plat Book 27, Page 68, Recorder's Office,
Franklin County, Ohio, a distance of 1528.16•feet to a 3/4-inch.(LDJ iron pipe found at a
southwesterly corner of.said 27.7778 acre tract, the same being the southeasterly corner of that
2.016 acre tract of land described in the deed io Maxine Laney, of record in Deed Boole 3288,
Page 409, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio;
Thence N1 °35'37"E, with awesterly line of said 27.7778 acre tract and with the easterly
line of said 2.016 acre tract, a distance of 169.56.feet to a 3/4-inch (I.D.) iron pipe set at an
internal comer of said 27.7778 acre tract, the same being the northeasterly corner of said 2.016
~ acre tract; ,
- ~ie~rADttaii~t~4iltii.$he
Thence N87°03'01"W, with a southerly.line of said 27.7778 a
northerly line of said 2.016 acre tract, a distance of 468.51 feet to a 3/4-inch (I.D.) iron pipe set at
the southeasterly corner of said 0.525 acre tract in the easterly right-oD3ay~ss~ said Riverside
Drive; - ~
PAGE 1.OF 2.PAGES
- - . .-~~Y
g2
:,~,.Sf:_, . ~ c s, 2002
Angus
02230502
DESCRIPTION ~OF 27.238 ACRES.OF LAND LOCATED ON THE EASTERLY SIDE OF
. RIVERSIDE DRIVE (STATE •ROUTE ?.57) AND SO'LTI'H OF HARD ROAD-(CONT'D)-
Thence, northward125 acre tract, the following three (3) courses and distal
Desve and with
the easterly line'of satd 0.5
1. Nl ° 12'47"E, a distance of 209.83 feet to a 3/4-inch (I.D.) iron pipe set;
. 2. N12°S8'2S"E, a distance of 50.64 feet to a 3/4-inch (I.D.) iron pipe set;
3, N2°01'33"E, a distance of 161.33 feet to the true point of beginning and
containing 27.238 acres of lazid, more or less.
Subject to sllriBhts-of--way, easements and restrictions, if any, of previous record.
We hereby state that the foregoing description was prepared from information obtained
' from an actual field survey conducted by Bauer, Davidson & Merchant, Inc. in 7u]y and August
of 2002.
All of the survey markers noted in the foregoing description were in place in August of
• 2002. ~ ~ ,
The Bearings given in the foregoing description are based on,the bearing of S89 ° 19'41 "E
as given for the southerly right-of--way line of Hazd Road.
• ~ BAUER, DAVIDSON & MERCHANT,.~G;,,, _
' Consulf gEngineers ~~~~0~
iZGGG c
atis Erenpreiss EREIUPREISS ~
Professional'SurveyorNo.557 ~ 5571
• ~~G/ST~e~O
~,,,.`SC/RV~`l~Q~
_:_.,w
y .
. ~ RELEiV~.~~
03 - iss ~
PAGE2OF2PAGES ~JIJSL;;~~
' ~ r l l f n„nY
4 it
Proximity Report Results g
. C-x h~ bl`f
GECGR.~?hllC 1I•~IE~DF'.~1.aT1~Df~•. SY~TE(t•1
Joseph 1N. Testa
Auditor, Franklin {~outlttir, Ohio
Proximity Report Results I'~ ' ___J 1
The selection distance was 500 feet.
The selected parcel was 2~3-008889. y~ ~
To view a table showing the 40 aarcels --~t~
within the displayed proximity, scroll down. _~1
S
Frint Windovr
Back
--LTA ' ~ --~-~i __1_ I
~ ~ ~
`~r-~-- ~ ` I I I
Image Date: Mon Dec 1 10:55:48 2003 I~ ~ ~ [ j
Disclaimer ` u
This map is prepared for the real property inventory within this county. It is compiled from recorded deeds, survey plats, and other public records anc
this map are notified that the public primary information source should be consulted for verification of the information contained on this map. The coi
mapping companies assume no legal responsibilities for the information contained on this map. Please notify the Franklin County GIS Division of any <
Proximity Parcels
Hint: To copy this report to another program:
1. Hold down the left mouse buttton over the top-left corner of the area you want to get.
2. Drag the mouse to the bottom left corner of the desired area. ~ •
3. Let 90 of the mouse button. L~ ~5 ~F ~ , .
4. Select Edit Copy from the menu bar. ( J j
~ C9 l t :~I
You can then Paste the report into another application. ~ ~ ~ / ~ ' ~ F
Parcel Owner Name Address
273-009141 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE DUBLIN LO
273-008888 CARROLL RICHARD J & SUSAN L 7457 RIVERSIDE DR
273-010984 FULLER JERRY J FULLER STACIE A
273-008889 GATTO KENNETH V HENCEROTH-GATTO NAN
273-010981 HONG JUN P LEE EUN K
273-008433 HUMPHREYS GLORIA L 7575 RIVERSIDE DR
273-008595 KAYE JERRY & FRANCEEN D 7591 RIVERSIDE DR
273-009033 KRAMB AMY 7511 RIVERSIDE DR
htt..•//7f1Q Sl 1Q'2 R5/crrintc/m~uSrPr nl 121/2003
Proximity Report Kesults - "
273-008602 KRAMB ROBERT J & SHARON L RIVERSIDE DR
273-008663 LANEY MARINE 7910 RIVERSIDE DR
273-OOgg87 MCCULLOUGH DEBORAH J TR
273-011015 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-011014 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-011013 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-011012 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-010992 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-010993 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-010994 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-010995 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-010987 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-010986 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-010985 ROCKFORD HOMES INC -
273-010983 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-010996 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-011018 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-010982 ~ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-010991 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-011016 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-010990 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-010989 ROCKFORD HOMES~INC
273-011015 ROCKFORD HOMES INC -
273-010991 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-010992 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-010988 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-010987 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-008594 SAWMILL PARTNERS INVESTMENT CO
273-008403 SCHLOTTERER CAROL L 7588 RNERSIDE DR
273-008826 VILLAGE OF DUBLIN 7377 RIVERSIDE DR
273-008968 VIRDEN DANIEL A & RHONDA K 7525 RNERSIDE DR
273-009871 WASHINGTON TWP FRANKLIN DELAWARE &
Maa Search Real Estate Search Auditor Home
pomred by
Metaf~M,P
~..~__ii~nn c~ 101 R~/crrie~tCltTIWSCCr.DI 12/1/2003
Proximity Report Results Yage 1 of ~
C~c~ibif
~3b
GEOGRAPHIC IhlfOR1•taTlOi~i SYSTEP:1
Josep~~ tN. Testa
~~,uditor, Franklin Count~~, Uhio
Proximity Report Results
The selection distance was 500 feet °
The selected parcel was 273-008887.
To view a table showing the 79 parcels
w'dtlin the displayed proximity, scroll down.
i Print VYindovr ~
~ Back }
~I ~ ~ mil!
; I I I I.-__ ~ ~
I
Image Date: Mon Dec 1 10:35:27 2003
Disclaimer
This map is prepared for the real property inventory within this county. It is compiled from recorded deeds, survey plats, and other public records anc
this map are notified that the public primary information source should be consulted for verificatbn of the information contained on this map. The coc
mapping companies assume no legal responsibilities for the information contained on this map. Please notify the Franklin Coun ~1~ ~onlof. n r
-r~
~ s:~ ~
Proximity Parcels _ - ~ 3-
Hint To copy this report to another program: ~ ~ ~ j
1. Hold down the left mouse buttton over the top-left turner of the area you want to get. _
2. Orag the mouse to the bottom-left comer of the desired area. ti F : i 1"~a
`F t~ ~ I -
3. Let go of the mouse button. ~ h, ~ ~ ~ 1'°/ t ~ k ~ ~
4. Select Edit Copy from the menu bar.
You can then Paste the report into another application. ~ -
Owner Name ! ~ ~ Address
Parcel
273-008695 ALLION ANGELA L & SARA E BETZ 4460 HANNA HILLS DR
273-008975 BERTSCH STEVEN A & JILL M 4256 HANNA HILLS DR
273-009141 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE DUBLIN LO
273-008687 BOEING SHARON & RALPH H WINSLOW 4397 HANNA HILLS DR
273-008979 ROLLING W DENNIS & MARION J 4333 HANNA HILLS DR
273-008888 CARROLL RICHARD J & SUSAN L 7457 RNERSIDE DR
273-008685 CLARKE LANCE E & JENNIFER A 4425 HANNA HILLS DR
273-008688 COLEMAN JOHN D & BONNIE S 4381 HANNA HILLS DR
L,t+..•//7(10 CI lOZ QG/c~r~ntc/m~s~SrPr t,l 17~~~7n~~
273-008973 CONWAY H JAMES & L SUE 4312 HANNA HILLS DR
273-008601 DUNNE JOHN F 739'1 RIVERSIDE DR
273-008781 FASTERDAY JACK L & MARY C 7320 MAC6ETH DR
273-010984 FULLER JERRY J FULLER STACIE A
273-008972 GALLOWAY JOSEPH S 4340 HANNA HILLS DR
273-008777 GANTZ BEN E & CAROL K 7343 MACBETH DR
273-008889 GATTO KENNETH V HENCEROTH-GATTO NAN
273-008684 GAY ANDREW C GAY DINA M 4447 HANNA HILLS DR
273-008686 GROH PAUL & DELORES 4413 HANNA HILLS DR
` 273-008971 HAIMBAUGH DAVID A & SALLY S 4368 HANNA HILLS DR
273-008689 HARSH ROBERT S & JANE D 4380 HANNA HILLS DR
273-010981 HONG JUN P LEE EUN K
273-008433 HUMPHREYS GLORIA L 7575 RNERSIDE DR
273-009033 KRAMB AMY 7511 RNERSIDE DR
273-008602 KRAMB ROBERT J & SHARON L RNERSIDE DR
273-008775 KUNZ MARGARET A FEENEY FREDERICK M 4262 MACDUFF PL
273-008663 LANEY MARINE 7410 RNERSIDE DR
273-008778 LEONARD MARJORIE A 7355 MACBETH DR
273-008693 LOPER EDWARD R LOPER GAYLE A 4430 HANNA HILLS DR
273-008974 LYONS ROBERT J 4284 HANNA HILLS DR
273-008887 MCCULLOUGH DEBORAH J TR
273-008691 OLESIK JOHN W & SUSAN V 4410 HANNA HILLS DR
273-008780 PIERCE KAREN L
273-008779 PIERCE KAREN L 7356 MACBETH DR
273-010979 PRESTON PAUL E PRESTON KATHY J
273-010980 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-011015 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-011014 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-011013 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-011012 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-010992 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-010993 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-010994 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-010995 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-010987 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-010986 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-010985 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-010983 ROCKFORD HOMES INC ~-~>-t; 1, W~
273-010996 ROCKFORD HOMES INC ?
273-010997 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-011018 ROCKFORD HOMES INC `
273-010978 ROCKFORD HOMES INC ~f~ bbb
273-010982 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
hrr„•//7(14 ~1 19"t RS/~crints/mw5rer.nl 12/1/2003
Proximity Report Results Page 3 of 3
273-010991 ROCKi=ORU HOMES INC
273-011016 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-010990 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-010989 ROCKFORD HOMES INC '
273-011015 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-010991 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-010992 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-010988 ~ ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-010987 ROCKFORD HOMES INC
273-008594 SAWMILL PARTNERS INVESTMENT CO
273-008690 SCHILLING DOYLE L & LINDA S 4396 HANNA HILLS DR
273-008692 SKILLMAN MELISSA G 4422 HANNA HILLS DR
273-008978 STRAWSER CANDACE M TR 4309 HANNA HILLS DR
273-008694 TACOSIK COREY G TACOSIK LISA D 4448 HANNA HILLS DR
273-008717 TEDESCHI TONY R & SHIRLEY 7402 RNERSIDE DR
273-008682 TEMPLE BRUCE E & KITTY L 7304 RNERSIDE DR
273-008980 THOMAS JOHN & SUSAN 4359 HANNA HILLS DR
273-008776 TODARO FRANK E & MELINDA P 7325 MACBETH DR
273-008662 TOOTLE DONALD & BARBARA 7364 RNERSIDE DR
273-008683 UNDERWOOD DAVID W UNDERWOOD KATHLEE 4455 HANNA HI
273-008823 VILLAGE OF DUBLIN
273-008826 VILLAGE OF DUBLIN 7377 RNERSIDE DR
273-008825 VILLAGE OF DUBLIN DUBLIN PROSPECT RD
273-008824 VILLAGE OF DUBLIN RIVERSIDE DR
273-008968 VIRDEN DANIEL A & RHONDA K 7525 RNERSIDE DR
273-009871 WASHINGTON TWP FRANKLIN DELAWARE &
273-008976 WEINANDY THOMAS J & ELISABETH 4273 HANNA HILLS DR
273-008977 WRIGHT PAUL L WRIGHT SUE C 4285 HANNA HILLS DR
~o Search Real Estate Search Auditor Home
povrcrtd by
MetaMAP
iii i~nn~
i,,,.:§ ~4~ ~ uu 4~~ ~~~1~~ w ~~~I j~~ppq~1l~N~~..""~Jp 6° 4" ~Y~ ~+'~HM~nr~ ~s~ "'r h, '~U'-` ~a
w~ A ~
x .fir •w .+Y
m.
~ N J ~ 1 ~ >a C~ ~ ~ 3 ~~~~~51
i
t,
~ ilk'' I~ pT v: s ~ n ~x t ~ 75
,x w~N ~ ~ ? I, F tl~
L
I ~ i ~ T a,~tir ~ I i -
s -
~ III Iy V ~ _ , J u,~t fn w~ ~ y,i
. •
~ r' i ti w i r'+" ~Y,. k i
"t i . 4 aN
u i ~ ~ 1'ar4 ~ I, i~ y ~ "r n.... ulr x~ - ''+4r„i L ~a I ~ ~
~~h~ r~ R, 9 ~ i
~.ii
• n
M~
~ ~ q~' a,
~I~~ !I` r
p ~ >4 ~ ~ ~ .Ir
w.
,e
1 ~ , i
. y,
~ ;I" ~x~ ~
y i t ~ ~ r -r
u cur
,w ~ ~ a;~
i? Fi I II ~ 16wu E~
~ e r~ ~ pU~~ ~ ^ gill
y ~ ~i„
f
~ # ~ y
•
-i
~ i s
• _ ` ~i~
iy,
~
N d k ~k~ t~~ ~ ~ ~
I
a.. . ~ .,.,ref ~ ~f ..XFF I° ~'I~~
up ~ ~ ~ i , ~ ~ r
r
r
Ih ~ , I~~ !
' - + W r ,
Iy i
lfii. ' _ L
® ' ~ to
r.r~
~ awl a ~
'w! ~ =6o-
i~.
~ q.
r s
.
~ . a p„
~E~Aaa~
%I~T~. ~ .
w
~ ~ ~ ~~t
awl" ~ '+Yao M~>e
~ tip ~ ~ ~ « uj~ - ~ ~ is
Y• 4 ~
A
~
I' ~ Ir ~
~ ~ x ~j a +~7 It~,y~~ ` r 6 ~
i! P ~ ~
~ II
...i?
p
.~e
~ ~
y K 7"
'T yl 'C`..- A ~ 4 ` ' ~
e
w
~r
~ ~
~ ~ I, MI~'~ ~ .114 7~
! r
~ G~ I I dpr •'~°t 'lu~ a
~ ,
.
'v' w ~ ;r ~ , ~
y
[ ~ ~ W w
' w y
vy ~ y. m~, ~ ~''''~,~y,.,1fi#.
{~si~+vC ~,.rz .s y„~^'M~µpµ
Y
.
i!
~ y. ° . pig. : , ,~.r
u _ p*e ~ ~ ~ ,w r4
~ -
M ~
x
h ~i f
d' a Si n~
r
.Yfirr x
1
, •
P W O
.:ri' d ~ „ y 9u,.a•,~ j : ~ ~ ,..pig"=3
. +i..,,
1 Ili ,
~.h ~ M~
'
r• ~ I Z ~ r its ~Y t ~ ~ ~ ~,,,i~ 5 ~ a1R ' ~ t~ ~ ~ ~ ~
+YS^' r, I e . ~v • rte" a,e L ~ 'S U ~ ; ,.F ego, iw „
~d '
~,w"~
~
z
0 zo
w o'~'>
> N~o
w ~
U =~oz
W z
~ f- z
U~
° ~ p `~j
it I e ~ C7
i I ~ ~ v g~ fir}
~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~
~ v, a ~€r
~
's 4
1 i<
~ ~ ~ .,1. yr . :''t
p 3c
/ ~ S / Y , yT2
I r
~ ~ rt
~ d~ 3~ 9
c
aj
• ~ K' ^4
e ~ e
I
k'
~ s
4 i A.j t
i , f "r, S o 4~E.) ~d` kf .
i~ ~ in , '
? ` rY1 i -K . S- ' 7t
y h"1 ,
4
I
1
~m
~
`
I s - ` J
r O ` _
~ ~ r ~ E.
h, w i. ` ~ _ G
- ~ N { y~ 'i~A. e i + Q 4 h ~ T N
4
~ 3 ~ ~ c o
I - obi-Q
i ~ ~p = ~ N ~ ~ N ~ ~ fA C9 O 1- O ~ Ii
f-r Lea ~ \ N ! _
~+T'" ~t.
t..
n T
-4
E..y ~ {.mot ~3 ~ ` ,3(- ~ e ~ -
C/] '
w 4, ~ ~ ~
~ ~h ~f 1 I ~
i~" _
° ,Y/{
i o ` ~ ~
- ~
o
e H
~ I I J ~ C
n. ' ~
H ~
H ii O
~
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
FEBRUARY 5, 2004
CITY OF DUBLIN..
Division of Planning
SB00 Shier-Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236
ie: 614-410-4600 The Plannin and Zonin Commission took the following action at this meeting:
614-410-4747 g g
,~ru Siie: www.dublin.oh.us
4. Rezoning 03-1552 -Riverside Woods
Location: 43.55 acres located on the east side of Riverside Drive and the south
side of Hard Road, approximately 900 feet from the intersection of Riverside
Drive and Hard Road.
Existing Zoning: R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District.
Request: Review and approval of a preliminary development plan under the PUD
provisions of Section 153.056.
Proposed Use: Asingle-family development consisting of 54 lots and 21.7 acres
of open space.
Applicant: David Ruma, Virginia Homes Ltd., 209 East State Street, Columbus,
Ohio 43215.
Staff Contact: Kolby Turnock, Planner.
MOTION: to approve this rezoning application because the plan preserves the natural
quality and character of the land consistent with accepted land planning, landscape
architecture, and engineering principles, the environmentally sensitive site design
conserves a majority of the natural features across the site, and the plan exceeds the
parkland requirement and provides over 21 acres of open space within the development,
with 17 conditions:
1) That a tree replacement plan and or appropriate fee be submitted if the
waiver from the requirements of the tree preservation ordinance is not
granted by City Council;
2) That the text be revised to incorporate the comments in this staff report,
including landscaping, tree preservation, architecture, and the dedication
of right-of--way, subject to staff approval;
3) That any retention areas be excluded from the minimum required open
space calculation and that the text be revised accordingly;
4) That fines for disruption of trees and/or tree protection fencing be added to
contracts for site work, and that the applicant shall be responsible for any
damage caused by contractors, subcontractors, etc. relative to the Tree
Preservation Ordinance;
Page 1 of 2
~U~31UIlTT~U C U l.~Ut~lv~~l
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
FEBRUARY 5, 2004
4. Rezoning 03-1552 -Riverside Woods (Continued)
5) That site stormwater management is in compliance with the current
Stormwater Regulations, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer;
6) That the applicant and Engineering Division meet prior to applying for
final development plan approval to review stormwater management;
7) That the site comply with the Division of Engineering Administrative
Policy for Intersection Visibility Triangles at all proposed access points,
and that the turn lane on Hard Road be installed;
8) That the final development plan include all adjacent and opposing curb
cuts;
9) That the applicant identify and remedy, to the extent possible,
underground stream overflow issues that may affect adjacent neighbors
and that a presentation be provided to surrounding neighbors and the East
Dublin Civic Association, subject to staff approval;
10) That tree replacement be done on the east side of Riverside Drive;
11) That the text be modified to reflect the Hard Road building setback as 100
feet;
12) That utilities be located in the least visible way, while protecting trees,
subject to staff approval.
13) That the curb cut on Riverside Drive be abandoned and landscaped or
finished in conjunction with this project, subject to staff approval.
14) That lots not appropriate for walkout basements be identified;
15) That if the existing stone wall is damaged, the applicant will replace
and/or repair it.
16) That a forced and funded homeowners association be required and noted
on the final plat, and that it be responsible for maintenance of the proposed
entryway; and
17) That the applicant consider a bikepath connection to Riverside Drive at the
final development plan stage.
* Ben W. Hale, Jr., representing the applicant, agreed to the above conditions.
VOTE: 6-0.
RESULT: This rezoning application was approved. It will be forwarded to City Council
with a positive recommendation.
STAFF RTIFI A N ~
Gary . Gunderman, AICP
Acting Planning Director
Page 2 of 2
Driblin Planning and Zoni commission
Staff Report -February 5, 2004
Page 14
4. Rezoning 03-1552 -Riverside Woods
Location: 43.55 acres located on the east side of Riverside Drive and the south side of
Hard Road, approximately 900 feet from the intersection of Riverside Drive and Hard
Road.
Existing Zoning: R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District.
Request: Review and approval of a preliminary development plan under the PUD
provisions of Section 153.056.
Proposed Use: Asingle-family development consisting of 54 lots and 21.7 acres of open
space.
Applicant: David Ruma, Virginia Homes Ltd., 209 East State Street, Columbus, Ohio
43215.
Staff Contact: Kolby Turnock, Planner.
BACKGROUND:
Case Summary:
This is a request to rezone two parcels totaling 43.5 acres, from R-1, Restricted Suburban
Residential District, to PUD, Planned Unit Development District. Both parcels are zoned R-1,
Restricted Suburban Residential District. The applicant is proposing a change in zoning to PUD
for 54 single-family residential units. The Planning Commission approved the concept plan for
this site on December 4, 2003, and City Council also approved the concept plan on January 5,
2004.
Case Procedure:
The fundamental purpose of the PUD is to permit flexible, alternative development that is
designed in a coordinated, comprehensive manner. A PUD should preserve the natural quality
and character of the land consistent with accepted land planning, landscape architecture and
engineering principles. The preliminary development plan (rezoning) is the second of three PUD
stages, and it is binding. It establishes the permissible uses, density, development standards and
serves as the preliminary plat. The Commission is to make its recommendation on this rezoning
application and forward it to City Council for a public hearing and final vote. Atwo-thirds
majority vote is necessary to override a negative Commission recommendation. If approved by
Council, the rezoning will take effect in 30 days. All development is subject to final
development plan approval by the Commission prior to any construction.
Review Criteria:
Section 153.056(H) establishes the following seventeen criteria for PUD preliminary
development plan approval:
1) The proposed development is consistent in all respects with the purpose, intent, and
applicable standards of the zoning ordinance;
2) The proposed development is in conformity with appropriate comprehensive planning or
portion thereof as it may apply;
3) The proposed development advances the general welfare of the municipality and immediate
vicinity;
4) The benefits, improved arrangement, and design of the proposed development justify the
deviation from standard residential development requirements included in the zoning
ordinance;
5) Various types of land or building proposed in the project;
Dublin Planning and Zoni commission
' Staff Report -February 5, 2004
Page 15
6) Where applicable, the relationship of buildings and structures to each other and to such other
facilities as appropriate with regard to land area; proposed density of dwelling units may now
violate any contractual agreement contained in any utility contract then in effect;
7) Traffic and circulation systems within the proposed project as well as its appropriateness to
existing facilities in the surrounding area;
8) Building heights of all structures with regard to their visual impact on adjacent facilities;
9) Front, side, and rear yard definitions and uses where they occur at the development
periphery;
10) Gross commercial building area;
11) Area ratios and designation of the land surfaces to which they apply;
12) Spaces between buildings and open areas;
13) Width of streets in the project;
14) Setbacks from streets;
15)Off-street parking and loading standards;
16) The order in which development will likely proceed in complex multi-use developments; and
17) Estimates of time required to complete the development and its various stages.
CONSIDERATIONS:
Site Characteristics:
The site consists of two parcels totaling 43.5 acres, located at the southeast corner of
Hard Road and Riverside Drive, wrapping around the Washington Township Fire Station
#92. The site is rectangular in shape with 1,200 feet of frontage along Hard Road and
650 feet of frontage along Riverside Drive. The lot width is 1,000 feet, but the fire
station at the northwest corner and asingle-family lot at the southwest corner narrow its
Riverside Drive frontage.
Approximately half of the site consists of dense woodland stands, with a large stand at
the eastern end of the site. The site has rolling topography with broad high and low
areas. Three open space areas, "treeless pockets," are clustered on the western half of the
site. Four swales traverse the site with one paralleling the northern property line ending
in a 20-foot wide, sinkhole behind (south of) the fire station. A significant swale cuts
through the eastern third of the site and flows to the southwest. A dry-laid stone wall is
located along Riverside Drive. Forest borders the site to the east, and west, and forest
and sczub borders the site to the south.
The site is bordered to the east by the Bryson Cove subdivision, zoned PUD, and to the
south by the Hanna Hills development, zoned R-l. To the west, across Riverside Drive,
are large-lot single-family homes, zoned R-1, and the Scioto River. To the north, across
Hard Road, is undeveloped land, zoned PUD, and the former bait store.
Community Plan Issues:
The Community Plan's Future Land Use Map designates the subject site as "low density
residential" (0.5 to 1 dwelling unit per acre). The proposed density is 1.24 dwelling units
per acre.
The Community Plan recommends protecting streams and their buffers, existing wooded
areas, and steep slopes. The proposed layout has incorporated environmentally sensitive
planning principals and conserves a majority of the natural features across the site.
The Community Plan designates Riverside Drive as a scenic road. It recommends
finding strategies to retain the rustic character of these scenic rural roads through
sensitive building layout and landscaping, and larger setbacks. The Plan recommends an
' Dublin Planning and Zoni commission
Staff Report -February 5, 2004
Page 16
increased building setback from scenic roads. The proposed lots are set back 200 feet
from Riverside Drive. Staff recommends additional planting along the west and south
property lines to fill in any gaps between the site and Riverside Drive and the Hanna Hills
subdivision.
Site Layout:
The proposed development includes 54 single-family lots. The proposed lots are to have
a minimum lot width of 90 feet. The applicant is utilizing the PUD process in order to
vary from the subdivision diversity ordinance. This development will need to meet the
requirements of the Residential Appearance Code unless otherwise stated and approved
in the text.
A single, full-service entry along Hard Road is proposed. The majority of lots are nestled
in three open space areas on the site along cul-de-sacs. The eastern most cul-de-sac will
have the greatest impact on trees. The striping along Hard Road will have to be modified
to accommodate a left turn lane into this site.
Lots are set back 200 feet from Riverside Drive, and set back 100 feet from Hard Road.
Dense forest will buffer the development, obscuring it from view from the east, north,
and west. Heavy scrub and forest buffer the development from the south. Staff
recommends augmenting these trees where scrub exists for increased screening from the
lots in Hanna Hills.
The grading on lots 6, 14 through 17, 23 through 26, 47, and 54 need to be revised to a
lower finished elevation. Lot 46 should be revised to have a 25-foot setback. Grading on
lot 46 will encroach on a "no build zone" at its current location.
Development Standards:
The proposed text permits single-family, detached homes with a maximum of 54 single-
family lots. The proposal conforms to this text provision.
This application incorporates all the diversity standards in the subdivision regulations
with the exception of varying lot widths. The text proposes varied front yard setbacks
between 25 and 35 feet, with a minimum five-foot variation between adjacent lots. The
proposed text requires lots that have a minimum 90-foot width at the front setback line.
The minimum side yard requirement is seven. feet with a 15-foot total. A rear yard
setback of 25 feet is also required.
The setback from Hard Road is 75 feet for buildings and pavement. Excluding entry
feature structures. The setback from Riverside Drive is 200 feet for buildings and
pavement. Utilities will be placed in the front of lots and must be set back 25 feet from
the road.
Parkland required for this development is 3.84 acres. The proposed development shows
21.7 acres. Any areas used for stormwater retention will not be calculated as part of the
parkland requirement and the final acreage may decrease.
• A landscaped entry feature will'be constructed at the Hard Road entrance. This feature
will include integrated project signage, landscaping, and irrigation. The proposed text
indicates that final design and details will be presented during the final development plan.
Landscape easements are needed in the reserve areas so that the homeowner's association
can maintain the features.
The Bikeway Plan indicates a proposed bikepath along the east side of Riverside Drive
through the subject site (Map 28 -page 135). There may be a conflict with the
placement of the bikepath with the existing stonewall. The bikepath needs to placed
' Dublin Planning and Zoni commission
Staff Report -February 5, 2004
Page 17
sensitively as not effect the wall and easement may be needed if it is located within the
right-of way. The proposed text requires this bikepath segment, in conformance with the
Plan.
Landscaping/Tree Preservation:
The site is composed of large areas of forest, and contains 62 "landmark trees" (trees that
are greater than 24 inches in diameter). Best construction practices should be utilized in
this development, including minimizing grading, boring instead of trenching, using
smaller construction equipment, locating utilities sensitive to wooded areas, minimizing
building and road placement within the easternmost section of woods, etc. to maximize
tree preservation. Staff recommends that fines for disruption of trees an/or tree protection
fencing be added to contracts for site work. Tree protection fencing should be installed
and remain in place for the entire construction period. Protective fencing also should be
placed around the existing stone walls.
The applicant has filed for a waiver from the tree preservation ordinance. If this waiver
is not granted by City Council the ordinance needs to be met and the replacement plan in
the proposed text must change in order to do so.
The Code- requires 3.84 acres of parkland to be dedicated. The concept plan shows 21.78
acres of open space. Street trees need to be added to Riverside Drive.
The text states that the tree replacement will not be to Code, but assumes approval of a
tree waiver by City Council. For clarity, the text should be revised to state that trees will
be replaced per Code, unless a tree waiver is approved by City Council.
Utilities and Storm Water:
The sanitary sewer along lots 16 through 21 needs to be realigned to prevent the storm
crossing at the intersection. Staff recommends that the sanitary sewer be connect into the
existing manhole 15 along Riverside Drive, but realize the intent of the proposed
alignment is to conserve trees. The current alignment creates an odd angle at the existing
manhole. The proposed sanitary sewer will need to match crowns with the existing 24-
inch sewer along Riverside Drive.
The construction plans for the waterline requires City of Columbus approval. Staff
recommends that the islands in the cul-de-sacs and along the boulevard need to have
water services added to them in the final plans.
This site lies within the Hard Road South, Hanna Hills, Orchard Crest, and Billingsley
Creek watersheds of the Stormwater Master. The southeastern portion of the site is in an
unstudied area. This development will be required to meet the regulations within the
Stormwater Regulations. There have been many residents voice their concerns about the
drainage on this site. Considerable attention needs to be made to the drainage Swale that
drains to the south. The storm sewer in the rear of lots 50 through 53 needs to be
relocated along the right-of--way.
• Utilities (i.e. electric, phone, & cable) should be located in the front of the lots to preserve
trees and must be screened. Atypical screening plan needs to be submitted and approved
by staff.
• If an entry sign is to be constructed in the median of the boulevard, right-of--way
encroachment approval is required.
' Dublin Planning and Zoni. commission
Staff Report -February 5, 2004
Page 18
Architecture and Architectural Diversity:
The text permits house exteriors to be constructed of natural materials, including brick,
stone, manufactured stone, wood, stucco, or fiber-cement products: Colors may include
natural earth tones or warm neutral colors, including white. Permitted primary roofing
materials will be dimensional asphalt shingles, wood, or slate, with secondary accents of
standing seam metal, copper, wood or slate. Chimneys will be clad with brick, stone, or
synthetic stone. The text prohibits cantilevered and direct vent chimneys.
The applicant has agreed to meet the standards of the recently adopted appearance
standards. Any modifications to the text that are necessary to reflect this need to be made
prior to scheduling for City Council.
The text addresses architectural diversity by stating that the same or similar front
elevations shall not be used within a certain vicinity, including the two lots on either side
of the subject lot, and three lots directly across the street. An architectural diversity
matrix is included in the text.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This proposal develops the site with regard to the existing natural features and tree masses
located on the site while permitting a density only slightly higher than proposed in the
Community Plan. The proposal preserves nearly 50 percent of the acreage as undisturbed
woodlands. In addition the plan utilizes components of conservation design and tree
preservation techniques. Staff recommends approval of the application with eight conditions.
Conditions:
1) That a tree replacement plan and or appropriate fee be submitted if the waiver from the
requirements of the tree preservation ordinance is not granted by City Council;
2) That the text be revised to incorporate the comments in this staff report, including
landscaping, tree preservation, architecture, and the dedication of right-of--way, subject to
staff approval;
3) That any retention areas be excluded from the minimum required open space calculation
and the text be revised accordingly;
4) That fines for disruption of trees an/or tree protection fencing be added to contracts for
site work;
5) That site stormwater management is in compliance with the current Stormwater
Regulations, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer;
6) That the applicant and Engineering Division staff meet prior to applying for final
development plan approval to review stormwater management;
7) That the site comply with the Division of Engineering Administrative Policy for
Intersection Visibility Triangles at all proposed access points and that the turn lane on
Hard Road be created; and
8) That the final development plan include all adjacent and opposing curb cuts.
Bases:
1) The plan preserves the natural quality and character of the land consistent with accepted
land planning, landscape architecture, and engineering principles.
2) The environmentally sensitive site design conserves a majority of the natural features
across the site.
3) The proposal exceeds the parkland requirement and provides over 21 acres of open space
within the development.
' Dublin Planning and Zoni commission
Minutes -February 5, 2004
Page 21
4. Rezoning 03-1552 -Riverside Woods
Itolby Turnock said a concept plan for this development was approved by City Council, and the
proposed plan had not changed much. The site is located in the northeast quadrant of Dublin. It
is heavily wooded with three general open areas. The site is currently zoned R-1, and this is to
rezone to PUD for asingle-family development of 54 lots. The retention areas shown include
many landmark trees that are being saved. He said only four lots back up to each other, but
substantial trees will provide a buffer. There is an existing stone wall along Riverside Drive.
Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
1) That a tree replacement plan and or appropriate fee be submitted if the waiver from the
requirements of the tree preservation ordinance is not granted by City Council;
2) That the text be revised to incorporate the comments in this staff report, including
landscaping, tree preservation, architecture, and the dedication of right-of--way, subject to
staff approval;
3) That any retention areas be excluded from the minimum required open space calculation,
and that the text be revised accordingly;
4) That fines for disruption of trees and/or tree protection fencing be added to contracts for site
work;
5) That site stormwater management comply with current Stormwater Regulations, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer;
6) That the applicant and Engineering Division meet prior to applying for final development
plan approval to review stormwater management;
7) That the site comply with the Division of Engineering Administrative Policy for Intersection
Visibility Triangles at all proposed access points, and that the turn lane on Hard Road be
installed; and
8) That the final development plan include all adjacent and opposing curb cuts.
Ben W. Hale, Jr., representing the applicant, said the site is approximately 50 percent openspace.
He said they have done a good job of preserving the woods and are in compliance with all of the
new architectural requirements. The only issue not in compliance with is varying the lot widths
in increments often feet. He said they did not want 80-foot lots and are proposing 90 feet
instead.
Mr. Turnock said the applicant had submitted a tree waiver request that has not been reviewed by
City Council. He said if the waiver is granted, tree preservation will be as listed in the text. If
not, they have to replace trees inch-for-inch.
Mr. Hale said Council's policy for waivers indicates that if a Landmark Tree over 24-inches is
removed, that is over 24-inches, it has to be replaced inch-for-inch and if it is smaller, then it
must be replaced tree-for-tree. He said Council had never failed to approve any of the waivers
filed.
Randy Roth, East Dublin Civic Association, said they supported this rezoning. He said Mr.
Ruma had met with them. They are very concerned that if the free-flowing bodies of water
underneath the ground are disrupted, they will have a great deal of problems. He said Mr. Ruma
~ Dublin Planning and Zoni. commission
Minutes -February 5, 2004
Page 22
had agreed to work on this issue. Mr. Roth said they would like something included in the text.
Mr. Gerber remembered a discussion about this at the concept plan stage.
Mr. Hale asked what Mr. Roth was worried about. Mr. Roth said there was an underground
stream that may run close to Lots 42, 41, 63, 39, 38, and 37. Basements must be carefully
considered there before this goes to City Council.
Mr. Ruma said there is a sinkhole near a couple of houses next door. He said there are two
stormwater conditions because of the fact that they have discussed this previously. He said they
were willing to do a geotechnical investigation of the site for construction purposes.
Mr. Gerber suggested Condition 9: That the applicant identify and remedy, to the extent
possible, underground stream overflow issues that may affect adjacent neighbors, subject to staff
approval.
Mr. Ruma said the tough part was that he did not know what the underground water situation
was, and to remedy it is something that may not be possible. He thought the concern was that
they do not make it worse.
Mr. Hale said they would agree to do a geotechnical study to ensure that they do not do
downstream property damage. Ms. Boring said the condition should include: ...subject to staff
approval and presentation to the surrounding neighbors and the Civic Association.
Susan Olesik, a Hanna Hills Drive resident, said her property and her next door neighbor are
most likely the sole recipient of underground water issues. She said it is not stormwater that is
the issue. They have a stream in front of their house that goes into the sinkholes which are
connected to the caverns. If the water gets redirected, the most likely place impacted will be
their properties. Their sump pumps run in the dead of summer, and truthfully, their house should
have never been built where it is.
Mr. Roth said the East Dublin Civic Association was also concerned about Riverside Drive
landscaping. He said the natural tree line is very thin in the middle. He said they wanted to
make sure a really effective buffer against Riverside Drive is provided.
Mr. Hale agreed, and said they are required to do tree replacement and the east side of Riverside
Drive is one place where they can really thicken the tree line.
Mr. Zimmerman said in the January 5, 2004 City Council minutes it was noted that a statement
about sirens and whistles being blown daily in the morning by the fire department should be in
the deed restrictions.
Mr. Turnock said there was discussion about adding that to the deed restrictions and also to the
final plat. Mr. Gerber said that would inform future residents that it would happen. Mr. Hale
said page 3 of the plan said they would do that on the plat and the deed restrictions.
Mr. Gerber asked what natural buffering was already in place and what was anticipated. He said
the backyards of Lots 13, 14, 12, 15, 11, 16, 10, and 17 were very close to their neighbors. Mr.
Dublin Planning and Zone commission
Minutes -February 5, 2004
Page 23
Turnock said there is an existing tree row that provides buffering. He said there are not many
places where they can replace trees, so this is a good area for additional plantings..
Ms. Boring said one place in the staff report the setback was 100 feet from Hard Road, and then
under Development Standards, it was 75 feet for buildings and pavement. Mr. Turnock clarified
that the development standards required 75 feet, but it was actually greater.
Ms. Boring said the text should be changed to say the setback from Hard Road was 100 feet to
avoid future confusion.
Michael Fite, Design Place, said there were two places where the Hard Road setback was 75 feet
to the lot line.
Mr. Ruma said it started out at 50 feet. He said the 75-foot setback actually matched the
setbacks for property to the north. He said a 100-foot building setback might clip the back
corner of a house.
Ms. Boring added Condition 11: That the text reflect the Hard Road building setback to be 100
feet.
Ms. Boring said the sinkhole raises a red flag. She asked what was being done about it to make
it safe or avoid it. Mr. Turnock said there was a preliminary geotechnical study, but as
construction commences, he was not sure what could be done about it.
Ms. Boring asked if the study said the sinkhole should be filled in with concrete, for example,
would the applicant do it. Mr. Ruma said they would have to do something that would make it
safer. She wanted the geotechnical study shared with the adjoining neighbors.
Ms. Boring said a study was done for the Amberleigh North subdivision. The remediation
recommended for a sinkhole had to come back as a final development plan issue to the
Commission.
Ms. Boring read from the staff report: Utilities should be located in the front of the lots to
preserve trees and must be screened. She questioned why, because they were so unsightly. She
thought there should be a compromise.
Mr. Turnock said it was to save trees in the rear of the lots. He said the utility setback was 25
feet. He said there probably will be some work on site location. Whether they are in the front or
more towards a sideyard will depend on what the existing grading and tree conditions are there.
Ms. Boring was concerned because when this development comes back for final development
plan, she could not change anything. She thought it impossible to screen the utility boxes in
front yards.
Mr. Ruma said their mission was to save trees. He said there may be a case where the utility
location on one lot line will have a solid stand of trees coming right up to the 25-foot setback and
' Dul7lin Planning and Zoni commission
Minutes -February 5, 2004
Page 24
another lot line will have trees thin back to 50 feet. He said the easiest solution in order to
maintain the trees is to look at it. He said one of the last things they do is install those private
utilities, so they would have an opportunity to look at the tree depths and try to locate those as far
back as possible without removing trees and causing damage.
Ms. Boring said Mr. Ruma made a good point. However, she was concerned that to save costs
all the utility boxes will be placed in the front. She said that was not what she wanted to see.
Mr. Ruma said they would push utility boxes back if possible. He said they did something
similar in Wedgewood Hills. They could look at which lot lines the services should be on
because of the location of the tree stands on the lot. He said they actually staked the lot lines,
walked the lots, and picked the locations for each one with staff. Mr. Ruma said they could do
the same thing here.
Ms. Boring added Condition 12: That utilities be located in the least visible way while
protecting trees; subject to staff approval.
Ms. Boring asked if the applicant was being required to remove the curb cut on Riverside Drive
and enhance it. Mr. Ruma said their proposal was to abandoned that access and make it look
natural.
Ms. Boring added Condition. 13: That the curb cut on Riverside Drive be abandoned and
landscaped or finished, subject to staff approval.
Mr. Ruma believed they were going to try to use that corridor to avoid taking out additional trees
for the sanitary sewer. They will rework the site after the sewer line is placed.
Ms. Boring asked that sites be identified where walkout basements would totally ruin the lot's
character. Mr. Ruma said they had not gotten that far in the process. He said on Wedgewood
Glen, they added a condition.
Ms. Boring added Condition 14: That lots appropriate and not appropriate for walkout
basements be identified.
Ms. Boring asked who would enforce and collect fines for disruption of trees an/or tree
protection fencing.
Mr. Ruma explained that if they took another tree out that was not previously identified, they had
to pay for it. The fine system was based on the fact that they had to pay for it. If their
subcontractor tore it out, they had to pay. He assumed that the City's fine to the developer was
the method of policing that.
Ms. Boring wanted added to Condition 4: ...with the understanding that the fines collected will
be payable to the City. Mr. Banchefsky did not think that condition could be imposed and
requested that Condition 4 be reworked.
Dulblin Planning and Zon~ commission
Minutes -February 5, 2004
Page 25
Mr. Hale said to either make them pay for the tree, or replace it according to Code. Ms. Boring
agreed that would suffice.
Ms. Boring added Condition 15: That if the existing stone wall is damaged, the applicant will
replace and/or repair it. She asked if the No Disturb Zones were properly noted on the plat. Mr.
Turnock said they had been left open due to the utility placement that could possibly go through
rear yards. He said at the final plat, when the determination for where everything will be, each
lot will show either a No Disturb or No Build Zone. He said most likely, all the lots that have
trees to the rear will have No Disturb Zones. He said they are currently all labeled as No Build,
but will be modified.
Ms. Boring asked if a forced and funded homeowners' association would be included in the text.
Mr. Ruma said yes. Ms. Boring asked that it be included on the plat.
Ms. Boring added Condition 16: That a forced and funded homeowners association be required
and noted on the final plat, and that it be responsible for maintenance of entryway features.
Ms. Boring asked if roof pitches were addressed in the text, or by the Appearance Code. Mr.
Ruma said it was in the Appearance Code.
Ms. Boring asked where the bikepaths were located, and Mr. Fite said there was one on Hard
Road. Ms. Boring asked if there would be anything along Riverside Drive. Mr. Fite said they
committed to extending a bikepath along Riverside Drive when it comes from the south or north
with another project. Ms. Boring asked what would happen if Mr. Ruma was not around to
construct it.
Mr. Ruma said they did not mind installing the bikepath before they are linked. He agreed to
either install it now or pay for it.
Ms. Boring asked for Condition 17: That if the Riverside Drive bikepath is not installed by a
certain time, the money will be paid for future construction by the applicant.
~ Ms. Boring understood that there were no bikepath connections from the development between
Lot 24 and 25. Mr. Ruma said no. Ms. Boring said if a Riverside Drive bikepath is successful,
those two lots will have cut through traffic. She wondered if plans should not be made for that.
Mr. Ruma said it was not out of the question. He said when they do bikepaths between lots, they
like to make sure there is sufficient distance for screening and to do it properly so it does not
offend the homeowners on either side.
Ms. Boring suggested a condition: That a bikepath connection be considered. Mr. Ruma agreed.
Ms. Reiss asked if the basins would remain wet all the time. Mr. Ruma said the one proposed in
an island in the middle would be wet all the time. However, the one they are trying to locate to
serve the east cul de sac may not be because they do not want to dig deep and damage the
wooded area. He said there was an opening in the woods where they may be able to create a
berm and stop water back and not have to destroy the wooded area.
Ddblin Planning and Zon~ commission
Miriutes -February 5, 2004
Page 26
Ms. Reiss asked if the existing pond would remain. Mr. Ruma said the intent was for the pond
between the two cul de sacs to remain. She asked if parking would be permitted on the cul de
sacs. Ms. Cox said parking will be permitted along one side of the street and it stops in the cul
de sac bulb for emergency access. Ms. Reiss asked if there would be "no parking" signs posted.
Ms. Cox said parking restrictions were noted on the final plat. Signage has not been used in the
past.
Ms. Reiss asked why water service was required for the cul de sac and boulevard islands. Ms.
Cox said for irrigation under the street if necessary. Ms. Reiss asked it would be metered. Ms.
Cox said if used, it would be metered and paid for by the homeowners' association. Mr. Ruma
clarified that they were stubbing a service line into the cul de sac bulb. Ms. Cox agreed.
Ms. Reiss asked at what point openspace would be dedicated. Mr. Ruma said typically that
occurred at the final plat. Mr. Turnock said the reserves are platted and deeded over to the City.
Ms. Reiss read that the same front elevation will not be on two lots on either side of the subject
lot. However, she looked at the lot diversity matrix, and she did not understand why Lot 1 was
only Lot 2 that can't have the same front. Ms. Reiss thought if it was a corner lot, both streets
had to be taken into account. Mr. Ruma said that was not a corner lot. He said Lot 1 was on a
street, and then there is a corner lot with Lot 3 around the corner from it.
Ms. Cox said the City has traditionally gotten bikepaths installed with the development of the
streets. Ms. Boring said she would be happy if that is how staff wanted it to go to make sure it
got constructed.
Mr. Hale agreed with the 17 conditions listed below. Mr. Gerber made the motion to approve
this rezoning application because the plan preserves the natural quality and character of the land
consistent with accepted land planning, landscape architecture, and engineering principles, the
environmentally sensitive site design conserves a majority of the natural features across the site,
and the plan exceeds the parkland requirement and provides over 21 acres of open space within
the development, with 17 conditions:
1) That a tree replacement plan and or appropriate fee be submitted if the waiver from the
requirements of the tree preservation ordinance is not granted by City Council;
2) That the text be revised to incorporate the comments in this staff report, including
landscaping, tree preservation, architecture, and the dedication of right-of--way, subject to
staff approval;
3) That any retention areas be excluded from the minimum required open space calculation and
that the text be revised accordingly;
4) That fines for disruption of trees and/or tree protection fencing be added to contracts for site
work, and that the applicant shall be responsible for any damage caused by contractors,
subcontractors, etc. relative to the Tree Preservation Ordinance;
5) That site stormwater management is in compliance with the current Stonnwater Regulations,
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer;
6) That the applicant and Engineering Division meet prior to applying for final development
plan approval to review stormwater management;
Dublin Planning and Zoni commission
Minutes -February 5, 2004
Page 27
7) That the site comply with the Division of Engineering Administrative Policy for Intersection
Visibility Triangles at all proposed access points, and that the turn lane on Hard Road be
installed;
8) That the final development plan include all adjacent and opposing curb cuts;
9) That the applicant identify and remedy, to the extent possible, underground stream overflow
issues that may affect adjacent neighbors and that a presentation be provided to surrounding
neighbors and the East Dublin Civic Association, subject to staff approval;
10) That tree replacement be done on the east side of Riverside Drive;
11) That the text be modified to reflect the Hard Road building setback as 100 feet;
12) That utilities be located in the least visible way, while protecting trees, subject to staff
approval.
13) That the curb cut on Riverside Drive be abandoned and landscaped or finished in conjunction
with this project, subject to staff approval.
14) That lots not appropriate for walkout basements be identified;
15) That if the existing stone wall is damaged, the applicant will replace and/or repair it.
16) That a forced and funded homeowners association be required and noted on the final plat,
and that it be responsible for maintenance of the proposed entryway; and
17) That the applicant consider a bikepath connection to Riverside Drive at the final development
plan stage:
Mr. Sprague seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ms. Reiss, yes; Ms. Boring, yes;
Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Mr. Messineo, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 6-
0.)
Mr. Gerber thanked everyone for their hard work and said it looked like a good project.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council Mcctmg
M~nutes of-- - - - - -
OAVTON lEOAI BLANK_ WG_EORM NO. ION -
I April 5: 2004--- - ---Paged -
I~ Held 20
I rest en il~eve op en ; sQC as-c us en - ome as u m i ssoaa -
believes that sing -family homes would ork well in this parti tar area.
I
I Wallace Maur 7451 Dublin Road ated that at the prey us Council meeting, e
submitted fiv of the six probable nsequences of his pr posed public revelat' n of the
~ unjust firin of former City Engin r, Balbir Kindra. Tw years ago, when he egan his
investiga ' n, he inadvertently sumed the role of a istleblower. If her eats the
results his investigations to e city and the count , he could be consi red ahero -
but h as no interest in tha result. On the other nd, if the City shout take the ~
i unpr cedented action of a fitting to having ma a mistake, the City ould be deemed
"h oic." Former Mayor ranstuber previously ndicated to Mr. Mau r that the correct
I p tocol for requesting ialogue with City Co cil members or with ity management
ould be to initiate r nests or inquiries thr gh the Mayor. Is t current Mayor's
protocol for submit' g requests/inquiries a same as that of fo er Mayors Kranstuber ~
and McCash? H as an inquiry he wo d like to refer to City anagement. I
II Mayor Chinni ' uercher responded at she would mainf ' the same policy.
III Ben Hale Jr. 37 W. Broad Street, Columbus, stated that his remarks refer to the ~
Riverside Woods project, which was disapproved by City Council on March 15. He has ~I
been coming e ore Dublin City Council with development proposals since 1972. He has ;j
consistently made his clients and the media aware that Dublin's development process is
difficult -the Planning Commission, the staff, and the approval procedures; however, the
product is excellent. The investor can be confident that if a project is built in Dublin, the
investment will be protected. The City will not approve an inappropriate project on
adjacent land. Dublin's development process is also expensive. By the time the ij
application is presented to City Council, the developer has spent a significant amount of
money. David Ruma has spent in excess of $150,000 on the Riverside Woods project for j
planners, engineers, and legal fees. At the previous Council meeting, Council Member
McCash referred to the provisions of Dublin's community plan. In his experience,
community plans are helpful; they enable him to guide his clients appropriately. They are
not, however, set in stone. It is not possible for a guide written several years ago to i'
ii accurately address today's questions, and cities typically have a process by which their
community plans can be amended. Dublin spent a large amount of money and effort on
its community plan, and the City approval process follows that plan closely. By the time a
lei case reaches City Council, unless a very egregious error has been made, that applicant ',I
should be given the benefit of the doubt. City Council should not impose a contrary
!i judgment at that point in the process. In his opinion, Council has sent a poor message to
;i good developers. David Ruma has completed excellent projects in this community. He is
I! the type of developer Dublin should encourage. He requests that Dublin move to
I reconsider this project and, thereby, create an opportunity for the developer and City to
achieve agreement on the project. If it is indeed a community plan issue, perhaps a
method to amend the plan can be identified.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher clarified that the process for reconsideration requires that a
member of the prevailing side must move for reconsideration at the meeting immediately
following the previous action.
Mr. Lecklider moved to reconsider Council's action taken on Ordinance 146-03 at the
March 15 City Council meeting. He clarified that any affirmative vote in support of this
motion would not obligate any Council member to ultimately vote in favor of this
application. Personally, he would not support the application without a significant
reduction in density and a significantly greater preservation of trees, particularly on the
eastern side of this parcel.
Ms. Salay seconded the motion.
Mr. Reiner asked if the redesign could be required to include conservation design
principles. That would be necessary for his support of the application.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher clarified that the motion on the floor is for reconsideration of
Council's previous vote, not for specific content of the subsequent revised application.
However, if the motion is approved, the developer and staff will benefit from having heard
Mr. Refiner's comments.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
Minutes of _ _ Mcetitig
oI~_n«~~a..~.~.a«M~-,o,.. ~ril~; 2004 aged
1
Held 20
~s 7ngwre onna approve e-mo ioniorTeconsr era ron;-w a n eaex
step?
Mr. Smith responded that if the reconsideration motion were approved, the rezoning would
• I be rescheduled on a future Council agenda, perhaps in a month or two. At that Gme,
Council can approve, disapprove, or, if there are significant changes, refer the case back
to the Planning Commission for review. The City's policy has been that Council not
schedule a hearing on the rezoning at the same meeting it movies for reconsideration.
Ms. Salay stated the revision would have to include a reduction in density and better
preservation of the trees on the site for her to cast a favorable vote. This is the same ~
forest that the City recently spent $1.9 million to preserve, including the one landmark tree. ~
~i
i
Vote on the motion: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mc Reiner, yes; Ms. Chinnici-
Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes.
I
I Mr. Lecklider moved that the application be scheduled for rehearing within ninety days.
Ms. Salay seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr.
j; Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this will provide the applicant the ability to request the i)
date for scheduling. ;I
ii
Mr. McCash stated that the application presently does not conform with the Community
Plan's required density of .5 - 1.0 units/acre. Council needs to determine its policy
regarding conformance with the Community Plan, and any permitted deviations in density.
In his view, if this application does not come back in compliance with the Community Plan,
it cannot be supported. There is presently no basis on which deviations may be approved. ii
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Council would schedule a discussion regarding
Community Plan deviations on an upcoming agenda. In preparation for Council's review,
she requested that staff compile a list of rezonings that have been approved since the
adoption of the Community Plan, specifically comparing the approved densities with the
recommended Community Plan density.
i.
Mr. McCash stated that, although there has previously been community support for
projects that have not complied with the Community Plan, it has not always been a
determining factor in Council's consideration.
`i
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that staffs report would reveal the degree to which
Council's decisions have abided by or permitted deviation from the Community Plan.
Mr. Keenan requested clarification regarding the flexibility versus inflexibility of the ~I
l
Community Plan. At a recent economic development meeting, the indication was that it is I'
a flexible document; yet Council has indicated otherwise. i~,
!1
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this item is scheduled on the April 7 agenda for the
joint Council/P&Z/BZA meeting. The discussion will focus on the legal role of the
community plan in Ohio and how the framework has been applied in Dublin.
LEGISLATION
POSTPONEDiTEM
BOARD AND COM SS/ON APPOINTM TS
Resolution 12-04
Appointing Me ers to the Various oards and Commis ions of the City of
Dublin.
Ms. Chinnici-Z ercher stated Coun 'was not prepared fo action on this item t fight.
Discussion ~ I be deferred to Cou cil roundtable.
No action s taken.
SECO READING/PUBU FARING - ORDIN CES ~I
STRE T NAME CHANGE
Ordi ance 21-04 it
Re nesting Approval t Change the Name a Portion of Wilco Road (between !
P rimeter Drive and st Road) to Holt Dr a in the City of Du in, Ohio. j'
i
~i
I~
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
Minutes of - - Meeting
DAYTON lEOAIBWM. MIC~fONM NO. IOIN- .
------March-15;-2004 Page 8
I~
Held 20
` - - --considenng-downzo g-orTezon~ng an o- itv~rhaf~Ih-e-Ci an s-~ o- e;
this is nof-=-==_-=
occur with the other rea rezonings. T se would need to a redone also.
Mr. Gunderman re ponded that the di iculty arises with s me of the oldest a exation
areas. Staff tried o ascertain the Ci action on every p cel ever annexed the City. '
The difficulty wi the older annexa ' ns is the lack of r ords at the towns p for zoning.
Therefore, sta then reviewed ho the properties wer treated in terms o zoning since
the time they ere annexed. For hese tracts, the C' administered zo 'gas though
they had the ecategories - wh her it was OCLC other business. T is is the only
logical dire ion staff could tak ,once it was dete fined that the tow hip zoning
classificat' n could not be ve ied in their record .
Mr. Mc ash stated that if t e City cannot dete fine what the zoni g was in the town ip
recor ,how much active dialogue took plac with the residents r property owners o see
if the would have any r rds regarding th zoning of their pro erties?
Mr. underman respo ed that some pro rty owners have me to a hearing w' this
ty of information ab tit their township Wing. Staff has th investigated furt r. But
f the most part, th has not happene and the ownershi of the properties h s
hanged several ti es since the time annexation.
Mr. McCash stat d that there was a adopted 1980 zon' g map that listed e zoning
classifications these properties. n essence, then, eren't these grope ies rezoned
with the adopt' n of that zoning p including the cla sifications on that ap? How is the
City then do zoning various p' ces of property?
Mr. Gunder an responded tha e does not believ the City is down Wing any
properties other than the few esidential properti pointed out. Wh is being presente
is gener y consistent with y of the maps sta as uncovered, a if staff had found
particul map that was ad ted as a map, he oes not believe it i being dealt with a his
partic r time.
May rChinnici-Zuerch called for a vote o the ordinances.
V to on Ordinance 9 -03 Amended - s. Boring, yes; Mr. eenan, yes; Mr. finer, yes;
s. Salay, yes; May rChinnici-Zuerch ,yes; Mr. Lecklide ,yes; Mr. McCash no.
Vote on Ordinan 108-03 Amende -Mayor Chinnici- uercher, yes; Mr. eenan, yes;
Mr. Reiner, yes; r. McCash, no; . Salay, no; Mr. L klider, no; Mrs. B ing, yes.
Vote on Ordi nce 109-03 Ame ed - Mr. Keenan, es; Ms. Salay, ye ; Mr. Lecklider,
' yes; Mr. Mc ash, no; Mrs. Bori ,yes; Mr. Reiner, es; Mayor Chinni 'Zuercher, yes.
Vote on dinance 119-03 - r. Keenan, yes; M .Reiner, yes; May rChinnici-Zuercher,
yes; Mr. cCash, no; Mrs. ring, yes; Ms. Sal ,yes; Mr. Lecklid r, yes.
Ordinance 146-03
Rezoning Approximately 43.55 Acres Located on the East Side of Riverside Drive
and the South Side of Hard Road, Approximately 900 Feet from the Riverside Orive
and Hard Road Intersection, from: R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District, to:
PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Case No. 03-1552 -Riverside Woods).
Mr. Gunderman stated that this rezoning is located on the east side of Dublin, close to the
corner of Hard and Riverside Drive. It is proposed as a PUD, and is surrounded by
residential PUD to the east, the high school PUD, and a PCD zoning for the fire station at
the intersection of Hard and Riverside. The site plan in the packet reflects the current tree
patterns on the property. The site consists of 43.5 acres and is proposed for 54 single-
family lots of 90 feet in width. It was reviewed by Planning Commission on February 5
and approved by a vote of 6-0 with 17 conditions. He has another suggested condition
which is related to the tree waiver listed on the agenda tonight.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if Council would like to review the tree waiver at this time.
Mrs. Boring stated that, legally, the zoning should be considered prior to consideration of
any tree waiver for the site.
Mr. Gunderman responded that the reason he has suggested this is that if staff's
recommendation for the tree waiver is adopted, a correction would be needed to the text
which would then become Condition #18.
Mrs. Boring stated that she would not want to grant a tree waiver to the developer before
having the zoning approval for the land.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin Cify Council 1lceun
Minutes of S
W'Rd1lFG11BUNK. MC.fOHM 1q.IO1N
~i March 15,2004 Page 9
I! Held 20
a7vT yor-Chinnlcl=Za~rcher~k~d-iNr.-Na1~if ~he~ri~u17-like to make comment-before any
Council discussion on the rezoning. ,
!i
is Ben Hale. Jr., 37 W. Broad Street representing the applicant noted that he has worked
~ closely with staff on this rezoning. They have tried to minimize any tree removal. He
j~ introduced Mr. Ruma who has also worked closely with the East Dublin Civic Association.
ii The Association is fully supportive of this development.
Mr. Reiner asked why they are requesting a tree waiver. Is there a grading problem which
precludes siting the houses within the treed area?
Mr. Hale responded that there is a ravine on the site which contains the best trees. In the
open areas to the west, there are few trees. The best trees are the ones which will remain
in place. The standard practice with tree waivers is that the right of way is cleared and
when the house is sited, the trees are cleared and are replaced to the extent possible on
the same lot. Sometimes this is not possible, but that is the general practice and this is
how Wyandotte Woods was handled.
Mr. McCash stated that in reviewing Exhibit C, the existing conditions map which shows
the tree locations, there are a significant amount of trees on the eastern side of the
pro{~erty, which is where 12 lots are located. Since this is a heavily wooded location,
wouldn't it make sense in terms of conservation subdivision design to reduce the lot sizes
to less than 90 feet and move as many as possible into the open areas? This would
minimize the amount of tree waiver needed and would preserve open space.
Mr. Gunderman responded that the overall discussion with this project dealt with the
densities. Some previous proposals for the site were at 2 units per acre, and this proposal
is at a reduced density. It is a balancing act in any case.
Mr. McCash suggested that the 1.25 density be retained and the layout shifted to preserve
more trees.
Mr. Gunderman stated that this is possible.
Ms. Salay commented that in the Community Plan, this site is designated as low density
residential or .5 to 1 dwelling unit per acre. Why not bring the density in line with the
Community Plan, and there will then be less of a tree waiver needed. Developers can
always ask for a higher density than the Plan specifies, but generally they do not receive
approval of their proposal.
Mr. Gunderman reported that P&Z grappled with some of the same issues prior to making
their recommendation of approval.
Mr. Hale noted that one of the issues addressed with the Civic Association was that they
felt that the type of development in Wedgewood and Wyandotte Woods was very
appropriate for their area, in terms of style of housing, side load garages, and lot size.
They felt there are enough cluster type units in their neighborhood and their strong
preference was for this type of development. They felt that along Riverside Drive, the
quality housing with 90-foot lots was appropriate. They worked hard on the site plan to
utilize the open areas, to retain the setbacks and to have an appropriate entry. They
believe this is a good development, in keeping with the potential of the area and meets
the desires of the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. McCash commented that the same desire can be achieved on smaller lots, keeping
side load garages.
Mr. Hale responded that, typically, smaller lots will not accommodate side load garages. It
is very difficult, but not impossible, to justify the type of house to be built if the lots are
narrower.
Mr. McCash noted that the zero lot line, side load garages exist in Ballantrae -cluster
type homes.
Mr. Hale responded that these are side loaded garages where the garage extends out fo
the front. It is difficult to have a side load garage on a lot less than 90 feet.
Mr. Ruma stated that it is not impossible to build a side load whether it is an interior side
load. The Civic Association felt strongly that there is a need for more family housing near
the schools and not more empty-nester, cluster type housing in the area. The family
housing cannot be done on smaller lots, without making the product smaller.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Gublin City Council ..Meeting
OAVfON LEOAl B1.AN1(. YIC., FORM p.lO~N -
--March 15~ 2004 - -------Page 10 - a
Held 20 i I
-
g p g---- -
---Mrs--Bonn -reitera
e~=thaw-th~evelo
ers-w~ce~-ve -hard~h~he-nei hborhood---
association and the community to devise this plan. The neighborhood and the civic j!
association for various reasons have endorsed this plan and want to move forward with ;i
this. .j
Mr. McCash asked, in view of the neighborhood's desires for the type of housing
specified, why didn't the neighborhood association require them to stay within the .5 to 1 ii
unit per acre specified in the Community Plan? This would have reduced the impact on
the site and still provided the larger lots that the east side wants in the marketplace. He
has concerns with deviating from the Community Plan density requirements.
Mrs. Boring responded that as Mr. McCash has often stated, the Community Plan is a
guideline. Except for six homes, all the homes have open space behind them, there is a
generous setback along Riverside Drive and Hard Road, and the overall look is desirable. j
!t was a balancing act, and at this point is agreeable to the neighbors. '
Mr. Keenan asked about any drainage issues to the north and existing well issues. Have
these been addressed?
Mr. Gunderman stated that this project is to be served with City water and will not affect
the existing wells. In regard to stormwater detention, there -are a lot of fractures in the
bedrock and potential for runoff into those openings. A geologic study was done for this
development, and staff is comfortable with the results.
Ms. Salay stated that an issue was raised previously about noise from the fire station. Will
there be some type of notification to purchasers of the homes? This is very important to
avoid future surprises to the buyers.
Mr. Ruma responded that a note will be placed on the plat and a letter provided in the
closing package for potential buyers.
Ms. Salay asked about the square footage for the homes envisioned on the site.
Mr. Ruma estimated that they will be in the 3,000 to 5,000 square foot range and priced in
the range of $400,000 to $600,000.
Mr. Lecklider asked how Condition #9 was resolved. "Underground stream overflow"
seems a contradiction in terms.
Mr. Gunderman responded that the report on the geologic survey showed that there was
more soil on top of the rock than previously expected. But in terms of location of the
stormwater detention, there was no reason to believe there would be difficulty.
Mr. Lecklider noted that there are a large number of ash trees listed in the tree inventory.
In light of the recent problems with ash trees, this is a concern. Is it possible that it might
be ordered in the future that all of the ash trees be removed?
Mr. Reiner stated that it would be important that the trees are not replaced with ash trees.
He would not advocate taking down the ash trees at this point.
Mr. Hale added that the developer will work with staff on tree replacement and will plant a
variety of species, not including ash.
Mr. Lecklider asked if Mr. Gunderman has any comments to add with respect to the
discussion of density.
Mr. Gunderman commented that he does not. All of the relevant information has been
discussed previously.
Mr. Lecklider asked about the impact on the density with elimination of 12 lots at the
eastern end.
Mrs. Boring estimated that it would result in a density of approximately one unit per acre,
as there would be 42 lots on 43 acres.
Mr. McCash commented that this would conform with the Community Plan.
Mrs. Boring asked if there is any projected need or desire for blasting in this area?
Previous projects from Amberleigh and north of that have been restricted for blasting.
Mr. Ruma stated that the geologic survey went to 15-20 feet in depth and did not hit rock.
It does not appear that blasting will be necessary.
Mrs_ Boring asked if the applicant would object to a condition prohibiting blasting.
Mr. Ruma stated that they would not have a problem with this condition.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council Meetin
Minutes of b
on«~~~Ka~,,.,~,~.,~,,o,b _ --March 15,-2004 - --Page-11 - i~
i!
20 I
L~ Held
- - _ ~ -=-=Mrs.-Boring s su
ges
ed an-additionaf=Con itio`n-#1&protub"itingblastin~~n amendment=~~-_'
to the 14"' condition, that lots identified as not appropriate for walkout basements be
restricted from having walkout basements.
Mr. Hale agreed. '
Mrs. Boring asked Mr. Gunderman to summarize the condition staff is proposing.
Mr. Gunderman stated that part of the text requirements regarding tree replacement
indicate that the replacement trees could be utilized to meet the new requirement in the
< appearance code that lots of 90 foot in width would have to have three new landscape
trees added to the property. The developer is requesting that the replacement trees be
used for this purpose, but staff does not concur. Staff recommends that replacement
trees can be placed on the property, but not as a substitute for the new requirement. This
is more consistent with what has been done with other tree requirements in the Code, i.e.,
street trees.
Ms. Salay agreed, and added that rather than planting the trees on private property, they
should be planted on public property.
Mr. Gunderman responded that staff discussed this with Mr. Hahn. Mr. Hahn did not have !
a good supply of ready locations to accommodate additional replacement trees. Staff
believes that the replacement trees should be utilized wherever possible on the property.
In this case, there are probably more trees to be replaced than can be accommodated on
the site, and staff therefore recommends that they pay the fee in lieu of.
Ms. Salay stated that by planting replacement trees on the private property, it increases
the value of the private property. The replacement trees should be placed on public
property if possible.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that, in any case, the fees are deposited in funds used for
parkland.
Mr. Hale added that, historically, it has been Dublin's desire to replace as many trees on
the lot as possible. That is what was proposed in the letter.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Council does not disagree with this, but it is not in lieu
of the additional requirement for three new landscape trees on each lot.
Mr. Gunderman stated that in response to Mrs. Boring's comment, his suggestion would
be that in addition to the additional Condition #18 she has suggested, another condition
#19 be added that the second bullet under "front yard trees" as stated in the text, be
removed upon approval of a tree waiver with such a condition attached by City Council.
Mrs. Boring asked for clarification.
Mr. Gunderman stated that the second bullet point of the text on Page DS-2 under "Front
Yard Trees -Front Yard Trees shall count as Replacement Trees" -should be eliminated,
if the tree waiver is approved
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked for amotion. -
Mr. McCash moved to disapprove the rezoning application for the following reasons:
1. It fails to comply with the Community Plan density guidelines;
2. Impact on the schools and the traffic by the increase in the density does not
provide an offsetting economic benefit to the community;
3. It fails to adhere to the Council stated goals implementing conservation design
principles to minimize the impact on the existing forested areas and to promote
a significant preservation of greenspace;
4. It provides no appreciable creativity or upgrades to justify the deviation from
the established density guidelines and also adds to the continuing commercial
and residential imbalance that exists in the community.
Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion Mr. Keenan, no; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, yes;
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, no; Mrs. Boring, no; Mr. Reiner, yes.
(Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the rezoning ordinance failed.)
81OS
Ordinance 16-04
Accepting the Lowest/Best Bid for the City of Dublin Floor Maintenance and
Upholstery Cleaning Project, and Declaring an Emergency.
There were no questions from Council.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
----------Mmutcs ~t_ Dublin C~ Council Mectin~
o,,..~.~~w~,,~.«~..~.,,~ ,o,.< ~ Page 12
- January 5, 2004
Held 20
cohesive project to sembled that provides a b roduct for th@ community. I - ,
addition, o the housing types will ac odate future needs of Dublin resi
,I ay desire empty-nester type .Staff believes that the develop quite
~I distinct from most brought City.
I~
II Mr. Reine ed that Dublin has had a lot of ss in the past in requiring the
d pers to pay their fair share of mprovements. He will want to furthe iew the
i~ numbers in this proposal.
1;~; Vote on esolution: Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Borin r. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner,
it r. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor ici-Zuercher, yes.
'i
~i OTHER
I1 Concept Plan -Riverside Woods (Case No. 03-142CP)
it Mr. Turnock stated that this is a concept plan for 43.55 acres located on the south side of
j Hard Road, behind the fire station. He noted that a concept plan was disapproved last
li March for this site for a condominium development of 88 units, on the basis of a density
over two units per acre. This proposal is for 54 single-family lots with over 2A acres of
~i open space. There is a single access off of Hard Road and the lots will be 90 feet in width
and 130 feet in depth. The PUD process is being used in order to vary somewhat from
the subdivision diversity requirement that requires variation in lot width. The variation is
i'~ difficult to do on this site in conjunction with preserving the trees. There is a setback of
200 feet along Riverside Drive and 100 feet along Hard Road. Staff and the Planning
Commission recommend approval of this concept plan.
Michael Fite 6253 Riverside Drive representing the applicant stated that they have met
~'I with the residents and staff who indicated a desire for saving trees, creating a lot of open
~i space, with sensitivity to the neighbors. The setbacks are generous, and a tree survey
has been done in order to minimize the impact of the development on the trees. The
entranceway from Hard Road was located with sensitivity to the major oak tree on the
north side of Hard Road. There are some swales and streams through the site that have
been considered in the design of stormwater management systems. The development
has been designed based upon conservation subdivision design principles -with 50
i percent open space, reasonable density, smaller lots, and setbacks on all the perimeters.
Mr. Hale added that under the Code, the lots could be varied from 80 to 100 feet. As side
loaded garages cannot be done on 80 foot lots, they chose 90 foot lots in order to allow
for such garages.
Mr. Reiner asked if a builder has been selected, and if this will be an upscale development
similar to Coventry Woods. II
Mr. Fite state that this is at the concept stage, so there is no text attached. It will have the
same architectural standards as those at the Conine development.
Mr. Reiner asked if the development will conform to the appearance code and will include
four-sided architecture.
Mr. Hale responded affirmatively. They have not asked for exemptions to this.
Mr. Fite noted that the preliminary development plan submittal will include the standards.
Mr. Keenan noted that the fire station is adjacent to the site. There is a morning routine at i
the station with sirens and whistles. Does the City have any responsibility to notify future i
residents of this practice? I
Mr. Flte stated that the assumption would be that they are aware of the fire station nearby it
when they purchase a lot.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the issue is more with the routines of sirens and I~
whistles each morning, and whether this disclosure be included in the deed. I~
Mr. Smith commented that the City has required various disclosures in previous I~
developments, and he assumes the developer will agree to do so.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that this should be incorporated in the next submittal
in some manner.
Ms. Salay noted that there is only one access point to the subdivision. Is this a concern?
Mr. Fite responded that there is a loop on the street to allow for turnaround of fire trucks.
With only 54 lots, this seems to be adequate.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
_ -__.____-_-Lvfinutes Qf Dublin City Councl __---~~etittg-..-
. wrra+~cu xwK.•¢. rpwrq. ai.e
January 5, 2004 Page 13
Held 20
Mr. Hale added that there is a slight hill and another exit was not feasible. In addition,
there is a national standard regarding when two exits are needed, and 54 lots does not
come close to that.
Mr. Reiner commented that, ideally, the entire site should be City parkland, but the plan
does meet the City's requirements.
Vote on the concept plan: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs.
Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes.
CITY MAN AG STAFF REPORTS
• Alco Waiver - DCRC Co unity Hall - Malek fami
Ms. Brauti m stated that a family as requested permissio to serve alcohol with
dinner to a held at 6 p.m. on S rday, January 24. The ermissible starting tim for
serving Icohol at the Center i :30 p.m. on Thursday, F rday and Saturday.
Mr. Cash moved to waive a rule regarding alcoho erving hours to permi he Malek ,
fa to serve alcohol with 6 p.m. dinner.
.Keenan seconded th motion.
~i r. Lecklider asked if a pecial duty officer is req red to be present duri such an event.
Ms. Brautigam stated at the ordinance does r uire the presence of special duty
officer.
~I Mr. Lecklider ask for examples of events here alcohol has bee erved and the costs
ii of a special duty fficer.
Mr. McCash r ponded that wedding re ptions have been het here alcohol is served
I Chief Epper n noted that a special d officer costs $28 per our with a minimum of
l~ three hour charged.
Mrs. Bor' g stated that the hours f serving alcohol were tablished to avoid havi the
I~ young trons of the Rec Center resent at the same tim alcohol is being serve n other
area of the Center. She is su rised this request was ade. Rules should be dhered to
I! an he rules are clearly state up front.
!i ote on the motion: Mr. finer, yes; Mayor Chin ' i-Zuercher, no; Mr. Mc ash, yes; Mr.
Lecklider, yes; Ms. Sala , no; Mrs. Boring, no; M .Keenan, yes.
I~ (Motion carried 4-3)
~I Outdoor P I Name ~I
Mr. Hahn report that the Parks and Re eation Advisory Comm' Sion was assigned the
it task of proposi names for the new ou oor pool. After many cussions, the names
i~ have been s milted in the packet.
Mrs. Bori suggested that the na a be easily identifiable a City pool. 1
ii Her set lion from the list would a the "Dublin Municipal ool South." The existi g pool
name ould be changed to the Dublin Municipal Pool rth "
II It w the consensus of Cou it to endorse these na s for the two pools.
!I Council Tour of Ci
Ms.•Brautigam stated t t a tour was previously ggested for the aftern n of January 16 ~
~I to visit a variety of Cit sites prior to goal settin ,assuming there is inte st. It can be
it rescheduled for a fu re date, if Council desir s.
i~ It was the consen s of Council to postpon this tour until a future t' e.
i
Joint EI cted Officials Meeting
i
Ms. Brautig distributed a draft age da for the meeting sch uled for Wednesday,
~I January 7 t the Makoy Center in ' iard. It includes a list o those who have confirmed
their atte dance. She met with B' Habig of MORPC and a fr3cilitator today regarding ~
the me ing format that is desig ed to create dialogue a ong elected officials. Each ~
jurisd' lion will have an oppo Wily to have a represen five make a statement about
thei vision for the area. Co cil will need to select t it spokesperson.
iscussion followed with s. Puskarcik and Ms. autigam regarding the important
j issues for Dublin to foc son during this meetin
I It was the consens of Council that Mayor innici-Zuercher serve as Council's
~ spokesperson at th meeting.
I~
PLANNING AND ZON[NG C0~4M(SSION
RCCORD O~ ACTION
DECE~'[I3CR 4, 2003 `
~fT~° or nt;l;i.l~_
pivision of Planning
5800 Shier-Rings Road
hlin, Ohio 43016-1236
rnoae/iD0:6t4-410-4600
Faz:614-Ib l-6566
Weh Site: www.duhliaoh.us
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
4, Concept Ptan 03-142CP -Riverside Woods
Location: 43.55 acres located on the east sid ve side Driae and Hard Road interse tionf
Hard Road, approximately 900 feet from the Ri
Existing Zoning: R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. revisions of Section
Request: Review and approval of a concept plan under the PUD p
153.056.
Proposed Use: Asingle-family development consisting of 54 lots and 21.78 acres o
open space.
Applicant: Virginia Homes Ltd., c/o David Ruma, 209 East State Street, Colum us,
Ohio 43215.
Staff Contact: Kolby Turnock, Planner_
MOTION: To approve this concept plan becau nni h landscape, arch tecturealtand to
lgineering
of the land consistent with accepted land plan g,
rinci les, the environmentally sensitive site desig1 ent and p ovides over 21 acres of epee space
P p
across the site, and it exceeds the parkland require
within t11e development, with six conditions:
1 That best construction practices oflt endchinglljusi~agvsmaller11construcdtion
) minimizing grading, boring mstea
equipment, locating utilitiesN o o j,aala P o'jdr~y protectdtheo environmeoiot of lithe
etc. to maximize tree prose
swalcs and ravines;
2) That all forested areas be placed l,ctl` ,n CO°'~d~~iance o~,i h,tlhe1e
a rrc ~ol)S1pf11`vatcr
That ston.~watcr managemc~ .
Regulations, to the satisfaction °f
iol to '~plying'f°r'hael~mmary plai~)appr°`'al'to
Enginecnng Division staff meet p~
review stormwatcr management; ~osm ~ curb cuts
q) That the preliminary d of thic,acceslslbe c'oord latcd,~~
thtan afuture access on the
and that the alignmcn
noilh side of (lard R°ad m a location sensitive to the 60" caliper oak tree on t is
north side of Hard Road; Page I of 2
03-1 SSZ
Riverside Woods
P[,ANNING AND''/,ONINC CO~'1~'tISSION
RLCORU O~ ACT(ON
DCCCMl3ER 4, 2003
4, (Continued)
Concept Plau 03-142CP -Riverside ~'~'oods
5) That creative and effective ways and means to enforce the protection of trees be
initiated such as sturdier fencing, proposing fines, etc.; and
6) That the total number of lots will not exceed 54.
VOTE: 6-0-1.
RESULT: This concept plan was approved. It will be forwarded to City Council with a positive
recommendation.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Frank A.Ciarochi
Acting Planning Director
Page2of2
03-1552
Riverside Woods
Dublin Planning and l~ .?g C~onunission
Minutes Dccrmbcr 4, 200?
i' s~~~ 1 rt
4. Couccpt flau 03-14X1' - ltivcrsidc \~'oods
Kolby Turnock said a concept plan for a condominium development with over l2 acres of
parkland was disapproved by the Commission in March, primarily because the density proposed
was over two units per acre. The Conununlty Plan recommends a density for this site of 0.5 to
one dwelling unit per acre.
Ruth Reiss recused herself Crom this case because she serves as a Washington Township Trustee
until the end of December. Washington Township owns the fire station adjacent to this property.
Mr. Turnock showed slides of the site and the surrounding area-ver1600e feeteofllf ontage along
three open areas. It has frontage along Hard Road and o
Riverside Drive. It is zoned R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District and is in the Northeast
Quad. Bryson Cove, asingle-family development, and the Dublin Scioto High School are
located to the east of the site.
The proposed plan consists of 54 lots and over 21 acres of open pace. There is a single access
off Hard Road. There is a 100-foot setback off Hard Road and a 200 foot setback from Riverside
Drive. The lots are to be a minimum of 90 feet and a depth of 130 feet. Mr. Turnock said the
applicant is choosing the PUD process in order to vary from the lot diversity ordinance. This
application will have to meet the newly adopted appearance standards. In general, the open areas
are to the west. The majority of the development falls within the open areas with the exception
of an eastern cut-de-sac.
Mr. Turnock said the plan, as previously submitted, was similar except for the eastem cut-de-sac
and the more significant area to the east. There is an existing old dry laid stone wall with
missing sections that may need repaired. The perimeter of the site is heavily wooded.
Mr. Tul-nock said this residential concept develops the site with a density only slightly higher
than what the Community Plan reconunended. He said staff recommends approval of this
concept plan with the following conditions:
1) That best construction practices be utilized in this development, including nununlzu>g
grading, boring instead of trenching, using smaller construction equipment, locating utilities,
roads, and buildings outside of critical root zones, etc. to maxinuze tree preservation;
2) That all forested areas be placed within no-disturb zones in the development text;
3) That stonnwater management be In compliance with the current Stonnwater Regulations, to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer and that the applicant and Engineering Division staff
meet prior to applying for preliminary plan approval to review stonnwater management; and
4) That the preliminary development plan show all adjacent and opposing curb cuts and that the
alignment of the access be coordinated with any future access on the north side of Hard Road
in a location sensitive to the 60" caliper oak tree on the noi~h side of Hard Road.
[3en ~~f. Hale, lr., representing the applicant, said instead of doing the ctivcrsity matrix of SO-, 90-
and 100-foot wide lots, they event to all 90-Coot lots because of the nature of the houses to be
built. He said they are going to ask to get a waiver from the diversity matnx. He said they can
accommodate side load garages. He pointed out that he thought Mike Cite did a great job on this.
One of the things that he did was layout the design so that the small creek that ran through the
silt, except for at once r ~~ad1to detain otnthc sitel~utd keeplru~offlasoat pre-dcvelopmenth Hlc
completed. I{e said th y
said they realized that was an issue ~a~ith sonic of the neighbors.
03-1552
Riverside Woods
Dublin l'lannin~~ and 7_0+~..~~ Contn+ission
1\~inutcs Dccctuhcr 4, 200?
I'~~~c l I
~~ikc I~itc, laird Iloul: Associates, said it is very important to pull the dcvclopmcnt away from
Hard Road and Riverside Drive. tic said they stayed completely away from the creek and left
adequate distance away from the tree, so as to not disturb the slopes which, in turn, disturbs the
trees. Another important factor is the amount of space they thought was important to keep away
from Hard Road. They do not want to change the present vista of Hard Road. A 200-foot
setback from the lot line on Riverside Drive is shown. In actuality, there is another 35 feet or so
in the rear yard. That makes the setback further back than the fire statirnl and some of the
homes. It was difficult to design because of the one access point. The site is designed with an
eyebrow to give fire trucks an opportunity to turn around, providing a way to get to the cut-de-
sac which is slightly beyond Dublin's normal standard. They located the curb cut farther west so
it would not adversely impact the major oak tree.
He said there is over ten acres of open space. They conglomerated the open space into one big
park, and basically every lot has trees behind it. All the lot sizes are 90 by 130 feet. Mr. Fite
said the eyebrow area is eight acres. They are going to pursue the opportunity to do a detention
pond in the area where there are no trees.
He said another important thing todo is to be sensitive to the neighbors. They designed this so
the homes are removed from the lot line, providing the opportunity for trees to be planted if there
are any gaps in the existing ones.
Mr. Zimmerman asked if utilities will be cut on the street side, in the rear of the yard. Mr. Fite
said that was the plan, but this is the concept level. They are just starting the engineering side.
They are going to employ all the practices that are important to save the trees.
Mack Parkhill, vice president of the East Dublin Civic Association, thanked the applicants for
the resident involvement that they have allowed on the initial concept of this. He said this
project will be one of the two remaining hopefully single-family dwelling developments left on
the east side of Dublin. Mr. Parkhill said it far exceeds what had been proposed prior to this. He
suggested that the Conunissioners look at this beautiful site.
Mr. Parkhill said the water detention concern is not to be taken lightly. He said about five years
ago, the plan came forward Cor Wyandotte Woods and the big concern was the detention of the
water that ~~as running off from one of the streams very similar to this one. He said after a lot of
hassling and thanks to the aggressiveness of the Conul~ission, the developer was required to put
in a very extensive detention pond. He said it is working. They hoped this developer will take
the same type of aggressive approach to the detention of the water that is going to be created by
the roofs, streets, and driveways. Otherwise, he said as a concept plan, the trustees and officers
of the association feel it is moving definitely in the right direction. They left it up to the staff
and the Commission to ensure it develops the way that Dublin would want to see it developed.
Susan Olesik, representing 8G people G-om Hanna Hills Drive, said this looks outstanding. Her
house sits in a valley, and this whole properly and the street is above them. She «~as concerned
that if the water is not properly handled, they will get flooded again. When their ctvrc
association met with the developer, it was suggested that the density be lowered near them.
Their concerns have been eliminated with this design.
03-1552
Riverside Woods
Dublin Planning andI_~ ,g C'anunission
Mimltcs - [~cccmbcr 4, 200
I'a~*c 12
Mr.Limmerman asked if I lanna Ilills had City water and scwcr. Ms. Olcsik said yes, but her
boost and another on her street do not have scwcr. Her house is 200 feet from the street and the
ravine prevented a sewer connection.
Ms. Boring said it was great that 4ve were getting SO percent open space. However, when the
conservation design was discussed, it was very clear that the Commission did not think it would
warrant a higher density. Therefore, she was concerned that staff believed- because of the 50
percent open space here, it wan-anted a slightly higher density. She cautioned staff to be careful
in the future about that key issue. Mr. Tumock agreed.
Ms. Boring wanted Condition 2 of the March 6, 2003 Record of Action to be carried over for this
concept plan. She was also concerned that the construction practices here should be very
sensitive. She said the tree protection fencing should be sturdier than that typically used so that
contractors will be more aware of their responsibility.
Mr. Hale said other than being relieved of the lot width diversity requirement, they plan to follow
the diversity matrix.
Mr. Sprague was not comfortable with the single entrance into the subdivision. However, he did
like the loop and eyebrow which made it easier to access the col-de-sac.
Mr. Sprague asked where was the smallest setback located. Mr.Fite said between Lot 31 and 32.
Mr. Tumock said he had spoken with the applicant about extending those lot lines to the property
line so there isti t a piece of dedicated parkland. Mr. Sprague said contiguous lots are large, so ~t
is not an issue. He said this is a great site for natural aesthetics, but it offers challenges too,
which are being met.
Mr. Gerber said this was a great improvement of what they saw last time. However, he wanted
to add a condition that the number of lots will not exceed 54. Mr. Hale agreed. Mr. Gerber
hoped that because of the small setbacks on Lots 29 through 34 it would look natural..
Mr. Gerber wanted to reserve judgment on the single entrance.
Mr. Sprague asked if this had been reviewed by the fire department. Mr. Hale said as the
preliminary goes forward, they will meet with the fire department for approval.
Ms. Boring said she lives in a 68-lot neighborhood with one curb ctrl that works.
Mr. Sanehollz was concerned about the preservation of the woods where the easternmost cal-de-
sac is proposed.
Mr. Fite said since they submitted this application, they have done a refined tree inventory of the
site. The majority of the Landmark trees are in the area where they wanted to first be seen when
entering. He said there may be one or two trees that they need to work around. The thickness of
the woods happens around the ravine 2tnd lhC SOUthCBSlCrn porllOn Of tllc SItC.
Mr. Sanehollz, suggested getting the eastern IIOmCS off of the Bryson Cove backyards by
branching everything off to the right, but then the ravine will be crossed, and that is the
challenge. Mr. Fite agreed and said by incorporating a deeper setback, they were trying to save
03-1557
Riverside Woods
Dublin I'I<uuting and "Lonmg Conuuission
Minutes December 4, 2003
l'agc t
the trees in the backyards. Moving any of the homes farther west starts to get into the ravine.
Mr. Saneholtz said he was not talking about moving that road to the west, but rather going down
that side of the ravine. Mr. Fite said it was deep and they do not want to cross it.
Mr. Messineo said this is the first design that he considered to be a true conservation design. He
was not 100 percent sold on coal 1d beetnc onslerved,lwllichiis tin
portagoodH~sts pp fed tlis
the valuable natural resources
concept.
Mr. Messineo asked how the applicant planned to comply with Condition 1.
David Ruma, the applicant, said they only way to convince contractors not to go outside the
limits is to include a fine in the contract. He said they were happy to try to incorporate the use of
smaller equipment if possible. Mr. Turlock said using smaller equipment if they can was
preferred.
Mr. Messineo asked if the large fines for being in the wooded areas would be paid to Dublin.
Mr. Ruma agreed.
Mr. Zimmerman said he was in favor of one eutra Goes not haveabproblem~ He tl
ought the
location is now proposed, provided the fire department
site had been laid out well with the open space. He thought this was the closest they've come
to a conservation look so far. The 50 percent open space looks good.
Ms. Boring made the motion to approve this concept plan because it preserves t11e natural quality
and character of the land consistent with accepted land planning, landscape architecture, and
engineering principles, the environmentally sensitive site design conserves a majority of the
natural features across the site, and it exceeds the parkland requirement and provides over 21
acres of open space within the development, with six conditions
1) That best CO11strUCiIOR practices be utilized 111 this development, including minimizing
grading, boring instead of trenching, using smaller construction equipment, locating utilities,
roads, and buildings outside of critical root zones, etc. to maximize tree preservation and
properly protect the environment of the swales and ravines;
2) That all forested areas be placed within no-disturU zones in the development text;
3) That stonnwater management Ue in compliance with the current Stornlwater Regulations, to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer and that the applicant and Engineering Division staff
meet prior to applying for preliminary plan approval to review stomlwater management;
4) That the preliminary development plan show all adjacent and opposing curb cuts and that the
alignment of the access be coordinated with any future access on the north side of Hard Road
in a location sensitive to the GO" caliper oak tree on the notch side of Hard Road;
5) That creative and effective ~a~ays and means to enforce the protection of trees be in~Uated
such as sturdier fencing, proposing fines, etc.; and
6) That the total number of lots will not exceed 54.
Mr. Gerber seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Mr-- Zimmerman, yes; Mr.
Sprague, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Messineo, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; and Ms- I3onng, yes.
(Approved G-0.)
Mr. Gerber thanked Mr. Hale and Mr. Ruma. Ile said the Commission looked forward to seeing
them again and suggested that they continue to work with the residents.
03-1557
Riverside Woods
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
March G, 2003
Ot' Ul;•(tUti
sioa of Plaaaiag
$ILa~- °,iags Raad
Ohi 016-1236
oo:'_..410-460o The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
ax:614-761-6566
;:~-du6Uaoh-~ 6 Concept Plan 03-012CP -Dorchester Village
Location: 46.439 acres located on the east side of Riverside Drive and the south side
of Hard Road, wrapping around the Washington Township Fire Station.
Existing Zoning: R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District.
Request: Review and approval of a concept plan under the PUD provisions of
Section 153.056.
Proposed Use: A condominium development of 88 units and 12.5 acres'of heavily
wooded parkland.
Applicant: Nancy and Kenneth Gatto, 2850 Margate Road, Columbus, Ohio 43221;
and Deborah McCullough, 139 Signature Drive South, Xenia, Ohio 43240
represented by Rockford Homes, 999 Polaris Parkway, Columbus, Ohio, ,
represented by Smith & Hale, c/o Ben W. Hale, Jr., 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725,
Columbus, Ohio 43015.
Staff Contact: Kelly C. Dannenfelser, Planner.
MOTION: To disapprove this concept plan because the proposed use and density do not
follow the Community Plan, and a condominium development does not fit in with the large
lot single-family development to the south, east and west.
VOTE: 6 - 1.
RESULT: This concept plan was disapproved, and it will be forwarded to City Council
with a negative recommendation.
STAFF' CCRTII'ICATION
U
,
Barbara M- Clarke
Planning Director
03-1552
Riverside Woods
Dublin Planning and "L.oning Commission
Mcctint; ~1inut~s ^.1arrh G, 20O>
Page 1 1
Concept flan 03-01X1' - Uorchcstcr Villabc
Kelly Dannenfelser presented this cone spklalnd.f She said tdl ie1conc pt planks tl of first st poin the
and 12.5 acres of contiguous wooded p
PUD process. The non-binding tells the applicant if he is on the right track.
Ms. Dannenfelser said the site is zoned R-l, Restricted Suburban ResidentialZand is located on
the east side of Riverside Drive, south of Hard Roamost heavil wonp
hereast
s de. f
IThetwest haldf
contains 46 acres. Half of the site is wooded, the y
consists of three open areas. The site has over 26 landmark trees that are 24 inches or greater, an
additional 37 trees are between 20 and 23 inches in diameter. The site includes over 2,000
protected trees (6 inches or greater). To the north of the site is undeveloped land and the non-
conforming bait store. Bryson Cove is under development to the east, and Hanna Hills is to the
south.
Ms. Dannenfelser said the proposed layout incorporates housing pods within the three open
space areas, preserving most of the forest. It includes 44 duplexes (88 units) along curved streets
that are nestled in the open portions of the site. t areaeen oaches~into theatdreeass, and bhat pan be
in the least treed area. Only the eastern-mos
minimized. The plan has 12.5 acres to be dedicated as park, while only 5.7 acres are required by
Code.
Ms. Dannenfelser said this residential concept develops the site with exceptional regard for the
existing natural features. Staff recommends approval of this concept plan with nine conditions:
1) That best construction practices be utilized in this development, including minimizing
grading, boring instead of trenching, using smaller construction equipment, and locating
utilities, roads, and buildings outside of critical root zones, etc. to maximize tree
r preservation;
2) That the swales and trees be properly protected by environmentally sensitive building and
road placement, including minimizing the placement within the easternmost section of
woods, and by utilization of appropriate construction practices during all phases of
construction, in accordance with staff approved tree preservation and replacement plans;
3) That the tree preservation tecluiiques for landmark trees include root pruning, follow-up
inspection and restorative care, following construction, subject to staff approval;
4) That all privately owned forest areas be placed within no-disturb zones in the development
text;
5) That stormwater management be in compliance with the current Stormwater Regulations, to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer;
6) That the applicant and Engineering Division staff meet prior to applying for preliminary
plan approval to review stormwater management;
7) That the design of all private drives, parking areas, and drive approaches meet or exceed the
requirements and standards of the Engineering Division;
8) That the site comply with the Division of Engineering Administrative Policy for
Intersection Visibility Triangles at all proposed access points; and
9) That the preliminary development plans show all adjacent and opposing curb cuts.
03-1552
Riverside Woods
Dublin Planning and %oning ~-OlllnllsSlOR
Mcetinf; Minutes -March 6, 2003
['age l2
Bob Yoakam, [Zockford 1-lomes, appreciated ibis d 1
avelstud ed th e natu(rallfeatures1of,the site
said they have reviewed the plans for the area at
The impact of R-1 development would devastate the wooneste
seareltheltarget n
arkete and 1 e
single buildings that will cost $250,000 per unit. Emp y
units will have two bedrooms and basements. They k i 160 fe t, and t s100 feet on the soulth
trees as little as possible. The Riverside Drive setba
and north property lines.
Mr. Yoakam said the site has 12.5 acres of vocyee ewith thisocon epand, and he wants the
Commission's thoughts on whether they should pr
Doyle Shilling said he is a trustee with the East Drsbin the audiense.iat~e all nnderostand this
Hills Drive. He noted six other Hanna Hills own
land will be developed, but they support R-1 development, just like Hanna Hills. He said the
lan for the bait store property is still undecided, and it Hood bbu~ mid p
Posalei
eprematuhe
P
particular site. They have no problem with Re in zonin that will be more dense than the R-1
The Civic Association does not support a Chang g
District.
Susan Olesik said her house is the closest residence to housine~ fordtrans ent peopl p and want
plan. They have worked hard to limit the amount of g
permanent dwellers. She noted that the perfoT htl r
ticked houshng will add tostheihproblems;
considerably lower than the rest of Dublin. g y P
this is not a good plan for the area. She noted there wilake he me ghborho
ld less desgrabletoShe
east of the high school site, and stated that this will m
said there is a problem with storm run-off, and there is annanH Its seriousgly, urequested written
property. She believes these issues could affect H
rotection against possible post-development floodingts Haver aware of thistissue, and tl
ey dotnot
P
carries a lot of water. She said all of the local rest en
want worse circumstances post-development. The Commission should make a careful decision.
Mr. Sprague said the Planning and Engineering staff noted her concerns.
Ms. Boring said she does not believe thisunit p on Phetea ivs depmThe residents hopeethey gwill
major rezoning added 700 multi-famtly
become condominiums, but they have more than thei communite, and what they lack isi sn gled-
retail space. The big pressure in this area is to create a Y
family housing. They want families, not empty nesteorsd and sensible j lst becauselit is a PUD
cotulected. She is bothered by this plan. It is not go
She said rural design should not be an excuse to rai characteristic he plan should respect the
density of the Community Plan and still respect the site
Ms. Boring said the Community Plan indicates higher d inssecuntl1g tlZiverdside Drive isoa see sic
residents want a connected neighborhood and long tc Y
river area, and it is supposed to have a lower density, one-half to one unit per acre. This was
03-1552
Riverside Woods
Dublin Planlling ~lnd GOlllilg ~-O1111111SSiOn
Mcetin;~ Minutes -March C, 2003
Page 13
respected in Wyandotte Woods. When the Grc station site was rezoned, they trusted the
Community Plan to keep the cap on the density of development.
Ms. Boring said the site should be single= f
htlwork idf elvery ltwin single build ngpisrrepla~ed byla
ruralism principles. This very layout mtg
freestanding house. This area is special and said tl
esp hould stick to the Community Plan. traffic
impact, and the area is quite congested. Sh Y
Mr. Zimmerman said it is a nice layout and plan, but this location should stay R-l.
Mr. Messineo said he had mixed feelings. This is an attractive layout that follows conservation
design and preserves woodlands. He has to agree, however, that it should keep the R-1 density.
Mr. Saneholtz said that preserving the trees was attractive to him. He would prefer to see a
development similar to the Moors, with narrowtowa d the treestt He does not
1 ketthe repetitive
community. The house sites could be oriented
nature of condominium developments, and he cannot support this density here. He would
support a development of single-family homes that preserves the trees, builds in the open spaces,
and makes everyone proud.
Mr. Ritchie had mixed feelings also. The applicant did an excellent job in protecting the
environmental features of this site. He would like the applicant to preserve a few more trees and
make sure they don't fill in any streams. He said he is not really concerned about the density
figures. He lived in a great neighborhood with similar twin singles, and they seemed to work
well there. He said people in different styles of housing had no problem mixing at social events.
Mr. Ritchie, however, said the layout lac butldin iviHe suggested lusteringtthe buildingsltightepr
the open areas with the same two faintly g
in places and looser in others. The setback`on a
dotte Woordse It hould be at leasthas dteeptat~ n
and he did not know how it compares with y
Dannenfelser researched the setback for Wyandotte Woods and found it to be 150 feet to the
property line.
Mr. Gerber said this was a good effort to devise something that would fit the area. He thought
Ms. Dannenfelser's report addressed the tree preservation and environmental concerns. He
would like to see some more creativity. He agreed with the issues Ms. Boring raised. He sees no
reason to deviate from the Community Plan here, which states 0.5 to 1.0 dwelling units per acre.
He hasn't seen any compelling argument for this and must follow the Community Plan.
Mr. Sprague applauded the efforts to save thublin Hits would be atgood fit, boot the Conunua it}'
accommodate the free stands. Clsewhere to D ,
Plan contemplated development in this ea ltwlilill the Community Plan.loMr. Sprague said
conservation design should also be coasts
single-family homes would work here as well. He said Dublin welcomes diversity in housing,
but this may not be the proper site for this concept. He thinks they showed a lot of good ideas.
03-1 SSZ
Riverside Woods
Dui~lm I'Iallning and Lonult. .onunission
Meeting Minutes -March G, 2003
Mr. Ritchie said the concept plan meets tll~ecn
iaddressled,d He can support this conceptlp(an,'and
how it relates to the surrounding area has b
hopes some of the details are worked out in the preliminary development plan.
Ms. Boring said she has a problem with a density of two units per acre. It does not relate well to
the surrounding area. She cannot support this density.
Mr. Messineo said he is concerned about the price point. It may not attract the empty nester.
Mr. Gerber said they hate to say no to someone who might have a good product.
Mr. Yoakam said they wanted this forum to see if they were on the right track or not.
Mr. Saneholtz said if they come back with a different plan he would like to see overlays of the
natural features, and to see how many tressible. being taken out. He asked the staff to provide
overlays of natural resources whenever po
There was discussion of a motion. Mr. Gerber moaWethe Colmmunay Plan, andhascondomi Pum
based on the proposed use and density do not fo
development does not fit in with the large lot single-family development to the south, east and
west. Mr. Messineo seconded the motion, and the vote was as fol yws: Mr. Ritchie, nes; and
es; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr. Saneholtz es; Mr. Messineo, y
Boring, y
Mr. Gerber, yes. (Disapproved 6 - l.)
Mr. Sprague thanked the applicant and hoped to see them back shortly with revisions. Mr.
Yoakam said they would keep working on it.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_ ~ ~>~~y~~ ~ ~
ra Ro ers Cleri~pecialist II
Flo g
Planning Division
03-1552
Riverside Woods
M V1 1~
.C ~ ~ v ^ ~ t~ ~ ~r
~ ~ ~ z
~ X
O tC P 1
V d LL `J
'~-`L
p r ,
^
~
_ ~
O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~
~ ~ V > ~ ~ ~
V
~i ^ ^
Q W ~ = n
~ ~7 O v
O v ~
~ ~ t > 0 C X
~a ~LL
O C m a
ro
V N
~ ~ s
i ~ O
~ ~ o
v
~ W
Q. ~
O Q
~ ~ -
> ~ ~
~ ~ ~
CJ n ^ N O
~ ~ ~
~ ~ N O N N
= N
N
v ~
v ~ o.a ~v
m ~
~ 3 = x
N M U L Li
d
u1 ~
^ O V'
to a~ N ~ m
~ ~ m O V
~ i l0
O ~ t N N
0 = ~ Q N
~ ~ N ~
O, ~ ~ ~ v
~p~ w
~ ' o ro
O U ~ LL
~ ~
r¦ r- ~ ~ ~ ~ A sir rb: ?w A ~ ~ _y ~ ~ ~
^ ^ N N N N N N N N N M M
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 I I I 1 1 I I
~ !n N N V1 N N N N N N N N N N N N to V1 N N N N V1 In !n N N
_ D D ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~
O
U
O ~ u
~ ~
~ ,z ~ i
N ~ ~ v v = ~ c N
~ Rf Y o ~ ~ ~ v is o ~ .Y
= u 41 O m
N ~ ~ N N to ~ C v N N = O O y >
IC Q ~ b
G1 ~ ~ ~ ~ N 'II nvi u ~ U ~ _u v c~ uNi o O' w pia ~ ~ Y eo = a.+ ~ a~ v >
O ~ Y Y O o£ ~ ~ ~ ~ to .n ~ In ~ a u_ i c v E E E ~
fl. 3 ro v o v O~ o p 3 In u~ vl = m ° v v `v ar v~ o
_ ~ ~ ~ d N U a V7 w N Z~ Z N d a v Q ~ w in H in w o w s a a a Q Q w
L _ > v
r ~ d! ~ O ~ lJ ~ i
U , ~ I I p 1 I J I I I I I t/'1 1 1 Q I I J I I I I I 1 I I Q I 1 I I I 1
W CJ
V1 ~ • • •
I 1 I I I I I 1
V1 V1 V1 d d a d fl
C1
u
~ ~
e~ ~
L =
3 " ~
a~ _ -p v =
= o = a v is u
~ N O S O ~ 3 w
Q ~ ~ Q v a~ lJ ~
~ ~ U~ v= O o -a o
~ ~ -p = _
c c
~ p
Z ~ o H E
a° ~ v e x 'o ~ E
~ p ~ w w a a a Q in
~ O
~ i
u ~ N I I 1 ~ I I I I I
W 4!
• •
W
d 3~b
in Wog
~ ~
oC W~~~
O ~
_Q. 'y ~ ' ~ i
s~
O ~ ~ ~
b O cv
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~~v~
of co ~ ° ~
bA y ~
~ ~ ~ x ~ ~
~ ~
.i ~ W ~o o~ ~
N ~
0 J a U.~,~~n
~
~ ~ ~ ~
Q. ~ ° ~ o ~ A. ~ aoi o
t` a~ c~ F
v oq ~
v, a> v ~
~ o ~ p v~ o
~ rid Q V~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ -o a
~ ~ ~ ~ 3 0
~ v r/] o, Fo- ~ Pte-
in • • •
X
w
~~u i
' ~
a~ en
~ s gg~$°$ ® ~ ~°~„''s ~ ° ° as n ~ t?" O ~
r 1 mMyn~~ ~ ~ ~4~' t~~'9~a+o a g ~ ~ N ~ ~
la ~ , ~ > • ° as °m ~ 1 N S~" cC y ~ 1C i;
~a~ i~~~°'~a'y~~Oas ~ ~ ~ y per., ~
° ° ° ~ ~ 'O O ai O
~ ~ 13°
V o ~
o a~
~I i a ~
~ I ~ ~ 3 cv o ~ o ~
t 1 o ~ a~ 3 0~ i o
o
a> a~ .0 3
~ ~a ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
O - _ o°~n'~°%1" d~O a°' °°a4s0 ~ a..®°s'~ ~ ~ c+ti k ~ ? ~,'b a~i aki
~ ~ ~wo ~ 3
~ ° ~
o ca
y
X I _ - aniiQ-apis~aya -
W
. ~-I.'$~ ~i~~~ ` t h"~P`C"~^ ~ fi Ytf ~,~d°dY hxr.-N~ ~ r.
" ~ ~ ~ ~
~~y ~ 4-i
_ .k
'a'.3 i~-..v.n,~..~~ . k~ i l~ I y r t~ ~ r ~ p A' ~4oi iii O N
. ~ ~ ~ ~ o
w
i ~ ~ u. w
(''i' * 1N~i~t ~ ` a sy ~ ~ 'G
~ h~ ~.a i _$i. jar/ r~~ O ~ ~ bhp
' ~ 'C
_ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ c~
t U 4~
J~ g ~ . j .C cad Q, O O
~I ! ~ ~ ua y O ~ O
. ~ n_ . ^
as ^'w~ " ~ ~ b ~ ~ VO
N M r ~ ~ ~ ~ a
~ b ~
s~
5 ~
~ `tea u} ~ Q c~ c~
N 0 6;q ~+r~ ~ ~ ' a- ~ r~ ~ s gt,~F ~ ti F i. x~ ~C ~ a fvj _ ~ v ~ n sue., ~ in ~ ~ o € ;
. x`~
W cd ~ c ~ H U 0.7 H H
> u
O
J 'II • • • • • W~~~
00 ~ -o a~
° o
~ w
a~i ~ O a~i -o ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ v aT3i O ~ ~ ~ O
~ U N O N ~ .`ri o ti N ~ w ~ o U > in .b w, . ~ ~ y ~
N o o ~ o0 0,~ ~ ~ o ~ ~,~•3 ~ ~ ° ono 2s ~ o-d
N C!1 a-+ vi cC N ~ ~ O ~ ~ y ~ v' ~ U R N Nom'. aU..
~ -o ~ ~ 3 0 o ,~,oo ~ on.~> ~a o ~ °om oE°~ ~~p,b 3 ~ ~
L ^d ~ N 0 ~ c>d c~" UU, y_+~ ~i 'C Cps ~ Q ,~U., 'O p ~ ~ 'C o ~ ~ in • ~ b O.' ~ cd ~
~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ y bD ~ i"' s"' ~ 'O ~ ~ ~ .S.' v~ ~ cd y N O • ~ U LYi 'O~,
r. N P-i ~ CL O x" N ~ ~ ai X O c~ cn 'O cC
~ ~
'o ~ L7L v~ s. ~ ° p? ~ o a~ U ~ ° ° ° en ~ ~ > 04 ~ ~ ' ~ ~ o b 3 ~
~ ~ ~-o o o~ Uv, a~ ~ ~ °-o ~ c~ ~ > ~ ~ ks a~i ~b ox o,~~
4-i N t"i,f. " 'C N ~ cd ~ td K OD N ~ T L, N ~ ~i" ~ O ~ L",
s.+ y O N O t, > y~"„ n- y O bq ~ O y ~ c~ GL .`I", ~ 4, O
~ ~U.. y p ~ ~ U ~ 'd ' p~1 ~ ~ . n ~ bA J~ Q. • ~~r' ~ ~ a) O O v~ ° `3 vii O ° a)
H al 3 ~ ~ ~ H N o Q ~ L~ F-~ u, ~E-' ~ ~ ~ ° Q ~ ~ P, Q b Q b ~ v~ 1 w n, o
o
°
~ ~ own ° ~ ~ - ~ ~
~ ai ~ ~ ~ ~ w a~ ~ ~ °
~ ~ ° ~ ~
~ a.. O vZ pq N s- - w by ~ O ~ ti U f, ,r ~ cn
~ ~ ~ a. ~ ~
~ -d ° ° ° ~ o c~ -o ~
V1 w p ~ O v . ~ Y • ~ ° o ~ U U v, p. C]..b p" ~ x m
~ °bn~ Q"~~vNi"' O Uo o ~ w ~Upq.~~ a~i ~b ~ O ~ ¢'cp ~ o
O i ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
d • • o- d C7 • • • • r/~ • • •
Vl
M~
W
0 A~~!
OC 'V^ ~
~ W~~~
~d.:~ s a
/ ~
~ A ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~p~ a
Y r III n ~
r a
~r . ~ ~ a=
,i I I ~ _ p " W
`
- ~ ' ~ ~ .
I i
,I / I
I I ; ~ ~ O Q1 oQ ~ aN
j ! / i II ~ ~ ~
I
i / ~ to
I ~
~
w, '
~ ~ ~ I 'a o ~^'r
lD e b
' Y I ~ ~;I d ~3t
(~yU'~} ,
.
, ~ ~
F
R ~
. ; ~
I I ~ _ r~ ~ '7 ~ ~
R
~ i~ I r n~ O. J
-
~ -
r , r
I }k
i
I, ~ ~~ii. C ~ i
i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~hz ~
a
I ~ ~ k, , s's ~ "k
~ r
- , ~ r ~ : ~
I i
- - - - ~ ~ i r~ ~ ~ s~, l . 1~ . r ~ 'rN'~ ` c~ bn ~ g~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I 1 i - i `r _ c ~ ~ ~ ~ti` :GIs
1~, S
~
i
i ~ - ~ , ~ t;,~ ~
I
i ~ ~ ~
~ ~ v r* 2
C
~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ OD err ,.aa ~r ~a 5., ~
~ _ °Gc
I / / ~ e ~ M "~~,y.j~ ~ i.
~ ~ ~
i N
1
~ '
I
~n
i
k
- r ~ 'k: n #
~ W
"4
m ~
~ `
I ~ ~
` I
- ,
\1 j ~ ~ ~
, '
1 ~
~ ~ + ~ r ~ ~
r
, ,
I ~
,
M
i ~
~ J ~ ~ ~
,I ~ ~ _ i.. 1~, ,I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
ji i ~ 1n ti ° ~ A ~ m ice, ~
~ 4
~ S ~
~II - t ~ '
t
I~ ~ r ~'i ~ S 9 T
~
I ~ % I ~ b. ~ O ' ' 01 M
I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m
1 e t O a,;
I i
I~ Via' I~ h, ~ d~ ,
M
5 ~irr
r~~ ~ ~s,
it ' ~ ~
i ~ ~ t+1
~ ~ _
~
ti,
~ ~
- $
1 ~ ~:~~a~ ~S:n ~ ~ N ~ "
I i , ~ ' G1 ~R oXM
`R r 111
1
~ M + ~ N
M ? N
I~ `
~ ,
m
1 Y
I ~
~ r ~ ~ f ~ irk N ~ fq ~O~oEa
i
°
~ I - J ~~".e`en i ~
+ ] A ~ i _
i ,
I(~
i y
I ~ it I, / /r; p, x Y.- i. ~ ~ /,T~
~ w ~ + ri~ r y J~ l
'
\ \ I/
- -------~AI2IQ ~QIS2I~AI ~ I
- ` _ _ --fl
a W - ~
J
S
Q
O
~ ~ a
GC o >
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~7'~
N ~
i ° - •3 0 ~ ~ a~
a~ a~
c~ b a~i ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ o ~ -C ,O a~ ~ ° ~ ,Y w
~ ~ a~i abi y ~ Q . o ~ ~ O ~ c~ ~ a ~ D
° ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ a~ m is ~ ~ ° 0 3 'a7 ~ ~ o -o
b o
w > ~ ~ 3 ;d ~ o .0 3 ~ C oo ~ ~ ~ o ~ 3 ai ~ ~ ~
C W .ti Q O~'' >b c~ O~~ N~ ~ m ~ ? bA ~
C. > O .b o ~ 'C ~ > 00 rp f- 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O a~ b
y O .n v, ~ y
1 ~ p„ a b a'"i ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~1 ~ o U ~ ' ~ 'b 'c w c~ `c 3 • °p~° ~ ~ a~i ~ c~
~ s°. ~ b Z o o ~ > a~ ~ > y y a ~0,, 'b ~ ^C p, Q ~ ~ ~ ~ y .~C > >
Q s. s, ~ ° ' ~ y y ~ ~ Gs ~ O v n N ° ° ~
0.Hav~ N ww ~.-~bH~ ~~c~~~"~ ~ ~W ~w ~ ~QxQ,° ~E-~.~v ~Q a~iW
1A O ~ L.L ~ ~
• • • • U a • • ~ • • • ~ ~ • • • • • ~ • •
u Q Z v, C
W W {n
~ c~ O
~ ~ ' N ~'i O by vi 'b O 'C 4.'U-i rn yy
~ 'SJ 'b N p C ~ ai ~ ~ cd y ~ p N U N "d -Y.
N •i+ N U y rn rte.' N ~ ,S~" c~
tG N y ~
~ -o a
.~•~-b ~ ~ one ~.y~~ ~ °•~-d
N U N bA ~ N N ° ~ U cC a Q ° ~ ° ~ O cC O 00 n 4•+ 4y ~I t~
c~ ~ .D 'O ~ O U ~ U 0. N O 'C cd 'b ~ • ~ Q" cti cYC ~ O O ~ N N t~ of O 01 N U N
N O ~ "C7 ~ ~ p P. i~• rUn cn p ~ y O a~ ~ Q» ~ r. ~ ~ ~ Q
vi vi ~ ~ y a3 N N Ut".J' i0., N t~" p, N v~ ~ y ~
c~ N
~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ • 3 3 ~ i ° ~ ai a on ~ o 00 ~ ~ o N ~ 3 ~ y
O fn y N O v~ ^~3 Q Q ° O~ N d m ~
N w ~ ~ cd bq O h ~ ° y N N Cd a+ .ty 3 O O ~ ~ ~ N O. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
,b v, ~ m Nf", N ~ 4" O N ~ N U N ~ O ~ a~+ ~ L'r t~ ~
~ o • 3 b ° a o c ~ ;b a~ ~ • ~ ~ , ~ - ~ ~ ~ o ~ o Q .v c ~ ,.7 ~ cn 'v a eta
~ ~ m ° o «i 'b .v, p v, y o..~ v y 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ D ~ a bA ea i y
N 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ p. m ~ N 'C ~ v v0, ~ O U p ~ ~ ~ ~ > Z ~ r3 ~ ~ p a eC ~ r3 ~ a
_ Q~ 3 w (n ~ O ~ Z rn Q ~o t-. O U ~ ~ m vi .a O Q b cd Z fn N ~ a A Is, H l%1 U W p. A
~ u u
DO • • • ~ • • • ~ ~ • • • • • • ~ • • •
Z Z N a ~
~ °
° ao
^~s ~ ~ ~ a~i ~
> o ti
o own ~ a° ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ °o° ~ ~ ~ a • ~
N N a.+"
~ „a ~ to ~ N w w w~ : ~ +Ui y O N U O 4N ~ ~ ~ rn
,S," "O ~ ~ ~ O N O~ ~n N ~ ~ N ~ R ~ N N ~ ~ > 7
GJ
Q
.b c~ y O y ~ N ~
~ O" 0. by ~ O Z ~ C~ ~i,
0 D ~ a~i ~ a~i a~ ~ ~ W ca ch ~ ~ p d' "3 ~ c ~ w ^o ~
W ~ N .r' N k ~ N N Z O O O L C1 ~ CSC
~ o ~ ~ a~~ ~ o Q~ ~ ~,aaa Yw a~x a~
W = ~ N = N N u
N d ~ d ~ U d ~ .0.1 v1 V O ~~i
DC V ~
~ > W~~~
~ y N c~ vi rn U s., by ~ N ° 'O ~ • °
L >.r. ~~y U Y V Sr" ~ ~~y ~ .Y. C~ Cd ~ ~O ~ ° ~ ~ ~
Y1 i-1 ~i VJ Ohl i~ (yy LEI Q~~ ° ~ b
~ ~ ~ ~ v o o a~ ~ a~i ~ .r eq ~ .n ~ a ca ~ ~ ~ r~
~ ~ on w Y w~ .z; ~ ~ ~ v a~ ° o a~ ~ o ~ ° d 3 ° ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~
N ~ ai ~ ~ s, ~ ~ o0 o co ~ o ~ ~ -d ° o ° ~ ~ o ~
b V "O U ~ cad ~y+ ~ U ~ U ~ U U ~~N• Y sN, •b ~ ~ ~ (V ~ ~ ~ cd N ~n
i ~ ~ ~ ~ c~C i L ~ S~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ vii ~ G .S: ~4.' ~ ~ r~i, ~ 3 ~ 4. Q O 3~'"., ~ ~
~ ~ O ~ O ~ > ~ ~ O v, O ~ O ~ a~i ~ by .v+ . ~ c~ . 3 ~ ~ O a' ~ ~ y ~ ~ y> ~ ai , y ~
~ a~~i ~ ~ ~ 04 ~ -b ~ ' ~ ~ U o ~ :ty ~ '3 ;.d a ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o -°o a ~ ~ 3 °o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
i ce a> c~ O b ~ ~ ~ O aisy b m a> v ~ v
~E-~ ~ ~ ~ ~3 a~f~'~ ~Z.~x oz.~UxU~ ~ ~x ~ ~tn~3 o~W~ ~Q•~ v°~~ ~ ~ aQ
W ~ «s ~ cd t~ cC W ~ cd ~ cC ~ ti O ~ ~ ~ ~ ,O U 'O N ~ cd ~
~U H ~ ~U ~ ~ ~w° U
~
~ • • • ~ • • • t • •
L ~ u
a a Q
~ a~ ?
U Cd
~ ~ a~ o ~ ~ ~ a,
~ ~ ~
ca v' y Q a~
v~H~1aa¢~'a¢'~v~~v~v~v~aaUaa:v~axQH ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ o ~ o o 'n ~ N ~ ~ a,
a. o ~ ~ ~ oo „ .ty v o a,
~ a~i .0 0 0 ~ a~ on b
O ~ N ~
~ h b4
~`~o ~ ~ ~ cs ~ ~ o ~ cn o ~,b ~b o. -o ~ ~ ° ova, ~ ~ o rn i
aoB•~ o.~.~ 01 ~ ~ Q.~ d o o a~^ ~rs,~~ ~o ~ ~ -o -d w
a ~ K o ~ o -o ~ ~ ~ 4, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ C~ 3 Q Q o w c~
CS d y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y i O CL ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~
~~~'~Oa,a,O~OIQIQlOl01O~0101Q~[r~~~ a;r~-o w s~.a w v~
ro ~ ~
u ~
ai ~ c
o ~ Q a
° ~ ~
t". ~ a•+ r. N N ~ N N w
° b ~ ~ ~ ~ a~i ~ ~ ~ ~ '
~ by ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o so-~ a~i ~ o
a~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~v, 3 a ~ ~ .rte; aa~ ~2~WW v~Wx
~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ky ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ o
~ a~ ~ ~ o a°i ~ > ° C ~ a~ avi ~ ~ > ° :n Q. ~ N a QI ~ ~ ~ o v, Q ~
~ o a~i o ~ ~ a~i ~ ~ ai ~ a`~i y a~i ~ ~ ~ ~ m p ~ is ~ ~ ~ ~ o a a
(/1 ~ a~ Q ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ is a~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ W 3 v~ ~ ~ b ~ d ~ B ,a Q Q a o
O ~ a~ y ai to ~ v ~ 17 a~ ~ y ,b a~i a`i a~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d d d W ~ ~ b Cs ~ ~ ~ o ~ .o
C > a> > CL v i ,yr ~ CS bq ti
N . ~ m ° ~ ss, v ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ O Q, S~, a> 4: ~ GJ a~ y a~ a~ v d p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A. R. 'Zt
i~= °a.~ti¢~ ~ a~iQa Q ~ a~ ~ ~'s~ a daQ ~ F~~ ~ ~v1 °.1 v1 ~Q.~ w w ~~~~UC~iC~ ~C~
W d ~ ~ ~
0 N • • • • y • • • • • ~ • • • ~ • • •
GJ C1 L O ~ a pfd
~ ~ N LL ~ O i~
w Q ~
r~
~ m
C cis
r~ ~
t/'1
N oo N N M ~
M M v1 Vl v'i v'i v~
Q M M M M ~ N v'~ v'~ vl v1 ~ v1
vi ~ ~n o0 O O ~ N ~ N O Q~ O ~ O~ O
O M M M M ~ ~ ~ ~ Vl ~ e}' ~ ~ ~ Vl Vl
~ v7 M M ~ ~O 41 00 ~ O M 00 01 O O 00 O~ O
b M M M M M M M M O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 ~/1 vl ~ ~ ~
p M ~ N t~ ~O ~ M 01 O N ~D ~D h 00 d1 00 ti0 ~
M M M ~ .-r M M M 00 M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Q ~ ~ "'a N ~ ~ v1 vi ~ 7 M .M-i ~ Vl ~ 7 ~n `O ~O v~ ~
~ O O ~p~ v'~ ~ ~ ~ M N N ~ M M d' ~ ~ ~ Vl ~ M
U
N ~
~ O N M C ~ ~ 00 a1 O N M ~ ~ ~ r 00 ~ O
V] ~ M M M M M M M M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Vl Vl V'1
N ~ ~
~ N N
~ 01 ~O 01 O~ l~ 00 O
M M N N N N M
O 00 l~ ~!1 V1 01 00 00 ~O 00 ~ 01
~ N N M ~ M M M M N N N N N N N N M
M M ~ ~ ~ 7 cY 00 1~ Vl ~O 1~ 1~ l~ v1 t~ O
M M M M N N N N N N N N N N M
~ ~ O O ~ ~D vi o0 01 O N M ~ vi ~ ~ v'i 7 ~D 00 N M
~ ,-ti O .-w .--i O O ~ O N M M ~--i N N N N N N N N N N N N M M
N 01 01 00 ,--i ~ r ~ 00 ~ O N M ~ ~ ~ ~ M r N
~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ O ,ti .-r N N N N N N N N N N N M M
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .--r ~ ~ ~ ~ r 00 Q, O r-' N M M M N O O 01 O
~ ~ M ~ K1 ~ Vl \O ~O vl ~ M M ~ .--w .--i .--i N N N N N N N N N N M
O M ~ v'i ~O I~ 00 O~ O N N N ,-r, 01 01 00 01
N N N M ~7 vi ~D ~n ~ M N N ~ N N N N N N N N
X
~
~ N ~
~ _
~ O O r-+ N M ~ ~n ~O 00 O~ O r-+ N M 7 v~ ~O l~ 00 O~ O ~
V] n-a N M ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ .-ti .-ti .-ti .-y N N N N N N N N N N M M
~N
i
v
0
J
b
p c~ in ~
~ r-.~ ~ O
~ N c~ ~ 'b
.Li U ~ N aU+ U ~ Vi
~ ~ O 'O cC ~
~ d ~
.O ~ ~ ~U ~ N ~ O
~ ~ O ~ ~ O
~ O ~ ~
U ~ ~ 'v~ ~ N ~ N ~ V
Y
~ ~ U in bA O O ~ ~ O
O ~ ~ ~ ~ Q~ O ~ i~+
O ~ ~ a.+ i+ ~
O~~ N O O ~ U U p
O U ~ ~ bA O ~ ~ O ~ ~ O
N N a.+ O p
~ O ~ v~ ~ y i ~ O O c~
0 ~ ~ Q b ~ V] 0~ H H
~
O U ~ Cd ~ f~ ran ~ Rf ~ U U
7~. L N ~
~j C7 ~ H 3 U
v
W
~ • ~ • •
V a g
tN Q` o
~ V~
~ W~~~