The URL can be used to link to this page

53-05 Ordinance RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30043 53-OS Ordinance No. Passed _ 2~ AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 25.78 ACRES, GENERALLY ON THE EAST SIDE OF AVERY ROAD, OPPOSITE DAN SHERRI AVENUE AND TUSWELL DRIVE, FROM RI, RESTRICTED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO PUD, PLANNED TJNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (CASE NO. OS-0652 - AVERY ROAD CONDOMINIUM COMMUNITY -AVERY ROAD). NOW, THEREFpRE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, C~ of the elected members concurring: ma marked Exhibit escribed real estate see attached Section 1. That the following d ( P "A" situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District, and shall be subs ect 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, • nance and fficial art of this Ordi orated into and made an o inco Exhibit C are all p said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance therewith. Section 3. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force on and after the earliest date permitted by law. Passed this~r~ day of _l, l'~C2 ~ , 2005. Signed: t r ~ l GGt..J Mayor -Presiding Officer Attest: Clerk of Council Sponsor: Land Use and Long Range Plannmg I hereby certify that copies of this Ordinance/Resolution were posted in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 731.25 of the Ohio Revised Code. De y Clerk of Council, Dublin, Ohio ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS APPENDED BY COUNCIL 10/3/05 Condition 13. That the applicant will work with staff on devising an appropriate demarcation between the open space and St. John's cemetery and that this will be addressed by the applicant within the final development plan. Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier-Rings Road -Dublin, Ohio 43016 Phone: 614-410-4600 • Fax: 614-410-4747 CITY OF DUBLIN Memo TO: Members of Dublin City Council FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager DATE: September 22, 2005 J~s~ INITIATED BY: Daniel D. Bird, FAICP, Land Use and Long Range Planning Directo RE: Second Reading for Rezoning Ordinance: Ordinance #53-OS (Case No. OS-0652 -Avery Road Condominium Community -Avery Road) SUMMARY: Rezoning application OS-0652 for the Avery Road Condominium Community, located on the east side of Avery Road, south of Shier-Rings Road, north of Woerner-Temple Road, is being forwarded for second reading. This application requests a change in zoning for 25.78 acres from RI, Restricted Industrial District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District to amend the development standards to accommodate 88 attached condominium units in 22 four-unit buildings, a clubhouse with a swimming pool, and 8.3 acres of open space. The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously approved this rezoning on August 18, 2005 with 12 conditions. Conditions 1, 2, and 4 have been addressed in the development text. Conditions 3, 7, and 9 will be monitored as the site develops, and Conditions 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 12 will be addressed at the time of final development plan approval. Conditions: 1) That the applicant continue to work with the City on the access management plan for Avery Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 2) That should the applicant choose to align the new public street accessing Avery Road at Tuswell Drive, a southbound left-turn lane on Avery Road onto extended Innovation Drive will be required, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 3) That construction traffic enter the site from Avery Road, subject to the approval of the City Engineer; 4) That a traffic calming traffic circle be incorporated at the final development plan at the intersection of public street "B" and public street "D"; subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the Washington Township Fire Department; 5) That minor landscape modifications be made in limited locations to fulfill the Commission's requests and comply with Vehicular Use Screening and Interior Landscaping Codes for the final development plan; 6) That the applicant consult with the City Forester prior to the final development plan to verify the preferred street tree species; 7) That site stormwater management be compliance with the current Stormwater Regulations, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 8) That the applicant and Engineering Division staff meet prior to applying for final development plan approval to review stonmwater management; 9) That the site comply with the Division of Engineering Administrative Policy for Intersection Visibility Triangles at all proposed access points; 10) That the final development plan include all adjacent and opposing curb cuts; 1 l) That a pool fence detail, complying with Building Code, be submitted at the final development plan stage; and 12) That the deed restrictions, limiting the number of units an owner may possess, be submitted with Final Development Plan for review and approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve the second reading of Ordinance #53-OS with the 12 conditions adopted by the Planning Commission on August 18, 2005. CDH Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier-Rings Road • Dublin, Ohio 43016 Phone: 614-410-4600 • Fax: 614-761-6566 CITY OF DUBLIN Memo TO: Members of Dublin City Council FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Managel~a.,,,.c.~ 5 DATE: September 6, 2005 INITIATED BY: Daniel D. Bird, FAICP, Land Use and Long Range Planning Director,~7~~ RE: First Reading for Rezoning Ordinance: Ordinance #53-OS (Case No. OS-0652 -Avery Road Condominium Community -Avery Road) SUMMARY: Rezoning application OS-0652 for the Avery Road Condominium Community, located on the east side of Avery Road, south of Shier-Rings Road, north of Woerner-Temple Road, is being forwarded for first reading. This application requests a change in zoning for 25.78 acres from RI Restricted Industrial District to PUD Planned Unit Development District to amend the development standards to accommodate 88 attached condominium units in 22 four-unit buildings, a clubhouse with a swimming pool, and 8.3 acres of open space. Additional information regarding this case is available for public viewing at 5800 Shier- Rings Road in the offices of Land Use and Long Range Planning. Following approval of the first reading, City Council then is to set a date for the public hearing (2"d reading) on the requested change. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve the first reading of Ordinance #53-OS Af StJSMIlTED1000UNpL ~ ~ ~ o oN ~ a~~ CDH GI GI ~ ~ RI ~~,1 /i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t r ~ PCD CC SO m s~ a Wig x Pl ce ~ '~,I i RI RI ~ I LI 1 ~R ~ ~1 PLR PLR ~I PUD R-1 B ~ ~ o o I1 li _ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ PLR ~ ~ i i ~ ~I~ As sus~r~r~a to cy~NCn. ~ ~~1 PLR I FOR iMEEtiNG 4N I ~ ~ l n - R-1 B R-1 B PUD 05-0652 City of Dubl,n Rezoning- Preliminary Development Plan ~ Land Use and Ave Road N Long Range Planning ry Feet Condominium Community o Zso 520 as susl~m~u m counlal~ 1"OR M~EY'IN~ AM EXHIBIT "B" REZONING APPLICATION (Code Section 153.234) TO EXPIRE CITY OF DUBLiN~ ORDINANCE NUMBER 5~ ~ ~l ~ CITY COUNCIL (FIRST READING) t~ / ~ ~J Dubfn.Ohio43016-1236 CITY COUNCIL (PUBLIC HEARING) Phone/ipp;614-41¢4600 CITY COUNCIL ACTION Fox: 614-410-47d7 web Sile: www.tkX]&LOh.vs NOTE: Applicants are highly encouraged to contact Land Use and Long Range Planning for assistance and to discuss the Rezoning process prior to submitting a formal application. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: A o ived~v A lira " n No: P8Z Date(s): P8Z Action: v ~ - ~ ~o~~ A ved Recei MIS Fee No: Date ed: Received By: ~ o Type of Request: t A. ~Zbr~r!r~ - ~'t~lim~rto..r ~~v mend P N, S,~ W (Circle) Side of: /~~/t°J• ~OAd Distance from Nearest Intersection: S j ~ FEET, )from Nearest Intersection Nearest Intersection: ~vE,~„7 oQ 1 AND rn~~ c`~ A f~ Gi ? ~.Y vu ri /Q Vt I. PLEASE CHECK THE TYPE OF APPLICATION: ~l PD Preliminary Development Plan (Section 153.053) ? Other (Please Describe) 11. PROPERTY INFORMATION: This section must be completed. Property Address: Avery Road, Dublin, OH 43016 Tax ID/Parcel Number(s): Parcel Size: ~ ` J 274-000011, 274-000012 (Acres) ~4 Existing Land Use Development: n Agriculture U 5 Proposed Land Use Development: ~ t ~ ' as: ! ~ t 1..)~ ~II~ Residential Ranch-style Condominiums ~ t~tl ' 3 i; , - Existing Zoning District: Requested Zoning District: Total Acres to be Rezoned: Limited Industrial '.Planned Unit Development 25.8 Page 1 of 5 III. REZONING STATEMENT: Ptease attach additional sheets if necessary. State briefly how the proposed zoning and development relates to the existing and potential future land use character of the vicinity: The proposed site is an infill property with residential uses on three sides and industrial use on the fourth side. Although the site is zoned for industrial use, the surrounding land has developed predominantly residential. As such, rezoning the property from industrial to residential allows the character of the community to be preserved and extended into this infill parcel. The proposed development will allow the existing neighboring uses, both park and open space as well as residential, to be extended and enhanced. State briefly how the proposed zoning and development relates to the Dublin Community Plan and, if applicable, how the proposed rezoning meets the criteria for Planned Districts [Section 153.052(8)]: The proposed zoning is in keeping with the Dublin Community Plan which calls for the site to be developed with multi-family housing at a density of 2-5 dwelling units per acre. HAS A PREVIOUS APPLICATION TO REZONE THE PROPERTY BEEN DENIED BY CITY COUNCIL WITHIN THE LAST TWELVE MONTHS? ? YES NO If yes, list when and state the basis for reconsideration as noted by Section 153234(A)(3): ~ CO PY o IF A PLANNED DISTRICT IS REQUESTED, IS A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ATTACHED? ~l YES ? NO IF A PLANNED DISTRICT IS REQUESTED, IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT ATTACHED? ~l YES ? NO Page 2 of 5 IV. PLEASE SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING FOR INITIAL STAFF REVIEW: Please submit large {24x36) and small (11x17) sets of plans. Staff may later request plans that incorporate review comments. Fourteen (14) additional copies of revised submittals are required for the Planning and Zonin Commission hearin . ~ TWO (2) ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATIONS AND THIRTEEN (13) COPIES Please notarize agent authorization, if necessary. ~ FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY ~ ~ ~j~ ~ r ~ FOURTEEN (14) TAX PARCEL ID MAPS indicating property owners and parcel numbers for al! parcels within 500 feet of the site. TEN (10) SCALED, SITE/STAKING PLANS SHOWING: ~ a. North arrow and bar scale. b. Location, size and dimensions of all existing and proposed conditions and structures (significant natural features, landscaping, structures, additions, decks, access ways, parking). c. Proposed Uses (Regional transportation system, densities, number of dwellings, building/unit types, square footages, parking, open space, etc.). d. Size of the site in acres/square feet- e. All property lines, setbacks, street centerlines, rights-of-way, easements, and other information related to the site. f. Existing and proposed zoning district boundaries. g. Use of land and location of structures on adjacent properties. p IF APPLICABLE, TEN (10) COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING SCALED PLANS: a. Grading Plan. b. Landscaping Plan. c. lighting Plan. d. Utility and/or Stormwater Plan. e. Tree Survey, Tree Preservation and Tree Replacement Plans. ~ IF APPLICABLE, TEN (10) COPIES OF SCALED, ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS with proposed colors and materials noted. ~ IF APPLICABLE, FOUR (4) COPIES OF SCALED DRAWINGS INDICATING: a. Location of signs and sign type (wall, ground, projecting, or window). b. Sign dimensions, including letter sizes and proposed distance from sign to grade. c. Copy layout and lettering styles (fonts) of signage. d. Materials and manufacturer to be used in fabrication. e. Total area of sign face (including frame). f. Type of illumination. p MATERIAUCOLOR SAMPLES (swatches, photos, plans, or product specifications). Include manufacturer name and number. V. CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS: Please attach additional sheets if necessary. It is the policy of the City of Dublin to notify surrounding property owners of pending applications under public review. List all neighboring property owners within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property based on the County Auditor's current tax list. Electronic copies of lists are encouraged. PROPERTY OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITYlSTATE/ZIP CODE (not Mortgage Company or Tax Service) See Attached List COPY YQ2 5 - - ~ , } Page 3 of 5 i i i ,i VI. AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROPERTY: Site visits to the properly by City representatives are essential to process this application. The Owner/Applicant, as notarized below, hereby authorizes City representatives to visit, photograph and post a notice on the property described in this application. VII. 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 surrounding vicinities 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 further date. The Owner/Applicant acknowledges the approval of this request for rezoning by the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission and/or Dublin City Council does not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able to provide essential services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by the said Owner/Applicant. VIII. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT INFORMATION: This section must be completed. Current Property Owner/Applicant: The EPCON Group, Inc. (Applicant) ;_~..A. ~,,Qlll~E~ Mailing Address: ~ ~ t ~-~i ~°"t'~ (Street, city, State, zip code) 500 Stonehenge Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 4.3~J1,~~ ~rit;,~~- L?~~~~S~~ Daytime Telephone: (614) 761-1010 Fax: (614) 761-1155 Email or Alternate Contact Information: j rhoades@epcongroup .com/mpurdy@epcongroup .com Pa e4of5 ~ 4~/0~~ 9 IX. REPRESENTATIVES OF OWNER: Please complete if applicable. Attach additional sheets for multiple repnresentatives. Representative: y' I ~ J~ j"~/ y Tenant, Architect, Desi ner, Contractor, etc. See Attached List Ge,/t / J F--' Mailing Address: (Street, City, State, Zip Code) Daytime Telephone: Fax: Email or Alternate Contact Information: Who is the PRIMARY CONTACT PERSON for this application? Joel D. Rhoades, The EPCON Group, Inc. X. AUTHORIZATION FOR OWNER'S AGENT/REPRESENTATIVE S :Please complete if applicable. This section must be notarized. 1 Avery Land _and_ Betty Dearth ,the owner, hereby authorize The EPCON Group, I_nC._ _ to act as my representative(s) in all matters pertaining to the processing and approval of this application, including modifying the project. I agree to be bound by all representations and agreements made by the designated representative. Signature of C en roperty Owner. Date: L op Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2 ~ -day of , 20 r'~ State of ©y/ r' G7 County of ~.P/9~~ ~~Y ' Notary Public "~F~tAI~`'• ~ r'c'~ l`i KATHLEEN M. MEIRESONNE Notary PtfbNc, Slate of C+hlo X. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT: This section must be completed and notarized. My Commission Expiro! 03-23-10 qTt OF O; Joel D. Rhoades of The EPCON Group, Inc. I _ _ ___,~Fnesernererautfiorized representative, have read and understand the contents of this application. The information contained in this application, attached exhibits and other information submitted is complete and in all respects true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature of•Awnerer Date: Authorized Representative: Z nA ~ ~QS Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of ~ . 20 J t~lJ.('~ O PR A L 3 , 3 C-oii f=: MAR(;ARFT A r.RnwFnRp NotaryPublic_ _~_t~~GL'L~.(~---~,------~~~(,~~¢')~X~--- _ ~ - Notary Public, State of Ohio T _ o:` My Commission Expires 11-16-09 (J ~ ~ NOTE: THE PRIMARY CONTACT PERSON WILL RECEIVE A FACSIMILE CONFIRMING RECEI~~`T ISII(`'fTl ~ ~ I L ~ COp _ ~01~~ Y = Page5of5 ~ ~t ; ,f-; ;--~~~fj~~ ;a- ZONING DESCRIPTION 25.78 ACRES Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Dublin, Virginia Military Survey Number 3004 and being all out of those parcels as conveyed to Avery Land (Official Record 291B03) and Betty M. Dearth (Official Record 30673D0~; Beginning at the intersection of the southerly line of the Saint Johns Evangelical Church of record in Deed Book 288, Page 542 with the easterly right-of-way line of Avery Road; thence with the perimeter of said Saint Johns Evangelical Church tract the following courses: North 85° 02' 33" East, a distance of 102.00 feet to a corner thereof; North 04° 14' 39" West, a distance of 165.00 feet to a corner thereof in the southerly line of that plat entitled Shamrock Industrial Park of record in Plat Book 51, Page 12; thence North 85° 02' 33" East with said southerly line a distance of 915.21 to the northwesterly corner of that plat entitled Heather Glen North of record in Plat Book 87, Page 60; thence South OS° 54' 1 T' East, with the westerly line of said Heather Glen North, a distance of 1088.20 feet to a point in the northerly line of that plat entitled Heather Glen Section 3 Phase 2 of record in Plat Book 81, Page 19; thence South 84° 52' 14" West, partly with the northerly line of said Heather Glen Section 3 Phase 2 and partly with the northerly line of that plat entitled Sandy Corners Section 2 of record in Plat Book 90, Page 40 a distance of 1105.23 feet to a point in the easterly right-of- way line of said Avery Road; thence with said easterly right-of--way line the following courses: North 02° 02' 42" East, a distance of 515.18 feet to a point; North 04° 14' 39" West,. a distance of 415.08 feet to the Point of Beginning and containing 25.78 acres of land, more or less. This description was prepared from existing records and is not to be used for deed transfer. EVANS, MECHWART, HAMBLETON AND TILTON, INC. _ , - ~ i ~~i~!i~L~~. V. Contiguous Property Owners Neighboring Property Owners within 300 ft of property perimeter 273-007222 MARSH JAMES R MARSH ELIZABETH L 6059 NORTHCLIFF CT 273-007223 JAMIESON HUGH A NOBILE KAY A 6067 NORTHCLIFF BLVD 273-007240 WONG CARL D 6084 NORTHCLIFF BLVD 273-007241 SHANNON TERENCE P 6076 NORTHCLIFF BLVD 273-007242 PATEL LALiTKUMAR R PATEL JIGISHA L 6068 NORTHCLIFF B 273-007243 KOH YONG J 6060 NORTHCLIFF BLVD 273-007244 STIEG JOHN C JR STIEG CAROLINE W 6052 NORTHCLIFF BLV 273-007245 JONES EDWARD & SANDRA J 6044 NORTHCLIFF BLVD 273-007246 BROWN KEITH L TR 6036 NORTHCLIFF BLVD 273-007247 VICK KENNETH R VICK LAURA A 6028 NORTHCL.IFF BLVD 273-007248 ROBERT LINDA K TR 6020 NORTHCLIFF BLVD 273-008090 WILCOX PLACE LTD 5940 TERRY LEE CT 273-008179 KINETICS PROPERTIES L P 6300 tRELAN PL 273-009398 WANG CHANGCHUN & DANPING ZHAO 6059 INNOVATION DR 273-009399 DASU TRIVIKRAMA R KASTURI SUMANA R 6067 INNOVATION D 273-009400 SHAW ROBERT A & LISA 6075 INNOVATION DR 273-009401 SCHUTT GEORGE J SCHUTT JULANA I 6083 INNOVATION DR 273-009402 PERKINSWOOD LTD 6091 INNOVATION DR 273-009403 NGUYEN SY D 6099 INNOVATION DR 273-009404 PERKINSWOOD LTD 6107 INNOVATION DR 273-009405 WINSTEAD PROPERTIES LTD 6115 INNOVATION DR 273-009406 SHAW DONALD L 6123 INNOVATION DR 273-009407 WINSTEAD PROPERTIES LTD 6131 INNOVATION DR 273-009408 VADLAMUDI KRISHNA VADLAMUDI LAKSHMI 6139 INNOVATION 273-009409 HOLDRIETH PHILIP D 6036 INNOVATION DR 273-009410 NORTH LEE A & KIMBERLY J 6028 INNOVATION DR 273-009411 SHAMROCK INVESTMENT CO 6020 INNOVATION DR 273-009412 MESAROS MARK J MESAROS LORI A 6012 INNOVATION DR 273-009413 DONAHUE BRIAN P TR 6064 INNOVATION DR 273-009417 SCHEPFLIN TROY M & CHERYL L 5927 INNOVATION CT 273-009418 WANG HUI WANG XIUPING 5935 INNOVATION CT 273-009873 NATH RUPAK SHOMA SONIA R 5860 SANDY RINGS LN 273-009874 SCHWAIGERT JOHN E SCHWAIGERT JENNIF 5898 SANDY RINGS LN 273-009875 COLVIN JULIA A 5906 SANDY RINGS LN 273-009876 RYAN DOUGLAS J RYAN EILEEN R 5914 SANDY RINGS LN 273-009877 WILSON JOSEPH W WILSON JADE A 5922 SANDY RINGS IN 273-009878 PUNUGU VENKATACHALAPATHY VAJJALA UM 5930 SANDY RINGS LN 273-009879 WANG JIANQI DING SHAO-XUAN 5938 SANDY RINGS LN 273-009880 OH JIN Y CHONG HYUN J 5946 SANDY RINGS LN 273-009881 SIMONE MARK V 5954 SANDY RINGS LN 273-009882 BOSIE ELIZABETH A 5962 SANDY RINGS LN 273-009883 BROWNING ERIC J BROWNING ANNE D 5970 SANDY RINGS LN 273-009884 GREAVES JAMES B GREAVES TRACY J 5963 SANDY RINGS LN 273-009885 TAMILARASAN DHANALAKSHMI TALILARASA 5955 SANDY RINGS LN 273-009886 PANYARD SCOTT V 5947 SANDY RINGS LN 273-009887 YU CHONG ZHOU FANGQIU 5939 SANDY RINGS 273-009888 NORRIS GWEN M 5931 SANDY RINGS , " 273-009889 KANDASAMY CHANDRAKUMAR S CHANDRAKUM 5923 SANDY RINGS LN ~ ~U ~~~5 ~i~ ~ COPY _ Page 1 of t ~ + ~ ; a ~ ' r{5`'!j~ i~~ ~1~/~~IQ~' 273-009890 ALIFF AARON S 5915 SANDY RINGS LN 273-009891 GOODMAN DORIS L HERMAN LYNNE L 5907 SANDY RINGS LN 273-009892 SHUAI BINPENG 5899 SANDY RINGS LN 273-009893 JIVIDEN ARNEL L TR JIVIDEN VIKKIE L 5891 SANDY RINGS LN 273-009894 DAKSHINAMOORTHY THIRUN THIRUNAVUKKA 5883 SANDY RINGS LN 273-009895 RHILINGER CHARLES W JR 5875 SANDY RINGS LN 273-009896 CAHILL VINCENT R TR CAHILL CHARLOTT 5867 SANDY 273-009897 PESALA SURENDRABABU V PESAIA PRASUN 5851 SANDY RING 273-009898 CHANDRAMOHAN JAYA P 5843 SANDY RINGS LN 273-009961 LARSEN ERIK K LARSEN CARA L 5859 SANDY RINGS LN 273-010033 MEYER REBECCA A 6084 GLENVILLAGE DR 274000025 UPPERMAN EDWARD L TR @(2) 6001 AVERY RD 274-000047 WESTDALE PROPERTIES LLC 6141 AVERY RD 274-000048 FRAZIER JAMES A & CHERYL 6025 AVERY RD 274-000049 LOW R THOMAS 6017 AVERY RD 274-000050 MARCUS R STEVEN MARCUS DOROTHY J 6009 AVERY RD 274-000061 KARL DOUGLAS J KARL ELISE L 6316 DAN SHERRI AVE 274-000083 SWOPE RICHARD L JR & MARY 6035 AVERY RD 274-000086 BLUE MICHAEL S 6077 AVERY RD 274-000099 CONNOLLY JAMES P & DONALD A DELEWES 6100 AVERY RD 274-000100 DELEXA LLC 6321 IRELAND PL 274-000102 STATE OF OHIO 6317 IRELAND PL 274-000103 YOUNG ALICE V TR 6324 IRELAND PL 274-000104 FARM & POWER EQUIPMENT RETAILERS 6124 AVERY RD 274-000115 THATCHER THANE F & STELLA C 6029 AVERY RD 274-000208 GOODWIN NATALIE V 6210 KENDALL RIDGE BLVD 274-000209 BHATIA GIRISH 6202 KENDALL RIDGE BLVD 274-000289 STONEHENGE CO 6055 AVERY RD l ~ COPY ~ ~ o0 v_~s~~- F „,1 j :f ~e Y Page 2 of 2 IX. Representative(s) of Owner Property Owner Avery Land Betty M. Dearth c/o Ronald E. Davis, Esq. 250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 460 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Phone 614-228-2945 Fax 614-228-2962 ApplicantlPurchaser Joel D. Rhoades, Esq. The EPCON Group, Inc. 500 Stonehenge Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 Phone 614-761-1010 Fax 614-761-1155 Email jrhoades@epcongroup.com Zoning Counsel Ben W. Hale, Jr., Esq. Smith & Hale 37 West Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 Phone 614-221-4255 Fax 614-221-4409 Planner Michael T. Fite, ASLA The Edge Group 6253 Riverside Drive Dublin, Ohio 43017 Phone 614-718-0155 Fax 614-718-0156 Email mfite@edgela.com ~ r Consulting Civil Engineer C0~ y Scott McClintock, P.E. EMH&T 170 Mill Street Gahanna, Ohio 43230 Phone 614-470-9320 Fax 614-470-9528 O ~ Email smcclintock@emht.com ZQ~~ air iy3~~l(~' ~~1 ~ v ~~~1~~~ Page 1 of 1 PROPOSED TEXT THE EPCON GROUP, INC. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TEXT AVERY ROAD Revised August 5, 2005 The following information is submitted in accordance with the requirements of Section153.050 of the Dublin City Code and includes a total of 25.78 acres_ A. Overview and Site Description a. Location and Size The site is located within the City of Dublin in Franklin County, east of Avery Road, opposite Dan Sherri Avenue and Tuswell Drive. St. John's Cemetery is located in the northwest corner of the site. The site is comprised of two parcels, totaling 25.78 acres and provides 925 feet of frontage along Avery Road. b_ Existing~and Surrounding Land Uses The site, which is currently a vacant, agricultural field is zoned RI-Restricted Industrial. The contiguous land uses include: single-family residential to the south and east (Sandy Corners, Heather Glen and Heather Glen North subdivisions), attached condominium residential to the northeast (Heather Glen Village Condos) and industrial to the north (Shamrock Industrial Park). Residential and commercial uses exist to the west of the site along Avery Road. c. Existing, Conditions and Character The site is generally flat and has few natural features. Tree rows, along the southern and northern boundaries contain the only trees on the site. d. Proposed Land Use The applicant proposes to construct 88 attached, ranch-style condominium units in 22 four-unit buildings. The applicant is seeking to rezone the 25.78-acre site from RI-Restricted [ndustrial to PUD-Planned Unit Development District to permit a density of 3.41 dwelling units per acre. e. Relation to Community Plan The Future Land Use Map in the Community Plan (Map 8) identifies the . preferred land use for this site as "Residential -High Density (2-S du/ac)". This development proposes a density of 3.41 du/ac. B. Permitted and Conditional Uses a. Condominiums This development shall include a maximum of 88 attached, ranch-style condominiums with four-sided architecture. The homes range in size from 1,300 to 2,000 square feet of living space. All garages are internalized and recessed in order to screen and Lessen their effect on the overall appearance of the community. AS 8l>~1~f7E0~ GOlA1~f:IL OS-0652 q- `mil ~ f ~ Page 1 Rezoning ~~OR IIAEEI~10 ON Avery Road Condominium Community PROPOSED TEXT Each '`Classic" model will have a patio (maximum of 150 square foot), which will be located outside of all required setbacks. Patio fencing will be limited to four feet in height. Each "Cathedral" model will have an enclosed veranda with an optional patio (maximum of 80 square foot). The optional patio will be required to be located outside of all setbacks and fencing for the patio is limited to four feet in height. b. Clubhouse This development will have a 2,94b (maximum of 3,000) square foot clubhouse with exercise facilities, meeting rooms and a large community room. The clubhouse sidewalk will be connected to the sidewalk/bikepath network on the site. c. Pool A 652 (maximum of 675) square foot pool will be located adjacent to the clubhouse. The pool will have fencing as required by Code not to exceed four feet in height. Mounding and plantings will be used to screen the pool from Avery Road. d. Parks and Open Space A planned open space network ties the new neighborhood to the larger community both visually and thematically. A series of lakes will assist in presenting a cohesive streetscape along Avery Road. The lakes are complemented with gentle earth form mounding and intermittent dry-laid stonewalls to add interest to the site. A system of walking paths provides the residents of this community the opportunity to socialize with their neighbors. C. Planning and Development Principles a. Arrangement of Use Areas i. All buildings shall be located in such a manner that adequate access is provided for fire equipment. ii. The clubhouse and pool are located in such a location that it will not adversely impact surrounding properties. It is located adjacent to the 4.85 acre open space in the western portion of the site and is harmonious with its surrounding uses. iii. St. John's Cemetery is a historic element located adjacent to this site. The site layout is designed in a manner respectful to the cemetery with a pond and landscaping used as a buffer. b. Arrangement of Building and Yards Setback from dedicated road right-of--way: Avery Road: 200' [nnovation Drive: 2S irelan Place Connector: 25' Note: The [relan Place Connector will only be installed if the City of Dublin Engineering Division determines this connector to be required. OS-0652 Page 2 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Community PROPOSED TEXT Maximum building height: 35' measured to the peak of the roof c. Landscaping, Screening and Buffering The landscape buffer along the north, east, south property line and St. John's cemetery shall consist of a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees. On the west side of the property along the 200' Avery Road setback and within the internal parkland along proposed Innovation Drive landscaping will consist of ponds with fountains, mounding, intermittent dry-laid stonewalls and plantings consisting of mixed perennials, grasses, and deciduous trees. Street trees will be added along all public streets in accordance with City Code. As shown on the landscape plan plantings between garages will be used to divide driveway pavement areas. Additional plantings will be incorporated at the perimeter of the driveway courtyards to screen the view of pavement from the public and private roads. d. Open Space i. Public Open Space: The required park dedication based on 26 acres and 88 units is 3.16 acres. The developer will dedicate 8.3 acres designated "Public Open Space" on the preliminary development plan to the City of Dublin. The City will count 2.21 acres of the 4.43 acres of public open space located within the 200' setback off Avery Road toward the required parkland dedication. The proposed community's condominium association will be responsible for maintaining this space for the City. ii. Private Open Space: Developer proposes to designate 5.77 acres of open space shown on the preliminary development plan as "Private Open Space". This space will be owned and maintained by the proposed community's condominium association. iii. Open Space Amenities: Developer will install bike racks and benches within the public open space at locations intended to facilitate ease of use by the public. e. Pedestrian Circulation Systems Four (4) foot sidewalks will be installed in accordance with Dublin City Code along the sides of public streets not serviced by bike paths within the Public Open Space. £ Bike Paths and Other Trail Systems A bike path system running through the dedicated open space will provide for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The proposed paths wilt connect to an existing bike path at the current terminus of Innovation Drive and will provide for movement and enjoyment of the open space through the east-west extension of the Heather Glenn North Park and along Avery Road. g. Access Street Design and Vehicular Circulation OS-0652 Page 3 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Community PROPOSED TEXT All access points shall meet the review and approval of the City of Dublin. Improvements to the surrounding street system in conjunction with this site are as follows, as outlined in the Site Access Study, dated July, 1 2005: Access will be provided by the proposed public street construction to Avery Road and to Innovation Drive. The access point to Avery Road is currently proposed to align with Tuswell Drive. An auxiliary southbound left turn lane on Avery Road is warranted to enter the proposed site. This turn lane design will be reviewed and be subject to the approval by the City Engineer. Due to the probable public improvements to Avery Road in this area, the access point for this site may need to be shifted to the south to accommodate a new traffic signal or future roundabout. This would require a realignment of the proposed site's streets and some minor changes to the site's layout. The applicant will agree to work with the City Engineer, modifying the site plan if necessary, to coordinate the site access plan with an Avery Road/Tuswell Drive intersection shifted to the south. All public and private streets will be designed and constructed to meet the City of Dublin Engineering standards in pavement thickness, strength and durability. Public Streets: ROW width: 50' Pavement width: 28', back to back of curb At Innovation Drive, the 28' pavement shall taper to match the existing 32' pavement. Private Streets: Pavement width: 24', back to back of curb Public Right-of--Way: Dedication of right-of--way for Innovation Drive and the Irelan Place Connector must be dedicated either by plat or general warranty deed within 30 days after Final Engineering approval. Innovation Drive Connection: Innovation Drive from its current terminus in the Heather Glenn North will connect to Avery Road. The Irelan Place Connector will only be installed if the City of Dublin Engineering Division determines this connector to be required. Private streets within this development will be maintained by the condominium association. Innovation Drive Traffic Calming: A horizontal traffic calming measure shall be incorporated into the site plan to prevent excessive vehicular speed along the OS-0652 Page 4 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Community PROPOSED TEXT Innovation Drive connector. Plans for the traffic calming measure are subject to City of Dublin staffapproval_ Emergency Access Gate: An emergency access gate will be installed on the private street connecting Heather Glenn Condominiums to the proposed development, as indicated on the preliminary development plan. The emergency access gate will comply with DFC Section 503.6 and will be secured with a suitable padlock. The developer will work with the adjacent property owner to the east to remove the existing pavement currently connecting [renovation Drive to the Heather Glenn Condominiums. The existing sidewalk that connects Heather Glen Condominiums to the Innovation Drive sidewalk wilt be retained. h. Parkin Parking will be provided according to City Code. i. SSA The entry sign, as shown on exhibit E-19, shall not exceed 20 square feet in area. It will be constructed with dry laid limestone with routed HDU letters pin mounted to the wall similar in concept to exhibit E-19. The sign base will be landscaped to Code. The sign will be externally illuminated. j. Li tin All lighting shall meet the City of Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines. k. Utilities The proposed provision of water, sanitary sewer and surface drainage facilities, including engineering feasibility studies or other evidence of reasonableness. Sanitary sewer and water shall be extended to the site from the current points of termination adjacent to the proposed development area. Surface drainage shall be handled in conjunction with lake and retention basins within the proposed dedicated open space which will be constructed by the applicant. All proposed ponds will have aeration systems installed. The surface drainage shall comply with the Stormwater Ordinance. i. Project Phasing The proposed development will be constructed in a single phase. The developer intends to start the project with the clubhouse and pool on the west side and proceed east until the project is finished. m. Architecture i. Clubhouse 1 _ The clubhouse will utilize a residential appearance through details such as dormers, porticos, shutters, and window grids to coordinate with the residential units. OS-0652 Page 5 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Community PROPOSED TEXT 2. Building materials include dimensional shingles, brick, stone, wood and/or cementitious sideboard. 3. The clubhouse will utilize architecture similar in concept to exhibit E-12. ii. Residential Units 1. The residential units will utilize detailing such as decorative window grids on all windows, steep roof pitches, roof overhangs and exterior wood trim. 2. Each unit will have atwo-car garage with a single overhead garage door. 3. The units will utilize all natural materials on all four sides of every building featuring dimensional shingles, brick, stone, wood and/or cementitious sideboard. 4. The residential units will be similar in concept to the drawings submitted exhibits E-9 through E-i 1. n. Architectural Diversity Color Palette Materials Unit Type A Stone/Wood Canterbury, Abbey, Chateau, Villa B Brick/Wood Canterbury, Abbey, Chateau, Villa C Brick/Wood Canterbury, Abbey, Chateau, Villa D Stone/Wood Canterbury Combination Number Unit Type Material Color Palette 1 Canterbury Stone A 2 Canterbury Brick B 3 Canterbury Brick C 4 Canterbury Stone ~ 5 Abbey Stone A 6 Abbey Brick B 7 Abbey Brick C 8 Chateau Stone A 9 Chateau Brick B 10 Chateau Brick C 11 Villa Stone A 12 Villa Brick B 13 Villa Brick C No buildings in a series with same color palette or same building material (for example: Adjacent buildings with the same building material will have differing color palettes. Likewise, adjacent buildings with the same color palette wilt have differing building materials)- OS-0652 Page 6 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Community PROPOSED TEXT No more than 20% of all buildings in a community to be any one combination. The buildings fronting along Avery Road will incorporate distinctively different EPCON models of the Cathedral, Classic and Clubhouse building designs. o. Fences Fences will be constructed according to Code Section 153.078. p_ Patios Poured concrete patios with privacy fences (maximum of four feet in height) will be included with every Classic home. Optional brick paver patios (maximum of 80 square foot) with privacy fencing (maximum of four feet in height) will be available for Cathedral and Cathedral I[ homes. Evergreen screening in addition to the fence will be installed on homes along Avery Road and along public streets. Patios will be required to be located outside of all required yards and setbacks. q. Mailboxes Cluster mailboxes are allowed as authorized by a letter of approval from the City of Dublin Postmaster. There will be no parking allowed where the mailboxes are located. The mailboxes will consist of a minimum of eight (8) boxes configured in two rows. The boxes should be placed in such a manner that they are not opposite of driveways or other thoroughfares. OS-0652 Page 7 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Community PROPOSED SITE PLAN . , ~ I t- - - - - - r - - , I - - - 1 u 1. (ice' • - ~ i' ~ ~a pq MHw ~r caD[ ~ °~`rs s¢- _ , Wsa. imp; - I ~ ~ ~ 1 r~ , j 1 i ..orcvn ~ - . wvrvn ~ _ ~r r. - c \ ~ . t ~ r r:zaac wm o.w~rf ' - - ~ ~ / / _ - PtibGcStfR,e{/D _ _ 1 J ` f a=~ ; 7 / 1 Z m 1 J ~ lj _ _ _ 1 t° " r f i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ Private Streel'C" - ~ _ , _ Innl . -1 7 ..~.rxo ~ i OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Community PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN v ~ I ~ 3 4 5 l St .kauea ~ t 2 E.o~-cd:cN ~ C ~ v I Dfi.tfl~, Pi 5ai C ~ A C• GH Y ! • a C A ~At! ) A 6 L ~ l i ~ ' € 1 N 1 n ~ U ~ ~ y~ ~ ~ ~ - . Imo, ~ ` ~ _ _ la L ~ ~ _ - I~ ~ ~ I t ' J/t ~ry~~ ~ 21- 10 j/f ~ I ~ F~77 ~ ~ t C ~ ~ ~ tg 8 \ ~ M ` ~ ~ V 11 ~ f ~ J `i ~ " ~t ~ ` 1 f 111 73 - t7 - . ~i / - C 1 i ~l Xi'~ ,sue' P ~ ~ ~ - 1 ~ ~ o+ a ~ s 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ A O - 1 ' _ j ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ y ~ t t2 „ t9 ~ - t~ ~ ! C ~ t3 [kfik't10NP~T ?A.r. 1 V ~ ~ C v C.t I E ~ - e~mcw~c OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Community PROPOSED ELEVATIONS ~ F~ ~ ~ - .ter _ ~ _ Classic- Chateau/Chateau II _i.~ ~ . - _i _ Classic- Villa/Chateau N~ ~ ~ z.Y'1 t ~"'7F 'th ~ i I' ~ l e _ ~ z x~_ az4 Cathedral- Canterbury!Abbey OS-0652 Rezoning - Avery Road Condominium Community PROPOSED ELEVATIONS n_ ' ~ , f ~ _ • ~ • dr I ~~@~: ~ ~ - " ~ - ~ _ - Cathedral ifi- Canterhury/Canterht~ry F~• Y' 1'~ _ tro x ftt CaB~edral 11- Abhey/Canterbur)~ OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Community PROPOSED CLUBHOUSE ELEVATIONS ~ K Z' r C ~z ;A s a d a Front Elevation ~ ~a _ r R y 0 a ~ o •O ~ -s ~ M n Rear Elevation OS-ObSZ Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Community S~C~TIQN DRAWINGS ALONG AVERY ROAD - - - --r _ - _ - - - - } u «~-r 1 ~ SECTION: LANDSCAPE FRONTAGE ENLARGEMENT LOOKING NORTH ~ f r ~f ,r ~ J ao.oaanr L rawo wan..c rwrH?unmrwrac; r.r ~.cr.rpn1o W~wxoscrnc nw wousra~ooi~ 1- wHOwG wo I)r 2 SECTION: LANDSCAPE FRONTAGE LOOKING NORTH f 10 p N OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Community PROPOSED DRIVEWAY SCREENING d_1r ~.c ,'7 1.r :'1 L'i f.~ i -1 1 N.~ A M'~ ~ P~1 ~ ct~ v ~ i.-1 v _ - N t C ' _ . 1t ['F c ~ ` ~ •..7 f .-r t . _ ~.1 i Y N ~ ~ v cry - . ~ . , 1 y.i T 4J~ t ~ ~f ~ 1 (1 ~ 1 f ~ ~ .T OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Community PLANr1ING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION CTi'Y OF DUBLIN_ AUGUST 18, 2005 Land Use and Long Raage Plaaaiag S ~!!'.~Shier-Rings Road 0 , Ofiio 43016-1236 P 614-410-4600 Pox. 614-410-4741 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 5. Rezoning (Preliminary Development Plan) - 05-0652 -Avery Road Condominium Community -Avery Road Location: 25.78 acres located on the east side of Avery Road, opposite Dan Sherri Avenue and Tuswell Drive. Existing Zoning: RI, Restricted Industrial District. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning (Preliminary Development Plan) to PUD, Planned Unit Development District, under the provisions of Section 153.053. Proposed Use: Amulti-family residential development including 22 four-unit buildings (88 units) and 8.3 acres of open space. Applicant: Betty M. Dearth and Avery Land Company, c/o The Epcon Group; represented by Joel Rhoades, 500 Stonehenge Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Claudia Husak, Planner. Contact Information: (614)_410-4675/Email: chusak@dublin.oh.us. MOTION: To approve this rezoning (Preliminary Development Plan} because it will create an additional type of housing within the City of Dublin, it is consistent with the Community Plan recommendations, and exceeds the parkland requirement, with 12 conditions: 1) That the applicant continue to work with the City on the access management plan for Avery Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 2) That should the applicant choose to align the new public street accessing Avery Road at Tuswell Drive, a southbound left-turn lane on Avery Road onto extended Innovation Drive will be required, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 3) That construction traffic enter the site from Avery Road, subject to the approval of the City Engineer; 4) That a traffic calming traffic circle be incorporated at the final development plan at the intersection of public street "B" and public street "D"; subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the Washington Township Fire Department; 5) That minor landscape modifications be made in limited locations to fulfill the Commission's requests and comply with Vehicular Use Screening and Interior Landscaping Codes for the final development plan; /1S 8U8NatTED 10 I ~ Page 1 of 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ fOR MEETING ~ ~ ~ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION AUGUST 18, 2005 5. Rezoning (Preliminary Development Plan) - OS-0652 -Avery Road Condominium Community -Avery Road (Continued) 6) That the applicant consult with the City Forester prior to the final development plan to verify the preferred street tree species; 7) That site stormwater management be compliance with the current Stormwater Regulations, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 8) That the applicant and Engineering Division staff meet prior to applying for final development plan approval to review stormwater management; 9) That the site comply with the Division of Engineering Administrative Policy for Intersection Visibility Triangles at all proposed access points; 10) That the final development plan include all adjacent and opposing curb cuts; 11) That a pool fence detail, complying with Building Code, be submitted at the final development plan stage; and 12) That the deed restrictions, limiting the number of units an owner may possess, be submitted with Final Development Plan for review and approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission. * Ben W. Hale, Jr., Smith and Hale, representing the applicant, agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 6-0. RESULT: This rezoning (Preliminary Development Plan) was approved. It will be forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation. STAFF CERTIFICATION ~~~a Claudia Husak, Planner Page 2 of 2 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 18, 2005 pj~F'i' Page 11 5. Rezoning (Preliminary Development Plan) - OS-0652 -Avery Road Condominium Community -Avery Road Mr. Gerber swore in those who intended to testify in regards to this case. Mr. Gerber requested a brief staff explanation of what had changed since this application was tabled at the last hearing. Ms. Husak said at the July 21, 2005 meeting this case was tabled so that the applicant could address Commission comments including text revisions, building materials, landscaping, open space dedication, and traffic calming. Ms. Husak said the text had been revised to address building materials, patio fences, and parkland dedication. A slide was shown of the revised site plan including the proposed landscape walls. A large wall located in front of the clubhouse and pool will provide screening. She said a new color landscape plan illustrates additional details. Ms. Husak said the applicant will provide a full landscape at the final development plan. Ms. Husak said the Commission had asked the applicant to explore screening within the driveway areas to break up the paved areas. She said the applicant had provided small islands between the garage doors. Ms. Husak said staff believes this revision does not fully address the Commission's comments and recommends a condition that modifications and more detail be provided at the final development plan. Grasses proposed for the landscape islands and the driveways were detailed on a slide. A slide of the new elevation of the clubhouse illustrated that the materials are the same as the units. Ms. Husak showed a slide indicating the views of the clubhouse from Avery Road. She said people would not be seen using the pool facility. Ms. Husak said staff recommends that the applicant install a horizontal traffic calming measure at the intersection of Innovation Drive and public street B and D. Ms. Husak said staff recommends approval of this rezoning application with the following 11 conditions: 1) That the applicant continue to work with the City on the access management plan for Avery Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 2) That should the applicant choose to align the new public street accessing Avery Road at Tuswell Drive, a southbound left-turn lane on Avery Road onto extended Innovation Drive will be required, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 3) That construction traffic enter the site from Avery Road, subject to the approval of the City Engineer; 4) That a traffic calming traffic circle be incorporated at the final development plan at the intersection of public street "B" and public street "D"; subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the Washington Township Fire Department; 5) That minor landscape modifications be made in limited locations to fulfill the Commission's requests and comply with Vehicular Use Screening and Interior Landscaping Codes for the final development plan; Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 18, 2005 DRAFT Page 12 6) That the applicant consult with the City Forester prior to the final development plan to verify the preferred street tree species; 7) That site stormwater management be compliance with the current Stormwater Regulations, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 8) That the applicant and Engineering Division staff meet prior to applying for final development plan approval to review stormwater management; 9) That the site comply with the Division of Engineering Administrative Policy for Intersection Visibility Triangles at all proposed access points; 10) That the final development plan include all adjacent and opposing curb cuts; 11) That a pool fence detail complying with Building Code be submitted at the final development plan stage; Ben W. Hale, Jr., Smith and Hale, representing the applicant said each request of the Commission in July had been addressed. He agreed to the 11 conditions listed above. Ms. Boring mentioned that there had been an ownership issue previously discussed and asked if it needed to be included in the text. She said if the residents complained to the City it could be enforced. She added that ownership had been addressed for every other condominium development. She said it had been included in the Homestead Communities agreement. Mr. Gerber agreed that the Commission had restricted condominium ownership many times. Ms. Husak said the applicant was willing to address it in the deed restrictions. Mr. Hale agreed to a condition that their deed restrictions contain a provision against rental. He said it could state that they would submit deed restrictions at the time of the final development plan for Commission review and approval. He said they were not building a rental community. Ms. Boring and Mr. Saneholtz said it was not planned to be a rental community today, but asked what about in the future. Steve Smith, Jr. said if the deed restrictions were part of the final development plan, they could address the Commission's concerns. Ms. Boring asked if it needed to be made part of the text that the deed restrictions will say this. Mr. Smith responded that if the Commission wanted to add a condition stating that they will bring it back as part of the final development for the Commission's review it would be sufficient. Mr. Hale he did not object to a provision against rentals. Mr. Gerber suggested that it be Condition 12. Mr. Saneholtz complimented Ms. Husak on her very well done report. He said he felt the applicant had responded to the Commission's concerns, and he appreciated that very much. Mr. Gerber recognized that a member of the audience wished to speak. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT Minutes -August 18, 2005 Page 13 Carol Lyden, 5220 Willowgrove Place North, said she may buy one of these condos, and asked if the condo owners or the City would be responsible for maintenance of the roads. Ms. Husak said the City is usually responsible for maintenance of the public roads and the homeowners' association is responsible for the private roads. Ms. Lyden asked if the City would maintain the gate into the other condos. Mr. Hale said there was an emergency access gate and it could be unlocked if necessary by the Fire Department. Mr. Saneholtz understood from the staff report that there would be a roundabout. Ms. Husak clarified that it was not a true roundabout, that it was a planted island which was small in size, about 15 feet. Mr. Saneholtz asked about building materials. Ms. Wanner said that they would be seen at the final development plan. Mr. Saneholtz noted that the development text did not eliminate the red brick material. Mr. Hale said the brick proposed will be presented at the final development plan. Mr. Saneholtz clarified that he made the observation at the last meeting this case was heard that he had observed the brick and stone combination at other Epcon developments sites and the reddish brick with the stone made a very ugly combination. Mr. Hale agreed to remove the word "red" in the text and bring the brick proposed to the final development plan review and approval. Mr. Gerber said this was a preliminary development plan review and the Commission would have opportunities to review and approval the material and other items at that time. Ms. Reiss referred to page E-15 of the submittal showing the color palettes, and requested that the green shutter colors be specified. Ms. Reiss asked that the applicant provide some means for flyers and newspapers to be delivered to residents. Mr. Hale agreed that they would provide a detail at the time of the final development plan. Mr. Gerber moved to approve this rezoning (Preliminary Development Plan) because it will create an additional type of housing within the City of Dublin, it is consistent with the Community Plan recommendations, and exceeds the parkland requirement, with 12 conditions: 1) That the applicant continue to work with the City on the access management plan for Avery Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 18, 2005 CRAFT Page 14 2) That should the applicant choose to align the new public street accessing Avery Road at Tuswell Drive, a southbound left-turn lane on Avery Road onto extended Innovation Drive will be required, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 3) That construction traffic enter the site from Avery Road, subject to the approval of the City Engineer; 4) That a traffic calming traffic circle be incorporated at the final development plan at the intersection of public street "B" and public street "D"; subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the Washington Township Fire Department; 5) That minor landscape modifications be made in limited locations to fulfill the Commission's requests and comply with Vehicular Use Screening and Interior Landscaping Codes for the final development plan; 6) That the applicant consult with the City Forester prior to the final development plan to verify the preferred street tree species; 7) That site stormwater management be compliance with the current Stormwater Regulations, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 8) That the applicant and Engineering Division staff meet prior to applying for final development plan approval to review stormwater management; 9) That the site comply with the Division of Engineering Administrative Policy for Intersection Visibility Triangles at all proposed access points; 10) That the final development plan include all adjacent and opposing curb cuts; 11) That a pool fence detail, complying with Building Code, be submitted at the final development plan stage; and 12) That the deed restrictions, limiting the number of units an owner may possess, be submitted with Final Development Plan for review and approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Hale agreed to the 12 conditions as listed above. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Ms. Jones, yes; Ms. Reiss, yes; Ms. Boring, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 6-0.) \ : - ~ ~ e - # \ ~ ~ , ~ ~ uPI s ~ ~ ~ - Y-' ~ - _ _ _ _ 'N O O , ~ ~ ~ O ~ Q~ CT - ~ ~ J V, W fi _ ~ " ~ ~ Gl 'f~'~ is ~ W ~ ,k:. ~ ~ ~ O Imo,) ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~x° ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ - Q, ~ ~ p n v D ~ r ~ T r~Q ~prn-~ rr C Z r ~ 3 C N~ N Ql ~ u~ Z Z n O ~ U7 ~D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~,~p O ~ m ~ ~ Ol ~ ~ rn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ m O ~ ~ ~ N ,n ~ r~ ~ ~ Gl ~ap~O'~ ~ ~ ~ r1 O < * V ~ n ~ dl ~ CD n ~ D ~ ~ ~ ~ m - ~ -pQ N n Gl ~ O m~• O ~ Z O ° ~ m -n~~-~m m ~ m X ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ (l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fD ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ a _ _ o ~ f D . . ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ W OO v, N ~ i N ~ ~ n O ~ p ~ O ~ ~ ~ O N ~ ~ ~o ~ P Q ~ ~ T ~ O lQ n, ~ ^ O ~ < ~ ~ ~'~~Q dl _ r-r O O m ~ [D ql ~,A,,r i ~ O~~ ~ A~ ~ o O l0 ,R Z rho Gl ~ Z Q° _r o ~ ~ s, o ~ z Z N~ -v~oom r ~ C fD _ O ~ oo~'o ~ ~.a W - N C~ ~ ~ r O ~ r cQ .4 ~ k ~ - - I io w I f 1„ ~~'a v v ~ , o Q ~m m m ~ f~ O --J - ' _ _ - - _ . ~ . . ~r• i ~ nD rn ~ m o z~ o~ o~ 0 c~ rn zD C ~ ~ ~ :Z7 o n 0 ~ ~ c z . ~ y ~ y ~ y ti?t^~onm'^.DDmDDDDDDnpm~D~v'm~n = ~ np~-vmt, mmr--fD p n C~ c~~ n n p n n n n n n c~ fD ~ O N ixi,' O~ O O O. ~ vx-i' v,- On O ` y . O ~ ~ CC h .=f -n r+ r+ r+ ~ r-: r-: ~ ~ n n ~ r ~ ~n rD O ~ O n n ~ l0 ~ ~ O < ~ ~ N fD N N !D N rD !p O In - ~ ~p 3 x ~ a ~ r+ O to tC O ~ O ~ ~ C ~ ~ n n C n n n n n n C -p ~ n ~ v, ~ !p ~ ~ c !D ~ C ~ ~ ~ c ~ c c c c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o, ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ y o p~ O ~p n ~ ~ ~ Z rp D m ~ t0 fl, fl, n, o, o, o, v v ro ~ ~ ro O ~ \ `c Oc ~ y O O ~ \ Q _ ~ fn-. _G ~ Q rQC-v ~ ~Gl~ mmmmmc w ro ~ ~ ~ 7oQ< m`~' ~ cn0' ~ ~ d ~ f<D ~ Vi < < < < < _ ~ m Q Q O fp fp C N ` O ~ 70 Q n O N -a d d d d n, O x ~ C v,. N C O O in v ~ in rD r-. r_+ ~ -a S p< Gl C in d rD O in C T ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ in in in in in ~ fD 7 ~ ~ 7- ,-r fl, ~ ° ~ _ ~ ~ ~o m ~ ~ Al C n ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ n 0 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m v m m m ~n vi cn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O D D ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l0 00 v Ol Ul .A W N ~ j ~ ~ Ul ~ W N O l0 00 V Ol Vl .P W N ~ O ~ ~ r--F ® o ~ - • ~ n D ~ --i n w~ -I O O C v rp ~ ro ~ Q ~ rD ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~T1 ~ v ~ r-. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O u, ~ - o 0 4 Z ~ D rn . r-. y ~ o ~ o~ ~ o Q Q _ ~ ~ - o_ ~ j. o ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ p a . ~ n ~ - rp Q u °i a, ~P ~ r-. ~ ~ ~ u _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j n ~ ~ rp ~ n o O D c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v, C r" !p ~ ro rp r-. O ~ Q ~ Q Q rn ~ 0 ~ ~awn~~ll a ~ .a ~ ~ L ' ~ , 7 Q O ~ -6 rD ~p ~ ~ O lfl X ,n ~ 4 W xfw~ r c ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ? o ~ ~ ~ ; o- ~ _ be - ~ ~ ~ O rp to n ~ O O 70 ,ra,~ w , hK i 9• ~ ~„h.,..d P. ~ ~ v ~ r° ~ ~ r~o ~ ~ n r 7 ~ ~ , "hI, l~+ ~ aa'; yw rn~i ~ . i I' < ~ -O ,n O Q ~ ~ N = Q Q n ~ ~ t r ~.~i , '+q I~+ r f „gyp;g$ l ~ ~4 ~ v, ~ ~ < ~ to ~ ~ ~ y r. y ~ a i ~ A , 'r ~ - v ~ l 1 r-. ~ w rD 1 , in- >2 Q +1 ~ C ~ ~ Q ~ r-. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ y ~ ; I ~ S tI :t T-~ t a did «,m, r ~~~'j O~ ro ro Gl z ro P~ 5 ~I I ~ w ~ i+~' ~ , Ta ~ ~ ~ O ty ~ n ~ ~ , ~ I ~ ~ i:' a ~ ~Yt~" y ~ 2 t 4 n P L~` ~ 4 lD ,n ~ S (D N ~ ' 1d T•--~ s11 ~ in' rD (D O 7 Q Gl Q to Wyk I ~ 'M, " , : ~ S "t ~ ~ ~ r'~,t- m ~ ,n = O Q ~ o N ~ ~ ~ ~ I~~ ~ I ~ i i1i { r z 4'~ ~ wcv i y fi ~ 1.241, ` l ~ r: fD ~ N n ~ ~ n, ~ c~ ~II ,hp~'A, ~ ~ k~3 ~ ~ u. o ~ 3 r, o o n p'Ty w ~ r~ 5 ~ r4 ~I o ~ ~ o ro ~ 4 ~s I C ~D Q. t \ R ro c ~ ~ fl, ~ i ~ + i ~ ro Z v, n x w y m;~ i~ i I w~ ~ ~ 1j i :~I ' 1= I y~` fl'' 11,~h r~~~'.~ y.,~ ti~_,~. .t_,_..._ ~k.. v ~ tMit ' x 1, ' ' " : ~4 rs 6 ~g ,yl ~ fir, _ • • ~ ~ ~,1" 4 ~ y p s ' 1' ~ ~ ~''~K~ J _ _ + fD - tn ~ lQ - tn 7 fD ~D roi ~ N ~ ~ i, ` fD nn x j` ~ I i k' 1,~'"1'~~ Q O r+ 'I~, ~ 2 1 . ~ c ,h~l~ 1 .11 L rn ~ ~a ~ 11 Ol (D ,n tl 4 y pN 1 rp O T b , v, ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ' 1~ C~ ~ ~ r ' ~ ~ v ~ pp 1 zf ~ 1 ~ r'1' ~ fD 'fir t rlh - ~ `~~v 7 ~ ~ ~ ~'i i r~~; ~Ilk~~lw~~~lll i~ it {I~ia ~ e--r k ~ I,r ~ V1 ~ Yr ~ 1 4 !'r i 3~ 9 Ti O~ ® ~ ~ r*r~o~ ~oo~ - ~ O < c ~ C Qn~^ ~'mn ~ ~ Qa ~O n O ~ ~ ~ ~,~~-rte ~ ~ O ~ vii N n~i ~ ~ O Q ~ O Q 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ O Q C rD `G ~ ~ ~e - ~I~ ~ f~D - 6 Q C O ro v C O v 7~ n in rp O Q a Q w ~ ~ ~ ~ C - o v`D, ro a ~ ~ r. ni N ~ o Q a w ~ ~ S Q - i ~ fD• Z D 1 ~ ~ O C 6 7 ~ ~ ~ r=« C x rp ~ D rp ~ O C ~ ~ i o` ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ,n a ~ ~ ~ w ~ x" ~ ° ~ w Q w ~ Q, ° v, ~ vim', a a f „ , ~y,'fr~ a - Q ~ o n ~ (o Q ? ~ rl rno ~ a ~ w ~ o = ~ rho $r ~F SIP. ~ ' ~ ~ '!5 ~ ~ ~ llr - O n Q lQ w C ~ < rp ~ O ro y 7 O ~ ~ I fy, ib ~ ~ ~ ~ to ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ a w ~ ~ rD v N O rD ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ - ¦ ¢ w ~ ~ ~ pCj N rD Q rD 7 n ~ n N ls] l!_] Q d ~ y~" ~c~ ~ ~e ~ a w ~ sz ~ rho ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ o s i> ov'1~~ +c ~ fi.:i%. +I4, i~• ~ ~.11t _ ~ ~ y~ ro r+ ~ r-. ~ ~ + ti;. mss: ~ ' . ' n ,n+ ~ p 0 ~ ro a ~ c O O ~ a Q C a to in w ~ ~p O l0 O O ~ ~ N n ~ -i5.. C ro -a v, ro 00 ~ r-. - o ~ a ro ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ro ~ ro ~ ~ ro rp p- O ~ in O rD ~ Q in ~-r ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 ~ N Q C in ' +ny ~ fl, ~ O c ~ r• v. < h C C n..4 la ~ N in ~ ~ ~ rD ~ Q rp dy~+~i'~ ~ y 0 ~ i Itl~tcTu 1 ~ ~ fl, h ~ < C ~ ~ ~ v_, ~ , y;"" ~ rD v, ~ w NO r < ~;~~a~ ~ rND C O O Q ~ rQO w:~ ' r{~` `n a r~D 4 ~ C 0 Vim. a. 5 , ~ 7 C N 7 - w' r _ 4. A' A C N- Z N O w x . ~ ' r " r^o r~ ro w ~ s r<o ~ ¦ws~md~ ry ro 0o C c ~ ~ ~ ~'p"'J' ~~.p ~ ~ O rnD Q v' ~ N N ~ ~ v' 9r:,# ~1~' Eij i" vCi rD ~ ~ ,~-y.- rD I s. .c' ~ Q < ~ rD O ~ rD O 1 911Mi1 ~ ~ ~ rp ~ .tea N~. f,~ i _ w C _ m O p~ ` r".~irm~~ ~ ~ < C rD ~ ~1 ~ ~ O C O- rp v N O ~ -a ~ ' Y ~ i' ~ ~ rD O to r iii ' ~ O C ~ ~ ~ N ^ - ^ ~ ~ ~ _ jl v, v, ro rp 3 O C Q O ~ ,8 M O ro ~ ~ n row a ~ a ~ Q I ~ A~~ ~ of ~ ro ~ n0 S? ~ ,V~ 1 ~ i i „ N C ~ ~ ~ 1q'!~ ~ ~a~ ~ 6 t; l ~ Q V~ ~ ~ 1y v 4 " - rD a in aiw~ r-, ~ Q Q ro ~ o. O I' ~ » _ • ~ Y w N Q - n _ ~ w c ~ ~ It ro Gl rap ~ O ro ~ ~ w ~ rp ~ c' ro ~ O C rv ~ ~ i^ ~ in ~ O C O_ ro ~ a a ~ ~ o0 O O iD w ~ lp w ~ w in n ro ro c n ~ ~ ~ ~ ro r+ o w~ Q o ro 3 a ~ o ~ nc, I p ~ ~ ~ S? ~ ~ w c ro w O C O - ~ o w O~ rp p D rp w C ,y T-.~_.._..._.._..,~ , a - ~ ~ fCCD w ~ rD _ r-. ~ .C = w n w rD I y '-tIII L `1 ~ 1 ~ D I ~ C. to O ~ ~ ~ Q ~ 7C- ~ 7 ~ ~ L. ~ ~ - ~ _ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D_ ~ ~ v `n ~ n I ~ 1111111 ( L _ ~ w ro w G °i C ~ t rho ~ ~ ~ ~ 3. ~ rno ~ ~ ~ O 3. ~ I y r C, n C v, n ro c N r+ ~ ~ C ~ j I ~ ~ _ a II ~ -D rC-. ~ ~ OC ~ r-r ~ ~ fo O S N rND i ~ ~ ~ _n..._;- .~1 - ~ rD i - ~ ~ ...J Q N ~ _ ~ Q Q v ~ nD ~ m Z ~ o~ v z D rn n o c ~ ~ ~ C _Z --I ~ y~'y I5 ,`7 ~l I 91 ii , ~ ~ a wj9~ U I .W i~ P f +~~i.1w S^+'9 t~ i u Iq ,~~i+.J~ 'bW"~'I`~i y ~ ~ r ' ~'liy ~ ~ ,ail ~ ~ ~h In`k' p ~P" I '9~n: ~ r PIM ill ' ~ ~ 1'~ - hi I~.~, CIIS,,.~ ~ ~ ' I i~ ~ I 1 JaP , k L I. ~ ~ '7 ~ ,j' 4 'tl~t Mrm :wiA ~ I 5 I ~ ~ u~H~ II d Ty ~ 7p ~ Ilu ~ "'r ~ y ~ ~)I j j~1Cr ra ~i,~',a ni C s I i I P ,I'~^ L ~ ~ I w ~ ~ ~'ry. . s ' I ny,.m ~a,an" 'uru ~ ~h ~l ~~I! e I ~ I ~ P' ~ ~ }4 N r A !w~` x '0 5 ~ Cp T ~•4~•~~ ,_1_~, r~~yo I 1 ll'y~ y+~r,. ~'ll ~ ~ t. 7+d~'ll~ 4. ~Illu - ~,.1r` r i, iii ,.y~\~~-y+ o ~_y~~4p{~ ..~1 ~ ~ .r.~ww S~a.. ; fi,,El. I,&.._ -t~ I ~1,^ ,u r t" ~ ~r~ M'' ~ ~ -G. ar I.r"1`') ~ ~,1~ 1 ~ I~ i2,1 q.~-~' Y.'~~~~ :T ~ ~ ~I ~ err 1 M1 I ~ , . r r y r -ry ~ I ~ tier j , ~r~ ` ' ~~'y " ~ I x ~ I ~ d „ ~JI ~ I~ I,, 1.1 r ~3+~°~ L~r,,e.9~, ~r i ~~,:~II i,, ~ m U Il It I P~ i = i~ ~ ~ ~ I 1'1y' f r ~ u W~ a ~ri•rJ ~ rr uy~ `.~~'S.~` p ~ Y 1 ~ ~ ~ W r 4 y + „Kr ~ ~ihlf~'i Iqi~ i~lli ~ ~ ~ y~. „ f 1, ; ' ._-r 'lf ; +ya` is, ~ `i. ti. , ir^pfa ~,~'r, [I I r n II i Y 6 ~ ~ I ~ ~ t,a~~,2,"s 1.~_ ~ n _ ~ ~ i it u ~ ppq ~ ,MIMMYN++ ~ ~ L..,m +rriuw ~ ~ i I~ ~ Esc; - ~''•'Y'1 ~tr~. _ } 9 tl~ 11 ~ ' ~ ~yyr' I ~ ~ )ttl ~ A 4 1;~~ ~ ~ .a ~I ~ ~~t~ ~"a r r x ` y ~ ~ I i ~i;~ ~ '1 ti ~ ti ut " ~ ' _ ~ i it 0 '1~ ti I~ i ~ r~' Y'' I'~+'T"m, i~ ~ t 'I ~i ~ Zv r. ~ ~ r~ I! a r ~ 1 i 1 ~ _ l v t I l~r 1'~'`i I , ` _l^t. r„ .r r ~ FY~ . l'1 -j. 1 (1` '1`-. ~ '~y tl9i~~ '~~~.~4 ~I~,i 1 L 1 ' ~ t, I E , ;.1; ~~L i.r.~M t~ W. ' b, I a ~ 1 ~ + 1 4+i iF d P 7 ~ ~ : ° ,+pP t1~"~,, IK *~R ~ ~ ~a r 1 l ~ l' ~ ,A ; V I ~ €v ~ r .~rN .~q E ~ i~i '/nf' ` r E~~J~~ 1~,7~,~'.:. `~Y•~..a"€"n~+N ,vr ,.._.l~s~i~` ~x ~ 7 5„, ,p~ ~ f. r ~ .4 ~ia ~ ~ ~ i I i ~ II I ill-~i ~~~JJ.r~ ~~'~-:1 ~ S ~ hi~ ~ I Y. Q €~I ~~5 I, I ~ ~ I ~ IK"I„ e~~ ~~A d ~ r' `I, } r ' } ' ~ ~ sz Y-_." $I I n i ` ~ ~ ~ ~A~ i y ~ 7. e y" ~ I m+ 1 'F ~'1"1 5 l Y`r T)'~ ~ ~ I x' T~ 5. ,`:>;s+~ l x€~+~ ~ I. ~ x'y d s ili. ~ N4a 1-.. ~ n ~a.€ ',4 AgrF zr . r T d -k KIR ,a ~ n~ p L)I jl tM ~ ~ : ~ -t , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~j:_T I 1 51' ~ ~ r i` 1.:} , ~t ; _ ~ r~ 1' _ a ~ , r2,.,i,~_1.~ ~ ~F9~'11~~ ~ '1y'~' .~~-7-1"~ ~-~.,,5 7~ r-,z...a+.~ y-'-.l' 1 * ~T t ~ ~ 4~~' ~ 11',i g~ ti ~y, ~ .'fir ) ~I 1~i~~'i ~ ifs' a w'. 'f~#`;~~~' ~ l ,~5., h;~ J':r I ~ . ~A~~)~ir~ " $ ~ 1 . ~ v ~3 . ~ I ~r: ~ ~ ~ I 5{ sr r y.~ 51 T 1 \ Y l,' x ..y l~ ~ tY i ~ d i "h "4'm "kG ~,g~' 1 ~r„ i ~ p a i <',I'~ ~ x s ; -K:. ~ r 'I~ t" Tr 1.!' i.fi ~ ~ ~ ~ .~4 ~'tx I,~,~' i ~ ~ u~ t y _ 7 "~i / 1 , yy i ~ r n T ~f ~ _ r ~ ~ ~ ! 5 ~ ~ i ~ I s - - f ` 4 ''{Ir p i'I"M1' 1 ` '~t~ 9 T~~ w i 4 1~~~ ~ )'i ~ -W`~: -4 4'.` dy ~ _ . ~c•~ ~ +7„~ • y ~ r Y'~ ~ ~"m ~ M1 l' a ~ l l ~ r , 'k r . ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ? ~ ~ 7 -"'1... ~ It I . m'.1 e,~ -vW+Y ~ , q1. : F ~ + ~ 5 l . n. ;wx pi s:~`' r ~ ~ , e ti ~ ; qt raj t 4 v ~ - S i ~ r r, ~ CD p€ ~ . `1 ~ ' ,_'l ~-a r ~ L. ~ ~ ~"Tt ire a A? I.~, r, " -z 3, ~ ~ .e~, ~ "1'I~!.-. F I ~,~4}~ ~r~~s r~~ t ~f } r "~4 ~ ,a~z F~ _ _ s ~ i~x:s~'~ ~.--r ~ „ ~ F, , '-'t I~'i lull ~ ~Q. ,~-~~"'1 ^~l } ~ ! ~ i ~1 ! ~ ~f' a~ : 4 `..,~`~s~- w I ' ~ r' ~ .lil i J v ~ a I I ~ r~ a i, . ~+l.4 t i ~ u:: ..i i 1-T ~ ~ ~ ~r ~ ~ ~~ryff I rr py . , , IV&%~Y. r ul W Ilr ri~i.i'i~~iN.I,~IIGIIP N~N~hI~I ~I~ "w"4~\~~riIIIiN P NI 'I uI' .I _ ~ ~ € I ~ ~....;I 11 II. ~fu'~!~~~ ~ I~_(~rk+alnr ~~~~~'~Ir,~~~1'i"+II I~IjI~~IiI VIII GiI ~I~I~ I'll 0,,~~~, III IIr, JI "~~7F;.., fi~ a~....7 I~ r~ I ~ ~ I I I II y N ,r.1,m.--c ~ CNNg1! 1 NCCLINTO PPO,/CCI 20050815 OBG 50Bl3POF I.ONG'<U !'DUI/J - 1 XP[C 815E - G/ST SI KO Br BCU~ B 1~ 20US J'J3: JS PN - PGOIIL L' N~ GIGU!' P/21/1UU5 J~O: UU PN ~ (~j \/\/`/\J SIDEWALK ~ ~ m + ~ m 1 --EASEMENT m ~p ; ~ ; ; ~ Z o ~ AO / Z ~ - ~ A.. ~ O ~ A ~ D m u a>> C m O N \ p 0 ? ~ / r O y 0 C m ~ D D V Z ~ J- D ~ ~ O O D CO 2 Z O 1 ~ O ~ N s y 1~1 m i. O ~ ~ ~ D v A O m ~ y y ~ V U O < m A m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O A n Z f'l ~ N m < 'O C D D A A t'1 V Z ? ° O ~ C7 U m ~ y P O ~ - m D ~ m z n n ~ z < r- Ira o cT w , ut In o x - m m _ Z z~ In < 3 "O A ~ In 0~ ~ ~ n > I D - A m > ~ c o o s i i i ~Z o ~ L ~ < ~ ~O~Om o e p ~ m .ZI fTl D . D R v v IB u y o o ~ m N m ~ In cn r OAp - { m D ~ C K c D p m N C D~ " / ~ ~ v ~ ~ Z A W ~ m- ~ Z 2 2 O D s ~ I~ n co ~ y R v C\ D Z D N ~ O; O O~ m 1-3 4~ n n ~ n A ~ C ~ c7 I 1}_,y~a• 1 m m ~ s m O i ~ A O T n ~N f D A ~ p rl ~ O mZ7 fn D f~l ~ m ZO Z J N ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ f O ~ - g ~ _ r- _ _ - _ _ i i i ~ ~ li ~ Li ____L_~_- t6' - io ~ _ _ _ T O % 46 AA31: T> o / $ \ I v m p ~ ~ / ~ 6~ - _r_ ~ ~ o I - ~ ~ ~ ~ - 'n ~ ~y ~ ~ II I ~ ~ a ~ I D ~ a / ~ n o ~ I O ; g ~ A~ieen oggn;~ O ISIDEWALK - _ ~ E EASEMENT 1~ ~ i~~ ~ C ~ ~T ~ i " I 1 ,n ~ _ - ~ _ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ]7 s ~ _ „ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -C E 1 _ C\ I e Q. ~ ~ a ~ v ~ - ~ ,-g a~ N1 i ~ ova m n n. / ~ O ° ~ \ ~C_ r k X h ~ j d V~~F I ~J ~ re~ D C Z ~i O a ~ I - ~I I ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z ~ Z _ J _ ~ -I - , _ l i m ~ ~ .9Jaa~1S a~enud ~ ~ ~ - O Z ,y{ ~ ~ -I _ I ~ ~a~ I ~ / d'4 M~ R I 'a -.:7 - - - ~ I 3 ~ - I - ~ ~ i ~ ~ _ 1 _ - - s~ 'd I - - - _ _ ~a ~I ~ _I_ - ~ I - - _ _ f E - yP _ - - ~ _ - - _ ~ anup uopenouul - _ o g ' _ Iit~'' C _ - _ ~ I 'I ~ _ - - ~ - ~ R _ i~ ~ I i' I i ~ _ _ a r- - - - - ~ _I _ I i -°£'n~o o ao Z m O ° m 3iO - ~ n b`~ Q8' P e;;o z omNm o oz~n 3 ~3 y~=czii oin lnnv rrz,n ~n? 3o3,a " 033 min ]o o `v o o' N o, n D ~~cziz~ Z - - nfi °-no = ~..o ~ ~ on oo Q nmo,'° v~v~" - ~ .?DES 3 ~3 JJ ~ ~ x ° ^ ~ o fg z ~ ~o~ o D m e O m n zo mz~A° ~ i~c" .~°3v" n°°- n _I ,K..,,p A° D 3lAlll~ ~ O ,Dim n frl > a n ? . $ ~ ~ ~ - r ~ ~ cT ~ am >~"OJp ° n ~ ~ rn 2 r nan " v fTl ? O O f ~ ° n n O - V ~ ~ ~ C m Oc ~ UwWN c N ~o°~ ~ ~ o ~ YY..,, .o y o 3 Z~ _ ~ n- 3" c cz S ~ ~ O ~ ~ °,3~ ~ ~c n g - ~ ~ b - n - . ? z ~ Z n3° Gam, Z ° CMNL31lA1 MCCL INlO PRO/CC! 100308]3 O9G 50873POFT OWG<3/ICfI I> - I XRCF' 6~5E - US! S4VE0 BY [1C'UY 8 TI TO03 J'~2O] PM - PGO!!EO Lr L~L'UY B T~ 1003 J'~1.ZT PM I ~ L I _.~I_~ I S~ I ~ } ~ III 1 ~ I I ~ i j. 1 ~1 I i 1 I ~ ~ ' ~ f ICI ~ - J ! - - - - I I I I ~I I~ I I I - I ' ~ - - ~ i ~.o- I I . 11 I ~ I 1 ~ ' I o-~ ~ ~ ~ I i Iz~ II y r- _ ' ~ I ~ L ~cn 1` I ~ I -I I - - - ~ II _ I I I m 1 I ~ ~ I. I 1 _ _ 1 ~ - \~`_~,-~.I. _ _ li - i I~:~~~._I_ I,~_.~I ~ ~ I I it ~ ~_I. L.i-~,_ ii t'~~ li'rl,l I~i- I-~ I' III i~l ---.J ~ ~ - ~ ~ I I ~ i _.-III II :0 I I l _ ,r. I i _ _ _ ! _ _ _J ~ _ I ~ I F - r( / ° I - ~ ~ - I ~ ~ o N \ >R NO!'t ?'191Y 1' k I _ e_ _ _ , 165.00'. 1 : I I ~ I I - _ I : A - ~I: ~ a ~ ~ I - ? I V I I F _ i Er ISO ~ I a -I - r5 ~p - Y n - _ i. ,r II a 1 I a Q I c X _ - - ~ f. 4~y- to ~ t I',I, 1 _ I ' I I , V ~ I i' 1 I gl { Ir- ~ i I f 1 w I 1, I r- z r ~ I I; 1 I _ y' L ~ I E . StL_ I ~s.S2m.-S 4 I _ _ : ( I I 1 ~ _ _ m _ I _ , I - r- r- ~ I -I I .a• I. I ~ 01.1 1 + ~ I I I ! I f~ - + I I I I . I w F- ~ Slm -J= IS ~ ~ I I 1, - ~ I ~I I I - I I _ I IrI i - - __.a~.._ I L~ .OZ-B90 - - -..--tea _ _ ~ - - ~ I - - ~ in I~~ \ ~ I ~ I~ I, I _ ~ .,I ~ I ~ E 1 ~ I _ I _ _ _ - - - - - _ T - ~ .J 'i 1--_ . _ - - - - I - _ - - J _ r ~ ` J ~ - - - _ - L_ I ~ ~ - r~_~_ ~ I I I _ v. ' ~ I- i I I II I I I I. I I - - I K» ~ Z i ~ ~ k J _ i I'- 'I 13 ~ r I~ ;~I i I I r l ~j 1 - I I I ,'~'r~r I I I ~II pQQ S/.9 I -I' I ao. ~ I I 111OH12fON J _ - i~--_ a~~ - ~ I I - - I - ~ ~ - ~ I~ o I I i~ - - -T ~A7 ~ - _ .i ;I ~Y, ~ _ Imo/ ~ - ~ II ~ -t~ ~ ~ i _ - f3' I I_ - L I '.---I- 1~ OI1VnONNI ~ 1 ' o f I I___ I T- _ / ~ o C to to to tP to t i e r A A a a A u U tw tw 4 U u W (,I W N N N N N N N ~ (f UO N N I~ V m to A U v po ~ m N a u v- U~ m ~ m to ? 4 r.> ~ O b °o ~ m to P U N O b m ~ m N+ U r.> ~ O tp O ~ P N+ 4 N r f F m F T~~ e~ n o 0 2 m f~ ° V1 o e - o m m m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 g o s o e~~ y o~ i~ S i i m s i s I^ w n~ ~ w E - .n w ° w 0 3 w P? O c E f 3 0°~ ~ w o n n ~O V~- o o G a o v o z ~ o ~ Z ^ ~ _ 8 & ~ ~ °o ~ °o ~ 3 ~ ~ s,2 o f ~ ~ ~ g :,2 ~ ~ f ~ f ~ ~ f z 3 3 ~ e ~ - 3 3 3 3 _ ~ ~ 3 _ 3 i 3 ~ 3 - _ ~ 3 3 - 3 ~ - - - - - - Wiz; << << ~ ~ ~3 ».~w MSs~ze8 ~~8 SS 8SS n 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 j 3 3 3 3 3 3 F 3 3~ 3 6 3 3 ~ 3 3 3. - ~cT - _ l o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m z c>nonc~c~nno 0o n-,oo-~c~c>c~o n-~oo 00 c~ooc~c~ coo cl c~v~ „c~ooo~ o c~c~~oo~ n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0_ o_ _ _ _ _ _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 4 _,0 0 0 0 0 °0 0 0 n n n n n n°° i n n°° n n n n n a n n a n~ n l n n n a n n a a a n n n n o n n n n~ n ~r1~ ~ ~I~II~ X A a I.. _ o .°o °m ° rn U a u N ~ ~iOn m ~ m e~~ v n~ m" m In > U mN ~ o~ m v a~ a u v~ o e m m m v~l > u r°~' o e m A. 6j ~ ~ .A ~ a g~~ o i o 0 0 0 0 0~ f o o F F f t F o o F o F o n s O n 1_^ F E ~ s n Mr o n J f p f~ f F F F F F F F ~ F~~E~ Z O ~ ~ - - ~ n a ~ IS ^ A n m° ^ ~ _ - ~ a - ~ = A n ,z A z ~ n n n ~ ~ ; ~ ~ s ~ n ° s n n n n ~ n n ._4+a P In ~ ~ ~ ~ E~~~~~1~ n< zJ E^~~ ^,2 3 cTi Zo o~ P,3 ~P. EiiTiii ~°674 ~~IA~ 0 ~ 0 ° n n 3~ X 3 3 3 3~ 3~ ~ 3 n T 3 3 n S 3 3 m ~~I~ O Z O i V ~ 3 F 3 3 3 3 ~ 3 = 3 3 3 3 v Zoo ~ cn 3 A m ~ 8 ? m m m ~ v m m u m o, v ~ ~ U ~ rn - m> u m m m u m m u m t„ a = D ~ _ ~ m °m Z g` ~ ZO Zip n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a C m ~ ~ Z c~c~nc~ ~~+n ~+nnoonc~-+o c~c; clv vclvclo ~c~nn-~o~nc~c~c~oooo c~c~o ~c~c~c~c~c~onc~c~c~oc~ c~ ~ ~ mfg ~o aa~ `aaaa a°asaaa~a`aaaaaa8'88-=aaa8aaa&aaa° ~ ~ m O a s a n n a a a a a nl ~ ~ 3 g ~ ~ 3 Z n ~ C in < ? CMHLNI / MCCLINIO PRO/fC/ 10050815 ONG SOC)3POPJ.OMG'c5/SEC/ 1~ - I XREE' H~SF -LAS/ Sa KO BY BC'UY B 1A 1005 J:AA~10 PM P(C/rE0 Br GCUr H/1~ 1005 J-~A~10 PM ~ - -L _ _ _ _ _ J - ~ I ,Ivy ~ - ~ _ ~ J J I A ~ J L I _ SAS la' ~ - =m - - I ''pis r I 8 f ; ' ao~ I g$ ~ a I I r~ x I 99o sC I ~ ~ I I a~a O O ~~S Hs''ti Nlr ~ ~ ~ - - - a a- sg. p n 8 u, • I. I I ~ ' o • ~ +J _ - - _ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 20=, Setback _ S 'r S a 3 , ~ I 8 a ~ x Bldq 1a _ Bldg 15 - $ e 9 I a .F.=923.0 - F.F.=922.3 ~ m c - - - - Bidg 16 m m = ~ ~ o F.=922.5 I o ~ o n » 4~ _ 11\ ~ ~1$ 01~9f1 Q~ 6' _ o ~ _ L'C Ponl (Clubhouse ' V`~ _ ~ F.F.=923.SQ0 23' SetDxk . / ~o. x- 3 u, o - _ I ~ 1; -T- ,o o - - - ~ Pro San 23' 5o Pro .Son ~f u~ ~ _ _ a _ _ ,,a;, alead N d L i m r ? y • ~ - a ~ m 1 ~ y 11 ISO' I N ~ ~f? ~ 11 n 0 1 s C) \ ' / 1,1 - o ~ ~ ~ - nl I~u; Np 1 t N~, - 11~ n~ ~.Z ~ ga - I 'A N- ti i BB I 1 ~ oN ~ ~ „m rh o s ' o _ _.2 Oro m I I a U~h $ 990 I N N f J ~n ~ ~ I~/^ gig ~I~I ~3 I ~ `.p ~ ~ r m 1~ 38.0 ~ ~r ~I ¢ ~ J~' N ~ a° o N aq X~ o 1 " ' i ~I - U H a ~ r 9 y N a .SS-9L n o 5 / - N~ ° _ ~E x " ~ I ~ ~ I ~ 9 _.Z \ vs N o oR ~ 60 n moo. ~o. ~ - _ '~a - - 1 ' ft 110.00 ro ~ ao,a ~ ..8. '1$ 3 VAladm U ~ m'dp~ - ~ ~p ~p ~y,5 Pro San ~I _ - \ ~ _ - p~ ' ~ N, a0.~2 A o a I 8 $~~n v 9 Bldq B _ HId9 2 ~ rlti ~~S'~ Bldg 6 _ z ~e i° sC~sz ~ - T i~9° Bldg 9 _ F.F.=922.5 -.F.=923.5 _ 8 F, F.=923.0 ~ u' u F.F.=920.5 alp \ a r>7 p. ~ 3A I ~A III i ~ a g JI 28 1 / ' ~ 23' Buffer Setbock m OL,~i ~~y 3 / ~L - ----.was ~ I ~ ~ ~ I f l o. _ . - - ~ I - O~ ~ I i ~'\I ~ z I I i z I a1' :S r pro _ - - I 1 - II ~ ~ <n .i " o ~ I 3 - - - ~ ~ ~`i - - t A z~, mN INNOVATION DRIVE _ ~ ~ c , - - - - - - - I ~ _ _ ~ ~ _ i I - - - I I I ~ ~ I - - - - - - ~ ~ i a `^`^-3° o , I I - O N Ggvo °co 0 9r 'A r - bhp+~ N o n °a0 o a ' e 9 a n e 0 ~ a m ICI ~c III, ~~il 3' 3?3 ~3> 0;a=- a 44 ~ zo I `4 I ~ o' 3 . g 3o i . - _ --u~a ~is~ K • = f7 y ° _o I _ =?n~ ,gg yep 3 E g O 3_ r0 i I I - - - _ ~ C m ~ ~ S3 it ' - >R ~'~;e s ~ ~ Z ~ Z ~ - - °3 - e8 ~ Z z m - 1 CMMOnT 2\MCCL/Nl01 PRNfC! 70050815 Ow01508)SPOPI.OwG<SNFF! I> - l XRFF B15f - US! Sn KO PY BCUY B 11/7005 1'27'II PM - PLO/!EO PY PClAr B/7J/7005 4lItJ PM _ ~ ,..I I I _ - I I ~ I ~ - I I ~ - _ _ - I - - - - , - ~ I I - ~ I ~ I ~ I' J i ~ ~ - I _ ~ I ~ - ~ i _ _ ' i ~I , ? I - - I _ ~ , _ _ - -i i I - _ ~ I ' III - - - ~ I~ I - I - - , o~ I _ - ~ MOTOx'Ex'E SI3.1e' 1 - _s_-.-_-_-.---_.. Ox~.. ~ ~v 1S~pP.ament $ttDOCk ~ JIS.Oe' _ - - - - ~ 8 e I00 a \ ~ I I Irk / k7 w I ~ mo ~ L 921 ~ 08 ~ ~ ' o ( - - 8 x ~ g I _ I ova I I D I I I Y I r a. ~ I I I ab I q~ ~ N _ e ~ ° a - - 7-Setback o ro a ~ ( 5 ~ I r - N y I I'~ I I I - `-I - ~ b 910g 14 - Bldg 15 _ y w8 I I , I F.=923.00 F.F.=922.3 Bldq 16 8 ° ~ ~ I I ,i mo I FF 922.5 ~e \ ~I iI _ ~ - _ ~ ~ i u 3 I ~ Pool (Clubhouse / ~ - - , ~ J S ~ ~i e' ' ~ 8 F.F.=923.50 3 ~ - ~ 25' SelbOtk _ _ _ - ~ I; ~ 1.00. N - R .lo I 3 F M. I~ i Se 'Qx Pro Son Prof. Son P _ _ - _ _ _ Y 'L.~ e - f - - - _ p / ~ ~o I N~, I _ EJ; o- _ _ t - - ..a oI ~ vxee 1 N i G N rt l I BxL10 ~ ' I~_+ I a e o a , _ e d o f T " 1 n - _ ~ m i ~ - B oidu I z S" r.l 1 L>, Ir e _ g _ _ I I 1 ~ -.3 L C g~R - I r ~ ~ ~ B f ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ - n Ul. vxzY0 ~ ti I ~g v2o.w 3 ~ ~ 9e -u I;I v - _ N ~ it m T ~ r N n IJ I~ ~ 1.1 r0 Stm. ~ A U.,. vz I i. ~ I I I ~ I g~ s _ ~ r U o ° - R e _1oa ~ ~ , g 22Ifaa T ~ ' _ - -I_ I it tD 3 I o I ~e ~ S I vu. ~ ~ , ° ~ a D - No~ u+ m , ~ _ (VAT SL-Fi'- - - - - - , ProF.l Sfm. ~ W ~W15 eaa ID.'A Pro San ~ _ _ ~ I \ 'I 8 ~ ; m v _ Bldg A' _ _ Bleg 7 I \ oy° Bldg 6 - N,a° II m'8 BId9 9 _ F.F.=923.5 SIO' ~ m L .F.=923.0 Pm F.F.=922.5 F.F.=920.5 p~ 0~. ~B ' 'Y~... n ' 3 9~0 v $ e I vx:.eb J I _ 1 _ 42 _ - ~ = - - - ---_b - I ~ ' 25' &Me Setback ,aL'aeo~ ~ .ac' ~ / U - _ _ _ r ~ I I I I, - - J rte. _ - - _r I ~ O~ ! I I I - ~ I - - - - - I _ _ ~ _ _ _ ~ I ~ Z \ I~ ~ - ~ ~ \ I 'I -4 I ',r - I' I - r ~ r- ' T ~ I I_ ~ ~ - - - r D _ I _ : - - I _ _ - ~ all - ~ - v ~ ' I _ - .Z1 I - , 7tJNOVATiON 6F21VE ~ - I ~ < - ~ ~ , i J I ~ ~ ~ I I I I i ~ J~ ~ ~ I ~I ~ I ~I II - ~ _ i - 1 _ - - - = I. I - - f _ ~ f - - - i I I - - I I - - _ , , _ i I - - r 'I ~ 1 ~ ~ _ , I , ~T I , I ~ I _ ~ - ~ i , i I ~ _ - - ~ T - I - I - i , I I ~ _ _ ~ rr 'i_ -I I I ~ ~ _ I - , _ -.mfr ~ I! p, I - - D ~ ~ I~IIII~IIIIII ~ e R ~ ti i IIIIII III~II cn ~ I€ ; ~ ~ ~ (III I ~ ~ ~Imll h~n ~ O m Itllll VIII r ,IIIIIIIIIIIII~ ~ n Z c 4~ I~IIIII~I ~ m Z ~ Z , b o ~ m " r ~ $ C" o G7 Z ~ n Z ~ ~ C ~ °c~ ~ 3 z 7 g i~ z n -a a a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D ° ~ Z ~ Z z o N I I o `~'I _ 50' I ~ O I+ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ Fp ~ Q ~ N ~ n D ° S ~II ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ' O ~ O c0 ~p N C,~ N O BBB ~ ~o Cb ~ p ~ cn ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ a o ~ ~ ~ ~ , II ~ o T ~ o ~n'm 11 O- ~ -I-1 o a ~ ~ / O N / W O 1 CJ~ ~ cn f o \ o• 1' `c ~~9j. w W ~ o i co ~U, _a ~ ~ ~ o~ - ~ - i PRIVATE ST. "B" o 0 ~ » ~ 4 LI~ST.~ - ,'~ti ~ ~ P U z _ i ~ ~ ~o ! ~o~ ~ o ~a~ li o a Bldg 7 \ F.F.=923.50 ~ J , /Z I ~ ~ ~ ~o~ _ ~ O J, B B oo a/ T J ~ ~ I i 50' ,oZ 880 ~ li 3„~~,~ssos i Z D - _ _ - - I O 'I z O X ~ X I O v CO G7 O7 ~ RAJ m O m ~ I \ ~ :;J ~ ~ ~ I 0 D - _ - c`n m ~ rt' R~ ~ A~~nl~~~~l~~~~~ ~ ~iN v~s~ a iiuil~ I€3~;~ 111111 p m y v?~~ ~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIW ~ ~ ~ o - i 5 Ilnlwlltlll T n z o ~ ~ ~~8111111111N n $ ~ ~ < 2 ~ O o' m r ~ - 3 A ~ ~ ~ m C m 3 a x ~ z ? 8 ~ m n ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ o a a 3 Z C z s ~ ~ ~ Q nD o < rn z ~ o~ v z D rn^ c° L Ji o O ozD N O N C \ o<<Db= <<~ =~a n C ~ ry i9 S ~ c~ ^ ~ ~ A m a v z~ ~'~ro oa ~ '0 dd~,a ~ _ 3 ~ °i o- n n ~ ~ y ~ `vr ~ ~ z s r-r ~ 0 c ~ ANN p ~ JN~ am.l~m~ mv+ CND O ~ O~ ~ A W A n C ^ ° Dn ~ D c ~ ~ a c e ~ v m i i i m I _ ~ nI FRY Rn ~ h !7 1 . r'. ' lllJJJ I _ _ i ~ ~ r ~ ' _ 4~ , . _ .,Y,. --i ---yr _ ~ ~ - a m - k~ ell - - , ~y tt S~\ v' An 4 :i,, ~ -K ~ nc ~ , ~I ~ n~ \ ;u' PiJR~O.IV. J s ~ tom.' •s rv. _ T ~ W ~ ~ A ~ 4 F z ~ ~ ~ i N t ~ i ~ t;: - ~ ~ . ~ n,. ~ 'l F., e, m _ a_ i - t ~ ,rte, . - ~ ; ~ ~ - I ' ~ ' ` - 1 . ;~4 - ~y ,m~ I 1 ~ ' - a~ J ~ - 1 e j~,,v~ y~,~ 1,~ S F I ~ r 1'' 4~ . . Z l' B+ n wr n l l t c. n G _ _ L _ ..m . . c f _:.-J < ~ .r s t. r,'~,i E .i• r E, fit; H L ` _ n ~ ~ TT pA ~ L31m .._..sa. / A m L2". Z.. Z ~ ~ ~ o fD O rD r+ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o z m ~ ~ 0 0~ z D ~ ° N o o~n ~ C ~ v ^ ,CpccD~01 ~.cc~ ~.Qa F~ L~J N~ymo~~ y~a,a ~A C ~ ~ ~ n O ~mmmwa .avs~ ' v+v+a~m O ~ C O O C ! a a~ a o a~ ~ ~ ~ a n c ~ a a ~ a c ? ~ ~ v ~ m ~ °c . • rT z ip W 00 H A W N ~ N ~ 0 ~ W OlO V VO~µ 1/00 V1 C p~ T+' O O~ rn~ :p V W ~ n C ~ n a ~ yDD n D^ v ~ c c a V ~ _ ~ i i ~ ` I ! / ~ s / ~/1 / II \ u-~- i 0 ~ i+ ~ ~ ~n o' ~ n i I ~ u , / r _ _ ~ ~ I _ .nrrr~~rrrT~ _ - ~ 0 ~ I R H- \ ~ ~ J r ti N 666 N ~ ~ ~ r ~ i , ^ / J1 1 I III I/ I. J . ~ ~ ~ _ ' f ~ ,r_.. r ~ ~ ',---,1 ~ 1 I I ; ~ ~ ~ ~ l I ~ - ~ ~ I~ Y ~ ~ r- ~ ~ ~ Y ' ~ I /J _ ~ o~~ ~ M ~ ~ / / I ( o?.~ 0 / '.jam it it ~ f t d O f ~ ~ ! ! V _ ~T' ^`V V 1 V V , 1.4/ n m fl.J l0 ~ ~ 4 a nD O z m o~ ~ v 0 z D m c° ~ n a ~ ~ c z 5 c ~ J ~ a ti ~ Z, ~ of ti I` ~ I' C1G SI r L ~ ih~l,_^, 11 ' ~ n n, ns ~ ~ , e~~-a~~, ~ ~ ~ ry ~ r 7 ~ .4.. ~ ' ///TTT o. , : m + ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ . ' , - n ~ I~ r nnh' II L - 'I 4 111 a~ _--J ~16I 1 J 7 ` T'` ~ * f n 0 r~ m rD v ,-t rn O o ~ ~ ~ © a ~ nD rn ~ m o z~ o~ ~ 0 rn zD ~o ~ n O o c ~ c z ,;4 uy ~ y~~ ~ ~ t~ ~ S ~ . II ~ ~1 . ~ ~ q ,I rl ~ ~E 5 m i \ r i~ u any' ~ I e ~'>i..~~ / , v= ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ c i f I ~ 1 I`~ 11~ ~ ~ ~ ty ~ fll~f 1!(~ ~~I ,d ~ ~ / ~ I ' I-I~`-fir. r `y;~1 Yy ~ ~ ~ ~u ~ ~ - +Ty l Y( ~ Ir-i CI~ f~ ~ f ~"t ~ ~a G ~ ' to ~ I I i ~ ~~r , ~ h`- c ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~I~ I ~ i. ~ ; ~ ~ ~ 1~ { n~~. ~ r` ~ onn ~ ~-,y_„~ p~ nrn7 v~-1 i ~ / rrr ,/~~t##~~~~~ goy i j ~ i~ . r F vac '~`s~) ~ ~ " 5 <l'~~, z. D n r+ N n m CD m O ~ ~ ~ ~ nD rn ~ rn z ~ o~ v 0 z D rn 0 0 z ~ t ~ ~~r~~+C~ ~~fit II ~~~fff l i t°,~-~ 1, M e ~ r f ~ ~ ~ b lh'+ ~f: ~ a ~ ~T 1• r~ n I ice, 1 Y. ~ I _ fiY d_ 1,~~~j ~ ~I ~r hII^Ir y - r y « C c ~ ~'7 ~ ~ ~ F~a ~ r' n r~t C r ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ i (f~T~ ~ ' a 1 FI f-F-~:~ w is Iri~ ~y ~ r ~ r, ~ "~-5. a ~ ~ ~ r?~~~ ~ s~S .4 .i ~ l Pa 4~ D n N n r+ c v m CD m rV N nD rn ~ m o z~ o~ o~ z D rn 0 0 C Z z.n-. ' - L ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~Q19-t. 111111 j ' S ( , - ~ ~ ~ 1 • ~ ~ ~ T A 3 Ia ~ n-r~ i; ~ 'fir , °`v1W,. 1 1~ a={ ~ ~~'1` f~~II ~ ~ ~~~1~ ~~~i_ ' I i ~ ~ . I ; 'i' ~ ~ :i1~~ f.~ ~ tI~° Ft I ~ , ~ lC! L ~ ~ S ~ a I ~ - - f ~ tpl7 ~ ~ ti~ ~ " ~ ~ `C ~ ',C~~I, F.. t qtr ra i ~ ~ ( ~ C a LLB! ~ 1"~ . o r C I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ , I~~~ . -.1. ~ 1 ~ ~ ^ ~ tri Qom, ~ ~ ~,rt~ ~ ~ i iii ~y y.. N? ~C, ~ ~ _ ,j.~ ~j~ : ~ j 1~ ! i { F~ ~I 1 rs~ `i tL Z ~ 1? ~-f , t: . r ~ - ' ~ L . ~ ° _ ~ `~~~1 4 ?1; D n r+' rD n m rD m O. w ~ ~ © ~ ~ nD rn ~ m Z ~ o~ v z~ c~ rn 0 0 C Z \ ~ ~ dZ~ L~~ ~ ~ Z S '~'Q , = ~ ~ _ 1 A"7j a-.yn~l, ~ ~ ~ ~ N ji -1.~ ~ t r J. iFln~ ~ I . e i ~ kp I., _ ~ 'fn.-~1 fn1 ~rtY ~ 1 (gyp l.:li L' j ~ ~ -t-'..., ~ - I I~I.,~ („~-M .a '~~Ilf ~ ~ ~ ~ -r I. ~I s ~ [j fl , f s~ j"" ,I { ~ il'm Win;, ~ ~z~ _ ~ r T~ ~ _ M,-~ ~ ` ~a _ r~ " ,i , D n CD n r+ m rD r+ m P ~ - n D R1 0 o~ v z D rn ~ n O o c ~ ~ ~ C Z_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r7, ~ { i 5 r n fry ~ 1 i { ,,,rte / r I _ } S m _ , II, I~.r ~ S ~ ~ d r~i~~. ~ ~ ~ ~ i i L ! j~~~C~~t lid ~ ~ ~i>~~r~: it-~,~~ ~ ~ W~M ~ .y ~ htl 1 i"'rti ~ ! ~~r I~1 ~ I ~ i ~ , I g ~ } ~y _ ~ ~ i ~ , ~h ~ L. _ I z y. ~ ~'S D n r+' CD n c m CD m 0• cn ~ ® ~ - n D rn ~ m o~ v ~ z~ rn r j, ~ is ~,T ~~~r r.4.' ~ ~ k~ ~ 1 i4 L ' ' 1F ft. ~ f if a l... y L~ r. : - ~ ~ i(~ ~X~ t ~ ~ i. ~ a r ~ ~ I ~ t l ~ ~ - w ~ t 4 a.. ~ i- i f ~ - 1 ~ ~ s e .r~ J w y. i ~L i ~ y ~ t ~ p p P f 4y ~.t T r ~.~cts- . ~ : . ~ ~ ~ t ~'x 5,. r •y' 4 p . It ^ ~ ' ~„w ;tire ~ 1 ~ , ~t~~ ~ . y, ,,dam fi ~ t " 9 ~ ~ ~ Y s , f 5 c-~y, rid-r x t• ~~•=.t ~ w , K ; t,. ~ ~ i ,R of Y, > • . ~ - h Y~ 1 a 1 ~ 15p~~ ~ ~ .i- r ~ f r~ - F ('{1 a yp,r ~ r!' 1 ~ j y~1~.~ ; _ xr. fl .t - ~ _ _ _ v r~ n m e--F rn rp ~ - - nD ~ m v z ~ o ~ O m ~ zD ~o ~ ND ~ ~ ~d ~ n 0 0 ti ~ o ~ C Z_ 4, o" c~.~ A: i ~m g SA v ~~p~ ~ '6~ t ~ g O 4" {f7A7c_) ~ _ m ~ 7Do 4 p ~ # 0 r ~ n r Mt xz Vi N y N to ~ a ~ m mrn mm m -t -c ~ -t. -c D y ~ p N 70 'o ~ Z ~ D ^ 70 ~ m ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~n as xx mm (n p p9 m ~ O ~ a N o~ 0 ~ ~ $a ~ ~ ~o _ ~ 'T' ~ ~ m ~ .i CD u A ~ ~ D ~ (D -i 1O ~ m Z ~ y rn nD O G o z~ o~ ~ rn zD ~o ~ n 0 0 ~ ~ c z Z sy Z ~~~~~ooro~H+aw~v~c~ pc~ooac~ ~ O Oa ~ O wN~O O O ~ O ~ ~ = p' ~ ~ z Q ~ ~ ~ ~ a ^ fw_ ~ ~ \ fw 0 ey, ~O 3 ~ N = Z ~ O = ~ of ~ _ o. ~ ~ Q ~y~ ~ ~'~°~°~3 O en ~ ~ obi obi Obi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 4 4 04 3 y ~-Q ~ Z~ Z Z= Z Z A O ~C ~C ~C n n n n p 0 3= 3 3 ~'4 M !'p e'p •ii n ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ V~ ~ ~ y hl ~ ~ y ~ Z 1 ~ ~ y O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ QQQ ~ ~ ~ c~ooac~ooac~ooapc~ooac~ its o ~ o; ~ chi ~ z = z . . O ~ ~ o~ ~ CCC of e~ . O O 3 Q ~ Q obi ~a D o~ O' n fp ~ r+ Q O tp, ~ ~ y o~ o ~ e~ < 3' N ay. l~/1 fp = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X~ - n D m p m o z~ 0 ~Q~~ ~Q~o ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ 70 ~ ~ c^u c^o n Q cry cry ~ p ~n v~ oo c~ W oo ~ ~ ~ n p C ~~`D ~~ofD ~ .C - o_o ~ .C - G~ ~ « n~ « n~ « ~ N Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ° 4 ~ 3 ~oo wo~ oo~ oNOOO ~ ~ °O oo rl 7O ~ D ~ d oD~ ~D~ p o n, ~ ~ n ~ n Q + m p~~ i~ ~ ~ rno tQ rp n~ ~ v `c ~ ~ 'r . O 3 ro ~ ~ ro + O ~ r+ oo < 00 00 n0 r1 Q ~ v tQ ~ r~ tQ ~ ~ a' ~ ~ ~ tp' rp rp Q ro ~ ~ ~ ~ co m < d ~ Gl ~ O G ~ r y ~ ~ d r ~ ~ ~ ~ r+ ~ O ~ O ~ ~ ~ rip O c4D 4 O cD e~ d c~ r. cD 1 O cfl cD y fD d d d d d n rt 1 ~D 01 4 d r. m y D n 3 ~c ~ r+ m ~ n 0 0 m ~ ~ ~ CD (D N nD ~ m o z~ o~ ~ z D rn ~ n OC o -D ~ C Z ,,t _ - ~ R p i c ~ r _ ~ rt ai1~a~. 4 a I ~I^ ~J _ ra,, ~ r 1 T ~ _ r I _ A N X I I I ~ lR , . L ~ _ ` , . ~ ~ ~ tP _ l 1 i s~ - '~c~O i > n ti i ~ _ `ate n - Lr n 1V < 2 ~ ~ _ _ ~ f tll ~ _ _ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~ . ~I ~ 1. D . ~ x ¦ ¦ 6411 ~ ~ - 3 < ~ Eke bit . ~ ~ vvllLL iii rr ~,r~~ I < N I Y i i ' i . Easrs~oE NURSERY 6:?t iI1M.ooll• RrJ. fravspor. Oh{~ ~St25 rm 1 V r~ m 'D N O ~ ~ ~ N ~ V\ V\ O \N Cp - ~ ~ ~o ~ D ~ Z cs ~ Z ~ N Q r Z 76 ~ ~ ~ q~ ~ Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7~ ~ 47 - ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ IJ I I I I z o ? I ~ ~ I I 1 z ? ? ? w~ a ~~g ~ o z ~ Q Z Z 76 ~ ~ i1 ~ ~ ~4 ~...5 w_. s+~i ~~'~si~ + ++4 Z v 1 VI~~AS A~ A~~~Y ~OAn DATE: 01-28-OS SNEET NUMBER ~NT~?YWAY I.ANbSCA~~ pI.AN DESIGNED BY: 2 OF 2 M.M. E A S T S I D E EPCON GROIN, ING. G.F. NURSERY 500 SfO~EFENGE Pl~CWAY 1 °=10• 6723 Lithopolis Rd. Groveport, Ohfo 43125 DIDI,IN,ONI043O17 SCALE: NORTH ~ ~ s _ << n D rn ~ • • • • ~ m o ~~TT o~ ~ ~o N. ~ z D o ~ ~ ~ O o ~ Q o (1 c ~ N ~ ~ m ~y~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ r*' r+ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ALL. ~ Q 3 ~2 ~ ~ _ ~ T ~ ~ fD o 1 ~ . , 3 ; ~ Z ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o p ~ ~ 1~~ f li ~ < -lo ~ m f~ „ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .u. ` ~ ~ ~ ( ~ ~ , ~ ~ 1' , - J.J- ~ , 1. ' ~ y ` ; 1 J (JI)w ~ 5. I v. ~1 ~ ~11~ j - ~i 1 ~r , y ~ ~ ~ ~ p . ~ ~ Q o r ~ ; Y yy 1 tom' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t o r l ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ d ~ p- r fV .a{ r ~ ~ 'd4 (/1 J` t ~ s~ , ~ ~ ~ . [~1 1 ,~py~ T k ~ 1 ~ v / _ 1 r. ~ V ~ a ~ v ~ ~ ' ~ gyp,, ~l ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ G C Z ~ ~ L - _ ~ ~Y rn c-' c Y ~ c s Y' ~z v n~ v - 4 i ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ S~ - d R ~ ~ h e N ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ g ~ Zv ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i- ~ w 7 ~a ~ ~ ~o C1 cYY v 5 Y, ~ g "mi~ll` < ~ Z~ 'o _ ~ z v r' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C1 Y ~ 1 , Q v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ " V, N ~N W V~ V OJ V r ~ ~ ~ ~ • , s PC~~ L ~LUBHQIJ~E 0 A1/~~Y ~OAb CO~1bOM!N UM COMMU~J ~1' °r~ =~Fr~~~~ C~~1dNOLl~ DR9l.LE:O~ MM 5(j9 n~ '~C C1~t ~ ~ tJ tJ ~ ll~ Z ~ ~ 0 ~ Z?~r 7c 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ctc Qg ~ i1Qi1 q N ~ tJ ti ~ ~ c~c _ g n ~ \ / ~ C v~~~' q~ a ~ o~ ~a~~~~ ~ ti v ~ ~ ~ ~r ~ ~ ~ k^ ~ ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _~F~~~ N ~ N N ~ IN - tJ - - ~ y ~ ~ ~ ("1 G1 D Z ~ -1 ~iS i - ~ C1c = N~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ° L ~ ~ r~i tai O Cn / ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~cR p ~ ~ ~ ~ siv i-. vv~ - ~ - -a ~ z ~ i _ _ L S S1 _ ~ n n ~ ~ ~ p~ N ~ ~ - ~ - ~ \ C1 1 ~ ,V" ~ .C,- ~ / ~ 25 ~ v \ _ v, ~ ? ~ O ~ Q V~~ L-S ~ a ~ ~,x ~ i~ " N~$~~ ~ s ~ ~ ,o~ ~ ~Q,~w a, '~j,_,', v o~ - ~ 9 o) _ ~r - ~ cR - ~ ~ ~v O \ . i~ v ~ ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ _ , r A~~pY pOAb CONDOMINIUM C0MMUN1I~Y °'~26-~ ~~r? DF5IQ~ED DY: 5 rx 5 6UIl.nING UNIT I.ANnSCAf'~ pI.AN EPCON GOMN~IINITES B5. N U R S t R Y 500 510NEFENC~ P~p:V/AY i„~ ip, I 6723 Lifho~olis Rd. Grove~ort, Ohio 43125 ~ DIDI-IN.ON045017 J SEE` NORM ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ nD rn ~ m 0 z ~ o ~ O ~ z D m ~ o C C z N I, a 1~ ~ ~ V1 ~ > As ~ V1 ~ ~ ; ~ z z r r D ~ D z I~ Z v ~ v n i~ - ~ - ~ ~ m o - m Z i Z # ~ ° 4 D ~ D ' n n m ~i m a,, K r m O `r T I ~ D z n n m z ~ o z ~ ~ 2 'i ~ r ~ P S' ~ h ~ --i_ ~ - ~ z O ~~1 y ~ ~ two Y'. 6~~~r ~ s x. n . ? _ - - n ~ - e ~ _ ~ I~. ~.....1 Y ~,t I ~ ~ o n o ~ o ~ _ ~ a~~~~l a ~ i o D r~ 0 T r-F m ~ N (Q ~ r t PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION CITY OF DUBLIN_ AUGUST 18, 2005 Land Use and Long Ronge Plaaning `ier-Rings Road Du '3fiia 43016-1236 'hG's~.'b 14-410-4600 fax: b14-010-4747 Neb Site: www.dufilin.ofi_us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 5. Rezoning (Preliminary Development Plan) - OS-0652 -Avery Road Condominium Community -Avery Road Location: 25.78 acres located on the east side of Avery Road, opposite Dan Sherri Avenue and Tuswell Drive. Existing Zoning: RI, Restricted Industrial District. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning (Preliminary Development Plan) to PUD, Planned Unit Development District, under the provisions of Section 153.053. Proposed Use: Amulti-family residential development including 22 four-unit buildings (88 units) and 83 acres of open space. Applicant: Betty M. Dearth and Avery Land Company, c/o The Epcon Group; represented by Joel Rhoades, 800 Stonehenge Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Claudia Husak, Planner. Contact Information: (614).410-4675/Email: chusak@dublin.oh_us. MOTION: To approve this rezoning (Preliminary Development Plan) because it will create an additional type of housing within the City of Dublin, it is consistent with the Community Plan recommendations, and exceeds the parkland requirement, with 12 conditions: 1) That the applicant continue to work with the City on the access management plan for Avery Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 2) That should the applicant choose to align the new public street accessing Avery Road at Tuswell Drive, a southbound left-turn lane on Avery Road onto extended Innovation Drive will be required, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 3) That construction traffic enter the site from Avery Road, subject to the approval of the City Engineer; 4} That a traffic calming traffic circle be incorporated at the final development plan at the intersection of public street "B" and public street "D"; subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the Washington Township Fire Department; 5) That minor landscape modifications be made in limited locations to fulfill the Commission's requests and comply with Vehicular Use Screening and Interior Landscaping Codes for the final development plan; Page I of 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION AUGUST 18, 2005 5. Rezoning (Preliminary Development Ptan) - OS-0652 -Avery Road Condominium Community -Avery Road (Continued) 6) That the applicant consult with the City Forester prior to the final development plan to verify the preferred street tree species; 7) That site stormwater management be compliance with the current Stormwater Regulations, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 8) That the applicant and Engineering Division staff meet prior to applying for final development plan approval to review stormwater management; 9) That the site comply with the Division of Engineering Administrative Policy for Intersection Visibility Triangles at all proposed access points; 10) That the final development plan include all adjacent and opposing curb cuts; 11) That a pool fence detail, complying with Building Code, be submitted at the fmal development plan stage; and 12) That the deed restrictions, limiting the number of units an owner may possess, be submitted with Final Development Plan for review and approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission_ * Ben W. Hale, Jr., Smith and Hale, representing the applicant, agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 6-0. RESULT: This rezoning (Preliminary Development Plan) was approved. It will be forwarded to City Council with a positive reconunendation_ STAFF CERTIFICATION ~~~a Claudia Husak, Planner Page 2 of 2 GI itli ~ ,l ~ R! ___'~i i s ~ I i~J~ , i ; ; ~ j PC D 1 `I ~y ~I CC 'J ~ I SO ~ Wil ~ x P1 ce I RI R1 1 u I, R _ _ ~ PLR ~ LP R I ~ - ~J ' I - R-1B ~i PUD ~j l ~ o 1~ _ it i I t ~ ° o ~ PLR ~ ~ ( ti ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ j ',i ~ I~ 1, `i ~ ~_J t I~i ~-~i, PLR Ill - , - _ n - , , i;) i R-1B - i ~ ~ R-1 B V~~ - PUD ~ 05-0652 City of Dublin Rezoning- Preliminary Development Plan Land Use and N ~ Long Range Planning Avery Road Condominium Community Feet 0 260 520 STAFF REPORT DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 18, 2005 CTfY OF DUBLIN_ Land Use and t"'~""~Raage Piaadag Shier-Rings Rood 1 i, Ohio 43016-1236 Plane: 614-410-4600 fox: b14-410-4141 Web Site: www.dublin-oh.us 5. Rezoning (Preliminary Development Plan) - OS-0652 -Avery Road Condominium Community -Avery Road Location: 25.78 acres located on the east side of Avery Road, opposite Dan Sherri Avenue and Tuswell Drive. Existing Zoning: RI, Restricted Industrial District. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning (Preliminary Development Plan) to PUD, Planned Unit Development District, under the provisions of Section 153.053. Proposed Use: Amulti-family residential development including 22 four-unit buildings (88 units) and 8.3 acres of open space. Applicant: Betty M. Dearth and Avery Land Company, c/o The Epcon Group; represented by Joel Rhoades, 500 Stonehenge Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Claudia Husak, Planner. Contact Information: (514) 410-4675/Email: chusak@dublin.oh.us. UPDATE• On July 21, 2005, the Commission tabled this case after extensive discussion regarding building materials, landscaping, parkland dedication, screening, and traffic calming. This revised plan responds to those comments by providing detailed landscape plans, driveway screening, and traffic calming. The revised text addresses parkland dedication, landscaping, and building materials. BACKGROUND: Case Summary: This is a request to rezone two parcels totaling 25.78 acres, from RI, Restricted Industrial District, to PUD, Planned Unit Development District. The applicant is proposing a change in zoning to PUD for 22 four-unit buildings (88 units total) with a clubhouse, swimming pool, and 83 acres of open space. Case Procedure: As described in Section 153.050, the purposes of the new Planned Development District regulations are to: Dublin Planning and Zonin ~mmission Staff Report -August 18, 2005 Case OS-0652 -Page 2 1) Provide an opportunity for a mix of land uses otherwise not permitted within the standard municipal zoning district classifications; 2) Allow the creation of development standards that respect the unique characteristics, natural quality and beauty of the site and the immediate vicinity and protect the community's natural resources by avoiding development on, and destruction of sensitive environmental areas; 3) Enable greater review of design characteristics to ensure that the project is properly integrated into its surroundings and is compatible with adjacent development; 4) Assure compatibility between proposed land uses within and around the Planned Development District through appropriate development controls; 5) Pursue the housing and economic development goals of the City; 6) Promote economical and efficient use of land and reduce infrastructure costs through unified development; 7) Provide for supporting community facilities; 8) Establish objective criteria for development plan review that ensure conformity to community and district standards and allow for consistent treatment throughout. The procedures established for the new Planned Development Districts continue to provide for proper site planning in a coordinated and comprehensive manner, consistent with accepted land planning, landscape architecture, and engineering principles, using imaginative azchitectural design and flexibility in building styles. The new PUD process may consist of up to three basic stages: 1) Concept Plan (Staff, Commission, and/or City Council review and comment); 2) Zoning Amendment Request (Preliminary Development Plan; Commission recommends and City Council approves/denies); and 3) Final Development Plan (Commission approves/denies). A concept plan shall be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission when the project is complex, comprises more than 25 acres, or does not comply with the Community Plan. Otherwise, a preliminary development plan shall be reviewed by staff and forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review and action. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the application to determine compliance with the approval criteria set forth in 153.055(A) and repeated below. Upon review the Planning and Zoning Commission shall ultimately forward the plan to City Council with a recommendation for approval, a recommendation for approval subject to conditions or a recommendation for disapproval. City Council shall review the proposal and conduct a public hearing before rendering its decision. Adopting the plan shall constitute a rezoning of the property and allow the applicant to proceed with detailed preparation of the final development plan. Review Criteria: In accordance with Section 153.055(A) Plan Approval Criteria, the Code sets out the following criteria of approval for a preliminary development plan (rezoning): 1) The proposed development is consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable standards of the Dublin Zoning Code; 2) The proposed development is in conformity with the Community Pian, Thoroughfare Plan, Bikeway Plan and other adopted plans or portions thereof as they may apply and will not unreasonably burden the existing street network; Dublin Planning and Zonin ~mmission Staff Report -August 18, 2005 Case OS-0652 -Page 3 3) The proposed development advances the general welfaze of the City and immediate vicinity and will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding areas; 4) The proposed uses are appropriately located in the City so that the use and value of property within and adjacent to the area will be safeguarded; 5) Proposed residential development will have sufficient open space azeas that meet the objectives of the Community Plan; 6) The proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and protects the natural resources of the site; 7) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. 8) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on the surrounding public streets and to maximize public safety and to accommodate adequate pedestrian and bike circulation systems so that the proposed development provides for a safe, convenient and non-conflicting circulation system for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians; 9) The relationship of buildings and structures to each other and to such other facilities provides for the coordination and integration of this development within the PD and the larger community and maintains the image of Dublin as a quality community; 10) The density, building gross floor area, building heights, setbacks, distances between buildings and structures, yard space, design and layout of open space systems and parking areas, traffic accessibility and other elements having a bearing on the overall acceptability of the development plan's contribution to the orderly development of land within the City; 11) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site so as to maintain, as far as practicable, usual and normal swales, water courses and drainage areas; 12) The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed development justify any deviation from the standazd development regulations included in the Dublin `Coning Code or Subdivision Regulation, and that any such deviations are consistent with the intent of the Planned Development District regulations; 13) The proposed building design meets or exceeds the quality of the building designs in the surrounding area and all applicable appearance standards of the City; 14) The proposed phasing of development is appropriate for the existing and proposed infrastructure and is sufficiently coordinated among the various phases to ultimately yield the intended overall development; 15) The proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing or planned public improvements and not impair the existing public service system for the area; and 16) The applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service the new development. CONSIDERATIONS: Site Characteristics: • Site Description. This vacant site consists of two undeveloped pazcels totaling 25.78 acres located on the east side of Avery Road, opposite Tuswell Drive and Dan-Sherri Avenue. The rectangular site is generally flat with 930 feet of frontage along Avery Duhlin Planning and ZoninL ~mmission Staff Report -August 18, 2005 Case OS-065Z -Page 4 Road. The existing St. John's Lutheran Cemetery is located along the northwest comer of the site, and there aze tree rows along the north and south property lines. • Zoning Description. This site is currently zoned RI, Restricted Industrial District, which permits manufacturing of food, textile goods, and medical equipment as well as wholesaling of drugs, groceries, machinery, tobacco, and furniture. Conditional uses include ali the permitted uses listed within the LI, Limited Industrial District as well as laboratories, wireless communications facilities, and administrative offices. • Surrounding Zoning. Properties to the north are also zoned RI, Restricted Industrial District. St. John's Lutheran Cemetery is zoned R, Rural District. The Heather Glen Village condominiums and the Heather Glen North subdivision border this site to the east and are zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District. To the west, across Avery Road, aze the Kendall Ridge subdivision zoned PUD, several large-lot homes zoned R-1 B (Washington Township), vacant land zoned PCD, Planned Commerce District, and the Dan-Sherri subdivision zoned R-2, Limited Suburban Residential. To the south is the Sandy Corners single-family subdivision, zoned PLR, Planned Low Density Residential District. Community Plan and Land Use: • Land Use and Density. The updated Future Land Use Map in the Community Plan (Map 8) identifies the preferred land use for this site as "Residential -High Density (2-S du/ac)." The required park dedication based on 26 acres and 88 units would be 3.16 acres. Plans indicate a density of 3.41 with a parkland dedication of 8.3 acres; however, the proposed open spaces along Avery Road and adjacent to St. John's Lutheran cemetery include 4.43 acres within the required setback and staff will accept half of the required setback (2.21 acres) as parkland if several amenities aze provided. The development text states that open space amenities such as bike racks and benches will be installed and that 2.21 acres of parkland aze located within the 200' setback of Avery Road. • Avery Road Area Plan. The Community Plan includes an area plan for Avery Road (page 89, Map 17), which designates this site for single-family residential uses, with a central east-west open space corridor stretching from Avery Road to Wilcox Road. "fhis site plan incorporates this element as part of the overall design. • Thoroughfare Plan. The Thoroughfare Plan designates Avery Road as a scenic road with a projected right-of--way width of 124 feet. The alignment for the Avery Road widening was established in 1996 and was adopted as part of the Thoroughfare Plan. Due to the location of the cemetery, this future widening will have greater impact on the properties along the west side of Avery Road than on this site. The Thoroughfare Plan also requires a public street connection between Avery Road and Innovation Drive on this site. The proposed site plan indicates this connection and as proposed will create the fourth leg of the intersection of Avery Road and Tuswell Drive_ As per the traffic study for this project, a southbound left turn lane is required at this intersection for this project. Traffic Study and Impacts: • Traffic Study. The traffic impact study for this rezoning includes the following verifcations: (1) that the traffic generation from the site is within ranges previously forecasted, (2) determination of trip distribution at opening day, (3) signal warrant Dublin Planning and ZoninL ~mmission Staff Report -August 18, 2005 Case OS-0652 -Page 5 analysis at the Avery Road and proposed site drive intersection aligning with Tuswell Drive, (4) that no further roadway improvements would be necessary at the Wilcox Road and Innovation Drive intersection, and (5) assessment and determination of appropriate roadway improvement options along Avery Road. The applicant has submitted a traffic study (see Avery Road Condominium Community Site Access Study, revised July 1, 2005). Staff has reviewed the study and concurs with its findings for trip generation, directional distribution, and that no further improvements to the Innovation Drive and Wilcox Road intersection aze needed. • Traffic Improvements. The City of Dublin is currently reviewing the preliminary alignment study for the widening of Avery Road in anticipation of completing construction drawings in Spring 2006_ The consultant is comparing the operational benefits of a traditional signal versus a roundabout at the intersection of Tuswell Drive and Avery Road. In order to build a roundabout with the cemetery on the east side of Avery Road, the intersection will have to move approximately 240 feet to south. This will cause the proposed site access point to shift south requiring a revision to the proposed site plan for this project. The relocation of the site access should not affect the general layout, density or open space calculations for this project. Staff recommends that the applicant continue to work with the City Engineer on the access management plan for Avery Road and revise plans as necessary to accommodate the proposed road widening. • Extended Innovation Drive. This development will extend Innovation Drive west to Avery Road from its current stub. Currently this street is proposed to align with Tuswell Drive to the east; however, due to the likelihood of public improvements along Avery Road in this area, the access point for this site may need to be shifted south to accommodate future road improvements. • Additional Road Connectivity. The applicant is proposing a connection to Heather Glen Village condominiums in the northeast corner of the site, at the request of staff In conjunction with this connection, the plans show the removal of the existing Heather Glen Village access to Innovation Drive in an effort to provide a better connected easdwest greenway comdor. • Access Points. The text states that all access points will meet the review and approval of the City of Dublin. Staff recommends that the site comply with the Division of Engineering Administrative Policy for Intersection Visibility Triangles at all proposed access points and that the final development plan include all adjacent and opposing curb cuts. • Project Phasing. In order for occupancy permits to be granted on this project before the City completes the Avery Road widening, staff requests that the applicant install the new public street at the intersection of Avery Road and Tuswell Drive as currently proposed and install the required south bound left turn lane to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Another option is for the applicant to delay the public street layout on the project until Fall 2005 when the City will have determined the best operation solution for traffic on Avery Road_ The City will share this information with the applicant as soon as it is available so that both parties can complete designs that accommodate all projects' improvements. Staff also has concerns regarding the phasing of the construction of this project. Construction traffic should not enter the site from Innovation Drive and staff recommends that construction traffic enter the site from Avery Road_ Dublin Planning and Zoning, ommission Staff Report -August 18, 2005 Case OS-0652 -Page 6 • Traffic Calming This 88-unit residential subdivision consists of five public streets_ Existing Innovation Drive to the east connects with "Road D" at the eastern end of the proposed development_ Any Traffic Calming Program would only consider public streets in the proposed development. Geometric features, such as decreasing the roadway width will act as traffic calming. Innovation Drive to the east of this site has 32 feet of pavement and it is proposed to taper down to 28 feet of pavement at its connection point with this development. Public streets "B" and C" have horizontal curves with a 120-foot centerline radius that will also act to reduce speeds_ The median at the entrance to the site from Avery Road will act as traffic calming by restricting the viewshed of the driver. Based on a recommendation by staff, the applicant has revised the development text to include a horizontal traffic calming measure on Innovation Drive the intersection of public street "B" and public street "D" to visually interrupt the tangent sections of roadway. This featwe should be incorporated into the design of the project at the final development plan and be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the Washington Township Fire Department. Site Layout: • General Layout. The development text states the land will be developed with ranch-style condominium units in four-unit buildings, with a clubhouse and a pool. Plans indicate buildings 1 through 6 are located to the north of the site along the northern public road and buildings 7 through 22 as well as the clubhouse are located in the southern portion of the site along the private road. Buildings 7, 20, and 21 also have access off the central public road. The development text states that the dedicated open space will be maintained by the condominium association. Plans show public open space with several ponds and walking trails along Avery Road and centrally located between the two public roads, extending the east/west open space corridor from Avery Road to Wilcox Road. • Street Layout. The development text states that access will be provided between Avery Road and existing Innovation Drive. The plans currently show the primary access to the site as a public street (Public Street "A") indicated off Avery Road in the northwest corner. This main thoroughfare is shown as a loop around the ponds and open space near the center of the site (Public Street "B" to the north, Public Street "C" to the west, and Public Street "D" to the south), and connects with Innovation Drive to the east. An additional loop is shown in the south-central portion of the site as a private street for access to buildings 7 through 22. The text states that a connection to Irelan Place will be installed if the City of Dublin Engineering Division determines this connector to be warranted as part of the Avery Road improvements. The plans currently show this proposed connection adjacent to St_ John's Lutheran Cemetery as Public Street "E". • Parkland/Open Space. The text states that an open space network will be provided consisting of 8.3 acres of public parkland with several ponds and park amenities such as walking trails and bikepaths. Along Avery Road, 4.85 acres of open space are shown and 0.6 acre is shown adjacent to St. John's Lutheran Cemetery. Approximately 4.41 acres of the combined open space is located within the 200' setback and staff will credit half of the open space within the setback as parkland dedication, as the text indicates. In addition, the text provides for the installation of bike racks and benches to facilitate public use. The plans show a preliminary layout of the proposed open space areas with a Dublin Planning and Zoning ommission Staff Report -August 18, 2005 Case OS-0652 -Page 7 lazge open space proposed in the center of the site continuing the open space corridor between Wilcox Road and Avery Road. • Architecture. The text states that four-sided architecture will be utilized with detailing such as window grids, steep roof pitches, roof overhangs, and exterior wood trim. The units will utilize all natural materials and five different building styles are proposed. The plans show preliminary elevations of five units with a variety of building materials. Staff believes that the architecture is four-sided and that the additional elevations will add architectural variation to this development. The applicant has also indicated to staff that variation will be emphasized along Avery Road, and based on staffs recommendation the text has been revised to state that distinctively different models will be incorporated. Development Text Standards: • Permitted Uses. The text permits the following uses for this PUD: condominiums, clubhouse, pool, and parks and open space. The development will have a maximum of 88 units in 22 buildings. The clubhouse will not exceed 3,000 square feet and the pool will not exceed 675 square feet. The plans submitted adhere to the permitted uses. • Height Requirements. The development text states that the building height shall not exceed 35 feet measured at the pitch of the roof. This standard is typical for residential development and the preliminary azchitectural elevations illustrate compliance with this standard. • Density/Setbacks. The development text permits a maximum density of 3.41 units per acre and the submitted plans conform to this density. The text indicates a 200-foot setback along Avery Road and a 25-foot setback along all public streets. The plans show all buildings aze setback according to the text. • Bikepaths/Pedestrian Circulation. The development text states that four-foot sidewalks will be installed in accordance with Code along public streets not serviced by bikepaths within the open space. The plans indicate such paths along the south and east side of public street "B", the west side of public street "C", as well as the north side of public street "D". • Parking Requirements_ The text states that parking will be provided in accordance with the Zoning Code. Code requires a minimum of 2.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit and each proposed unit provides atwo-car garage and an additional two spaces in the driveway. The clubhouse has its own parking lot with nine spaces. Staff believes that based on the internal orientation and low-impact nature of these facilities, the provided parking will be sufficient. • Signage. The development text allows one entry sign for this development not to exceed 20 square feet in area. The text indicates that the sign is to be constructed with dry-laid limestone with routed HDU (High Density Urethane) letters pin mounted to the sign. As shown on the submitted plans and described in the text, the sign will be an externally illuminated ground sign located to the south of the main access point off Avery Road. The proposed sign is consistent with the Dublin Sign Code and the specific color palette and lettering material shall be reviewed at the time of final development plan approval. • Lighting. The text states that all lighting will conform to the Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines. Dublin Planning and ZoninZ ~mmission Staff Report -August 18, 2005 Case OS-0652 -Page 8 Landscaping: • Text Requirements_ The text states that the landscaping shall be consistent with Code with some exceptions as detailed below. • Landscaping Buffer. The text requires landscaping to meet Code, which mandates a six- . foot high continuous screen with one shade tree every 40 feet along the adjacent light industrial uses around this development. The site currently has an existing natural treerow along the north and south property line, and additional trees and evergreens have been provided by the applicant to meet Code. The submitted preliminary landscape plan reflects these requirements and will be reviewed at the final landscape plan stage. • Vehicular Use Screening. Code requires a minimum 3.5-foot high screen around all vehicular use areas. The revised text and plans provide for landscape islands between driveways to soften the asphalt areas. Staff believes that this modification does not fully address the Commission's concerns and recommends that minor landscape modifications be made in limited locations to fulfill the Commission's requests and comply with Vehicular Use Screening and Interior Landscaping Codes for the final development plan. Plant species will also be noted at that time. • Street Trees. The text does not specify a street tree for this site, however, the plans indicate Red Maple as the street tree for this development. The approved street trees for Avery Road and Innovation Drive are the Sweetgum, and the Patmore Green Ash, respectively. The applicant should consult with the City Forester prior to the final development plan to verify the preferred street tree species_ • Landscape Plan. The applicant has provided landscape plans in some detail. The plans and the text indicate that dry-laid stonewalls will be utilized throughout the open spaces. Stonewalls and mounding are utilized to screen the clubhouse and pool from Avery Road. A plan of the viewsheds from Avery Road has been provided to illustrate the proposed screening. The applicant will provide a fully detailed landscape plan during the final development plan stage for approval by the Planning Commission. As has been indicated by the applicant, the use of amenities will be reflected in the final plans. Utilities and Stormwater Management: • Sanitary Sewer. A 12-inch sewer is available at the mid-point of the southern property line. The 10-inch sewer in Heather Glen North, to the east of this site, could also serve this site. Water Supply. The existing eight-inch water line on Innovation Drive is to be extended with the street to tie into the existing 16-inch line on the east side of Avery Road_ Appropriately spaced fire hydrants are required to meet Fire Code standards. Both the public and private systems require review and approval by the City of Columbus, Division of Water. • Stormwater Management. This project is required to meet the current Stormwater Regulations. This site is within two watersheds of the Master Plan, Cramer Creek and Cosgray Creek, and outlets are available along the eastern and southern property lines. Staff recommends that the applicant meet with Engineering Division staff prior to the final development plan stage to review Stormwater management. Dublin Planning and Zonin ommission Staff Report -August 1$, 2005 Case OS-0652 -Page 9 Architecture and Architectural Diversity: Architectural Details_ The text indicates that traditional residential architecture will be used throughout this development, including the clubhouse. The condominium units will be ranch-style without basements similar in style to the preliminary elevations submitted with the plans_ Building Materials. The text has been revised to require that building materials consist of brick, stone, wood, cementitious sideboard, and dimensional shingle. Four different color palettes are proposed for this development. The proposed stone is generally beige in color, while the brick is either red or red-toned. Siding is proposed to utilize earth tones and gray with shutter colors in green, dark brown and black. Further details of the building materials will be presented at the final development plan. • Clubhouse Design and Materials. The text states that the clubhouse will utilize a residential appearance through details such as dormers, porticos, shutters and window grids. Elevations of the clubhouse have been provided and utilize architecture which is residential in style. The building materials will include natural materials such as stone, brick, wood and cementitious sideboard. Final color and design approval will be required at the final development plan review_ The clubhouse features a pool to the south of the building with afour-foot high fence. A pool fence detail complying with Building Code will be required at the final development plan stage. Architectural Diversity. Architectural diversity will be maintained by prohibiting the same elevation of a model within one building on either side, and one home on the opposite side of the street/pedestrian green. The text has been revised to state that no two buildings in a series with the same color palette or same building material will be ad}acent. Typical architectural color palettes have been indicated in Exhibit 15 of the plans. • Patios. The text states that optional brick paver patios with privacy fences are available on Cathedral and Cathedral II models. The text has been revised to state that fences will be constructed according to Code and are limited to four feet in height. Platting Issues: • Plat Requirements. The development text states that right-of--way for Innovation Drive and the Irelan Place Connector (if installed) be dedicated. The plat should include any easements that need to be dedicated to the City. Additionally, a General Warranty Deed for any parkland to be dedicated is required prior to recording of the final plat. Staff notes that street and parkland dedication is separate from right-of--way allocation along Avery Road_ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The proposed development matches the Community Plan's density and land use recommendation, and takes into account the Commission's previous and recent comments and suggestions. The plan incorporates the eastlwest greenway comdor delineated in the Community Plan and supplements these open space features with ponds, meadows, and mounding. Additionally, this proposal would eliminate the industrial zoning and provide a transitional land use from industrial to residential. Staff recommends approval of this rezoning with the following eleven conditions_ Dublin Planning and ZoninL _,ommission Staff Report -August 18, 2005 Case OS-0652 -Page 10 Conditions: 1) That the applicant continue to work with the City on the access management plan for Avery Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 2) That should the applicant choose to align the new public street accessing Avery Road at Tuswell Drive, a southbound left-turn lane on Avery Road onto extended Innovation Drive will be required, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 3) That construction traffic enter the site from Avery Road, subject to the approval of the City Engineer; 4) That a traffic calming traffic circle be incorporated at the final development plan at the intersection of public street "B" and public street "D"; subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the Washington Township Fire Department; 5) That minor landscape modifications be made in limited locations to fulfill the Commission's requests and comply with Vehicular Use Screening and Interior Landscaping Codes for the final development plan; 6) That the applicant consult with the City Forester prior to the final development plan to verify the preferred street tree species; 7) That site stormwater management be compliance with the current Stormwater Regulations, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 8) That the applicant and Engineering Division staff meet prior to applying for final development plan approval to review stormwater management; 9) That the site comply with the Division of Engineering Administrative Policy for Intersection Visibility Triangles at all proposed access points; 10) That the final development plan include all adjacent and opposing curb cuts; and 11) That a pool fence detail complying with Building Code be submitted at the final development plan stage. Bases: 1) The proposed project will create an alternative type of housing within the City of Dublin_ 2) The proposal is consistent with the Community Plan recommendations. 3) The proposal exceeds the parkland requirement and provides over eight total acres of open space within the development. Dublin Planning and Zoni ~mmission Minutes -August 18, 2005 Page 11 5. Rezoning (Preliminary Development Plan) - 05-0652 -Avery Road Condominium Community -Avery Road Mr. Gerber swore in those who intended to testify in regards to this case. Mr. Gerber requested a brief staff explanation of what had changed since this application was tabled at the last hearing. Ms. Husak said at the July 21, 2005 meeting this case was tabled so that the applicant could address Commission comments including text revisions, building materials, landscaping, open space dedication, and traffic calming. Ms. Husak said the text had been revised to address building materials, patio fences, and pazkland dedication. A slide was shown of the revised site plan including the proposed landscape walls. A large wall located in front of the clubhouse and pool will provide screening_ She said a new color landscape plan illustrates additional details. Ms. Husak said the applicant will provide a full landscape at the final development plan. Ms. Husak said the Commission had asked the applicant to explore screening within the driveway areas to break up the paved azeas. She said the applicant had provided small islands between the garage doors. Ms. Husak said staff believes this revision does not fully address the Commission's comments and recommends a condition that modifications and more detail be provided at the final development plan. Grasses proposed for the landscape islands and the driveways were detailed on a slide. A slide of the new elevation of the clubhouse illustrated that the materials are the same as the units. Ms. Husak showed a slide indicating the views of the clubhouse from Avery Road. She said people would not be seen using the pool facility. Ms. Husak said staff recommends that the applicant install a horizontal traffic calming measure at the intersection of Innovation Drive and public street B and D. Ms. Husak said staff recommends approval of this rezoning application with the following 11 conditions: 1) That the applicant continue to work with the City on the access management plan for Avery Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 2) That should the applicant choose to align the new public street accessing Avery Road at Tuswell Drive, a southbound left-turn lane on Avery Road onto extended Innovation Drive will be required, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 3) That construction traffic enter the site from Avery Road, subject to the approval of the City Engineer; 4) That a traffic calming traffic circle be incorporated at the final development plan at the intersection of public street "B" and public street "D"; subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the Washington Township Fire Department; 5) That minor landscape modifications be made in limited locations to fulfill the Commission's requests and comply with Vehicular Use Screening and Interior Landscaping Codes for the final development plan; Dublin Planning and Zoni ~mmission Minutes -August 18, 2005 Page 12 6) That the applicant consult with the City Forester prior to the final development plan to verify the preferred street tree species; 7) That site stormwater management be compliance with the current Stormwater Regulations, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 8) That the applicant and Engineering Division staff meet prior to applying for final development plan approval to review stormwater management; 9) That the site comply with the Division of Engineering Administrative Policy for Intersection Visibility Triangles at all proposed access points; 10) That the final development plan include all adjacent and opposing curb cuts; 11) That a pool fence detail complying with Building Code be submitted at the final development plan stage; Ben W. Hale, Jr., Smith and Hale, representing the applicant said each request of the Commission in July had been addressed. He agreed to the 11 conditions listed above. Ms. Boring mentioned that there had been an ownership issue previously discussed and asked if it needed to be included in the text. She said if the residents complained to the City it could be enforced. She added that ownership had been addressed for every other condominium development. She said it had been included in the Homestead Communities agreement. Mr. Gerber agreed that the Commission had restricted condominium ownership many times. Ms. Husak said the applicant was willing to address it in the deed restrictions. Mr. Hale agreed to a condition that their deed restrictions contain a provision against rental. He said it could state that they would submit deed restrictions at the time of the final development plan for Commission review and approval. He said they were not building a rental community. Ms. Boring and Mr. Saneholtz said it was not planned to be a rental community today, but asked what about in the future. Steve Smith, Jr. said if the deed restrictions were part of the final development plan, they could address the Commission's concerns. Ms. Boring asked if it needed to be made part of the text that the deed restrictions will say this. Mr. Smith responded that if the Commission wanted to add a condition stating that they will bring it back as part of the final development for the Commission's review it would be sufficient. Mr. Hale he did not object to a provision against rentals. Mr. Gerber suggested that it be Condition 12. Mr. Saneholtz complimented Ms. Husak on her very well done report. He said he felt the applicant had responded to the Commission's concerns, and he appreciated that very much. Mr. Gerber recognized that a member of the audience wished to speak_ Dublin Planning and Zoni ommission Minutes -August 18, 2005 Page 13 Carol Lyden, 5220 Willowgrove Place North, said she may buy one of these condos, and asked if the condo owners or the City would be responsible for maintenance of the roads. Ms_ Husak said the City is usually responsible for maintenance of the public roads and the homeowners' association is responsible for the private roads. Ms. Lyden asked if the City would maintain the gate into the other condos. Mr. Hale said there was an emergency access gate and it could be unlocked if necessary by the Fire Department. Mr. Saneholtz understood from the staff report that there would be a roundabout_ Ms. Husak clarified that it was not a true roundabout, that it was a planted island which was small in size, about 15 feet. Mr. Saneholtz asked about building materials. Ms. Wanner said that they would be seen at the final development plan. Mr. Saneholtz noted that the development text did not eliminate the red brick material. Mr. Hale said the brick proposed will be presented at the final development plan. Mr. Saneholtz clazified that he made the observation at the last meeting this case was heard that he had observed the brick and stone combination at other Epcon developments sites and the reddish brick with the stone made a very ugly combination. Mr. Hale agreed to remove the word "red" in the text and bring the brick proposed to the final development plan review and approval. Mr. Gerber said this was a preliminary development plan review and the Commission would have opportunities to review and approval the material and other items at that time. Ms. Reiss referred to page E-15 of the submittal showing the color palettes, and requested that the green shutter colors be specified. Ms. Reiss asked that the applicant provide some means for flyers and newspapers to be delivered to residents. Mr. Hale agreed that they would provide a detail at the time of the final development plan. Mr. Gerber moved to approve this rezoning (Preliminary Development Plan) because it will create an additional type of housing within the City of Dublin, it is consistent with the Community Plan recommendations, and exceeds the parkland requirement, with 12 conditions: 1) That the applicant continue to work with the City on the access management plan for Avery Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; Dublin Planning and Zoni ommission Minutes -August 18, 2005 Page 14 2) That should the applicant choose to align the new public street accessing Avery Road at Tuswell Drive, a southbound left-turn lane on Avery Road onto extended Innovation Drive will be required, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 3) That construction traffic enter the site from Avery Road, subject to the approval of the City Engineer; 4) That a traffic calming traffic circle be incorporated at the final development plan at the intersection of public street "B" and public street "D"; subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the Washington Township Fire Department; 5) That minor landscape modifications be made in limited locations to fulfill the Commission's requests and comply with Vehicular Use Screening and Interior Landscaping Codes for the final development plan; 6) That the applicant consult with the City Forester prior to the final development plan to verify the preferred street tree species; 7) That site stormwater management be compliance with the current Stormwater Regulations, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 8) That the applicant and Engineering Division staff meet prior to applying for final development plan approval to review stormwater management; 9) That the site comply with the Division of Engineering Administrative Policy for Intersection Visibility Triangles at all proposed access points; 10) That the final development plan include all adjacent and opposing curb cuts; 11)That a pool fence detail, complying with Building Code, be submitted at the final development plan stage; and 12) That the deed restrictions, limiting the number of units an owner may possess, be submitted with Final Development Plan for review and approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Hale agreed to the 12 conditions as listed above. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Ms. Jones, yes; Ms. Reiss, yes; Ms. Boring, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr_ Gerber, yes. (Approved 6-0.) PROPOSED SITE PLAN _ - ~ ~ ! r 1___ ~ , 1 - r ~ ~ . _ _ =-1 - - 1 - - - - --J - 1 _ i 1 1 - j ~ ...k ~ ~n,- s ~ _ _ 1 1 /f r.wo® 1 ~piian~rrc o~ ~ ` `;puAQc Sireei ,"+A'~~ / / _ _ - - - - Qi~~e meet "F 1 - , t 1 r 1 1 ~ ~ . ` J:," "Lr N rooocsrn~ - - ~ pA~ r, r - 1 I ~ B - - - - - - \ ~ v ~ ~ ucsx we uww~ri ~ ii .wcsm ~ ,y~yn tt-~. - _ ~ % l t _ _ w_ _ _ _ - - - - - ~ _ - i 1 1 e i z ~.o _ _ 8 ~ j W' - - o? j 1 Q > i 1~n - 1 f < ~ - i J ti - •mt1- 1 " ~ ~ ~ _ 1 \ d Ia 1 ` ~ j.: - --z -i. . 1 ~ ie • "1 T ( tt _ 1~ - - - _ 1 ~ t ` ' 1. ~ _ _ I ~ lr ~ \ ~ L - Private Sueel'C _ - _ r' _ - - ~ r-~ t(~ ~ ~ ter'' -j _1 _ .m l ~ ' ~ ~ - ti' it ~ ~ _~~,---_I; r~ ~ , ~ . t~. 1'. _ i'_- ~1 . 1' - •1~_. tit ` -i ~ ~ _ ~ ~ _v~, OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Community PRQPQSED LANDSCAPE PLAN 1 I V ~ A ~ ~ ~ A C ~ ~ ` ~ ~ 1 ~ s 5~ ~ ~ z ~ o~cdcr a,~ t v i u.Q.?ee. Pe s'% V ~ ~ ~ A G ~ci ~ A f , • { ~ ' ~ ~ ~ f / _ f/" ) A 6 t l H' f-- /f ~ - i r a L/ i V P L A, ~ ' 1 ~l u i/ ~ E ~ J 1 :i A 8 I1 ~ 16 i l' /Jj r~ ~ r r C ~ v JJ ~ ~ 1 1 ~ 1• ~ _ r I •Ct. V : ~ ~ ;E. _ G ~ ~ A I ~ x ~ tS w ti ~t ~ I O~ A . ~ i ~ t ~ ~1 ~fcltfYAVPI.ZL ?A.ri j Y ~ F t v CM ~ ~ b ~ 1 , j • OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Community PROPQSED ELEVATIONS ~j ~f f s~' s _ - - - - ~ = v Classic- ChateaulChateau 11 z'? U ~ 1 _ Y ~ :2~ v ~ - ~r_ _ _ _ Classic- Villa/Chateau _ M ~ F . --g } r . ' J~ L ~ ~ .w, Cathedral- Canterbury!Abbey OS-0652 Rezoning - Avery Road Condominium Cctmmnnity PROPOSED ELEVATIONS t - ,U` t • ~ - Y .1~ _ ~ _ ~ Cathedral It- Canterhury;Canterbory i. - sy S^~ ~ . r S~` 1, a Cathedral Il-Abbey/Canterbury OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Community PROPOSED CLUBHOUSE ELEVATIONS - ~ ~ ~ a z r_ a o, y o _ y n a~~ ~ 3r _ S-_ Front Elevation r ti 'fr ~ v R l %t?~ l'~ ^J L _ - - ~ a ~ ie C ~7, - ~Ll.l ~ _ _ . u 1rS ~ Rear Elevation OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Community SF ~TIOI\I DRAWING'S ALONG AVERY ROtiO - r-o`'~ ~ ~ F _ - - - ~ - - - - - - 1 - u ~ SECTION: LANDSCAPE FRONTAGE ENLARGEMENT LOOKING NORTH ^ f ~f rte--: ~ 7 _ _ _ z SECTION: LANDSCAPE FRONTAGE LOOKING NORTH f q 1I < OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium (°.nmmunity i-'HUPU~~U DRIVEWAY SCREENING a A A ?3: e-u ~ 1-)' -1 _ _ fr t = e-s r Y-~ 4 s-w V j ~ „-O ~n-1 - _ . C _ J-l. _l -C - _ ? ['4 21 - ~ _ - ~0 - _-c i 'fir (J` + , J V C1 i ~ i! A 1'1 _ . f ,1 . _I. AI- ~1 1..! OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Community PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION ~ITY OF DUBLIN_ JULY 21, 2005 u~d Use oed P~9 ~80 er-IGags Road lu6 6io 4301-1236 '6onc_ 61410-4600 me 61410-4747 Veb Site: www-dubim_ah.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 5. Rezoning OS-0652 -Avery Road Condominium Community -Avery Road Location: 25.78-acre site on the east side of Avery Road, opposite Dan Sherri Avenue and Tuswell Drive. Existing Zoning: RI, Restricted Industrial District. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District, under the provisions of Section 153.053. Proposed Use: Amulti-family residential development, including 22 four-unit buildings (88 units) and 8.3 acres of open space. Applicant: Betty M. Dearth and Avery Land Company, c/o The Epcon Group; represented by Joel Rhoades, 500 Stonehenge Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Claudia Husak, Planner_ Contact Information: (614) 410-4675/EmaiL- chusak@dublin.oh.us MOTION: To table this rezoning application. * Joel Rhoades, representing the applicants, agreed to the tabling. VOTE: 7-0_ RESULT: After a lengthy discussion, this rezoning application was tabled. Issues discussed included text revisions, building materials, landscaping, open space dedication, and traffic calming. STAFF CERTIFICATION ~ Claudia Husak Planner OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road ('nnrlnmininm C'nmmnnity Dublin Planning and Zonir. ~mmission Minutes -July 21, 2005 Page 17 s. Wanner re onded that s. Boring as correct; a ore naturaliz look was nted. Mr. aneholtz ma e a motion or approval f this Final velopment P n/Final Plat ecause it inclu es diverse ar itecture an preserves e fisting trees, t layout, pro osed archite ure and landsc ing meet th text requir ents and i will maintain the high qua 'ty standard of the develop ent, with the Mowing 11 onditions: 1) That t e applicant ork with E ineering to finalize a de 'gn for the edian cut at he intersec 'on of Eiterm~a i Road and lasin Court, ubject to staf pproval; That the ite must co ply with t Division Engineerin Administrate e Policy fo Intersectio Visibility Tri glen at all oposed acc s points; 3) That the ap icant install eciduous s bs on the est side of e meanderin sidewalk ong Eiterma Road to imp ve privacy r future ho owners, subj t to staff ap oval; 4) T t the existin trees and un rgrowth be reserved wh e feasible; 5) Tha the Eiterma Road buffer nd street tr es be instal din similar shion to the uffer treat ent along th Villas of Ba antrae tot east, shou the existing reel not su 've, subjec o staff appro al; 6) That the applicant co inue to wor with staff t utilize prot ctive measur during hom constructi to save add final trees w re feasible; 7 That the lan scape plans d constructi drawings e revised to ow the existi trees and ree protectio fencing; 8) at utility pro ider informa 'on not be req fired on a p lot basis, as reviously re fired by co dition, but be oted on the at, and that t applicant pply such i ormation in t sales offs ; 9) That quired parkl d be dedicat in future se ions; 10) That th applicant su it an update Architectura Matrix tot e satisfaction f staff, prior scheduli a hearing at ity Council; nd 1) That the clinical plat adjustments e submitted rior to sch dining a he 'ng at City Council. Mr. erber second d the motion. Mr. Co e confirmed ain that he a eed to the 1 I onditions lis d above. The vote s as follows: Ms. Reiss, ye ; Mr. Zimme an, yes; Ms. oring, yes, Mr. Messine yes; Ms. Jon s, yes; Mr. G ber, yes; and r. Saneholt yes. (Appro d 7-0.) Mr. Gerber thanked the participants and said if they had any problems to call staff, w 'ch is very responsive. 5. Rezoning OS-0652 -Avery Road Condominium Community -Avery Road Mr. Gerber advised that this is a request for review and approval of a revised Preliminary Development Plan for a condominium development of 88 residential units in 22 buildings with 8.3 acres of open space. The rezoning application sets out specific standards that will be binding. This meeting is a recommendation hearing. At a later date, City Council will schedule a public hearing and vote to approve or disapprove the proposal. He swore in those who intended to testify this evening. . ,Dublin Planning and Zoning ommission Minutes -July 21, 2005 Page 18 . Ms. Husak stated that this is a request to rezone two parcels from RI, Restricted Industrial, to PUD, Planned Unit Development, for 22 four-unit buildings, with a clubhouse, a swimming pool and 8.3 acres of open space. The site is located in the southwest portion of the City. It is located east of Avery Road and to the north are industrial properties, and to the east are the Heather Glen Village Condominiums, and to the east and south are the Heather Glen Village and Sandy Corners Subdivision. To the west, across Avery Road, are Kendall Ridge and Dan-Sherri subdivisions. The site is zoned RI, Restricted Industrial, as are the properties to the north. To the east, Heather Glen Village is zoned PUD, and Sandy Corners to the south is zoned PLR, Planned Low-Density Residential District. To the west, Kendall Ridge is zoned PUD and Dan-= Sherri is zoned R2. Ms. Husak continued with a proposed site plan of this development. The plans indicate a density of 3.41 units per acre with 88 units and 22 four-unit buildings. There is a public street looping through the development connecting Innovation Drive with Avery Road. The public road provides access to six of the units to the north, and a private street loops through the south providing access to the other units as well as to the clubhouse and the swimming pool. The applicant is proposing a connection to Heather Glen Village to the northeast and in conjunction with that, the stub street of the existing access to Innovation Drive from Heather Glen Village condominiums will be removed. Ms. Husak noted that the road improvements planned for Avery Road, and the main access point of the site which is indicated opposite of Tuswell Drive on these plans will likely shift further to the south and the applicant has worked with staff to provide in the text for these future changes to the access point. The required park dedication, based on 26 acres and 88 units, would be 3.16 acres, and the plans currently indicate parkland dedication of 8.3 acres. There is a large portion ,of the parkland shown in the center of the site which connects existing parkland in Heather Glen and provides for an east-west corridor of open space between Wilcox Road and Avery Road, which is called for in the Community Plan. Ms. Husak said there is another large open space shown along Avery Road, part of which is located in the 200-foot setback and staff typically gives half-credit for open spaces in setbacks if amenities are provided. This text provides for open space amenities. Ms. Husak showed a slide of the preliminary layout of the open space, indicating ponds, walking trails and bike paths connecting all of the open spaces. The slide showed the correlation between the proposed development and the surrounding land uses, as well as the continued open space. This site is an infill site and the proposed development provides a transition between industrial uses to the north and residential uses to the south, east, and west. Ms. Husak showed slides of the proposed elevations. The building materials are all natural and they are proposed to be brick, stone, stucco and wood. Staff believes that the details in the architecture such as window grids, steep roof pitches, wooden trim, and the four proposed color palettes outlined in the text, do provide for additional diversity to the residential units. Ms. Husak continued with an architectural perspective of what three units in a row would look like. The applicant has indicated that a similar variation would be used along Avery Road, and staff is requesting that the text be revised to reflect this emphasized variation. She showed an elevation of the proposed clubhouse. The clubhouse will also have a residential appearance, Dublin Planning and ZoninL ~mmission Minutes -July 21, 2005 Page 19 similar to the units, wish the same building materials. The proposed entry sign shown complies with Code. It will be constructed out of dry-laid limestone with high density Urethane-formed letters pin-mounted to the sign. It will be externally illuminated and located south of the main entry off Avery Road. Ms. Husak showed several slides of the sites. Ms. Husak stated the proposed development matches the Community Plan density and land use recommendations. It takes into account several of the previous comments by the Commission, as well as City Council, and the applicant has worked with staff extensively to incorporate flexibility for the site access. The plan provides for the east/west greenway corridor delineated in the Community Plan and supplements it with ponds, meadows, mounding and amenities. Additionally, this proposal would eliminate the industrial zoning and provide transitional land use from industrial to residential. Ms. Husak said staff recommends approval of this rezoning application with 12 conditions: 1) That the applicant continue to work with the City on the access management plan for Avery Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 2) That should the applicant choose to align the new public street accessing Avery Road with Tuswell Drive, a southbound left-turn lane on Avery Road onto extended Innovation Drive will be required, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 3) That construction traffic enter the site from Avery Road, subject to the approval of the City Engineer; 4) That the text be revised to state that units fronting along Avery Road will incorporate distinctively different models; 5) That the applicant consult with the City Forester prior to the Final Development Plan to verify the preferred street tree species; 6) That site stormwater management is in compliance with the current Stormwater Regulations, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 7) That the applicant and Engineering Division staff meet prior to applying for Final Development Plan approval to review stormwater management; 8) That the site comply with the Division of Engineering Administrative Policy for Intersection Visibility Triangles at all proposed access points; 9) That the Final Development Plan include all adjacent and opposing curb cuts; 10) That a pool fence detail complying with Building Code be submitted at the Final Development Plan stage; 11)That the text be revised to state that no buildings in a series with the same color palette or same building material will be adjacent; and 12) That the text be revised to limit fence height around optional patios to four feet. Mr. Bird stated he would like to note for the record, that on page 2 of the staff report, in the final paragraph under Case Procedure, and in the first line of Review Criteria, it refers to Section 153.055(B). He said that should be (A), it is a Preliminary Plan approval. He said the staff would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Gerber thanked Mr. Bird and Ms. Husak. He asked if the applicant was present. Dublin Planning and Zoning, ,ommission Minutes -July 21, 2005 Page 20 Ben Hale, Jr., 37 W. Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio, stated he was representing the applicant, Epcon Communities. He noted this is an unusual site because it is one of the few in Dublin that has straight Industrial Zoning. Mr. Hale believed the Planning Commission had seen this site several times when it was in contract with Romanelli and Hughes and later with M/I. He said there are some fairly high demands on the site. He said it is relatively small (only 25.8 acres), and one of the issues on the site is that Dublin has always wanted to connect these together, and to get the connection to the north, and condos typically don't include public streets. Mr. Hale stated that the applicant has tried worked with the Edge Group to come up with an exciting project and innovative site plan with amenities. He stated that Epcon has $600,000 more in landscaping and site improvements, lakes and roads here than in any of their other projects. Mr. Hale said that the people who buy this product are empty-nesters. He said Joe Riedel of Dublin Schools indicated that this is a big win for the school because the development will generate in excess of $200,000 a year to the school district. Mr. Hale then said from a traffic point of view, these developments produce about six trips per day; asingle-family house typically produces about 10 trips per day. He said this development would produce the same amount of traffic as a two-unit per acre single-family development. Although this proposal produces six trips, many of these residents typically have better control over their schedules, and a lot of them are retired and not on the road during peak hours. Mr. Hale stated that the units are lined up so that one is looking at the deep end of the buildings from the roadway, which is always the most attractive part of the building. He said one of the things also committed to is a variety of different units. There are four different buildings that can be constructed very differently. The use of brick and stone, with different colors all add variety and can be mixed together. Epcon is trying to build diversity into the development with buildings side-by-side, having different colors and different brick or stone. Epcon specifically programmed the units along Avery Road so that everybody can see the variety. Mr. Hale said the required open space for this development is only a few acres and 8.3 acres will be provided. He believes that the open space is used wisely here. There will be a large park all the way from Avery through the development with bike and pedestrian paths. He said in terms of the Community Plan, the development eliminates that industrial zoning which is not subject to any of the review processes. He said Epcon is proposing a much better use than any industrial use of the property, especially in terms of the residential neighbors around this site. Mr. Gerber noted that there were several people signed up who wish to speak. Mr. John Finfgeld, 2365 Sonnington Drive, stated that he and his wife support the developer, Epcon. The couple has lived in the Old Sawmill subdivision, which is not within the City of Dublin. Both are retired, and have lived in Old Sawmill for over 28 years. Mr. Finfgeld stated that Epcon is always trying to find ways to improve by listening to the people who are buying. He said he lived next to this parcel and he would prefer the condo complex over an industrial use. He asked the Commission to consider a vote for a change in the zoning. Dublin Planning and Zonin` ,ommission Minutes -July 21, 2005 Page 21 Michael Kolnok, 6239 Pirthshire Street, lives in Sandy Corners, adjacent to this area. He supported Epcon's proposal. He said City Council has said that they want bigger and better things for the southwest area of the City. He fears storage buildings or factories could be built on this site with the current zoning. He asked for the Commission's support for this proposal because it blends well with the rest of the neighborhood. Ms. Boring asked Mr. Kolnok if he attended the meetings the developer held for the neighborhood. Mr. Kolnok responded yes. Ms. Boring said the Planning Commission was looking at other projects as well, and wondered why people do not come to support other projects. Ms. Boring asked why he did not come and support the other projects that have been reviewed, maybe a year or two ago. Mr. Kolnok responded that he had come to every meeting and has supported this development. He was under the impression that conserving space was an issue at some point. He asked that the Commission exert a little flexibility on the application of those particular standards. He thinks this is an excellent proposal, and that it blends in with the neighborhood. There are subdivisions here with condos behind them and he thinks anything else would not be a good proper use of the land. Mr. Gerber asked Mr. Kolnok if somebody had discussed this being an industrial site with him. Mr. Kolnok responded that he had not been approached. He said he understood that the current zoning allows manufacturing, and it was his impression anything can go in there. Mr. Gerber asked if that was discussed at any of these presentations. Mr. Kolnok said no, it was a feeling that he had that perhaps if this development would not be approved, something that would not blend in with that particular area would be built. Steve Seggebruch, 6289 Twonotch Court, the owner of a condo at 5947 Heather Glen Village Drive, spoke as a representative of the Heather Glen Village Condominium Association. He said all three members of the Board of Directors were present. He thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak and offered the Heather Glen Village Condominium Association support of the rezoning of this property to the multi-family residential use. He stated his support of the removal of the current extender between Innovation Drive and Heather Glen Village. He said a sidewalk currently exists that is used by the residents as both a walkway and a bicycle path to access and move through the community. He would appreciate it if the sidewalk would not be removed. Mr. Seggebruch was also concerned with the connection proposed between Heather Glen Village and this development. The Association pays for the cost and maintenance of the private streets, and is about to spend a significant sum of money to maintain them. The Association would appreciate not having public access between the two developments. publin Planning and ZoninL ,ommission Minutes -July 21, 2005 Page 22 Ms. Husak responded that this access is proposed to be gated and used for emergency access only. It is not intended to be a public access. Mr. Seggebruch said it does not state that anywhere in the document. He wanted to make sure that the issue has been satisfactorily addressed. Ms. Husak stated the development text states the access will be gated. Ms. Boring asked if the residents of Heather Glen Condominiums received a letter about this proposal. Mr. Seggebruch said he had not received a recent letter. Ms. Boring elaborated and asked about a~ correspondence, not just recently. Mr. Seggebruch said they had been at several of the prior meetings where this has been discussed, and he seemed to recall that before one of the earlier meetings there was a letter that was issued, but there was nothing issued prior to tonight's meeting given to the residents. He said that early in the process some time last year, he received letters on this project. Mr. Saneholtz said that on page 4 of the development text a paragraph addresses the emergency access gate. He read from the development text: `Emergency access gate will be installed on the private street connecting Heather Glen Condominiums to the proposed development as indicated on the preliminary development plan. The emergency access gate will comply with DFC Section 503.6 and will be secured by a suitable padlock. The developer will work with the adjacent property owner to the east to remove the existing pavement along the road currently connecting Innovation Drive to the Heather Glen' Mr. Saneholtz said he thought it was pretty clear that residential use of this property makes a lot of sense, versus light industrial, but did not want to speak for the other Commissioners. The question becomes how best to develop that property to the standards that are expected within Dublin, and that the neighborhood would be most proud of and to protect all your adjacent property rights so that everyone, including the development company and the developer can be very proud of this development. He asked for a sample of the siding that would be used. Joel Rhoades, Epcon Communities, responded that the siding would be aLouisiana-Pacific wood product. Mr. Saneholtz asked staff whether the proposed siding is a superior building material. Ms. Husak said that at the Final Development Plan samples would be provided. Mr. Saneholtz responded he has a couple of observations in the text specifically that were confusing. Dublin Planning and Zoning commission Minutes -July 21, 2005 Page 23 Ms. Boring stated that the text indicates `LP Smart Side' lap siding. She was concerned that if the Commission did not approve the siding, the material could not be changed, which poses a problem. Mr. Hale said they could solve this problem by agreeing that the buildings will be natural materials, which would also allow Hardiplank, subject to Final Development Plan approval. He said they would submit the natural materials to the Commission for review and approval. Mr. Saneholtz asked if that would be a condition. Mr. Hale agreed, and said the text will be changed before it goes to Council. Ms. Boring added that LP lap siding should be removed from the text. Mr. Gerber noted the materials should be specific. Mr. Saneholtz said that mention of specific materials concerned him. Ms. Boring suggested that the text be changed to reflect that the architecture on residential units will utilize all natural materials on all four sides of every building, such as stone, brick, stucco, and Hardiplank. Ms. Boring stated that the next text amendment would be that the materials be reviewed and approved. Ms. Wanner added that Hardiplank is a trademarked material. She said in the past, cementitious sideboard, or an approved equal, has been used and that could be added. Ms. Boring agreed that would define the materials. Mr. Hale asked if the review and approval of the materials would be at the time of the Final Development Plan. Mr. Gerber agreed. Ms. Reiss said she read in the Staff Report that stucco was not included as one of the alternatives. She asked if stucco was going to he used. Mr. Hale replied that they did not intend to use stucco, and agreed to remove it from the text. Ms. Boring said stucco should be deleted from the list of materials. Ms. Jones said the text amendment should include both the clubhouse and the residential units to ensure they match. Mr. Rhoades agreed to make the above text amendments. He asked if the siding could be wood siding, as well as the cementious product. Dublin Planning and ZoninL ~mmission ' Minutes -July 21, 2005 Page 24 Mr. Gerber agreed. He noted stucco was included in the proposed text. Mr. Rhoades agreed they would remove stucco from the materials listed in the text. Mr. Messineo questioned Section 153.053 being listed as the review criteria. A discussion regarding the section of the Code that addressed this type of application followed and it was discovered that Mr. Messineo's version of the Code was not a current copy. Mr. Saneholtz asked if it could be required or noted that dimensional shingles can also be used on the units and the clubhouse. Ms. Husak said that could be added to Ms. Boring's earlier amendment to the text. Mr. Saneholtz asked if these buildings were unique in Dublin, or whether they are duplicated elsewhere. Mr. Rhoades responded that the site itself, and the site features, are unlike anything they had done. However, they have built a similar product many times around Central Ohio, but the elevations here are unlike anything done before. Mr. Gerber asked what the general theme of this area was. Mr. Rhoades explained that because this is a unique, infill site their primary goal was to be in keeping with condominium services, single-story living, but still be compatible to the surrounding, existing developments. Mr. Saneholtz said that if he looked at these units, and then visited Epcon's other properties around the City, he would not get a sense that the units in Dublin were unique. Mr. Rhoades agreed that this is a four-plex, ranch-style building, which is the same. Mr. Saneholtz asked if the floor plans are similar in nature. Mr. Rhoades said they were, but the exterior elevations (the combinations of colors, materials, and shingles) would be different than what they had done elsewhere. Mr. Saneholtz asked if they have other developments with brick, as well as with stone. Mr. Rhoades said in Westerville they have featured stone, but in the Gahanna/New Albany area, they had more brick in keeping with the area. He added that they have material mixtures in the Heritage Golf Club in Hilliard. Mr. Gerber said that he was not satisfied with the answer regarding the theme. He acknowledged that it is a flat piece of property, but said this is an opportunity for the applicant and for Dublin to do something exciting on Avery Road. Dublin Planning and Zoning ~mmission Minutes -July 21, 2005 Page 25 Mr. Hale said they worked with staff specifically on the three buildings facing Avery Road to ensure diversity. He said at the Final Development Plan stage they will show exactly what they look like, with colors, and specify which ones are stone and brick. He said that along Avery Road, they will program the units, and illustrate the lakes and the landscaping in that area. Mr. Gerber said he was most interested in gateway features, especially on Avery Road. He added that it was difficult to envision what kind of gateway features will be in front. He said knowing whether the terrain was going to be completely flat, or if mounding is planned either along the road or on the other side of the ponds, were things that would help to visualize the theme. Mr. Hale explained that there will be walkways around the ponds, landscaping, ditches, and other natural features. It will be a usable area for the residents. Mr. Sanehoitz referred to the development overview in the text on page PD-1, the last paragraph. He asked Mr. Hale if the lakes along Avery Road will echo those at the intersection of Avery Road and State Route 33, at Kendall Ridge and at Ballantrae Park. He asked if there are stone walls around the ponds in this development, such as the stone walls in Ballantrae's water features. Greg Krobot, The Edge Group, said although the plan does not show it, the grading plans show mounding runs through this entire open space. The sign wall dead-ends into a mound. Mr. Gerber said that as additional development occurs on Avery Road, a theme needs to begin somewhere. Ms. Boring agreed. She asked if they were going to have perennials. Mr. Krobot indicated that the landscape plan given to the Commissioners indicated some of that plant material, but that is merely an idea. However, he did not think the entire site would be perennial gardens. He sees it more as a Midwestern Landscape. Mr. Saneholtz stated he appreciated the treatment in front of the development. He again noted that he did not see on the renderings the stone walls lining the ponds. He said he did not think the SR161/LTS33 area could be echoed without them. He said the roadside needed Dublinized and there needs to be a gateway feature. He said the stone wall he saw was very limited in scope, and needed to be improved. Mr. Gerber asked if the landscaping would come to the Commission for review and approval. Mr. Hale explained that this was a preliminary plan, and they were requesting the Commission's input, so that when the final plan is submitted, it can be addressed. He said they appreciate the Commissioners' comments. Mr. Gerber noted there needed to be a condition that detailed landscaping plans will come back for further review. Dublin Planning and Zoning commission Minutes -July 21, 2005 Page 26 Ms. Husak suggested that the text be revised to include the provision for stone walls, mirroring those at the developments previously mentioned. Ms. Boring added: `...subject to approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission.' Ms. Wanner clarified that the applicant is required, as part of the Final Development Plan submittal, to submit detailed landscape plans for approval. She asked if landscape plans were being requested prior to a Final Development Plan. Mr. Gerber responded that was not the case. Mr. Hale agreed with the above condition. Ms. Husak summarized that the text should be revised to include stone walls as a landscaping element, minoring those at the 161/Avery Road interchange and the Kendall Ridge Pond. Mr. Krobot said the stone wail can be carried into the interior of this development in some form and added that some of the walls may be interior falling walls like at Ballantrae, which are very attractive. Ms. Boring added that this looks like a monument, and not the Dublin stone walls. Mr. Krobot asked if he should make sure the ponds are visible, in an intermittent way. Mr. Gerber agreed. Mr. Hale added that they were going to construct a stone wall all along the front. Mr. Gerber repeated to the other Commissioners that they were going to get a chance to look at the wall later, and if they did not like it, they could tweak it then. Mr. SanehoItz added that a rendering of the wall would be helpful. He referred to a typo in the text on page 2, under item C, Planning and Development Principles should read: it is located adjacent to the 4.85 acres in the western portion,". He asked that moving the clubhouse to the interior be considered as it would make it accessible to all the residents of the development. He said he did not like to see a clubhouse pool and chairs from the road. He said it was a suggestion, not a requirement. Mr. Zimmerman said the clubhouse and pool should not be on an outside edge wall. It should be kept away from the residential area. Mr. Rhoades said he appreciated the Commission's comments, and acknowledged them. He asked if the thoughts were the consensus of all the Commissioners. He added that during the Concept Plan procedure, there were conflicting comments from the Commission and City Council. .Dublin Planning and Zoning commission Minutes -July 21, 2005 Page 27 Mr. Gerber acknowledged that was the risk when a Concept Plan went to two different bodies. Mr. Rhoades agreed and again stated he had heard from two of the Commissioners, but asked if that was the consensus. Ms. Boring said she thought if the clubhouse and pool were in the interior, it would be very much a part of the residence. Ms. Reiss agreed. Mr. Bird clarified that there is going to be mounding around the clubhouse, so it is not going to be very visible. However, the building and pool will be visible to the interior. Mr. Gerber noted that if the pool and clubhouse were in the middle, there will be residents who may not want to look at them from their property. Mr. Saneholtz said he needed to see a rendering that will provide a visual of what the clubhouse is going to look like from Avery Road. Mr. Krobot stated they would provide such a rendering. Mr. Messineo asked if the intent was to have the pool visible from the street, or to screen it. Mr. Hale answered that it will be seen, but there is mounding and landscaping. Mr. Gerber concurred that until he heard about the planned landscaping, he was on board to move the clubhouse, but said the more he looked at it, the more he is in favor of leaving it where it is, provided that there is adequate mounding and screening. Mr. Zimmerman added that there should be adequate mounding and screening planted in the beginning which will not have a growth factor five or ten years from now. Mr. Gerber agreed. Ms. Reiss commented that she did not object to the pool and clubhouse being where they are proposed if they are landscaped and mounded so deck chairs will not be visible from Avery Road, making it resemble an apartment complex. Mr. Gerber reiterated that the pool should be mounded and landscaped completely from day one. Mr. Hale agreed. Ms. Boring said she still thought if the clubhouse and pool were to be in the center of the site, it would open up the whole area. Dublin Planning and ZoninL commission Minutes -July 21, 2005 Page 28 Mr. Messineo suggested it would work well if one of the center units on the south side of the green were moved to the exterior, and the clubhouse was moved to the interior. Ms. Boring agreed. Mr. Bird stated that he thought it might be appropriate to explore relocating the car paths, as an option; and, also to look at screening and then to come back to the Commission and indicate what they would like to do, looking at those two options. Mr. Gerber agreed. Mr. Saneholtz questioned what it meant in the text under Section D, page 3 of the Final Development Plan - "Open Space: Public open space -Developer will dedicate 8.3 acres of designated public open space on the Preliminary Development Plan." He said under number 2, item 2, D -"Private Open Space, it read: Developer proposes to designate 5.77 acres of open space as private open space. This will be owned and maintained by the condominium association." He asked if 14 acres of open space was being dedicated. Mr. Hale said Mr. Saneholtz was correct, that for a condo, this is public open space, and it is going to be dedicated to the City. The private open space is all those other areas. Mr. Saneholtz asked if there was open space between the buildings. Mr. Rhoades said that would be condominium common area. Ms. Boring asked for clarification of the open space credit. Ms. Husak stated that this applicant is already exceeding the open space requirement without counting the open space in that setback. She said, however, all of the open space, including the one in the setback, is going to be dedicated. Ms. Boring asked if that figure should be changed in the text, because setbacks are not counted. Mr. Hale added that they are dedicating acreage, and without the setback area, they have more open space than they are required to have under the Code. Ms. Boring stated that the required 200-foot setback was not considered as open space. Ms. Wanner agreed. She acknowledged that this is one of the first developments that has come in since the Conservation Design Resolution. She said in developments that are providing amenities within that 200-foot setback, Dublin gives them half-credit for the setback. Ms. Boring said the text needed to be revised to indicate some of the open space is expected setback. Mr. Hale agreed to clarify the text. Dublin Planning and Zonin` ,ommission Minutes -July 21, 2005 Page 29 Mr. Saneholtz commented that the pinwheel design of the units creates an immense amount of pavement in developments, especially in between the buildings. He recommended concrete driveways for their durability and extended life and overall aesthetic impact on the site. He also indicated that a hedgerow planting in the middle of the driveways would help to screen the driveways. Mr. Gerber recommended making this change part of the landscape package. Mr. Hale said they can do the screening and the median extension, but felt they could not commit to the concrete driveways because of the three-install cycle. Mr. Saneholtz agreed and recommended utilizing concrete near the front of the garages, ending at the edge of the buildings. Ms. Cox stated the Zoning Code in the Parking Regulations section calls for parking to be of a durable surface, which can be either asphalt or concrete. She indicated that staff had not preferred one over the other in the past. Ms. Boring asked if this could be added to the text. Mr. Smith stated that the Commissions' request for driveway material is not consistent with single-family neighborhood development and this request was above and beyond what the Code requires. Mr. Saneholtz agreed, but was concerned about the immense expanse of asphalt indicated in the plans. Mr. Bird asked if this requirement is consistent with what the Commission had done in other Planned Unit Developments. Mr. Gerber responded that it was not. Mr. Bird agreed and was concerned with this inconsistent request. Ms. Boring indicated that some places are to have stamped concrete and they are trying to raise the bar. Mr. Bird agreed and suggested the use of landscaping, or some treatment like that would be appropriate. He repeated the idea that the request for concrete pads versus asphalt is consistent with what the Commission and staff have required in other Planned Unit Developments. Mr. Gerber noted that the level of amenities is usually commensurate with the caliber of the project. He agreed with raising the bar but stated that this could be accomplished in another more practical way in this project. Ms. Boring agreed with Mr. Saneholtz' statement about the 'sea of black asphalt.' Dublin Planning and Zoning ommission Minutes -July 21, 2005 Page 30 Mr. Gerber agreed that this was an issue. He asked the developer to go back to the drawing board to look at other options. Mr. Hale agreed that these issues need to be screened. He noted that with the Final Development Plan, they will come up with some screening techniques for those courtyard areas. He added that they will explore a plant material screen between the buildings. Ms. Boring asked if staff could create a condition for this screening. Mr. Saneholtz repeated that screening will be provided to divide the individual driveways, out to the edge of the setback. Ms. Boring advised Mr. Hale that they needed to add something more than that. Mr. Hale agreed and said that they would also screen the courtyards. Mr. Messineo asked Mr. Hale who has maintenance responsibility for this area. Mr. Hale responded that basically, the homeowners have the duty to maintain the interior, but the condo association maintains all of the private streets, all of the landscaping, all of the grass cutting, all of the exteriors and the roofs. Mr. Messineo asked if the condo association would maintain the asphalt right up to the driveway, and the garage. Mr. Hale agreed. Mr. Saneholtz asked staff to assist in the selection of plant materials. He stated his concern for the lack of diversity of floor plans and the needed addition of basements. Ms. Boring agreed. Mr. Rhodes said they have found in almost 20 years of company history that the majority of our customers want single-story living. Mr. Saneholtz asked if we can we put it in and basements as an option. Mr. Gerber stated that the addition to the homes will increase the price and preclude the availability of these units for most people. Mr. Rhodes clarified that they have not done basements before. Mr. Rhodes commented that they have increased the size of the garages to allow for more interior space behind the garage in the core of the building, for storage purposes. Mr. Gerber asked about typical square footage. Dublin Planning and Zonin ~mmission Minutes -July 21, 2005 Page 31 Mr. Rhodes indicated a unit ranges from 1,200 square feet to 1,900 square feet, with an additional 410 square feet for a garage. Mr. Gerber asked Mr. Hale what about the typical size of a condo in Tartan West. Mr. Hale thought they were around 2,000 square feet. Mr. Gerber asked Mr. Hale if he wished to table this application to refine the details discussed. Mr. Hale agreed. He indicated he will be out of town, but would try to be at the meeting on the 18`h of August. Mr. Gerber asked staff how many cases were on the Agenda for the 18`h Ms. Wanner indicated there were a number of cases, approximately seven, and this could be eight. Mr. Gerber encouraged all Commissioners with questions to call staff before the meeting. Mr. Saneholtz suggested considering a traffic calming solution for the first intersection. Ms. Boring requested they look at pavement width as a traffic calming device. Mr. Gerber agreed, but said to make sure it is still accessible to fire trucks. Ms. Cox thought the main street was going to be a typical local street with 28 feet back-to-back of curb. The fire department would have to agree on anything less than that. Ms. Boring commented that it is the main road through this development and a connector road. She felt it was important to start looking at friendly traffic ideas. She asked the applicant to consider some type of traffic calming. Ms. Boring also asked if the ponds would be lost when Avery Road gets widened. Ms. Cox stated that in this area, because of the cemetery at the northwest corner of this property, most of the widening goes toward the west side of the road. When Engineering gets closer on the engineering on both of those projects we will make sure to coordinate. Ms. Boring asked about goose-repellant measures. Mr. Gerber indicated they could take care of that at the Final Development Plan. Mr. Messineo assumed that the Commission will get floor plans at some point. Mr. Hale replied yes. 'Dublin Planning and Zoning commission Minutes -July 21, 2005 Page 32 Mr. Messineo noted that some of the ponds have fountains. Mr. Krobot responded that they would have aeration throughout, so there wouldn't be stagnant water. He said the details will be part of our Final Development Plan. Ms. Boring asked if there is text controlling and limiting the number of units that one person can own. Mr. Rhodes replied that before he could respond he would like to see the language. Ms. Boring agreed that since they have been gracious enough to table, there will be time to get the language before the next meeting. Mr. Zimmerman reiterated that the sidewalk should remain in place if the connector between Village Drive and Innovation Drive is removed to give the residents their conductivity. He asked the applicant to speak to the distribution of building materials for the units. Mr. Rhodes stated that there are two elevations shown, but it would represent all four sides of the building. There will be siding on the porches and some of the other areas as well as stone. Mr. Gerber called for a motion. Ms. Reiss indicated she would like to see a better representation of the color palette. Mr. Messineo interjected that maybe the Commissioners could see the actual color plates. Mr. Bird explained they are required to bring these items at the Final Development Plan. Mr. Rhodes said they would make the colors subject to the Commission's approval. Ms. Reiss questioned where the roundabout would go. Ms. Cox indicated she believed, based on the alignment study that for Avery Road, there is a little bit ofright-of--way that needs to be dedicated. Ms. Reiss wanted to know who is going to pay for the removal of the Village at Heather Glen roadway. Mr. Rhodes indicated that they will pay, and they will leave the sidewalk. Mr. Zimmerman made a motion to table this rezoning application. He added `...until the 18`h of August,' and also to work on the comments and the added conditions to the motion. Mr. Bird said the clarification will come back as a package with the conditions specified and changes to the text accordingly. Dublin Planning and Zoning ~mmission :'Minutes -July 21, 2005 Page 33 Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Mr. Hale agreed to the tabling. The vote was as follows: Ms. Reiss, yes; Ms. Boring, yes; Mr. Messineo, yes; Ms. Jones, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes. (Tabled 7-0.) Mr. Gerber thanked the applicant. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lois Willard Clerical Specialist II Land Use and Long Range Planning I~'arle Libby y Administrative Assistant Land Use and Long Range Planning RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of ~."~,~w Meeting owria.icci ac rorw no. w~.s April 18, 2005 Page 5 Held 20 There w+il be a seco eadng/public hearing at the y 2 Council meeting. LAND PURCH E Ordinance 5 Authoi g the Purchase of a 0.480 e, More or Less, Fee Si a Interest, From Ric d W. Anderson, Located st of Wilcox Road, City of blin, County of F nklin, State of Ohio. Ms_ Salay introduced the or ' ance_ Mr. Smith stated that thi dinance is related to the s merit of the last land acqui case in cortjundion the southwest traffic calrru .The City was in Gtigatart the property owner a now has a proposed settle t. There will a second reading/public h rig at the May 2 Coundl m mg. IN ODUCTIONIPUBLIC HEA G -RESOLUTIONS OPTION OF GOALS Resolution 07-05 Adopting the City of blip's Goals for 2006-200 _ Ms_ Srautigam sta that Council was provided a report in follow-up to th rch 11 retreat. She a some minor clarifications information_ At the retr ,Council had requested the S_R. 161 corridor plan al be moved to a higher ,and that has been do May hinnici-Zuercher thanked _Srautigam for condensi a report into goals for ndl to adopt_ r. Keenan asked about .R. 161 corridor goal and they the area is defined in City document Ms. Srautigam re ded that it has not been cle defined, twi this wiN be pa f the comprehensive n update effort. In the coot of the retreat, her understa Ong is that it induded the ea from the river eastward. Mayor C "nisi-Zuercher agreed that xad area could be defined in the community plan ate work. Mr eenan commented that he uld Gke to revisit that issue en the time is ppropriate. Vote on the Resolution. .Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, ; Mr_ McCash, yes; Mr_ L er, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; .Boring, yes; Mayor Chinn' uerdter, yes. OTHER /j- Concept Plan -Avery Road Condominiums (Case 04-119CP) Mr. Bird stated that this is a concept plan appeal to Council regarding the decision of the ~j ~ b Planning and Zoning Commission to deny the plan for what is known as the Avery Road J condominiums. The proposed development is located on the east side of Avery Road, just south of Shier Rings Road_ The site consists of 25 acres, surrounded to the east, west and south by residential zoning and to the north by Restrided tndustrial zoning. The site is currently zoned Restricted Industrial. The Community Plan calls for the site to be used for residential development at a density of five plus units per aae_ He showed slides depiding an aerial photo d the site. He rated that Innovation Drive would extend through the site in some fashion, regardless of the zoning. Another important item is the open space park corridor, and the expectation that it would extend through the site. The site is 25 acres, is basically flat in topography and was apparently used for farming in the past. The site plan proposes to construct 22 attached four-family condominium units on approximately 25 acres, a net of 3.5 units per acre. The required open space is indicated at nine aces or 36 percent of the site. He distributed a revised conservation design prindple matrix to Coundl, as the one in the packet was labeled somewhat differently on some of the points. After the applicant first appealed to Council in December of last year following the Planning Commission's dedsrort of 6-0 to deny the concept plan, the staff made the determination that the site, under Resolution 27-04 was not a prime candidate for conservation design. It lacks natural vegetation, steep slopes, or other natural features. However, that does not mean that the applicant should not make every attempt to meet conservation design principles and for this reason the chart is provided. Staff identified 21 criteria from the resolution, and the matrix shows that the applicant has met a significant number of conservation design princples. A couple were not applicable relative to historic landmarks and curvi{inear streets to lake advantage of topographical changes. There are four areas in which the application does not meet the strict definition OS-~6rJZ Rezoning Avery Road Condominium C~mmunit RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of ^vbt;+,~C~ty 6eui~; Meetine April 18, 2005 Page 6 Held 20 of conservation design. Those relate to open space of 50 percent, 75 percent adjacent to open space, clustering of units and the four to one ratio_ Taking into account the private open space on the site, adding that to the overall open space results in around 50 percent. This does not strictly meet the criteria of a four to one ratio of open space. The original plan proposed 108 units and it now'atdudes 88 units. Mr_ Bird noted that another version of the plan was presented by the applipnt as a conservation subdivision design submittak Practically speaking, it was a poor attempt to meet the design standards_ Staff has worked very hard at applying the conservat~ort design criteria to this site, even after determining that it is not a prime candidate. Staff views the submissron as somewhat of an insult to their intelligence. Nonetheless, staff believes that the applicant has made efforts in temts of the design of the site to strive for conservation design, even though a determination was made that it is not a prime pndidate. Staffs recommendation would be to approve the concept plan, but he added that staff has concern about the diversity of the architecture_ The next step would be to return to the Planning Commission to address the architedural diversity of the site. Mr. Reiner asked about the matrix. It indicates categories of, "meets prinaple, meets principle intent and does not meet principle' Ne asked for additional darfication about the open space and adjacency requirements in terms of this plan. Mr. Bird responded that this detail is included in the staff comments. In regard to the 50 percent open space requirement, if the private space is included, it meets the criteria -but with the caveat that it does not meet the four to one ratio. It does meet the 75 percent adjacency requirement, but again with the caveat that it does not meet the four to one ratio. The dwelling units are clustered to preserve sizable open space, but the issue is once again the four to one ratio_ Mr_ Keenan stated that t?e is confused about the language, "meets the principle intent ° What is the principle? It calls for 50 percent, yet the legislation states, "sVives to" in regard to meeting the intent. This is very confusing. Mr_ Reiner responded that in reading a trad on conservation design for any municipality, it indicates the princlples that govern such design and these are what should be met_ If the conservation design plan submitted by the applicant was not a serious effort to try to meet the principles, is the bottom line issue with the site one of density? Mr. Bird stated that to meet the four fo one ratio on open space would require them to reduce the number of units_ Mr_ Reiner summarized that this plan is then an attempt to obtain a higher density and not meet the conservation design requirements_ Mr. Bird stated that the Community Plan shows a density of five units per acre and this application is at 3.5 per acre_ Again, the caveat is the four to one ratio of size on the open space_ It comes bade to the issue of whether this site is a prime candidate for conservation design - is it along the stream corridor, or does it have natural features for preservation? Even though staff made the detemtination it was not a prime candidate, staff reviewed the conservator design criteria and made every effort to meet them. Mr_ Reiner stated that it appears the applicant attempted to create a nice site plan, to create interesting amenities for the neightxtrhood, for a projed with a higher density that does not mean conservation design requirements. The question is if conservation design is desired, it could be done with these same units by having them radiate up along the ~ lakes. Mr_ Bird agreed that would be an option. But relative to the site itself, its location within the neighborhood, and looking at this as a transition site between what exists around it, it is less dense than the condominium development around the site_ A conservation design would require a different layout to accompGsh_ Mr. McCash asked for clarification about what Courtdl is considering tonight. Council is in fact reviewing the concept of rezoning this land from industrial to a residential use, riot reviewing the layout of the site_ Mr. Bird responded that the Planning Commission denied a concept plan which is non- binding. The applicant is requestir~ that Council approve a concept plan which is also non-binding_ In effect, Council would be indicating that this type of development is appropriate fa this site_ It would then go bade to the Planning Commission, and staff suggests a condition thaf the Commission reviews the diversity of the architedure_ 05_~65Z Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Community RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of - Meeting wrra.afc.~ «,r« ..c w....o ,o... April 18, 2005 Page 7 field 20 Mr_ McCash stated that Council is neither rezoning the property nor approving a spedfrc layout_ The layout would be a preliminary development plan and final development plan matter. Mr_ Bird concurred_ Mr. Reiner noted that he is not opposed to this being an Epson built or other residential project. He hopes that the adjacent residents are not fearful of this being developed under the current industrial zoning. Ne is interested solely in the applicant meeting the standards of the City. Ms. Salay asked about the current zoning dassification of this site_ Mr_ Bird responded that it is Restricted Industrial. Ms_ Salay asked what type of development could occur on the site with minimal review, given this zoning dass~cation_ Mr. Bird responded that a signifignt number of industrial uses are possible. This area has a carryover zoning from the township, and is not a planned district. Potential development could indude most any type of general industrial use. Ms. Salay stated that she is aware that there was at least one other residential project disapproved by Planning Commission for this site_ Mr. Bird stated that there were at least two others in addition to this one that were denied. Ms. Salay summarized that this is the third residential proposal that has been brought forward for this site_ She is confused about the matrix and the comments relative to the two different plans submitted. Dces the matrix refer to the plan on page 6 or page 11? Mr. Bird responded that the plan referred to is the one on page 6 with 88 units. The caveat in this is the four to one ratio for size of open space_ That is the key issue_ But staff found that this site is not a prime candidate for conservation design, given the criteria established in the resolution_ The resolution also states that regardless, the applicant should strive to meet the standards. Staff believes that they have done so. Ms. Salay noted that the general fear of the area residents is that the site is zoned industrial, regardless of what the Community Plan indicates_ Until it is rezoned to residential, the fear will continue -unfounded or not. Mrs. Boring pointed out that the industrial zoning was in place long before the area houses were built. If there were a plan to develop this with industrial development, it would have happened long ago. The land prices and Dublin's Code requirements now predude this type of development_ Mr. Bird responded that he could not speculate on this_ If it is zoned industrial, someone could indeed develop it that way. Mr. Reiner noted that the older businesses along Avery Road are being removed and he would expect this to finish out as residential, not as an industrial park. While it is zoned industrial, it is very untikety that will occur_ Mr_ Lecklider pointed out that a car wash has already been developed along Avery Road. Mrs. Boring stated that this is a transitional area, especially in view of the Battantrae development_ Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that the issue before Council tonight is a proposal ~ for residential condominium development on this site versus industrial_ Mr. McCash stated that the current conservation design resolution indicates that staff makes the determination of whether a site is a prime candidate for this design_ Staff made the determination that this site is not an appropriate site far conservation subdivision design_ Even with that determination from staff, the goat is for the applicant to try to incorporate as many prindples as possible_ Based upon that standard and the I adopted resolution, he understands that the applicant has strived to incorporate as many of these principles into the 88-trait plan as possible_ Mr. Bird concurred that this is staff's determination. OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road C'nndominium Communitv RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of - Mee[ing - DI4YIUM lFG~I k. fOPY MO. .IW April 18, 2005 Page 8 Held 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited public testimony_ Barn Adclev 6279 Ruth Ann Court Sandy Comers subdivision requested Council's support for the concept plan and for the future rezoning_ Living in this neighbofiood, he realizes that this area is curzently zoned industrial and there is the potential that someone could at anytime build a big metal box John Finfgeld, 2365 Sonnington Drive, Dublin noted that he and his wife support having the condominium development bunt by Epcon along Avery Road. They have lived in the Old Sawmill subdivision for 28 years and are considering downsizing. They feel that the condominiums would be very interesting and are in an excellent bcation. After seeing the plan with the lakes and 88 units, they are very impressed. They sent a letter dated March 23 to Council expressing their support of the proposal. They are interested in greenspace and conservation, although they are somewhat confused about the requirements. With industrial zoning, there are likely far less requirements for greenspace. There are condominium units being built on the western side of Sawmitl, and he assumes they are meeting the same requirements_ In reviewing the project along Sawmill, it does not appear there is as much greenspace as that in the Epson project They are interested in having the condos built along Avery Road and request Council's support_ Mr. Ledklider pointed out in regard to the project along Sawmill that the zoning was in place bng before the conservation subdivision requirements were adopted. He noted for the record that Mr. Finfgeld presently lives in Columbus, not in Dublin_ Council would certainly welcome them to the Dublin community. Linda Kolnok 6239 Perthshire Street Sandy Corners subdivision stated that her subdivision backs up to this area. She urged Council to approve this concept plan for residential development, as they are very concerned with the present industrial zoning. They have witnessed the car wash being built and they understand that under the present zoning, almost anything can be built. With the great area surrounding this - Ballantrae, Kendall Ridge, Heather Glen and Sandy Corners -they definitety do not want industrial zoning on this site. Planning Commission two years ago indicated that they wanted bigger and better things for this area, and industrial zoning would not constitute either_ She urged Councl to consider approving this plan. Pepgy Burrows 6179 Glenvillage Drive President of Heather Glen Village Condo Assogafion which is to the immediate east of this indicated that they have two main concems_ First, it is zoned industrial and the industrial to the north has proven to be a noise pollution source. Secondly, Epson has committed to working with them in regard to concerns with the private road which leads to Innovation Orive and which goes through their development_ Every other proposal brought forward has wanted to use this private road to go through their development. The Association spent $6,600 last year repairing this road, and they estimate another $7,600 is needed this year because of the high traffic volume. They totally support Epson developing this property_ Ben Hate. Jr_, 37 W. Broad Street noted that one of his previous applicants for this site was also his diem and based on the staff feedback, he advised them to withdraw. The diem prior to that was Romanelli and Hughes and they withdrew due to cost considerations. He persuaded Epson that this site would be appropriate for their type of development concept. There is no question that this site is more valuable as residential today than as industrial_ He showed Council a drawing showing the exact buildings that exist on the Restricted Industrial site to the north and placing them on this site_ It would meet the zoning code under the present zoning. But the site is more valuable as residential versus industrial development due to the square footage restrictions on the industrial zoning_ There are two other things that occurred with this site. One is the adjacent existing park, and the Community Plan calls for that park to be extended -which they have done through this site. There is also a desire to maintain a 250-foot setback akxrg the roadway_ What results is a remaining site which is very contained. Either the park is not continued, or two-story units are built on the site. But to meet the absolute criteria, it would require a different plan_ The question is what will occur on this property. He believes that one-story condominium units are appropriate on this site_ Epson wants to have a location in Dublin because in the last 18-20 months, they have soW 40 units of this type in Powell to former Dublin residents. The buyers wanted to stay in Dublin, but OS-®65Z Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Commune RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minate_e of ~ McPiing ~.q April 18, 2005 Page 9 Held 20 did not have such units available_ Other factors are that these residents place few demands on the City - in terms of schools, traffic, and services_ Most residents are 60 years of age or older. This is an excellent site plan and includes water feature amenities_ It is a better use on the site than the cxxrent zoning_ Even with Council's endorsement, there is much work to do with the Planning Comrrassion to secure approval of a preliminary development ptan_ This is an expensive development in view of the roads and the open space requirements. It is not appropriate to require them to meet the absolute n~uirements of the conservatwn design as welt. Mr. Reiner commented that no one on Council is In favor of this being anything other than residential zoning. Hovvever, if Council approves this concept plan, does it also constitute approval of the proposed density? Mr_ Bird responded that essentially, the density proposed of 3.5 units per acre is non- binding. to the Counal or to the Planning Cornmission_ But Council can be assured that conservation desgn prindples are going to be applied to this property_ Essentially, the density shown on the plan is 3.5 units per aae_ So in reality, Council is endorsing the proposed density. Mr_ Reiner asked staff 'd this would constitute setting a precedent in terms of others corning in with conservation design plans_ Mr_ Bird responded that he does not believe that is the case. He believes that the resolution states that there are certain criteria and a determination is made if the site is a prime candidate for conservation design_ li relates to the natural features of the site and to the criteria in Section 3 of the Resolution. Mr. Reiner further commented to staff that conservation design could be done on a site of only three or five acres, depending upon the layout and the number of units. He is not certain that staff should make judgment calls on parcels, especially as large as this as to _ whether conservation design is applicable. The land planner in this case did a nice job in creating a series of lakes and upgrading the site, but that same site and upgrades could be inducted, allowing for better views and open space by modifying the design. Conservation design should not apply only to sites sitting within a Forest_ Flat fields can be beautiful communities, based upon what has been done with conservation design. ti does not depend on the site amenities of creeks and forests, and staff may have missed the cue on this. Mr. Ledclider commented that fie will vote in favor of this concept, but wants his rationale understood. to approving a concept plan, it is his understanding that it Is non-binding, even with respect to density_ He appreciates the fact that the plan will not likely come back at a significantly lower density, but his support of this concept does not necessarily commit him to supporting a spec density of 3.5. Mrs. Boring noted that in many cases, Council indicates that the concept plan is non- binding, yet it becomes the final proposal. At this point, she is hesitant to support the plan, although she does support residential development in this location_ Mr_ Keenan asked where the matrix came from? Was this taken from the resolution? Mr_ Bird responded that staff devised this matrix as an evaluation toot to determine what constitutes conservation design. Mr. Keenan stated that to him, the key question remains what does, "meets conservation design principles' mean? What does "strive to' mean as it applies to development approval? These are the issues for him. Secondly, he would like to see an example of an acceptable conservation design plan on the site. Perhaps the study session will help to clarify these issues_ Mr. Reiner stated that on a 25-acre site, it is very easy to accommodate a conservation design plan. He agrees with staff that there was not a good effort made by the applicant on such a plan. Mr. Keenan commented that at the outset, staff indicated that this site was not appropriate for conservation design_ As a Counal Member, he relies upon staff for their expertise. Mr_ Reiner stated that staff essentiaNy "missed the beat" on this. Conservation design relates not only to preservation of natural features, but also to layout of the site OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Community RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutee of T.- Meeting OMYIONIfG~I NC (a1Nrq. wW April 18, 2f)OS Page 10 Held 20 Mr_ LedJder commented that he is in agreement with Mr_ Keenan in regard to deferring to staff s original determination in this case. In addition to the comments he has already made about the density, tte does idke the water features, the road layout, the bikepaths, and the extension of the existing park. This feedback should be provided to Planning 8 Zoning Commission. Ms_ Satay noted that she met with principals of Epcon at a project near Polaris of 3.5 units per acre. She was impressed with the product and the site and can envision this fitting into the Dublin site. She recalls being present in the audience at the hearings on a previous application for this site where the developer wanted to donate money in lieu of parkland to the City_ The Commission responded that they wanted to extend the parkland from the Heather Glen North area to enhance the view shed. She thinks that this proposal meets the expectations of the Community Plan, and the conservation design resolution that exists loday_ Staff has indicated that the applicant is striving to meet alt of the criteria. She supports having this plan built. She believes there is much confusion about the conservation subdivision design resolution and what it does and does not do, and what the roles of staff and Council are in this. Ms. Salay moved approval of the concept plan for the Avery Road condos. Mr. Leddider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion. Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr_ Reiner, no; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, no; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Ledclider, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the discussion tonight provides some good guidance regarding the expectations with the final plans. • 2005 Comm ty Plan Calendar Ms. Brautigam s that Carson Combs ha rovided a proposed eaten of the various items for the munity Ptan. They invol a number of opportunities public input, as _ well as a S urday study session in No ber for Planning Commi nand Councl_ Mayor rnnici-Zuercher noted that vember i9 is the OSU/Mi rgan game and sc this ses ' should be rescheduled. s an ambi5ous calendar Council looks forward to p cipating as much as poss' e. She asked when then s of the speakers would available. Mr. Bird responded tha rs information would be a dable within the next mon CITY MANAGE AFF REPORTS There were n its from staff. COUN COMMITTEE REPORT OUNCIL ROUNDTABLE Mr. ash Administrative Cha' oted that Tony Collins is able to accept the a "ntment to the Parks a eaeation Advisory Com ~ sion and Councl needs i chedule a session to dis s the appointment. It was the consensus o until to discuss this at 6 .m. on Monday, May 2, pr to the 7 p.m. Council meeti Mrs. Boring mented that she has be ing to recall exactly ho a swing set provision me to be. She asked sta research the minutes to termine how this ocean- in the process of amendi the zoning code in 2000. Ms rautigam responded that ff would research this. Mr. Ledkfider asked if a d e has been set for the co rvation subdivision desi study session. - Ms. Brautigam sta that staff is targeting a d toward the end of May n June_ Ma or Chin -Zuercher: 1. oted that she, Mr_ Keen and Mrs_ Boring attende a groundbreaking ceremonies today for Washington Township fir raining center and Administration but g on Eiterman Road_ Co atulations to the Chief a o the Trustees, cu nt and past! This will be fate of the art training fa " and is scheduled open in the spring of 2. Reported at a carcem was receive om a resident of Bladcha Court. She provid this to the City Manager f follow-up. 3. As if Council Members wilt r eive a copy of the cemete~i OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Community RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of tlublin (',aiy r'.n„ncil Mee[ing o.r.un.EaK SUwc.rc_Faw...o a~.e Apri14, 2005 Page 6 Held 20 was for 225 ful ime permanent jobs at t location, and Care W s currently maintains 4 ~bs with a total acttt ayrolt for 2004 of $7 and - n. The Tax lncentiv eview Council (TIRC) mends that the agr eni be extended for one r_ or Chinnici-Zuercher ed to accept the TIRC mmendation to cont e Britton Parkway Co unity Reinvestment Ar through 2005. Mr. Lecklider sewn d the motion. Vote on the moi" : Mr_ McCash, yes; Ms_ alay, yes; Mr_ Lecklider es; Mr. Reiner, yes; or Chinnici-Zuercher, ;Mrs_ Boring, yes; Mr. enan, yes. • al Ptat -Tartan Wes ection 5 (Subarea 1) Mr. nderman stated that plat was heard by the P nning Commission on ntary 17 and approve 15 conditions, as ti in the Record of Act _ Mr. Keenan inquired a ut the stone water tabl hich is listed in Condit 10. Mr. Gunderman s that it is a stone ven placed on the exterior e pumphouse at ater table height, whi usually about 4 feet a applicant has compti ith this condition_ Vote on t final lat a royal: M r Chinnici-Zuercher, y , Mr_ Keenan, yes; Mrs_ B ing, yes: Mr_ McCash, s; Ms_ Salay, yes; Mr_ klider, yes; Mr_ Reiner, ye • Request from Applicant to Schedule for Hearing on April 18, 2005 - Concept Plan -Avery Road Condominiums (Case 04-119CP). Ms. Brautigam stated that Council has a copy of the letter from the applicant for Avery Road Condominiums to reschedule the hearing of their application for tonight. However, Council's existing policy is chat a tabled case must be returned to Council for them to formaNy remove from the table and reschedule for a future date_ The next available meeting date would be April 18~'. Ms. Salay moved to take the Avery Road Condominiums Concept Ptan from the table and schedule it on the April 18, 2005 Council agenda_ Mr. Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr_ Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Mr_ McCash inquired rf the case had been postponed to a date specific_ Ms. Brautigam responded that the case was scheduled on the agenda twice and tabled twice. The second time it was not postponed to a date spec~c_ Mr. Smith concurred that it had not been postponed to a date specific_ Mr_ McCash noted that the applicant's letter requesting to be scheduled on the Apri14~' agenda is dated March 4"'. tt would seem chat the proper procedure would have been to remove it from the table at the March meeting and schedule it on tonight's agenda, which is fairly light. Mr_ Lecklider inquiredtf it is necessary for Council to schedule it tonight to a date certain. Mrs_ Boring stated that is necessary for public notice purposes_ Mr. Lecklider stated that the public notice occurs for all Councrl agendas, so whether Council schedules it for a date certain or not, the agenda on which it is scheduled would be advertised. He asked for an opinion from Legal staff_ Mr. Smith responded that it is Councils policy not to hear an item at the meeting at which it is removed from the table, and further, it has also been Council's practice to reschedule it for a date certain_ Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to schedule this item for the Apnl 18 Council agenda_ Ms_ Salay seconded the motion_ Vote on the motion. Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. McCash, yes: Mrs_ Boring, yes; Ms_ Salay, yes: Mr_ Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr_ Keenan, yes_ US-0652 Rezoning Avery Road RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting MYION IFOK aM~I YL~(011Y MO_g14 December 13, 2004 Hetd 20 Mayor Chinnici-Zue er called the regular eting of Dubtin City Heil to order at 7:00 p.m. on nday, December 13, 4 at the Dublin Mun' pal Bulding_ _ PLEDGE OF LEGfANCE Mr_ McCa led the Pledge of All fiance. ROL ALL Pr enl were: Mayor Chi ici-Zuercher, Vice M or Lecklider, Mrs. B g, Mr. enan, Mr. McCash Ms. Salay. Mr. Rei r arrived at 7:10 p_m Staff members pr nt were: Ms. Brau ' m, Mr. Smith, Ms. G ' sby, Mr. McDaniel, Mr. ~ rochi, Mr_ Harding, .Hahn, Ms. Puskarci , r. Hammersmith, Mr. Bird, Ch' Epperson, Mr_ Price r_ Viltareale, Ms. Ke y, Ms. Gilger, Ms. Martin, Mr. ombs and Ms. York APP VAL OF MINUTES Mr_ ecklider moved app al of the minutes oft November 15, 2004 ouncil eting. s. Salay seconded emotion. Vote on the motio Mr. McCash, yes; M or Chinnici-Zuercher es; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr_ Keena yes; Ms. Salay, yes; r. Lecklider, yes_ CORRESP DENCE The Cle reported that three n ces were sent to Co citfrom the Ohio Di " on of liquor ontrol: (1 } transfer o a contract liquor age to R. Norris Reai E ate - LL ba Caprianno's (tali Market, 6500 Rivers' Drive, Suite A, Dub ~ , OH 4 17; (2) transfer of C , D2 and D6 liquor tic ses from RLB !rives nts, Inc. to . Norris Real Estate , dba Caprianno's lian Market, 6500 R' erside Drive, Suite A, .Dublin, O 43017; and (3) D5A rid D6 liquor permit tr sfer from Dublin Suites LLC to C monwealth Hotels d Embassy Suites D ~n, 5100 Upper Metro Place, blip, OH 43017. There was objection from Cou d to the transfers. PROC NATION Ma Chinn'ici-Zuercher p sented a proclamati to Larry Holbrook, Hera! Hager of the Muirfiel ssociation who wiU r ire on December 31 ouncil thanked him his outstanding se a to the community recognized his famly who wen resent_ The Mayor esented a copy of D lint's Journey to Mr. Holbrook in r cognition of his cont ' lions to Dublin. Mr. Holbrook anked Council ands for their support du ~ g his tenure_ He introduced s successor ai the M field Association, W er Zeier who will ass e the dutie of General Manager January 1, 2005. l Mr_ R ' er commented on th ery positive contrib ons of Mr. Holbrook t the ~ hig uatity of the Muirfiel ommunity. ~ i AGENDA MODIFICATION ~ Mr_ Smith noted that the applicant's representative for the Avery Commons concept t plan has requested withdrawal from tonight's agenda. The applicant intends to ~ work with staff on a revised plan for future review by the Planning Commission and Council. It was the consensus of Council to remove this item from the meeting agenda_ Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that any interested citizens could contact Dann Bird at 410-4653 regarding future hearing dates_ OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Community PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION crly of n[~LtN_ OCTOBER 21, 2004 Dirisioa of Plaaning 5800 Shier-Rings Road Ohio 43016-! 236 ! :614-41x4600 ~ax":~14-410-4741 Web Siie: www.dubbn.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Concept Plan 04-119CP -Avery Road Condos (fk.a. St. John's Commons) -Avery Road Location: 25.2 acres located on the east side of Avery Road, opposite Dan Sherri Avenue and Tuswell Drive. Existing Zoning: RI, Restricted Industrial District_ Request: Review and feedback for amulti-family development concept, under the provisions of Code Section 153.053(C). Proposed Use: Amulti-family residential development including 22 four-unit buildings (88 units) and 9.1 acres of openspace. Applicant: Betty M. Dearth and Avery Land Company, c/o The Epcon Group; represented by Michael Fite, ASLA, The Edge Group, 6253 Riverside Drive, Suite 100, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Mark Zuppo, Jr., Planner. MOTION: To disapprove this Concept Plan because it does not meet the quality expectations of the area, and it does not follow the Conservation Design principles. VOTE: 6-0. RESULT: This Concept Plan was disapproved. STAFF CERTIFICATION ij ~ Daniel D. fir , FAICP Director of arming OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Community Dublin Planning and ZoninL ~mmission Amended Minutes -October 21, 2004 Page 3 Mr. Sprague s ~ he may be out o own on Novembe 8_ Mr. Bird ggested the Dece er 2 agenda be 1' ited to the Hospi application. Mr Gerber said they were two cons cases on tonig s agenda: C 3. Corridor evelopment Dist " 04-131CDD - er of Columb - 4300 West Dub ' -Granville Road and Case 7. nded Final Deve pment Plan 04-1 AFDP - Killilea k - 6811 McDe Drive. He as d if the Commiss' ners had any ques ' ns regarding the _ Ms. Bo ' g noted she wou ike to ask some estions regarding ase 3. .Gerber asked if ere was anybody ' the audience w intended to spe to either one of ese two applicat~ ns. [No response eard.] Administ tive Business Mr. G r announced t the remainder o e would be take m the following er: Case 1, an en Cases 4, 5, 6. [The minutes ect the order of a published agend 1. Concept Plan 04-119CP - Avery Road Condos (formerly known as St. John's Commons) -Avery Road Mr. Gerber explained this is a Concept, Plan under the PUD. The proposed use is amulti-family residential development, including 22 four-unit buildings, which consist of 88 units, and 9.1 acres of open space. Following a recommendation by the Commission, the application will be forwarded to City Council for further review. If approved, the applicant will then be authorized to file a preliminary development plan (rezoning application). Mark Zuppo said the applicant has met with the residents and the plan was generally well received_ This case was heard informally by the Commission on July 1, 2004. The main issues raised by the Commission were the applicability of Conservation Design, density, architecture, and view sheds. The site is generally located in the southwest portion of Dublin, on the east side of Avery Road. St. John Cemetery is located on the northwest corner. Heather Glen Village Condos to the northeast. Heather Glen subdivision to the southeast. Sandy Comers is located to the south, larger lot residential homes are to the west of Avery Road, and industrial uses are to the north. The site is zoned RI, Restricted Industrial District. Mr. Zuppo said the density is lower than previously reviewed, at 3.49 du/ac, and the parkland has increased to 9.1 acres. The applicant has also taken into account comments from staff and the Commission to open up the view shed, as recommended in the Community Plan, from Wilcox Road to Avery Road_ An evaluation of this site for a Conservation Design and a matrix was provided in the Staff Report. OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road ("nnr~nmimnm (~'nmmnnity Dublin Planning and Zoning emission Amended Minutes - October ~ 1, 2004 Page 4 Mr. Zuppo said the architecture utilizes natural materials, wood siding, and stone and brick accent work. The site is generally flat and open, with a tree row on all sides. A slide showed that the alignment for the future extension of Innovation Drive would connect with Tuswell Drive. Mr. Zuppo showed a slide of the plan depicting a required second emergency access connecting the Heather Glen condominium to Innovation Drive. Staff recommends in order to open up this green space, an alternative connection, although it is not required. Staff recommends approval, with four conditions: 1) That details indicating the current right-of--way width be submitted so that the appropriate amount of street and parkland dedication can be determined; 2) That the proposed Innovation Drive extension be shown as public on all future plans, and meet all Engineering Division requirements; 3) That additional landscaping be added within the proposed open azeas, particulazly along Avery Road, subject to staff approval; and 4) That additional architectural variation be utilized throughout the development, subject to staff approval. Joel Rhodes, Epcon Group, said in July they were given comments, based on earlier applications for this site_ He said they have addressed comments about density, open space, connections to the parks, and diversity of the housing styles. There are now 20 fewer lots, and less than on the previous application. _The open space is now over nine acres. The pazks aze connected from the: east to Avery Road, both with green space and paths. He committed to the building types seen on the rendering, starting at the Clubhouse, south to Avery Road frontage. The architecture is_ four-sided. All elevations are landscaped. He said a much needed connection between Innovation Drive, Avery Road, and Ireland Place is being provided. He said their residents are - empty nesters. Mr. Rhodes said they would create a lot of visual interest, water, pazk space, and path connections. Peggy Burrows, 6179 Glen Village Drive, representing the Heather Glen Village Condominium Association, said their concerns are if they are connected to this development, there will be an increase in traffic on their private road, for which they cover maintenance costs. They suggested access for emergency purposes, putting in pavers with grass. Virgil Mathias, 7240 Muirfield Dr., with Coldwell Banker/King Thompson Realtors, endorsed this project because it provides amuch-needed housing variety in Dublin. Charlotte Tuigelske, 6027 Glen Village Drive, a Heather Glen Condominium resident, had no objection to this project. However, she was concerned about increased cut-through traffic from the project affecting her development. Mr. Zimmerman noted that matrix evaluation states the plan does not meet the Conservation Design principal of 50 percent open space, 75 percent of dwelling units adjacent to open space, and dwelling unit cluster preserve size of open space. Mr. Gerber said this did not meet the Conservation Design Principal guidelines. OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road ~nnljnmininm ~'nmmnmty Dublin Planning and Zonis ;ommission Amended Minutes -October 21, 2004 Page 5 Mr. Saneholtz agreed. He said this Conservation Design Plan is interesting, but the Commission needed to see the Conservation Design program used. Ms. Boring agreed. However, she felt the condominium cut-through for emergency access needed to beCity-maintained or controlled. Mr. Gerber said this was the fourth or fifth time a proposed plan had been seen by the Commission for this site. He said the last time this was seen, there was a quality expectation with regard to the open space, Conservation Design, and Innovation Drive. He did not think this revised plan addressed those concerns. He said, however the diversity of housing was a good concept. Mr. Saneholtz questioned how the view shed to the east could be open with street trees on both sides. He did not see any bikepath connection from the units to the south. Mr. Zuppo said that Innovation Drive is not shown as public, but the applicant has been aware it will be required to be public, and that a sidewalk connection will be required also. Ms. Wanner added that a sidewalk connection could be added as a zoning text requirement. _ Mr. Sprague suggested a second ingress/egress point just for emergency vehicles, °with pavers and ballards" to prevent cut-through traffic. Mr. Zuppo said Innovation Drive is planned to be a collector street on the Thoroughfare Plan and it will eventually tie in to Tusswell Drive_ The Intersection is planned to be signalized in the future. Since this was still in the concept stage, staff had ample time to address the residents' concerns regarding the connection and pavers. Ms. Boring asked how the widening of Avery Road, would impact this project and if a right-of- way for this project was needed. Mr. Zuppo said the widening of Avery Road would primarily impact the west side. He said the possibility of aright-of--way had been discussed with the applicant and it would be finalized at the rezoning stage. Ms. Boring wanted to make sure that the right-of--way is dedicated ahead of time to avoid additional City expense. Mr. Gerber summarized the issues discussed, as lack of Conservation Design; the quality expectations, as relates to Innovation Drive; the site layouts, and open space. He said these were previous issues. Ms. Boring added "pedestrian-friendly" also as an issue that needed to be addressed. OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road C'nnd~minium Community Dublin Planning and Zoning ,~mmission Amended Minutes - Octobe, ~ 1, 2004 Page 6 Mr. Gerber explained that the Concept Plan is non-binding on both the City and the developer, and it's intended to provide dialogue as to whether the proposal has merit for further review. He asked what type of clear guidance the Commission could provide the applicant for them to be successful in getting this project approved. Mr. Rhodes said they were having difficulty interpreting the Conservation Design standards. He said he did not see a way to get to 13 acres of open space on this 25-acre site. Mr. Saneholtz asked if the elevations could be made unique to Dublin. He was hoping to see something different than standard elevations. Ms. Boring asked if more clustering could be done. Michael Fite said it was a challenge as a planner, to marry their client's expectations and the Commission's_ He said the reality of coming back with a site plan that has 50 percent open space is not going to happen. He said the intention of the ordinance is to look at sites and areas to implement Conservation Design principles. He said a 50 percent open space without amenity improvements on it, would be less attractive than what is proposed. He said they would do the bike path connections. Mr. Saneholtz said he understood. However, he said the Commissioners would like to see creativeness on this parcel and not just see how many units could be placed on the parcel. He said he was less concerned about that open space requirement than the ultimate product brought to -the community. He said these 88 units have a similar look and feel :and they are merely production. Mr. Gerber said there is an opportunity to take this to Council and perhaps some of the issues are better suited in that forum than here. He said Conservation Design is something the Commission is interested in looking at for this site, and more importantly, "quality expectations" -the quality as relates to the overall feel and attributes of the future neighborhood. He said he could not support this Concept Plan. Mr. Gerber made the motion to disapprove this Concept Plan because this plan does not meet the quality expectations and does not follow the Conservation Design principles. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr_ Messineo, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Ms. Boring, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Disapproved 6-0.) 2. Rezon" g 04-0212 - Gatew Professional Ce er - 6750 and 6700 iterman Road Steven liott, of Wiles, Bo e, Burkholder & 'ngardner, on behal f the applicant, s ~ that upo agreement with Du in's staff, they wo tike to request a ling to work on s e minor e plan changes/adj menu that needed be made for exp dright-of--way re ests. OS-O65Z Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Community PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION JULY 1, 2004 C[TY OF DUBLIN_ Division of Planning 5800 Shier-Rings Road D~ ~ Ohio 430ib-1136 PI 614-410-4600 Fax- 614-410-4741 Web Site: www.dublin uh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took no action on the following case at this meeting: 3. Informal Review 04-095 - St. John's Commons Location: 26 acres located on the east side of Avery Road, opposite Dan Sherri Avenue and Tuswell Drive. Existing Zoning: RI, Restricted Industrial District. Request: Informal review and feedback for a multi-family development. Proposed Use: Amulti-family residential development including 27 four-unit buildings (108 units) and 6.9 acres of openspace. Applicant: Betty M. Dearth and Avery Land Company, c/o The Epcon Group; represented by Michael Fite, 6253 Riverside Drive, Suite 100, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Mark Zuppo Jr., Planner. RESULT: No vote or action was taken on this informal case. The Commission discussed the applicability of conservation design on this site, viewsheds, density, open space, architectural diversity, exterior materials, traffic impacts, and roadway connections. STAFF CERTIFICATION !`-z~.! (.~c L,~-r--cam:-c~-~ Frank A. Ciarochi Acting Planning Director OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road Condominiu>n Community Dublin Planning and Zonin, ommission Minutes -July 1, 2004 Page 10 Mr. Pe ~ Io repeated what s. Adkins indicat The existing fii service curbeut a e pool and a right inlright o n Avery Road sh ld be pushed clo to the southern perty line. . Gerber said he ppreciated Mr. P iello's time he hoped that a Commission comments were pful. (No vote or tion taken.) 3. Informal Review 04-095 - St. John's Commons Chair Rick Gerber said that this was an informal review for amulti-family development including 27 four-unit buildings, 108-units, and 6.9 acres of openspace. He said no vote will be taken and the discussion will be limited to 30 minutes. Mark Zuppo said a couple of applications were previously reviewed for this site. In February 2003, the Commission tabled a concept plan/rezoning application. Commission issues and comments involved density, openspace requirements and dedication, traffic circulation, and building layout. In March 2003, at an informal Commission review, a proposed plan with a lower density was favorably received. Mr. Zuppo said this vacant site is located in southwest Dublin, on the east side of Avery Road. Residential parcels aze located to the east and the south, industrial uses to the north, and vacant commercial uses to the west, as well some residential uses. The site is zoned RI, Restricted Industrial District. He said the St. John's Lutheran Cemetery is located in the northwest comer of the site, which is zoned R, Rural District. Industrial uses are also located to the north. Heather Glen Village condominiums are located in the northern portion of the PUD, Planned Unit Development District, to the east of this site, and the Heather Glen North subdivision is in the southern portion_ He said Sandy Corners subdivision, zoned PLR, Planned Low Density Residential District, is to the south of the site. Dan Sherri and Kendall Ridge subdivisions and vacant, PCD, Planned Commercial District parcels are located to the west. Mr. Zuppo showed a slide of the site plan. He said the general concept is for shared garages for use by the condominium owners. He said this development will connect with Innovation Drive to the east, which currently stubs_ The existing service drive connecting to Irelan Place to the north will be extended south. Mr. Zuppo said the proposed plan shows 6.9 acres of dedicated openspace_ He said staff is not certain if all that land can be calculated towards the openspace requirements, and would require additional information. He said the architecture proposed was well received by staff, but additional variation would be appreciated by staff. Mr. Zuppo said there is not enough detailed information to make a final recommendation in regards to architecture. Mr. Zuppo said that the Community Plan recommends a greenspace corridor from Wilcox Road to Avery Road, which includes this site. He said staff recommends the extension of the existing greenspace to the east. Mr. Zuppo said staff is recommending that the density be reduced, that the eastJwest greenway corridor be incorporated, and that the openspace be fiuther defined commensurate with prior OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium C'~mmunity Dublin Planning and Zonin~ ,ommission Minutes -July 1, 2004 Page 11 Commission comments regarding this site. He also noted that the applicant invited staff and the area residents to a resident meeting. He said only one resident attended. Joe Rhoades, The Epcon Group, said this was the first time they were before the Commission. He said they concentrated exclusively on ranch-style condominiums. He showed slides of past Epcon developments. He said their customers have defined themselves as active retirees and young professionals. He said over 60 percent of their residents aze over age 55. He said many people want to stay in the community that they have lived in for many years, but want a smaller home with condominium services and a more care-free lifestyle. He said the average Epcon condominium unit has about 1.6 people. With 6.64 residents per acre he said this development fits well between Sandy Corners and Heather Glen. Although they have a higher density, they have a lesser impact on the community's infrastructure. Mr. Rhoades said a typical single-family home generates approximately 10.1 trips per day. He said their homes aze about 4.8 trips per day. In addition, he said many of their residents travel at off-peak hours. This site is in the City of Dublin, but it is in the Hilliard City School District. He estimated there may be no children, or there may be up to two. He assumed the average cost of the condominiums would be $220,000, and based on the projected number of children, there will be a net positive for real estate tax revenue for the schools. He said an example of a condominium community they developed, The Villas of Highland Lakes in Westerville, is similar to this proposed community, although they have made a number of improvements in the exterior elevations, the floor plans, and the layout. He said it was built in 1997 with 60 units on just over 10 acres, for a density of 5.5 du/ac. He showed a slide of the Villas of Highland Lakes condominiums. He said the average unit value in the mid-90s for them was $138,700, and today, it is $187,000. Mr. Rhoades said they had made a number of improvements over the Highland Lakes design. He said it is a European Country collection which features a clubhouse which would be interior to the site, with all natural materials, brick, stone, and wood siding. There would be no vinyl or aluminum siding used on St. John's Commons. He said they have four different floor plans that aze combined in the building based on market demand. He said it was four-sided architecture. He said the gazages are located in the middle with four, two-car garages in every building. Mr. Rhoades said the architectural diversity occurred as owners select the home styles. Michael Fite, The Edge Group, said the site plan adhered to the 200-foot setback and in some cases, it is more. He said they felt it important to incorporate a central openspace and that the Heather Glen North park be continued to Avery Road. He said originally, they felt the traffic connection staff recommended was not appropriate because it was a connection to an industrial use, and this is a residential use. Since then, he said they have learned more about the Avery Road improvements that may occur and the traffic issues that aze occurring. He agreed to work with staff. Mr. Fite said the openspace proposed is more than is required and they will need to work with staff to justify how much of the greenspace in front they can utilize towards the requirement. He said most of the retention pond shown will drain to the southwest. I- OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road -~__a__________ .,_WW____._. Dublin Planning and Zonir. ommission Minutes -July 1, 2004 Page 12 requirement on the southeast corner and the resident who attended the meeting requested that it was treated so it did not become unsightly. He agreed and said it may be dry. Mr. Fite said they turned the buildings so that the same elevation would not be repeated. Buildings have been pushed back, forward, and turned so they are different than one adjacent. All elevations are finished. There are substantial setbacks from the street on the corners of these buildings. He said there is an emphasis placed on landscaping. Mr. Gerber said this sounded like deja vu all over again. He said the Commission had seen other layouts of this project several times. The last time it was seen, there were 90 units, and the applicant requested a tabling because of the Commission's discussion. He felt they were going backwards. Mr. Gerber asked if conservation design applied to this site. Mr. Gunderman said this is not asingle-family project, and it provides an additional housing type that, while Dublin may have some similar, it is at least not the single-family model that came up before. He said if the Commission preferred a more conservation-oriented design, then it was a valid comment. He said if the housing stock here is one that the Commission thinks there is already too much of, then that also is an issue. Mr. Gerber said not everyone downsizing wants a $400,000 home. He felt there was definitely a need for homes more affordable. However, he said Dublin has worked hard on conservation design and he wanted to see it. He said they were somewhat closer with the last project. He said more openspace was created and there were fewer units. He said they discussed connectivity. He said this proposal is going backwards and he could not support it_ Ms. Reiss agreed with Mr. Gerber that there needed to be an increase in openspace to be a more conservation design type community_ She liked the idea of single-story ranch-style condominiums being available, but she thought Dublin needed the lower density because of what was going on to the south. She said Dublin did not need to add to traffic problems. She agreed with staffs comments about continuing the park from Heather Glen North through this development and over to Avery Road, and also making the secondary roadway connection. She said more openspace was definitely needed. Ms. Reiss said this has to be high quality architecture. She would like to see either all stone, all brick, or a combination and not wood. Mr. Zimmerman echoed Mr. Gerber's comments. He wanted staff to check out the conservation design, and what this required. He said this was 26 acres, currently zoned industrial. The zoning will be changed, so technically, even if someday they put in one story office buildings, it will create revenue for Dublin. He said this type of development is still connected to the other condominium complex to the east. He was not sure the residents to the east wanted connectivity. He said the connection to Woerner-Temple Road was fine. Mr. Zimmerman said his biggest problems were the openspace and the overall density. He assumed that for this informal, this project would be at exactly what density it was last time, and not started at the top. He said therefore, he could not support this proposal. OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road - Dublin Planning and Zonir ommission ' 'Minutes -July 1, 2004 Page 13 Ms. Boring said she agreed with the other Commissioners, but she took it more personally. She could not understand how, being in the community this long and having read this, why this would come back to the Commission. She said in 20 years, there will be no guarantee as to what the lifestyle of people will be_ She said this site is single-family use in the Community Plan. Ms. Boring said it is surrounded by single-family homes. She said this had to enhance the single-family homes that it surrounds. She agreed that this condominium plan was repeated everywhere she went. In the last year, the Commission has spent time discussing cookie-cutter projects_ Ms. Boring said the greenspace connection was more than that, it is a greenspace viewshed. She did not want to see a small path that connects people. She said they needed to strive for something higher that looked better. Ms. Boring said she thought conservation design should be tried. Mr. Saneholtz said a lot of effort went into preserving the greenspace corridor and he could not see disturbing it. He also agreed with the other Commissioners' comments. He was not interested in having this parcel of land being developed in the fashion presented tonight with the duplicate building 27 times. Mr. Gerber said he was sorry if the Commissioners were blunt, but the purpose of informal reviews afforded everyone a chance to offer opinions. It often saves time for the applicant and hopefully some money as well. He hoped that the applicant could incorporate some of the comments heard and return. He said this was a good example where an informal review works. He thanked everyone. 4. Fin evelopment Plan 4-073FDP - Peri er West, Subarea - Ruscilli Offi ~ dings - 6840-6890 rimeter Drive s case was postpone rior to the meeting. ere was no action vote taken. Respectfully submitted, Libby F ey U Administrative Assistant Planning Division OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road COridOminlllm ~nmmnnity RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council eettng November 17, 2003 Page 10 Heid i1 1 20 and Penmeter D e and Avery-Muirfield an ost Road. The straight payments will be reimburse 2004 with the original i rovements constructed; er that time, the City can begin r wing non-school servi ayments that can be set side in reserve for the future i ovements whenever the re programmed. Them ffication does not result ' any of commitment in terms the 6meframes for the i rovements, but merely f ~ allo the City to begin rese " g those dollars- The req " ed notifications to the s I ! ~ trios have been made. ~i There will be a second r ing/public hearing at the ecember 15 Council m 'ng. Ordinance 129-03 ii I? I Amending Ordi nce 58-94, Passed Jun 0,'1994, to Suppleme he Public !j I; Improvement o be Made to Benefit t Parcels Identified in t Ordinance and to i~, Provide for ayment of a Portion of a Service Payments R eived to the Dublin City Sch 1 District, and Declarin an Emergency. (Peri er Center TIF) Mr. Le ider introduced the ordi nce_ ~ Ms. rigsby stated that this TI s being converted from traight TIF to a non-sch TIF ' adding the same public " provements referenced ith Ordinance 128-03 to a list of , I~ infrastructure improveme s. For this TIF, the City 1 be reimbursed as of th nd of ji 2003 for the original i rovements that consiste f the extension of Emer Parkway ii from Post Road to P rimeter Drive. Therefore a City will begin receivi and setting I~ aside the non-s of TIF payments beginni in 2004. At the second ading, staff will be requesting em gency adoption so that i 11 be effective prior toy end. There will b second reading/public aring at the December 1 Council meeting. ij ECON fC DEVELOPMENT A EEMENT Or ance 130-03 horizing the Execu6o nd Delivery of an Eco is Development Agre ent Between the City of Du nand Compensation nsultants, Inc. to Indu a Relocation of Its Op Lions to the City in Or to Increase Employm t within the City. Ms. Salay introd d the ordinance. Mc Stevens s ed that the City was appr ched in Juty by represe atives of !i Compensaf Consultants, Inc- in r d to a relocation of their erations from Columbu o Dublin, specifically to 5500 Glendon Court b ' ing, bringing appro ' ately 140 jobs to Dublin is incentive is based o eve years with a maxim of $ 0,000_ It is a not a com ny where the City initiate the relocation; the comp y a business relationship rth CareWoriks and there re wanted to be located ' ublin. ji ~i Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher an s. Satay expressed sa " action with staffs ream ent of a new business to Dubli There will be a seco readinglpublic hearing the December 15 Coun "meeting. j APPROPRlAT NS Ordinance 1-03 Amendi the Annual Appropriat" ns for the Fiscal Year ding December 31, 2003. Ms. alay introduced the ordi ce. T re were no questions. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher m ed to dispense with the blic hearing. Ms. Salay seconded t motion. ' Vote on the motion: r. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Kr stuber, yes; Ms. Chinni ~ uercher, yes; Mayor McCash y ;Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. lay, yes. Vote on the Or Hance: Mr_ Lecklider, y ;Mrs_ Boring, yes; Mayo cCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zu er, yes; Mr. Kranstu ,yes; Ms. Salay, yes_ i' i' REZONING Mayor McCash moved to waive the Rules of Order to introduce the three rezonings • together and to refer them to the Planning 8 Zoning Commission. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr_ Kranstuber, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms_ Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. ~I r li II i! ~ i ii jj 't OS-0652 i; i; Rezoning Avery Road RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes~f Dublin Ci Council A~eeting_ a.r«..E~ b ~o November 17, 2003 Page 11 Held ~ - 20 ~ j _i! li Ordinance 132-03 ~l Rezoning 2.89 Acres Located on the South Side of Venture Drive, 700 Feet South of ~j ii Perimeter Drive, from PCD, Planned Commerce District, to PCD, Planned Commerce District (Case No. 03-1122 -Rezoning - MAG Expansion). I! ! Ordinance 133-03 1 Rezoning 139.65 Acres on the West Side of Avery Road, 2,000 Feet South of Rings Road from: R-1 B, Limited Suburban Residential District (Washington Township Classification), to: PLR, Planned Low Density Residential District. {Rezoning Case No. 03-1392 -Avondale Woods of Dublin - 5215 Avery Road) Ordinance 134-03 Rezoning 25.16 Acres Located on the East Side of Avery Road, Opposite Oan Sherri Avenue and Tuswell Drive, from RI, Restricted Industrial District, to PUO, Planned Unit Development District. {Case No. 03-1432 -Preliminary Development Plan - Avery Commons) ~ Ms_ Salay asked that staff provide general inforrnation in terms of tax revenue generated II by car dealerships. It is sometimes stated that this is a desirable land use as it does not i~ i generate a fot of traffic, but does generate tax revenue. ~i In regard to Ordinance 134-03, she asked that she be provided complete staff reports for i ~ this rezoning in view of the neighborhood interest in the rezoning- I~ INTRODUCTION BLIC HEARING - RESO ONS I~ ACCEPTANC F GRANT I! Resolution -03 41 Authori ' g the Acceptance of a $5 ,000 Grant from the Stat f Ohio, Department ~ of De opment. II Mr nstuber introduced the r olution_ s. Brautigam stated that th~ relates to the Wendy's eco mic development project. ~j Vote on the Resolution: .Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Chi ci-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Bori it yes; Mayor McCash, y ; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Ledcl~ r, yes. ii OTHER ~I • Revis Final Plat 03-115RFP- Be ere, Section 4 -Lots 115- II Mr. Gunde an stated that this is Sect 4 of Belvedere and is to on the north side of Bran , west of Avery. Immediate o the west is the high sch site. This phase I, cunt ' s 28.1 acres and 40 sing) amity lots with three reserv areas being dedicated to ~i t City. This development w approved by P&Z, and as fed in the memo, there ~ n oversight in the develo ent of the area on the wes y side. There was a ce 1 amount of construction ivity in a "do not disturb' z e that required adjustmen o the !I final plat by P&Z. T ~ added an additional condi ~ n to the approval that requ~ d an assessment bed a by staff about the veget ~ n along the west side. Th' as now been complet and an agreement reache n how to handle the matte . There was no immediate mage or minimal damage some of the potential root stems. If damage ~ become vidence at a future date, itional tree plantings may required for the area. ~ ~ The t is consistent with the pre' inary plan and was recd nded for approval by Ii P on October 2, 2003. I~ ~ r. Leckiider noted that the cs a street named, "Abbey en Boulevard" and asked i j I street names are check or duplicates in the City. ~ Mr. Gunderman state hat staff does t to avoid s ry type of confusion. H will edc this. Mr. Kranstuber st d that there is a subdivisio ff of Avery-Muirfield nam Abbey Glen-" Mr_ Lecktide fated that he would leave s issue for staff to determi ~ Mr_ Kran ber moved approval of th nal plat with the conditions pended by P8Z- I Mr. L Cider seconded the motio Vo on the motion: Mrs. Borin ,yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; M r McCash, yes; Ms. Salay, s; Mr. Kranstuber, yes. I' • Final Report - destrian Tunnels ~i Mr. Hammersmith ated that this final draft has en prepared in response t I; comments at t ouncil meetings. The va ' s comments were incorpor ed into the I: document asked that Ms. Yorko sum rize the changes: i; Ms. York fated: 1. A table of contents was ded fo the document. ~I - The recommendatio as expanded to include an - mized list of capital expenditures on prioritized tunnels. ! i li ~ OS-0652 ~ Rezoning Avery Road - Condominium ~'nmm„n;t~, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION March 6, 2003 .C[TY OF DG$L1N Division of fMaaeurg QO Shier-Rings Road Dv Ohio 43016-123b gar. )D. 614-410-4600 The Planning and Zoning Commission held an informal discussion of the case below at this Fax:614-161-b566 meeting: 'eb Site: www.dubl;n-oh-us 1. Informal Review 03-015INF -Avery Road Condominiums Location: 26.062 acres located on the east side of Avery Road, opposite Dan Sherri Avenue and Tuswell Drive. Existing Zoning: RI, Restricted Industrial District. Request: Informal review and feedback for a proposed condominium development and openspace. Proposed Use: Anew condominium development. Applicant: Betty M. Dearth and Avery Land Company, c/o Ronald E_ Davis, Esq., 341 South Third Street, Suite 200, Columbus, Ohio 43215; and represented by David W. Fisher, Esq., c/o Kephart and Fisher, L.L.P., 41 South High Street, Suite 2495, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Anne Wanner, Planner. RESULT: After a 30-minute discussion, the Commission informally endorsed this particular multi-family use at this site. The. Commission said the overall layout was much improved and encouraged the applicant to consolidate more parkland to extend the green comdor across the property. No vote was taken on this informal review. STAFF CERTIFICATION Barbara M. Clarke Planning Director OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Community Dublin Planning and Zoni commission ' 'Meeting Minutes -March b, 2003 Page 2 1. Informal Review 03-O15INF -Avery Road Condominiums Anne Wanner said the combined concept plan and rezoning was heard last month and tabled. The applicant has revised the site plan and is seeking informal feedback, on the revised design and on the basic land use. Ms. Wanner said the 26-acre site is zoned RI, Restricted Industrial District. It has 1,000 feet of frontage on Avery Road and abuts residential uses on all sides except to the north (which has an industrial subdivision). She said there is a mistake in the staff report. It should say that 90 units are proposed. This changes the density to 3.46, which was originally stated as 3_I. The previous proposal had 109 units_ The plan now has a central green with one-way traffic flow and a boulevard entrance from Avery Road. The plan is less compact, and the community facilities have been moved to the interior of the site. She said the proposal now has two-, three-, and four- unit buildings. Forest Gibson, Schmidt Land Design, introduced Dave Fisher and Beth Kelly from Kephart and Fisher, Attorneys at Law and Gary Bruck from Sullivan and Bruck as the applicant's team. He said they were here tonight to review the revised plans, which they hope are palatable_ Forest Gibson said they incorporated many suggestions from the previous Commission discussion. Their idea is to use a central green to orient the buildings. They still feel it is essential to connect the open spaces all the way to Avery Road. They created a central green with east-west linkages. The focal point to the central green will to be a stormwater pond. He said the central green also acts as atraffic-calming device with one-way traffic flow around the ellipse. This would permit on-street parking for the park use. The units front onto the ellipse, and the architect has reduced the scale. The added curves to the street break up the grid and relocate the community building to the interior of the site, as requested. He said the density is not lower than the median density recommended in the Community Plan_ The recommended density is 2 to 5 dwelling units to the acre. Their plan is not less than 3.5 (formerly 4.1). The condos to the east have a higher density than this. He asked for feedback on density_ Mr. Sprague noted there is a 30-minute limit on informal reviews. Ms. Boring said this has been a tremendous change, and she was glad to see it_ She said, however, the Avery Road Area Plan in the Community Plan shows the site as asingle-family use. This may be a better proposal, but the neighborhood will expect them to stick to the Plan_ Forest Gibson indicated the neighbors had not seen this revised plan. Ms. Boring asked for the surrounding densities. These were not in the staff report, and she was not comfortable with the density_ She assumed future renditions will include bikepaths. Ms. Wanner said the amount of parkland is not clear yet, but it is doubtful whether this plan fully meets the Code for dedication. Forest Gibson said based on the numbers, the plan has adequate open space, but it is a judgment as to whether it is fully appropriate. They can make adjustments. OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium C'.~mmnnity Dublin Planning and Zoning ".ommission 'Meeting Minutes -March t,, _J03 Fage 3 Mr. Zimmerman also noted the Community Plan shows single-family development for this site. This proposal is a big change from the previous grid pattern. Mr. Zimmerman said he has a problem with the connection to the existing condos. They have no sidewalks, and those residents walk in the street. It is a private road, and this will create more traffic on that private street. Street maintenance and repair will be issues for the residents_ Forest Gibson responded that the connection is not critical, but it was suggested by several residents_ Avery Road may also eventually become a five to seven lane road_ Making the minor connection can adjust part of the trips in a different direction while providing a continuous greenspace_ Mr. Zimmerman said the private road is part of their bikepath system. He stated it is a private street, and there is a lot of opposition to the connection. Mr. Messineo said the changes on the revised plan look much better than the original. Regarding unit costs, Forest Gibson said they do not have final numbers yet, but units may be nearly $300,000 or perhaps more. It is significantly higher than the single-family homes in the area. Mr. Gerber said it is a far better concept, and he appreciates their hard work. He also wants to open up the greenspace_ He thinks staff is right to connect Innovation Drive, but the traffic issue needs to be considered. He sees asingle-family use in the Community Plan, and this is not what is shown. The recommended density is 2 to 5 units per acre, and that may not yield the expected single-family product. Ms. Wanner said Heather Glen and Sandy Corners both have a density over two units per acre, and the 2 to 5 units per acre category seemed consistent. The Commission's decision is whether this proposal merits deviation from the Plan. Mr. Gerber said he finds the references in the Community Plan to be contradictory. This project, however seems to be a good one. Forest Gibson said they met with the neighbors, and most of them supported the previous plan. It has the potential to increase their property value. Mr. Ritchie agreed there were many improvements and appreciated the work on this. He feels very strongly about connecting the green belt from Avery to Wilcox Road. It should have a clear line of sight and the green corridor is important to maintain. He suggested moving the entrance to the south or adding a second one. He believes there should also be a connection_ The flat site lends itself to a creative approach, perhaps with areas of different density. Forest Gibson said they did explore moving the entrance to the south opposite Dan Sherri Avenue. That does not provide a true east-west connection because Dan Sherri was cut off and no longer intersects with Avery Road. Ms. Boring said there should be a transition with some inconvenience to avoid cut-through trips. OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road C'nn~nmininm ~nmmimiti~ Dublin Planning and Zonin 'ommission ,Meeting Minutes -March 6, X003 ''age 4 Mr. Hammersmith said really there is only one choice for full access and it is located at Tuswell Drive_ If they choose any other point it would be right-in, right-out only, because of the raised median on Avery Road. Ms. Boring said she likes the boulevard. Mr. Saneholtz liked the entry point. It creates open space around the cemetery, which seems appropriate. He said this plan is very much improved, and thinks it is an appropriate use for the property. He wanted to assure that the exterior of the site will be broken up with mounding, screening, and landscaping_ This is an excellent plan and a good use of the site. Ms. Wanner asked if the Commission could speak directly to the land use, whether some multi- familyproduct would be acceptable at this site. Mr. Sprague took a straw poll. Mr. Saneholtz believes it is okay for this high-end housing proposal. Mr. Ritchie agreed. Mr. Gerber said it is fine. His issues stem from interpreting the Community Plan. Mr. Sprague agreed and suggested an update to the Future Land Use Map in the Community Plan. Ms. Boring said this makes a nice transition, and the neighbors find these units pleasing. She is still concerned that they are not paying adequate attention to the Community Plan. Mr. Zimmerman said it is a nice project with a nice feel. He asked what the density is for Heather Glen Village. Ms. Wanner responded that it is not quite at three units per acre. Mr. Messineo supports amulti-family development on this property_ It is a good transition. Forest Gibson thanked The Commission for their comments. 2. Rezonin -1312 -Tuttle Cro mg and Pagura/Hel bright PCDs - BM financial Servi Signage - 5515 Par enter Circle 3. R used Development P 02-119RDP - Tu Crossing -BMW nancial Services ignage - 5515 Park ter Circle ad Gibson said they 1 consider these ap ations together, butt motions are neede e gave a shortened sentation because th are only three mod' cations to discuss. a case was advertised ightly different fro hat it actually is, e noted that in th toff report. The packa is actually two sig f 26 square feet, no 5 square feet as th riginal agenda noted. a two signs of 26 are feet total 52 s e feet, not 62 squ feet, as the report sta This was tabled i ecember of 2002 anuary 2003_ The gn package has bee evised. The two signs identical, being IO t tall and 26 square tin area. Each has 8 square feet of logo, w ~ is 26 percent of th ign face. The rezoni text addresses this i e. One sign is now to ed along Park Cente ircle. It is 12 feet to and 46 square feet in ea. OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Community PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION FEBRUARY 6, 2003 Dirisaa of f'Imaang Shier--Rings Raad Du Oha 43016-1236 "i i"D0: 614-410-4b00 Fax: 614161-6566 leb Site: www_dubiin.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 3. Concept Plan/Rezoning 02-084CP/Z -Avery Road Condominiums Location: 26.062 acres located on the east side of Avery Road, opposite Dan Shem Avenue and Tuswell Drive. Existing Zoning: RI, Restricted Industrial District_ Request: Review and approval of a combined concept plan and preliminary development plan under the provisions of Section 153.056 to rezone the property to the PUD, Planned Unit Development District. Proposed Use: A condominium development of 109 units and 2.56 acres of parkland. Applicant: Betty M. Dearth and Avery Land Company, c/o Ronald E. Davis, Esq., 341 South Third Street, Suite 200, Columbus, Ohio 43215 and ;represented by David W_ Fisher, Esq., c/o Kephart and Fisher, L.L.P., 41 South High Street, Suite 2495, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Anne Wanner, Planner. MOTION: To table this concept plan and rezoning application as requested by Joe Sullivan, Sullivan and Bruck Architects, representing the applicant. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: After a lengthy discussion, this concept plan/rezoning application was tabled. Issues discussed included density reduction, openspace dedication, general traffic flow, layout of buildings and site elements. The applicant was advised to return to the Commission with a revised concept plan only. STAFF CERTIFICATION ~ ~ ~ n~ Barbara M. Clarke Planning Director OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium C~'nmmnnity Dublin Planning and Zoning mmission • .Minutes -February 6, 2003 Page 5 4) That impr ements in Reserv be constructed, ' eluding fine gradi and seeding, pri to dedicaf n to the City and or to occupancy o e first lot within is section. Mr_ mmerman secon the motion, an e vote was as ows: Mr. Rite ' ,yes; Mr. S eholtz, yes; Mr. S gue, yes; Ms. Bo ' g, yes; Mr. Zimm an, yes; and Mr essineo, yes. Approved 6-0.) .Sprague thanked r_ Driscol. 3. Concept Plan/Rezoning 02-084CP/Z -Avery Road Condominiums Anne Wanner presented this combined PUD concept and preliminary development plan fora i09- unit condominium complex. This proposal conforms to the Future Land Use Map in the Community Plan, and combining the reviews have facilitated a more complete architectural package_ She showed a PowerPoint presentation. The 26-acre site is flat, square and contains two parcels just opposite Tuswell Drive and Dan-Sherri Avenue_ It has treerows along the north and south property Lines and wraps around the small St. John's Lutheran cemetery_ She said the site is currently zoned RI, Restricted Industrial District. Adjacent uses include industrial uses on Irelan Place and the Heather Glen Village condos and the Heather Glen subdivision, zoned PUD_ Ms. Wanner said this application will extend Innovation Drive from its stub to Avery Road. The development will have a boulevarded entry from Avery Road. The frontage has a landscaped pond, bikepath, a 1,400 square foot community room, and a faux bridge. There is a 68-foot Avery Road setback, and about 35 feet of setback along the north, east and south property lines. A traffic calming traffic circle is included to slow traffic speeds along Innovation Drive. The applicant is also proposing to add a connection to Heather Glen Village and to remove its western, and troublesome, entrance. This provides a better distribution of curb cuts on Innovation Drive. Ms. Wanner said Phase I includes the 29 units north and east of Innovation Drive. Staff is proposing that Innovation Drive be completed before this phase begins_ Parking is proposed along the north side of Innovation Drive for park-goers. She said the schematic was incorrect. She said the sidewalk is inside of a tree lawn. It has been changed on the site plan. Ms. Wanner said this proposal has a unique amenity called a "garden room," which is a detached building in front of the unit itself It is approximately 300 square feet of flexible space for hobby use, a home office or a studio. It creates a strong street facade, and encloses an internal patio space. Private outdoor space is also very unusual for condo units. If the garden room option is not selected by the buyer, a 10-foot high gated garden wall will maintain the streetscape. A wrought iron fence will be installed around St. John's cemetery. Ms_ Wanner noted that the Heather Glen Village residents are experiencing a traffic problem and pointed out that the residents have set out orange traffic cones to control cut-through traffic. Staff recommends approval of the concept plan with one condition: 1) That the setback along the cemetery be moved eastward 40 feet to be consistent with the site plan and location of buildings_ Staff recommends approval of the preliminary development plan with ten conditions: 1) That the architecture and all elevations become a binding part of this application and the preliminary development plan; OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Community Dublin Planning and Zonir,, ommission ' `Minutes -February 6, 2003 Page 6 2) That the garden room be restricted to only those uses which aze described in the text and that it not be used for home occupations beyond those permitted with the Code; 3) That the buffer along the north property line be revised to meet Code; 4) That a tree replacement plan be submitted prior to review of the final development plan; 5) That the appropriate park fee be determined at the final development plan; 6) That an appropriate landscape treatment be devised around the traffic circle, with easements and or right-of--way dedications, if necessary, be submitted at the final development plan; 7) That Innovation Drive and the left-turn lane on Avery Road be constructed during the first development phase and that all rights-of--way be dedicated to the City by plat; 8) That a shared access agreement be submitted including the property to the east (Heather Glen Village site) at the final development plan; 9) That detailed stormwater calculations be submitted prior to submission of the final development plan; and 10) That the development text and site plans be made consistent with the recommendations contained within the staff report and be resubmitted within 30 days. Forest Gibson of Schmidt Land Design, on behalf of Romenelli and Hughes, said this project was an unique solution and it completes a piece of the Community Plan along Avery Road_ He said they have met with the adjoining property owners several times. The site is very much a blank part of the overall puzzle along Avery Road. There are condos and houses to the east .and an industrial area to the north_ This site has RI, Restricted Industrial zoning currently, which is not the preferred use in the Community Plan. Mr. Gibson said this provides a transitional use and a transitional building density and size_ He said Dublin has a park to the east. This is a unique situation, and he said the architect Joe Sullivan designed a type of architecture that responds to all of the adjoining land uses. Joe Sullivan, Sullivan Bruck Architects, said the condominium is an increasing market, especially .for empty-nesters wanting downsize their housing size and maintenance responsibilities. They still want quality. The condo options are increasing, and this site makes sense as a condo design. An empty-nester design features an open floor plan, a master suite, lots of closets, a nice bathroom, atwo-car attached garage, and guest space, all on one floor. He said dealing with the attached garage presents problems, and sometimes it is hard to find the front door. If the house is located behind the garage, the garages are too predominant and close off the street_ Other challenges are to provide windows for natural light and to find some private space. He said they wanted a design with some flexibility and a sense of privacy. A craft area or a home office space that is accessible to the street provides a new amenity without detracting from the living space. Mr. Sullivan said this plan redevelops the formerly typical streetscape character. It will be walkable with sidewalks, street trees, and homes on the street. The garden room is living space that becomes more important than the garage. He showed a unit floor plan. The garden room is almost like a tiny efficiency unit that can be adapted for many types of buyers. The plan also provides a private patio area, an outdoor room that the interior spaces open onto. It is a somewhat European approach. Mr. Sullivan said the base footprint is 1,750 square feet. He said the units are combined to provide very interesting streetscape and a nice place to walk. The materials will be consistent with the image of Dublin, including stone, stucco, and wood materials. Forest Gibson said they developed this plan by looking at its surrounding context. Many adjoining streets are oriented in an east west and north/south layout. T OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road Dublin Planning and Zoning ~mmission -Minutes -February 6, 2003 Page 7 Innovation Drive. The residents have concern about extending Innovation Drive, specifically with cut-through traffic and with any affect this might have on their property values. He said the condos will begin in the high $200,000s. This cost is too high to be used as a rental property_ To eliminate cut-through traffic they are eliminating the road into Heather Glen condos. This plan wil( share its access to the existing condo site_ There are several 90 degree turns in Innovation Drive and a traffic circle that should also decrease travel speeds. He said they linked the existing Dublin park space to the new park, extending the open greenspace that starts at Wilcox Road. It has paths, benches, a gazebo, etc. Mark Simmons, a Glen Village Drive resident, asked if extending the private drive would cause an increase of traffic. Forest Gibson responded that they envision less cut-through traffic than is now being experienced. He said they met with Bruce Jones, the condo association chair and he supports this traffic plan. Mr. Sprague suggested that the Commission stay focused on the concept plan for discussion. Mr. Gerber noted that the Community Plan includes a special area plan for Avery Road. It designates this site for single-family residential uses with a central east/west openspace corridor, not amulti-family development as proposed. Ms. Wanner responded that the Avery Road Area Plan has similar openspace as this site plan and it extends Innovation Drive with north and south cul de sacs for access. It was a similar concept. The Area Plan does indicate single-family lots, but the land use designation in the Community Plan is residential, two to five units per acre. Ms. Boring said Dublin has done some redesigning and raised the bar since adopting the Community Plan, especially in the southwest area. Dublin strives to exceed those standards, and she gave Ballantrae as an example of this trend. Ms. Wanner said this density meets the Future Land Use Plan. The units are very high quality. Ms. Boring agreed that the proposed buildings are high quality, but she was shocked by the use. Mr. Ritchie said he really liked this concept and congratulated the design team. This housing style hits a new market, and the architecture was good. He expressed concern about how all the elements will work together. For example the roadway was altered to accommodate the neighbors' concerns, but the access does not seem to work. He does not want units backing up to Innovation Drive. The greenspace corridor between Avery and Wilcox Roads, is being interrupted by a lot with houses. The proposed ponds do not seem to fit well. Although the concept was wonderful, the puzzle pieces do not to fit together properly. To him, it just did not seem to work. Mr. Saneholtz said the proposed density meets the Community Plan, but he was concerned about this layout. He appreciates the architecture and the garden room option, but too many garage doors are visible to the public. The streets are not creative, and the driveways will interfere with walking the neighborhood. He prefers to have garages at the rear or sides, out of the public view_ Mr. Saneholtz said the setback on Avery Road and the pond out front were wonderful, but the community house should be in the middle of the community for access and intimacy. His biggest concern is repeating the same building design over and over. They a! OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road . - r-------- ' Dublin Planning and Zoninf ~mmission Minutes -February 6, 2003 ?age 8 nice, and the layout is not unique. He would like to see more greenspace on Avery Road or in the middle of this development and more diverse design(s) for the units. Ms_ Boring said the Community Plan hearings included discussions about the ratio of multi-family to single-family use in the overall community. The decision was to hold to the limit that was set. If multi-family use is added here, some units should be deducted elsewhere. She wondered what this 109-unit multi-family development did to the ratio Ms. Clarke said the Community Plan had a lot of computer modeling on the impacts of various development scenarios, for traffic, water, sewer, etc. She said the amount of development in the pipeline at any one time is enormous_ She said Steering Committee asked staff to examine the multi-family ratio of other cities like Hilliard, Upper Arlington, or Worthington. Dublin's ratio, including everything in the pipeline, was already at the high end of the spectrum. Based on that data, the Plan assigned multi-family use to only five unzoned parcels in the preferred scenario, and this site was not one of them. It has a higher proposed density (2-5 units per acre), than vacant land in outlying areas. She said most of the land use decisions in the Community Plan were made based on the impact of development-amount of cars on the road, children in the school, water consumed, waste produced, etc. Based on impacts, Ms. Clarke thought this proposal might be lower than asingle-family development. The single-family versus multi-family designation was not a big issue to her. She agreed that adding 100 multi-family units increased the ratio. Ms. Boring remembered the events slightly differently. City Council adopted the "lower than low" impact scenario. She did not like the reduced setbacks along Innovation Drive. There had been a similar mistake along Martin Road, and those setbacks were larger than ten feet. Ms. Wanner said enclosing the driver's vision slows traffic, and the building structures close to the street creates a more intimate space and slows drivers down_ Ms. Boring said that rationale had not worked on Martin Road, and the Commission consistently requests broad setbacks_ She believes that is also what the community expects_ She thought the density was too high, and the full amount of parkland should be provided by the developer. Ms. Clarke said land dedication or paying a fee is always the City's option. When a park will be too small, a fee is accepted. Ms. Boring agreed. Ms. Clarke said staff believes this proposal is a good compromise. Ms. Boring said waiving the land dedication option is a bad idea here. Mr. Gerber appreciated the architectural design, quality of the product and the concept. He saw a conflict with the Community Plan which envisioned openspace and greater setbacks. He did not appreciate the "row house" layout. Although this has many nice features, the site looks jammed. Mr_ Sprague said he has received a note from Mr. Beckman who apologized for being late. He noted that the public comment section is done, but he will allow Mr. Beckman to speak after the Commission discussion. He noted that written comments are also entered into the record. Mr. Gibson said the eastern pond will function as part of the stormwater management system and is not included in the area for credit toward the park requirement. OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road Dublin Planning and Zonin- ~mmission Minutes -February 6, 2003 image 9 Mr. Zimmerman said this site requires 6.5 acres of parkland, and a fee is proposed except for 2.5 acres of it. The parkland needed to be increased_ He also was concerned about removing the private drive for Heather Gten Condos_ It will add more traffic and cause maintenance problems. Mr. Sullivan said they are trying to respond to the residents' concerns and to fix an existing problem with the emergency drive_ He does not expect it to get a lot of traffic in either direction; it is purely for emergency service_ Eliminating the direct access onto Innovation Drive allows the park area to be connected. Mr. Gibson said his discussions indicate that the residents prefer the proposed driveway connector. It will provide east access to Avery Road and connect two private streets. Mr. Zimmerman could not support the connection_ People own private streets to control who drives on them. He also said the layout is too square and needs more thought_ There should not be driveways onto Innovation Drive_ Mr. Messineo said the density was unacceptably high, and the layout is not innovative enough_ He finds the architecture interesting. He prefers the existing industrial zoning to this concept_ Mr. Sprague reiterated that a concept plan is not binding on the applicant or the City. Mr. Sprague said the general concept is intriguing, had interesting architecture, and responds to the need for alternative housing. The density is too high, and there is too little greenspace. The layout is problematic. There are too many garages fronting onto Innovation Drive. There is too much sameness in the streetscape and not enough greenspace. The cemetery issue should be addressed. The grid design did not seem to be well thought out_ Mr. Ritchie likes the concept and many of the details. He thinks empty nesters like to interact with other people. The plan has no porches and provides no way for the residents to interact with the neighborhood. This needs to be addressed to make this concept work. Ms. Boring said in creating alternative house styles, they should be condominiums that don't look like apartments converted to condominiums. These floor plans are all the same and empty nesters want a floor plan different from the neighbors and more choices_ Forrest Gibson said they would like to find an internal location for the pool and community house_ Mr. Sullivan appreciated the comments_ They think this concept has a lot of merit, but the Commission does not see this as part of Dublin's vision. He requested for feedback on whether this site is appropriate for any type of attached housing. They are raising the bar, and they are using the buildings to define space. They want this to be a place for walking, a place where they feel a sense of comfort and enclosure. Mr. Saneholtz said older neighborhoods have shallow front yards and open porches. This plan walls off the street like a fortress. He suggested using a mixture of the porch types, setting the buildings closer to the street and giving different floor designs throughout the complex. Mr. Sprague said they can give general comments, but their duty is to vote on the concept plan. OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Community Dublin Planning and Zonin ~mmission ,Minutes -February 6, 2003 ?age 10 Mr. Sullivan said it is obvious this idea will not be approved, and they can present a different one. He is interested in knowing about the basic land use question. Mr_ Gerber said the use in concept is fine, it is a good starting point_ It needs a more creative plan and a more open appearance. Mr. Sprague said frequently density drives many aspects of the plan, and with a lower density many of the concerns could be resolved. Mr. Sprague said there is gross density then specific areas where it is less and more dense. He said it may that the 109 units are just not going to be feasible, given the overall needs of this particular parcel, or it may be that it is; there may be another way to rework it. He said it may be problematic, but he won't say that it won't work, that is maybe something that needs to be put into their calculus when they are looking at the parcel. Mr. Sullivan said this is an expensive site, and economics play a part. They have a number of quality goals to meet. It is a total picture. He can deal with some of the ramifications of density, but he wanted to know if the Commission believes that I09 units are too many. They are pushing the upper end of the market feasibility. They will study it more. Mr. Gerber said the issue is visual clutter for him, not the unit count. Mr. Saneholtz encouraged unique architecture and floor plans and a very creative site design for this site. Mr. Sullivan requested a tabling because there were so many issues and a lot of feedback. Mr. Gerber respected this attempt to raise the bar. He hoped that the applicant also respected the Commission's point of view_ Mr. Sullivan said they certainly respected that. Mr. Zimmerman made the motion to table this application, as requested by the applicant. Mr. Gerber seconded, and the vote was as follows: Ms. Boring, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr. Messineo, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Ritchie, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; and Mr. Zimmerman, yes. (Concept Plan/Preliminary Development Plan Tabled 7-0.} Ms. Clarke asked if this needs to be scheduled just as a concept plan, rather than combining it with the preliminary development plan. Mr. Sprague said the consensus was for just the concept plan, and the Commission will try to keep the application moving. Mr. Sprague called a short recess at 8:20 p.m_ 4. Fina evelopment Plan -134FDP - St. Bri 'd of Kildare Chur Off-Site Facilitie 7 0 and 7240 Avery oad Ch Gibson said this is anal development an for St. Brigid c ch's off-site facili ' s. Mr. rague requested an breviated report, ~ en several recent pr ntations on this. Mr. Gibson sa the I02-space par ~ g lot is the same, ith 47 parking spa sin the southern portion an 5 in the northern rtion. He said the iggest change inv es added evergreen' trees an edges along the s ern property line. _ ere is 70 feet b~ OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Community P & Z Meeting November 9, 1983 Page Two purposes He also stated at it is his ~ ent to close o his existing atta d garage for mo living space. Mr. wman also advi d that the end the drive be ndscaped to p vent headlights rom shining ac s all the bac rds in the are r. Reiner move seconded by Mr. filler, to reco_ end approval of e application ject to the pro 'sion of headli screening and 4":12" pitch roof. ote on the mot n was unanimou or approval. 3. Rezoning Application Z63-004 Mr. James Steller, representing the applicant, amended the application to request the RI, Restricted Industrial District, to make the subject tract more compatible with surrounding land uses. He said that the owners want to develop the tract in a manner similar to Shamrock Industrial Park on the southeast corner of Avery and Shier-Rings Road. Mr. Bowman presented the planning aspects and considerations involved in the request. He explained that the subject tract is located within an industrial land use pattern being established along the existing and future Cosgray Sanitary Sewer line_ The land south of the subject tract will be serviced by another sewer line to be extended west from the Scioto River. Mr_ Bowman told the Commission that he will recommend to Council that the Village not annex any farther south until the Land use pattern is more apparent and ready to be rezoned. He told the Commission that the staff is recommending approval of the RI zoning with specific conditions that will make the tract more compatible with surrounding residential land uses. Those suggestions were stated as follows: A. Require an additional 26' of right-of way B. Establish a 175' setback from the centerline of Avery Road and a 100' setback from Wilcox Road C. Treat all agricultural property as residential for purposes of figuring side and rear yard requirements D. Strictly enforce the landscape code. In attendance were many residents of Washington Township living in residential areas located on Dan Sherri Avenue, Woerner-Temple Road, Avery and Wilcox Roads. Nany residents spoke in opposition to the re- zoning request. These residents voiced complaints about the amount of truck traffic on Avery and Wilcox Roads, major storm water problems, the man-made lake at Avery and Shier-Rings Roads, problems with wells due to new development, and the many eyesores in the area. Mr. Yoder of Wilcox Road told the Commission that the Township had agreed that there 2 OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Community P ~ Z Meeting November 9, 1983 Page Three would be no more development south of Cemetary on Avery Road_ Many residents stated that the land should remain agricultural. Mr. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Reiner, to approve the amended request by the applicant for the Rl zoning change.. All members voted in favor_ Mrs_. Neadlee moved, seconded by Mr_ Reiner, to recommend to Council that the tract be zoned RI, with the condition that Council establish the setbacks and other standards.. In her motion Mrs.. Neadlee also recommended that Council and the Village Administration pay particular attention to landscaping, screening, setbacks, curb cuts and strict zoning enforcement. Mr. Miller voted against the recommendation with all other members voting in favor. 4. Oiscu on of Munici Buildi E sion Aiternat' es M r. owman began th discussion by resenting the ommission a e plan wi various recd endations, op ons and alter fives of deve ping the ti re 28 acres f Coffman Par Mr. Emmett rrer and Mr. J e Shawan of the Dublin ~storical Soc' ty were prese and informed a Commission about the zety`s plant recreate the C fman Farm co ete with a museum of arm machinery "n the existi arn. Messrs. arrer and Sh n were tha ed by the Com ssion for the' presentation Mr. Bo n exQlained the Commissi that it was s intention t get the tter back to uncil. Ne st ed that the C fman Park sit plan wi the dzfferen options would ive Council a etter insight ~nto isions that 1 have to be ale if Coffman ark is level ed as tentatively p nned with pool nd community ilding and if a decision i made to exQa d the municipa building. The Co sion made the ollowing sugg ti ons arxf rec endations: A. negotiate wi the owners of a contiguous 2 acres (Sha on Park ection II) fo a school site if the distri is intereste ; B. To negotiate ith the same Hers, who als own the propo d Earlington Subdivisio , for apark/ n space acrea trade-off to dd more acreage Coffman Park- C. To con der paik acce from Post Ro ; O. To a the site pl reflect a to term future s ate and not to nec ssarily work w" existing co ditions. Other Bus' ess Mr_ Wa r informed th Commission th Council will a conducting public heari on an Ordina a to change residential b ilding code fr m the Ohio OS-0652 Rezoning Avery Road Condominium Community