Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
144-03 Ordinance
RECORD OF ORDINANCES Davton Legal Blank. Inc. Form No. 30043 144-03 Ordinance No. Passed 2~ AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 5.092 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BRAND ROAD, OPPOSITE LOMBARD WAY, :FROM: R-1, RESTRICTED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO: PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (CASE NO. 03-1502 - PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENTC PLAN - FRESHWATER FARM (HUMBERT PROPERTY) - 6325 BRAND ROAD). NOW, THER>~~'ORE, BE IT ORDAINED? by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, of the elected members concurring: Section 1. That the following described real estate (see attached map marked Exhibit "A") situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21-70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances) the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments there;to. Section 2. That application, Exhibit "B", including the list of contiguous and affected property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Exhibit "C", are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance therewith. Section 3. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law. Passed this I s r day of „ 2004. Mayor -Presiding Officer Attest: Clerk of Council Sponsor: Planning Division I hereby certify that copies of this Ordinance/Resolution were posted in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 731.25 of the Ohio Revised Code. De ty Cl k of Council, Dublin, Ohio ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS APPENDED BY COUNCIL 6/21/04 (1) The parkland be dedicated as recommE,nded by staff, with the maintenance of the parkland to be done by the City and not the homeowners' association. (2) The developer install a bikepath through the southern portion of the site, connecting from the cul de sac to 1:he existing bikepath, subject to working out the details of the specific location with staff and the Planning Commission at the final development plan stage. Department of Development Division of Planning 5800 Shier-Rings Road • Dublin, Ohio 43016 CITY QF DUBLIlY Phone: 614-410-4600 • Fax: 614-410-4747 Memo TO: Members of Dublin City Council FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager~o~-,..~ 5• ~J DATE: June 15, 2004 RE: Second Reading for Rezoning Ordinance: Ordinance #144-03 -Freshwater Farms -Rezoning (Case #03-1502) INITIATED BY: Gary Gunderman, AICP, Assistant Planning Di~r / , . J ~(y" UPDATE: This case was postponed at the June 7`~' City Council meeting to allow the applicant time to consider the parkland dedication issue. The plans and text are not changed and staff is still recommending that the parkland be dedicated to the City. SUMMARY: Ordinance #144-03 for Freshwater Farms is being forwarded for second reading. On February 5, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a request for a change in zoning of 5.092 acres located on the south side of Brand Road, 500 feet east of Townsend Road from R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (See Record of Action 03-1502) for a single-family subdivision that includes nine lots and 0.83-acre of private open space with five conditions. While the developer is proposing the payment of fees in lieu of public dedication, staff believes that this approach is not consistent with the overall goals of the City and that the Code specifies that it is the option of the City to accept fees in lieu of dedication. Discussion of this issue is not clearly reflected in the staff report, Record of Action or meeting minutes from the February 5, 2004, Planning; and Zoning Commission meeting. However, staff believes that the dedication of public open space is warranted due to the following: 1. The dedication of open space as public parkland is consistent with the goals and strategies of the Community Plan and is expected with residential development within the City, similar to the Wyndham Village and Westbury subdivisions to the west of the site. 2. The proposed parkland is located within floodplain areas that are important to the environmental integrity of the Indian Run corridor. The proposed private park .4 would provide limited future control over the continuity and management of the stream corridor; 3. The Community Plan emphasizes pedestrian and bikepath connectivity, especially along stream corridors. The parkland provides an integral link for future residents with direct access to Avery Park and the Glacier Ridge Metro Park to the west. RECOMMENDATION: This application is being forwarded from the Planning and Zoning Commission with a recommendation for approval with five conditions. Staff acknowledges the fact the h applicant had not been directed, prior to this step in the process, to dedicate parkland to the City. However, given the location of adjacent parkland and bikepaths, and the city's commitment to openspace connections, staff recommends that additional conditions be added to this rezoning request by City Council: Condition #6: That the development text be amended to require the dedication of proposed open space to the City and that all dedicated open space areas be maintained by a forced and funded Homeowners' Association; and Condition #7: That the developer be responsible for the installation of a bikepath through the southern open space connecting to the existing municipal bikepath system. <t., ~ yf ~ ~ - N ~~•RINGSE D•C ~ s AND gp•_~_o _ _ tk 6481, ` '~~",~~tF-~=TBRAND:RD•._ _ ~ ~1 R _ _ t• ~ _ ~ ~ 79;/4`y`L`~~ ' C `jJ?'N~v .gyp ~-7y ¦ 1 s Z ~ °-'7906,. ~ y ~ ~ ~ 905 ~ ~ ~ 63( a ~ea~® p +~7. 7498• 0 ;7j897 ~ ~ i Existing Bikepath and sss~' 780 Bridge Connection t,~~ 7874 a ~ h. f 78~~6 91u~4 T P ~~O PLR ~ ° ° ° ° -1 ° 0 PLR o 0 C ° R-1 PUD Y P ° R-1 ° PLR ° PLR R-1 ° ° L -3 03-1502 / City of Dublin Freshwater Farm Division of Planning (Humbert Property) N 6325 Brand Road o 250 5o~eet EXHIBIT "B" REZONING APPLICATION (Code Section 153.234) TO EXPIRE i~~ ORDINANCE NO. OivisioaofPlanaiag CITY COUNCIL 1ST Reading SBOOShier-Rings Rood CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236 CITY COUNCIL ACTT O N Phone/FDD: 614-410-4600 Foz: 614.761-6566 Web Site: www.duhlin.oh.os FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Amount Application No: Pqq&Z Da~t+e(s): P&Z Action: R e t MIS Fee No: Date Received: ~ ~d3 Received By: . lut-~o•o ~V - d Type of Request: 1j"`~ NOTE: Applicants are highly encouraged to contact the Division of Planning at 410-4600 for assistance to discuss the P&Z review process prior to submitting a formal application. CHECK THE TYPE OF APPLICATION: ? Composite Plan (§153.058) Preliminary Development Plan (§153.056) ? Other (Please Describe)_ FAX CONFIRMATION WILL FOLLOW THE SUBMISSION OF THIS FORM PROPERTY INFORMATION: Parcel Size: Tax ID/Parcel Number: '2 13 ~ ~ V ~ (Acres) ~ , Q~ Property Address: % ~ Q V ELI N (~i-~ ~ 3 ~ Side of Street (Nr a,tE, W): ~'f'~~~ Nearest Intersection: ~ i t~ `~c~ i ? I N D R~ Distance from Nearest Intersection: ~UU FEET, N. S, ~ W (Circle) from Nearest Intersection Exsting Land Use Development: ~ ~ ~~C..T~ ~ c> ~ ~ y~ Proposed Land Use Development: ~ - - - - ~ _ - y _ _ Current or Existing Zoning District Requested Zoning District: Number of A q ~e o~~ ':,~~ti ~~:>i, ~3- Rezoning Statement: State briefly how the proposed zoning and development relates to the existing and potential future land use character of the vicinity. ~"H is P1~t~P®S~D tZ~Zt~ Ni N v f i ~ ~ ARP~T~,P` 1~ 1-f i-~ N~t~L~l ALL ~~~>=>_o~~~NT~ of i Nom. /~~Ar ~~Es~p>?1J ~i/aL- -`o R~~t~~N"ri~L. T1~~ ~~P~ o~ I~ i %t~ ~A~tZ.~~ Gi-4U'FZ.Gi-~ C7~ ? i-tE ~D~Ac~NT ~~p ~i--t tGi~t C~a~~ 1~~ j ~t i ~ i u-~~,t~LTCR ~1= I i-t E. ~ ~ ~i hJ IT State briefly how the proposed zoning and development relates to the Dublin Community Plan. ~~~I(~~~STI~t.... C~~~,"~Lo~M~rJ~ l~ A M~J~1~ ~6c~S Tl-{E ©~~Li~l C~r~liM~~t'T`( PLAN. ~t-t1~ ~ i?U i=Lor~M~. N i '~1 t L L 1 oc~% ~Z~S~ ~c ~ Ti ~ t_ Previous Application: Has an application for rezoning the property been denied by the City Council within the last two (2) years? No ~~f~ ~ol~ ~~~~~~:.t~ coN~P i pLAN If Yes, When? State the basis of reconsideration: 1~ ~ . IF A PLANNED DISTRICT IS REQUESTED, IS A COMPOSITE OR PRELIMINARY PLAN ATTACHED? YES,1~ NO ? IF A PLANNED DISTRICT IS REQUESTED. IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT ATTACHE ~ ~YE~.Q~ ? Page 2 of 5 < r ~ I~SD~: IV. PLEASE SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING: TWO (2) ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATIONS AND THIRTEEN (13) COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION 14 COPIES OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION Legal description of the property to be zoned consists of page(s). 14 SETS OF A SCALED, SITE/STAKING PLAN (NOT GREATER THAN 24" x 36") AND 14 SETS OF REDUCED SITE DRAWING(S) (NOT GREATER THAN 11" X 17") SHOWING: a. The site and all land 500 feet beyond the boundaries; b. North arrow and bar scale; c. Locations, size, and dimensions of all existing and proposed conditions and structures (significant natural features, landscaping, structures, additions, decks, access ways, parking, etc.); d. Proposed Uses (Regional transportation system, densities, number of dwellings, building/unit types, square footages, parking/open space, etc.); e. Existing and proposed zoning district boundaries; f. Size of site in acres/square feet; and g. All property lines, setbacks, street centerlines, rights-of-way, easements, and other information related to the site. ,0' 14 COPIES OF COUNTY TAX PARCEL tD MAP: (NOT LESS THAN 8'rz" X 11" AND NOT MORE THAN 16" X 20") Showing contiguous property owners within 500 feet from the perimeter of the area to be rezoned. ,.G 14 SETS OF SCALED, DETAILED ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS (IF APPLICABLE) FOR SIGNS, 14 COPIES OF ACCURATE, SCALED DRAWINGS SHONVING: a. Location of sign and sign type (wall, ground, projecting, or window) b. All dimensions of sign, including letter sizes and proposed distance from sign to grade c. Proposed copy layout and Lettering styles (fonts) d. Materials and manufacturer to be used in fabrication e. Total area of sign face (including frame) f. Type of illumination ? MATERIAL AND COLOR SAMPLES (color chips, photos, plans or brochure of product information). Include manufacturer name and number. ~~~~r'~__ Page 3 of 5 _ ~ G,, ~ r CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS: List all neighboring property owners within 300 feet from the perimeter of the property. Information must be in accordance with the County Auditor's current tax list. Electronic copies of property owner list:, are encouraged. (Use additional sheets as necessary.) PROPERTY OWNER (not Mortgage Company or Tax Service) MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE Donald & Michelle Joseph 7914 Wiltshire Drive Dublin, OH 43016 Pan Suihua Deng Chenghui 7906 Wiltshire Drive ~ Dublin, OH 43016 Ronald & Candace Snodgrass 7898 Wiltshire Drive Dublin, OH 43016 Salvatore & Cathy Siano 7890 Wiltshire Drive Dublin, OH 43016 Indian Run Methodist Church 6305 Brand Road ~ Dublin, OH 43016 I Reserve C i City of Dublin Meadows at Wyndham Village Dublin, OH 43016 I Zaki Khan 7913 Wiltshire Drive Dublin, OH 43016 I Ko Clement 7905 Wiltshire Drive Dublin, OH 43016 Qi Song 7897 Wiltshire Drive ' Dublin, OH 43016 Alan Di George ii, 7889 Wiltshire Drive Dublin, OH 43016 - -i- - Richard & Cathy Goetz i 7874 Wiltshire Drive Dublin, OH 43016 i - - i F'~f1 ~ y ~ a ~ Page 4 of 5 _ ~ VI. PROPERTY OWNER /APPLICANT INFORMATION: Current Property Owner/ plicant: k~4 T r-{~,~(t~t ~N D J~41~1 N V M~~~:T Mailing Address: 1 tt ,,11QQ (Street, City, State, Zip Code) t!Q ~ ~~V-'stV `J ~r~ • ~ v l~ 1" • ~ i ~ Daytime Telephone: Fax: (o[~--~ iQj-~0~4- ~t~1 -1i~• 511-1 VII. OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE INFORMATION: Representative if different from property owner or applicant: ~l~~~P~ ~ i (Also complete Section IX) '~J Mailing Address: S~U~ G.A~S©N P 1... `'QU~,~ ~.~.t (Street, Daytime Telephone: Cityc,~S,tca~te, Zip~CLode) ~~"n•VUI' 14~~ Fax: Daytime Telephone: -f,~,~ • ~C,Z ~ . U?J i ~cp1t~N'~.~~Rt~THLiI~ ' 6 U E-MAIL ADDRESS (IF AVAILABLE) ~SP~cotn~~fa-r~ C1~~n acr ~ S~~uG` ~g,~. F0.,c : a~ a ~ c~~ ~ VIII. PRIMARY CONTACT: p 3~ao ,~15 Q''rnQ t ~ ~ VY~~ o5e.@t,~1;1e.5 ~ aw . Gotvt Who is the primary contact person? Jfr~J t-1 1~ ` t"'~ ~~~Pj ~'v~ (If different from Owner's Representative and Applicant) IX. AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROPERTY: Site visits to the property by City representatives are necessary in order to process this application. The Owner/Applicant hereby authorizes City representatives to visit, photograph and post a notice on the property described in this application. X. UTILITY DISCLAIMER: The City of Dublin will make every effort to provi ~nti erv erty as needed. However, the rapid growth of the City of Dublin and northwest Franklin County h2~s stf~thity' povide these services to the limit. As such, the City of Dublin may be unable to make all or part of said lac t flab as a cant until some future date. The ApplicanUOwner acknowledges that approval of this request for rezoning by the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission and/or Dublin City Council does not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able to provide essential services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by said Applicant. / k~ XI. OWNER AUTHORIZATION FOR AGENT/REPRESENTATIVE: I c~V~' ~ the owner/applicant. hereby auth rize n a ~ ~('~pt Lip y~L. CCr ~k~ C~" ~pSe-- to a i i1~e e e tative i,n. all matters pertaining to the proces ing and approval of this application including modifying the p~~~IG~a~d~e~~~?~~°,~r~d ~y'~II representations and a reements made b the desi Hated a ent. Signatur f Current Property Owner: Date: _ , ~7, XII. APP ICANT'S IDAVIT: I the applicanUauthorized represent ive, have ead and understand the contents of this application. The information contained in this application, attached exhibits and other information submitted is complete and in all respects true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature of Applicant or Date: Authorized Representative: ~ ~ -1 /'Y')Z ed and sworn o before me this T 20 Q 07 ____-.day of - - - - - ~~Q`a ~ ~ ~ N t r Public :2 '9r: NOVBSZAADit * ~ Notat~r pnblic~ Btate of Ohio Rezonii'{~ A licafi.~i~ ~ ~ ~h ~~~0~ PLA-108 Date 09/25/03 T''~E Or o~.o```~~~~ ~~~gwar~rrao~ ~ Y ~ - - V. , tw.MS.N~~wliauo-[~.o ~r~TU,r}au r`ur ~'.d.~ ,~~}iO'~ ~7 O ,~Z~ . ~ t1~,rk l~ Nom("~~ ~ y ~II~I ~l,tt~t David C. Jennings aad.l)onna L. Jennings, husband ;i and wife, "~t 'a' ;:Ct " Fy~~~A ~rj A6ANA2iD0 Grunfy, tifgt~ ajYNiW1( jur w2lYablr ~Yrr/ridewtk,n pafd.Xmaf - ~ - H•idrRE•rlr•ra/unrr?uncytuExtilanls,tu John E. Huelbert, Jr. and Kathryn J. Humber , _ husband and vife, for their joint Iivea, remainder to the aurvlvar of them. - u~lal~rlerrnai/Lad//rc.vsirr 6909 [!rand Rd., Plain City. Ohio. 13064. _yw flu• firllan•iur;mrl prur+,•rlfp _ _ ' S8E BXSIBIT A POR OESCAIPTION. ' Tax Parcel Na. 273-990 .~~ii)~' 1 t \ \ Last ?ranafer: Deed Record Vol . 3548, Page 495. . . _ 9 ~ SM 1~~Q~•. . _.._..:FF;pNI(~!N ~~!NfY •JAL - - - s:~ . \ ,1 . X9.5" ~ td~ Recorded:.. 6. .195........ Tanr..lf!.~~......M - - = w • ~ ~5'L~ ` JOSEPH W. TESTA, Recx+rder y" ••~05~ O; ~ ~fK'~ AecrorEtt's Fee S... d ~ f ~ Z.~'• ,x: x. - ROf01'!<AMMY~ImOcRI~a71eAaB[715EfugAxrxxYxx~f5g0ecx lr wl ftlhaxbaad of flrc graudr?, n•lcuxr•s nll rfYldx ajduu•r?Ilrrn~iu. ~~tueSB our heads thlx ,;5~ daYrrj May l9 85 ' 5iRrtedr//ndarkrlallrtedgrdinpre+cnaoj ~ ' ,fir ~r ~ L//!/ tt],G 1CL c -avi C, Jenxinge _ A e n n e - `-Z Z _ RR~SF.fB$~ _ CONVE7ANGE.711X_ - JUN 61385 w FLORIDA A.~o,r+AL PALFdrR C. t~cNEAL ~t2uP IIf ~ ~ gJe,,e r... Y r.t+v.:1.a.,~uN~r ~,,_,iur. , HERNANDO CAIN_~'Y: ~ VViP~ ~hiiav2~ei is and jor said County aru3 Slate, perm?.4llY appeatrd tJle aEm>r ttamai David C. Jennings and Donna L. Jennings whe eekaolotedptd that t hey did ripe the joE•+eyoiap uutrYmert! a»d that tAe easu iE the 1 r f~ act attd decd. ~tt ~IIPS1I~IttO1tNJ ~~P1'>:itf, t Aaw ltsr.rallo wt Eny Aard thu ~Sv" day Qf /77C~ A. D. Jp 8 S uesrrncw.aao?ar:~uc~ YIC041M1rON Eq+165J1PhS 2, IVeE ' otary Public Nolf, Elliott and Sund~rsan. Gn _3„p,A, ' 711uEnd>~'~P~~Y ZS Y. Cs:ntral Ave., Delevaza, OAio, 1]015 C' _ VJ V V.. iI1 ' 1 ~ distance of 164.28 feet to as izon pin in.the westerly ' line of said 1.029 acre tract; thence North 7' U6' 35" East, with the westerly Iine of said 1.029 acre tract, j a diataaca of 30.00 feet to a railzoad spike in the - ` ~ centerline of said Broad Road; thence South 82' S3' 25" _ East, with the centerline of acid Hrnnd Road, a distance of 151.00 feet to the place of beginning sad ' containing 0.109 acre of land, more or lees. ` ~ Tax Parcel /273-1909. Last Transfer: Deed Record Volume page . " i0 HAVE AND TO HOLD said premiaea~ with all the privileges and appurtenancaa thereunto belonging, to the said Grantees, Joha E. BuQbert, Jr. and Kathryn Humbert, their heirs sad aeeigna forever. And the said Grantors, Joha E. Nnmbert, Jz. and Kathryn Humbert, for themselves and their heirs, do hereby covenant with o ' the said Grantees, Jaha E. Humbert, Jr. and Kathryn Humbert, cr i their 4eira -and assigns, that they era liswfttlly seised of the premises aforesaid; that the said premiaea are F$BE AND CLEAR m FRO?f ALL ENCUlSBRAHCES 1iHATSOEVER and that they will forEVER ~ = WARRANT AND DEFEND the same, with the appuztenaneea. auto the i said Grantees, John E. Humbert, Jr. and Kathryn Humbert, their heirs and asaigas against the lawful claims, of alI parsons vhomaeover. i IN WITNESS VHEREOF, the said Grantors. Joha E, Hnmbert, Jr. and Kathryn Humbert, who hereby release their rights f dower in the premises, have hereunto net their hands, this ay of ` 1985, ' ' IIGNED AND CKlf0i7LE OED ~T~ OP: 1 _ .~ttn E:•Humbart, r, . Kth bet ~ STATH OF OHIO COUNTY OF HE IT REHENBERED that on this ~ay og 1985 ' before me, the subscriber. a Notary Public in a d for said county, personally came the above nailed Joha E. N~um art, Jr, and Kathryn Humbert, the Grantors in the foreaoiag deed, and acknowledged the signlag of the acme to be their voluntary act and dead. Eor the uoea and purposes therein mentioned, t ZN TESTIf(ONY YHEREOP, I have hezau subs bed my as and J affixed~my~•offic`ial aeaT on the day ye e a reeaid ,~1..1,~,NN4 _ ~,•;~p_ ',\S~ti otary Pttb is ~ ~~llJ//~ Y'`4 i i r* ~e s t~ r 4 ~ ~ i ~ - 1 _ Prepared By: Volf, Elliott and Sundarman, Co., L.P.A. 25 F'. Central Ave., Delaware. Ohio. 43015 { Y ~ . ti 1 z 4 ~ asa.~sea~awt- t - . a< . ~ •1 t ^~.a. OST9 H 14 t ~ . Y+'~ ~ EXHIBIT A Situated la the County of Franklin, in the State of Ohio and in ~ .l. Che Township of 4Jashingcon. Being part of Survey No. 3004 and - Survey 5162 also known as 6152. - - •BeginninQ at an iron pin in [he center of the Scioto River, Union _ and Delaware County Pree Turnpike, being the northeast corner to • a tract of six acme of which this description is a part, ~ o - " conveyed by Cyrus Freshwater and wife to Almira Hughes by dead cry - _ dated April 17, 1899, cecorded in D.B. 332. page 217, Franklin 1+ , - County. 061o Daed Recotda; thence with tvo consecutive lines of m s~;~ said tract S. 16• 22' E. 8.50 chaiaa to a atone; theses S. 75' 6' aD ~4-~, kr. 5.57 chains to a atone is the south lane of said trace: thence ~ = e N. 16' 22' 11. 10.81 chains co an iron pir. in the center of the ~ ° aforeRatd Ptka; thence with the center ?line thlieof S. 02' 26' F;. ~ ;1:ti 6.08 chains co the beginning, containing 5.37 acres of land, more or less. = _ sAVR ANO EXCEPT THEREFROH the foilotiring described tract described _ ;z-:~ ~ in Doc. Vol. 1650, Page 09, RecordQr'e Office, Frenklin County. Ohio and further described sa follo~rs: ~r" Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, Village of s;.-;., Dublin, being located in Viz`inia Hil)lcary Survey No, 5162 (6152) and being 1.029 acres out of the 5.37 acre tract as ~ conveyed to David S. and Donna L. Jennings, by dead of record in Deed Book 7549, page 495, all reference€~ beiog to records of the ~a.=~•: Recardar's Office. Franklin County, Ohio, and being more <; particuletly bounded and describad ac fol.lovs: ` Beginning at a railroad spike in the centerline of Brand Road at the northwesterly corner of the 6.400 acre tract as conveyed co Northwest United Methodist Union of Columibua District, by deed of record in Official Record 1169. page C-18, said spike being located North 82' S3' 25" asst, a distance of 791.21 feet from a railroad spike in the centerline inceraectioa of said Brand Road with Avery Road: thence South 16• 46' 12" East, with the westerly line of said 6,900 acre tract, (passing an iron ptn at 32.81 feet), a distance of 227.00 fee: co an iron pin; thence South 89° 30' 16" Neat, a distance of 245.05 feet to an iron pin; thence - North 7• 06' 35" Eaet, (passing an iron pin at 210.00 feet), a distance of 240.00 feet co a railroad spike in the een:ezlina of acid Brand Road; thence South 82. 53' 25" East, with the centerline of said Brand Road, a distance of 151.00 fast to the place of beginning, containing 1.029 acre of land, mere of lees. Sublecc, however, to all legal rights of May and/or easements of previuua recorR. 390 c~ ~ ~ . 33 ` .A r .e+ ~ 3 • ~ti. r,. ~ gel'. ~,a.. ~ ~ kZ3~1'-.... ~ "r:' J - . ' r T`y..ftit.y: L i ~ 1Qi-~:~h'l~ - ~ ' - vr~ ~t`_~~~s.•±v~.q~ .':.d::yac:~[ y •1 ~~~..t,, ~,ttMt David C. Jennings aad Donna L. Jennings. husband s and vlfe, .l 2 ' ~ ~ f AERNA2iD0 County, tilutr ujX~ jur Iw/uaLlr cYUUidrwlk~s Auld. Kauu 3 - - ' ~ nid~~Irraluauraetyr•caxtiants,h, John E. Humbert, Jr. and Kathryn J. Humber , husband and wife. far their ~oiat lives, rentaiader to the survivor of ~ them. 1 V';:• u~lu.~rtoxn,nit(,~adc/re.cslr 6909 Erand Rd., Paain City, Ohio, 43064. ?ice _ llu• j>?lan•iu~rrrd pralk•rtg: _ ' S8fi EXHIBIT A FOR DESCRIPTION. • Tax Parcel Na. 273-790 •~t:~~~i' - _ ? \ \ Last ?ranafer: Deed Retard Vol. 3548, Page 695. • z - q` 4 tat~~~1~•ON~44~,~,~1 FRf+fV ~ 11 .~•-t ~ ~ . Qtv N r _ ~ ESN ~ ,1. \905...- td~ Recorded:..JUIN. ~?.".1985........ t~,.:.li!Qc?......M - - s-_~=.~~ w ~ .~51P" JOSI~PH W. TESTA, Recc+rder ' ~"x ~QSF' -l p: ~Gt`"'' Aecwdet'E ke 71....~~...~'.... x: i - FalorxMrnY~rlocRafr+ylefwoc>i5fiua,fx.rxxYxx~Hgoocxl, 2.: wljc/GarLuad of dlc grauh,r, ndeuars aN rtplrtr njduu~rrlh~n~ie. ~~ttuSS our hoods tlllx ~S~ clutinj Hay 19 85 ~ • Signed entl arknawttdgrd in prruna of a D ~ C avi C. Jenliinga - enn a ZL _ RR~S~~~ CONy~Y~cJ_.7ex- • JUN 61985 w FLORIDA a~o,,,,e~, PALFdcR C. thc~EAl 1~1'11TQ Df ~ a. Bdor. Y r.uv.a.n_.:urv~r , HERNANDO CA NTY = ~ and jar said Countyanc( Slate, pcrml:ally appeared the a/fmre xamtd UViFa~FFlhfW~f( David C. Jennings and Donna L. Jennings who eckxolaledped that t hey did riprl tke joreyoiap irietr•Yn/ent ar~d that the wau u the 1 r j*'n act attd drrd. .fin ~PS1~ritA1t1; ~~PrPUf, I haw Ae,.axto «L my hard thu q~aal~aeat,,at day 4( /77~ A. D. !Y 8 5 ~h - MlWre~YibJIr.MG~ Y! a0Y V,lSi7N f rhMC S AM,S :.1~ story Public i' 7yluindna~t~"dEY Volf, Elliott a ,~undarsan Cq~,,. L p,a. 25 V. Central Ave., Dele~ara, Ohio. 4]015 . i ~C ~IA~1~ distance of 164.28 fast to an iron pin i.p.the westerly ' line of acid 1.OT9 acre tract; theses liairth 7' Ob' 35" t East, with the weeterlq Iine of said J..Oi29 acre tract. a distance of 30.00 feet tv a rallroad spike in the - ` i ceaterliae of said Hraad Aoad; thence South 82' S3' ZS" East, with the centerline of aeid Brand Roed, a dietaacs of 151.00 faeL to the place of beginning and ' containing 0.109 acre of land, more or lees. ~ Tax Parcel /273-1909. i Last Transfer: Deed Record Volume page TO HAVE AND !J HOLD said promises, with all the privileges sad , appurtenances thereunto beloagiag, to the ea id! Grantees, John E, Humbert, Jr. and Kathryn Humbert, their heirs sad assigns forever. Attd the said Grantors, Joha E. Humbert, Jr. and Kathryn Humbert, for themselves and their heirs, do hereby covenant with o ' the said Craateee, Joha E. Humbert. Jr. and Kathryn Huebert, vt i their heirs and assigns, that they era lawfully seised of the premises aforesaid; that the said premises are F$EE AMD CLEAR ~ FROtf ALL ENCUIfBRANCES i/ltATSOEVER and that they will forCVER a~ VARRANT AND DEFEND the same, with the appurtenances. auto the i said Grauteee, John E. Humbert, Jr, and Kathryn Humbert, their heirs and assigns against the lawful claims of all persona m vhomaeover. IN NITNBSS WHEREOF, the said Grantors. John E„ Humbert, Jr. and ~ Kathryn Humbert, who hereby releese their right:e f dower in the . , premises, have hereunto set their hands, this ~ a(~'day of~Y}j¢.~ - : 1985. _ "."7_• ~ . " SIGNED AND CKNOWLE OED - I THE R Og f,'u - .~ha .•Hu~rt, r.. . ' th be t . ~ STATE OF OHIO COUNTY OF HE IT RENEHBBRED that on this .'day of 1985 ' before ne, the subscriber, a Notnry Public in a d for said ' county, personally came the above naAed Jahn E. ~fum ert, Jr, and Kathryn Humbert, the Graatora in the foreg;oiag deed, and ackaoWledged the signing of the same to be their voluntary act and dead, For the uoee and purposes therein mentioned, ZN TE3TINOAY iTHEREOF. I have hereu subs bed sty na and ' affixed~my~~of-fic'ial aeaT on the day ye s a reeaid t .N H.~~n'N4 _ ~ `~c~ P_~ ''~SFa'~ otary Pub 1c i a I ~ ~ ~j~' "~a~~'r 1 Prepared By: wolf. Elliott eud 3undaraan, Co., L.P.A. TS Y. Central Ave., Delaware, Ohio. 43015 _ l ~ t 4a tZSq( ,h ~ r, / ~1 QST9 H~4 ~ r~.~3 t ~ RXHlBIT A • ~ { Situated In the Cauaty of Fraaklin, in the State of Ohio and in _A~~ the Township of Washington. Being part of Survey No. 3009 and Survey 5162 also known as 6152. - - Beginning ac an iron pin la the center of the Scioto River, union _ and Delaware County Pre¢ Turnpike, balsa; tha northeast corn¢c to ~ • - a tract of six acres of which this d,eacriptioa la a part, c~ conveyed by Cyius Fr¢ahwater and wife to Almira Nuthes by deed cn _ dated April 17, 1899, recorded in D.B. 332. pace 212. Franklin 1+ - - County, Ohio Decd Records; thence xith tvo consecutive lines of ca ' said tract S. 16' 22' E. 8.50 chains to a stone; [Rance S. 75' b' m u. 5.51 chains to a stone la the .south line of said tract. [haste ~ F N. 16' 22' N. 10. B1 chains to an iron pin in the eencar of the ° a!'orreatd Ptke; thence with the center ?ins [hQreof S. 02' 26' F. cA 6.08 chains ca the beginning, containing 5.37 acres of land, more or less. _ ~a"{~`•` ~ AvR AND EXCEPT THEREFROM the following described tract described • -4 in Doc. Vol. 1650. Page 09, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio and further described as folloxs: =,r` ~ Situated in the Stece of Ohio, County of Franklin. Villaxe of Dubiia, being located in Vir6lnia t1i111tary Survey No. 5162 (6152) and being 1.029 acres out of the 5.37 acre tract as conveyed to David S. and Doaaa L. Jeaaings, by deed of record in Deed Book 3549, page 495, all referenc¢s being to records of the Recorder's 0£fice, Fraaklin County, Ohio, and being sore particularly bounded and described as follows: ` 8eginnin` at a railroa4 spike in the centerline of Brand Road ac the northwesterly corner of cde 6.900 acre tract as conveyed to Northwest golfed riethodisc Onion of Columbus District, by d¢ed of record in Official Record 1169, page C-18, said spike being located North 82' S3' 25" West, a distance of 791.21 feet frog a railroad spike in the centerline inteta¢ction of said Brand Road with Avery Road; thence South 16' 46' 12" Eaet, with the westerly line of said 6.900 acre tract, (passing an iron pin at 32.H1 feet), s distance of 227.00 fee: Co an iron pin; thence SoutA B9° 3O' 16" Neat, a distance of 245.05 feet to an iron pin: thence - North 7' 06' 35" East, (pascing an iron pin at 210.00 feet), a distance of 240.00 feet co a railroad spike in the een:erline of csid Brand Road; thenc¢ South 82' S3' 25" East, with the centerline of said Brand Road, a distance of 151.00 fart to th¢ place of beginning, containing 1.029 sera of land, mere of lest. Sub~ecc, however. to all legal rights of way and/or easemsnta of previ~ua recorA. 390 w R S r~, i.~ ~g~ 33 a PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN for the PROPOSED REZONING of: FRESHWA TE'R FARM A lrr.lf~-~~, c>~r~~~t~~ ~zes~te~~, cl~is~~c~~~ hf~ta7c~ ~~i~lct~~~c~ i~~ ~~rrl~~irl, C~I~~~cr July 31, 2003 Revised: Sept 15, 2003 ' Revised: October 11, 2003 Revised: November 30~, 2003_ Revised: January 20, 2004 , Revised: March 19, :?004 BARB Revised: May 06, 2004 ~ TREPICC~NI _ : Assoc~n~rl~s a ARCHITLsCTS ~-'z : ~ . PROPOSED REZONING July 31, 2003 Revised: May 06, 2004 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT TEXT Prepared by Joseph A. Trepicone, Trepicone & Assoc. Architects PURPOSE To rezone a property currently zoned "Rl" to "P.U.D." The following information is submitted in accordance with the requirements of the City of Dublin Code Section ll81.07(g)(2), "Planned Unit Development: Contents of Preliminary Development Plan." PROJECT OVERVIEW The site, to be referred to as "Freshwater Farm" is to be designed and intended as an "empty nester" type subdivision meaning residences will be tailored toward mature, frequently absent, owners whose grown children no longer reside with their parents. The age group of this target owner will desire aloes-maintenance development without large, sprawling lawns, outdoor play areas, school bus transportation, etc. Parking areas will be barrier free and in close proximity to each residence. The site shall be divided into 9 single-family residential lots facing and accessed by a one-way, tear drop shaped loop dedicated street. Further portions of the site shall be identified as No-Build areas to be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Each residence will be custom designed and will vary in size from 2,500 to 3,500 square feet. The building density of the site will be .5658 acres per residential unit. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The 5.092 acre site is located at 6325 Brand Road west of Avery Road. Cun-ently there are four structures located on the site: Iowner-occupied single family residence, two garages and one barn. The remainder of the site is unused pasture land surrounded by 3- strand fence. The property is bordered to the south by the City of Dublin's Avery Park and North Fork of Indian Run Creek including a footbridge which crosses the creek. A portion of the Indian Run Creek is on this properly. The western property line is bordered by the Meadows at Wyndham Village subdivision. The majority of the eastern property line is bordered by the Indian Run United Methodist Church with a small portion of the southeast portion being the City of Dublin Avery Park All of the northern property line is bordered by Brand Road. PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF SITE DEVELOPMENT It is the intention of the Owners to have the design of two of the residences complete by April of 2004 and submit for all required permits in June of 2004. Construction of these residences is to begin summer of 2004. The target date '.For completion of the subdivision is late 2006. RELATIONSHIP OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO EXISTING AND . FUTURE LAND USE This proposed intimate, single-family residential development is precisely the type of development to be accepted and desired for this area. Its low density and provisio?i for open space yield a minimal overall impact on communii:y facilities and public improvements. SITE DATA Gross Acreage: ~ 5.092 ac (22,3844:32 S.F.) Set back along Brand Road: 120 feet from centerline 80 feet fro m right of way Total Single Family Residences: 9 (2,500 to 3,500 S.F.) Gross Density: .5658 acres /unit Lot sizes: Vary Rear Yard Setback: 25 feet variable to 85' Min. Distance between residences: 17 feet Side Yard Setback: 7 feet one side, with a combined 17 feet Front Yard Setback: Variable 20 to 35 feet (from edge of pavement) Maximum Building Height: 35 feet as measured for the City of Dublin Codc 3 SITE STORM WATER / UTILITES 1. Storm water retention has been calculated and is detailed in the preliminary engineering drawings. The final design shall be engineered and submitted to the City of Dublin for review and approval. All Storm water and Sanitary facilities for this project to be designed per the requirements of the City of Dublin and the Ohio EPA. Water Services and Fire protection will. meet the requirements of the Cities of Columbus and Dublin. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1. It is the intent for this development to be unified and harmonious in character and reflect an upscale, high quality, intimate, signature residential village. 2. Detailed architectural standard will be set forth in deed restrictions providing for a coordinated use of materials and architectural character thoughout the development. All residences shall comply with the Dublin Appearance Code. (See Architectural Standards for moue information including building materials.) 3. If the standards conflict in any way with the City of Dublin Codified Ordinances, then the Planned Unit Development shall prevail. Standards in the City of Dublin Zoning Code applicable to matters not covered in this document shall apply to the standards outline in this document. 4. Signage, size, color and style will be controlled by Dublin City Zoning Codes. The development entry signage will consist of one sign that will be seen from Brand Road. PROPOSED TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PATTERN The entry to the development will be from Brand Road by way of a new publicly dedicated street. This street will align with Lombard Way across Brand Road. PARKING /GARAGES Each residence shall be required to construct a side loaded attached garage that will accommodate no less than two vehicles and no more than three. Further, an off street parking lane shall be provided. See the Preliminary Development Plan. LANDSCAPE Each residence is required to submit to the Owner's Design Review Board a comprehensive landscape plan illustrating and specifying all plant material, grading, walks, vehicular pavement, terraces, patios, etc. Decks will be considered on an individual basis based on its integration into the overall landscape plan. All materials must be identified on the landscape plan. ISLAND LANDSCAPE FEATURE The southern (widest) end of the center tear-drop shaped island will be a landscape feature. The design will be natural in appearance consisting of wildlife sculpture elements indigenous to the area, as well as natural stone. Consideration will be made so that the composition is esthetically appealing in all seasons. This landscape feature will paid for by the developer and maintained by the homeowners' association. -E PERMITTED USES All Lots in the Subdivision shall be used for single-family residential purposes only. No building shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any Lot that would exceed two and one-half (2'/z) stories in height and in no event shall any building be erected to a height exceeding thirty-five (35) feet from the finish grade of the building, together with necessary accessory buildings and structures, including a garage, an uncovered or covered and/or enclosed patio, fencing or freestanding walls, an inground pool, and a bath house. No other structure shall be constructed, erected, placed or permitted to remain upon any Lot without the express written consent of the City of Dublin and the Owner's Design Review Board. The word "structure" as used herein includes in its meaning any thing or object the placement of which upon any Lot may affect the appearance of such Lot, including, but not limited to, above-ground swimming pool, barn, greenhouse, fencing, coop, cage, animal run, house trailer or any other temporary or permanent improvement on such Lot. LOT SPLIT No lot shall be split, divided or subdivided for sale, resale, gift, transfer or otherwise so as to create a new lot. , TRADE OR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY BARREL) - No trade or commercial activity shall be conducted upon any Lot, nor shall anything be done thereon which may become an annoyance or nuisance to any of the owners of any of said Lots in the Subdivision. ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS All residence shall comply with the Dublin Appearance Code. Prior to submission to the City of Dublin Building Department, all residential designs shall be reviewed by the Property Owner's Design Review Board for written design approval and Notice to Proceed. u All residences shall be harmonious in character and reflect an upscale, high quality, intimate, signature residential village development. Each exterior will be designed and coordinated with adjacent facades and the village development as a whole. No two residences may be too similar as to appear repetitive nor too different as to appear unrelated to the collective aesthetic image of the village and therefore detract. All residences shall have the same degree of exterior finish on all sides referred to as "4- sided architecture". Each facade will be designed and detailed to the same level of quality. All specific /actual material samples shall be prepared and submitted for each residence prior to design approval. No single building material shall be permitted to covet- any exterior building facade in excess of 85 percent. Exterior Wall Materials 1. Natural or Veneer stone shall be permitted. Stone must be laid in its natural bed. A list of permitted quarries and/or manufactures will be compiled. The buff, tan, and warm gray color range will be preferred. Mortar joint and color will be considered in relation to the specific stone to be specified. 2. Brick shall be perrr~itted. Brick will be limited ho modular sized, sand mold only. A list of permitted brick manufacturers will be compiled. The blended brick in the red-beige-gray range will be preferred. Multiple brick positioning is encouraged and may include stretcher, header, soldier, shiner, rowlock or sailor brick positions. Multiple brick bonds are encouraged and may include running, 1/3 running, common, garden wall, English, Dutch, Flemish, Flemish cross, Flemish diagonal. Brick positions and bonds must be elegantly designed and must be submitted for approval Mortar joint and color will be considered in relation to the specific brick 3. Facade trim may be wood. Trim colors shall be coordinated and shall compliment adjacent residences and the village as a whole. Colors of excessively high or chroma intensity will not be permitted. No vinyl shall be permitted. 4. Highly reflective glass will not be permitted. Glazing will be invited to 20 percent reflectivity and may not exceed 50 percent of the building facade. 6 Roofs 1. Roofs shall be of a pitch and style appropriate for the architectural character of the residence. All pitched roofs shall be 6/12 or greater. Flat roofs, although not forbidden, are discouraged unless utilized as an exterior roof terrace or balcony. 2. All pitched roofs must use a high quality, dimensional asphalt shingle. A list of permitted shingle manufacturers will be compiled. 3. Gutters shall be high quality and in character with the architectural character of the residence. Half and full round gutters are preferred. Aluminum or copper are permitted. Vinyl shall not be permitted. MECHANICAL Exterior mechanical equipment must be ground mounted and must be screened to a height of the mechanical equipment. Screening of equipment must be harmonious with the building materials /color. Screening may include stone, brick, stucco walls. Natural vegetation may also be used however such vegetation shall be evergreen (conifer), and must retain foliage all year round. All mechanical equipment must be placed in the rear or sides of the residence. No equipment will be permitted in the front of residence. (See the "Required Fencing" section for additional requirements). MAINTENANCE Re»~-oved fr-a~i text per Di-~blin staff request PRESERVATION / NO-BUILD ZONE This area does not inelud~e the Floodway. For the purposes of this text, the preservation areas are intended as no-build areas (including setbacks) and forbid any development other than pedestrian walks and plant material. Tfiis excludes buildings, outbuildings, structures, of any kind. See Preliminary Development Plan. h'LOODWAY The southern most portion of the site is identified as a I=loodway. In this area all forms of construction are strictly prohibited. Further no portion of the floodway may be filled in any way that would result in an increase in grade elevation that wouid result in displacement of floodwaters. A pond water feature is intended for this area. This pond is for aesthetic benefits only and is not part of the storm ~~~ater retention design. This pond will be created by excavating existing grade to sufficient depth (approximately 13 feet)-fora "living pond". No fill will be added to the existing grade to construct this pond. The pond has been designed to repel geese. 7 t TRASH Trash will be picked up at the street. All trash shall be kept in the property owner's garage until the evening before or morning of trash collf:ction day. FENCING All fencing will be in compliance with the City of Dublin Fence Code (current edition) ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS /RESTRICTIONS 1. The area south of the home sites as shown in the site plan to be floodway and floodplain shall be owned and maintained by the: Home Owners' Association. 2. There shall be a bike path between lots #4 and #.5, extending through the right of way to contour 915', constructed at the same time as the infrastructure is installed. 3. The interior of the cut-de-sac shall riot have a water feature. 4. The parkland open space required = (.02 x acreage) + (.055 x number of units) (.02 x 5.092) + (.055 x 9) _ .10184 + .495 = .59684 acreas open space or $39,500 per acre = $23,575.18. Such fee may be reduced by credit for parkland donated to the City of Dublin along the Indian Run, and 1/z credit for "Wow" features along Brand Road as determined by Dublin staff. 5. Satellite dishes are permitted but should be kept from view from the street, if at all possible. Satellite dishes are limited to a maximum of 20" in diameter and must comply with the current edition of the "Satellite Consumer Bill of Rights" as released by the Federal Communication Commission. 6. Maintenance of vehicles is prohibited within all exterior areas of t#e development. 7. Above ground pools and above ground hot tubs are prohibited. 8. Cantilevered fireplaces are prohibited. All chimney exterior materials must be of brick or, natural or synthetic stone. THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY OWNER ~i~i( May 26, 2004 wn is Signature > .p7 yy p t g~ ~p~ ei ~Y~ f~~ i ; ~ ~ s" ~ ~ P s r Qq~' rN Sig p ~P gxP ~ _ - ~s ~ t~~' ~~Q. ~ ~ ~ ~ s ° ~s ~ ~ ~ t # t s ~s a~ ~ t~ , F~~'~ u~ RN d~ 4 ! s ! ~ss~ ~ ~~~5 }pY ~ f ' s B~ jp ~ } ~ ~ ~}s ~ Y~f R~ ~C f t§' ~ $ ~ ~ C 'Y ~ ~~f v ~ 3 i a d > 9 +t R ~ i:g ~A' ~x~;~R g ~ g•~ m ~ 3 t ~ 63~~ Y 4s s ~ ~g ~sY ~S~~Y g ~ s ° 3 p ;e $ ! # $ CR l p ~ C ! ~ ~3'~ $ s~ i st tg _ ~Y ~ t ~ ~t RR~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~tg~~ Y 4 ~ g~~~ ~~~!7 agg~°Q~ t~R I~ 3 i~ ~ 4 ~ R ~ ~ r ~ R 4 a r ~ 9~, ~ -Y •Fq x~ E a~ g ~ e% ~G7 ~ r! +S qp~pp s r~°$ i~~ ~g;~~ ~ k~ Y~ ~ a ~ ~ a}S R~ ~ g~ $ sRRxxIY. ~ 6 ~~y rs~~ m §S ~y} F~ } P cs gR~ ~Y " • ~ ~ ~ Q~S S ~ A.~ 4 ~ ~E • ~ S}~gY .i~r Z 3 ~ av ~~t ~Y~~ ~ ~!q g ~ ° ~N~t ~ ~a g ~aR t•a S~ Y~ Y~ ~4 F!! r ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~~~~5 B E s s Y YR ~ R 9' a! ~ $8 g~ ~ R pl^ ~•g $g~~a^fg ~ -A Y~ b~~ f ~ ~s fYs f~~ Y ~ ~lsY ~ sY a s fiYl~~ s oY s~9 s&4g D f ss f ~ ~Y 8s ~'9"!!! ~~~r ~ ~ ~'R ~ ~~~~r~ !It ~ a °°l d ~ r R f . Z ~r ~ i s ~ ~ s~ f ~s R ~ t~~ ~ ~q ~f ~ ~ g• ~~gt~ s~~~ O ~ t ~ r s~ s ~ ru~ ~ f ~~r t ~ $ ~ ~ t ~ s f 8~ m ~~s f~ ~~4q rr ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~~~i$ ~ s~ "'rs $ s t~ N Yi 9~. R P E •Y.9 iR gx ~ ~ ys ~i t Qt~ ~ ~ s v~ x~Y ~f~ ~ ~~ss& ~1 ~ p! F~ ~ s ~~gss~ g4 $C ~ ! s ~j d R !y~ qr~ g t ~ ~ Tai ~ ~ rq r~^~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ R ~ ~R~ ~ !gg ~ ~ ~ A ~..e~ S 6~ ~S'~ ! ~~s ~ ~~Ylt ~ 1°.,~ R ~ Y~ s ! ~ $a ~ aq R ~aR y ~l~ ~ g z; s i {Eig s ~ ~ ~ Ssgg YczCl$ ~ ~ ~ g ~ R 1~~~ ~~s { ~ ~9° ~ ~ ~a~~s ~ m" ~Q~~t o~°~ s °4 ~ ~sY ~ t ~a $ !g f~ ~ sf~s~ 9 3~~~ 6 °~Ss R~ s ~ ~~R 9 aea~ ~f ~ ~~~f ~ ~~CE^ ~ f stF P f ~ " ~ trtr~~{ r " fi'~ at =BN P ~ x a N rr ' ~ #t ~ Yd~~ ~ R~~ gf ~~~~1 ~ f 3~g rY`F: ~ ~ t!t ~ '~f t f ~ ~!n ~ ~3 ~ ~ to s ~ ~ Y ~ ~ ~g~~r ft ~ a ~~3 ( Q~ ~ A~ s ~ ~ yTe }t ~ ~ Sit ~ s ~ ~ ~ r~t~f R $Y8 8~ Q ~~~i A' gR Y i~~ ~ ~ ~ 8F3. !'t ~ }t t ~ if R t1„ t~~ r! ` IF~ tt~ t~ R ~'t 3 9 ~s„ ~t ~ ~ 4 t ~ e p s~ ~ i s i [t ~ l ~r t ~CC ~ tl rA ~ fi g~s fA ~ r~ ~ fr ~ ~ s ~ $ f~~`$ ~ ~3 ~ r C.~ ~A ~ ~ ~ l ~ s r tr f l . a f ~ t 4 f~ R~ $ ~ C d ~ d s! E rt ~ a4, ~ t~ ~ 8 $!t~ ''f ~ via s ~ a s .s ~ ~gY i~Y 8 ~Y~ 4 ~ 3g~~ ~ t r tf ~ ~ ~ gt ~i~~f ~ e~ r t~~'p ~ R t al~~~p~~ s fg ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ $3g ~ '~s s s ~ g ~ a C{ ! e N g S`~ A~ qg f~ s~ ~@ ~ g R g s# t o s f 9 4P ~ tY ~QpS ~ ~ ~~}g d $R ~ fp, ~ S ~ AY 4 r ~5 g ~ ~ ~ ~ Yg ~Y ~ s R S Q~ ~ f~ ~~t ~ gg ~9~ Y• 3 ~ ~ ~ 6 ~ ~y~ g A ~ ~ 3 g ~ 3 ~_Y u ~~d~ ~!!q! ~ ~ s ~ 9'~~~ 8 ~S ~ ~ 5g~g~ 1~~ t ~ ~8 ~ 1~ ~ ~ gr~ tC 4 i ttt# i$. 16 ( N Y 3~ 8~aa i t BFg~€ ~m $ $g~~~ Y w " ~ ~.N ~ Qup~cP Q~6~> t YBg s Ai: N g gm 3~ ^ s V ~ ~ G Yi ~ d 7 A~ ~ ~ ~P ~v d p ~S3~m 8 ~z $tl' r~ ~ ~ v ~ ° ~s ~ ~ Ea ~8l~ g r~}fit ~ t g~~~~ ~ ~ d s A~ ~ g ~A ~~f " ~ _ ; { ~f { ~ 8~r~!$f . _ s$' t€ o ~ e~~ o ~C~ ~ ! ~f~" s . ~ ~a g Y as~ ~Y~ 1'f ~ $s ~ v ~ ~~~R f~ a~y~l9i~~i ~r~ ~ g~~$$ f E~ 3EQ ~e{ ~'sl r~ f~ Ye~; ~ a ~~a ~ R ~ ~r. s3~$ ~ si ~ ~r~°~?.,~ r R ~ 8 ~ t~~~ p~ ~ ~ F~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ t 9 ~ ~ ~ ~t ry~8 ~ r ~S ~ sy gg g~ Y~ ~ ~ ~ ¢ ~ AY ~ ~ Y 3 ~ ~Y i ~ !g y R~ t ,t ~ ~ t ~ f a~ ~ t ~ i fy fit t€€€ l ~ ~ @~ i$ PPP s~# ~ ~ ~g~~ ~ S Y Y ~ ~ r 8 ~s rr ~t$ ~~~s : r r a~~j~af ~ t~~gg ,~~t~tt $t~r r ~ e ~ ~ ~ a 3~~~ g$~~ ~ 8 ~ ~ 8 ~s 8_~ $ tit°~!~ r! l~~gt ~ ~ t~~t C . !8 r! ~ 6 4 Y ~°a~. Y3 ~ Rqy 8 ~ ¢ ~ ^~rr Y~ ~ ~ ~ 9q'~ Y~ ~.fr~ gRi ~ ~ < ~~s ~ ~ ~ !gc r f~ R s ~~f f1R~ s! r~~ $o ~f ifrR~s R ' R s~~ ~ 3 3 aBC~ O ~ n ~a ~ ~ r? a$ s @ ~ ~ f ~ : Y i ~ a E f ~ ~ r ! Y is ~~C R s ${~e ~ s f [~~g `l a~ ~ ~ C ~ ~f ~ ~ ~A ~ 8 R m ~ s ~ ~ ~g g 3 sr! . ~ € ~ s .eta ~a tad ~ ~ ~ s ~ ¢ a qg ~ is ~g~~ ~8 ~~1~~Y3~; fg ~ Yi ~ r~Y t` gY Y~ Yl~• r~ ~C Sgt ~t gr( $9( ~ ~ ~ C 9` €s s r s~~s o Y ~.•r : ~ ~m ~~r~.x~ c'"f ~ ~ S a ~ B$ R $ 8 ~ ~ s s lY' S s" ~ ;3 ~ ~ g.a ~ ~m ~€s~s ~83# a ~ ® eft ~ , ° ~ss! $~4~! dg t ~s r !~r s ~ ! ~!/g~$44s a':~ E~ ~Rf~ ~ ~ a a! $m ~ €g _ d ~ ITt s Z ~ P~~ r~ 4 g ~ Y e ~ R S s'3 6^ ~B _ 0 [ s . g ~Y ~~~g.. ~ Y ~t ~j ~ R ~ R; ~o ~ ~a Y8~° ~t~~ 0 3 Qt ~s_ s f~ ~ R€! s ~ ~'sQfS gts ~ i §`~~Y x ~t Y a~~ N~ 8!!• ~s O v v ~ r ~ ~ s~N ~s ~ ~ ss ~ sg ~ ~ Z ~~aN A c rn Y~ 4~~~1 gt ~'N ~R`s~~ D v ~P ~~N ~°t sib ~YL s° ~Z a~ Y > IT~ C tY ^ ~ ar s ~ ~ Npy 1 6 ,q ~ ~ r ~ rn O $'~s~ ~t4~a~ t'~$o ~ ~ y~Y r g m?~ g~Y~ Y ~tsr s ~ R~3~F N 6~# pR~~ ppgp ~ g R~ y Y e ~ BI~g$Q$a mid t~ $ ~S gtt 8s~f ~t q u ~4 S¢ap ~ ppYR+m~~ d ~ R~,e ~q R ~8 Z ~8 t g~ S A~iiYYY =I~ ~ti~gs+ ~ Ss§S~~yB ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Y~ (AL ~ 1i ~a t s 9 ~ ~t ~ e 8 i s~ ~'1 14' ~ ~ 1 ~ ro tL'- r~s33 ~ ! ~rt ~ ~$e~ Z~~ tt . ~ r l ~ a ~ I ~ a5 t~ ~ b Y ~l~C Y~ ~m ~lr ~ ~ e~ ~ / a ~ II ili {Y~ g~s~ r~f ~ ~ ~ s ss t f ~ ~k • ~ 'x ~ N der a t~(~ i~ ~ ~ R r:~ ~ 8Qgg~ ~ a ~ ~ ~e~o war a ~ l ~ ~s~~ ~ u bs, O ~,~y ~oeayeawua- ~ Q p " s ~ ~ ~ .1i ~ \~,'~J 1A~~ ~ ~ ~ .lIS ppp >O GUCC 00 ~ COCm g y ~ `i ~1 ~ ~ ~Q g p~~2 ~O^ 1 IC RR9R ~ ~ a ~ r ~~i~ ? b (A N V si": ~ ~ ~ ~N D ~~o 5~~ ~gg m ~ n ~ ,ow.a~~,r o ~.~„u„Y 3s~'O tYt ~g ~ ~1~1~1 Z g4 ~4 Z ~ f P ~,,;µ,ox ' C S &r ~ '~.jo~"d"~~}.,, UQe~i nd' o S ~ ~ ny n-, = r our ~M ^ ~RS y O ~~n g•.,~~?. urn w~ stl7 0 m L b~ b~ ~ (7 ~ n A ~°^`0'~ ~ Sm~ 1(5 E < e~lN m~Q5j~ ~~L D N .n R~R 8Y J~ •'•,~~NE.. ..*'p~,c'~ ~ ~Ai = = N Ai Q.. m.. aPr6~ G ~ 4 4r~ ~Z av p . ~ V ~ Z ~ Kn ~ ; ,b MnonO 9~~i.~R' y ti !m. Em 1yO N ~O OTC Z~ MAYMItlnsaM { F tt 1F L hp~ ~ $ C d d C C ~ ^1 ~~aa Q~Q~ ` C1~ ~ Qm ~ Q~ ,0`'NtlR MIe„eejl F~! ,~Itrou,ieg 3 R y of h ~ J > > ~ -l\ ma~~~ YoO~ ~N ~ 1' a -`4 yfl~ '`L I~OOO~NOH p FI r1 ~ g N ~ ~ ~ ~ Ct \ v hte.s ai h um~a a.opcl.~os~os--aze~d.y~osne_ol _cov.e.y e~em.m°. os/Z~/zoo. o osamlo om - m. u-c c°m°.~L., i~°. n. j ;'~.J ; ~ ---i i.J ?1'ESrgURY pR I ~i I ; C~ ~ C^~ ~ ' V ~ ~ PID: f77-0077`f0 v : R77O077tlf \\Vj, ~ Finell Lto jrd U M $4nu<I L III 6617 ~utl~rbea ~eforbp CI l A ~ .e 8 ~ PID: 277 q....1 N P10~27]-0~177v m ~ J£A gc ~ ~,~8 ~ o Rivm1~.1 D T Pe4r ~ N ~ HS N H e ~ Q ti 6609 GR' fo n 661 Cestkfort I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~'l_J ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ i Ig did Q~~---r-- ' ' PID:2 ~oK9' , TOWNSEND RD IH '1W` o ~ „ ~--'--1 1~ H H~. ~ 3a H 7929 V~Ite ~ Dr ee I T----L- _ ~n l!M 6WL J PID. v7.rgn9o I ~ ~ w ~ ~ ..q q3 ~ P"yDO d p0 W.`ner Kurt N - I L J I ~ ~y ' LLt'•O7 ~ • 17,J,p~JJ Cundm Ruw Rd 9 Q ~8~0 ~ ~ o . sw R ' ~ r 6k. ! '9jl w k~~ 7 4~ b LL .m 5~° /rn;,,,Q fee' Pro: m:oo7791 ~ ~ , ` ^ J l~' L ' Q. ,e ~O ~ ~ Q ~ Trinirf HotriD Builder Inc ~ f\\V\~,_ o°Q 5e ¢v' o ~e °9. ~ ~6 { ~ 63 Camd$1 Row Rd .e N 6 0~ fo' . wrn a. ~ 'd E R~ ~ O i n Y ~ jfl'm~ ~ ~ tib~ ~ Wye ~ u. ~ sw ~ L ~ ~ O gy~ov1°P~ R"o s gO~ ~ ~ /,Da yJ O s. Lz•.ma a n ~ e~ 4 ° ~ ± ; ~ ~ a ~uoB;uz..ma PID: 2~j1.00780 y 6 ~ m ~ ~ S. ~ `,IN~j~.~•' ~ Colvigl Timody ) ~ ~ .JJ' D 3 ~ D PI 793 6f7f Greenr(~ky _ \\\7NN?»> ^ b ~ ~ ~ yet 'D ~ ~ W~ Bn O 4¢ ~ , S ~~v4 i i Hlbl '3 632fi CuMva Row n,vj, noryv ~ ~ E PID: 2'{~~7~~~~.°, 00 ND ~ ~ ~ ,ea' ~ V.dlero+m SnNv.e J Nd ~ P `y~11--111 ~fT 17J-y]0779q PID: 27~-007799~1 L~ ' ~ ~ N ~ _ 6Sj d Rtlw7W: Me %u -LeeO_...! I ,~ti j ~s : Q r R J ' 1°.f0~fu Row Rd 6719 G~ianrMy Lp r--i 1 ? I .I w p J73 793 PID, i77 779e b y ~ q 6 ,Me Jm Row ~ Ilu hr~ I n E I Q ~ Y 277 796 PID: 7.007'j97 ~ 5 ~ Sh tmu ed Wild uei. C~-`I Q~ N = ~ 630 ~ m Row Hd 6307 n.thw~Kj,P ~ ~ ARD WYE _ ~ ' to W N ~ ~ O GD f ~ i ffT1 r8~4 $.4. i I J<q w 3`~5 I o ~~~'I ~~9, S 6 Qw I n pose (7: ; Qb 1 ~ O 0 ~ ee' ~s \ ' ~ o PS y ~ o ~ ~ o m 0 o g~~ a z o ! 0 0 0 ~ ' ~ J - ~6 I Q~ 8 g !u~ i; n _ z7 ~Q $ n 8 ~ PV 9 n a I r m 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ _ ~ ~ ~ sJS e~ook.eege eew«.,a wnmNme, On uael Gene. R: Rick SIUer z r ~ CITY OF DUBl1N, OHIO Z o ~ N o REVISIONS efa-efe.goa ea. qse DATE BY ~ g re.: qfa-agoz DESCRIPTION ` FRESHWATER FARM Z ~ ~ ~ z ~ COMPANIES BRAND ROAD v ~ 3• j $ ; ~ CONTEXT PLAN J Lvna Propcly\OJ\OJ-22E\e.q\0J22n_02_CONTE%t.dwq Oy dtnomae on 03/27/200a O 03:56: JI Dm - for M-E Com Danlee, Inc. \ \ ~ \ \ \~Nf ~~--lab , E ; -I D' Cfk R x / L0 N -l 0` N A W .a 0 ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ A W w, = ~ tD 01 -i Q` N A W N 0 ~ D(!/,{~8j~``~ ~ ~ R1 ~ os~ \ ~ z~ p/ ~ \r ~ mmmmNti ~A~o?~sa~mwmAemrommmo~o~~Na~ ~ ~ ~'`~6yy~~ ~x.f 4p / _ _ E E EE EE EE EE EE EE ~ZpJ \ ~DD Di~Lr(l(1 ~pLL22mLL E~ t ~ C\ \ ~ \ \ m mmm -lD~ 2L~-.-.~~=t-~(1 -i3D.i -a D I \ ~m~m mmm(1Clmmmm-r~mD~m ~ \ ~ ex 0 ~ D L i O ~ ~ ~ N ~AAA~~~'~rroN~N~~A ~~UUg~71r^~'-D m ~ LLLL~~~~<-t <~~~~mm~m~-(-( ~~m~immy+mmm~j~i \ ~~.`o ~ ~~~ry~ m mmm m Qm J _rF w \ iTTTTTTT ~i phi tppi pnpi G\TT~I G~npi L\G\G\pni G\G\L\pni G\~i pni ~ \ ~ \ IAAAAAAA 88008AAA 008888008888 ~ 769 ~ ~~~~~~~~vt~olvov~~~xvly vvvddvoovo 'o..,, \ .3333333 Fntrlmmm333 ~mmmr~r m~m~~j mft~~,j , N V ,0<0<0<0<<0<< O0 30o3~A ~1<<OO<<O< O~AA~~r'~t'r'~~r ~ ~'6g' IA ''I 9z7 R1 tTlmtTimtti tit << <<rf rRl Ri ftt < rFFPPS rSR rrR . j . r~ttt t~r~.. m~iiNr~t ~Ir f~i Drt~DDNf~i D ~~,~nfrtf~tt~tt~n~n~n ~ ~~m `tfi~ri~tt m .m mmm ~m ~ I ~~~~~~~AA"~~ ~ r e 4 IDDDDDDDr~r~(~p(~DDD~000~0 0 00 ~ '..Cl (1 C1 C1 Cl (l Cl D D ~ ~ -,n ~ n D 111 ~ ~ 1 -a Z ru.z,. mmmmmmm ~~mmmmmm ~mmmmm m mm ~ mm~i~i~ m~-n,~-~i~ -~i -~i-~i . J N ~ r 1 J, ~J - ' \ + N 1 ~ Po O ' / D d ~n Yrt N N N N N N A A A A A A A A A A W W W W W W W W W W N / ~ ` m t'1 N A W N 0 lD b1 -t C` N A W N e lD 0~ -J G N A W N- 0 tD O / ~ u OIDq No (A ~ ~ A ttl G W Ol 0 01 G N P ~ W 6` Q` 0` 0~ 0~ J ~ Ol W 01 01 01 W ~ d 1a' I N 159. /j/'y k A ~.~~"D J N N V N w N O ` t 00 GG r7_ -ZZO~Z_Z~Z_ZZ~_ZbZ_-ZZOm~ iri \ / $I ~ \ m w A A ~ tD tt1 m f11 fit film ~ ~ I ~ = lw" cwn J w ~At. e mN~`) ? + Der: ~~~L1~G\~~L~G~G~~L\~L1G~L~~TTmmmmmmm ~ Ioo.6J + NZ DDDDDDDDD u, m ~~~88888888888888888AAAAAAAA~1 dddOddddddddOddOd ~ ~ O x f'~l T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T fTl RI fil Ill Rl ~ fll fll d I D- mmmmmmr~mmmmmmmmr't mt'r 3333833 3 ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ t~t ~ ~ rtl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~m e / rAS~ rt=r_r_r_PF_r_r_r_r_r_r=_Fr_r_r_r I fib` m RI ~ rtir I~ In ~i I~ ~ ~ t~r I~ ~ ~i I~ lyi ~ ~ ~~i ~•i ~••i ~~i ~ I Am~i U~~~~ ~~-0~~~~~~~ D ~E~~' ~~~~n~~~~~~~nn~nn~ 9 ul I N N~f_ \ ~ _ ~J I V ~ _ Ce.~~ A DES AR I ~Irn \ Nt DE Q zo rn _ y ~~f,~ 6s 9.99' X99; 77 JJ'_ \ ~ 5C ~ ~ 16.6) 99 ~ 'J~75' 12.95' 15.27 I'! S6' N1 ~ 6 ' ~ 9 / ) ` G9'9l ~ 0~ ~ `1 \ • I ~~r a f~ \ ` g / rn i-~ ~ I. ~ \ ~ N U _ N N ~ O N ~ .b+`~ i`Q ~ S7~ 4'47~2~'W 367.87 D 5~6~'1 ?te~ 9 ~ ~ ~ /~,e w~R11 dl~Apl~~= ~ ~~N~w ~b J D` O~ON ~yOp m]l Ay r.~ ~~411 [~~yi ~ U j_~i~~ mmm N~ ~ ~ ~f:INlll (1~ ~NVyNN ny I11 ,fill ~ myy (PTj t1i fp Z 2 it m ~jgt~r ~ ~g ~ ~ ~~m~ ~m~ ~ n ~1 gg gg m 0 ~O_~ r~Ci t~ n~ ~ Om i y m N c1 yy ~~n ~ r yy ~ Ip tt9~ D ~m~I ~r` ~ ~~4m ~ ~ ~r`-pA pArn ~~m t~ Am M L7 O~ J~~g ~ ~ ~g~0 40 ~ D w~AAi A~D A ,'0 m 'p pp p ~ ~ ~4 ~ x $pN ~ ~ ~ ~~1~~ p~~ ~ ~ ~L~6"~yp~ TA ~ ~ dN yy~~~ ~ Fni ~ ~ RIWAO (12 ~ L Z e ('1 ~ l' O r~ O a' nD~ 2~~ I, PV ~ wA r5n, A r~~~t i ~3i^ ~~a ~ ~ y N t ~ ~c~~ ~ c~_7 ~pp~ n n A~~ jn~~ Ayz C vg O rtlm~ n pn~ ~Ai Og. ~A mw O y F m y ~j ~ = Q' ~D ~ l(Til p A O~i ~ ~ ' moAti ~ ~`g~ ~ ~ A N ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6ssb~eoll.Reaee~l.V.,e REVISIONS weaerrma, on.aoet y ~ ~ 1Q Cont. C: Rltk bltller a z r bu-ela~9ab e.e. 2.e DATE BY DESCRIPTION CITY OF DUBLIN. OHIO c o r..: ele-wag ~ ~ ~ FRESHWATER FARM COMPANIES ~ ~n ~ BRAND ROAD r ~ ~ ~ ~ o g TREE PRESERVATION PLAN f~ .r.\~.,w rre}n.\o~\or22e\a•'a\o~ue_lo_mce.orlo nxatn.ma. on os/n/2oa a oxe9:w vm ~ ror w-e e.mpenw., w,o. _ - \ / \ \ \ \ _ \ ~ \ ~y w \ -tae-- / ~ \ ~ \ ~ \ / ~ ~p / ~ $ r N I \ ~ \ 8j74 Lame: e "\~q~ s ~ I ~o• y N r i~ ~ ~ ~ ~~m~~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ " ~ ~ * ~ ~ ~ ~e\ ~ FFFnnn o i _ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~1~,- ` 9,, ~ . _ _ y A r ~ ~T i , ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~J N ~ ~ ~ X ~ ~ _ - u~w~~u~ a / ~ yey U u~ ~ mmmaaam I I ~ ammmmam ~ I \ ~ u I _ ~ ~ \ ~ \ I4S. ~ 0 0 ~ I \ ~ S ° n ~ I I € ~ n~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ X ~ , ~ ~ ~ _ y I • _ L I , I ~ O I I ~ I ~ ~ I I ' IN / \ ` / ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ' ~ zo ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R ~ I ~ _ - ~1 ~~`J S74'4T20`W I ~ ~ / / O~~ \ ~ J~ 367. 7 / ~ l~_ e ~a6 W Dm c~ a` Oa ? w- ~y`' t~~ $~C{r~~~ y ~i by e' ~ r~~ ~4~u it nf~ ~r~i Q r~- f~4 (li _ ~ r r~SAr UNr ~ " ~ N ~r(~ r<~~ 3 y~~i r~i "r€ r~ g~D ~ ~jk 3 Dx I~TI yn ~gp~^ D 2 A~DOO R DyA~D (a p~~ y~~ ~Dm tl (D~N~n g N~~p L ~0 AZl ffl 7 f ~5 (~A y ~ lilpp 1111 g,i rE-- fmr1D ~ (1 mtl DE N N DZ D mV, O_D ~fn 7`IV~ ~gkr ~ 2 A A~ r O~ -tl rL [y1ND ~ ~ ~(1_ tl _ P Y z F Dmy~ Il£N cQ m !n0 ?z, ~ ~ ~ 3m ~p~ mm ~ ma - I-" s ~y jtA Ip F'nfi 00 yt~i€ Om ~ N tp k~i~ ~po~ ~y~tFpS 0 p gD X ~ y0£ tl m - ~pN Q~ ~y M ° A Aln -r ~ m3r~ 0~ -Y ~n ~ ~ ~A M Q s- ~ 'ti ~ tl!R ~~pp Q~~ ~~pi~~ ~ o~o A~ N~ z ~A £ °R km rs >4 ~ cu ~ Ri 4a' tlF th~ ~ $ ~a{0 tl£r~i i~ ~O ~p ~ 0 ~ Ru D ~ ~ ~ + ~ g~ ~tltn £tl ~ ~ ~ ~=n o of y ~ ~ ~ o ~ rar l'7 tl,gy, mtl ~t~~ ~ (Ng ~ r < ~y mm m0~ ~~I' DN m~ xtlk ~ AO 01 mA ~ O i ~ £ m ~p m- E L~ T~ D~ O Dm Z ~m L h~N F tl ~ D i m A S g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j; ,Qk q ~tl r~~ ~ rA-Ii ~ n~ ~j~ O ~Ay bn ~sL g ~ ~ b c yi m D 4 L~ r~ g (1 g ~ ~ 0 e A~ A ~ a~ o rm D o o~ ~ °D~ 0 m~ u _ o o N~ A ~ ~ $ ~ ~ a g ~ ~ ~g ~,t~ D g N ~ ~y m cD ~g ~ ° A A 0 v o sas eAew.ey. eom«.m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w.,,.rv~~~.,o~.aaa~ REVISIONS 2 eone.a: am. mw. CfTY OF DUBt1N, OHIO eu-ene-+.oa ..x. a+n DATE BY DESCRIPTION Z O y N o r..: eye-+9ox i ~ 4 ~ FRESHWAD ER FARM COMPANIES ~ > 1 ~ ~ ~ g LANDSCAPING PLAN f~ .eu~e Pra}cf.\at\o3-ua\e.a~o3ase_IlyunnNC.e.a erauemo. an osla7lsDO~ O 0.5:SP.33 Dm far M-E Cameeniq ins '~~I 'aal~oowoJ 3-ry for wC SI~CS ~zO O ?OOZ/(L/SO uo aowoy)p %~G 6. D'315 ~0 BLZCO~6~P\pLl-CO\SO\al'No•d ouo~\{ NVId NOISN3W1a 311S ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ OYW OHYtlB ~ Y 1 ~ ssiHVan¢oo Way, a31dMHS321d d ~ ~ o LOGY-aSB :aa~ N F O Z NOLLdR1J530 AB 31V0 sx •aaa 0a6FrSO-ai9 ~ OINO 'X116110 JO ALIT ~5 J ~ ~ t- ~ sNOlsln3a ~aVISUItl :Pa,~p, ~ ~ ~ < ~ _ ~ ~ ~ IYORY HO'alllua~AM yaNlnop a6paaaoup CC9 R 1 I < S Q C: ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ \ y I I ~/J i \ \ 3 a ~ ~~3 ~ r- t `~1 \ 1 W ci I/ ~ / W~~ ~ =fix \I i ~ $ m W ~ / ~Fy ~ ~~o ~,,,;~~b ~a I II a a c b N / 3< W Z \ ~ ~ 1$~ < I n~ II I d ~ I ~ ~ < ~ ' ' ff ~ \ - ~ 18.65~~ 1'I \ \ ~ ~b ,9S'C I~~Zt'tl ,SR'ZI ,SL' L~ / / \ / \ 6~ 56'9 v (Y3 fl •(9'9l o~" \ \ ;C\ \ a6 ON v .Or * ~YM~O~, .68'6 5.9 ' ` 1~ \ ~ IL) U')'r \ \ b 609 / \ rvO~ z MAN \ / \ g oio L° O i \ T ~ h N ' 0Q~ ~ a! ? i ~ ~.~-m b ~ U ~a ~ a:z"~~ ~ ,J ~ z .e ~ e .cs~ooi ~bti,ctih 1 ,,I J J ~ ~ .3 Y1 \x ~ ~ ~b'`O 11 .~L, W ~ ~ ^ ~ O ~ as Q p~ e ~ ~ 1 ~Y `~YO\ x i r ~ ~ O ~j ~ o n. d o. ~ x ` ~ # ~ oo ~ ~ c ai ? n~~'.ir 1 ~o~ a ~,~\~r; ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~i fag ~~pp p 7 ~ / ~ ` ~ ~~NNY go~nO~Pn8NpYb (S~~J B(~. ~ f}a 1'' ~ ~ ~ Z W ; W W ; ^ W W W ; W W ~ W C\N3'bOd 37y aB) ~ @e1 / / ` •z2 ya1 ~ ~ O r' N a vt via a r or as Jgr)~M (y .p ~ yF~ nr4i~cr X9 ~pp i{nanvu~a ~ N VIN pp~~Z yN~~N ~0Z \ ~ / / / ANN ~ r~„~~N~H~~ONHn~hrf m~~~" / o~ ~ ~yW€;' ~ ~pbin9l~~np~~h~rrn~r"~P Pop \ \ _ \'r w.`~ "+1`~.G ry / / +~'I/)4's9'!rr ~~f V ~Or~~Yf~O~m~~bN Nb ~;i Y 6Z ~ ~ gio -by~2T ? ~tj`c7Y''~$~IOINO,e~e'~vm~~o 3~Ia \1\\ ~'J .a~ l Y a,1e~~ ds•at ~Nn~~Nnna~vrYi~a~~igo RR `\~3\X3\\ hYl ~ / o / M ~ p W mt` h „b Nmx 'q \ ~ L ~ ~aT \ J III ~ Y~ m ~OP•:OY p 3r~ ~ x p ` \ ` S r y~n Y_\ ~ I ~<mV OWW VS1YJZ ii \ ~ y\\ \ J V(]~ ~ ~ N~ / \ ~ \ ~~~n \ \ m~ \ ~ ga \ / ~ \ ~ \ i ~ / u z F inn nm&o Y a ~ 1 ~ZV;iu 3~~~= ~:l°r~° F AMENDED PLANNING AND ZONING CCIMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION ~ I t l' ut= lit'~[.i~. FEBRUARY 5, 2004 1 ion of Planning Shier-Rings Road Dul Jhio 43016-1236 'hone/iDO: 614-410-4600 fox: 614-410-4141 Neb Site: www.dublin.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 5. Rezoning -Preliminary Development Plan 03-1542 -Freshwater Farm (Humbert Property) - 6325 Brand Road Location: 5.092 acres located on the south side of Brand Road, 500 feet east of Townsend Road. Existing Zoning: R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District, under the provisions of Section 153.056. Proposed lise: A single-family subdivision including nine lots and 0.83-acre of openspace. Applicant: Kathryn and John Humbert, 6325 Brand Road, Dublin, Ohio 43016; represented by Joseph Trepicone, 5409 Carson Place, Powell, Ohio 43065. Staff Contact: Kolby Turnock, Planner. MOTION: To approve this rezoning application because the preliminary development plan provides the opportunity for a high quality residential development, consistent with the Community Plan, it will confornl with the adopted Thoroughfare Plan and Bikeway Plan, and will be compatible with adjacent residential development, with five conditions: 1) That 40 feet of right-of--way consistent wiah the Thoroughfare Plan be dedicated with the final plat; 2) That the development standards and associated plans be revised to include comments within this staff report, prior to scheduling for a public hearing at City Council; 3) That all improvements, including stormwa~ter management facilities and proposed infrastructure meet the requirements of the City Engineer; 4) That the island landscape feature be further defined (water or landscaped) and noted in the text that it will be paid for by the developer and maintained by the homeowners' association prior to scheduling for a public hearing at City Council; and Page 1 of 2 IbA~l111lOOtf ~ AMENDED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION FEBRUARY 5, 2004 5. Rezoning -Preliminary Development Plan 03-1502 -Freshwater Farm (Humbert Property) - 6325 Brand Road 5) That the text be revised to comply with the Fence Code. * Mike Close, representing the applicant, agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 4-1. RESULT: This rezoning application was approved. It will be forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation. STAFF CERTIFICATI 1~ Gunderman, AICP Acting Planning Director Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -February 5, 2004 Page 19 5. Rezoning -Preliminary Development Plan 03-1502 -Freshwater Farm (a.k.a, Humbert Property) - 6325 Brand Road Location: 5.092 acres located on the south side of Brand Road, 500 feet east of Townsend Road. Existing Zoning: R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District, under the provisions of Section 153.056. Proposed Use: Asingle-family subdivision includiing nine lots and 0.83 acre of parkland. ' Applicant: Kathryn and John Humbert, 6325 Brand Road, Dublin, Ohio 43016; represented by Joseph Trepicone, 5409 Carson Place, Powell, Ohio 43065. Staff Contact: Kolby Turnock, Plamzer. BACKGROUND: Case Summary: This is a request to rezone two parcels totaling 5.092 acres, from R-l, Restricted Suburban Residential District, to PUD, Planned Unit Development. District. Both parcels were recently rezoned in September 2003 (See Case No. 03-0702) pro R-1 as part of the ongoing City- sponsored area rezonings. The applicant is proposing a change in zoning to PUD for nine single- family residential units on a cul-de-sac. The Planning Commission approved a concept plan for this site in October 2003 that was also approved by Council. One lot has been removed from the proposed plan and the Brand Road setback has been increased. A 4.34-acre portion of this site had a concept plan application fora 44-unit assisted living facility disapproved in October of 1999 (See Record of Action for Abbington -Case #99-023CP). Case Procedure: The fundamental purpose of the PUD is to permit flexible, alternative development that is designed in a coordinated, comprehensive manner. A PLTD should preserve the natural quality and character of the land consistent with accepted land planning, landscape architecture and engineering principles. The preliminary development plan (rezoning) is the second of three PUD stages and is binding. It establishes the pern7issible uses, density, and development standards and serves as the preliminary plat. The Commission is to make its recommendation on this rezoning application and forward it to City Council for a public hearing and final vote. A two- thirds majority vote is necessary to override a negative recommendation from the Commission. If approved by Council, the rezoning will take effect in 30 days. All development is subject to final development plan approval by the Commission prior to any construction. Review Criteria: Section 153.056(H) establishes the following seventeen criteria for PUD preliminary development plan approval: 1) The proposed development is consistent in all respects with the purpose, intent, and applicable standards of the zoning ordinance; 2) The proposed development is in conformity with appropriate comprehensive planning or portion thereof as it may apply; 3) The proposed development advances the general welfare of the municipality and immediate vicinity; 4) The benefits, improved arrangement, and design ~of the proposed development justify the deviation from standard residential development requirements included in the zoning ordinance; Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -February 5, 2004 Page 20 5) Various types of land or building proposed in the project; 6) Where applicable, the relationship of buildings and structures to each other and to such other facilities as appropriate with regard to land area; proposed density of dwelling units may not violate any contractual agreement contained in any utility contract then in effect; 7) Traffic and circulation systems within the proposed project as well as its appropriateness to existing facilities in the surrounding area; 8) Building heights of all structures with regard to their visual impact on adjacent facilities; 9) Front, side, and rear yard definitions and uses where they occur at the development periphery; 10) Gross commercial building area; 11) Area ratios and designation of the land surfaces to which they apply; 12) Spaces between buildings and open areas; 13) Width of streets in the project; 14) Setbacks from streets; 15)Off-street parking and loading standards; 16) The order in which development will likely proceed in complex multi-use developments; and 17) Estimates of time required to complete the developme~lt and its various stages; CONSIDERATIONS: Site Characteristics: . The 5.092-acre site is located on the south side of Brand Road, opposite Lombard Way and the Shannon Glen subdivision. It has 400 feet of frontage along Brand Road and is 700 feet deep. The site is developed with an Existing single-family home (Humbert property), atwo-story horse barn, a garage, and a shed. All of the existing buildings are to be removed. The house and barn have recently been added to the Ohio Historic Inventory. A mature tree row exists along the east: and south property lines, and a double row of evergreens has been planted along the west and north property lines (Meadows at Wyndham Village buffer). There is also athree-;>trand wire fence enclosing portions of the site that must be removed at the time of development. To the east of the site is the Indian Run United Methodist Church, zoned R-1, and to the west is the Meadows at Wyndham Village subdivision, zoned PLR, Planned Low Density Residential District. Four homes on Wiltshire Drive back up to this site. Across Brand Road to the north is the Shannon Glen subdivision, zoned PUD. To the south is the North Fork of the hldian Run and Avery Park. Code Compliance: This property does not have any outstanding non-compliance issues. Development Standards: • Land Use and Density: Code allows PUD preliminary development plans to propose the uses to be permitted. The allowable uses are fixed upon approval of this preliminary development plan and are not alterable during final development plan approval. The development text calls for all lots within the subdivision to be used for single-family residential purposes only. The Future Land Use Map within the Community Plan (Map 8 - page 49) indicates this site as "existing residential," with density for adjacent subdivisions to the north and west between 1 to 2 units per acre. As proposed, the development has a density of 1.77 units per acre. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -February 5, 2004 Page 21 • Setbacks: The minimum building setback is 20 feet from the edge of pavement (not right-of--way). The minimum distance between structures is 17 feet, and the minimum side yard is seven feet. The minimum rear yard is 25 feet and coincides with the proposed no-build zone. • Lot Sizes: The submitted text states that the houses will range from 2,500 to 3,500 square feet with varying lot sizes (See Lot Summary Chart in the proposed text). The lot areas range from 10,000 square feet to 15,503 square feet, and the lot frontages range from 58.28 feet to 108.51 feet. Given the atypical orientation of the lots, and the elimination of a lot, staff believes that the current range is acceptable. Site Layout and Access: • Site Layout: The plan shows anine-lot, "empty-nester," single-family subdivision arranged around ateardrop-shaped cul-de-sac. A. 105 to 166-foot, landscaped setback with an eight-foot wide bikepath, narrows from west to east along Brand Road. Appropriate right-of--way is being dedicated (40 feet from centerline), which will decrease the setback by 40 feet. A 25-foot setback (no-build zone) is shown along the east and west property lines, but should be clearly indicated on the plans. • The proposed site plan indicates a proposed bikepath along the south side of Brand Road in conformance with the adopted Bikeway Plan. Additional public access is provided through the site, and there is space between Lots 4~ and 5 for potential access to the open space south of the lots. Staff recommends that a bikepath be extended through the open space, and that a note be placed on the final plat stating that Lots 4 and 5 will have the maximum side yard setback, adjacent to the space i:or the bikepath. • Staff recommends that the path be constructed concurrently with the installation of infrastructure and utilities. • Access: Access to the development is proposed from a boulevard entrance aligning with Lombard Way. The proposed cul-de-sac will be a publicly dedicated, one-way street. The street radius and right-of--way should be labeled. All public road improvements must be constructed to approved Engineering specifications, including proper turning radii and pavement thickness and durability. • A westbound, left-turn lane into the project from Brand Road is needed. An east-bound tuns lane is currently located in front of the site for Shannon Glen. Restriping of Brand Road can be done to accomplish the turn lane for this site. The new street must have 50 feet of right-of--way and 28 feet of pavement, as measured from back-to-back of curb. On-street parking is restricted to one side opposite fire hydrants. Four-foot sidewalks are provided along both sides of the public street. The details of the geometry must be determined prior. to final development plan submittal. Signage and Landscaping: • Si~nage: The text does not address signage, and all signage will be required to meet all provisions of the Sign Code. • Landscaping: All protected trees need to be identified on the site along with the species, size, and critical root zones. Existing trees should be shown on all civil drawings. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -February 5, 2004 Page 22 • The Landscape Code has been revised to require additional planting of front yard trees on single-family lots. For lots of this width, two trees are required on each lot, and are shown on the plans. Floodplain, Utilities, and Storm Water: • Sanitary: Sanitary service is available from an existing 21-inch mainline on the north side of Brand Road. Open cutting of roadways is prohibited without prior authorization of the City Engineer. • Water: Water is available from an existing 16-inch line on the north side of Brand Road. • Stormwater: Stormwater management indicated behind proposed Lots 5 and 6 will be a dry detention area. The stormwater pond and the pond within the floodway should utilize goose repellant design, subject to staff approval. Architecture/Fencing: • Architecture: The text indicates that four-sided architecture will be provided on all residences, and that a design group for the property owner must review all residential proposals. • The text states that natural or veneer stone, brick., and wood trim in muted color ranges will be permitted. No highly reflective glass is permitted, and glazing can be 50 percent of a given facade. • Roofs are required to be at a 6/12 pitch or greater. Dimensional shingles are required. • Fencing: The applicant intends to meet Code, and the text must be revised to reflect this change. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the proposed residential use is an appropriate use for this site, and that the development will be of a high quality. The applicant has eliminated one lot since the concept plan stage, and has made many refinements to the plan. Staff recommends approval of this preliminary development plan with three conditions: Conditions: 1) That right-of--way consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan (40 feet from centerline) be dedicated prior to scheduling for a second reading at City Council; 2) That the development standards and associated plans be revised to include the comments within the report, prior to scheduling for a second reading at City Council; and 3) That all improvements, including stormwater management facilities and proposed infrastructure meet the requirements of the City Engineer. Bases: 1) The proposed preliminary development plan, as annended above, provides the opportunity for a high quality residential development, consistent with the Community Plan. 2) The proposal, as amended above, will conform with the adopted Thoroughfare Plan and Bikeway Plan. 3) The proposal, as amended above, will be compatible with adjacent residential development. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -February 5, 2004 Page 26 Mr. Zimme ,yes; Mr. Messineo, yes; Mr. Sprague, yeas; and Mr. Gerbe ,..yes:~Approved 6- 0.) Mr. Gerber thanked everyone for their hard w - n said i.t looked like a good project. Administrative Business Mr. Harvey i ed the Commission that temporary ~ oann Ochal, had been recently employe as a full time planner. 5. Rezoning -Preliminary Development Plan 03-1502 -Freshwater Farm (Humbert Property) - 6325 Brand Road Mr. Gerber practices with Mr. Close at the same law firm., and as such thought it appropriate to recuse himself from this case. He turned the case over to ~/ice Chair, Todd Zimmerman, and left the room. Kolby Turnock said changes had been made since the concept plan was approved by the Commission and City Council. The site is located south of Brand Road, west of Avery Road. He showed an aerial slide of the infill site with development surrounding it. It is currently zoned R-l, Restricted Suburban Residential District, and was part of the ongoing City sponsored area rezonings. The current plan has nine lots, eliminating one from the concept plan. The setback has been pushed back as much as possible from Brand Road, which was an issue. A fountain feature proposed in the cut de sac island has been removed and will be replaced with landscaping. The bikepath treatment in the frontage has been enhanced, and the lots have shifted to the south. Mr. Turnock said at the concept plan stage there was discussion about the 200-foot setback not being feasible on this site. An agreement was made to drop a lot and get a setback of at least 100 feet. He said 40 feet of right-of--way needs to be dedicated, and it will drop the setback technically. However, as in relation with the surroundin, developments, the lot line for Lot 9 has been matched up, which was a request. It is still not set back as far as the other developments, but he said staff is comfortable. A text change made includes the removal of motor courts. However, the text regarding fencing remains confusing. He said the applicant has agreed to meet the Fence Code. Mr. Turnock said staff recommends approval of this rezoning/preliminary development plan application, modifying Condition 1 from the staff report as indicated below: 1) That 40 feet of right-of--way be dedicated with tl~e final plat; 2) That the development standards and associated plans be revised to include the comments within the report, prior to scheduling for a second reading at City Council; and 3) That all improvements, including stornzwater n-ianagement facilities and proposed infrastructure meet the requirements of the City Engineer. Mr. Turnock said the staff report should read: Staff recommends approval of this ` preli»unary development plan... " instead of "concept plan, and the report will be corrected. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -February 5, 2004 Page 28 Mr. Close said they will meet the Fence Code. He said on the top of page 8 it states they will be limited by the Fence Code, and they will not seek a variance. Ms. Boring added Condition 5: That the text be revised to reflect the Fence Code. Ms. Boring referred to the Empty-Nester Orientated Development page of the text. She asked if that page established the forced and funded homeowners' association, or did it need to be specified more clearly somewhere else. Mr. Close said, as with most subdivisions, it would be controlled with the declarations filed. He said the homeowners' association bylaws will require hove this will be done. He said under no circumstances will the City incur any maintenance obligation. Ms. Boring wanted to provide a clear definition of the homeowners' association responsibilities in the deed restrictions and in the development text in order to provide legality to collect fees. Mr. Close said the text provided that there was a forced homeowners' association required on the last page of the text. Ms. Boring said she still was concerned about the Brand Road setback. She asked if this had come down to 80 feet from the centerline to the first building or first lot line. Mr. Turnock said lot line and added that a seven foot minimum side yard was required. Ms. Boring understood that a left turn lane be created by re;striping the entryway on the opposing side. Mr. Turnock said at the time of the concept plan, there v~ras a concern about floodplain issues. He said staff was comfortable with the proposed setback. It will not be a set back as far, but the appearance from the road will not be bad. The pavement .of the church is closer to the road than most setbacks along Brand Road. Mr. Turnock said if the; right-of--way expanded in this area, it would also affect other sites. He said they are still at 140 feet, but if pushed back, two lots will be lost and the project to be lost. Mr. Close agreed. Ms. Boring said she did not see Brand Road ever being widened. She said this development was appropriate and she liked it. However, Council has tried very hard to maintain the setbacks along Brand Road. Mr. Close said he understood Ms. Boring, but economically there is a point where the site cannot be developed. Ms. Reiss asked if the road will be widened in front of this development for a turn lane. Mr. Close said it was already. There were yellow hatch marks that effectively are being used as a turn lane already. He said there were two lanes on either side. Ms. Reiss asked if all the measurements were from the edge of the right-of--way. Mr. Close agreed. Ms. Reiss said if measured from the centerline, the setbacks might be more consistent. Mr. Hammersmith said Brand Road is not three lanes wide in front of this development. There is a hatched-out area where a left turn goes into Shannon Glen. He said they have been asked to make the effort to restripe that and use it for a left turn lane into this development. In the event Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -February 5, 2004 Page 30 F Ms. Boring stated that from what she heard from Council members, she would not support this development until there is good, full frontage on Brand Road. She said if Council decides it is fine, she is okay with it. However, at this point, she would support her fellow Council members and not support this. Mr. Messineo asked that Conditions 4 and 5 be read into the record. Mr. Turnock provided the conditions as listed below: 1) That 40 feet of right-of--way consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan be dedicated with the final plat; 2) That the development standards and associated plans be revised to include comments within this staff report, prior to scheduling for a public hearin€; at City Council; 3) That all improvements, including stormwater management facilities and proposed infrastructure meet the requirements of the City Engineer; 4) That the island landscape feature be further defined (water or landscaped) and noted in the text that it will be paid for by the developer and maintained by the homeowners' association prior to scheduling for a public hearing at City Council; and 5) That the text be revised to comply with the Fence Code;. Mr. Close said Condition 4 included the possibility of the water feature paid for by the developer. He also clarified that the right-of--way will be dedicated with the plat. He agreed to the conditions as listed above. Mr. Messineo made a motion to approve this preliminary development plan with the above five conditions because the preliminary development plan provides the opportunity for a high quality residential development, consistent with the Community Plan, it will conform with the adopted Thoroughfare Plan and Bikeway Plan, and will be compatible with adjacent residential development. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ms. Reiss, yes; Ms. Boring, no; Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Messineo, yes. (Approved 4-1.) 6. Rezoning Application 03-11 - iverside Hospital PCD -Subarea A Ben W. Hale, Jr., repres ~ g the applicant, requested a tabling so that can bring back an application that pies with Code. He said issues remain th y are working through with staff. ieved they would be back for the first mee ' m March. Mr. Gerber said that made sense a ed his appreciation. He made the motion to this rezoning application and immernlan seconded. The vote was as follow • ~r. Messineo, yes; Mr. Sprague s. Boring, yes; Ms. Reiss, yes; Mr. Zimme ,yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Tabled 6-0.) The meeting was adjourned at 11:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Libby Fari~y, Administrative Assistant Planning Division PROPOSED SITE PLAN REGIONAL CONTEXT _ l ~ rr~~) O w Y ,~z. ~ sN O CASTlEF0R8 S T ~ ~ `^1 L-J 0 0 - w }INCSEND C ~ZN 3 3 O ~ M~ O ~ ~ AM K, R m IT BRANp RD a ~ - ~ ~ y 9 3 1 $i~ 8 p \ µ • .c O w m A~ T ~ a ~ AO 6 I O 5 O V ~ / o o~ ~~~~,R~- ~ ~o~ F a o~~ 0 0 ~ o o j .moo a a ooj Y O O A ~ i ~ G i i G~ O 0 O -GRAPHIC SCALE O~-1 COri ,a,e„ Freshwater Farni ~ ~ (Humbert Property) PROPQSED SITE PLAN ~4~~E A~ o.ta ~axES ro eE omiurEO ro£ - - ~ rn \ _ niE arr ~s a/w ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ BRAND ROAD - ~ <s~' =cn~ ~ , ~ _ .~x~ w .080 OR. ]IO~S./Et~~MNT m OYO p i ~N A` 5 8714'10' E „ ' J wN~ - o~ ~R/w ~F ~ • t _ _~+5 - ESt ~a/Pnnaeu m D o RR~ / 4~~N 'u m I ~ gl ~ ~ ~ ~'r~ f \ tcaa =r2 \ 4 ' mw n c ~ C. N / \ J / O \ n' \ \ / \ hh.\~ C / ~ LE55 MAN t' DEEP) ~ . / `per ~ p ,a' 9 - ~ ~ / o ~ 9 t,s. , ,,5.5=, o o / I-~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ =2 1~ ~ - _ ~ ~a =coy/ 3601 / / ' ~ ® ~ 51A q1/ GRAPHIC SCALE _ - 03-1502 . ~'R Freshwater Fann (Humbert Property) 6325 Brand Road ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ o _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' O O Q O - ~aaa~s pa~naipap ~ ~ ~ Z3 ~ ~ o a. ~ .O ~ ~ I ~ ~ . ~ o 4- I, ~ ~ ; ~ ~ pad}iuaaad aoua~. pi~~os`':.>,.:' ~ o pao~C aoaa ~ r ~ ~ L O ~\1 O \1~ ~ 'I U ~ ~ v ~ ~ U ` ~ 0 ~ ~ `v I~ N N ~ ~ _ d-~ O T d-~ C ~ , ' ~ ~ i ~ O ~ ~ v \ I / / ~ aC a fed N / / ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~e P ~ cn er ~ a~ .'cn ~ `fed ~ ~ ~ 1 ~\\\e \p e~ ~ , ~ i \ O sera \ ~ ~ ~ a \e~ baG \ ~ U ~ s 00 ~ a~ ~ O o ~ ~ ~ 03-1507 ~ Freshwater Farm (Humbert Property) r~~c n..~__a n__a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutc~ of Dublin City Council Mccting OAVTOF,LEGAL flLANK MC.FORM eq IO~~B - I__ - _ _ December 15, 2003 Page 11 Held 20 Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher sewn d the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Kr stuber, yes; Ms. Sal ,yes; Mr. Lecklider es; Ms. Chinnici- ~ Zuercher, yes; Mayor Mc ash, yes. i' ii Vote on the Ordinance: s. Salay, yes; Mc L klider, yes; Ms. Chi ici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; r. Kranstuber, yes. I' it Ordinance 140-0 j I; Authorizing the ity Manager to Ent into a Contract for ealth Services with e Franklin Cou Board of Health fo 2004, and Declarin an Emergency. Mr. Lecklider troduced the ordina e. ji Ms. Brauti m stated that the Bo d of Health would no nger handle vicious d ~i dangerou animal complaints. procedure has been stablished for the Cit o handle Ij these t ough the City Manag s office and the May is Court. jj Ms. S ay moved to dispens with the public heari and to treat this as ergency jl li legi tion. li Mr Lecklider seconded t motion. to on the motion: Mr ecklider, yes; Ms. S ay, yes; I~Aayor McC ,yes; Ms. Chinnici- ~j uercher, yes; Mr. Kr nstuber, yes. ~I I;. Vote on the Ordina e: Ms. Chinnici-Zue her, yes; Mr. Lecklid ,yes; Ms. Salay, yes ~I Mr. Kranstuber, y ;Mayor McCash, ye . BIDS Ordinance 1-03 i Acceptin he Lowest and Bes id for the Landsca a Maintenance Rig -of-Way Project. Ms. Sa y introduced the ordi ance. Ms. lay asked the amou budgeted for this ate Ms. rigsby responded t t this is part of the a unt where $875,000 s budgeted for all c tractual services. T ' portion of the total ovation is within the ount budgeted for ~i ese items. There is ne additional piece o egislation relating to ant replacement for I', the right-of-way mai enance. There are s me other contractual ervices in that accou that do not require adding. Ms. Salay reque ed that when the bid are brought in, lihe b get comparison woul e helpful to her. There will be second reading/pub' hearing at the Janu 5 Council meeting. Ordinanc 142-03 Accepti g the Lowest and B st Bid for the Turf intenance Right-of- ay Project. Mr. Le lider introduced the rdinance. Ms. innici-Zuercher ask d that the bid and bu et comparison inform ion be provided for is ordinance as wel T ere will be a second eading/public hearin t the January 5 Coun meeting. REZONINGS Mayor McCash ved to waive the Rul of Order to read Ordi nces 143-03, 144-03, 145-03 and 146 3 by title only. Ms. Chinnici- ercher seconded th otion. Vote on the otion: Mr. Lecklider es; Ms. Salay, yes; M Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor McCash, s; Mr. Kranstuber, y Ordin ce 143-03 Rez ing Approximately .834 Acres Located o the North Side of Tuller Road 1, 0 Feet East of Tulle idge Drive, From: C ,Community Commercial District, T~?S: PCD, Planned Co merce District . [Case o. 03-1472 - SBC (Formerly meritech) - 4270 Tull r Road] Ordinance 144-03 Rezoning Approximately 5.092 Acres Located on the South Side of Brand Road, 500 i ( Feet East of Townsend Road, From: R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District, To: PUD, Planned Unit Development District . [Case No. 03-1502 -Preliminary Development Plan -Freshwater Farm (Humbert Property) - 6325 Brand Road] Ordinance 145-03 Rezoning Approximately 18.4 Acres Located on the North Side of Brand Road, Approximately 700 Feet East of Coffman Road, From: R, Rural and R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential Districts, To: IPLR, Planned Low Density Residential District. (Case No. 03-1532 -Brand Road Development) RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ..Minutes oL---__- - _ . __Dublin City Council - - __Meeting December 15, 2003 Page 12 Held 20 i~ - jJ Ordinance 146-03 ~j Rezoning Approximately 43.55 Acres Located on the East Side of Riverside Orive i and the South Side of Hard Road, Approximately 900 Feet from the Riverside Drive i! and Hard Road Intersection, From: R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District, li To: PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Case No. 03-1552 -Riverside Woods) i'. I Mayor McCash moved referral of Ordinances 143-03, 144-03, 145-03 and 146-03 to ~ Planning & Zoning Commission. I' Ms. Salay seconded the motion. ji Vote on the motion: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mayor ~i McCash, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes. i INTRODUCTION/PUB C HEARING - RES UTION:i li BOARD/COMMISSI APPOINTMENT I li Resolution 44-03 it Appointing a Me ber to the Planning Zoning Commis on. Ms. Salay intr ced the resolution ap ointing Ruth Meek Reiss to the unexpir term of Dick Ritchie n the Planning & Zo ng Commission. I~ I Vote on the esolution: Ms. Salay es; Mr. Lecklider, s; Mr. Kranstuber, y ;Mayor li i' McCash, y s; Ms. Chinnici-Zuerc er, yes. MAG/S RATEAPPOINTME I~„ Reso tion 45-03 i~ Aut orizing the Mayor t Appoint an Additi al Magistrate to Co duct Mayor's ' i~' C rt Proceedings Wh n the Mayor, Vice ayor and Magistrat are Unavailable to ~ j onduct Such Proce ings. i s. Salay introduce he resolution. Mayor McCash not d that, as outlined i he cover memo, this ontract provides for magistrate servic under the same to s as the current ma istrate's contract. A ack-up I~ magistrate is be' g secured, Kelleen oth, who will presid m the event that the ayor, '~i Vice Mayor a Magistrate Close e all unavailable to r duct Mayor's Court. J Ms. Chinnici uercher asked abo Ms. Roth's backgro nd. Mayor Mc sh responded that e provides magistr services for Grove rt and Obetz, and acts s Prosecutor for se rat jurisdictions. Sh has all of the contin ' g education ~I require ents for serving as magistrate in the st of Ohio. ii Vote the Resolution: .Chinnici-Zuercher, es; Mr.. Lecklider, ye Ms. Salay, yes; j Ma r McCash, yes; Mr. einer, yes; Mrs. Bor' g, yes. , GREEMENTS Resolution 46-03 Waiving Section .04(B) of the Codifi d Ordinances of th ity of Dublin (Competitive B' ding) and Authori ' g the City Manager o Enter into an Ag ement ~I, with the Was ngton Township Fi Department to Pr ide Flushing and P mping Services to a Public Fire Hydr nts in the City of Dr tin. Ms. Chinni -Zuercher introduce the resolution. Ms. Brau ' am noted that Mr. lareale is available t respond to question . ~i Vote on e Resolution: Mrs oring, yes; Mayor M Cash, yes; Ms. Chi ici-Zuercher, yes; .Reiner, yes; Mr. Kr nstuber, yes; Ms. Sa y, yes; Mr. Lecklide ,yes. Re olution 47-03 thorizing the City anager to Extend t e Existing Agreem t with the Solid aste Authority of entral Ohio (SWAG )for the Automate Refuse and.Recycling Collection Pilot P ogram. Ms. Salay introd ed the resolution. Ms. Brautigam tated that the progra has been very well ceived and is being extended for another y r. Mr. Lecklid asked if the original Ian was for atwo-ye r program. Mr. McDa iel responded that th original 1-1/2 to two ear schedule was with Rumpke, but the olid Waste Authority as participating for o ly the first year. SWACO has agreed to ext d participation for th purposes of study b cause the program has been so succ ssful in the recycling ate. . Lecklider asked wh n the study period w uld end r. McDaniel respon d that the study per d would terminate in mid July of 2004. The next contract perio ould begin the folio ing March. Mr. Lecklider ask if another survey would be done between now and then. I iii RECORD OF PRC)CEEDINGS ~linutcs of Dubfin_City Council Mceun~ October 20, 2003 Page 10 ij Held ~0 abo pedestrian traffic re to to the Schools. Tra' is patterns change be se of re dential builds and tr el patterns. Similar t e need to reassess t impact after ach phase of the so west traffic calming, ' s important to update e traffic patterns. l Mr. Kranstuber ded that at the planni stage, the City should sure that the subdivisions a designed to provider ief to pedestrians. In es where a school is nearby, eve effort should be mad o extract cornmitments om the developers for y necessa unnels. With proper sign, tunnels should be last resort. Mrs. ring suggested that a minimum, the develo r who is contributing to e de nd should contribute necessary tunnels. s. Chinnici-Zuercher fated that because oft success of the bikepat ystem, residents now want ccess. Mayor McCas Iled the question. Vote on the otion: Mrs. Boring, yes' s. Chinnici-Zuercher, y ; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kranstube ,yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr ecklider, yes; Mayor M ash, yes. Mr. M ash stated that staff w bring back a final report r Council to adopt. Ms. rautigam stated that b ed upon tonight's discus ~ n, the report will be rought ck to Council in a slight) different format for adopt n at a future meelin . • Concept Plan -Freshwater Mr. Gunderman noted that this is a concept plan iri anticipation of an eventual PUD rezoning. The project is called, "Freshwater" and is located on the south side of Brand Road, west of Avery. The zoning surrounding it is in planned districts. The proposal calls for ten single-family homes on just over five acres, and a 100-foot setback is proposed along Brand Road. One of the recommendations from the staff and the Commission is to reduce the density by a lot or two. The proposal includes a substantial amount of open space at the southern end of the property, adjacent to the City park. P&Z reviewed this on October 2 and recommended approval with 12 conditions. Other items of discussion concerned the lot arrangements. The proposal calls for a courtyard type of lot plan for each of the homes, and a side entrance to a garage structure in front of the majority of the house. As a result, this leaves a relatively short front yard setback. Currently, there is asingle-family homestead and existing barn on the property. Both of these would be removed under the proposal. Another issue discussed was that staff recommended that the public space at the southern end become part of the public property. The P&Z considered, but ultimately did riot feel it necessary to have a left turn lane installed along Brand Road in conjunction with the development. The concept plan is designed to allow an opportunity for Council feedback on a proposal, but the total discussion is non-binding for the applicant and the Council. Ms. Salay asked for clarification about the left turn lane. Mr. Gunderman stated that this item was not recommended by P&Z, as they did not feel it was necessary. Mr. Reiner asked about P&Z's basis for this. Mr. Gunderman stated that the small number of homes in the proposal was a key factor. i Mr. Reiner noted that the first condition indicates that the layout should be refined to include fewer lots. Mr. Gunderman agreed, noting that this will loosen up the site and improve the design on some of the lots. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked for the definition of "fewer lots." Mr. Gunderman stated that P&Z did not specify, but stafffelt that one or two lots should be eliminated. He then showed a rendering of the concept plan. Mr. Lecklider asked about the setback from Brand Road. The setbacks of other subdivisions along Brand are at least 140 feet. What is the rationale for the setback at 100 feet? Mr. Reiner added that part of the charm of Brand F;oad is the large setbacks. ~I',I 03-15 OZ Freshwater Farm (Humbert Property) RECORD OF PROCEtDiNGS Dlinulcs oC_____. _Dublin City_Council_____ _____\leeting_ F~„~ .E~.,a~...,„~ ,a,., October 20, 2003 Page 3 Hcld 20 Located Generally on the North Side of Post Road, South of Branc( Road, Between Hyland-Croy and Muirfield Drive, as R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District ~ and R, Rural District. (Case No. 03-0702 -Post Road to Brand Road, West of Muirfield Drive and East of Hyland-Croy Road) Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor McCash, yes. j; INTRODUCTION/ RST READING - O INANCE:S AGREEMENT Ordinancel -03 Authorizin the City Manager t nter into an Agreement with the Delaware Municip Prosecutor in the D aware County Municip Court Mr. L lider introduced the o finance. Ms rautigam stated that t s relates to an annual Co act for services provide by the aware Municipal Pros utor. The cost has been duced from last year's ontract, based on the volume. Mayor McCash note that a second reading/pu c hearing will be sched ed for the November 3 Cou it meeting. AWARD OF Ordinance 15-03 Accepti the Lowest/Best Bid fo he Westbury Park Dev opment Project. Ms. S y introduced-the ordinan Mr. hn offered to respond to estions. M . Salay noted that at the ti this was presented to P Z, the residents seemed concerned about the locati of the future bikepath. ave meetings been held with the residents and has their c fort level improved? Mr. Hahn stated that a eeting with the resident ook place prior to the P&Z acing on the park plan. They ay have concerns with t 2005 bikepath project that rose subsequent to the &Z hearing. The reside were informed that when nding is appropriated for e bikepath project, staff ill work with individual resi nts to address their various ncerns. The design engi Bering for the project will n e done until the appropriati s are available in a futur ear. Certain [~sidents ma ave ongoing concerns bout that future bikepath roject which is separate fro the park development plan re ewed by P&Z. The bike h project is approved adm' istratively, after Council has propriated funding. Mr. Lecklider asked if this mpany has done playgrou work for the City previously Mr. Hahn responded tha ey have done several su projects for the City and pe rmed satisfactorily. There will be a se nd reading/public hearing the November 3 Council m ing. CODE AMEN MENT -CONDITIONAL E PROCEDURE Ordinance 17-03 Amendi Section 153.236 of the blin Codified Ordinances titled "Procedure for Au orizing a Conditional Us ' (Case No. 03-32ADM). Ms. lay introduced the ordina e and moved referral to Plan ng 8 Zoning Co mission. Chinnici-Zuercher seco ed the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. anstuber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, s; Mayor McCash, ye , Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. Chinni uercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, y ; Mr. Reiner, yes. ZONING Ordinance118- Rezoning Ap oximately 24.3 Acres, on th orthwest Corner of rimeter Drive and Avery- uirfield Drive, from: PCD, PI ned Commerce Distr' t, to: PCD, Planne Commer District (Case No. 03-19Z- iverside Hospital, PC Composite Plan Revisi ,Subarea A). Mr. mer introduced the ordinance Ms hinnici-Zuercher moved refe al to Planning & Zoning mmission. s. Salay seconded the motion Mr. Lecklider asked that staff sure that all parties are tified who were noli when this was previously consid d. Such notice went bey d the requirements specified in the Code. , i 03-1507 Freshwater Farm (Humbert Property) RECORD OF PROCEcOINGS ~9uuncs ol____.____ __-Dublin City_Council__ _ i~ccung_ o,.w _ October 20, 2003 Page 2 Hcld 20 However, this r oning has not taken ace yet, so there is no ed to change the basi recommenda ' n from P&Z to appr e the ordinances as su fitted. He note hat Ordinance 66-0 or the Buckner property ' located in the middle of e ~ Muirfi d area. It is an old f stead and is proposed change to the R-1 clas ication. In township zoning cl s, it was listed as an F .Because the City did n have a mparable zoning, st selected an R-1 zoning s the long-existing zoni maps had indicated such. Alth gh staff reviewed all of ese in public meetings, .Buckner, the property owner di of have a full understa ing of the change. Mr. ckner and his son met with staff t ay and have indicated t r preference for an R-R I classification. There are m y similarities between th -Rural and R-1 classifi tions. Both require 40,000 sq re feet for a single famil ome. Using the rural cl sification on this property would li t them in terms of the nu ber of lots they could cr te, should they want to use the z ing classification in plac Mr. Buckner indicated esire to retain the ability to i ke some horses on the.pro rty, and therefore prefer the R-Rural category. Staff es l t see a problem with cha ing this. Council could motion amend Ordinance 6 -03 to change these two parcel rom the proposed R-1 c ssification to the R-Rural classification. Mr. Reiner moved t mend Ordinance 66-03 provide an R-Rural zoning f the two parcels under dis ssion. Mrs. Boring se nded the motion. Vote on the otion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuer er, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. ranstuber, yes; Ms. Salay, ye ~ r. Lecklider, yes; Mayo cCash, yes; Mrs. Boring, ye . Mr. Gu erman noted that Planni Commission, by a vote of 7- ,recommended appr aI of the other four ordin ces. yor McCash noted that o speakers have signed in to stify on this ordinance, r. Buckner and his son. They were present in e audience and declined to s ak, indicating their satis ction with Council's motion to end. Vote on the Or Hance as amended: Mr. Lec er, yes; Ms. Salay, yes- r. Kranstuber, yes; Mrs. B ng, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. innici-Zuercher, yes; M or McCash, yes. Ordina e 84-03 Esta fishing Dublin Zoning for 26 reels Comprising an ea of Approximatel 11 Acres, As Annexed from W ington Township in 1 6 and 1973, Locate enerally Along the North an outh Sides of Post R d, Between Avery-M irfield Drive and SR 161/1-270, as ,Restricted Suburbs esidential District a d LI, Limited Industrial District (Case No. 03-0732- F'o Road/Avery Road to 270 Rezoning) Vote on the Ordinance r. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kra tuber, yes; Mrs. Borin ,yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, y ; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor cCash, yes; Mc Leckl~ er, yes. Ordinance 85- Establishing ublin Zoning for 12 Pa els Comprising an Ar a of Approximately 83 Acres, as Hexed from Washingt Township in 1965, 1 3, 1980 and 1988, Located enerally on the South de of Brand Road, Ea of Coffman Road and West Dublin Road, as R-1, stricted Suburban Re ential District and R, ural Dist 'ct. (Case No. 03-0722 - offman Road to Dublin oad, Between Brand R d and I- 0) ote on the Ordinance: .Lecklider, yes; Mr. Rein r, yes; Mayor McCash, s; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinni Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kran uber, yes; Ms. Salay y Ordinance 86-03 Establishing Du in Zoning for 13 Parce Comprising an Area o Approximately 24; Acres, as Ann ed from Washington T wnship in 1973, Locat Generally on the South Side Brand Road, West of ffman Road, as R-1, R tricted Suburban Residenti District. (Case No. 03- 1 Z -Coffman Road/Br d Road) Vote on e Ordinance: Mr. Krans ber, yes; Mrs. Boring, ye ,Mayor McCash, yes; Ms. Chinni i-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Rein r, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; vls. Salay, yes. Ordinance 87-03 Establishing Dublin Zoning for 18 Parcels Comprising an Area of Approximately Li 150 Acres, as Annexed from Washington and Jerome Townships in 1973 and 1999, !I ii I 03-1507 Freshwater Farm (Humbert Property) w - ~27G Rr~~,.f Rnarl RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Mecung - - - - - - 9 _ _ . October 20, 2003 Pa e 11 a Held 20 j! _ __i'_ _ _ Mr. Gunderman stated that on the whole, there was a feeling that in thjs case, given the I~ setback for the church to the east, the setback might work as proposed. u Mrs. Boring stated that the discussion about the reduction in lots was related to the I' desire for a larger setback. ~i Mr. Gunderman agreed. If two lots were eliminated, the setback could be moved back and additional space would be available for the rest of the cut de sac. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that in view of the increased traffic for the Third high school, it is essential to have a setback larger than 100 feet. l Ms. Salay stated that she is not comfortable with the location of the first garage, so if that could be reconfigured and the setbacks increased, she would feel more comfortable. She applauds the desire for the side load garages, but the setback is too small for the first garage. ;i Mr. Gunderman stated that even with the loss of a couple of lots, the setback change would result in the loss of the center area in the pl<3n. Mayor McCash stated that this same type of cluster-type homes exists throughout Dublin. Ms. Salay stated that this appears as a standard cut de sac in terms of lot size and density. She can't envision a landscape treatment. that would make this aesthetically pleasing. Mayor McCash responded that some of the components seen here are similar to that in the conservation design subdivisions. Ms. Salay responded that she does not see 60 percent open space to compensate for this. Mrs. Boring stated that P&Z suggested that the number of lots be reduced to conform to the desired Brand Road setback. This concept, compared to the previous one reviewed for the land, makes sense. Some of the issues raised will be addressed at the preliminary plat stage. Mr. Lecklider noted that there were also some concerns from staff & P&Z regarding the fountain. He assumes this relates to future maintenance. Was there any mention of architecture other than the rendering provided? Mr. Gunderman responded that the rendering was submitted today for this presentation. There was no discussion of architecture at P&Z. Mr. Lecklider noted that Council would be particul<3rly sensitive, regardless of the setback, about the architecture of the first two lots off Brand Road. , Mayor McCash asked if two lots are eliminated, bringing the setback further back from Brand Road - is the 25 feet from the right of way for the remaining houses still an issue for Council? i' Mr. Gunderman responded that maintaining the dimension of the center island as it currently exists would result in a very short setback. On average, without adjusting the cut de sac width itself, there will still be less than a typical setback distance. Mayor McCash asked if the 25 feet is not adequate, would additional setback come at the expense of the center island? Mr. Gunderman agreed that there would have to be a reduction in the island area to make That work. Mayor McCash asked if the priority of Council is for the 25-foot setback or having a center green feature? Ms. Salay responded that she is not opposed to some deviation from the standard 25- foot setback. However, on some lots, it appears that the edge of the garage is a couple of feet, at most, from the sidewalk and that is not :acceptable. She would not require the full 25 feet for approval of this concept, but it would have to be adjusted. Mr. Reiner noted that he questions the waiving of the requirement for a left hand turn lane on Brand Road. '1 i I, 03-1 SOZ Freshwater Farm (Humbert Property) (.2~5 R~-anrt Rnart RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1`Lnutcs of Dublin City Council k4cctin~ o.,,,v,«„ ~o,..,,.o ,o,.« October 20, 2003 Page 12 Held 20 Mrs. Boring stated that this was waived because Llewellyn Farms South received a waiver for a left turn lane on Dublin Road and on Tuttle Road for a subdivision with 65 homes. It was hard to justify requiring a left hand turn lane for a subdivision of this size. Mr. Reiner responded that Brand is a two-lane road and will have traffic back-ups absent this turn lane. It was not prudent to waive the requirement for the other subdivision. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the problem will be exacerbated with the new high school opening in less than a year. The issue of turns will become more pronounced, whatever the number of homes is. Ms. Salay asked about the expense of installing a left hand turn lane. Mr. Hammersmith estimated that the cost is approximately $75,000. Ms. Salay stated that P8~Z dealt with this issue for a development along Martin Road, and the requirement of the turn lane would have made the property undevelopable. She is not sure if that is the case for this one. There are some left hand turn lanes done in Ballantrae that make no sense. The traffic volumes do not warrant these. On the other hand, individuals slow to make a turn, slowing traffic in general, which is a positive thing. Mr. Reiner noted that Brand Road will not be widened in the future, based on the Community Plan. In addition, the high school will bring more traffic along the road. Mr. Lecklider noted that he is undecided regarding the turn lane, as it will remove green space. Mr. Reiner noted that Brand is a major east-west <3rterial and it is important to keep traffic moving. Mr. Lecklider asked about other locations along Brand Road where turn lanes have been installed. He recalls there are turn lanes at Coventry Woods, at Earlington and Bristol Commons. Mrs. Boring noted that the minutes indicate that there is not a left turn lane added at Lombard Way. What kind of development exists in this location? Mr. Gunderman stated that it is a typical subdivision neighborhood. Mayor McCash asked why a left turn lane was not required. Mr. Gunderman commented that he does not knov?. Mayor McCash noted that the cut de sac subdivision on the north side of Brand does not have a large setback from Brand Road. Mr. Lecklider asked about the potential of traffic back up during school hours and the difficulty in making a left turn into this proposed subdivision. Mr. Hammersmith stated that Brand Road is a heavily traveled route - 7,000 vehicles per day at the eastern end. Mrs. Boring stated that the likelihood of back-ups .as a result of traffic from this subdivision is minimal. Mr. Reiner stated that the problem can either be solved now with the left turn lane, or exacerbated in the future. Mrs. Boring stated that it is not consistent with the policies to require a left hand turn for this development, as one was not required for Lle~,vellyn Farms South. Mr. Kranstuber stated that this left hand turn lane is a neutral issue in terms of the traffic generated from major subdivisions. Very little traffic will be generated from 8-10 houses. Ms. Salay agreed, adding that the four-way stop at Brand and Avery will create some natural breaks in the traffic, allowing for safe ingress and egress from this development. Mr. Lecklider stated that he would favor having more greenspace versus a turn lane. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that she would support a reduction in the number of lots and a larger setback from Brand Road. Mike Close representing the applicants John anti Cathy Humbert noted that it is important to keep in perspective that this land could not be commercially developed. The applicants live on the land and the proposal is a family venture. Part of this is an 03-ISOZ Freshwater Fans (Humbert Property) ,..~_r ,n , RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS _ Minutes_of _ _ Dublin City Council ;~lccring - 0 or cc.~e ~ nc routs ,.o -~o~+a ~ - - _ - _ - -..g October 20, 2003 Pa e 13 Held ~0 I I economic issue -there is not $75,000 available in this scenario to install a left hand turn i lane for what traffic studies will show will be non-competing traffic. School releases at 2 to 3:30 p.m., and the usage of the road for turn lanes tends to be later in the day during rush hour. He noted that there is room to move the house back, as Ms. Salay has suggested, but staff actually wanted this placement. Secondly, regarding the setbacks from Brand Road -not all setbacks along Brand are 140 feet. Some nearby are at 100 ' feet. In addition, roadway is within the setback in ;some areas. They have a nice looking ~i entranceway. The easy way to make everything fit is to reduce the size of the middle 1~ boulevard. If Council desires that, it can be done. I I I! Discussion followed about setbacks of nearby developments and buildings. I! j Mr. Lecklider stated that Mr. Close has suggested chat the church has less than 140 feet ' of setback from Brand Road and that the homes on the north are less than 200 feet. This is in conflict with the staff report. j Mr. Close stated that the testimony at P&Z indicated that the setback at the church was 120 feet. I', Mr. Lecklider reiterated that the staff report indicates that the church building is setback 140 feet, the Meadows at Wyndham Village is setback 180 feet, and the homes on the north side are setback 200 feet. Mr. Close stated that before this comes back for rezoning, they will obtain clarification of the setbacks. i Mayor McCash asked if the issue is with setback of the buildings or setback of the parking lots. If the goal is to have greenspace, there should be no parking within the setback. Mr. Lecklider stated that he would like to see at le<rst an additional 50 feet of setback along Brand Road. Mr. Close responded that this is not possible for the project. A lot can be eliminated, perhaps, but because of the flood plain problems at the back of the site, they cannot provide a larger setback. ' Mr. Lecklider stated the width of the first two lots would certainly total 50 feet. Mr. Close responded that they cannot do the project if two lots are eliminated - it is not economically feasible. Nine may be possible, but eight lots are not. The reality is that Council will be reviewing a number of fill-in projects in the future where the costs of doing infrastructure are proportionally significantly higher because there are not enough lots over which to spread the costs. To have the nicer aesthetic features incorporated into the project, they need more lots. i', Mr. Lecklider asked who receives the benefit of lh<: proposed fountain other than the homes in the subdivision? Mr. Close responded that all who drive by on Brand Road will enjoy this view. Mr. Reiner stated that Council's job is to maintain the aesthetics in the City. He would prefer that the fountain be removed, that two lots be removed and that the setback be increased in order to continue the cadence along Brand Road. He understands the economics, but the project needs to be redesigned so that it is viable and fits into the community. Mr Close responded that Council has asked for creative designs and they have now submitted one. Council's response is to run a straight street back into a cut de sac and take out the features. Mr. Reiner responded that the aesthetics relate to the entire community. Every citizen should strive to make this community special. Council's job is to improve the aesthetics ' of the City, not to help make profits for developers. Mr. Close responded that this plan is a better approach in terms of what Council has indicated they want to see. He added that in regard to Condition #4, that adequate public access be provided to the open space along the North Fork, if this property remains private, there will not be a walkway to permit access. ~i 03-1502 Freshwater Farn1 (HumUert Property) 6325 Brand Road RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS \Lnutcs nt Dublin City Council Meeung ,,...~.,_«;,d,..,...~ ,a..~~a ,o,.~ October 20, 2003 Page 14 Held ~0 Mrs. Boring noted that P&Z considered the appearance code and curvilinear road approach in this review. The scenic look down the road with a green center island and one-way street seemed to be in keeping with what Council has said they want. Mr. Lecklider stated that he is not certain that Council disagrees. One condition of P&Z is to reduce density, and Council is supportive of this. Mrs. Boring responded that one Council Member h;as indicated that they do not want the inside island Mr. Reiner stated that he is looking for an appropriate setback from Brand Road. Mr. Lecklider clarified that he is looking for an increase in the setback, consistent with the setbacks in the area as described in the staff report. as 140, 180 and 200 feet. He wants to see the setback from Brand increased, and if it necessitates the removal of the feature in the cut de sac, that is fine. ~ Mr. Reiner agreed with Mr. Lecklider. Once a setback at 100 feet is allowed, others will ask for the same consideration. A precedent is set each time something like this is allowed. Mr. Close stated that he was before P&Z with a project previously where staff wanted a 200-foot setback and the Commission disagreed. 'fhe applicant will do what is necessary to increase the setback. Personally, he believes that increasing it to120 feet without pavement would be preferable to 140 feet with cars parked in front. They will obtain the information about other setbacks along E3rand in this area. Mc Lecklider stated that in his mind, he is already conceding a left turn lane for this development. Mr. Close clarified for the record that there is a left turn lane for cars turning north, just across the street from this proposed development. Mayor McCash commented that the 200-foot setback along scenic roads such as Brand related to a desire for more greenspace. If in some areas there is a 200-foot setback, but there is a road or paving in that space, it defeats the purpose. For him, if the green space is 100 or 120 feet and all green, that is preferable to a setback with a road within it. In terms of economics, he agrees there is less ability to spread costs when there are a small number of lots. This is a creative development, and if nine lots are necessary for the development, there is a balance issue involved. Creative development and higher ' end housing is desirable. Mr. Reiner asked for clarification of why this development would be considered "thinking outside the box'? It includes anon-buildable flood plain, cluster housing, high density, and small setbacks on a road with large setbacks. ' Mayor McCash responded that Mr. Reiner has supported the concepts of new urbanism and ruralism, so this statement is confusing. This development is definitely different from what has been submitted previously. Mayor McCash summarized that a motion is needed in regard to this concept plan, and any action of Council is non-binding. He called for any amendments to the conditions of PBZ. Mr. Reiner moved to amend the conditions to delete the front two lots and to add a left hand turn lane. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Lecklider moved to amend Condition #1 to state, "That the layout be refined to include fewer lots for the purpose of increasing the setback from Brand Road." Mr. Kranstuber seconded the motion. Mayor McCash asked if the issue relates to density or greenspace. Mrs. Boring summarized that both of these are issues. Mr. Kranstuber stated that he is not committed to a certain number of lots; staff can work with the applicant to increase the setback. I 03-1507 Freshwater Farn~ (Humbert Property) i.. r 1 T _ _J RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minulcs of _ Oubhn City Council A1ccung I October 20, 2003 Page 15 II Hcld 20 Vote on the motion: Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, no Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Vote on the concept plan: Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, no; Mayor McCash, yes. I • Prelim ary Plat -Bishop's Run Mr. Gunder an stated that this is a liminary plat for a PLR loca d south of Brand Road alo Hyland Croy. The lay t conforms to the rezoning d plan approved at the I~ time of zoning. This revision es include a strip of lots fro he Bishop's Crossing w, i~ preli inary plat that was alre approved. The plan calls f a 200-foot green setback ~I an a bikepath that will eve wally meander through the p ject. The Bishop's Run portion this project conforms t e more newly established bdivision policies regarding variation in front yards ack and variation in lot wi An exception to that are the I s ~I that back up to the ro Park. All of these will be 00-foot lots with no deviation i of size. This area w d be combined with the Bis p's Crossing homeowners ass ciation, alleviating a ma concern about the long-ter maintenance of the greenspa along the front of the pr ' ct. P&Z reviewed the proj ton August 14 and recommen d approval j~ with 17 con ions. i Mr. Le tiler asked for definition on e map of the common space t e maintained by the 6 homeowners. Mr underman pointed these eas out on the map. r. Lecklider asked if the for ula was applied. Mr. Gunderman responde that in applying the forrnula, th project would not support it. Therefore, it was combi d with the larger Bishop':> Cro ing into one association per the , !i formula. Mr. Lecklider aske . or the total number of homes. Mr. Gunderman timated about 200 homes. Ms. Chinnic' uercher asked about the are long Hyland-Croy. Ooes the City a ~ ipate ~i that the ire area will consist of these I e kinds of projects? i! Mr. Gu derman responded that this is air expecl:ation. A good deal of the ea's zoning l is alr ady approved. There are a co le projects further down Hyland-Cr that are a ady approved. A couple of tra s remain that are not zoned. Ms. Salay noted that these h e generally been brought through b a single developer. Mr. Gunderman agreed. Mr. Reiner asked if th e is any chance that the new rurali concepts could be applied, providing fingers of reenspace connecting to the tvtetro ark? Or will the area be filled with similar subd isions? Mr. Gunderm stated that there are a couple of r ~ aining~tracts to the south that ar not developed d perhaps one good opportunity re <3ining for applying the rural conserva n design. May McCash asked why the bikepath located along the road and then ops down in ad of meandering. r. Gunderman stated that at final nstruction, staff expects to have re of a meandering path. In addition, o e the alignment for a bikepath is r efined, a sidewalk connection will be made to it. ese will be worked out administr vely. This is a PLR, and improvements will beg upon approval by Council. The fi plats will come in after the improvements are in ace. Mayor McCash not that this development was irifluen d somewhat by the "Road Wow" concepts. Mr. Gunderm agreed. Mr. Reiner inted out that nothing formally was der adopted for the "Road Wow." Mr. Le lider asked what control the City ha over the planning or Bevel ment of gre space. He had previously expresse concerns about a homeo ers association ng responsible for a substantial setb k along a scenic road, an he need for uniformity of maintenance along Hyl d Croy. He recalls that lhi as to be Bevel din ~j amore natural state in order to hav a minimal level of mainten nce required. I~ 03-1502 Freshwater Faun (Humbert Property) (.275 Rr~nr) Rnarl PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION OCTOBER 2, 2003 :rr~ uF' of ttt.t Disc' ~ of Planning 58 tier-Rings Road ~blii !0 4301b-1236 ne/f00: 614-410-4600 fnx:6l4-761-6566 h Site: www.dubGn.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 5. Concept Plan 03-092CP -Freshwater (Humbert :Property) - 6325 Brand Road Location: 5.092 acres located on the south side; of Brand Road, 500 feet east of Townsend Road. Existing Zoning: R-lA, Restricted Suburban Residential District (Washington Township classification). Request: Review and approval of a concept plan sunder the PUD provisions of Section 153.056. Proposed Use: Asingle-family subdivision including ten lots and one acre of parkland. Applicant: Kathryn and John Humbert, 6325 Brand Road, Dublin, Ohio 43016; represented by Joseph Trepicone, 5409 Carson Plaae, Powell, Ohio 43065. Staff Contact: Chad D. Gibson, AICP, Senior Planner. MOTION: To approve this concept plan because it provides the opportunity for a high quality residential development, is in conformance with the Thoroughfare and Bikeway Plans, and is in keeping with adjacent development, with 12 conditions: 1) That the layout be refined to include fewer lots; 2) That right-of--way consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan (40 feet from centerline) be dedicated at the preliminary development plan; 3) That a more refined frontage treatment and landscape plan be submitted with the preliminary development plan; 4) That adequate public access be provided to the open space along the North Fork; 5) That all lots be removed from the "floodwa:y-plus-20 feet" zone; 6) That complete tree preservation and tree protection plans be submitted with the preliminary development plan; 7) That the proposed "empty-nester" character be further refined, and that further restrictions be added with the preliminary development plan; 8) That the maintenance of the proposed water features be further addressed at the prcliminary development plan; 9) The fencing be further limited at the preliminary development plan; Page 1 of 2 03-1502 Freshwater Farm (Humbert Property) PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION OCTOBER 2, 2003 Concept Plan 03-092CP - Fresh~vater (Humbert Property) - 6325 Brand Road (Continued) 10) That the development standards be revised to include the comments within the report; 11) That all improvements, including stormwater management facilities and proposed infrastructure meet the requirements of the City Engineer; and 12) That the developer not be responsible for installing alert-turn lane on Brand Road. * Michael Close, representing the applicant, agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: This concept plan was approved. It will be forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation. STAFF' CERTIFICATION ;7 B rbara M. Clarke Planning Director Page 2 of 2 03-1502 Freshwater Farm (Humbert Property) Dublin Planning and Zon. Commission Minutes -October 2, 2003 Page 10 Mr. Zimmerma said Ms. Karagor had done a gre job bringing th' park forward and addressing sa y. He liked the to ion and playgro equipment selec d. Mr. Sp gue said it was gra ~ ying to see so m y youngsters in t audience. He thank them for ing well behaved a their parents for ringing them to se our community proc s. r. Messineo ask if there were Pl a boardwa khan a hat had good suppo id Shelto d them to meeting, sever residents suggest take it to th ' homeowners' as ciation board, and ring it Ito the City as ding request. Mr. rber liked seeing e process work. e was glad so many eople spoke. Ms. gory h done an excellen 'ob with the citize ,and he liked the co pt. He wanted a b ader array f parks in the fu He suggested o for bird watching. supported this app ~ tion. Mr. Zimme an made them 'on for approval of is development pl because gathering places community focal oints contribute posit ely to Dublin's ima ,and serve to provide a se of place, park dev opments contribute t esidents' quality of ' e and reinforce Dublin' " en" image, it was armed through a pub ~c process and provid amentities for multiple ge roups, it protects e exiting woods by p ing the improveme close to the road, and park location and la t have been modifie o address resident's ncerns. Mr. Gerber s es;1Mr. . Boring, yes; Mr. Spra e, y motion, and e vote was as folio Mr. Ritchie, no; r. Zimmerman, yes. pproved 6-1.) Sanehol yes; Mr. Messineo, y ; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. G er thanked Ms. Kar ory for her help. r. Gerber called a sh recess at 8:25 p.m. 5. Concept Plan 03-092CP -Freshwater (Humbert Property) - 6325 Brand Road Chad Gibson said this is anon-binding PUD concept plan for aten-unit residential development. A portion of this site was the subject of a disapproved concept plan in 1999 for amulti-story 44- unit assisted living facility. He showed several slides. The five-acre site is located to the west of Avery and on the south side of Band a shed. All struct ~es are p oposed to be removed the Ohio Historic Inventory, plus a garag He said the plan has one boulevarded entry, and the subdivision is proposed around a teardrop- shaped cul de sac. Along the southern portion of the site is an acre for park along the Indian Run that is mostly floodplain and connects to Avery Park. He said neighborhood access is needed to the park area. He said Brand Road cas A 100 Coot`setback along Brand Road iesshownback are recommended to matntam the ch Mr. Gibson said the site plan is a little tight, and it does not work as well as they would like. At least one lot should be eliminated, to meet the density and development standards. The scenic setback needs to be further defined at the rezoning stage. Staff requests the installation of a left turn lane into the site along Ba i diR Jude fewer locos a d a westbound, left-turn lane,along Brand 1) That the layout be refin Road to be constructed by the developer; 2) That right-of--way consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan (40 feet from centerline) be dedicated at the preliminary development plan; 03-1502 Freshwater Fann (I-lumbert Property) . Dublin ['tanning and Zonn~g Commission Minutes - October 2, 2003 I'agc 11 3) Chat a more refined frontage treatment and landscape plan be submitted with the preliminary development plan; 4) That adequate public access be provided to the open space along the North Fork; 5) That all lots be removed from the "floodway-plus-20 feed" zone; 6) That complete tree preservation and tree protection plans be submitted with the preliminary development plan application; 7) That the proposed "empty-nester" character be further refined, and that further restrictions be added with the preliminary development plan; 8) That the maintenance of the proposed water features b<~ further addressed at the preliminary development plan; 9) The fencing be further limited at the preliminary development plan; 10) That the development standards be revised to include the comments within the report; and 11) That all improvements, including stormwater mar?agement facilities and proposed infrastructure meet the requirements of the City Engineer. Mr. Gerber said Condition 1 asks that the layout be refined to include fewer lots. Mr. Gibson said the Community Plan shows this site as "existing residential" with no other direction for it. The adjacent area is shown as residential with a density of one to two units per acre. As proposed, this is 1.96 units per acre. Functionally and aesthetically, it needs a lot removed. Regarding Condition 7 about refining the "empty nester" character, Mr. Gibson said the text indicates this is to be an empty nester development. It seems to be simply another single-family neighborhood, which means homes with children. Mr. Gerber said it could be marketed that way but he doubted that only empty nesters could live in the subdivision. Ivlr. Gibson agreed. Ms. Clarke said the cover for the text states "empty nester" development, but there is nothing in the standards to indicate that. The standards seem to yield a typical single-family subdivision. Mr. Gibson said the tel t Alsotlthe dsetbacks are shown from pavement, not right of wayeparated from the street by a wal , Michael Close, attorney, thanked Mr. Ritchie for the job he had done on the Commission. Mr. Close said this is smaller than other projects. He said. John and Cathy Humbert intend to live in the existing house until they develop the second phase. He said Mr. Humbert will do all the construction in the subdivision. He will assure it turns out right. In small developments, costs per unit are an issue. He had no problem with most of the conditions. They will limit the fencing and clarify the text. However, they do not believe there is a demonstrated need for the left-turn lane. He noted the street with which they will align does not have alert-tum lane. Mr. Close said Dublin's policy for left-turn lanes made sense in most subdivisions because there are many cars, and the need is clear. There is no opposing traffic in this area, and the left-turn lane is not needed. He said Dublin is studying the widening of Brand Road. This five-acre development should pay for acost-prohibitive road improvement. Mr. Close said they had discussed whether or not they will be dedicating parkland, and they are not ready to commit that it will become parkland. If not, the access issue is moot. They may 03-1502 Freshwater Farm (Humbert Property) ' Dublin Planning and "Coning Commission Minutes -October 2, 2003 Page 12 decide to pay the park fee instead to~tl osewho are downsiz ng and do not want to mow grasesing term. They intend to market the Mr. Close said the house and barn are old. Being on the Ohio Historical Register means nothing. Mr. Gerber said he could support this plan, but he wanted to address the density issue. Regarding the left turn lane, it will be an issue for small parcels such as this. He said it will be very difficult to impose on a small development, and he did not support it here. He believes this road should be widened before the new high school opens. Mr. Ritchie said the land use was appropriate, and he liked the empty nester concept to provide more housing choices. It should be compatible with the surrounding development. The barn may make it impossible to align theed to be~consistent v~ntluthersurrounding deve opment. illage. He said the Brand Road setbacks n Mr. Gerber questioned how uniformity can be done with smaller parcels. Mr. Ritchie thought the goal was to maintain the rural character of Brand Road, and the setback should be the same. Mr. Gibson said the church to the east is set back 140 feet, and its parking is 55 feet from right- of-way. The Meadows of Wyndham Village houses are set back about 180 feet. He said a 100- foot setback is proposed for this development. The setback was 200 feet on the north side of the road. Ms. Cox said City Council has requested that staff look at Brand Road. She said there will be additional traffic on Brand Road, especially when the high school opens, and left turns will become more difficult. There is a turn lane in both directions at Townsend. Mr. Sprague also thought a turn Ian a s used with the (ty Engineer or a P ican acing with the City. Ms. Cox said that had not be Ms. Clarke added that a major goal of the Communit}~ Plan was to leave the "scenic roads" alone, that is to consciously decide not to widen them.. The intention is to leave them with roadside ditches, and to provide left turn lanes into new development. Generally speaking, roads like Dublin Road, Summitview Road, Bright Road, and Brand Road were deliberately intended to stay in their current form. She said a discussion onottr~ o~butrwas raisi g it~asoanB Sand Road is widened from stem to stern. She was not taking a p , Mr. Close asked about the yellow crosshatches on Branca Road. Ms. Cox said she would have to examine the plans. [Field inspection showed left hand turn lanes already exist for both Townsend Road and Lombard Way•] Mr. Gerber said he was a firm belie ~ r I~etho ed that som thing would be done soonWay with the new high school needs to be widene p Mr. Saneholtz said the text addressed the exterior walls, but did not mention chimney construction. He said the setback should be consistent with the properly to the west. He wanted to see the complete selbac at the t resoent homeownedr w 11 actually stay on the ~ opo~ it is a very attractive plan. He Irked th p 03-1502 Freshwater Farm (Humbert Property) Dublin Planning andI_oning Conunission Minutes - October 2, 2003 1'agc l3 Mr. Zimmerman agreed with the comments about the density and eliminating a lot, and he did not think a left turn lane is needed. He asked if the homeowner's association would maintain the center fountain. Mr. Zimmerman asked if the south side. becomes public park, they need an access point. It is a nice layout. He asked if the streets would be wide enough to allow parking. Mr. Close said there was a parking lane with one-way traffic movement. Ms. Cox said for one- way traffic, 24 feet of pavement will accommodate parking on one side. Ms. Boring said she would like the permitted satellite dishes on page 9 to be restricted by size. Mr. Gerber made the motion to approve this concept plan because it provides the opportunity for a high quality residential development, is in conformance with the Thoroughfare and Bikeway Plans, and is in keeping with adjacent development, with 1:? conditions: 1) That the layout be refined to include fewer lots; 2) That right-of--way consistent with the Thoroughfare. Plan (40 feet from centerline) be dedicated at the preliminary development plan; 3) That a more refined frontage treatment and landscape plan be submitted with the preliminary development plan; 4) That adequate public access be provided to the open space along the North Fork; 5) That all lots be removed from the "floodway-plus-20 feet" zone; 6) That complete tree preservation and tree protection plans be submitted with the preliminary development plan application; 7) That the proposed "empty-nester" character be further refined, and that further restrictions be added with the preliminary development plan; 8) That the maintenance of the proposed water features be further addressed at the preliminary development plan; 9) The fencing be further limited at the preliminary development plan; 10) That the development standards be revised to include the comments within the report; 11)That all improvements, including stormwater management facilities and proposed infrastructure meet the requirements of the City Engineer; and 12) That the developer not be responsible for funding the left-turn lane on Brand Road. Mr. Ritchie seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Ms. Boring, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. N[essineo, yes; Mr. Ritchie, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 7-0.) Mr. Close thought they would file a final development plan by the end of the year and would break ground in the spring. Ms. Clarke clarified the Code provision regarding park dedication or payment of a fee. She said if the land is not suitable, it is the Cif option, not the developer's, to opt for a fee in lieu of land. She wanted to assure Mr. Close understood this, as his remarks indicated the contrary. Mr. Close said they are interested in negotiating on the money vs. land issue. 6. Rczonin 3-0882 -Thomas opcrty - 4444 Tullcr ad and 7. Corr' or llevelopment U' ict 03-089CDD - Tho as Property - 4444 T er Road Mar uppo said the appl~ nt is'requesting a Chan of zoning from R-1, tricted Suburban sidential District, t O, Suburban Office a Instii:utional District a also approval of a CDD application. ie 1.64-acre parcel is 1 ted on the north side of utter Road along I-270. 03-1 SOZ Freshwater Farm (Humbert Property) ['CANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD Or ACTION SEPTEMBER 18, 2003 Division of Planning 5800 Shier-Rings Road Duhlin, Ohio 43016-1236 Phoae/100: 614 10-4600 fax:614-761-6566 Weh Site: wrn+r.duhlia.oh-us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following; action at this meeting: 3. Area Rezoning 03-0702 -Post Road to Branca Road, West of Muirfield Drive and East of Hyland-Croy Road Location: 18 parcels comprising an area of approximately f150 acres, as annexed from Washington Township in 1973 and 1999, generally on the north side of Post Road, south of Brand Road, between Hyland-Croy and Muirfield Drive. Existing Zoning: Washington Township Districts. Request: Review and approval of an ordinance to establish Dublin R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District, and R, Rural District. Property Owners: Northwest Assembly of God;, 7090 Post Road; City of Dublin, 5200 Emerald Parkway; Gaylord and Kathy Gardner, 7050 Avery Road; Bishop James Griffin, 7100 Avery Road; John and Kathryn Humbert;, 6325 Brand Road; United Methodist Church of Indian Run, 6305 Brand Road; Joseph Manchik, 7070 Avery Road; Northwest Presbyterian Church, PCA Inc., 6400 Post Road; Allan and Linda Schmidt, 7422 Avery Roa; and John and Donna Wenzel, 7400 Avery Road. The above addresses are all located within Dublin, Ohio, unless otherwise noted. Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Anne Wanner, Planner. MOTION: To approve this area rezoning because it will apply an appropriate Dublin zoning classification for effective development administration, will maintain the established development pattern, and is consistent with the Community Plan, provided that the Freshwater/Humbert tract of 5.26 acres (File No. 03-092CP) will be deleted from this ordinance if it has been approved by City Council by the time this case moves forward. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: This area rezoning was approved- It will be forwarded to City Council with a positive reconuncndation- S"fAFI~ CERTIFICATION i r Barbara M. Clarke Planning Director 03-1 SOZ Freshwater Fann (Humbert Property) ~"2~~ R,-~.,a n,,,,a . Dublin Planning and Zoning ~ .emission Minutes - Scptcn~bcr 1 ~00~ Page 3 , Mows: Mr. Mess eo, yes; Mr. Sane oltz, ycs; Mr. Spr 7ue, ycs; Ms. Bo~~ ig, ycs; Mr. Gcr r, A > >roved 6- e ,and Mr. R?tchic, s. ( 1 3. Arca Rczo?iing 03-0702 -Post Road to I3ra~id Road, Wcst of MuirGcld Drive and Casl of Hyland-Croy Road arts of Aver Y Anne Wanner said this area includes 1 SO acres and estate lots on Avery Roa , p Park and the Trabue Nature Preserve, and several churches. She said these pockets were not part of an adjacent zoning plan, and R-l, Restricted Suburban Residential District is proposed for most parcels. R, Rural District is proposed for the agricultural piece east of Post Preserve. Ms. Wanner said this application involves the Humbert property, on which there is a pending PUD request. If the Humbert property is rezoned first, staff will withdraw it from this case. A few residents attended the informational meeting. Several church representatives called her. This is consistent with the Community Plan and staff recommends approval. Mr. Gerber moved for approval of this area rezoning because it will apply an appropriate Dublin zoning classification, will provide for effective development administration, wioV ded th t the established development pattern, and is consistent with the C;ommunLty Plan, p Freshwater/Humbert tract of 5.26 acres (File No. 03-092CP) will be deleted from this ordinance if it has been approved by City Council prior to this case moving forward. eMNIZSanel o tz, seconded, and the vote was: Mr. Ritchie, yes; Ms. Boring, yea, Mr. Sprague, y ~Ces; Mr. Messineo, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 7-0.) 4. A ea Rezoning 0 -0712-Coffin n Road/Brand oad Anne nner said this rea involves es to lots, mostly ong the south ~de of Brand Ro d, and to the we of Coffman R ad. One lot is rth of Brand R ad. She said th is a request fo R-1, Restricted uburban Resid ltial District, th same as the zo ing map has sh wn for years. he said several wners attende the irfonnatio t meeting, and he has spoken o several on t e hone. Ms. W user said staff i recommending pproval of this ousekeeping m tter. M .Saneholtz ma the motion to prove this area ezoning becaus it will apply a ppropriate Dub ~ zoning etas ~fication, will rovide for e etive develop ent administr 'on, will mainta~ i the establish development ahem, and is c sisi.ent with th Community P n. Mr. Ritchie corded, and t vote was: Gerber, yes; s. Boring, yes; r. Zimmernla yes; Mr. Sprag e, yes; Mr. Me ineo, yes; Mr. ~tchie, yes; and r. Saneholtz, s. (Approved 0.) Arca Rczou' ig 03-0722 - ffman Road t Dublin Road, et«~ccn Brand oad and 70 Ani e Wanner said pis involves cst~ c lots on the so th side of Bran Road and the est side o Dubl ~ Road plus ffman Nigh S pool. It rcque is R-l, Restric d Suburban R sidential Distric for Trost of th land. The hig school is to b R, Rural, to re ect the historic _on~ng map. Sh showed slides. She said very f v attended the i Connational me ting. She has s oken to one own r plus Ralph I'c set from Dublii Schools. She s< id staff recommends approval. 03-1502 Freshwater Faun (Humbert Property) DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION October 21, 1999 Oi. M of Plartrting SI hier-Rings Road )u6t~, _aa ~301b-1236 . ,ane/iDO: bi4-1b1~550 faz: b14-1b1-bSb6 'e6 Site www.du61-moh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 3. Concept Plan 99-U23CP - Abbington Location: 4.34 acres located on the south side of Brand Road, approximately 950 feet west of Avery Road. Existing Zoning: R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. Request: Review and approval of a concept plan under the PUD provisions of Section 153.056. Proposed Use: A 44-unit assisted living facility. Applicant/O~z~ner: John E. and Kathryn J. Humbert, Jr., 6325 Brand Road, Dublin, Ohio 43016; represented by Michael Close, 115 West Main Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215. MOTION: To disapprove this concept plan because the site plan is not acceptable as presented; the building is too large and out of character with this area; it is inconsistent with and far more intense than the uses recommended in the Community Plan; and the proposed non-residential uses will increase peak hour traffic in a residential area. VOTE: 6-1. RESULT: This concept plan was disapproved. It will be forwarded to City Council with a negative recommendation. ~T ~F CCRTIrICATION l', Kim C. Littleton Planner 03-1502 Freshwater Farm (Humbert Property) ' 171C D.-...,.7 D.~n~ Dublin Planning and Zoning Conunission Minuses -October 21, 1999 ('age 10 3. Concept Plan 99-023CP - Abbington Kiln Littleton said this is a concept plan fora 44-bed assisted living facility, of 25,000 square feet. The site will need to be rezoned for this use. He said the Commission tabled this on June 10, 1999, and it is centered around land usage (daycare and assisting living) and that the development did not fit well on the site. Staff concluded that it was not consistent with the surrounding uses and that the scale of the proposed buildings would not fit with the area. Mr. Littleton said this revised proposal is for th and Roads west ofvA e rycRoad ~He a dsthe the 4.3-acre site located on the south slde of B North Fork of the Indian Run is located on the south side of the parcel, and a tree row runs along the east side. The existing farmstead (Humbert property) is to the north and is not part of this proposal. The site is now zoned R-l, Restricted Suburban Residential District. Mr. Littleton showed several slides. This L-shaped parcel is 500 feet deep, and its odd shape makes a layout difficult. The access point will be opposite of the Shannon Glen subdivision and shared with the remaining Humbert house. The building proposed is a racetrack designed building, with the units on the outside. Mr. Littleton said the bikepath and parking area d n 1 area tooth e west of Avery Road isnbe g Plan tested this area at 1.5 du/ac. The surroun g developed at about two du/ac. The longest side of the building, about 200 feet, faces the roadway. The building is larger than previously shown due to an error on the previous submission. It is not in scale with uses on Brand Road. Mr. Littleton said the density for the 44 units is 10 du/ac, but assisted housing is a less intense use than standard multi-family units. He said a 30-space parking lot is proposed. No elevations have been submitted, but a similar facility was built on Old Henderson Road in Upper Arlinl;ton. The one-story design is colonial with brick, wood trim, and a pitched asphalt shingle roof. The maximum height is 35 feet. The outdoor open courtyard area provides exterior access. Mr. Littleton said the biggest issues are density, intensity of the use, site coverage (about 33 percent), building mass, and parking. This quasi-comrnercial use is in a residential setting. He said feels this is not an appropriate use, and the desi€;n issues have not been addressed. He said staff respectfully recommends disapproval of this proposal based on the following: 1) The proposed is not consistent with the uses recommended in the Community Plan. 2) The proposed non-residential uses will increase the amount of peak hour traffic in a predominately residential neighborhood. 3) The use, as proposed, is far more intense than those: tested in the Community plan for this site. 4) The development proposed is inconsistent with low density residential surroundings. Mr. Fishman asked if the 44-bed building d 1l incorreclla (sl own tonl~matn ppllcation. Mr. Littleton sald the original apphcatlon deplete Y 03-1502 Freshwater Farm (Humbert Property) X275 Rra~i~ Rna[t Dublin Planning and Toning Commission Minutes - October 21, 1999 ['age 11 Mr. Pishman said the Community Plan land use recommendation would produce only seven or eight houses. He said this was a huge deviation from the Community Plan. Mr. McCash said the original, smaller scaled assisted living, building was more in keeping with the residential area. He asked what density per acre was recommended in the Community Plan for assisted living facilities. Ms. Clarke responded that the Community Plan only tested very broad land use classifications. "Assisted" housing was not tested. The testing was done based on traffic generation characteristics. Dublin has enough water and sewer capacity for the full range of uses. The problem is in capacity at road intersections. The ITC manuals for trip generation can be checked for traffic numbers associated with assisted living facilities. She said traffic generation would be the pivotal issue if architecture and scale issues are resolved.. Mr. McCash said with ten trips per day per house, this site would produce 80 trips on Brand Road. He noted this use could be much higher, and 30 parking spaces would be more than typical for eight houses. Ms. Clarke said it would probably be a function of the number of employees on the day shift. She said there is plenty of road capacity at 2 a.m. The issue is the impact in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Mr. Fishman was amazed at the number cars still used by residents of assisted living facilities. Mr. Littleton said there are 17 employees, five per shift, and one resident is expected per unit. Mr. Littleton said staff's disapproval recommendation is based on an inappropriate land use, given the residential neighborhood. He said this is not specifically a density issue, but the character and scale of the building are a problem. He said the mass should be broken up some, and the shape of the site is not easy to work with. Tt also was not designed for this site. Mike Close, attorney for the owners, said the traffic from 44 assisted living units is far less than what could go on the site for standard residential use;. This building should generate only 43 trips per day, and 56 percent from the employees. Generally, the residents are physically unable to drive. The rest of the traffic is from delivery and visitors. The building is staffed for three shifts. The traffic is low and not a peak hour load. Mr. Close said this is not a commercial use, it is residential with 44 bedrooms. Ten or 11 houses would -total 44 bedrooms. The building footprint uses 12.25 percent of the site, and lot coverage is about 34 percent. He said only 12 spaces are needed, but they were added at the request of the Commission. They have done everything the staff has asked. The building will be 22 feet to the roof peak. He apologized for tiie earlier mistake on the scale of the drawings. The building is still 24,000 square feet in area. He said the mass is much smaller than the nearby water tower and church, and the building will be largely hidden from Brand Road. Mr. Close said traffic is no problem and this is a compatible use for the site. Mr. McCash asked if there are smaller versions of this building. Mr_ Close said the economy of scale would not make reducing it feasible. Mr. Close responded that this residential population is not active and will need assistance to travel They do not need a location near conveniences because they arc not very mobile. 03-1502 Freshwater Farm (Humbert Property) r n_~__a „_~a Dublin Planning and Zoning commission Minutes - Octobcr 21, 1999 Pagc 12 Mr. Close presented a rendering of the Abbington building in Arlington. Mr. Castep said he did not favor this proposal previously. He said residential uses should dedicate parkland, in this case 25 percent of the site. Mr. Close agreed to this and said he has made that offer to staff. Mr. liastep said no park is shown on the drawings presented. Mr. Eastep said his experience with assisted living is that parking is a problem. Mr. Close said this may be a function of the monthly rents etc. for tho:;e other projects. Mr. Eastep said this is inconsistent with the use expectations of the surrounding neighbors. This appears to be a spot zoning to him. Mr. Sprague suggested that the bikepath be connected. Mr. Close agreed to do this and to dedicate the land to the south of it along the Run. There is a Brand Road bikepath. Several reconfigurations of the building, including atwo-story building, were discussed. Placing the building closer to the church was generally favored. Richard Hall said he is a new resident and appreciates the care taken by the Commission. He said the entire neighborhood opposes this proposal. The traffic, 24-hour lighting of the parking, and safety/security concerns were cited. He thought this would lead to decreased property values. Keeping faith with the Community Plan is an integrity issue. Mr. Hall said he appreciated meeting with Mr. Close. H:e was concerned that there was no demonstrated need for this type of housing. He said there are 350 beds of assisted housing in the area, and only 133 are currently occupied as of October 18. There are others approved for the area or currently under consideration. He said Dublin's demographics are holding steady, and the older population is not growing here as it is in other locations. Don Joseph said he does not expect this land to stay as a pasture, and does not oppose development. They expect houses to be built, not an incompatible use. He would not have bought in this area if he had known this was possible. He was concerned that an unsuccessful facility would become vacant and abandoned in the future. Jeff Walter said he agrees with the comments made by his neighbors. He anticipated the site would be developed as homes also. He chose Dublin based on its planning, but this is spot zoning. Colin Neimeyer said he opposes this development. There is no demonstrated need for the project. Proof of viability should be presented. Mr. Close said he could not make a decision on a tvvo-story building tonight. He wit( investigate this if there is a chance of approval He did not want to waste everyone's time. Mr. Lecklidcr also did not want to pursue a futile effort. 03-1502 Freshwater Faun (Humbert Property) ' Dublin Planning and Toning Commission Minutes - nctohcr 21, 1999 Page 13 Mr. Harian said he could not support this, but the scale issue is ever bigger now. It takes up too much area, and rezoning may not be justified. Mr_ Tishman agreed on the scale issue. Mr. Fistunan said the central issue is conflict with the Community Plan. He noted developers always seem to want higher density than the Preferred Scenario. He thinly the f(oodpiain will lower the density, to perhaps five homes. He visited the Henderson Road facility, and it is in a perfect location and attractive. He noted a lot of cars in the parking lot. He cannot support this rezoning, and said it should develop as individual houses. Mr. McCash said assisted living works well in some residential areas. His initial concerns were issues of scale. He could support the use, but this building does not fit on this site. Mr. McCash said the odd shape will not led itself to standard lots. The site could expand Avery Park. Mr. Sprague agreed with these comments. The scale is troubling. Mr. Sprague supports integrating assisted living into the neighborhood, but the project would need to be totally redesigned. He noted senior housing will be needed by many. Mr. Peplow thanked Mr. Close for his candor, but said h~° could not support the project. Mr. Eastep also could not support it. Mr. Lecklider commended Mr. Close and his client for making the effort to amend the proposal since the first hearing. Under the circumstances, he did not think this plan works. Mr. Sprague and Lecklider did not think traffic was a central issue. Mr. Eastep made a motion to disapprove this concept plan for the reasons stated in the meeting and for those listed in the staff report: 1) The proposed is not consistent with the uses recommended in the Community Plan. 2) The proposed non-residential uses will increase the amount of peak hour traffic in a predominately residential neighborhood. 3) The use, as proposed, is far more intense than those tested in the Community plan for this site. 4) The development proposed is inconsistent with low density residential surroundings. Mr. Harian seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Sprague, no; Mr. Peplow, yes, Mr. Harian, yes; and Mr. Castep yes. (Disapproved 6-1.) 4. Revised Final Developmen tan 99-095RFDP - ~ cKitricl: I'UD - Touch - 5175, S1G5 Cmcr Parkway Chad Gibson prose ed this revised fin development plan to a one-story buildin connector. 22-acre site is l ted on Cmerald arkway, and abuuin I-270 in Subarea of the Mc ick PUD. He sae feces are permits uses, and the maxis m building height ~ four stories. ~ ere are two cxislin wildings owned different parties. e tenant occupies th buildings, an the proposal is a co ~~ection between t two buildings. 03-1507 Freshwater Farm - (Humbert Property) DU[3LIN PLANNING ANll ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION Junc 10, 1999 :rr><~ or ouaun a°~~~oa of Planning hies-Rings Road )ubl iio 43016-1236 ~one/iDO:614-161 X550 fax 614-761566 e6 Site: www-du6lin.oh.vs The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 3. Concept Plan 99-023CP - Abbington Location: 4.34 acres located on the south side of Brand Road, approximately 950 feet west of Avery Road. Eldstiag Zoning: R-l, Restricted Suburban Residential District. Request: Review and approval of a concept plan under the PUD provisions of Section 153.056. Proposed Use: A 44-unit assisted living facility and a 6,000 square foot daycare. Applicant/Owner: John E. and Kathryn J. Humbert, Jr. 6325 Brand Road, Dublin, Oluo 43016; represented by Michael Close, 115 West Main Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215. MOTION: To table this concept plan. VOTE: 4-2. RESULT: Tlus application was tabled after a lengthy discussion. The Commission expressed concerns about deviating from the recommended land use in the Corrunuiuty Plan. The Commissioners had mixed reactions to the uses proposed for this site. Some stated the proposal had too many uses on one site. One use may be supported- Other members supported the daycare and assisted living uses ui a residential neighborhood. STMT CIERTIPICATION ' , lln C. Lltilet011 Plaiuier 03-1502 Freshwater Farm (Humbert Property) Dublin Planning and Zoning commission Minutes - Junc 10, 1999 Page $ 1 That the applicant rovide a revised s ing plan within 30 ys; 13) at the applicant sc dine apre-submit meeting after Con 'tions 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 0, and 12 ve been resolve o the satisfaction f staff and prior o applying for b 'ding permits, nd 14) That the si walk connection relocated to the s th side of the pa 'ng lot and coru~ec to the bikepat n Village Parkwa to the satisfactio f' staff. Mr. hes agreed tot above conditions. Mr. Harian seco ed the motion, a d the vote was as fo ws: Mr. Fishm ,yes; Mr. Easte yes; Mr. Leckli ,yes; Mr. Spra e, yes; n, Mr. Harian, s; Mr. McCash, s. (Approved 6- 3. Concept Plan 99-023CP - Abbington Kim Littleton said this concept plan was fora 6,000 square foot daycare center and a 24,020 square foot, 44-bed assisted living facility on a 4.3-acre site. The site is currently zoned R-l, Restricted Suburban Residential District and the request is for a PUD, Planned Unit Development District. Mr. Littleton showed several slides of the site. Residential zoning surrounds the site. A significant tree row is within the Indian Run flood plain, which abuts the site. A tree row and planted buffer are located on the west edge of the site. Another tree row is between the church and this site. There is a one-acre parcel with a house, which is not part of this application. This site has a depth 500 feet, with 230 feet of frontage along Brand Road. Mr. Littleton said a 1 `/z-story extended living facility is proposed with 21 parking spaces; Code requires 12 spaces. A joint drive for the house and this site is proposed. A 200-foot setback along scenic road such as Brand Road is encouraged. This plan shows the daycare center being set back 46 feet from the back of the Humbert property. The sideyard setbacks in the text are 25 feet. The extended living facility has a race track design with the entrance on the north and multiple entrances around the south and the east sides. There is parking at both ends. The daycare facility has a playground on the south side, adjacent to the flood plain, aturnaround/drop-off on the west side, and an eight-space parking lot on the north side. More daycare parking is needed by Code, and a shared arrangement for both uses will be needed. A proposed bikepath will link with the Meadows of Wyndham Village. The applicant is also proposicig a bikepath along Brand Road. Mr. Littleton said the lot coverage for the site is 30 percent. The density is 7,000 square feet per acre. The Community Plan designates this site for residential use, and it was tested for a density of 1.5 units per acre. The t«~o uses on this site are not consistent of the Community Plan. The daycare facility would produce more traffic, especially during peak hours. He said the two uses proposed were not tested as part of the Community Plan. The daycare facility is typically considered a conditional use. If the assisted living facility was the only use for this site, it would need to be designed to compliment the scale and character of the neighborhoods. He said the buildings are shown outside the floodplain. Staff is unsure how the bikepath would work within the floodplain and how it would link to other parts of the site. A bikepath is required on the north side. The Thoroughfare Plans shows an 80-fot right-of--way which would require a 03-1502 Freshwater Farn1 (Humbert Property) X275 Rronrl Rnarl Dublin Planning and Zoning ~:onunission Minutes -June 10, 1999 Page 9 dedication of al least 40 feet from the centerline. He said the site has an awkward shape with a very Limited buildable area. He said staff respectfully recommends disapproval of this project. Mr. McCash said the Community Plan did not discuss senior housing and asked if the intent was to have no senior housing. Mr. Littleton said housing choices were discussed in the Community Plan, including the availability of housing for all age groups. The location of specialized living facilities was not identified. Mr. Littleton said these facilities are typically near busier roadways, along corridors with retaiVmedical/convenience-typeservices nearby. Mr. McCash wondered if this should be treated more as a residential or commercial use. He noted the Care-Matrix proposal on Post Road was close to shopping, but staff recommended disapproval. Ms. Fierce said each case was considered individually based on the character and nature of the area. Mr. Fishman said it was too crowded on the site without adequate greenspace, etc. Mr. McCash said there are daycare centers within the Indian R.un Meadows subdivision, on Wilcox Road in the center of a residential area, abutting Llewellyn Farms, and the Village of Inverness. He said daycare uses are similar to schools that are located within neighborhoods. Ms. Fierce said the daycare facilities cited were all part of larger planned districts that established a mixed-use development. Mr. Littleton said the real issue is that there are two uses on the site. They daycare facility, given its traffic volumes, does not work as well. Daycare centers are usually on a commuter path. Mr. Littleton said other institutional uses need to be part of a larger scheme, which links with the neighborhood and is an integral part of it. Staff is concerned about these two uses on one site without a lot of room to develop. Mr. Sprague was concerned that senior housing sites were not addressed in the Community Plan. He said the site has a lot of land use restrictions with the flood plain and 200-foot setback. He asked if staff would be more amendable to the senior living facilit~r only on this site. Mr. Littleton said - this would be much better, bit siting and access would still need to be considered. Mr. Eastep asked if staff had done a parking analysis for these two uses. He said the assisted living care center is an institutional use, not a residential one, and does not belong in this setting. He suggested that only the daycare be developed. Mr. Lecklider did not think the landscape/bufferscreen onthe west was adequate. Mike Close, attorney for applicants, said the site was short. two parking spaces and will require shared use of the parking. He said the Humberts' will live here post-development, and it is important to maintain the rural character of Brand Road. He said the existing housing looked less rural than the proposed uses. The site is not buildable under the Community Plan as now zoned. Mr. Close said Indian Run Church is not residential, and there is nothing inconsistent about an assisted living or daycare facility backing up to a church or park. He said the assisted living facility 03-1502 Freshwater Farm (Humbert Property) 6325 Brand Road • Dublin Planning and Zoning ~onunission Minutes -June 10, 1999 Page 1 U is residential in nature. He said five employees will work at the assisted living facility during each of three shifts (non-peak hours). According to the study of the American Seniors' Housing Association Traffic Study, 56 percent of the traffic will be the employees. Visitors scattered throughout the day will be 29 percent, and the other I S percent will be from service vehicles. He said the daycare is a conditional use of residential zoning.. He said the shared driveway will have a lot of traffic in the morning and evening, but it will be from adjacent residents. He said daycare centers are destination facilities. He hopes this type of housing will be available within Dublin. He said these two uses are consistent with residential neighborhoods. He said inter- generationalprogramming is successfully used throughout the country. Mr. Close said the assisted living facility will have the same architectural style as Abbington of Arlington on Henderson Road. Mr. McCash said the scale of the assisted living facility seemed inconsistent with the adjacent homes, and the daycare center seems to be a closer match. H:e suggested reversing the buildings. Mr. Close said staff requested this due to the playground noise. He said the assisted living building is one story, just as is the daycare center. Mr. Close said the advantages of having the two uses flipped would be to avoid removing the outbuildings and barn au~rd provide screening. Mr. Sprague said if this site is developed per the Plan, it would have a density of one to two dwelling units per acre. Mr. Close said he computed about 16 percent lot coverage, not 30 percent. Mr. Sprague said this would not be a burden on the school district. Mr. Close noted Dublin could receive future estate tax. Mr. Eastep questioned how five employees could service this 44-bed facility. Mr. Close said it was not a nursing home. Mr. Eastep questioned the necessary parking for weekend visitors. Mr. Close said joint agreement with the daycare facility could be provided. Don Joseph, representing the Meadows at Wyndham Village neighborhood, said they do not - opposed to development of the property, but, this is not the proper use. Mr. Joseph said 100 percent of residents signed a petition opposing tlus plan. He said the buildings were commercial and do not fit into the surrounding community. The rush hour traffic would be heavy and access onto Brand Road would be congested. The neighbors are concerned that lighting and commercial deliveries. Mr. Joseph said area assisted living facilities have less than SO percent occupancy. He had parking and greenspace concerns and stated the density is too high. He said a 25-foot setback from the neighbor's property line is less than what they would get with a residential development. Karen Staursky, 7887 Wiltshire Court, said this is a unique property with the Indian Run along its southern border. She said if a commercial facility of any kind is allowed, the neighbors would lose a sense of security. By controlling growth and limiting density, she said the Commission makes Dublin a better place. She asked what if everyone in Dublin with one to five acres were granted commercial zoning. She urged the Commission to keep residences along the Indian Run. 03-1502 Freshwater Fann (Humbert Property) ` ' Dublin Planning and Zoning ~,OI111111SSlon Minutes -June 10, 1999 Page ( l Ron Cmerson, 7928 Townsend Road, told of his bad experience in Hilliard regarding commercial development zoning near their residence. Promises made by the developer were not kept. They do not want any commercial development near their new home. Carol Walter, 7906 Wiltshire, said they chose Meadows at Wyndham Village because they wanted to live a strictly residential area. She is concerned about child safety and opposed this development. Mr. Harian said any deviation from the Community Plan has to make a lot of sense and be spectacular. He is not wild about this, and the location seems wrong. He may be more amenable if this was only one use. This concept plan is not acceptable in its present form. Mr. Fishman agreed and said this would be a spot zoning. To deviate from the Community Plan, it should be great, incredibly landscaped and limited to one use. Mr. McCash said the Community Plan did not clearly address the location of assisted living. He considers it to be a residential use. He saw no traffic problem associated with the day care. He had concerns from the standpoint of lighting and deliveries. He said we should look at better ways of addressing lighting. Deliveries should be made on the west side during limited hours. The trash dumpster should be located away from the residential area. Mr. McCash said the use is needed in Dublin. The residents concerns should be addressed. He did not want the text to convey that other types of comma°rcial use would be possible. Mr. Sprague reminded everyone that a concept plan is not banding, and there will be numerous opportunities for future public input. He agreed that the text should be very specific and legally restrictive. He said if this use has very low overall :Lot coverage, a lot of greenspace, a large setback, and low intensity, he would be in favor of this development. Mr. Eastep said his criteria for deviation of the Community Plan is whether we need it for the betterment of the community. He is not in support of this development. Mr. Lecklider recognized the value and need for such facilities. This proposal is too great, and the types of uses are out of character. The ideal use is residential. Mr. Lecklider would have a hard time finding either use to be appropriate under i:hese circumstances. Mr. Close requested a tabling to look at other options given the Commission's comments. Mr. Banchefsky said if the Commission disapproved this case, it will require a super majority at Council to override the reconunendation of the Commission. Mr. Eastep said tabling did not change the land use problem. Mr. Sprague preferred tabling. Mr. Harian did not want to see the same plan return. Mr. Close said iC it is not radically different, he will not waste the Conunission's time. 03-1502 Freshwater Farm (Humbert Property) ~27~ Rranr~ Rnarj Dublin Planning and Zoning ~.OI11mlSS10(1 Mi~lutes -June 10, 1999 Page 12 Mr. Fishman made a motion to table this concept plan, and Mr. McCash seconded. The vote was as follows: Mr. Eastep, no; Mr. Marian, yes; Mr. Lecklider, no; Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; and Mr. Fislunan, yes. (Tabled 4-2.) Mr. McCash suggested that Mr. Close meet with the neighbors to address their concerns. At 10:50 p.m., the Commission announced it would hear only one more case. 4. Rezoning Apph lion 99-0412 -Preliminary Deve ment Plan - Cramer's Crossing (formerly known Avery Village Commons) Chris Cline, attorney fort applicant, volunteered to defter th' case until the next meeting, provided that it was be sche ed as the first case. This case as tabled without further 'scussion. (Tabled 6-0.) 5. Concep Plan and Rezoning Applicatio -Preliminary Development 98-119CP and 98- OZ -Cardinal Health, South pus Chris Hermann sa' this is a combined concept pla nd preliminary development p He said the development xt has been revised to address everal issues. The developer ill continue attempts to pure e the two homes. If successful, ese parcels will be submitted fo ezoning and with the same ndards. The maximum project e (360,000 square feet) will no be increased with the additio of the home sites. If not inclu within three years, the landsc ing buffering shown for the uth property line will be repeate ound them. He said a1 easonable and good faith efforts shall be made to im ement traffic reduction/mitigat' methods. The "no-disturb ones will include the east-west e line and the area between the 00-foot conservation easeme and. the 180 feet from the Inds Run. The landscape buffer p n will include neighborhoo anticipation and review. Simu ed wrought iron Fencing is pe fitted in this area. The main onstruction is the north entrance, appropriate dust control me res are required during all p ses of construction. Mr. He nn stated that the maximum uilding height is four stories, ith a maximum height of 65 feet a he building setback. Mech ical equipmf;nt, screening, d roof can rise an additional 15 fe (80 feet total from grade) at Ie setback line. Parking stru res are limited to three stories an 5 feet above grade at the 'lding setback line. All del- lion and/or retention pond areas sh be designed and located to aesthetically pleasing ands sitive to the site. The parking setbac will increase to 70 feet aloe; he Franklin residence. Mr. mane said the applicant h ~ worked very hard to addre these concerns. The text revisions ke this development more ~sitive to the scenic area. said staff recommends approval with ven conditions. 1) Th the office development on ~s site be limited to 260, square feet as a permit use, and that any additiona evelopment of the site bet n 260,001 03-1 SOZ Freshwater Farm (Humbert Property)