The URL can be used to link to this page

Ordinance 006-17Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Ordinance No. 06-17 RECORD OF ORDINANCES Form No. 30043 Passed .20 AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 13 ACRES FROM PLR, PLANNED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (PERIMETER CENTER, SUBAREA G1 - CRAUGHWELL VILLAGE) TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PERIMETER CENTER, SUBAREA G1 - CRAUGHWELL VILLAGE) FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT TO REVISE PERMITTED BUILDING MATERIALS AND ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS TO PERMIT THE REPLACEMENT OF ROOFING AND BUILDING MATERIALS FOR AN EXISTING CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT (CASE 16- 0842 /PDP /FDP) NOW, THE EFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, of its elected members concurring, that: Section 1. The following described real estate, (see attached legal description), situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto as well as the approved development text. Section 2. The application, including the list of contiguous and affected property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance there within. Section 3. This Ordinance shalj take effect upon the earliest date permitted by Law. ATTEST: Clerk of Council 2017. Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway * Dublin, OH 43017-1090 ityof lj`ublin Phone: 614-410-4400 9 Fax.,, 614-410-4490 4cit This is a request for an amendment to the approved development text of a Planned District to revise permitted building materials and architectural elevations and the replacement of roofing and building materials for an existing condominium development. I =0 The property was zoned PLR, Planned Low Density Residential District in 1996 as part of the original Perimeter Center plan. A year later, a final development plan for 199 residential units was approved. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved an amended final development plan that included the addition of three garage buildings and associated parking lot modifications for the development in 2006, The applicant is proposing to renovate the six residential buildings in phases to address significant maintenance and material life cycle issues, water infiltration and lack of installation details when the structures were originally built. The renovation will consist of replacing the existing wood shake shingle roof and the underlayment down to the sheathing to thoroughly Memo re. Ord. 06-17 Craughwell Village — Rezoning March 9, 2017 Page 2 of 2 inspect and replace and upgrade where necessary. New metal work, drains, flashing and underlayment will be installed. The proposed new roofing material is a lifetime, heavy duty asphalt shingle with dimensions and colorations closely resembling the existing shake. ago ff mom rhe Commission reviewed and recommended approval to City Council of this rezoning at their February 16, 2017 meeting. The Commission simultaneously approved a final development plan for all building materials details and specification, which the applicant will be able to implement if Council passes this Ordinance. Planning recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 06-17 at the second reading/public hearing on April 10, 20179 e PUD t R -1 I ¢��VIETER KESHIRE ,Q FS DR PER�METi_ff L1 Q �I OO ID 0 IMOU at M 11 C SPUD P II TF -1 TF 16- 084Z /PDP /FDP Rezoning /Prelim. Dev. Plan /Final Dev. Plan 0 150 300 Cl of Dublin Craughwell Village PLR 6185 Craughwell Lane Feet �Q �-.a use Qr, �s L ore rte- Ror�c_j� Piur�r �ir�c� SSOQ Shier —Rings Rooms O ✓Gfira_ OtiYO 43Q 7 6— i Z36 PYS Ore/ TOO= 6 S 4 —q i X4600 fox= 6 1 4 -4 i 0 -474 v ✓�L� Siie= �✓ww_cS ✓b1ir�_o F-�_ ✓s Cam► Q �3 br�y �oa� �� PE- ��NN ■NG ��N� Z�aEV ■NG C�EV ■M ■�SION ��PPLiC��T-E�N � �' €Gods Section -7 53_2323 1_ PLEASi= Ci —iE +C ft Ti—)1= TYP1= OF Ai�PL1GA- 1 —lOnl= Q l.- �forrT�as F2e�.Ye...r Cor�cept Plar� Pre # i ■--r7r t r� a r y Q e v e 1 o p r i�� E� r� t I� i s r� ! R e z o r-a i ra c� {Sectior� '1 53_QS3) Q Firaal C�evelopl- =iar�t 1�iar� �4l- a- acr�c�ec1 1 =sr„a! Qcvefopri-=er�t I'�iar� [Sectlor� 1 S3_US3[E)) Sta !-�dard d #strict R�zorasray (S ecta ors 7 S3_o -f S) Q Prelir��iraary Plat {S ectiora -1 52_1 S) � 1 =iraal Plat [sectior� -� 52_oss) C O t7 C'1 !tlOr7 a # L� Se [Section 1 S3_23S) Corridor C�svelopr��el�t district {CQd� Corridor d�veloprz�ar�t district {CQd� Sidra {S ectiora -'i S3_-1 -1 S) 1Vliraor Su bc3EViseora Rigi-�t— of —VYay �racroaci- �aTler3t Q OtF'>ter {Please SpacE�y)= Phase a3til3ze tl--le applac�al�le S�i��ler��rsta! �4p�r�lica�fa!-� Requiremcrsts s!'��et folr- add :tiolr - lal sa__a�r�Zlttai !^ec�e��r�r�- l�l --zts t#-#at wail !- ->•��d to acco +��sarry tl�ss a�pllcatso�--! �orr��_ 11_ PROPERTY li\# FORMATION = - t-t�:s sect ➢or>t must be compete cJ_ Prop�a -ty Address(es)= B-t SS Crae�g�weEl �ar�e, 17ui��ar�, Oi�io ar�d oti-�ers Tax ■OlParcal Ne�mber(s3_ Pascet Slae(s] (Acres3= 2C3- 3�C -�-1 9�0 � 3_O� acres ExGstsr.g !—area Uselia ev�+lopmera t= sax aPartmerai bi_a e3dir�gs cor�ver -ted to core cfom's r��a�i��s 1F APPt1GA B!__E.� P! —EASE GOiV�Pt ETA TFEi� FO t�C3 VVli'�J C= _ Qropos�d 1 —.aa -. c3 usclaevalopsT.er ■ t= i�lo c�ar�gs to �ar-�d apse — bu��cfir�g e�pgrad�s Total acres afFe cted lvy apfslicatior�= -1 3_O� acres Narrle (1 r�d'iEVicival or Otc�-. araaz atiara)_ ■1A aaisny Address= (Sire et, Glty� '= tate� Zip Cade] t7ayt ➢me T�EepF-a oa --tee= Fax- Lmaiil or Alterr -mate Cvrata ct Irafvrm atGOn. PLANIV =NG �� IV APPLICANT(S): This is the person(sa who is submitting the application it different than the property owner(s) fisted in part IIL Please complete if applicable, Name: Lisa Pearson Applicant is also property owner: yes JJ no Q Organization (owner; Developer, Contractor, etc.): Case Bowen Company Mailing Address: $255 Corpora #e Center Drive, Dublin, Ohio 43016 (Street, City, State, Zip Gotle) Daytime Telephone: 614. 799 -9$00 pax: NIA Email or Alternate Contact information: 1pearson @casebowen.com U. REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF APPLICANT 1 PROPERTY OWNER: This is the person(s) who is submitting the application an behalf of the applicant listed in .part IV or property owner listed in part III.. Please complete if applicable. Name: Jim Bender, AIA, NCARB, President organization (owner, Developer, Contractor; etc,j: JL Bender, inc,, Architects and Planners Mailing Address: 3040 Riverside Drive., Suiie 132 (Street, City; State, Zip Cade} Daytime Telephone: $14-4$8 °$814 Fax: $14.48$ -7224 Email orAlternate Contact Information: jbender @jlbender.com Vi. AUTHORIZATION FOR OWNER'S APPLICANT or REPRESENTATIVE(S): if theapplicant is not the prape�ty owner, Ws section must be completed and notarized. J, , the aw�aer, hereby authorize 11 I !" to act as my applicant or representatives) in all matters ertaining to the pr cessing and appr I of this application, including modifying the project. I agree to be bound by aq representations and agreements made by the designated representative. Signature of Current Property owner: � ' �] Check this box if the Authorization for owner's Applicant o Representativelsl Subscribed and orn before me this � � day o v � , , County of Notary Public VII, AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROPERTY: site visits to the property by t;'f%y,'� application. The ownerlApplicant, as noted below, hereby authorizes City representatives to property described in this application. Date' document �at�tives are essential to process this photograph and post a notice on the l Lisa Pearson of Case Bolden Cg, ,the owner. ar authorized representative, hereby authorize City representatives tavisit, photograph and post a notice an the propertytlescribed in this application. Signature of applicant or authorized representative ��,a,. -"'"i r, rf t ,rnli I Date; Page Z of 3 'UHI, UTILITY DISCLAIMER: The OwnerlApplicant acknowledges the appraval of this request far review by the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission andlor Dublin City Council does not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able to provide essential services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by said Owner/Applicant, I Jim Bender, AIA, President ,the owner or authorized representative; acknowledge that appraval of this request does not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment thatthe City of Dublin will be able to provide essential services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by said tlwnerlkppiicant. Signature of applicant or authorized representative; A. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT: This section must be comple #ed and notarized. Date: l Lisa Pearson of Case Bowen Company ,the owner ar authorized representative, have read and understand the contents of this application, The information contained in this application, attached exhibits and other' information submitted is complete and in all respects true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief. r Signature of applicant ar authorized representative; �� .,�� Date: ��ri1 �/ t Subscribed and sworn #a befpre me This_�� day of �� , 20 State of County of r ��„�, FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Notary Public Amount Received, S 3, 2I01 Application No: I � _ M4 (P &Z Date(s): 11/10/16 ` V16/ III P &Z Action: A raval �a raunil` Receipt Na. � Map Zone: � - � I Date Received: � �,. �3 - � � I Received By: City Council (Firs# Readingj. City Council Action:. City Council (Second Readingj; � .� � �. �'� Ordinance Number: Q� �° �� TypeafRequest; �`eZOnlh�, �`re�lmltrarad �Cyo�a�imcn� i�a�r r;�a� �4Yt�o@mrn� �i�1 N, S�E, W ( Circte} Side af: �P;YI�g }eC �rIV� N, S, E, W {Circle) Side. of Nearest lntersectian: t�rau9�1�u6�� I.Ariri Distance from Nearest Intersection: �%/� PAR Plann�, �.aw 1�encl�y Existing Zoning District: ' ��}��n�ta� �,�S�tlo'� Requested Zoning District: QI1�, P�an�e� i�d,� Qevc�o�am�n�' Page 3 of 3 16- 084Z /PDP /FDP *Lisa Pearson *Jim Bender Craughwell Village 6255 Corporate Center Dr. 3040 Riverside Dr. Suite 132 Dublin, OH 43016 Columbus, OH 43221 Javad Adalkhani Elham Abrishami Jill Alexandrunas 3342 Muirfield Pl. 6208 hiishmore Ln. 3363 Kitzmiller Rd. Lima, OH 45805 Dublin, OH 43017 New Albany, OH 43054 Jude Almeida Faraajollah Amirmokhtari Kent Anders 6020 hiishmore Ln. 6514 Weston Circle West 9225 Brock Rd. Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43016 Plain City, OH 43064 Payal Anil Shah Philip Averbeck Ricky Coria 8304 Bruntsfield Rd. 6221 Craughwell Ln. 6237 Craughwell Ln. Columbus, OH 43235 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 V.�t Jeremy Bailey Sean Bailey 6079 Hayden Fafm,, Rd 3925 Glenna Ave. 105 Grunwell St. P44n, 01444016 Grove City, OH 43123 Columbus, OH 43201 Andrew Baker Karen Balmert Maria Barber 6017 Craughwell Ln. 6073 Craughwell Ln. 180 W Cherokee Dr. Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Powell, OH 43065 Nicole Bartman Jeffery Berner Elizabeth Blake 6002 hiishmore Ln. 408 Mariemont Dr. E 8448 Greenside Dr. Dublin, OH 43017 Westerville, OH 43081 Dublin, OH 43017 William Bode Linda Bollie Noah Brader 4688 Leilani Ln. 6111 Craughwell Ln. 6428 Riviera Ct. Bonita, FL 34134 Dublin, OH 43017 Westerville, OH 43082 Bryan Bramley Erin Brown Gregory Bumisde 6015 Craughwell Ln. 6177 Craughwell Ln. 1902 Indian Trails Ct. Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Lakeland, FL 33813 Rebecca Call Neal Carter David Cassan 6012 Inishmore Ln. 84 E. 3`d St. Apt. 1D 6206 Inishmore Ln. Dublin, OH 43017 New York, NY 10003 Dublin, OH 43017 Manuel Cestari James Clouser Barbara Conlin 6909 Flagstone Cir. NW 1056 Antar Pl. Apt. A 2851 Brandon Rd. Canton, OH 44718 Columbus, OH 43240 Columbus, OH 43221 Lisa Connelly Stephanie Creamer Jack Curtis 6569 Wyndburne Dr. 6024 Inishmore Ln. 6485 Ballantrae PI Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Hamid Danesh T'°44i 8146 Summerhouse Dr. A;QA Tnighw efe hn. 6=17 T"ighMF)r. T Dublin, OH 43016 PubliT, nSu l 44�01 T Publi T, nSu 43017- David Demidovich Alka Dhankani Robert Dixon 20539 Barker Rd. 6649 Weston Circle W. PO Box 4644 Marysville, OH 43040 Dublin, OH 43016 Park City, UT 84060 Anne Donovan Travis Duerstock Jonathan Dunham 3532 E. 24d' St. 6117 Craughwell Ln. 3453 Windy Forest Ln. Casper, WY 82609 Dublin, OH 43017 Powell, OH 43065 " °�i Makiko Pinto Jeremy Feeney 6271 nfatigh ell La. 5100 Bradenton Ave. Suite A 5367 Stoltz Ave. P44n, 0144401T Dublin, OH 43017 Groveport, OH 43125 Joe Fox 4S;8441-8 7998 Glenmore Dr. A;I I ;? T^i^'^mefe La. 6259 nfati,.hwell T Powell, OH 43065 PubliT, nSu l 44�01 T PubliRI, nSu 43�017- A 4i aaa RI Pi FW4 i David Glynn Vikas Goyal 6039 Cfati,.h ell La. 6203 Craughwell Ln. 6207 Craughwell Ln. P44n, 0144401T Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 H &N Real Property LLC Wesley Hahn Kaori Hare 7191 Springview Ln. 6102 hiishmore Ln. 6251 Craughwell Ln. Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Mark Harris "T°Ae Rachel Hoertz 6051 Craughwell Ln. z''^^ Inig .mF)r. T 5697 Sells Mills Dr. Dublin, OH 43017 Publin, 014 Dublin, OH 43017 Todd Homan Paul Hosutt Monica Hurst 6007 Craughwell Ln. PO Box 593 920 Kentucky Circle Dublin, OH 43017 Davidson, NC 28036 Marysville, OH 43040 PBTC, Inc. Jay Ingram Mark Izzard 7850 Wayside Ave. 6231 Craughwell Ln. 9434 Shawnee Trail Delaware, OH 43015 Dublin, OH 43017 Powell, OH 43065 George Jacyncz Yi Jen Jeng Jonathan Joodi 288 Bellus Rd. 7646 Wallsend Ct. 6045 Craughwell Ln. Hinckley, OH 44233 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dinesh Jotsinghani Quetta Jutte Ryan Keenan 8163 Avery Rd. 10065 Morris Dr. 6173 Craughwell Ln. Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Garth Kerr Matthew Kiefer Clarke Kiner 6131 Craughwell Ln. 10310 Summersweet Way 1820 Africa Rd. Dublin, OH 43017 Plain City, OH 43064 Galena, OH 43021 Jack Klein Brian Klima Adam Koos 6202 hiishmore Ln. 7024 Gray Loop 8113 Summerhouse Dr. W Dublin, OH 43017 New Albany, OH 43054 Dublin, OH 43016 Christopher Kozar Joshua Kramer 6236 hiishmore Ln. 6067 Craughwell Ln. zngo I"igT... F)rP' T Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Publin, 014 Alok Kumar Jennifer Lahn Henry Lee 6122 hiishmore Ln. 6014 hiishmore Ln. 6147 Craughwell Ln. Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Daniel Lenarz Joseph Letina Scott Byers 6031 Craughwell Ln. 6611 Karl Rd. 6128 hiishmore Ln. Dublin, OH 43017 Columbus, OH 43229 Dublin, OH 43017 Steve Ma Morgan Mace Rajesh Madan 6731 Park Mill Dr. 528 Hess Rd. 4531 Cemetery Rd. Dublin, OH 43016 Washington Ct., OH 43160 Hilliard, OH 43026 David Maienza Allison Martin Amy Mattern 5420 Dunmere Ln. Apt. B 324 Fox Glen Dr. E 6161 Craughwell Ln. Dublin, OH 43017 Pickerington, OH 43147 Dublin, OH 43017 ope# Jessica Lang Renee McGarvey 6243 Cfati.h,. e" hn. 166 E Tulane Rd. 4718 Club Park Dr. P44n, 0144401T Columbus, OH 43202 Hilliard, OH 43026 Matthew McPherson Benjamin Meagie Todd Mees 6016 hiishmore Ln. 852 Bovee Ln. 6034 hiishmore Ln. Dublin, OH 43017 Powell, OH 43065 Dublin, OH 43017 Sejfovic Mensur William Mertz William Miller 6223 Craughwell Ln. 6338 Markham Ct. 6023 Craughwell Ln. Dublin, OH 43017 hidependence, KY 41051 Dublin, OH 43017 William Miller Austin Miller Robert Miller 33 Chatham Rd. 4851 Stoneybrook Blvd. 5278 Lola Way Dublin, OH 43214 Hilliard, OH 43214 Columbus, OH 43235 Jerry Miller Ken Mitchell Janis Mitchell 9830 Malibu Ct. 11430 Smith Rd. 635 Park Meadow Rd. Suite 212 Plain City, OH 43064 Lithopolis, OH 43136 Westerville, OH 43081 Henry Moczydlowski Timothy Monaghan Bruce Moore 2823 Helen St. 5578 Corey Swirl Dr. 6228 Inishmore Ln. Allentown, PA 18104 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Abrishami Moshen Robert Mugan George Murphy 6210 Inishmore Ln. 6263 Craughwell Ln. 6005 Craughwell Ln. Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Karan Nair Amarendra Nandigam David Ngo 6255 Craughwell Ln. 8159 Buttleston Dr. 6021 Craughwell Ln. Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43017 Beth Ann Painter Edibert Palines Colin Parks 49 Ridge Side Dr. 6036 Inishmore Ln. 444 Sparrow Dr. Powell, OH 43065 Dublin, OH 43017 Marysville, OH 43040 Christopher Parrott 4411-a PAR-ri Timothy Peitsch 6006 Craughwell Ln. 6253 Post er 6275 Craughwell Ln. Dublin, OH 43017 Publin, 014 Dublin, OH 43017 Shawn Penn Brain Penza Michael Peterson 1945 Woodland Hall Dr. 6137 Craughwell Ln. 6639 Ballantrae Pl. Delaware, OH 43015 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43016 Eric Piotrowicz Scott Polacek Adam Popilowski 6242 Inishmore Ln. 6142 Inishmore Ln. 5971 Whittingham Dr. Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Luke Powers Brian Jonard ff� 6248 Inishmore Ln. PO Box 8227 6254 Cfati .h,. e" T Dublin, OH 43017 Zanesville, OH 43702 Publi',m 014 43017- Molly Rawdon Ascending Real Estate George Ridilla 6115 Craughwell Ln. 2324 Shuford Dr. 6071 Craughwell Ln. Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43017 Andrew Ring Amanda Robson Mandy Roebuck 6057 Craughwell Ln. 6235 Craughwell Ln. 6156 hiishmore Ln. Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Carla Rose Stephen Roshon Andres Ruiz 5954 McClellon Dr. 6049 Craughwell Ln. 6261 Craughwell Ln. Galena, OH 43021 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Raymond Rundlett Tracey Samms Srinivasa Sanga 6140 hiishmore Ln. 7728 Tillinghast Dr. 6205 Craughwell Ln. Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Jim Saraceni Yamal Satizabal Elicia Scanlon 6105 Craughwell Ln. 6032 hiishmore Ln. 6154 hiishmore Ln. Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Robert Seely Shazia Sheikh Brian Silverman 9000 Brock Rd. 6010 hiishmore Ln. 6125 Craughwell Ln. Plain City, OH 43064 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Jacob Sirotin Lloyd Sprockett Robert Stalter 6247 Craughwell Ln. 6500 Ballantrae Pl. 6101 Craughwell Ln. Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43017 Lauren Stanko Havilah Stansberry Sarah Starlin 126 West Elm St. 6230 hiishmore Ln. 6025 Craughwell Ln. Granville, OH 43023 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Allison Stir David Stump Suguness Suguneswaran 6144 hiishmore Ln. 6034 Tuswell Dr. 4340 Manor Ct. E Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43017 Mark Sullivan Robert Tackett Alison Talcott 6167 Craughwell Ln. 6150 hiishmore Ln. 6028 hiishmore Ln. Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Jessica Tar mo ttzpseff ;Sliplqelas 6004 hiishmore Ln. Al 17 4iighmefe hn. 617c 4gighMRrP' T Dublin, OH 43017 PubliT, nSu l 4401:7 PubliRI, nSu 43�017- Andy Trux Toker Tufan Bala Vishwanath 6217 Balmoral Dr. 6133 Craughwell Ln. 8150 Timble Falls Dr. Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43016 Nancy Waller Eric Ward Alice Weiland 5210 Reserve Dr. 7075 Riverside Dr. 6059 Craughwell Ln. Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43017 Rodney Wells Peter Westerheide Edward Wheeler 6159 Craughwell Ln. 6042 hiishmore Ln. 511 N Rhodes Dr. Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Niles, OH 44446 Angela Whitaker Denice Wiggins Christin Will 3960 Cedric Ln. 6138 hiishmore Ln. 7156 Billy Goat Dr. Dublin, Oh 43016 Dublin, OH 43017 New Albany, OH 43054 Jack Williams Christopher Winter Nathan Wollenburg 7095 Shady Nelms Dr. 1042 Home Rd. 106 E Muskinggum Dr. Dublin, OH 43017 Delaware, OH 43015 Powell, OH 43065 Douglas Wu Mingzhi Xu Edward Yuhas 6134 hiishmore Ln. 6169 Craughwell Ln. 941 Woodmere Dr. Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Wooster, OH 44691 John Yurasek Jianjun Zhang Yuwei Zhao 6118 hiishmore Ln. 7631 Windsor Dr. 4839 Vista Ridge Dr. Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43016 Dublin, OH 43017 Xiao Qiang Zheng 6222 hiishmore Ln. Dublin, OH 43017 PERIMETER CENTER DEVELOPMENT TEXT CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO As Passed by Council September 6, 1988 Revised December 21, 1989 Revised February 5, 1990 Revised November 19, 1990 Revised January 3, 1994 Revised November 7, 1994 Revised February 6, 1995 Revised January 15, 1997 Revised September 5, 2000 Revised December 11, 2000 Revised June 21, 2001 Revised January 29, 2002 Revised February 8, 2010 Revised April 10, 2017 A ppr- vi,cdPronosed Development Text Perimeter Center — Subarea G -1 As recommend by the Planning and zoning Commission to ON Council on Febmuv 16, 2017 As Submitted to Citv Council PERIMETER CENTER SUBAREA STANDARDS (Revised 1/3/94,11/7/94, 01/29/02, 02/08/10,11/01/10) The following Subarea Descriptions and Development Standards by subarea shall be made part of the Concept Plan and are further discussed and illustrated in the Subarea Plan. SUBAREA DESCRIPTIONS Subarea B Post Road Related: (1.4 acres) This area is characterized by its relationship with residential uses on the north side of Post Road and the need for a reasonable landscaped setback buffer between the residential uses and the proposed development. Subarea C Internal Orientation: (35.0 acres) Uses within this subarea shall include a mix of commercial, office research and light industrial uses or uses that exhibit a degree of clean, quiet unobjectionable processing activities within an enclosed structure. These uses are more appropriate to Subarea C because of its internal relationship within the site. Subarea C -1 WD Partners: (24.6 acres) Uses within this subarea include office, research and laboratory, packaging and assembly, wholesaling, and light manufacturing. These uses are appropriate to this subarea due to the sizes and nature of existing building found therein. Subarea D State Route 161 Related Uses: Because of extensive State Route 161 frontage, uses within Subarea D are primarily freeway oriented, general office, corporate headquarters office and institutional uses, hotels and motels. Subarea E Services Zone: (12.8 acres) Typically found between a major interchange and the first arterial intersections, this subarea contains freestanding uses on individual lots that require a highly visible orientation and immediate access. Architecture, signage and site planing/traffic elements are coordinated through various controls to assure a unified development appearance. Subareas F, F -1, F -2, F -3 and F -4 Retail Center: (33.0 acres) This area contains a mix of retail /commercial uses in an integrated shopping environment typical in size to a community center. This self - contained area also has access on all sides creating an A ppr- vi,cdPronosed Development Text Perimeter Center — Subarea G -1 As recommend by the Planning and zoning Commission to ON Council on Febmuv 16, 2017 As Submitted to Citv Council even distribution of traffic. (Revised 2/6/95) Subarea G Multi - Family: (16.2 acres) As a buffer or a transition zone to the single - family area to the north (Post Road frontage), the multi - family area will have a unified, residential scale appearance with a limited density. Subarea G -1 Multi - Family: (13.1 acres) This area contains high density multi - family development which serves as atransition zone between a retail/commercial community center to the west and lower density multi - family development to the north and east. Architecture of the buildings is to be eensisteI4 substantially similar with the Perimeter Shopping Center (Subarea F) in its design, materials, architecture, detailing and overall quality. Subarea H Condominium: (8.0 acres) This subarea may be used for multifamily condominium housing at a density of less than 7 units per acre. (Revised 11/7/94) Subarea I Transitional Area: This zone will function as a transition zone between the retail uses of Subarea E (the service zone along Avery Road), and F, F -1, F -2, and F -3 (the retail mall) and the freeway oriented office area - Subarea D to the east. Subarea K Gordon Flesch Co-. Inc.: (4.37 acres) Due to Subarea K's high visibility from state Route 161/US 33, it is essential to maintain a high level of quality development. All the qualitative aspects of "Subarea D" as originally established shall be incorporated in this Subarea K, but the use definition shall be expanded so that Gordon Flesch may operate within the new subarea Subarea L Services Zone: (1.959 acres) Typically found between a major interchange and the first arterial intersections, this subarea contains freestanding uses on individual lots that require a highly visible orientation and immediate access. Architecture, signage and site planning/traffic elements are coordinated through various controls to assure a unified development appearance. Subarea M Children's Hosnital: Due to Subarea M's high visibility from State Route 161/US 33, it is essential to maintain a high level of quality development. All the qualitative aspects of "Subarea D" as originally A ppr- vYcdPronosed Development Text Perimeter Center — Subarea G -1 As recommend by the Planning and zoning Commission to ON Council on Febmuv 16, 2017 As Submitted to Citv Council established shall be incorporated in this Subarea M, except for the parking requirements which shall be modified due to the unique nature of Children's Close to Home Facility. Subarea G -1 - Multi- Familv(Revised November 21, 1996) Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted within Subarea G -1: Multi - family units at an overall density of fifteen (15) units per acre. Yard and Setback Requirements: 1. Along Perimeter Drive pavement setbacks shall be 35' and building setback 75'. 2. Total ground covered by all buildings, excluding parking garages, shall not exceed 25% of the total lot area However, parking garages and buildings shall cover no more than 75% of the total lot area. Height Requirements: Maximum height for buildings in Subarea G -1 shall be 45' as measured per Dublin Zoning Code. Parking and Loading: 1. The appropriate parking ratio shall be determined at final development plan. Circulation: 1. Perimeter Drive shall have a 100' right -of -way and a 56' pavement width. 2. All other local public access streets shall have a 60' right -of -way and a 32' pavement width. 3. Opposing curb cuts on Perimeter Drive shall be offset no less than 100' (as measured from the driveways centerline) or directly aligned wherever possible consistent with prudent traffic engineering principles and practices, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Waste and Refuse: 1. All waste and a refuse shall be containerized and fully screened from view solid wall or A ppr- vi,cdPronosed Development Text Perimeter Center — Subarea G -1 As recommend by the Planning and Zoning Commission to ON Council on Febmuv 16, 2017 As Submitted to Citv Council fence. Storage and Equipment: No materials, supplies, equipment or products shall be stored or permitted to remain on any portion of a parcel outside a permitted structure. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground, or buildings shall be screened from public view with materials harmonious with the building. Landscaping: 1. All landscaping shall conform to the Dublin Landscaping Code Chapter 1187. 2. In addition, landscaping within the Perimeter Drive and Mercedes Drive setback shall include a continuous three foot hedge with stone pilaster fifty (50) feet on center with street trees planted fifty (50) feet on center within the R.O.W. and planted + 1 from R. 0. W. Signage & Lighting: 1. All signage and site lighting shall comply with Dublin code (but not the design guidelines), subject to staff approval. Architecture: The architectural design of the buildings shall be compatible with the Perimeter Shopping Center (Subarea F) and as illus4 fat d ,.... iffi,, dated O 4eb f 30 1996, and l ._ ,.gees d4 d September 1:7, 1996, ....,..., fed by Pa-N -id PeRj,.min Melee* -revised based on the approved revisions to the buildings as part of Case 16- 084Z/PDP /FDP dated xx/xx/xxxx . Apartment Buildings & Clubhouse All buildings will be finished with brick, wood, manufactured stone, and stucco, and roofs shall have a pitch no flatter than 6:12 and shall use wood shingles or high - quality dimensional asphalt shingles to ensure compatibility with the Perimeter Shopping Center (Subarea F). Detached Garages All detached garage buildings backing onto the service corridor of Perimeter Center will be finished with a dimensional asphalt shingle to match, as close as possible, the wooden shingles in color and texture, a clay colored vinyl siding to match the dryvit portions of the main buildings, and dark green garage doors. Reversion: A ppr- vi,cdPronosed Development Text Perimeter Center — Subarea G -1 As recommend by the Planning and zoning Commission to ON Council on Febmuv 16, 2017 As Submitted to Citv Council If construction activity has not commenced one year after zoning takes effect, then the parcel shall revert back to its previous zoning, as described within the Perimeter Center Development Teat, revised February 6, 1995. ppr-oi,edPronosed Development Text Perimeter Center — Subarea G -1 As recommend by the Planning and Zoning Commission to ON Council on Febmuv 16, 2017 As Submitted to Citv Council THE MANOR AT CRAUGHWELL VILLAGE CONDOMINIUMS ADDRESS fli 6185 CRAUGHWELL LANE, DUBLIN, OHIO 43017 01� Prepared For Case Bowen Company Pmp.rb aanag.r 6366 CORPOMTE CENTER DR1YF DUBLIN, OHIO 43016 Phan. (614) 38&1403 g J Pnp.rM By SS 7 JL Bender, Inc., Architects and Planner 3040 Rhnrald. Drive, BuN. 133 Calunhua, Ohio 43331 � K O y (614) 488-8814 FAX (614) 4 7324, Q 0 V S Final D aYnanl Plan 0 For 1h. 10 City of Dublin, Ohio 43016 Planning and Zoning Commission i 6800 8hl.r Rhea Ranl Oublln, Ohl. 43018 GENERAL INDEX SITE PLAN KEY PLAN P; ae lleoNT ]N.AR 6Nanwp- L Plhffl Meamn'C!r A DFOQ1!'lIAIQCQBI4D AI.'I.N alN eluaws %.4Da ATXA* - MIMING . Rg10nl 6 eNTM raVATIRY- r14DW• M4Dg WVAIiQVa- raILOW. Y� { ^ a 2 m 0. NWWXMPO4pR rM ]A I11tlNr _ ��1 �o IlODDb - BIDNa k vI W MP 1. bAell!!T 11Y3'!9[I!. ]r NQaOBtl- OnDH91 q. -.!!r IWK • IDiYL01IFRTBIIY FIOr(A >L IICGrN- AIDW.nKT1! _ t i j� 1 _ IP i;�l BLDii $a uwuou wmewieans IC.� -)'i `f3LDCO3 f I e.w -=2. ienna aPDL.Ri11 K MCIM1/N- nYLDMi4 aK.. r ii PwCmBir.wrPNnn c.a- w.e.rx M.FlClaBR 611OT FlYan LOd6 -12T 6V1C -- Y Syyjj..''�� '$tx 1 9 S, BLDG g MCKFPWN HAlCmB](a11DY FI.OR Ida! -IRY reIeC t.i7 "C].iy'�. RiYI -oU1W• KaliM COPMtlKN M1 &=F 111 Tk2Q%- TIRA-nYLDMiI r a� e0.G - nsLN4 i A MQ 114Tn oa IXM1R3 � r IIWr]ItA11 egVATkM- BIIDNT] SAR an unarw Kl!lTfI0nA1! / DGb R q.Dlr 11.:AR rNATnM!- pILDMa w I V4 >i amc rNATkM- euldOD w1mT1 .y'� YIRNIIIlMr3VAT.00 -aYLDW4 rNATKaY - daDM 4 It TN1110NY1a '�'N — ._ nT�ar sr PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN STATEMENT, THE PHASED PLAN RENOVATION TO CRAUG H ELL MANOR HOUSING COMPLEX CONSISTS OF A MAJOR BERIE6 OP FACADE UPCIPADES AND A REPLACEMENT TO THE VARIOUS ROM AND THEIR RELATED CAPS, FASCIAS, FETAL WORK AND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS. THE PROJECT 16 60WEDU1 ED TO BE BROKEN INTO TWO PHASES BUT SUBMITTED FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PE64N APPROVAL AS A FINAL SINGLE SUBMITTAL A. EXISTING DESCRIPTION: C PAUGHUELL MANOR 18 AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL C21PLEX OF SIX (6) LARGE, THREE STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS CONSTRICTED APPROXIMATELY EIGHTEEN YEARS AGO AS A RENTAL COM1NITY. THE BUILDINGS HAVE GLACE BEEN CONVERTED TO INDIVIDUALLY OUAED CONDOMINIUMS THAT ARE MANAGED BY A CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION. THE COMPLEX ALSO INCLUDES A SINGLE STORY COM11NITY BUILDING AND SEVERAL SINGLE STORY SEPARATE GARAGE STFK=TURES AND AN AREA OF OPEN SURFACE PARKING. THE COMM6NITY BUILDING AND THE COVERED GARAGES ARE NOT BEING CONSIDERED PART OF THIS UPGRADE PROJECT. THE ARCHIITECTURAL STYLE 16 A COMPOSITE ENGLISH TUDOR AND COTSWOLD RECREATION, THE MAJOR MATERIALS OF WHICH ARE BRICK (PRIMARILY), SYNTHETIC STONE (COMPLEMENTARILY) AND STUCCO (SPARINGLY). THE FACADES ALSO HAVE AN ABUNDANCE OF WINDOWS OF A TRADITIONAL APPEARANCE, SYNTHETIC TRIM, WOODEN PAINTED SHUTTERS AND METAL FASCIA AND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS. THE WINDOWS DIFFER FROM BUILDING TO BUILDING AS MANY HAVE BEEN REPLACED. PORTIONS OF THE BUILDINGS CONTAIN GARAGES AND HAYS OVERHEAD DOORS THAT APPEAR TO BE PRAMS AND PANEL CONSTRICTION. IN THESE SAME AREAS ARE SOME OUTDOOR DECKS AND WALKWAYS THAT, AGAIN, HAVE MODERATELY ORNATE TRIM. THE ROOF SYSTEM 18 WIDE IN THAT APPROXIMATELY HALF OP EACH BUILDING HAS A STEEP PITCHED ROOF WITH WOOD BRUCE SHINGLES AND THE REMAINDER 16 A VERY LOW SLOPE WITH AN MIROM MEMBRANE THAT 16 FLAKED BY 71E PITCHED AREAS. THE LOW SLOPE AREAS HOUSE MANY ROOFTOP UNITS AND OTHER VENTS AND OUTLETS. ACCESS STAIRS ARE EXTERNAL AND AM IN PARTIALLY ENCLOSED AGWEAS. THE SITE AND GIW NDS ARE LANDSCAPED WITH MATURING VEGETATION, TREES AND LAWN, ALL OF WHICH ARE NOT IN CONSIDERATION FOR UPGRADE OF THIS PROJECT. G THE UPGRADE PROGRAM, AS NOTED EARLIER THE PROGRAM WILL BE DIVIDED INTO TWO PHASES FOR 11-E ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION AND THEY ARE SCHEDULED TO BE COMPLETED CONSECUTIVELY. L THE ROOF REPLACEMENT PHRASE A BOTH THE STEEP PITCHED ROOF AND THE LOW SLOPE M19115RANE HAVE APPROACHED 71E END OP THEIR CYCLE AND ARE ALLOWING MOISTURE TO ENTER THE BUILDING BOTH THROUGH THE ROOF AREAS AND ALONG THE PERIMETER WHERE FLASHING 16 PROBLEMATIC Q ADDITIONALLY, THE WOOD SHAICE SHINGLES HAVE BECOME COVERED WITH ALGAE AND GOREEN MOLD (ESPECIALLY ON THE NORTH SIDES) WHICH HAS BROUGHT INSECT INFESTATION TO THE BUILDING AND THEY HAVE ENTERED THE BUILDING INTERIOR T1415 18 A COMMON PROBLEM IN HUMID, MIDWESTERN LOCATIONS. C THE PROPOSED SOLUTION FOR THE STEEP PITCHED ROOFS 18 TO REMOVE THE EXISTING WOOD SHAKES AND UNDERLAYMBNT DOIN TO THE ROOF SHEATHING. PROVIDE A THOROUGH). INSPECTION OF ALL SHEATHING AND MAIM REPLACEMENTS TO ANY SECTIONS THAT HAVE WATER DAMAGE AND ALSO EXAMINE AND UPGRADE ANY BASIC STRICTURE PIECES THAT MAY HAVE ALSO BEEN DAMAGED. REMOVE ALL EXISTING FLASHING, DRAINS AND GUT ER& ONCE THE WOOD SHAKES ARE REMOVED AND ANY CORRECTIVE MEASWGES IMPLEMENNTED TO THE SUBBUIRFACK NEW METAL WOW, DRAINS, FLASHING AND UNDERLAYMEHNT WILL BE INSTALLED INCLUDING A DOUBLE LAYER OP KNOW AND ICE GIJARD AT THE PERIMETER THE NEW STEEP SLOPE ROOF IS PROPOSED TO BE C0VE04M WITH A NEW LIFETIME, HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF THAT H48 A DIMENSION AND COLORATION SIMILAR TO THE BHNE6 THAT WERE REMOVED. THE SELECTED MATERIAL 16 THE CHAPARRAL CEDAR COLOR OF TFE PRESIDENTIAL SHAKE SERIES BY CERTAINTEED, WHICH WILL GIVE A BETTER APPEARANCE SOME EXPLORATION TO DETERMINE THE AREAS AND CAUSES OF THE SYNTHETIC STONE VENEER HAS EXTENSIVE WATER INTRUSION NTH TFE EXCEPTION OF SOME LIMITED AREAS OF STONE THAT 16 LDINGS AND INSPECT AND REPLACE ALL SHEATHING AND FRAMING :SW WILL BE TO CREATE A FIRST LEVEL OF REPLACEMENT STONE, PROPERLY DETAILED AND SURFACE THE UPPER TWO LEVELS WITH STUCCO THAT MATCHES THE EXISTING MATERIAL BUT WILL HAVE A MORE DURABLE SYNTHETIC FINISH IN A NEW 'DAUB' TEXTURE. THIS WILL ALLOW THE BRICK (WHICH HAS EVEN PREDETERMINED TO NOW NO UPGRADES, AT THIS TIME) TO BECOME THE FOCUS MATERIAL AND WILL GIVE A FRESH, NEW, LkW41VR APPEARANCE TO TFE OVERALL WALL THE AREAS OF EXISTING STUCCO ARE ALSO NOT A PART OF THIS PHASED FACADE UPGRADE ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES OF THE PROPOSED NEW MATERIALS ARE SHOWN IN THIS SUMMARY AND ACTUAL EXAMPLES ARE INCLUDED IN THE OVERALL SUEMIBSION. ALL TRIM PIECES TWAT ARE CONNECTED TO THE EXISTING INSTALLATION WILL BE RE- FLASHED AND RESEALED AND ALL NEW STONEWORK SWILL HAVE GALVANIZED LATH INSTALLED FROR TO THE INSTALLATION OF THE MMIWOAT AND FINAL STONE PIECES. REPLACEMENT STUCCO WILL ALSO PICK UP THE AESTHETIC THEME OP ELIMINATING SOME OF THE PONDEROUS LOOK OF ERICK FIGHTING STONE AND NOW MING COMPLEMENTED BY THE FRESH LOOK OF 'DAM- TDAIJRED STUCCO. ALSO A PART OF THE FACADE UPGRADE WILL DE REPLACEMENT METAL WORK WHICH WILL MATCH THAT WNIC 4 16 EXISTING AND REMAINS IM PLACE. TYPICAL EXAMPLES ARE ROOF SAVE FLASHING. SNO I AND ICE PROTECTION. W QUQ i J 9> � J m J 7 �gx 0 oUCZ z �d a V �o K �O z§ 91 ui S H a n f 8 z m DEVELOP. MENT NIO1N cF RecGO M %.Ar EDac n, IN MBtRPENr E8TI06XIB3t9 TRCLRDEIYB RPICE.iFMKLM UN1TT. DA., B011ll LIIE W MAITI IR DRIVE (DO MET ii UN Tiff FAST LBE 6 AYflBr4'LI INDDgVE (WR'ER.T AW P➢AD) TI LBE GP"Df ili•A•A DIBTAJ EW18560FET ro A 3H-14011 ID .IR M PIPE BET AT A POMT6CNNATI9E. ALONG gPCNNON64GIR°'EDABWEST IR CAIM- E-D,OME,ALGGdDETA- W4CURVED NORME/dT LREC:& rEBFRYE IE THMI dIp WIMAQIM2 TO T1E R13xT, D4TAQLLWGAl0. RAOIW -01060 FBE1 A19 WB- DB.TA- B3'DI'BB",Abb -GICRp DIbiAVCE GP 9b %fEET BEAFI1G 04{'X'41'EM4 EADI OCIIRXBABTE(3T 8]0 gC1E 11VLT 9/4 -MGT ID. IRf' L %f£ BEI AT T8 PoMI GF TNY£NGY. TILT 6 IT' X'4I E XIIIFDI LME 4F FERRIETER DPoYE, gLGtl tl$ NORT£gBT LRE LP BgID IEBERrE '4° N9 /yGY TI$ NL31XE43i LME LF 6419IIB10 q ?@ iPACf q DIBTAVLE 6 °d3 {i£ET P ft IT W A 9/.4RICH ID.IR'l! PPE BET Al A FORrt 6 CYR/gNRE. 6A'IiI LPEWPERFEIRDPoYE.D IYM 4FORIWII Gf A0'.A NCCIMEgBTTA 66419D, °AIEgLI 80JI,A,, 'NEED SUS- METE A14 -NLME lB11D TRN, N✓D WYTN A GWNE TO EA LEFT, aATA T iAICH I& AT • 610619 PFET NID M A DELTA • M' TIIADT A DIB -CHTID STED E W 93110 TEE! 'A' B 40' IM E TO q 3 /a -MCH W. PdTI ,DOL N,,d A ON, DATA IIB]m IEEERYE °A' TO 4In, CV WDEM'A8i g4q Ni R GF eAID 1 iR NA qT THE NC!(BIIEBT fG101ER CP A 0.t0l PGE TfY G. LNL L4NYETED NT A W M AT FlPE 061 DIED, NGR DIM G]rNER Ol.0 r A 101 I AOR SCGrA MGPICI4 RECO1m Bl25,PK£EI], REfLRpERB GWN£,flLJKLM LO.IRT, GN0. AND BY ATpANT6 MOFICIK 1ECOlID I°6tl9,PKfEGII.IEfq®ER'0 Cf£ICE. iRNtlfLN MTIILB F : 0,19, cowTr, 21- i!E}KE 6 ]Y n' D• w ALGIG.9N BAOi LPIE GP M1D IL430 AGRE rRACt Mb KUl9 a IIEBi LM W OPID O.TmT aGE 1RACi a D10TM1GE G4 e961 qET TO A 9 /A -MCII D, MIN %f£ BET AT q POP1r 6 LBR'/gNRE. g T!@l'EBNR@3Yµ, TIE OF, LREO 1E aLf LL£Bt mlml qNp w1TU 4G1RrEro TE Lf3r. DdtAW WNGH IB. FM 110. ]896fl F@T Tff-IR i5'10 5 PI60419 I PONT rT 1•b'X °MTA9/4 -INCH ID.IR'T.1PIPEBET ,TBIPoMT61FNC£IKT. ISTE MIT 611.4 TO ,41p DELTA •81'Da'°A•,4GGI®TI MCEGP¢009fEEiK A 4F bL BNDILM]0AR£TPACT gLGTYag1EBi LNE(Y RAID 0.l01KT£1PAC1, AL4%±dUEB1LME1A,4I, b'IE iRACT6LdS GMY@Y® 5 mj T4°H�Ba'N1, IO DMAWEMAa DE,P , MET LNECF A AL RA91pG.%1 dm ERQDIRA. 61888 BY PEED LF IECGfm M QfICLAL Q-CGt� IBi9i, P/5E IB, rSCGImERB GPICE, H! R CWiBBRG I�EB DWYE (fTdYA2] 4Gtl RB UEBr LPE G A 2 LI) 2 r RDDFMb BEIGAENM ACi6LNID MI'NM1F DRIVE .I EMD 3£GGTb ER'e CffICErRNr[I.AT 0.101 ALR! iRIDi Y0) AT S 5 S z TPK£B09,APOl ID IWOAIdL® CREfi_TIDMINT AT AT TIE B'JIITMICBT CLW' ER W 8MD COMPY,1H10. AISAN TO A3Af -CM W. AT CF II8I0 A^3£ TpgLT (P489Wa q Cg81TY, OHIO, A OIBTA`12 LP »lab i£ET TO q 9M-MGI ID.OIIE PIPE BEI AT T@ IwLO. U' Z_GG rDNEAT ft ET AT }HEIWpNW@BT CGRER G'&UD Im99 AGi£ TWAOT ATX�fEElblD PA0MI6A PoMT AT TIEIORHIEBT CDRER OP 0AN 1603 ACf£iRACT AT ]50A6 F4tH IRACi. ALW6TIE NGRIH LME IX1EWmEAB1EPLY 4109 KOK'a TE N.nZIH LMEQA0.9B0 � TNEYfi 888'46'30'Wµ406 tNE YUTN LIEQBAlO A830 ACl iRKI. ALWGTIE NJTI LPE PrOAID U9f ACIE 'A° TO a)NTNE 11NWNB TNBtEE. M0 fECSY J. WJIKNO, iPo18TE?, Bf D ®W rdCLTA IN QfIGUL .ECDT9 ]Y133. PAGE R 0l. RECGAJER'B G£Iq„ mp W 0 0 ALIE tRADT G. LND CQIYErEp Olf fF BPIO (EBET2 MM81N OONR, QVIO. ALQL' hE IY.MM LPff W A 3✓SB KtE tRACT Q' LN9 ffMV£TED d1f CP eAID fE0R6£'A" lO WNYtE HdtKMe.IWBTEE, AW i£GGT J. HNLCINB. iM19TEE, BY DEED 6 fECGYA N 6 BAIV IE6ERrt °A° TO _ $ V $ m gFlGdL 1EDLr6) Mbat. PA[E I b, FE[c�. s D,IM TRM%LN CMIIT, Mo, Alm ALRb A KRT OM O' A IILRIH LD£ 0' M10Polx'N4 B¢QB ALtE TRACT 0' LAND COVETED cUT TO A 8 /4- IICl11D. 1p'N PIPE B@T ATM § O a WNTIE .NC 8TEd3T WYOGNB IT D$1J GP fELLTA M GTGN RECOIA @MlIB, PILE B 06 fECGIDER'0 G£ILE,PRMKLM GNITY, OIO, q DIBTNIOE d t46M iiET A 9/4 -NCH b.IRTI FPE CET AT TE BOJTIIEBt CGA006 BAID IL°]® M.$ tRAOT Mm 4T TIE BNIHEABT fGp1ERCP BAID 1594 ACPY 1RAG3 4T 4Hi0 Q (J O IOJT¢EBT O4WlERGP MND 1580 ,AGE lFW1(PAC&NG K FfffA TIpY. E N 4• IY iY W ALRG T! LLEBT LME GF BAID IB96 ACrB TRACT Mm PEI6'flmIO1LAR TO A WT¢tH LYE W 8419 ORIGMAL 56da ACIE iPKI A DIBTM6 C O lX! tY)R1H)EBT CLAER GP RAID 1804 4OIE tPACi. TffimENX'6']] "EALQY TE TKRIx LRE GF 0419 1800 AL�tRALTA pRTMKES3]580 FBEi i0 A3/4NCH I ➢.Ip1.i PIPE O@T AT t1E NORM1ffA9T GOflER 60AID 1834 ALTS RNLT A`m MALLEBT LRE $� TA Mm 11B]m 4GE 1RACT T18rY, @xa•81'9B'wALGGAPLY CPA U' LME6 SAD X3m ACFE TRACia D10Ta`KE CFI iroa9/a -MCH ID- MIN PIF£GET AT CGBER68AID 11830 ALTS tFLK1. a w Z T1E1C NLRNEId -Y Mm LLEBIE ALWK Q 19]0.I R T OLNC 1)DD f IL "ID I OAD /a-MHlIIp'PIMSBETAr ACGBER Li MIDIWOH.'lE 1TACr. M ET T A - MM MET A L K T E A DIBTAVCE to 12rEETTTOA3 N {' 31'DY W A OIBTGNC6 C! ]ILIf 12ET TO <3M -MLH I ➢.IpTI PIf4 0@T AT A POMP fA 0.R °<Tr8 . AT AP D, ALIKVEiO 11E LEtT, DATAW WIICM IO: WADIB.B060fEET AND pELTA•45'¢0'�".AGILTID DI9TMYE W3B3t i£ET BEMNiN]T'01'X'WT048/4KHID.IfCN %FE OEr AT T,IM PD.E 74 AT TE E' ATMYdIICT. 4 NK'3t3B°WA40044EWIW60 MET TOANATA M. WIN PIPE BET 4TA PONT W CIYNATlff. A AOJRYE t0 TIE PXNf. DATA6 WIIW Id RACIIIB•X60 i6f Mm C6TA•i5'x'00 °.ACHLTS OISTMICE 63B]tf£ET BEfAli3N SI. 0t9MWMA9 /4-MGI ID. R>IPR LET ATR rINTMKLN6 AT - I PoMT A TMY.ENLY. B. N4. 9T ' % °WAp19TA`YEp38A]R£IT049 /4 -RCH ID.IIYT.I PIfE BBi AT PoMT G+GYNAl111E. 4LR134NRrEMTEL6T. DAt4 CP LLHIGH IA RADIIM -X60 F££T MID CELTA- 90'¢000',ACLIGU DIeTMICEW]SPB iEETBEARNBNYY 9t'b'WtOA9 /4 -MCX m.IPGN PP£BET Ai g 1 NLRMCR.Y TE PoMfWTMK$SY. B, N%' 3T'3B'WADIBTNICEWI01611@Et10A9H -IKON ID. MIN rift SET 4TAPoNTWGLNANpI. ALRYAEAVTTOTELEFT.DAT46LLHICH I& MDIW -B05m ffff M'D Bb- DELTA• 46' 00' 60°, ABlB -OIJIm D1Bi4HfP CF 11161 FEET BEARRY NBT•Y19B'wTOA8/4- MGTIa.IKN 5 O 4 Nri!SET TA %I- BETAT,VJ TO QBAm 11630 DMTiWLT. m. N 3' 9']]° E EA P TO Bgip GIRVE II ET TO W t000 CgTT0 A 8/4 -INGI ID.IR11 PIPE SET AT A GO,¢:ER W BRIO IL'A0 /L1E tR4Lf AVD 0 NiY]4'BB °Eq 910064 @LF]]]69 FET TOII$lR1E KALE LT EFGNHMCV „ �f `•� -`. , CWITAMMG n.M ACREB LF LMm M,IM OR LEBB Mm BERG BTJECT To ALL EAOG MN,B Nm fSBLPoCTIGE W RECGA. /1 /^/ T@gBDVECECCTLPIIO LLIOB FREPNEC BT KEYINLBA%IER OHIO &XiVETCRNO. t69l.G C£. BPA LRJ. BULL. RP (/_ FIaA1 AC11LL MELD euRVETO / /M1l KEVIN �� 3 C T.M,Q EEim 4Y) OVO,,.N ,, W10, j�/ PBRGR'EO WDER HE WP£RNBIO MCGT G9ER IBm. BAB186BEARRYA IB IiE BCM4LRE LF FERA•BIER WLVE, EEING /•�L( iiI L N 6'YLL•9, AE, OP MDOOD M PLAT ¢PiK T], FA 41 MD 40. fEOTm6R'8 # KBTin.. # BAXTER % i} DIFTCE,fRMKLM CUwrr, OHw. 9t,S- "E .B 78970' Ohio Slwry6r p7697 ,00i WM TATMTIRIP3VNf EANMEW TBDC(IDEDMBWM3'IEM1tPEER 19411[ 0X IB] lb , r£CWIDER'b GMOE FR4f-LN COHIY, MO. 1 {} �L.�C /STEP `roLB'@!EBB.PN¢ Do, 3£CLYmERB LWK£.iWN1M DONIT, WPO. \"(/FIVE.��Q' TION OF T,,wNe91 WTI TAT AfF JRIBWR EA,MftNT MOMIO REPLTID WWZ.FF@818I G'ANTT.OHW, ��++ TWTR TAT APNFIBIAM E4CH51INOPIGAL RC(l.Im`K`W'!'1dBL PKI EOB, SERB -- COMBMEO OIm BpEVLt rOVI 13.114 1 �� _ �� _ � \ `_ ■M� �aza6iaiaz7a. � II � ``` � A �`� �I� A y'U f �t ' .� `i I �' n � >r 1� j -:� V i /� �� i � i �� i 4j I� G .:� � � � � ' ( r • �, � + rrr r � �� F--#� �', r�� s ��J � � * r ... . �, v ,r /i +, e '1�\yJL \} �.. 4 Y 1 t I fR r „. Ilk- i •tt�i � °�- PARCEL I: PARCEL 1: 213 - 011184 -00 213- 005562 -00 6125 -6225 PERIMETER DRIVE 6500 PERIMETER LOOP ROAD O: PERIMETER/EMERALD LLC O:HAUCINS FAMILY/ 6221 RIVERSIDE DRIVE PARTNERSHIP LTD DUBLIN, OH 43011 6001 34TH ST. N RICHMOND HEIGHTS, OH 44143 SAINT PETERSBURG, FL 33114 PARCEL 2: LOCAL: 614 -161 -2360 213-005461-00 FL: 121- 521 -5131 6051 PERIMETER DRIVE O: SHERRIE RIDENOUR 6051 PERIMETER DRIVE DUBLIN, OH 43011 614 - 191 -TIMI PARCEL 3: 213-OM-164-00 6033 PERIMETER DRIVE O: FIRST PLACE BANK 185 E MARCET STREET WARREN, OH 44481 330- 313 -1221 EM. 2314 PARCEL 4: 213 - 0 0 518 0 -00 6320 PERIMETER LOOP DRIVE O: IL 6329 PERIMETER LLC 5112 HARLEM ROAD GALENA, OH 43021 PARCEL 8. 213 - 008182 -00 6600 PERIMETER LOOP O:TIRELESS L P AAA OHIO AUTO CLUB C/O COMMERCIAL ONE REALTORS 1515 BETI-EL ROAD COLUMBUS, OH 43220 614 - 451 -5100 PARCEL 9: - 213- 001004 -00 6644 -6148 PERIMETER LOOP ROAD O: DDR CONTINENTAL L P DEVELOPERS DIVERSIFIED C/O PROPERTY TAX 3300 ENTERPRISE PKWY BEACHWOOO, OH 44122 216- 155 -6550 PARCEL 5: PARCEL 10: 213 - 010210 -00 213- 005149 -00 6350 PERIMETER LOOP ROAD 6146 PERIMETER OR O: HAWKINS FAMILY/ O:AERC PERIMETER LAKES INC. PARTNERSHIP LTD 5025 WETLAND CT 6001 34TH ST. N RICHMOND HEIGHTS, OH 44143 SAINT PETERSBUR', FL 33114 PARCEL II: PARCEL 6: THE VILLAGE AT HEATHERSTONE 213 - 001004 -00 CONDO ASSOCIATION 6400 PERIMETER LOOP DRIVE 6600 HEATHERSTONE LOOP O:HAL KINS FAMILY/ DUBLIN OH, 43011 PARTNERSHIP LTD 6001 34TH ST. N SAINT PETERSBURG, FL 33114 19 r -� 5 J °0 10 6 6 2 Ski- yr... 'Far WE .tee.- .....r. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - .u. „� Mani all I in ! . q .� - �� |KB �. |) p..P e � K aJ F-1 Bxe ❑9 S 2& _° D z�a ' �� To • °9° T• oT w K K ° ° w f o � o s 1011 ❑ o ❑ ❑ o E] I a s �� s� n ROOF R�PLAGEMENT PLAN BLDG N -� BCNL.P.,PO © EY•tN5 Ml7C B�. ,EW pTM,E11C iNM ®,EIY IXYPMK ®M1 ®I%AME,@Y RNMI,IY� je 3 = O 1lIY 9TN1,liIC lTM A❑ •RLH KRUIt bNHLE! I'EIILW:A0. 1lLE» pIYQO IQ'NR i ro WILBB ©,8W !191'1 R'C! ® ,tni pew ewuo venASEO BErnn r>ErAnx Q omm�o czars - 0 Wp1N9.iQ8 MIC,NN El �NR�I I1RE O t0161NNT f�6Y'Ttl�YIiFAI£tOL WJR: POOP ING RAN GEGNE + {P Op.'IBTM IIMJIB tMJ BLDG, e aeos• T � • ,,I' �1 o 0 a s 1� ❑ T ICI Y W iJ 9> 3J li 9 eMN IO?i 9L'l Z_° 2Q�a T g g= U Y 0 ❑ Y H Z ° Y G 1CS• � Y Y Y Y L F s go ❑ y Li iii Li F F L] L] CNJ Y 8s ROOF REPLACEMENT PLAN —BLDG 2 GOD D WO-TES � ° a -1 eular.mw 9 © E><p,MYEWO[ ®�6TMIEIIGIRM o,4LlYLE6°® ^( ❑2 !lY IYMVCIIC ITQ! E❑' MIRRIYN W2BB OLIYIPIX'I IOM XYQID RSfIR � a ❑1 IAY CCI6! eWIG pYYi6m �OYI RPaIR O Exb1RG 61Ra5E pCLR IFIIPEIAL RAbIRR O IXNiRb >iRE MIE1NNOlffI WHGYENI ro IL x1611119 G1fEt' ❑E %MiRb WIfffT RGGF PLAII 37, CY1f6lD XYGW RSfIR 01M W RRLM O 1pY WnEI®, Ili4 YLIR[ PHA4E GNE ®ExbiMi YINpPY ITPJ GLGG 3 , 0 T 0 Y Y c- A 9> Y 3J . �W�g ❑ "`2222 S z Iwo Y Y � Iwo 0 0 o C 0 oT To s ® o WM w Y Y O O ~ Y Tdi F±ll ® Y o 19 11 N ❑ ❑. ❑ ❑ O ❑ I ❑m s F F ® . ROOP ROPLACOMENT PLAN —BLD6 3 GOD D O a �yy � Ni 1GLL61'. ]O'.M © IXYtNS dMX ®N6P BTN,IE110tWM ®t@Y OHAfPAAAL ®MtO i%YmE 16Y0.0bN,YY 3 O ,AY..M1l.K lTR! OW,I,M, WLN.PII. ,bRNL..WHYE, �'IW4RH,G 3 roRWY.M W..WWW OMWU eRXIRQi O18lI CItlC BIIYld oN'ILOm @1'PO RTNR ® IXIetNS bM46E p0.'R `t. f O IXIMN9lTRE TO FETNM t� IXbTtl OYt m M ® NELI � +� O IXIMN9 CINHET RBLYH 111EM ONY.6m @YPO RYNR Il IBTN9 GRfE1' GTQIC TO I@INN ® Htil OYT1Pd FIT.L MIK pppFPWI 8144E IX!E Bl➢G 9 tl❑. IXIBTNS WWOUtl Tpl a sio' -0" ala OT TD 1,I F F r r D e T o . • ❑ T o o T I6 o oo o� o ro � W'z. 321 99 o s a,�N❑ ❑ yo s o ".0 �ql 8 a. ROOF REPLACEMENT PLAN —BLDG 4 � e° 3 GOD D E] IXRTHSCRY] Q� W xnF cneW o ��°® 0 IEU lRl11E1K >iRE OMMC�I4N WETL�D IEPNR O�NI RCf�RWG! O HnII ClYJW BTYSO pNY46m BIYRO RMNR ®IXIMHi pLRI6! pLVR 9 ♦ O EflliNS BT[Aff 10 FE}MM t� ExpTY �PW to WIMEi� O IXlliNi CW1iffT R@WN111EM1 CN'IrNED BETRD IEPNR I® IMN9 BTQE M I@14H O ktyl d1i1GY MEAL Y4lK y R E ME CV tl❑. IXIMNI WK'OL9 T'IV BLDG 4 750_0" jj� I. OT TO O K Y Y 0 0 T w Y o o I Y ❑, ❑, ❑ K 16 Y ix10 Y �o El ION ❑ o ❑ o • o� Y gds K Y Y C Y Y �QZE 2 tF Y ROOF REPLACEMENT PLAN —BLD& 8 Q � a © E %M bEWQ o�,%�� o. Nryo E NEIU BTKIE11O0iRE ©MIIUBINHY ®IOU Pp,ItlL. IE.WGIEPr,M e ❑ Mu E09! ewln CY1.6m ElvwID IP.Xe O E %b11NS MR46E OooR _ ® NEW I£tIL RNNNN9 _ I,- ve� � ! %M111Yi lTR! M RILH ❑' GMV6EO OETQ� FEPAO IL E1QE tO IFTNM O NEW �.I'E'!K VILA. f ❑ ROOF PUW PH.EE ONE ®E %b1Mi YINOCLB (1TPJ ENG S 1� I. 0 0 TE TI iTI Y i ❑8 PO 1 Y g 0 0 a F li 6 Y cz, Y �o oI�� ❑ o ❑ o , El Y goo oo F Lazo 2 tF E 55 �T @)Wf' REPLACEMENT PLAN -5La6 6 log r•••. I.. BOT• og 4sA © IX*1 BNGK ®LEIY BTMIERC tRM i❑MBWLi OXMMll9 FITALYILA[W1L00 Otl'1 0 O L6118TMIE1IC Bi0E ©roI�MN°Niu e!'YM1»'VR f�NGY PRI NLT BETQID IFAMR e ® NpY CCIY BTYIG pM1L619 @rdp RTMR O IXb1MM1 GYPL6E OCLR • ❑4 IXG111Yi BTG! M RRLR WlIM9 [31RRI®M ® LFY I£t01 R.IbIN9 © IXN1111i dltSY R9'WN W.IPB IL %b TdMET ROOF PLN! GMVSE°it'RlG FFAMR BTQE O REVJN O LEIYBMER0,1£lM. VILA. PHN3E ONE ®IXp11N6 YIMOYJ ITPJ BLDG 0 n e Q I] 1 Q tl a e I tl I II 8 I8 • � I] • � 9 l 311a ] ] a ' ♦ 4 4 II� 6 i N 5 95 ] e II e ] 6 b • ] I i p ] 6 ] 6 • ] I • b ] Q ] ] N %1 EAST ELEVATION q II 4 Eill Q tl tl Q 4 i II 2gCOy L tl O� �QD° l w i 8g p b b i 14 M i b Q ] ] ] ] ] E] LEVATION a Ni Y46�,fd.p p g CODED NOTES 353m - © IXlBilltl mm © aBYI OTIR1lTIG IIUR ® © IXlBilltl YMGGIi lMJ �M o �..MK.I�..a• o M•IRLM o W� M3YEiLY11]CLf o� 0 rreu celoe ttI1CC0 ow.nm •El"OD mars estuuelac 1ll.EM Eil ro ® r8u rEre10.A9NMp oanaem LlYde Ivan l AW "M R� IXN1111i dltSY �M ExIttN96MbE GOLR MIIiFM may\ Oa'IMm plYG�D IQ'aR 60 M I AN FLEVPTONS Mlw l 1 E II • 6 Q II Q 4 1. 9 I g ioii f 4 4111 • e f i I w u Q • • ] i j5 F21 F-21 p 6 ) tl 6 • ] 6 6 ) i Q i] ] J> NORTH ELEVATION 50UTH ELEVATION�� J Y -I ersle�r. w -s Y -I a<ll•f.fd.0 gSJ 9L1' 20 2J Q • II II a tl • I i � U0� 4 9 4 �apS� S • gZ I �� r� r� i w ii n ri ) �FeF ] Q • 6 ] Q iZ ININSIDE ELEVATION SI•.E /11N91DE ELEVATION e e4l Y -1 xYar.�v -s eLOO CODED NOTES © .1sim CRYX ® •TMN . m" O O Maim WK`GI• T'PJ ®AR �l. t@L 0TM1E11C a1RE Y❑ ro•iffnax WFPa ® MWEfW1 ®IA?AOE NEWI0.AlHK✓ ® reW EEr# awro QuuaEO •aTOao a w rtixWmnc WaEae ® mw METAL iLbWH9 GYtASE➢CEIRO RPYM O EXIMa•aWlO 1�. FJt•TG GatiQA 1G ro!@WN FH'NN WLF.aO n EX wmQ y Ejwb SG.RbE. aloe oueuEV earorro aEraly etwa: ro WO'NM auvalYxa cool n e n tl I n • • e I • I n � 9 111 • 12 • 9 l 311a ] ] a �I919 � 4 4 �I! II� i I ^16^ W W e5 g5 ] e II e ] 6 b • ] I i p ] 6 ] 6 • ] • b ] tl ] II e ] - W ] %1 EAST ELEVATION II 4 4 Q e e I] 4 4 II =�S • 8 • n pWpO g Z. 9 9 3 tl d f) • ' ° z 11 � 8g b i k k i 1641 M i M M i 14 14 i k W i 14 14 i b Q ] ] • ] ] ] ] ] • WE5T ELEVATION N -I OJLN�.fd -O p ig CODED NOTES 353m ] © Ot•iM, ORO[ © KYIMMII.IG,AM ® �M D ©!FN}IIU NIOWB RTI•J TLS �1 MII.YNTI.G ITQL o R1.�NW NBIIFA„YXF OI°IB'NmE 1EVl N&,ML �a. ral celoe stucco pwASeo •Erao IEPAIR ® rstu.•clac 1ll.EM �' FEtIl0.A9NN5 OuYi6m @YGD RSMR O IXpinlS ltYCCO O EJL GN21d t0 TO AW R@IAN �uybm •�Yn� RYAS[ ll AW ItOE t0 R9'IAN FLEVRTONS 4W3 u II 4 • II e u e i • u 9 4 e 31 i ] w • V LY • . a i o5 ] ] ] I ] i I] i I ] 6 • ] • i Q ] 6 Q 95 �J SOUTH ELEVATION a NORTH ELEVATION �wm R41 YYLP�]tli' RH ffJll.P�W -O' 2�$ II • Q Q Q • Q • Q Q�� S_ U �azo az I b� n imp �w b � y n n n ] ] L • o a n ] r n ] • ea o INSIDE ELEVATION o INSIDE ELEVATION 3 M -I N^ilL f � Y' -BY M.I YJIt P � ]di' CODED NOTES �L IM..RI90RC% O MY 6YH11�IC IM, � � W�IIm IYIIpQI•f,,.J ¢ tI dR M�•I.E; To 10 FN'YN SIDE RMI • M IREI EIEY�l10XS - B -DO B-DO 2 II Q Q Q I Q b b Q I 19 I II � a �Il 4 1 �99 I! iiie� 6 6 I � i w 05 g5 ] Q II Q ] ! b b ] I • Q] b ] 6 6 ] I D b ] Q ] II Q ] N ] /1EAST ELEVATION gRg'OM- II 4 Ell Q b b Q 4 4 II b b �p� 8 ! 4 9 9 3 I] 9 l Q `a R 0. C t 's0 6 6 3 8g Q b k k i k k b k k i k k b M k b k k 6 b Q ] ] ] 9 ] ] ] ] ] ] WEST ELEVATION a N-I LULbf.fO'.p p g CODED NOTES 353T@ E1 MY.YNi1iaG..R! b❑ _ ] MQRLNW ® LSY Ef9H ,iXf ORYT,D1E a6L RldMHY O �OEtlE „ICW Q.,IV9FD CEfFO IEPAR 0 I'EtPLYCMC QJF„ ren rt*x rteawru oanaem terao lawlle b TQ y TOIFSWH aEHAN INLEM IL IXIBTNidMSY ❑µ EVMIG OMbEGGY.A IRFM (�� OY1l'im ClY01ID 1!'LIR slR MFw EIEVRl10W VJ einoa A • 4 18 ' B 4 Q Q b ] W Q i • ] VL6y o� ] ] ] I] b ] Q 6 B ] 8 b ] I b Q b] ] 95 �J NORTH ELEVATION 50UTN ELEVATION gWN 3s' a -I rrBl•. m'r a -I svI•. m's• _ z$ W2o Q • II II II Q • Q D Q Q iS 0S- � U • s0 S� b � _ o i•i e ] u • ] u s �� INSIDE ELEVATION DE tl INSI ELEVATION a -I ffYl� � • ftl -O M -1 Bfilt l• . m'i• CODED NOTES Qexuma mac °❑ raY erxnerlc nan °❑ Via° °❑V.B mBxus mm� �i N9Y B.MIE,zl° b❑ M° NN ® NPY EPRIP0.'F ®iF9NDE mW RIb,NL B �x reu celoE Blotto ¢.waIBQ elErno BE�ars ❑m e�ra.uraac uaEn NBY re*ry timunn Qanaee¢•Braa lQaR � ro tO IHN'IBM l0 AW BLm M1� IX•iRtl O1MET ® FiIBiN53MIK pLq[ GIBE OMIa CETRO IE BTRE MIBI/N EIEYBIIBXe 4IXiH n e Q u I Q tl 19 o I u I n � 8 tl 0 12 0 9 ilh ] ] 1 4 �I919 I! QW9 aJ g5 ] e II e ] 6 b• ] I i p] 6 ] 6• ] I 8 b ] Q ] II p ] - ] /1EAST ELEVATION HSI a Z_ 4 II 4 4 Q tl tl Q i 4 II _ c�0A • 0 0 tl O f p4 Z. l S S S Q 9 e m0 • >< a o � 6 b _ Bg Q Ell 6 k k i k k i M k i M M i k k i k k i b p ]363 ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] WEST ELEVATIONg a M-1 Y461'. 6 CODED NOTES El exams mm ® a mme c m n F] ©ex•mn w ma• amm] 4 a Qrro ee ®waMxxv Ea. rtiu celoe ��mo Q.wnam •Erao IEPAM 1£tALWA: u]tee 1, I ro ®rsu rvE*x Itenuwi QMiblD eerwro lvaw y M IEI'NM 161NN IILEe! R� a%IGm19 dltSY O ExIMN964RMJE GOGR Ml1iFM (Lp1 ONYMCD •eYOO IQ'NR Gt MI AN FLEVPIKli4 xooa v 4 • 0 n • 4 ® B 4 4 e e �1 • v LY L!TI4±Y I LMF e • 1 • 2 • �5 Hl P-1 z : El s 3� 50UTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION eWN N.1 Mflt l'. f0'y' N -I YJLLf.fO'.p _ zo e • n n n n e ix Qi� 'U S- �a Oa iy.0 i2 s$ �W L t $ �a n IKNA5F1DIE ELEVATION INSIDE ELVATION Y, Y, s a a CODED NOTES o ��..� � O ldl •,M1lIIC 11.1 0 � o ��..� �. m., , emmle:rw s *orE °❑ ro•i'��'s'iax ®rau acn rors ®rwnce rEw ra_aeNnv sit Er®u 0 rave e•ae swso oaraem eti-wo evwn¢ rrrruwowc auras ®��w. • a, em �.,�, o wmm W 1 Aw o �•�W � nv+aM UUm• n oamrlo cwMlEr O pwemn Wwae a y� ca+laseo etroxo sauia Gr m s>Frwm euvnnara sWOa II tl tl t I, I� 19 Q I ] n I 13 I II u 11 I I �1� I Y • I ;■ 1 ii l � � w ZJ o n n o e I s m o I b > > e EAST ELEVATION m- r -i ,r.. r.fd -s 102 7 ST v 5 go tl n I.1. 9 9 9 .0oz Fz � 4 4..1 Q 4 3 QQ 85 Qo b 7777 7777 $• n 7 m b k ] M w 3 M k t k M t k k 3 M 6 6 m T ELEVATION kk 7 ] 6 6 6 6 i N -I YALM b I•. ]O' -i• gg n i CODED NOTES © E%bnxb mm ® .Yxnt *k nvm ® a ® ©exbnxb mloaib lm� w �2 N3U..M,ETIC..QE ® MRM:N © N3Y EPd,IMS O'Iglml N911 N.bWNO, S ® Mll @@ BTGfG OMMm @YLYD RANI. ® FITLLYGAC I!!.!M f6Yl'E'IOL iLHWM➢ pOl1I6FD @l'QID FEPAIR � ro MRI'NMu000 161.M 11LE[6 R� ! %IM111i d1t✓CY �µ FXIttN96NPME COLR M6RFM ONYH3m @YCHJ @'NR B10L M I@IdN FLEVRTON4 YWS 6 II 4 i II II • 4 v 6 u 9 4 la till i • i la a a w NL12J a e i v v i e a a a a a a a 9> WE5T EL' BEAST gTEVATION ELEVATION s� .i1 r•, •.r•ms xx ,E qx�9 la s II II II II s v 25UZp agog . 00 nz. U �O 2 pW_ 6 i � L a 3 2 g �9 o INSIDE ELEVATION o INSIDE ELEVATION L41 lC4t l•. mi• L41 lC4t l•. mi• 3 g CODED NOTES 0 B NPNi EaBfX o o E] [ RauGm zsra © mSmm woa m n� Nsu e'p+Rwr Qrm. Rau RaauNv i EE mm snrco v.'vaen xram RT.IR rer.WKR wrm O IXb11N6 itIKlO O EM9IMSSMEABM ® 16YIElK 0.MWIG ON'Ii6m RYOD R_TNR M RQWH IBNN IILEM M1� pti11N9 Q1Rf$Y ❑µ FXIwm 6NPME OLGR 818E O.I'V�FD OETRID RF.R iTL�!! W RRLH EIEY.11g19 BLIXiS II Q Q ] tl Q Q I tl , II tl e I • 3 !'9 4 H H w ] I] II ] Q I 6 m ] I b ] ] Q ] I 3 V ] Q ] II Q ] 'mom ] EAST ELEVATION YJIL.I•. Mi' 9 AFI e 05 II 3 Q 3 3 a rI-1 rl 4 4 Q 4 3 Q 9 1 QP O o w � b Q ] 3 b k ] k k ] k 14 ] k k ] k k ] 14 6 9 YD ] gs ELEVATION �$pe CODED NOTES me 33ytl © EBBtNi dMX O NEIY BTMHEIIC iPoM 0❑ �M ly❑ B%IBtm WBCJJN ( j - �] KII BYN}1�IC BTM © M "WWMQL © �flYEF9M FYCi O�Aa LSL R.iWMI oleb B ® NWY alX B,Wld 0.�,.Bm GIYfAID A•.. ® BEY IE.K R„BNIHB a TURD ISPNR M I@14HB W EI®'NN YLEN ro IL LIIRf$Y µ� WBTIIl90iWAE N.'A 6 OY'NOm CIYQID IBT.AE W" T BiPE 10 FE}LN EIEVA.. awce 4 4 1 e • • e t ] w • x • e e • n • 05 x ] x x 3 9> WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION 3 a r -i r.Ear.�ee a�.i evutr.ms• oz. e • n n n n • e v S. Via$. rc �w x • s � 2 x z$ n IN51DE ELEVATION IN51DE ELEVATION A CODED NOTES 0 exeno•mom ® xermxr Cnom Q ©exrcma wrmastttw ��d � o aumxneicmme o ro�:�°°:;°^°° o • 0 ® Tau Terra raaeurouuasv m Praia Q 1❑x aormaro mmucco E❑ ex•nx•d'rar ❑" e.imxa aae.Eevwe EmE vanmEp 4i'aL IEruR etwE ro r81nN euvnnaw alma ! .� A UST $ ■ ` ■0. a� ■. �.�° .ems wMA r ,a | , RENOE NO .a 3f�s Y FI �II -r m w �zs �S SOUTH WEST PERSPECTIVE a -, xxe xm WxexoeMW- 1➢p1.A II1,111 lull 111 Ila l�� iir iiiiii ii� �l -i�" - ire , 111.,111.111...1! "` -_-a' • . °.. o . o!I ir .roe e00. 0 FO pp~ ag 3 Y � SOUTH PERSPEGTIYE � 8 6 .NDMW SM.. F.I I _ :YV S .Wv ®.w.'�.+w�n+�i'1 Xe " "' "• �ra��x�xexxu �niiirv,c �� x "` • . _ Hk i� _ .. � u� �u� u� u� � I r I 2 .� . �u�Il� 11 �!! 111 ' • _ m.m��n�llll 1111111111�; - 1�'- X11..111,1111 �_ �_e,�,=pM<., `�` a r �= �� Y L A` A 3n Y� 2= F a FG;MI- T<. Ciry fDublin Planning and Zwing Commission 'ar °n "'" " "a Planning Report n Thursday, February 16, 2012 alabaster Carl am —Kay Bank Case Summary Agmtla Ilan 3 C,ao Number 12 W6AAW Proposal A change In roaf.rig maelal from cedar snake shugfes to asphalt sbingrs for an exa0ng recta buitlbg alhin Subsea E a the Perin9er Cer,er Plamcd Comnxm D'ni locsla9 an the north 9Ee of Warenter Loop Roal, approKlroi 350 feet eat of the imesaectlon wM Av2ry- auirfrtll pine. lingual Amertlecl Ertl Dnelopnaa plan. Reiner and approval of an ama,dell final deatlapnnvA plan under the Planned round pro,duart a Zoniy Code Section 153.050. Stte Local 6930 PeflrMa Loop Road. Property Cena Valerie Salk, Real lac. Applkanl Key tal repramlad by Scott D. waaeNV9, Vernon. Cass Miagea Claudia D. Krnak, MCP, Pnnrar lL 1 (619) 910-06]5 I chwlt @tlr811n.oM1.ue Reatl Berk, Planning A65Ktent I (614) 9109663 I Ibeck@dublla.oh.a Fral RttortneMa6on A tpmral Wa, C rdkion In Plannbg's alone" , this proposal comVlMa Mal lie desebprrcnt ted, tM amended final desefopmerA plan vlerla and mining deuelopmat In the area. Planning recanrreuds approalw one mditin. 1) That cedar shbgla no longs be re0ukeE at 6920 Pedmeta Loop Road. city of oobli, I Pl—m sd inning mmmi: :inn "o 1— Bank cosh— dm�F&tiory 620 ¢1 Page 2 of w O 5 J �6 27ay 0 2 6 0M azg K O 2 up W 2 h 9 33$12 b"o PREL . arrul pooRCA9E KE7(WK Portal Carts, co al loon l PaMp ad aawra cammlaslm ce.I 10PlM 'ewer NL- IkeeaN massy, raury u. aoli I nap a Ya Facts Subarw E Hinny Ste Area 1.6B aaa, ovael petal Zoning PCD, Planned COmmea Distal tlmekr anchor) surtaurMlm Zanlm ant All Imrredlately edjeard eke M on north, swat antl with are arced PCD MBYn Uses Postal Center, Subteen E and Poll green Clearers, Chose Bank, MoMinal the BP C flatlon, and BaraO)'s Pleea. To Me ea# Is Ibe Glarat 1991: Approved asphalt shingles for the 513 Bank Developmad Plan Bank Shopping Cella which a within Pentagon Carder, SvMnds Fa Ste fmnrm . A along 3,800 sgwreiaot bank AM a trhre thm teller window am ATM MPdIBmUOre located an the mat Watch, 0e,. . An evlstlrg cedar shake shingle roof In 1998 d asewn6ltlonofanted the tlee opmeM plan In 1998 cav for . Arrive from Pretrial two Rwd Care Background 1988 Once Beltling Oewlopmert Plan, The site was rcannad as pan of the Perineter Center Pm, Subarea E which the Center (includingt Mopplog antev penal oBices, gar starters, resUUrants, and banks. two Details Tho Planning ant Zming Contactor alepravW the final development plan for Man aervkw Delaware CouM1y Bark and Canvass Pose who the wmaian that the buskins, eel 4tw cedar ehlrgksard 9 have asphalt shingles, Modified! M Income a cedar shingle red. Portal Carts, n, mold l na,na,amdxo,i'o— s- itsvvny ant ZOnod' Cbneand4n Subarw E Hinny rare o-corAMP I aalma vlary PCD- ow Bark m, ra.,,w =•a Iq -dm. aa,xpnxl +Ma L� 1930: AppMVM asphalt shingles n pan d Me Dae re art Mars for Details Amended Final Development Plan McDaraid's and Bank One (row, Chase). 1991: Approved asphalt shingles for the 513 Bank Developmad Plan Baikkg cent SM bonding hose mofwhktlnetcbes the 111eagh, 1999: Approved ceder shoke shingles for Me ReNwtl Dissentient Plan for Be MPdIBmUOre Rwanda atshingle an Pace appratetl the ume parcel. TM Cedar arrow were nalededas 0e,. In 1998 d asewn6ltlonofanted the tlee opmeM plan In 1998 cav for 1936: Approved aphia shingles for are Swan Ce,enen and adjacent Ill their. raa'a1er), webnrea In baauw IM COmmoter vanktl Incing Once Beltling Oewlopmert Plan, the Center (includingt Mopplog antev 1939: Appointed cedar sbeke shingles Me the SMIR Gas gal Dew opment Plan, .2003: Approved asphalt slenme for the Reused Davebprrent Plan for 513 Bank. Details Amended Final Development Plan Man aervkw The arrmded nrel deedopment Pan for this application rel ue#s a:hanPe'n 4tw cedar ehlrgksard 9 have asphalt shingles, roof materiels ham cedar snake shingles to asp rain shin, la n, mold l na,na,amdxo,i'o— s- g rare o-corAMP I aalma vlary PCD- ow Bark m, ra.,,w =•a Iq -dm. aa,xpnxl +Ma ' Details Amended Final Development Plan Baikkg cent SM bonding hose mofwhktlnetcbes the 111eagh, 3 t MPdIBmUOre Rwanda atshingle an Pace appratetl the ume parcel. TM Cedar arrow were nalededas In 1998 d asewn6ltlonofanted the tlee opmeM plan In 1998 cav for their. raa'a1er), webnrea In baauw IM COmmoter vanktl Incing the Center (includingt Mopplog antev Not,wFo,Dalmeler f s,pM1requires ceder shape, s. The deveI tart for eel E, rowewr, ether cedar shhgksa an b Eno h or sanglq antlle Mea bdlRings In Subarm E,9Fave 4tw cedar ehlrgksard 9 have asphalt shingles, W Me to nalinerance Issues, the applicant k proaxong M replace Me entering cedar shingles with a cetlaraloW GAF, Grand SaMple ShinglG.nth is an asphalt shingle dool ed to look like cedar shingles. The Wri design uses qj verroad sets tocreate a weodshake look which Mil make the red Marshals CI kpk shor W the adjacent bindings In PMrttler CpMar. lM shave, aceeds the 325 posed well recorameM specified In Me daeld"nt tect. _? .Mgm ` 00 Analysis Amended Final Development Plan F a Praw.ss Senion 1a d the 2ohng Code keMyks crRerla far the review and Oi a < U an bwkgfb ohearecira of cdleta atlaAell. i Fob ananelwle by Pamly easeassociation 9 S) Coam'e Ctiferiken meb ache proppaef roofim mekMl dishes Me nqulemeoS h roe edposerse ec approveCpseMrMVry de ant tract for enter agar Mingles embles 2 &ve'oprreNp/an. re pare ore,, an ha a s pro re shingles . The awhok shingle that <losdy resembles f disdar Inn ceder n t In M tad appearance m rmke Me tool mntenals mmpatlble nits bonds adfareM bulMltge In PenmUlr Center. re pu 2) name B peNayskn Not Applicable. a /cry e a. 3)Adegampalk Net Applicable. 9 avrts a open I�YY spare z 4) ProyadNn Wnefwel Not Applicable. [aces A raouma of S) Adeawry w`Akhlwq Not Applicable. $8'0 cd yyy�Ill 6) Slam mnxsyenf welt Not Applicable. char. Ran k_ 2) Appsocani blot Applicable. twokfaepmg to aduxe, bWh,A roam lea bulMdg PRECE➢Baa ant aim BTA PRIn0.CA9E IreYeala( Analysis 8) Corrplianr Not Applicable. M." -- gnrxvn 9) U'Phaarcendly Not Applicable.__ hadn brapAvraa ,coal 18)cwmlarse RMh Not Appea le. aborkeena eastern. or/I in 1 Ahmed and ZNne cwnmldm eau t]- apWfpPI harram corm AM - mysock rnwa re , ra. 1112 1 ✓ax s ma Amended Final Development Plan Recommendation Amended Final Development Plan Approval In Planning's analy6, this proposal complies with the development i the ended final development pan orderia and eNStm development in the area Panning mm dsappmval oftM1e fie, e#wRle onscaroJROn CondMOns 1) TKHeadarsbinglesm aagcbeaegrdred. 6800Perimeter Lmp Road. all m4NN I means xd zaYna Mary .. tae 11 call I Pe over me- Noy ese marands, fdury la, 2012 I Pae s of AMENDED FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN The purmAye of Pe Nand Win Omebnnent pram's Is to encourage imagirative amhhc mi dagn and proper site Planning in a responded aM contaminate— manner, m ms nt xdh aveprM antl Paring, IarArate arcM1Rttture, and easona a9 pmcil The No protons conso of up to three stages: I) Concept pan(Stal Concision, all CM Cha nal rears aM ormm�t); ZI Zoning Amendment panel (Immunity Development Ran; Compromise recpnmeMS and CM Coundl minspefitmees); and 3) Amended) Final Development Plan(eammmmn apprav &nim). The intent of tie final tensional plan Is to ehnx mnfnmance v.M and prwde a dM,= refmannr of tie total aspects of the appmced prel'anirory development An(rnninq). The final dayind at qan moades all of the final coals of the propeaM development am is tie final Rage J the RID posses. The Channel may approve a submitted, pprom All pratllhoners agreed a by the oponent, or Lvappove and temdmn the pass, If the apolmtiar Is dlssppaaM, the applicant maynreacartl m Planning and Zoning Centraio m ¢ms and Merchant Me part The :Rim MII 'ce corubnetl a ew appllcaban fa review In II regec6, �nclan, payment d Me apgdatim fine. Appeal of any action taken by me Cvnmistim shall be m the (Dart of Common Rm In the aperopriak )unNkEOn. Falprnmq apsonal N Me Compensate, Me applicant may pMaeed wth the budbinq comfit pmc In me even[ that updated ctyaide 4andards are applicable, all subsequently apprwM finale development prom drall compq win the updated standards d the Ranting and Zadrg Channel denim nes that me updated ffindaNS NWItl not cause uad- M1eCli p. Review QireM In accordance with ScM1m 12.01 Man Agponl C]sal the Cade call aR me fdlw.tng orders of approval for a final dembpnmt pan: I) The plan aMVms In all pmove moral m the approrcd prefmirury donelopned flan prmtlW, however, that the All ad Zoning eanmitin may aumons Rare as spetlfrcd In 4153.053(E$9); Z) Adequate Rovinot a matle per care aM erfioent aeaename and vehlwar eimalamn Ads thin sRe and to ad)amm 1o11; 3) The announcement has annual pubic camvico aM Cpn sae; a) The assessment preserve arc a sem nve to me rateral amounted. ef the an In A manner that carp,. whit me appllable myconims set forth in has CMe; S) The development prevlaa adman lowing far We and interrupt, use N the streen, mlkaeys, dri ver s. and carom areas without unmcezvdysglllrg a sual port crop salaam poivems, the se lvcnity; 6) The papmed ages, as Mora ed an the wlan den Ran, x111 be =Mnana same me Planned! Unit Z) The parallel plan wil adequal enhance the Wanted building aM nn; mairbin shaver, rases to the e#eat ceslde; buRer ad)acent Inamcatide uses; beak up large vainness of comment wrth mousI Mandal; and prcvNe appropmte Ant mandalsforme hadegq site, and clman; 8) Adquate pmvispn is merle for seem drainage Audi also usual me site Mkh expr s wkM1 the spoil recubtims in the Code and My all design core established by the Cry or any other gwemmereWl a" Man may M1mejuroundson over such matters; 9) If the projH is m be armed M in pmryressbe sragq each soon still be no parrot IM1a[ IM1e fne9ing sMNms are complies each aline canRRron of mob stage; and 10) The Cmvniam Wayne the pojM to be in cwnpianx wrtM1 all Miter bnl, soh, am fNeral laws aM gAhns 5 e' �J on 5E n �g 50 O5 ca ��oe `0� 80 M W F 2 S PRECeseR fir. scot Pan" ABE NEY9Ifi{ t —L r CHAPARRAL CEDAR SHAKES - EAKLINGTON PARK BUILIDNG, DUBLIN OHIO �5 m2Jo mo=o U00 a °=A FaOo z 2 H �e g@ XOOF WIERILL "J. -` w SYNTHETIC STONE SYNTHETIC STONE SHALL BE SUPPLIED BY STONE CRAFT INDUSTRIES AND INSTALLED BY THE WITTER STUCCO COMPANY. SECTION OF THE MATERIAL IS 'HERITAGE OHIO" AND VERY CLOSELY MATCHES THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL IN BOTH COLOR AND TEXTURE. S E 2 � � 2 7 o 0 O 60 O 1 6 8g B Enc 9 BMIp IE E8! f �e3e3 w 0 5 J_ Ki � J y J 55W (q R x E a o 2 O_ x a�oz 9 RV t =o pa s w x Q 8 sm 9 BEIGE STUCCO (LIMESTONE FOR ALL) 50 STUCCO SELECTIONS w 0 STUCCO MATERIAL IS A HYBRID NEWLY DEVELOPED PRODUCT FOR THIS INSTALLATION BY THE MULTI:TEX PAREX CORP AS INSTALLED BY REITTER STUCCO CO. MATERIAL IS A 3 -GOAT INSTALLATION OVER GALVANIZED STEEL LATH AND THE OUT COAT IS A SYNTHETIC LAYER WITH A "DAUB" TEXTURE WHICH CLOSELY MATCHES EXISTING MATERIAL STUCCO SAMPLE "- ICASE BOWEN Lies Pearson _iCASEBOWEN uaaPeananap.aaaa�<aawmen.<.m> Catlati Shingle Re Manor @Craughwell Village Condominium ASSOCIa [ion - Impoftam Notice mutation — -- Garlb Karr 19anM1kerrBgmOl com> Tw,11T' 3B, a116 .1 11.2d? AM JuAM BOa <lypudea�amelmm> Fn, Load 2]016 a1i'.53 PM Ta'.'Marror �'PauMwY Vllepe COnEwri' A al on L'sa Pmrsori <Ipezrsm®cesmay.<cm> To:L amor@c a n.0 LI50 please IN me 1 111 main N of rdither marplanine, Pane as needed: My M1UOband andllael it xeulE baa Eg misaketo uses celusfiliglas epe'nmlM Lr fv511 Mam'coMa.In IM1e Z T9 Copiedcn: taro Years *o nwa lived less, a had I.. aulla.hdr a+m miuins and M1ated Wrglm on the mIXZ. Amends arm E<TAUCize to lire p=a1..ilcM1aas and 1u11u4. amwn malle an coma, an mampb of daremea I am alnpOMWsaa nm dMaed Ma lo&Ra1W roNlxtkn for our iMWS Inwea lwi ns xfiv areassinarca.I lave pickeddo,., 4Fenales on 11. 1awn. 1 laud fallen off do cN Trust is unsaepabletto your 9vW porous. zp�otlns this moewe: Ilel Mppmirp.. 6oxhy rg9a11MSama m1518ke IXaM1 dreaOazsM1izQe mi99 AS1YaII CM1lrytlez NgIE IKYaa TeC1I MllarappW9 'aly anina184 vRRiPeO. 961KyrmemN001 ale, MNMb t Cama4NMm mtllneen MVe maupM1HUllymne up Mme MnAUl plan Yq oulMaMey mYMal41or11ia prpal TNz dIIN1elY'Nab erd'. Pntl tl coune.IM1N an wanWaM Iw]n l0 59 Y�. morel'. ndoflcoul .tt sanal Mto Iz M e a1MaYfIW NrblNa. T. The Eatery mmeHa new ly no mural <IC/ nesto the lrommvlwal are a .'I ngs amide; n4 s.TM L. makn.l <NImsl lonaer. and dieamma aavo-enrrenYllr <mOGam dMm: mr aKiln waxl$as p.I t edgem IhelpsVZS. the,momaal dNrgMp Ya1pards, eyxeflm lexaN. ealtlNmpecatly <. NpM1iWW,BN en far lmraWrdllvnmYr replYpars etl Wrg Miigln=de lrolenliellyhis .sumbg omens. vulnuaa101M1en (mm finpl0[a OabeR, MPWk4. c.Wazz emdrxe. etc. ,runl In W. IN Whl �M� Mtlre fommur8yia¢vUEdeEyl this 2vi4Gmlion ellnl, imgos 1 aTapRtl, etl paM61 irw ®war to q<prly please— Nbzhem Real Career Is becwnlnB more mare. 11 Is M 6Vo ®L pMldlim. As omen, are W trust our HM edlan Nwla p to pmvMe this bust vmae for our h And that dropped, maare W MoNE CELTAR SHINGLESIIII TNnL ycu fair .1, a: Sae -- comae. song ened, JutlXM1.N 1Nlfmm 6cd. @4v' CmuM�wnl la'e, OWin, CM1C 0.W,] I aps."'Jw 1mg-1, alar'daNa in CuHn, red mle.,.I in raven Mm those Gana. Kt ce—.. W ourrt dtl ftl preasons mn tan arimatal9s ro IN ma No war are pigNrg. That st CmgMdl MI rcMme asSWl ilb awl anchor Uaaaa aim max upeaara aW W in a t9HerpmYlon b moFltln.W p. p. yimpwxnaaa in IM forms. W 5 e> HJ gOozE X00. `0� 80 w x F 3 s CASE BOWEN Craughwell Manor La. P..mn astaar.ashicahawase —a , 6!GSE BOWEN Andy Trux eswasta.C.O To: Lpevsa�aeseMaancwn > was one a tha owrers kl istaMSSCSX 1. DadM Plata g yM 2arkre Cmaniseim maelin at aMM has Crerdmmll Mery lase Ill aw Psculaw and elbequa lly ION" welkal art tl that rea 1p In eluned duadinel. Feet -wM Is ITS Wraxa N trivial iM staff —I— and make nconinaws rn when the SmN opts htval Igllwe Me sWN'mm�mendatlm larpmsele by ecclimellwfi My Noe a SW makenapnmeneations. -that are earran, ivied. s«wM. IN .1 Oriental I an I. auy aiismryn W Ile CN —wica § nvtller ishade tIN One —. d buMlrq melenala i- m Impact n their Wablon, tM1X the NantlA —went is Intevanl. As an twiner. I ddleue 1. that Commissi- wks FOR IM pecge N Ns -rnnr ty, Ilv Ilefiramal impart MUST WIken into acnunl� initial when the aasassmntW retests the wn.gX an W IS% -M r he. d I. eppnisndvalleti the uria. TTis k rtl[ an imm�sglvllMl nsl loalry IX as w.ners. RE: Manor @ Craughwall Vil lag. Condominium Association - Important Nedoe Fin, Dec 1, 2016 at 3S] PM ulm WtlYMSeXnradl ®aM.mm> SIn RCa, 2alpalB @PM Ta IparannMeyemren. cps A PI... M1al fm la a. In IM Pbna6q WZm'aO 6mrd of Dual cxenep wr cW sal I can urgwcland ue bslre a Iwo slake aMneles wnere Ilwy areven dsviols.l«exemrM nlMdablivYa. Sulmrysn Mreaalreenlneal snrglara3aawTeral.. are om al Nee, Ytl lley SMIe nR pa rgrllretlan IYe ma'uI ma. inRCatonea n w6ara Me ere arn. K11911 Neke 9ancpluX chinNas M rd IcatilV appaenl a In naked eya. Wrdvs IMeletirxlkrns rite I. mTM OdPSI'In pyaneaO b) Garfxil rises rM ltlracl flnart181 rmm tly queliy agxvarce Nee GWtlrsW. Andy Tr16x own 6211 Clow hx =.0 Laaa owl, OMai 61a.]91.Sao @CASE 90WEN Lea Pasoan apasrsawne ambawn.amn> Reasons for my ryes" vote to the Craughwell Amendment LO: Us. Pr fnl aclsnrO, lam> Mn. DeC521118 eI10 .12PM To: Lisa Pearwn slfvnnp�cyeawn..nrm> ova Irvea al LauAhr51 airce 21n5. waY tle niv°rectereN'look ' loremain a1 CnupYwtll. wa+eit MIIymain ant nok M mwlth tM pmposee ammemenL Tn eepTelt sM1ireks ihM am on all SI our9aages stXl Wk yael altar m kW yC Tay tarewIIM1e ahMealNlaxlint t91waa reeuslmnN nonelp Tun IMclrty Mvasrea k9epat CrwltlWadll.AMwInk, toner i w the Mrq Pmmvennlfro,th ovfWldt Main are data. traughwe'I vitM1Ihaleaatfinazi9 WMan. Wawstill renvcnngfrnr. Ne epmtall ofiM tealrata wasL lthat ssmMV.e Mllb,Shl Mans AmelaMUlt Obas rain rn mart 0 mnen.ANaM1y Iimar{ that w91 mslet ism eavir ahka eNlgNe and tBrtsaltg the setre eMrl ..1-0 wiX Leak apse awMe tenoialN rant Shcie 6111 creugLaell Lena ercan.. .nos. toff BOWEN Lisa Pearmn caeuwrl®weOnwn.mm, RE: Manl Craughwell Village Condominium Association - Important Notice TenrvG{arnuyPOn D1A DNIDMRn11MEaral`{nany Fmn O.Mb FA,neu'{...]SSW w'Ine POSen IWaea�grsemwncamY d�.om .a. Regvalnl yon rayslbsap NIX [alnanutlm a Wry Mamw ®bwrNn'vNbIN Mlndned.l Mae yru`ret ,nceiNe many repes. As Or as wr kenaloq pea k ell ale tram an -1. veLe and bx M5 un and One camas .We sea dingle —... aekllg pesimile a. that we la rewPklurc wNCn wllb Prreor@1 sou kel NO ao [M1pee I nl she byte IMM m mu[D .as train . Wry [etlr—wa vtlu. terdr it Iwe.nM HpT Fwre rarities. Thee N. tet. in aP.ina. 1V NU' to Ia Ammtlmom wd all In wits lly crML shines WI — a.b and An. an. v JeunreJantFmhg[ ,aWILLMP diWcwmul canna theosmw 0, Anapan-Y[mtlaW[emceelWllwa Na GI lack✓meti to ,oily Wtchcaw.tuston'nh,S pataken. in aaml dare. Also,Ithiswoollyr WWoavweaxmae[acde MIrwneMxrrmxll y , anthalelullytnlantiaralrsulc :amela.�iai.wetm heyPaa.�d. reeaile., lna lytmyrosP.aklre as wml as o.ral[rinn. a Thank seals real N y — Map. .a, na.w. aeyn, W [7 5 J a> J J U p �o§ ` 0 .0 mi f 2 as as g High quality Moral shingles ere aireedy proving Neu wont on vie wo13 of Mecr W Cmuehwall Village's garage units. Changing the wom out. chute mingles m asphalt is Praeged strategy in obtam ug comment design throughout: the commmaty, cumaldly trial chop is W abdcer ones Then Nat ofshd.e shingles. Museum., the chacocteroftl¢ commumry is penemow4 as w[ mntmuemwlhevam feco-lifl projectinitscmentholdingpanero. Inatherw Ma Plantings Toningisnahelpingour anyway. ]heir fdlure to observe all ofttm derails oflhedhm6oq Wd=Wy heedingto Neil very WWlawpersPactivS is urmawpmble. We need m reresw Ne curtnt peleryliw afa commaniry in trouble ndwiN Problem,, a Nat ofagtoupoY. Applyi Iwmundl fs Nyafslsitoshare ibilim ofu ommm Wevery practical way. Applyirlga wand mategy of shoring me repauibilities of exmrixtr mdnmmoce and Bally am aokcmm e wbe Mediofs u, cth o m rwwl c"ededwicsj Mma h ommeh o wan leM1rse h msobtntt managiq is Me ultimate objective suehe Quie Mvply, I i48 meXere(Pride W are$ homS avd vie[ he Or she norm whin IS in woad angawialcoldt suctmd le onsn. PanoratoecceplNW .yexxxxnuisjualvwweepmblem airy 8roup NatslaMs in Ne waY of ifs iniluXwaM wceeafW exennion Briar) sit,. 6 125 1 ghwell lave November a, goes Deer Dubin PlM g and IDdrg CDmmiri MY Iamfly awns, ardour adult son mitles In, a condominium In tlw Mena at CraughwW Will As We kww, the hameawrere of Craughwel: Village are preparing m make a el milian diva iaestreentle our bdrea. We are happy m do this in spite M a wbdantiW fi endal reylimnwm because, like yon. we believe in me larrypkerm value al mainlainiq and Improving 8v mera l Iam me% to ask your support of our WmwWTerx esswWbn$ Welcome for th uaa of Wk ate materiels es via concrete and relmgarele our prcperlies. Our cabinet and central asmbe as thin mesa msterleh Aft have rimier malhetk aMeW to the etlatlrg materiels, wNk proven, A loner life and better praleclin far our builtlNgs. The ma the choose mabdale all All ourmmmunily, to etlaztl the Impact of our Investment ww into via furore. We haves vesbd Inbnmi Inmainmininga*r irgaWeamnce,mlIwtbecame MourpMein mage Md ulthe Ciy d Wblin, but alw beeause (like any homeowner) we wool me value of our INepeNea to inpeaae. We think Me plans pN together by our mooned and B WDineJare wit allow as to get maximum vokla out of our substantial'mveatment were at the ¢anatime muntiming the sexual oftepty of or wmminity. Therlkywverymuchfory rMn emfmn Mgvsreyuesl Iw Mhappybsbve eddtbnallMughraandindgMwirhWus Wdywwdedre. Ed Wheeler (Owner 8239 CmughwWl, Dui OH) -Yes "vote s gj6&iOWEN Do Pearson alpaam.ntimicamieweecosi 1188 "Yeal Vote to Amendment 5 _ s{l 1t Jmaeanmulw "InlWUandml[n�mlmage.Irw ma nee l,zmsW 11:52 AN 71� To: lies peerean �IpaemndDcaaWmwen.com> If� As an ownon At this Manor of Craughwall Village, cheese consider the folkn+ing: 3 We vote rims" m Me amendment for the following reasons: The preservation and using natural materials, using asphalt agodes vs. shake shingles will not W a only provide lmgevity m our unlea, hot high quality materials. Asphalt shingles are also used on g our garages. Having extravagancy and a cohesive look and feel is very important m> > Vs, the lever nreluel dNn Mabmassive, but Y this point w en Wly soured %rein An home W may alb to Wel commifted to retain to overall character of Me community; a haw look Nat tan to madeeted N real estate agerds mW Ne community rn " a., We wand to refresh and eeeeergl2e. We want m reverse the current perception of a community in 50 zo trouble and Wulf problems. so X00 TM1anks for Your cooperation. cooperation. ` O y V �iJill aexantlnmas W F qIGSE BOWEN u5m p.mmnn aparw�c.bmwn.apm> -Yes "vote Reason for .x_-k 8_016 .1. —_ Swn PolaaM<"pdsearrio M H 20, 2618 e13:XIPM Tc. Use P W McIpOBI&In�f 9eCOVRn.eana H Use As regelae, tae Is my maetn rwme 'Yes' vMe'. 3 My in end I Is. on he,, Boor, at Cowles ll in the met son, VreVeeVawmeJ lopYFm. Weare thready inpeced by the mYngis oo eM have the ectersmins.n a normal prm m ourcelmg mpove h orm plea Ml moms hove. sp6W meaNng cons, Wl vs am CeeplY wire &rIW vile th0 krcFVHy end VleblhY at ua hcnm tl IM hkJIV quality ones h Mgb Are of w t. Vs, the lever nreluel dNn Mabmassive, but Y this point w en Wly soured %rein An home W may alb to &ayfere. an, me a Nam. Hesuche aiglm vend bacen MOU VVn.s lTamis a., k s o!i CASE IOWEN I.I. Pelson .Ia earaoa®oaaebowapraurn> u Re: Manar@ Crsughwell Village Condominium Association - Important Notice g J Atlsn Mon, Mav 28.2016 at 3:24 PM i r Chamluselleewe Chadan> To:'Meor ®G1apM1well NI�e CondomNium ASSO ®ern -Lwe Pearson' ell:WSm�coebV.Mr.Cpn> � � Maa— 02 9 g�5E War Remons for my "yes" once: 00. Z 0 � v. w.ercouto regare .O � 2. Len ty of replacement mMenalswlll Mid up bMeruMeradweurweaMn rnntlMons, bwerFg cost of Mute replacement W 3. Mew rrateriah will inhibit The growth of moss and other moisture absorbing orpnizms, funber lengtbenirg the F IlfedTe mof. C There are many diRerent tlwkes to pad ft he when Roomesto ahcnabv a Methods, Stone the annotation the ebllRy to Red a culor/lok that pleausthe dry. ff Hope this helps. Pa Y Atlam g Y]XWH RECORD OF DISCUSSION City of Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission OHIO, USA Thursday, February 16, 20171 6:30 pm The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Perimeter Center, Subarea G3- Craughwell Village Condominiums 16- 0842 /PDP /FDP 6185 Craughwell Lane Rezoning /Preliminary & Final Development Plans Proposal: An amendment to the approved development text of a Planned District to revise permitted building materials and architectural elevations; and the replacement of roofing and building materials for an existing condominium development on the south side of Perimeter Drive at the intersection with Craughwell Lane. Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council of a Rezoning with a Preliminary Development Plan and review and approval of a Final Development Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050. Applicant: Jim Bender, JL Bender Inc., Architects and Planners. Planning Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Senior Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4675, chusak @dublin.oh.us MOTION #1: Mr. Brown motioned, Mr. Stidhem seconded, to approve Rezoning and the Preliminary Development Plan with no conditions. VOTE: 5 — 2 RESULT: The Rezoning and the Preliminary Development Plan were approved. .1;10101.1014 BILT16) d 4-1 Victoria Newell No Amy Salay Yes Chris Brown Yes Cathy De Rosa Yes Robert Miller Yes Deborah Mitchell No Stephen Stidhem Yes MOTION #2: Mr. Brown motioned, Mr. Miller seconded, to approve the Final Development Plan with no conditions. 11610 7) Page 1 of 2 Perimeter Center, Subarea G3- Craughwell Village Condominiums 16- 0842 /PDP /FDP 6185 Craughwell Lane Rezoning /Preliminary & Final Development Plans RESULT: The Final Development Plan was approved. RECORDED VOTES: Victoria Newell No Amy Salay Yes Chris Brown Yes Cathy De Rosa Yes Robert Miller Yes Deborah Mitchell No Stephen Stidhem Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Senior Planner Page 2 of 2 City of Dublin OHIO, USA MEETING MINUTES Planning & Zoning Commission Thursday, February 16, 2017 LCH 4 0 1 BZ1 2. 3. Perimeter Center, Subarea G1- Craughwell Village Condominiums 16- 0842 /PDP /FDP 6185 Craughwell Lane Rezoning /Preliminary Plan (Approved 5 — 2) Final Development Plan (Approved 5 — 2) BSD HTN /R Dedication of Right -of -Way Plat N. Riverview Street & N. High Street 16- 111PP /FP Preliminary Plat /Final Plat (Recommended for Approval 7 — 0) BSD C — Home 2 Hotel 17- 006MSP Upper Metro Place Master Sign Plan (Tabled 7 — 0) 4. Perimeter Center, Subarea C3 - Ohio Premier Soccer 7007 Discovery Boulevard 17 -OO5CU Conditional Use (Approved 7 — 0) S. BSD SRN — Cap City Diner 6644 Riverside Drive 16 -080WR Waiver Review Revision (Approved 7 — 0) The Chair, Victoria Newell, called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Other Commission members present were: Cathy De Rosa, Stephen Stidhem, Chris Brown, Bob Miller, Amy Salay, and Deb Mitchell. City representatives present were: Phil Hartmann, Vince Papsidero, Claudia Husak, Logan Stang, Aaron Stanford, and Laurie Wright. Administrative Business Motion and Vote Mr. Brown moved, Ms. Mitchell seconded, to accept the documents into the record. The vote was as follows: Mr. Stidhem, yes; Mr. Miller, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. Mitchell, yes; and Mr. Brown, yes. (Approved 7 - 0) The Chair briefly explained the rules and procedures of the Planning and Zoning Commission. She said four of the five cases this evening are eligible for the Consent Agenda. She reported there is a list of speakers for Craughwell Village Condominiums so that was pulled from the Consent Agenda. She said the Home 2 Hotel was pulled at the request of her fellow Commissioners. She determined the cases would be heard in the following order — 4, 2, 1, 3, and 5 but will be recorded in the minutes as represented on the agenda. PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 dublinohiousa.gov Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 16, 2017 — DRAFT Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 14 1. Perimeter Center, Subarea G1- Craughwell Village Condominiums 16- 0842 /PDP /FDP 6185 Craughwell Lane Rezoning /Preliminary & Final Development Plans The Chair, Victoria Newell, said the following application is an amendment to the approved development text of a Planned District to revise permitted building materials and architectural elevations; and the replacement of roofing and building materials for an existing condominium development on the south side of Perimeter Drive at the intersection with Craughwell Lane. She said this is a request for a review and recommendation of approval to City Council of a Rezoning with a Preliminary Development Plan and review and approval of a Final Development Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050. The Chair swore in anyone intending to address the Commission on this case. Claudia Husak explained there are two sentences in the development text that require wood shake as a shingle material and for all elevations to adhere to elevations approved in the mid 90's as this complex, which was apartments at the time, was approved by the Commission. She added the Final Development portion of the application is for all the final details - specifically materials that the applicant is proposing to change as part of the application. Ms. Husak presented an aerial view of the site that contained all of the condominium units as well as the clubhouse. She said the Commission tabled this case as requested by the applicant in November, 2016. She said the application has changed to some extent in terms of building materials and elevations. Ms. Husak presented photographs provided by the applicant showing some of the damage that the units have experienced over the years. She added the discussion about the cause of the damage has not changed; there is aging material and installation issues. She reported staff has spent approximately 18 months with the applicant to figure out how to best address the issues of the complex. Prior to that, she said they had discussions about faux chimneys that are on all the elevations and how to address water intrusion and mold that is in these units. She said as the applicant has been able, they have been repairing those chimneys one by one. She explained the damage is widespread throughout the complex and staff from Planning and Building Standards have visited the site to see the damage, first hand. Ms. Husak presented an elevation of one of the existing buildings. She indicated the applicant has chosen to keep the stucco and stone chimneys and repair as needed. She said the shake shingles are supposed to be removed, all substructures inspected, and replaced with a dimensional, high - quality asphalt shingle. She added metal work will be replaced with matching material. Depending the on the elevation, she said stucco and stone is still being proposed but only using one stucco color instead of two. She noted all the windows and garage doors will remain the same. Ms. Husak presented the proposed southeast elevation and explained the stone on the street facing facades will be replaced with new stone once all the repair work has been done and there would be no difference noticed. She said on the interior elevations the proposal is to replace the stone with matching stucco. Ms. Husak said staff specifically focused on the General Welfare criteria so the applicant ensures the residents have a safe environment. She said approval is recommended to the Planning and Zoning Commission and also to City Council. Ms. Husak presented the material details of the Final Development Plan proposed: beige stucco to match the stone and the asphalt shingle that was approved for Key Bank, which is in Perimeter Center but in a different Subarea. The Chair invited the applicant to speak Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 16, 2017 — DRAFT Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 14 Glen Dugger, an attorney with Smith and Hale, said he represents Craughwell Village. He said there are a lot of residents here to speak. He noted the Planning Report articulated the changes that are being sought from the original Development Plan. He pointed out that the 199 unit condominium association was converted in 2006 from prior apartments and the situation that the owner's association finds themselves in is one in which is not their responsibility and not their fault. He said he does not see how any of the owners could be charged with understanding the nature and extent of the deficiencies that were apparent in this project when they purchased their units, at least prior to 2014. He reported that 76% of the residents voted in favor of this proposal twice and spend an extraordinary amount of money to remedy these problems. He said that is what this process is about as far as he is concerned and they are requesting support from the Commission so that can happen. He suggested Jim Bender, Jim Bender Architects, speaks to the proposed materials. Amy Salay inquired about Mr. Dugger's involvement. He answered he was involved with the original people that built this complex but cannot find the files on this specifically but has files on the big picture of what happened on the east side of Avery Road. Ms. Salay inquired about how the apartment complex became condominiums and sold the units individually. She said she was curious as to what problems they knew about and when they knew it; she wanted to know when the mold started appearing. Mr. Duggar explained condominiums require a process to go from apartments, which includes a survey that has to be recorded. He indicated there is a three -year warranty that goes along with the sale of the units. He noted that was not the time period for which these issues started becoming apparent as that was late 2013 and clearly in 2014. From the time of the condominium conversion to the appearance of deficiencies in its construction, he reported is approximately eight years. He said the original conversion was handled by an LLC, which no longer exists. Deborah Mitchell asked if the condominium board was set up with the proper amount of reserves. Mr. Dugger answered it was properly funded. He said the association management is here and they can speak to that; they manage condominiums all over central Ohio. Ms. Mitchell asked if there were recommendations made to the prospective buyers or the condominium association for inspections to be conducted. Mr. Dugger answered the association has been trying to get to the root of this problem at least in the last 18 months. Ms. Mitchell inquired about the three -year warranty period. Mr. Dugger indicated he has never seen anyone physically inspect a roof of a condominium. Ms. Mitchell said she has herself, many times. Jim Bender, Jim Bender Architects, 3040 Riverside Drive, said his responsibility is how the exterior looks and the technology to make it last for the next 20 — 30 years or longer. He said they understand the street presence is very important and a significant community asset. He explained there will be a rain screen in the back and the materials will be installed correctly so no water infiltrates the walls. He discussed the materials they plan to use, which includes synthetic stone and shake. He said he plans to install the shake over the existing sheathing, otherwise they would uncover problems nobody could afford. Bob Miller inquired about the cost of the shingles from a square foot perspective. Mr. Bender answered the shingles are more expensive but the roof will look similar to how it looks now. Mr. Miller inquired about the stucco. He asked if old stucco would touch new stucco. Mr. Bender answered they plan to emulate the old stucco as close as possible except they are using a synthetic finish. Mr. Miller asked if the difference will be visible. Mr. Bender indicated he spoke with the best stucco subcontractor in Franklin County who said a difference will not be noticeable. He added he has seen it Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 16, 2017 — DRAFT Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 14 side by side and cannot see a difference but they will do a test and the Commission is welcome to come take a look before it is started. The Chair invited public comment William Loveland, 3300 Riverside Drive, said he is an attorney representing a resident that owns two units. He said he is here to help the Commission understand how massive the harm is from the delay that is occurring in resolving this problem. He said his client has had 3 or 4 written contracts to sell one of her units but all have fallen through because of the uncertainty as to the special assessment. He said even to do the job with these replacement materials, assessment of 20% of each unit is going to have to be paid and the units sell for about $110,000 so renovations will cost 20 - 30,000 per unit. He reported his client has had tenants move because of the mold and leaking water issues. He said the units are nothing but a burden to his client. He indicated he is experienced in condominium law. He said the only warranty that comes with a condominium is a one -year warranty on unit elements, which is a box of air in this condominium; there is no hardware to the unit other than interior walls and cabinets. He said the warranty for the common area is two years from the date of recording of the first deed to a unit so it expired two years after the declaration for this condominium was filed. He explained condominiums can be created by any multi - family property owner without a zoning review as it is not a change in use, it is still residential and within the Zoning Code. Mr. Loveland said the units leak like a sieve. For 18 months, he said the units have been totally unmarketable because black mold has been identified. In his 35 years of experience, he finds shake shingles are not appropriate for this climate and do not work long -term, failing after 8 — 10 years after installation. He thought the only basis possible for turning down this request is an aesthetic consideration. He indicated we are trying to address a real hardship on people as they cannot live in, rent, or sell their units. He said the association that encompasses 199 members can govern the common area. He stated the properties have gone down in value to over $100,000 and they cost a lot more than that when originally purchased. He indicated his clients are threatening to sue the Board because they are not fixing these problems and the Board is saying they cannot fix the problems because the City is not willing to cooperate with them. Kent Anders, 6113 Craughwell Lane, said he agreed with Mr. Loveland in that this is an aesthetic issue. He thanked the Board /group of volunteers for all of their efforts. He indicated he likes the changes the applicant made to the proposal from before to now, where the aesthetics are very close to the current structure. He said wood shingles in this area do not age well. He listed a few buildings that had asphalt shingles, which he thinks look horrible in most cases. He stated the water issue starts at the top. He indicated the owners are going to be in financial distress, according to the last Board meeting he attended. He concluded he hopes the Commission will vote yes to pass this proposal /application. Garth Kerr, 6131 Craughwell Lane, reported he has been a resident in Craughwell Village since 2007, during the initial conversion. He said he is painfully aware of the original construction shortcomings. He said he did a complete window replacement in 2011, under a different management association at which time there was no warranty. He said the engineer at the time was well aware of the mold and moisture problems in 2001 to the point the Mr. Loveland, the original builder, and he actually met during his purchasing process and the original builder sold all the units as premium condominiums and skipped town. Ms. Newell asked Mr. Kerr if he knew the name of the original builder to which Mr. Kerr answered he did not. He said when he replaced his windows he did some investigating and found the website and company to be gone but because that was 6 or 7 years ago he does not remember. Ms. Newell said she knows the name of the original developer of this project. Mr. Kerr said he was no longer building in this area or under that same name. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 16, 2017 — DRAFT Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 14 Mr. Kerr reported he spent approximately $5,000 for windows, $8,000 for HVAC, and $2,000 for water damage; all told, it has not been a great experience. Mr. Kerr indicated their architects and association have done an incredible job and have thoughtfully come up with a detailed plan to use outstanding building materials that match and exceed what currently exists. He said the building materials will have no negative impact to the overall visual appeal of the properties and will last longer and are more environmentally conscious in line with Dublin's self - proclaimed green initiatives. The existing shingles can be potentially hazardous in high wind; he said they are far less resilient than the proposed replacements. Mr. Kerr said he was disappointed the Commission did not originally support the application. He noted the whole community is excited about revitalization effort, improved curb appeal, and potential increases in property values. He asked the Commission to consider the outcome of not addressing the issue at all; minor aesthetic changes based on curb appeal as opposed to doing nothing. He reiterated that some people are really in limbo in terms of market and resale. He said everyone trying to speak today is trying to make the best out of a bad situation. He said he appreciates Dublin's strong zoning standards and that is part of the reason he lives here. Lisa Pearson, Case Bowen Company, said she is the property manager for the Manor of Craughwell. She said there are 199 unit owners and over 75% of them voted in favor of this application. She said her role this evening is to explain the events from November to the present. She said the first instances of water intrusion resulting from poor backing behind the stone and bad flashing was reported in mid Sept. 2013. In 2014, she said there were two additional circumstances reported and at that time, the Board could not identify it as a systemic problem; it was isolated. Ms. Pearson said in November 2014, the Association engaged with an engineer, Andy Halter, NRC Engineering. She said they began to evaluate the cost of the project and the Board looked at possible financing options. She said the responses to the request for proposal came in at between $3.1 mil and $4.5 mil and this would not include any monies for contingency including the mold behind the stone and any issues discovered underneath the shingles themselves, nor did the RFP include what would be required to put shake shingles back up, which is a replacement of the sheathing and the current shake shingles are not treated with a fire retardant. She indicated that if the association would be required to go back with shake shingles, they would choose to treat those with a fire retardant and cost would be enormous. She said two banks would approve the association loan to the extent needed for the construction and only one bank was willing to do a 20 -year loan. The most the association would qualify for is a $3 mil loan. Ms. Pearson said in June 2015, the Board began working on the passage of the first amendment specific to this project and that allowed the Board to take the loan; the collateral on that loan is the association dues. Throughout this time, she reported the Board and Andy were engaging as was shared with the City of Dublin. In beginning Sept 2015, she said the Board began to interview architects and Jim Bender was engaged in Feb 2016 and has been working diligently with staff since that time. She noted he has worked very hard in response to the comments made in November to move forth the project to meet with the Commission's approval. She said they have passed the second amendment in Dec 2016 to allow the modifications to the exterior of the buildings. Ms. Pearson restated Craughwell Village is owned by 199 separate unit owners and without approval of over 75 %, the association does not have the authority to change somebody's home without their prior approval. She emphasized, 75% of the owners of Craughwell have approved of this project. She said if the Commission does not approve, it is not a doable project for the owners because the association cannot afford it. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 16, 2017 — DRAFT Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 14 Ms. Newell asked if any forensics have been done on the building and had infrared imaging been done on the structures. Ms. Pearson answered there have been no infrared images taken. Ms. Newell said, as a design professional, it is something she highly recommends for this project. She said the investment will tell them how wet the building actually is on the inside of the structure. She said where there are no contingency funds in place, it is highly likely that all the sheathing will need to be replaced, a lot of the roof sheathing, and the expense associated with doing that infrared imaging is not expensive compared to the knowledge that is gained. Pat Noland, 6018 Innishmore Lane, said her husband works for a roofing company but unfortunately, he was not able to attend this evening. She indicated $250 a square seems pretty high. She said she just moved here a couple of months ago and loves it, it is a great property, it is beautiful, and she did not know all these issues were going on. She said people had difficulty selling their units because they could not tell prospective buyers how much the assessment is going to be but they love it so much they thought it was worth the risk as they did not plan on it being too expensive. She said now after this evening's comments, she is really concerned. She asked why the new and improved materials are not to be used to provide the same appearance and function of what exists. Rachel Hoertz, 6213 Craughwell Lane, said she purchased her unit in 2006, and she is in contract on her unit now, which is in jeopardy of falling through. She said she is losing a substantial amount of money just to walk away from the property because the value of the property has declined so badly. She reported she has lived in Dublin since 1995, attended Dublin Coffman High School, and remembers when this building was constructed and how wonderful and beautiful she thought it was. She stated the aesthetic changes being proposed will not diminish that at all but the most important thing in this room tonight is what is happening to the homeowners involved and the significant financial impact this is having. She said she grew up in Muirfield and knows what cedar shake shingles cost. She said construction on this development has been a major problem and it is not something any of them were aware of when purchasing their property. Brian Silverman, 6125 Craughwell Lane, said he has three different perspectives on this issue. He said he has been a unit owner since 2005, he is a Board member who maintains a safe and quality of life that this community provides to him and his neighbors, and he proudly represents the Boards of over 75% of his fellow owners who support this project down to its living, breathing origins. He said he has the unique ability to emphasize and exhibit the very evidence of those origins. He said the pictures of mold and wood rot that the Dublin staff presented to this Commission are of his home. He said the discovery was made only because of a water line break due the arctic temperatures the City experienced in the early days of January 2014. He said the water line break was unavoidable and similar events occurred throughout the country. He said the mold and structural deterioration that the Commission has been presented were exposed due to the extent of the otherwise unrelated water damage. He asked the commission to pay close attention to the level of mold and deterioration; this is among the contingencies of the association needs to be prepared to address as part of this project. Although there is some level yet to be determined, he said structural issues are ensuing from the failure of the roofs He said their expert team believes that the conditions behind the stone as pictured would be much more prevalent and costs do not result from materials alone. As presented by staff, Mr. Silverman reported the association heard the Commission's comments in November and propose the replacement of a predominantly stone fagade with a predominantly stone fagade on the portions that face the streets. He said the passage of the second amendment in 2016 represents the serious consideration owners gave to this situation. After their review of the proposed renderings from November and tonight, he noted 76.3% of the 199 unit owners approve of the proposed exterior modifications, less than 2% or total of 3 voters cast negative votes and the remainder of the ownership did not vote. He said this plan does not cheapen the exterior and not proposing the use of cheap materials or anything inconsistent with the character of Dublin. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 16, 2017 — DRAFT Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 14 Mr. Silverman said he purchased his unit in 2005 with an interest in its proximity to the cutting edge of Dublin's growth and development perimeter. He said he grew up in Dublin and enjoys the safe, well - maintained community that take pride in both its people and property values. He said this property was desirable for someone his age and income bracket. He said the location at the time was primary for all that was new and exciting in Dublin's future development plans; now the location offers proximity to many of those developments. He said it never dawned on him that his investment in a Dublin home could become such a gamble. He said he is happy to be here and has no plans to leave unless a governing body of the people, by the people, makes it an unreasonable and unmanageable. Jack Williams, 7095 Shady Elms Drive, said he and his wife own the unit at 6250 Innishmore Lane, which they have been fortunate to keep rented for nearly what they have to pay for it. He reported it has never really been above water but they have experienced front row seats to some of the problems described here as they are on the top floor. He gave credit to the management company, their band aid team actually did a great job at getting out there and fixing the problem but it is clear that leaks are springing as fast as they can patch them. He said the wood shingle has not been a good roofing solution for us. Mr. Williams said there are several units that have been for sale for a very long time, not just because of the uncertainty of the looming specter of having an assessment but because it has been costing him economically as much to keep the unit as he can get for it in rent. He said we do not need a lot of empty buildings in Dublin. Over the past several years, they have thought this is not the experience they had hoped for. He indicated they would not mind selling it but there are enough empty units in this building that they do not think they could sell it without a significant loss and that is not going to get better unless they have a lasting solution for the roof and they can say to prospective buyers that they have a sound solution and worth their while. Josh Emenovitch, 6257 Craughwell Lane, said he is also the president of the Board of Directors of Craughwell. He said he has been part of this community since 2007 and has been on the Board since 2011. He said they pulled data from the City of Dublin from 2014 — 2016 and also from Craughwell for the same period. He said the trends are quite alarming and do not support the concept of maintaining or increasing value by putting the same material up as they have now. He said the price per square foot for the City of Dublin in 2014 was $124.28. In 2016, the City of Dublin price per square foot increased to $132.96. In percentages, that is an increase of 7% from 2014 - 2016. The price per square foot for Craughwell in 2014 was $96.01 and in 2016, the price per square foot decreased to $87.31 or a 9% decrease. He added the average days on the market for the City in 2014 was 50 days and in 2016 was 48 days or a decrease of 4 %. Average days on market for Craughwell in 2014 was 49 days and in 2016 was 93 days, a 90% increase. The Chair closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Chris Brown said everyone represented themselves very well despite this emotional topic. He explained part of the Commission's duties are to assess every Code that they have and see when they may be able to waive a Code and all the materials were codified on that and everything defined. He stated that the reluctance to switch is based on that and also the aesthetics. He stated cedar shake shingles are a great construction material, only though if installed correctly and ventilated in the rear, underneath. He said in Central Ohio that does not happen very well. He said there are roofs in Kansas City that have been there 30 — 50 years. He said he deals with a Dublin home that has 35 -year old cedar shake shingles and they are beautiful. He said in this case, the shake shingles were installed improperly along with the other exterior construction materials. He emphasized it is not the material that is the problem, it is the installation method. Mr. Brown said the shingle proposed is suitable for three stories up and at that angle and the way it will be perceived. He said the shadow line is important and the way it is read. He said he appreciates the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 16, 2017 — DRAFT Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 14 effort to find an appropriate replacement that obviously is not a cedar shake but at least it keeps a lot of the character alive. He appreciates that the street fagade is proposed to be put back in order. He said there is a certain character to that complex; part of which adds value. He said the stucco on the interior court is acceptable. Amy Salay said she is fine with what is proposed as there is really not a great alternative. She said she is concerned about having units safe to live in completely repaired and people hope to buy. She said once the facades are being torn off, what is the likelihood that $3 mil will not be enough to make this whole. And if we run into that situation then what is the solution or are we absolutely certain that this fix as proposed is going to get us to where we all want to be. Mr. Dugger indicated we would all be fooling ourselves and he would be disingenuous if he stood here and said $3 mil will absolutely 100% address every problem. He stated Ms. Newell's suggestion to use infrared imaging will be helpful to find out what is going on behind some of these wall segments that they may or may not know have problems. He said if that is a condition of approval, that is something they would agree to. He said they do not want to get a fix that only takes care of 80% of the owners, excluding the remaining 20 %. He said we have a ways to go to completely defining the problem but the applicant could not tear off wall segment and roof until we could get to some point with the Commission. He said none of us want to be to the point we put blue tarps up but maybe by holding off exacerbated the problem. Ms. Newell said, in her professional opinion, the infrared imaging will show what materials below are wet, which will need to be replaced. She recalled the testimony that Mr. Bender said this evening with proposal of doing asphalt shingles and that product is used on commercial and residential buildings. She said she has used that particular product on a number of houses in Dublin over the years. She noted he had said he wanted to preserve the sheathing in place but she said it is highly likely it will still need to be replaced on a good portion of the roof that is there. She told the residents that they are facing poor construction in that building when it was originally built so materials that were there, synthetic stone, wood shakes, and brick, are all durable materials that would have a good life expectancy; cedar shakes last 20 — 40 years, the proposal and reviewing warranties on roofing materials in general, get asphalt shingles that will have a 50 -year warranty but the fine print has to be read to see what it provides. It does not guarantee that a roof is going to last 50 years and they do not guarantee the water tightness of the whole assembly, just the product. She said it is the flashing and air and vapor barriers that are important at installation to make the building water tight. She said where there is stucco above the stone, there was no flashing so water was permitted to pour behind those materials year after year. She restated it is not the materials that are failing, it was the construction /installation originally that is failing. Ms. Newell said she struggles with two issues on this application. She said as a Commission in general, our task is not to consider cost and she explained that every developer that comes before them could make the exact same argument that is being made here tonight in regard to materials. She said the Commission has opposed and turned down applicants that were requesting to replace cedar shakes with a different material simply because it was expensive. She said she feels terrible for the residents and why they are here. She said she cannot support a different material or the Commission is inviting that center to come back and make the same argument. She said what is in the development text is what the residents originally fought for. She said she is supportive of the other material changes on the non - street facing side. Cathy De Rosa asked if someone could speak to the sequence of this work and if the roof would be completed first. She asked what the homeowners agreed to when they approved this proposal. Ms. Pearson said they did not contemplate the order of the work and the first thing they would do is to have Jen, who is currently working on the bid documents, to have the final bid documents done. She said then they would look at the financing and likely they would start with the roofs and go top to bottom but Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 16, 2017 — DRAFT Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 14 that was not part of the amendment or part of what was discussed with the owners. She said their biggest hurdle has been getting the project through the Commission. She said until they know what building materials are permitted they have not moved beyond that. Ms. De Rosa indicated they are likely to find more than what is there and the sequence will be important to the residents. She said the proposal from November in comparison to today is quite different and is much more in character with the original intentions of that property and what it is today. She said that will help with the value. She indicated she feels a lot better about this proposal today. She inquired about the look and feel from a distance aesthetically if changed per proposed compared to what is there today. Ms. Newell noted everyone is going to have a different opinion. She said she always sees a difference between asphalt and wood shake shingles. Mr. Brown said he agreed that the materials are not the issue but the installation. He said since this is a third floor, there is a lot of trees, and is close to the street, the building is not read from afar and that is the only reason he is supportive of the asphalt. Mr. Miller said the height of the structure reads quite tall, almost four stories to him. He asked if the Commission is supportive of this, if they will be setting a precedent. He asked what would happen if Giant Eagle asked for the same. Phil Hartmann said these are two separate areas so the text being altered tonight is just for that one subarea. He said he does not have a great deal of concern because they are different circumstances. Mr. Miller said beauty is in the eye of the beholder and he has never liked cedar shake shingles. He said inside the property is irrelevant and at this height. He said this product will not look like cedar shakes but he does not think it will standout enough to make a difference. He reported he was supportive of the facelift across the property proposed in November. He said he is supportive of this proposal. He cautioned the applicant that they are facing much higher expenses than what they have considered. He noted there are not cedar shake shingles on the Craughwell garages today and the asphalt shingle is not dimensional, just a standard residential shingle. Mr. Brown said the one caveat is that the clubhouse retain cedar shake shingles. Mr. Stidhem said his concern in November was the stucco as he is not a big fan; he is not concerned with the roofs. He reiterated that the Commission as a whole is stating the installation of materials is more important than the products themselves. He encouraged the applicant and the residents to take the passion they have this evening and monitor the construction to fix these issues. Ms. Mitchell she said she has had mixed feelings on aesthetics. She said if the original construction is bad, it is a money pit and is worried for the residents. The Chair opened the floor for public discussion a second time. Jack Williams, 7095 Shady Nelms Drive, said they have been owners since 2005 and he believes the clubhouse was redone several years ago. He stated it was the first structure to spring leaks. He recalled in 2008 or 2009 there was an increase in the association fees specifically to redo the clubhouse. The Chair closed public comment since nobody else wanted to address the Commission regarding this case. Ms. Husak said she added a condition to the zoning application to address the clubhouse roofing Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 16, 2017 — DRAFT Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 14 Ms. Salay indicated she was not comfortable with the mix of materials. Mr. Brown said he has always read the clubhouse as different. Ms. De Rosa said it might stand out more than it blends in. Mr. Brown said they are really different because the roofs on the other structures are read the same as the clubhouse, to which Ms. Newell agreed. Mr. Dugger said they are indifferent to the materials for the clubhouse roof as long as the application is approved as presented. He said there seems to be a disagreement about that and he does not want to get into the middle of that and will defer to the Commission's decision. Mr. Miller said the clubhouse is a different animal but he could go either way. Ms. Salay clarified that she was not requesting that the applicant change the roof on the clubhouse just that when the time comes to do so, the applicant should not be required to keep the same shake shingles. Mr. Brown said if the Commission is fine to leave it for their own Board, he is fine with that so the condition does not have to be added. Mr. Stidhem said he did not have passion for roofs but if it was installed properly, it will be a long time before it will even have to be addressed. Ms. Husak said approval is recommended for the Rezoning and Preliminary Plan with no conditions Motion and Vote Mr. Brown motioned, Mr. Stidhem seconded, to approve the Rezoning and Preliminary Plan with no conditions. The vote was as follows: Ms. Mitchell, no; Mr. Miller, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Ms. Newell, no; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Stidhem, yes; and Mr. Brown, yes. (Approved 5 — 2) Ms. Husak said approval is recommended for the Final Development Plan with no conditions. Motion and Vote Mr. Brown motioned, Mr. Miller seconded, to approve the Final Development Plan with no conditions. The vote was as follows: Ms. De Rosa, yes; Ms. Newell, no; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Stidhem, yes; Ms. Mitchell, no; Mr. Miller, yes; and Mr. Brown, yes. (Approved 5 — 2) Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 16, 2017 — DRAFT Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 14 2. BSD HTN /R Dedication of Right -of -Way Plat N. Riverview Street & N. High Street 16- 111PP /FP Preliminary Plat /Final Plat The Chair, Victoria Newell, said the following application is for the dedication of right -of -way to the City of Dublin for the construction of North Riverview Street and future infrastructure improvements along North High Street. The site extends from the intersection of North High Street and Indian Run Drive to North Street. She said this is a request for a review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a Preliminary Plat and a Final Plat under the provisions of the Subdivision Regulations. She said City Council is the final authority on this application. A formal presentation was not requested as this was on the consent agenda. Chris Brown inquired about the creek that runs through Indian Run. He asked staff if the City of Columbus controls that property because it is a waterway. Logan Stang answered the City of Dublin owns the properties on the north edge of this application. Mr. Stang said approval is recommended to City Council for a Preliminary Plat and a Final Plat with the following condition: 1) That the applicant ensures that any minor technical adjustments to the plat are made prior to City Council submittal. Motion and Vote Mr. Brown motioned, Ms. De Rosa seconded, to recommend approval to City Council with one condition. The vote was as follows: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Miller, yes; Ms. Mitchell, yes; Mr. Stidhem, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; and Mr. Brown, yes. (Recommended for Approval 7 — 0) 3. BSD C — Home 2 Hotel Upper Metro Place 17- 006MSP Master Sign Plan The Chair, Victoria Newell, said the following application is a Master Sign Plan for two wall signs and a monument sign for a hotel on a 2.57 -acre parcel, south of SR161, at the intersection with Frantz Road. She said this is a request for a review and approval of a Master Sign Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code §153.066. The Chair swore in anyone intending to address the Commission on this case. Logan Stang Mr. Stang... Mr. Stang said approval is recommended for a Master Sign Plan with no conditions. Motion and Vote Mr. Brown motioned, Mr. Stidhem seconded, to approve the Master Sign Plan with no conditions. The vote was as follows: Mr. Miller, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mr. Stidhem, yes; and Mr. Brown, yes. (Approved 7 — 0) Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 16, 2017 — DRAFT Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 14 4. Perimeter Center, Subarea C3 - Ohio Premier Soccer 7007 Discovery Boulevard 17 -OOSCU Conditional Use The Chair, Victoria Newell, said the following application is to permit an approximately 18,000- square- foot indoor recreational use within an existing building in Subarea C1 of the Perimeter Center Planned District. The site is on the west side of Discovery Boulevard, at the intersection with Post Road. She said this is a request for a review and approval of a Conditional Use under the provisions of Zoning Code §153.236. The Chair swore in anyone intending to address the Commission on this case. She stated since this case was kept on the Consent Agenda that a formal presentation was not required. Claudia Husak said approval is recommended for a Conditional Use with no conditions. Motion and Vote Mr. Brown motioned, Ms. Mitchell seconded, to approve the Conditional Use with no conditions. The vote was as follows: Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mr. Miller, yes; Mr. Stidhem, yes; Ms. Mitchell, yes; and Mr. Brown, yes. (Approved 7 — 0) S. BSD SRN — Cap City Diner 6644 Riverside Drive 16 -080WR Waiver Review Revision The Chair, Victoria Newell, said the following application is for the installation of operable weather screens and sun shade for a new restaurant located in Bridge Park, Building C2 on the southwest corner of Riverside Drive and Bridge Park Avenue. She said this is a request for a review and approval for a revision to the condition of an approved Waiver to revise the required opacity of a previously approved sun shade under the provisions of Zoning Code §153.066. The Chair swore in anyone intending to address the Commission on this case. Lori Burchett... Ms. Burchett... Ms. Burchett said approval is recommended for the Waiver Review with five conditions, including the amended first condition: 1) That the applicant will install a Corradi USA -SL 135 hand crank system with shy zip tracks; Material is 8" woven acrylic borders (tempotest USA - Tempotest marine with 10 year warranty, T40779 -60 Silver Tweed') with clear vinyl windows (O'Sullivan Films -O'Sea clear vinyl; .030 gauge, marine grade) which is the same product as shown to the Planning Zoning Commission at the public hearing; Sun shades will be Mechosystems - Mecho /5 with manual operation with finish housing to match patio columns; The shade cloth will be ThermoVeil, Basket Weave 2100 black' with 30% opacity; 2) That the applicant will only utilize the screens during inclement weather events and as shade for patio patrons; Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 16, 2017 — DRAFT Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 14 3) That the screens are only permitted to be lowered during patio operation hours when patrons are present and the screens shall be raised at all other times; 4) That the screens shall be replaced every five years or sooner as needed; and 5) That the applicant come before the Planning and Zoning Commission after two years from occupancy to ensure suitability of the product. Motion and Vote Mr. Brown motioned, Mr. Stidhem seconded, to approve the Waiver Review with five conditions, including the amended first condition: 1) That the applicant will install a Corradi USA -SL 135 hand crank system with shy zip tracks; Material is 8" woven acrylic borders (tempotest USA - Tempotest marine with 10 year warranty, T40779 -60 Silver Tweed') with clear vinyl windows (O'Sullivan Films -O'Sea clear vinyl; .030 gauge, marine grade) which is the same product as shown to the Planning Zoning Commission at the public hearing; Sun shades will be Mechosystems - Mecho /5 with manual operation with finish housing to match patio columns; The shade cloth will be ThermoVeil, Basket Weave 2100 black' with 30% opacity; 2) That the applicant will only utilize the screens during inclement weather events and as shade for patio patrons; 3) That the screens are only permitted to be lowered during patio operation hours when patrons are present and the screens shall be raised at all other times; 4) That the screens shall be replaced every five years or sooner as needed; and 5) That the applicant come before the Planning and Zoning Commission after two years from occupancy to ensure suitability of the product. The vote was as follows: Mr. Miller, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mr. Stidhem, yes; and Mr. Brown, yes. (Approved 7 — 0) Planning Items Vincent Papsidero said Communications Claudia Husak said The Chair adjourned the meeting at 9:01 pm. As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on , 2017. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 16, 2017 — DRAFT Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 14 City of Dublin OHIO, USA PLANNING REPORT Planning & Zoning Commission Thursday, February 16, 2017 M-1 Agenda Item 1 Title Case Number Perimeter Center, Subarea G1 — Craughwell Village Condominiums 16- 084Z /PDP /FDP Proposal An amendment to the approved development text of a Planned District to revise permitted building materials and architectural elevations; and the replacement of roofing and building materials for an existing condominium development. Request Review and recommendation of approval to City Council of a Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan and review and approval of a Final Development Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050. Site Location On the south side of Perimeter Drive at the intersection with Craughwell Lane. Applicant Manor at Craughwell Village Condominium Association. Representative Lisa Pearson, Case Bowen Company and Jim Bender, IL Bender Inc., Architects and Planners. Case Manager Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Senior Planner (614) 410 -4675 1 chusakC&dublin.oh.us Planning Recommendation Approval of Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan In Planning's analysis, the proposal meets the regulations outlined in the proposed development text and the applicable review criteria. Approval of this proposal is recommended. Approval of Final Development Plan In Planning's analysis, the proposal meets applicable review criteria and meets the development pattern within the Planned District. Approval is recommended. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 16- 084Z /PDP /FDP Perimeter Center, Subarea G1 — Craughwell Village Thursday, February 16, 2017 1 Page 2 of 10 16- 0842 /PD Rezoning /Prelim. Dev. Plan an /Fi/Fi nal Dev. Plan 0 150 300 Icityof Dublin Craughwell Village PLR 6185 Craughwell Lane Feet City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 16- 084Z /PDP /FDP Perimeter Center, Subarea G1 — Craughwell Village Thursday, February 16, 2017 1 Page 3 of 10 Site Area ±13 acres Zoning PLR, Planned Low Density Residential District, (Perimeter Center, Subarea Gl) for 199 residential units within six, three -story buildings Surrounding Zoning North: R -12, Urban Residential District (Perimeter Lakes Apartments And Uses PLR, Perimeter Center, Subarea H (Village at Heatherstone Condominiums) East: PUD, Planned Unit Development District, Perimeter Center, Subarea F4 (Giant Eagle Shopping Center) South: PCD, Planned Commerce District, Perimeter Center, Subarea I (Crown Car Dealership) West: PCD, Planned Commerce District, Perimeter Center, Subarea F3 (Daycare, Bank and Veterinary Office) 'Case Background The site consists of a single 13.114 -acre parcel on the south side of Perimeter Drive at the intersection of Craughwell Lane. The linear parcel includes 1,100 feet of frontage along Perimeter Drive and approximately 700 feet of frontage along Mercedes Drive. The site includes mounding and a hedge row along Perimeter Drive and a clubhouse at the entrance to the site. The western edge of the property is adjacent to the Perimeter Center shopping center. November 10, 2016 The Planning and Zoning Commission tabled this request for an amendment to the approved development text of a Planned District to revise permitted building materials and architectural elevations; and the replacement of roofing and building materials for an existing condominium development. The Commission was concerned about the represented materials not being of the same quality as existing and generally felt as though the character of the approved architecture was not upheld with the proposal. October 5, 2006 The Planning and Zoning Commission approved an amended final development plan that included the addition of three garage buildings and associated parking lot modifications for the development. June 19, 1997 Planning and Zoning Commission approved a final development plan that included 199 residential units. December 16, 1996 City Council approved the rezoning /preliminary development plan. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 16- 084Z /PDP /FDP Perimeter Center, Subarea G1 — Craughwell Village Thursday, February 16, 2017 1 Page 4 of 10 tezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Rezoning to a Planned Unit Development requires approval of a development text to serve as the zoning regulation for the development requirements noted; the Zoning Code covers all other requirements. The development text typically addresses permitted and conditional uses, setbacks, parking, landscaping, signs and architecture, among other subjects. In this case, the development text contains specific regulations and requirements for the building architecture and building materials. Planning determined that the proposed changes require modifications to the development text that cannot be approved as a minor modification and advised the applicant to revise the text accordingly. The proposed text modifications address architecture and building materials only. Planning and the applicant have worked over the last 18 months with the applicants to determine the best approach to address the on -going maintenance issues for this condominium complex. Site visits with staff from the Division of Building Standards have highlighted and verified many of the buildings' deterioration due to age, improper installation and backing materials. Moisture intrusion, mold and insect infestation are the most pressing issues the condominium owners and the maintenance company are facing and are attempting to address with this proposal. Due to the magnitude and extent of the damage, the proposal is for a complete overhaul of the exterior of the buildings. The application includes many letters of support from current condominium owners who voted to have their dues increased to cover the epxenses of this renovations and who support the proposed plans. The applicant is proposing to renovate the six residential buildings in phases to address significant maintenance and material life cycle issues, water infiltration and lack of installation details when the structures were originally built. The renovation will consist of replacing the existing wood shake shingle roof and the underlayment down to the sheathing to thoroughly inspect and replace and upgrade where necessary. New metal work, drains, flashing and underlayment will be installed. The proposed new roofing material is a lifetime, heavy duty asphalt shingle with dimensions and colorations closely resembling the existing shake. As for the building facades, the applicant is proposing to repair or replace all sub surfaces. Stone facades on the interior will be replaced with stucco to match the stone and to match the same stucco as existing on the street facing facades. The applicant has revised the plans to replace all stone on the street facing facades with the same amount of stone. Several existing stucco elevations will remain. The plans indicate replacement and repair of each elevation of each building. Process 1) Consistency with Dub /in Zoning Co 2J Conformance with adopted P lans :] 3) Advancement of genera/ we /fare & orderly Ldevelopment 4) Effects of adjacent uses City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 16- 084Z /PDP /FDP Perimeter Center, Subarea G1 — Craughwell Village Thursday, February 16, 2017 1 Page 5 of 10 tezoning /Preliminary Development Plan The development text is proposed to be revised in the Subarea summary paragraph to address a requirement for architecture to be consistent with the Perimeter Shopping Center. The applicant has indicated in their submitted materials that Subarea G -1 (Craughwell Village) is the only Subarea within Perimeter Center that requires wood shakes as the shingle material. The Commission has previously approved a dimensional ashpahlt shake designed to have the appearance of wood shake for Key Bank in Subarea E. The Perimeter Lakes apartments were approved with asphalt shingles as well. The architecture section of the text was revised to permit a high - quality asphalt shingle in addition to wood shake and to permit architectural style and detailing to match what is proposed as part of this application. Brick, stucco, wood and manufactured stone are currently permitted in the text and no changes are proposed. The proposed development text requires architecture as it was shown on plans in 1997. Planning has not been able to locate the final approved elevations, however, the buildings as they exist today are assumed to be as approved. The proposed renovations will not change the architectural style, windows, doors, chimneys or wood detailing. The architectural style will remain as it is today. The proposed development text modifications are limited to permitting dimensional asphalt shingles as a permitted building material. All other proposed materials, manufactured stone, brick, stucco and wood are currentiv permitted. reliminary Development Section 153.050 of the Zoning Code identifies criteria for the review and approval for arezoning /preliminary development plan (full text of criteria attached). Following is an analysis by Planning based on those criteria. Criterion met: This proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Code. Criterion met: No changes proposed impact existing or future land use. Criterion met: The proposal addresses a need for residents to live in a safe environment. Criterion met: The proposed changes will continue to fit well within Perimeter Center and complement the surrounding area with high - quality architecture and building materials. Analysis 5) Adequacy of open space for residential 6) Protection of natural features and resources 7) Adequate City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 16- 084Z /PDP /FDP Perimeter Center, Subarea G1 — Craughwell Village Thursday, February 16, 2017 1 Page 6 of 10 Rezoning/ Preliminary Developme'r No changes are proposed. No changes are proposed. Criterion met: All required public infrastructure is in place. infrastructure j 8) Traffic and No changes are proposed. pedestrian safe 9) Coordination & Criterion met: The proposal provides for a coordinated and integrated integration of development with consistent architectural details. building & site relationships Criterion met: The proposal meets all other applicable laws and regulations. 10J Development layout and intensity 11) Stormwater No changes are proposed. management Criterion met: The proposal facilitates the maintenance and upkeep of a 12J Community benefit = prominent residential community in the City. 13J Design and Criterion met: The proposed development plan permits the use of high appearance quality materials consistent with the development in the vicinity. 14) Development Criterion met: The proposed phasing of the proposal is appropriate and will phasing be completed consecutively. 15J Adequacy of Criterion met: There are adequate services for the proposed uses. public services 16) Infrastructure Criterion met: No public infrastructure contributions are required. contributions Recommendatio elimina Approval In Planning's analysis, the proposal complies with the criteria and the proposed development standards. Planning recommends approval of this request. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 16- 084Z /PDP /FDP Perimeter Center, Subarea G1 — Craughwell Village Thursday, February 16, 2017 1 Page 7 of 10 Details Final Developmer Overview The final development plan indicates revisions to the exterior building materials of each fagade of the six condominium buildings to address ongoing maintenance issues and quality concerns. Architecture and The proposal includes the removal of the wood shake shingles, which are a Building Materials significant feature of these buildings. However, they have reached the end of their lifecycle and have experienced algae growth, mold, insect infestation. The owners are concerned that given the climate and lack of durability, installation of a new wood shake roof would perpetuate the existing maintenance issues. The proposed dimensional asphalt shingles have a life -time warranty, are heavy -duty and have dimension and colorations similar to the wood shakes. The proposed The proposal includes the removal of the existing wood shake roofing material and its replacement with lifetime, heavy duty, dimensional asphalt shingles to mimic Cedar Shake in Chapparal. Similar roofing materials were previously approved for buildings in Perimeter Center where both wood shake and asphalt are permitted. The exterior stone facades have experienced water leaks, which has caused significant interior problems to the units. The proposal will remove all stone exteriors, inspect and replace all sheathing and framing that is molded or has water damaged. The subsurface will be repaired and stone will be replaced at the first level. Stucco is proposed in place of stone at the interior elevation which is a revision from the previous proposal. The proposed replacement stone will closely matching the existing stone in texture and color. Any replacement stucco on the interior elevations will be Multi:Tex Parex Corp with "daub" texture closely matching the existing. Other renovation work will include replacement metal work to match the existing, such as roof eave flashing, snow and ice protection, flashing at all appropriate location of stone and stucco installations, new downspouts, wall cap flashing, flashing around all windows and doors, stone trim flashing and at the intersection of all materials. The proposal will retain all existing stone and stucco chimney, all brick facades, all windows (responsibility of the unit owners) and doors, garage doors, and all existing stucco. Final Development Plan Process Section 153.050 of the Zoning Code identifies criteria for the review and approval for an amended final development plan. Following is an analysis by Planning based on those criteria. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 16- 084Z /PDP /FDP Perimeter Center, Subarea G1 — Craughwell Village Thursday, February 16, 2017 1 Page 8 of 10 Details Final Developme� 1. Consistency with Criterion met. The proposal addresses significant quality and the approved maintenance issues and with the approval of the revised development pre liminary text, the materials meet the text, update the building architecture to developmentp /an, modernize it, while retaining the character and style that complements the development pattern in the area. 2. Traffic and Not app licab le. pedestrian safety 3. Adequate public Not app licab le. services and open space 4. Protection of Not app licab le. natural features and resources 5. Adequacy of Not app licab le. /fighting 6. Proposed signs are Not app licab le. consistent with approved plans L 7. Appropriate Not app licab le. landscaping to enhance, buffer, and soften the bur /ding and site J 8. Comp liant stormwater management 9. All phases (if app licab le) comply with the previous criteria. Not app /icab /e. Criterion met. The proposed phases will occur consecutively. 10. Compliance with ' Criterion met, The proposal complies with all other known applicable ' all other laws and local, state, and federal laws and regulations. regulations. Recommendation - Final Development Plan Approval In Planning's analysis, the proposal complies with the final development plan criteria. Planning recommends approval of this re uq est City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 16- 084Z /PDP /FDP Perimeter Center, Subarea G1 — Craughwell Village Thursday, February 16, 2017 1 Page 9 of 10 The purpose of the PUD process is to encourage imaginative architectural design and proper site planning in a coordinated and comprehensive manner, consistent with accepted land planning, landscape architecture, and engineering principles. The PUD process can consist of up to three basic stages: 1) Concept Plan (Staff, Commission, and /or City Council review and comment); 2) Zoning Amendment Request (Preliminary Development Plan; Commission recommends and City Council approves /denies); and 3) Final Development Plan (Commission approves /denies). The general intent of the preliminary development plan (rezoning) stage is to determine the general layout and specific zoning standards that will guide development. The Planning and Zoning Commission must review and make a recommendation on this preliminary development plan (rezoning) request. The application will then be forwarded to City Council for a first reading /introduction and a second reading /public hearing for a final vote. A two- thirds vote of City Council is required to override a negative recommendation by the Commission. If approved, the rezoning will become effective 30 days following the Council vote. Additionally, all portions of the development will require final development plan approval by the Commission prior to construction. In the case of a combined rezoning /preliminary development plan and final development plan, the final development plan is not valid unless the rezoning /preliminary development plan is approved by Council. Review Criteria Section 153.050 of the Zoning Code identifies criteria for the review and approval for a Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan. In accordance with Section 153.055(A) Plan Approval Criteria, Code sets out the following criteria of approval for a preliminary development plan (rezoning): 1) The proposed development is consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable standards of the Dublin Zoning Code; 2) The proposed development is in conformity with the Community Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, Bikeway Plan and other adopted plans or portions thereof as they may apply and will not unreasonably burden the existing street network; 3) The proposed development advances the general welfare of the City and immediate vicinity and will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding areas; 4) The proposed uses are appropriately located in the City so that the use and value of property within and adjacent to the area will be safeguarded; 5) Proposed residential development will have sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives of the Community Plan; 6) The proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and protects the natural resources of the site; 7) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and /or necessary facilities have been or are being provided; 8) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on the surrounding public streets and to maximize public safety and to accommodate adequate pedestrian and bike circulation systems so that the proposed development provides for a safe, convenient and non - conflicting circulation system for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians; 9) The relationship of buildings and structures to each other and to such other facilities provides for the coordination and integration of this development within the PD and the larger community and maintains the image of Dublin as a quality community; 10) The density, building gross floor area, building heights, setbacks, distances between buildings and structures, yard space, design and layout of open space systems and parking areas, traffic accessibility City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 16- 084Z /PDP /FDP Perimeter Center, Subarea G1 — Craughwell Village Thursday, February 16, 2017 1 Page 10 of 10 and other elements having a bearing on the overall acceptability of the development plan's contribution to the orderly development of land within the City; 11) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site so as to maintain, as far as practicable, usual and normal swales, water courses and drainage areas; 12) The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed development justify any deviation from the standard development regulations included in the Dublin Zoning Code or Subdivision Regulation, and that any such deviations are consistent with the intent of the Planned Development District regulations; 13) The proposed building design meets or exceeds the quality of the building designs in the surrounding area and all applicable appearance standards of the City; 14) The proposed phasing of development is appropriate for the existing and proposed infrastructure and is sufficiently coordinated among the various phases to ultimately yield the intended overall development; 15) The proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing or planned public improvements and not impair the existing public service system for the area; and 16) The applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service the new development. L DEV Review Criteria In accordance with Section 153.055(6) Plan Approval Criteria, the Code sets out the following criteria of approval for a final development plan: 1) The plan conforms in all pertinent respects to the approved preliminary development plan provided, however, that the Planning and Zoning Commission may authorize plans as specified in §153.053(E)(4); 2) Adequate provision is made for safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular circulation within the site and to adjacent property; 3) The development has adequate public services and open spaces; 4) The development preserves and is sensitive to the natural characteristics of the site in a manner that complies with the applicable regulations set forth in this Code; 5) The development provides adequate lighting for safe and convenient use of the streets, walkways, driveways, and parking areas without unnecessarily spilling or emitting light onto adjacent properties or the general vicinity; 6) The proposed signs, as indicated on the submitted sign plan, will be coordinated within the Planned Unit Development and with adjacent development; are of an appropriate size, scale, and design in relationship with the principal building, site, and surroundings; and are located so as to maintain safe and orderly pedestrian and vehicular circulation; 7) The landscape plan will adequately enhance the principal building and site; maintain existing trees to the extent possible; buffer adjacent incompatible uses; break up large expanses of pavement with natural material; and provide appropriate plant materials for the buildings, site, and climate; 8) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site which complies with the applicable regulations in this Code and any other design criteria established by the City or any other governmental entity which may have jurisdiction over such matters; 9) If the project is to be carried out in progressive stages, each stage shall be so planned that the foregoing conditions are complied with at the completion of each stage; and 10) The Commission believes the project to be in compliance with all other local, state, and federal laws and regulations. e PUD t R -1 I ¢��VIETER KESHIRE ,Q FS DR PER�METi_ff L1 Q �I OO ID 0 IMOU at M 11 C SPUD P II TF -1 TF 16- 084Z /PDP /FDP Rezoning /Prelim. Dev. Plan /Final Dev. Plan 0 150 300 Cl of Dublin Craughwell Village PLR 6185 Craughwell Lane Feet RECORD OF ACTION mee Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission Rein uu Tnuradar, xwemper lo, 30l6 l 6:30 qn Pt Pennire and raei,9 commenuen csm.e�i wnvec mwe�wn,. .°.oa`ZIPDPi pp.b ° RemnmRreM�n.narra.in:i° iw Mang Pv:mwi A e Defeat belong erplaen m¢ w Of n cartel OPSOHI an Lee 5DjPU Fail myth Craughodal Jose uquen' odCiry [eum pmonlq�a Hai a Fear may dayeand art don Safe creaced Fee appeal Of a Final a innimme Dreadeperges Plan unwaser the Wnda Inc., acMepa and theca Phil Feel add 10 H a;< Other minaRlrlwmAw: (614) 410 NUakadublm.ohn. us Dratereareprant RESULT. To P¢cnnxJ mN a PNlmlmp Dm IOP a pkmwebabled. o Yes sauioeV CUTS Brocan Yet 4^tlry no Room Yes Modern Miller yet skpden AdMre Yrs CEMFIUMOR C�r di ei <q Mamm�q larep Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2016 - Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 10 Motion and Vote Mr. BrOlAm Mr stodhern seconded, to approve the Waiver Reviam The vote ivar ar fellnvArMitchell, - Mr ; Mr Moller, ; Ms De Rosa, ; Ms Salay, ; Ms Newell, ; Mr stodhern, ; and Mr grown yes (Approved 7 - 0) 4. Perimeter Center, Subarea G1- Craughwell Village Condominiums 16- 0842 /PDP /FDP 6185 Craughwell Lane Rezoning /Preliminary & Final Development Plans The Chair, Victoria Newell, said the following application is a proposal for a rezoning to amend the approved development text of a Planned District to revise permitted building materials and architectural elevations and the replacements of roofing and building materials for an existing condominium development on the south side of Perimeter Drive at the intersection with Craughwell Lane. She said this is a request for a review and recommendation of approval to City Council of a Rezoning with a Preliminary Development Plan and a review and approval of a Final Development Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050. The Chair swore in anyone planning to address the Commission regarding this case. Jennifer Rauch presented an aerial view of the site as well as the existing building conditions. She noted the development text is very specific with regard to architectural designs and elevations. She said the applicant is proposing to renovate these buildings due to significant maintenance and material life cycle issues, water infiltration, and lack of installation details when the structures were originally built. She noted the renovation will consist of replacing the existing wood shake shingle roof with dimensional asphalt shingles, remove all stone from the buildings, repair and replace all damaged sheathing and framing and replace the stone at the lower level in kind and install stucco in the upper two levels in a matching color and finish. She said all the windows and existing stucco and stone chimneys will remain in existing condition. Ms. Rauch presented a proposed design from the southeast perspective as part of the Final Development Plan. She said the applicant is proposing to change the location of the building materials; where there is a stone section they are proposing to remove the stone but the lower level will be replaced with stone and the upper stories will have stucco. She presented a before and after graphic. Two different colors of stucco are being proposed she said depending on cohesion of the building; the existing brick detailing will remain. She indicated the overall style of this development is remaining. Ms. Rauch said approval is recommended of the Rezoning with a Preliminary Development Plan with no conditions to City Council and approval is recommended for the Final Development Plan with no conditions. Bob Miller confirmed the garages have asphalt shingles on them currently. The Chair invited the applicants to present. Lisa Pearson, Case Bowen Company, 6255 Corporate Center Drive, and Jim Bender, JL Bender Inc., Architects and Planners, 3340 Riverside Drive, Upper Arlington, Ohio. Mr. Bender said he has had some very challenging technical problems with this development that are not on the surface. He said they want to preserve the architectural appearance of the development. He said the stone on these massive stone structures are causing all the problems so that is where their focus is. He indicated they want to improve the value for both the community and the people that reside there and the way to make it better is to lighten it up and make it fresher for a 2016 look. He said the stone is not real stone, it is constituted stucco and they believe that by removing some of the stone and replacing Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2016 — Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 10 it with stucco will lighten it up. He reported there are serious mold issues that even can be smelled from the street so they really need to change the roof. He said they are proposing a heavy duty shingle in two different colors so the six buildings alternate to provide more variety. He said they are expecting to find extensive water damage when they remove the brick so the new synthetic stone, stucco are going to be installed as a rain screen technology so it should prevent water infiltration for 30 — 40 years. He said the roof is a fire hazard; it is extremely costly for the residents to install that now. He presented a material sample of the stucco of which this will be the first installation in this area. He said the guarantee on the roof shingle is 50 years and 20 — 30 for the stucco without all these water problems. He concluded after these renovations proposed, the value of the buildings will increase. Amy Salay said she understands the shake shingles were beautiful but they are not working. She said it would be helpful if she could see a material sample. She indicated she is not sure she likes alternating the colors on the buildings. She said she has a problem with changing the stone into a stucco as it will fundamentally change the appearance of the building and not in a good way. She indicated she is nervous about this brand new product. She noted her parents had a home built of brick and stone and it never leaked so she is questioning if the installation was done correctly. She stated she wants to see the materials that are out there maintained but the problems resolved. She said she is fine with changing the roof material. Vicki Newell said she respectfully disagrees with the presentation. She said it is a lovely building the way it is designed right now. The proposed aesthetic changes to the exterior of the building she said are not an improvement. She said she does not believe the water issues are a result of any of the materials that have been used but rather how the building was constructed. She stated she cannot support changing the shake roof; it is part of the character of the building; and other applicants have requested the same and have been denied so she wants to be consistent. She said Colonial Williamsburg has a number of buildings that have the appearance of shake shingles to preserve the appearance of historic structures, so the shingles they used are actually clay and they are available on the market. She concluded she could not support the changes in the Development text as this proposal does not warrant it. Chris Brown said he agrees with Ms. Newell and if the stone is changed, the replacement has to match what is there. He said cedar shakes work just fine if properly ventilated and put on slats and the attic is ventilated properly. He indicated it is a 50 -year product if installed in the correct manner. He would not mind if the stone was replaced with stucco on the back side of the buildings but the fronts are paramount to keep the character, particularly the clubhouse. He encouraged the applicant to explore other options. Cathy De Rosa said she agreed with her fellow Commissioners. She said the proposed changes would absolutely change the character and she would not support those changes. She said she would defer to her colleagues on the roofing materials. Steve Stidhem said he did not know anything about roofing but in general he hates stucco and the stone is a better look. Deb Mitchell said the stone is really important from a branding perspective and the look and feel for the whole area. She said those buildings are part of other things which all flows together as stone is one of the integrating elements. She encouraged the applicant to find materials that would preserve the look. She said structures need to be brought up -to -date in terms of their durability, sustainability, and functionality but not the look. Bob Miller said he thought since the complex was tight and each building was three stories that he liked the asphalt shingles that are on the garages and not the shake shingles on the rooftops. He stated he would be supportive of the asphalt shingle roof. He agreed with the applicant in terms of replacing the stone with the stucco would refresh the look of the complex and the only proposed change he questions Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission November 10, 2016 — Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 10 is matching the stucco. He applauded the investment into the property because it is good for Dublin, overall. Mr. Bender said the buildings are 75 — 80% brick but they are proposing to remove 12 — 15% of the brick. He said the biggest change is probably the roof; they selected the heaviest and best shingle on the market. He said clay shingles would be six times as expensive. Ms. Newell said cost is not an issue that the Commission takes into consideration. She said they look at review standards and when the applicant is proposing a lesser quality material then what was there before, and the applicant stated in their presentation that they are doing some of these things as a cost - saving measure and she understands doing that for the residents but this is a review of the full development text so everything else in the same development has to face the same standards. Looking at the review standards, she stated she did not think that it met the effect of the adjacent uses and is not consistent with the surrounding development so it did not comply with condition 9 for coordination and integration of the building and site relationships because it is changing the development standards of all being replaced for this property and the surrounding development and this was done to coordinate with the Village Center when it was built. Mr. Bender said there is a difference on all six buildings between the street presence and the garage side. He explained there are two peak roofs in the middle of each fagade and that is where they had planned to replace the stone with stucco. Ms. Newell said she understands the applicant's argument is water infiltration but if the stone is installed properly and detailed properly it is a durable finish on the exterior of a building so she does not see the need to change materials and it would aesthetically change the appearance that was there and change the development text. Ms. Newell said the Commission can vote on this application this evening or the applicant can request to table the case. Mr. Bender asked to table the case. Motion and Vote Mr. Brown motioned, Ms. Mitchell seconded, to table the application. The vote was as follows: Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mr. Miller, yes; Mr. Stidhem, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. Mitchell, yes; and Mr. Brown, yes. (Approved 7 — 0) �MFi1 .R'T1747_ R1tR- 111SRf7Rf7.11R1Et1R.'� -Tt:1 _ _ _ f7.Ti7R- 7 -Tn7.. .ltL1�Si71dE1ttl -R _ _ ; _ _ I ems^... .. TT JRIR -T._t�l'f�Illl- TS7T71:T.R.'iT. _ l-i7. - _ - • 7T._�7_T.T.R7A:Ti�. _ ._ _ _- PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION OCTOBER 5, 2006 CITY OF DUBLIN,. Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone: 614 -410 -4600 Fox: 614 -410 -4141 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 2. Amended Final Development Plan 06- 130AFDP – Perimeter Center, Subarea G1 – Craughwell Village Garage Additions – Perimeter Drive Location: 13.114 acres located on the south side of Perimeter Drive at the intersection of Craughwell Lane. Existing Zoning: PLR, Planned Low - Density Residential District (Perimeter Center plan). Request: Review and approval of an amended final development plan under the provisions of Section 153.053(E)(2)(b) and 153.055(B). Proposed Use: Three eight -car garage buildings and associated parking lot modifications for an existing multi - family residential development. Applicant: The Manor at Craughwell Village Condominium Association, 6185 Craughwell Lane, Dublin, Ohio 43017; represented by Randall Reger, Meleca Architecture, 150 East Broad Street, Suite 600, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Judson J. Rex, Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410- 4654/Email: jrex @dublin.oh.us MOTION: To approve this Amended Final Development Plan because the modifications will provide an additional amenity to the residents of the development, the garages are appropriately located on the site and match the existing on the site, with two conditions: 1) That the applicant apply for all necessary building permits prior to construction; and 2) That the landscaping and tree preservation plans be modified to reflect the comment sin the staff report. * Randall Reger agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 4-0. RESULT: This Amended Final Development Plan was approved. STAFF CERTIFICAT N — �_ W�A& (� & Juds n J. Rex Planner Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — October 5, 2006 Page 7 of 8 fIVriffmm9!!EP.W IT• rrE In .!'ZSfSY.SNEW- �Rmi- MR9'JS.9S". ..iT -NERR r 2. Amended Final Development Plan 06- 130AFDP — Perimeter Center, Subarea GI — Craughwell Village Garage Additions — Perimeter Drive Mr. Zimmerman asked if anyone in the audience was present to speak in regards to this case. There being none, he swore in the applicant's representative, Randall Reger, Meleca Architecture, who then agreed to the two conditions as listed in the staff report. Vote and Motion: Mr. Zimmerman made the motion to approve this Amended Final Development Plan because the modifications will provide an additional amenity to the residents of the development, the garages are appropriately located on the site and match the existing on the site, with two conditions: m 2. Amended Final Development Plan 06- 130AFDP — Perimeter Center, Subarea GI — Craughwell Village Garage Additions — Perimeter Drive Mr. Zimmerman asked if anyone in the audience was present to speak in regards to this case. There being none, he swore in the applicant's representative, Randall Reger, Meleca Architecture, who then agreed to the two conditions as listed in the staff report. Vote and Motion: Mr. Zimmerman made the motion to approve this Amended Final Development Plan because the modifications will provide an additional amenity to the residents of the development, the garages are appropriately located on the site and match the existing on the site, with two conditions: .. 2. Amended Final Development Plan 06- 130AFDP — Perimeter Center, Subarea GI — Craughwell Village Garage Additions — Perimeter Drive Mr. Zimmerman asked if anyone in the audience was present to speak in regards to this case. There being none, he swore in the applicant's representative, Randall Reger, Meleca Architecture, who then agreed to the two conditions as listed in the staff report. Vote and Motion: Mr. Zimmerman made the motion to approve this Amended Final Development Plan because the modifications will provide an additional amenity to the residents of the development, the garages are appropriately located on the site and match the existing on the site, with two conditions: Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — October 5, 2006 Page 8 of 8 1) That the applicant apply for all necessary building permits prior to construction; and 2) That the landscaping and tree preservation plans be modified to reflect the comments in the staff report. Mr. Walter seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Jones, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; and Mr. Zimmerman, yes. (Approved 4 — 0.) 3. Concept Plan 06 -131CP — La Scala Italian Bistro — Mixed Use Development — 4209 West Dublin Granville Road Mr. Zimmerman asked if the applicant was present. Ms. Adkins indicated that they had submitted a letter requesting to be tabled. Vote and Motion: Mr. Fishman made a motion to table this Concept Plan at the request of the applicant. Mr. Walter seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ms. Jones, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; and Mr. Zimmerman, yes. (Approved 4 — 0.) The meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, � / ;r,- , '�' V/jy, Flora Rogers Administrative Assistant DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION November 7, 1996 l;l "I'l OF Ut BIT) The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 2. Rezoning Application Z96 -009 - Perimeter Center - Subarea G1 - Multi - Family Location: 13.114 acres located on south side of Perimeter Drive, approximately midway between Avery/Muirfield Drive and Wilcox Road. Existing Zoning: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Perimeter Center Plan). Request: PLR, Planned Low Density Residential District. Proposed Use: A three -story multi - family development of 198 units and a clubhouse. Applicant: Hallmark Communities, Ltd, c/o Mark Pottschmidt, Continental Real Estate, 150 East Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215. MOTION: To approve this rezoning because it contributes to the established residential area, continues the high architectural standards of Perimeter Center, meets the PLR requirements, provides an additional type of housing for the community on a site which is appropriate for multi- family development, with 12 conditions: 1) That prior to the final development plan, verification that the parcels have been combined be submitted; 2) That all opposing curbcuts be shown on the plan and that points of access for the site meet the text requirements and approval of the City Engineer; 3) That a parkland fee in the amount of $121,360.00 be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of a building permit or recording of the final plat, as appropriate; 4) That a easement and right -of -way dedication plat be provided for this development indicating the location of public and private easements, vehicular access, access restriction, and maintenance responsibilities for private utilities and streets, as approved by the City Engineer; 5) That the design of private streets, private and public utilities, storm water management and grading plan for the site meet the requirements of the City Engineer; 6) That the site layout take into consideration the presence of existing public and private utilities, as approved by the City Engineer; 7) That the applicant demonstrate building materials, colors and proportions at the Planning Commission meeting; Page 1 of 2 DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION November 7, 1996 2. Rezoning Application Z96 -009 - Perimeter Center - Subarea G1 - Multi - Family (Continued) 8) That prior to construction, the site plan, and architecture be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission utilizing the final development plan process; 9) That the appropriate parking ratio be determined at final development plan; 10) That all signs, lighting, and landscaping comply with the City's Code, subject to staff approval; 11) That the applicant provide within two weeks, a revised Subarea Plan for Perimeter Center; and 12) That the text be revised to include an expiration clause prior to going to Council, subject to staff approval. * Franklin E. Kass agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 4 -1. RESULT: The Commission recommends approval of this rezoning application. It will be forwarded to City Council, upon resolution of the outstanding issues listed above, with a positive recommendation. STAFF CERTIFICATION Tim Evans Planner Page 2 of 2 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - November 7, 1996 Page 2 AAeradisouggienregardin g t4e �P� of past mWings aconsensu S Pm� to use-a t agenda heginn Ong in Tangy 1Q°7 S;jjtjpg oh.,,,l.i hp minlmi7Pd rP]V�tng on m-nd Sly to nrPCPntatinna 2. Rezoning Application Z96 -009 - Perimeter Center - Subarea GI - Multi - Family Tim Evans presented this rezoning for 13.8 acres on the south side of Perimeter Drive. It is zoned for a flex - office complex (PCD), and the PLR, Planned Low Density District is requested for 198 apartments in three -story buildings. It is in Perimeter Center Subarea F2, allowing Community Commercial and Suburban Office uses. This application creates a new Subarea G1. Mr. Evans said the apartments will face the streets, and garages will abut the rear line. The site wraps around a portion of the shopping center and will screen the loading area. The mound with evergreens provides temporary screening. The architecture will match the shopping center. This site is shown as an Activity Center in the 1988 Community Plan and is appropriate for multi- family use. A density of 15 du /acre is proposed which is the highest in Dublin. Perimeter Lakes was developed at a density of 10.5 du /acre, and the Village at Heatherstone is less than 7 du /acre. Landscaping will include a continuous three -foot hedge, stone pilasters 50 feet apart, and street trees. Staff recommends an additional line of trees be planted along the proposed bikepath. The maximum height for Subarea Gl will be 45 feet. Code for multi- family units requires 2.5 parking spaces per unit, and 2.25 spaces per unit are proposed. The Staff feels parking should be examined at the final development plan stage. No parkland is to be dedicated, but a park fee of $121,360 is to be paid prior to final occupancy. The buildings will be finished with natural materials such as brick, wood, manufactured stone, and stucco of earthtone colors. Roofs will be at least 6:12 with wood shingles. The garages in the rear will have asphalt shingles and vinyl siding. He said staff is recommending approval with 11 conditions: 1) That prior to the final development plan, verification that the parcels have been combined be submitted; 2) That all opposing curbcuts be shown on the plan and that points of access for the site meet the text requirements and approval of the City Engineer; 3) That a parkland fee in the amount of $121,360. be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of a building permit or recording of the final plat, as appropriate; 4) That a easement and right -of -way dedication plat be provided for this development indicating the location of public and private easements, vehicular access, access restriction, and maintenance responsibilities for private utilities and streets, as approved by the City Engineer; Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - November 7, 1996 Page 3 5) That the design of private streets, private and public utilities, storm water management and grading plan for the site meet the requirements of the City Engineer; 6) That the site layout take into consideration the presence of existing public and private utilities, as approved by the City Engineer; 7) That the applicant demonstrate building materials, colors and proportions at the Planning Commission meeting; 8) That prior to construction, the site plan and architecture be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission utilizing the final development plan process; 9) That the appropriate parking ratio be determined at final development plan; 10) That all signs, lighting, and landscaping comply with the City's Code and design guidelines; and 11) That the applicant provide within two weeks, a revised Subarea Plan for Perimeter Center. George Peplow asked if Building F had access between it and the Perimeter Center parking lot. Mr. Evans said no and that landscaping in this area would be addressed later. Frank Kass, the applicant, said an excellent development called Victoria Gate has a density of 50 du /acre. This development will have a lower density but a higher degree of exterior quality. Higher density provides the opportunity to build in more amenities, better materials, etc. The apartments will cover up the back of the shopping center. The redefined site is 13.114 acres, and the building coverage will be only 2.53 acres. He gave some statistical and demographic information on the Sycamore Ridge apartments and its residents. Mr. Kass said the Sycamore Ridge rent ranges from $675 to $1,300 per month. He said this development would probably rent for 25 percent more than Sycamore Ridge, and "corporate housing" might be up to 50 percent of the total development. He said there would be very few school -aged children. Mr. Kass said these would be the highest quality rental units in the Dublin marketplace, and that is a function of density. He said the apartments directly across the street are not brick and have asphalt shingle roofs, not wood shakes. Mr. Kass said Perimeter Center is the nicest community center that could be done providing a walking street environment, as Dublin requested. It is extraordinarily good - looking and works. The problem had always been screening the back of it. Flex buildings of similar materials and colors were planned, but due to low demand, it might be years before construction. He said the proposed multi- family has a better look and will complement the activity center. He said the Community Plan indicates this area designated for multi - family. Mr. Kass said Sessions Village was built 70 years ago by Frank Leveque and was the highest density ever used. It is outstanding and is on the National Historic Register. Mr. Ferrara asked if there is vehicular access to the back of the center from the main driveway. Mr. Kass said yes, and also between Buildings E and F. There is no access from the service area to the units anywhere else. About 100 -150 employee spaces are behind the shopping center. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - November 7, 1996 Page 4 Mr. Sutphen said he would not object if this development improves on those in the area. He said Mr. Kass had a good record in Dublin with Sycamore Ridge. Mr. Sutphen said the existing screening was not sufficient. He liked the height and materials proposed. Mr. Harian said he liked the project and asked about "corporate housing ". Mr. Kass said they rented units in groups for corporate housing. The units are furnished and re- rented to corporations, instead of using hotels. Mr. Kass said the neighboring credit union and veterinarian were contacted. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher said she liked the project and supported the density. She said the issue was whether to give up the commercial space for multi - family housing. Mr. Peplow said density was his first concern at the previous meeting. After studying several higher density projects since then, he thinks this will work. He thought this development would be better for the neighboring businesses than the empty field. He supported this project. Mr. Kass said he agreed with the above conditions. He preferred a parking ratio of 1.75 spaces per unit, for more greenspace. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher said it was not necessary to determine the ratio at this time. Mr. Kass wanted it to be known now, not later. Mr. Kass asked that lighting not be subject to Dublin Design Guidelines. He said they are too bright for residential areas. Safety can be provided with normal lighting. Mr. Sutphen asked that the lighting at the entrance /exit meet the guidelines. Mr. Kass agreed. Ms. Boring asked to substitute "...subject to staff approval" in Condition 10. Mr. Kass agreed. Mr. Kass requested a reversion clause if construction has not begun within 12 months after the rezoning becomes effective. Mr. McKitrick owns the land, and he would like to have commercial zoning if this project is not built. Ms. Clarke said no reversion language has been submitted and suggested that the specific text language be resolved later with the staff. Ms. Boring thought the parking could be re- figured based on number of bedrooms. Ms. Boring thought this project looked good and also liked Victoria Gate. She said the Mt. Auburn Study identifies the area as a priority one for commercial development, and that was the preferred use. Mr. Harian liked the synergy between this project and the shopping center. This is an upscale complex with a upscale shopping center, and the parts will complement each other. Ms. Clarke said the bedroom mix and corporate housing characteristics should be evaluated to determine the appropriate amount of parking at the time of the final development plan. Ms. Clarke said the Dublin Lighting Guidelines do nnl establish a higher base level of lighting than the zoning code. They establish criteria for the even distribution of light on the site which Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - November 7, 1996 Page 5 is preferable for security and safety purposes. She said the guidelines could be adjusted for residential settings. Mr. Sutphen made a motion to approve this rezoning because it contributes to the established residential area, continues the high architectural standards of Perimeter Center and provides Dublin with a new type of housing in an area appropriate for multi - family development, with 12 conditions: 1) That prior to the final development plan, verification that the parcels have been combined be submitted; 2) That all opposing curbcuts be shown on the plan and that points of access for the site meet the text requirements and approval of the City Engineer; 3) That a parkland fee in the amount of $121,360 be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of a building permit or recording of the final plat, as appropriate; 4) That an easement and right -of -way dedication plat be provided for this development indicating the location of public and private easements, vehicular access, access restriction, and maintenance responsibilities for private utilities and streets, as approved by the City Engineer; 5) That the design of private streets, private and public utilities, storm water management and grading plan for the site meet the requirements of the City Engineer; 6) That the site layout take into consideration the presence of existing public and private utilities, as approved by the City Engineer; 7) That the applicant demonstrate building materials, colors and proportions at the Planning Commission meeting; 8) That prior to construction, the site plan, and architecture be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission utilizing the final development plan process; 9) That the appropriate parking ratio be determined at final development plan; 10) That all signs, lighting, and landscaping comply with the City's Code, and the design be subject to staff approval; 11) That the applicant provide within two weeks, a revised Subarea Plan for Perimeter Center; and 12) That the text be revised to include an expiration clause prior to the Council hearing, subject to staff approval. Mr. Peplow seconded the motion. Mr. Kass agreed to the amended conditions as listed above. The vote was as follows: Mr. Harian, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Ms. Boring, no; Mr. Sutphen, yes; and Mr. Peplow, yes. (Approved 4 -1.) Full C I T Y O F D U B L I N Department of Planning & Development RECORD OF ACTION DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 9, 1992 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action in the application below at its regular meeting: S. Revision to Final Development Plan - Perimeter Lakes Apartments Location: 20.143+ acres located on the north side of Perimeter Drive and the west side of Wilcox Road, approximately 400 feet east of Avery Road. Existing Zoning: R -12, Urban Residential District (Perimeter Center Plan) Request: Changes in color pallette and architectural trim to be used on project. Proposed Use: 189 apartments in 19 two -story buildings. Applicant: Newtowne Development Corporation, Inc., c/o Paul Schmitt, 5890 Sawmill Road, Dublin, OH 43017. MOTION: To approve the architectural Alterations requested, specifically the sunburst accents and lattice work. (The applicant withdrew his request to modify the color scheme, and this was not considered.) VOTE: 7 -0 RESULT: This revision to the Final Development Plan was approved. STAFF CERTIFICATION: Barbara M. Clarke Zoning Administrator 5131 Post Rd. Suite #102 Dublin, Ohio 43017 614.761.6553 F A X 7 6 1 . 6 5 6 6 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 9, 1992 Page 21 • .•• . .. •• • • • •• • • • _ _ d' r. T.: �7: T' �•!* 1. T. Fi7tt�fT.�TT.r.!*1.T':fi�fT.T.� ' • ■ • • ■ • •• - - • - lie - ■ W-1rarsTselom - ■ • • Olga' ■ ■ . ■ ■ ■ • ■ . - .. . - •- •••■-• •u• _■ d U A rmel L-1 !I _■•-lira IV ... . . • ��_• _u•• "•• • - • - _ to ' u ■ _ . . A. _ • • - M _u••- Mr--.Fishman Mani • Preliminary 124n application _ table • 5. Revision to Final Development Plan - Perimeter Lakes Apartments Ms. Clarke presented the staff report. She said the applicant had submitted two requests, one being to change the color pallette and the other one is to introduce lattice on the exterior of the building. He no longer wishes to pursue the change in color pallette. He is now only interested in changing the elevation of the building from the 2x2 ballisters (the uprights used on the exterior railings) to a lattice. In discussion with Peter Lenz, Chief Building Official, he reminded the applicant that Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - January 9, 1992 Page 22 any lattice must meet the requirements of the building code and must bear the same amount of force. It is not clear from the lattice shown on the elevations what size members are to be used. Ms. Clarke said that a number of things have changed in this project. The clubhouse has been redesigned and slightly reoriented on the site. There was a decision not to put a woodburning fireplace in every unit, but to use a gas burner instead. The chimneys are not needed and therefore will be replaced by vents on the exterior of the building. The exterior of the buildings was negotiated, at least in part, with the Post Road residents. Staff felt that since architecture was part of negotiations between the land owner and the residents along Post Road, that those should be decided in a public forum. NOTE: Due to a disfunction in the public address system, the rest of the meeting could not be tape recorded. Mr. Manus made a motion to approve the architectural alterations requested, specifically the sunburst accents and lattice work. The applicant withdrew his request to modify the color scheme, and this was not considered. Mr. Leffler seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Campbell, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Geese, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mrs. Stillwell, yes; Mr. Manus, yes; and Mr. Leffler, yes. (Approved 7 -0.) ., - ell _ . .