Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
74-06 Ordinance
Blank. Inc. Ordinance No. 74-06 RECORD OF ORDINANCES Passed 20 AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 61.35 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MITCHELL- DEWITT ROAD AND HYLAND-CROY ROAD FROM R, RURAL DISTRICT, TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (OAK PARK MIXED-USE — MITCHELL-DEWITT ROAD AND HYLAND-CROY ROAD — CASE NO. 06-064Z). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, of the elected members concurring: Section 1. That the following described real estate (see attached map marked Exhibit "A") situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21-70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances) the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 2. That application, Exhibit "B", including the list of contiguous and affected property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Exhibit "C", are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance therewith. Section 3. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law. Passed this day ofDU�j, 2006. Mayor - Presiding Officer Attest: Clerk of Council Sponsor: Land Use and Long Range Planning I hereby certify that copies of this Ordinance/Resolution were posted in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 731.25 of the Ohio Revised Code. Demi y Clerk of Council, Dublin, Ohio Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road - Dublin, Ohio 43016 Phone: 614-410-4600 - Fax: 614-410-4747 CITY OF DUBLIN_ Memo To: Members of City Council From: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Date: November 16, 2006 Initiated By: Gary P. Gunderman, AICP, Assistant Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning Re: Second Reading of Ordinance #74-06 (Oak Park Mixed Use Development - Hyland -Croy and Mitchell -Dewitt Roads, P&Z 06-064Z ) Summary: At the November 6, 2006 City Council meeting, the issue of cost for private street maintenance becoming a burden for homeowners in the Oak Park development was raised. The applicant has supplied information addressing this issue (Please see attached letter of November 15, 2006). The applicant has formulated several alternatives with the intent of finalizing the specific costs and maintenance responsibility at the final development plan and final plat stage. Staff is supportive of this approach as it will leave flexibility to adjust the final plan based on the final cost differentials and other considerations. Ordinance 74-04 requesting a rezoning for the Oak Park mixed use development, located on the west side of Hyland -Croy Road, south of Mitchell -Dewitt Road is scheduled for a second reading/public hearing on November 20, 2006. The applicant requests a change in zoning for 61.35 acres from R, Rural District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District to amend the development standards to accommodate a mixed- use development that includes 108 housing units, 39,700 square feet of mixed-use space and 31.3 acres of open space. Additional information regarding this case is available for public viewing at 5800 Shier - Rings Road in the offices of Land Use and Long Range Planning. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance #74-06 at the second reading/public hearing on November 20, 2006. ✓ '11111W *4010 SMITH & HALE HARRISON W. S"TH. JR. - BEN HARRISON W_ SMITE+ ATTORNEYS AND COUNS£LOR5 AT LAW JEFW. FREY JEFFREY L. BROWN L. IRO I900_I978 GLEN A- OUK-GER 37 WEST BROAD STREET JACKSON B. REYNOLDS, al COLUMBUS. OHIO 43215-4199 NICHOLAS C. CAVALARIS DAVID L- HOOGE AARON L_ UNDER"LL November 15, 2006 Ms. Jamie Adkins Planner, City of Dublin 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 RE: Oak Park Private Streets Dear Jamie: Recently you asked me to investigate the manner in which our firm's client, Atlantic Realty Development, proposes to handle maintenance and repair responsibilities for private streets in the new Oak Park neighborhood. In particular, you have raised the issue of how these costs would be shared by the different uses within the development. The private streets in question are shown on the attached plan. As we have generally discussed, there are a number of ways in which maintenance and repair responsibilities can be addressed. The developer has considered this issue in a general sense but would like to request that it be addressed at the time of final development plan in order to ensure that there is detailed consideration of this concern. However, through this letter I would like to give the planning staff some idea as to the range of possible solutions. The private streets in the Oak Park development are found mostly in the neighborhood commercial subarea. The expectation is that the owners of property within that subarea will be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of those streets. The only private streets that directly serve any residential components of the development run behind the townhomes. These streets also provide access to parking areas serving the commercial area. The first alternative will be that the owners of the townhomes as well as owners of property in the neighborhood commercial area will share the costs of maintenance and repair of the private streets running behind the townhomes. The second alternative would expand responsibility to the entire development, thus spreading the costs across more units. This decision will be made based on economic projections to be made after the preliminary development plan is approved.- In either event, the developer and/or the association will be committed to set aside a portion of association dues into a reserve fund to be used for extraordinary expenses. Some arrangement will be made in order ensure that the commercial property owners are committed and able to contribute their shares as well. The intent is to accumulate enough reserves over time so that residents and owners will not be assessed for a significant sum of money when a large capital repair is needed. As a third alternative, the developer has also expressed a willingness to change the designation of the private streets in the development to public streets. The private streets are already being built to public specifications so this would not require any changes to the site /f layout. Of course, this would place the responsibility for the costs of maintenance and repair on the city. I hope that this letter appropriately addresses the concern that has been raised. l would like to respectfully request that the developer be permitted to present further details and make commitments on this issue at the time of final development plan. alu mantic Rcalty Adkins sbtctltr Yours very truly, ai ;�' - Aaron L. Underhill CITY OF DUBLIN_ To: From: Date: Initiated By: Re: Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road - Dublin, Ohio 43016 Phone: 614-410-4600 - Fax: 614-410-4747 Memo Members of City Council Jane S. Brautigam, City Manage�'To-.+. s November 6, 2006 Gary P. Gunderman, AICP, Assistant Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning Ordinance 74-06 Oak Park Mixed Use Development (Hyland - Croy and Mitchell -Dewitt Roads - Case No. 06-064Z ) Summary: Ordinance 74-06, a request for rezoning for the Oak Park mixed use development, located on the west side of Hyland -Croy Road, south of Mitchell -Dewitt Road, is being forwarded for first reading. This application requests a change in zoning for 61.35 acres from R, Rural District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District to amend the development standards to accommodate a mixed-use development that includes 108 housing units, 39,700 square feet of mixed-use space, and 31.3 acres of open space. On September 21, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of this rezoning with 14 conditions, which can be found in the attached Record of Action. Additional information regarding this case is available for public viewing at 5800 Shier - Rings Road in the offices of Land Use and Long Range Planning. The second reading/public hearing of Ordinance 74-06 is scheduled for the November 20, 2006 City Council meeting. Recommendation: Staff recommends that Ordinance 74-06 be approved following the second reading/public hearing on November 20, 2006. Unincorpor ted R Unincorporated EXHIBIT R Unincorporated PUD iv Mit�he/% Q n PUD R �`�� o PUD ncorporated Un ncorporated L PLR D SITE gearclover Dr Unincorporated IVlyrtle`stone St PLR L Ndgestorie Dr Unincorporated Tullymore-Dr PLR I City of Dublin Land Use and ong Range Planning 06-0642 Rezoning /I FOR MEETINAN 11 Oak Park Neighborhood Feet Mitchell -Dewitt Road and Hyland -Croy Road 0 400 800 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 06-064Z Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road & Hyland- 1—d u.r and 1-9.o Q9 Yton Nn9 S8� S""' GOGd Jct+,•. Oq.r_ a�lA 12 tit v1 1;DD 6 <e(p to> ea aro<7J �rL S't++�w ttih4-c"vs AS SUSIVIMW 10 COUNIM 11 1 � 1tOq �iiEETN+�'i E11t 11 (n EXHIBIT "B" REZONING APPLICATION (Code Section 153 234) TO EXPIRE ORDINANCE NUMBER CITY COUNCIL (FIRST READING) CITY COUNCIL (PUBLIC HEARING) CITY COUNCIL ACTION NOTE: Applicants are highly encouraged to contact Land Use and Long Range Planning for assistance and to discuss the Rezoning process prior to submitting a formai application. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Amount Received: Application No: P&Z Date(s): P&Z Action: Receipt No: MIS Fee No: Date Received: Received By. Type of Request: 1 N. S. E. W (Circle) Side of: Distance from Nearest Intersection: FEET, N. S. E, W (Circle) from Nearest Intersection Nearest Inlersection: AND PLEASE CHECK THE TYPE OF APPLICATION: PD Preliminary Development Plan (Section 153.053) ❑ Other (Please Describe) 11. PROPERTY INFORMATION: This section must be completed. Property Address 0 Mitchell -Dewitt Road -- Tax ID/Parcel Number(s): ----- Parcel Size: 39-0028014-000 I (Acres) 61 .3± Existing Land Use Development. Undeveloped Proposed Land Use Development: Single-family homes; townhomes; neighborhood commercial Existing Zoning District: Rural Requested Zoning District: PUD Total Acres to be Rezoned: 61.3-4 Page 1 of:), Ip_ REZONING STATEMENT: Please attach additional sheets it State briefly how the proposed zoning and development relates to the existing and potential future land use character of the vicinity: The prcpoSed development will be known as the Oak Park PUD and will combine a diversity of sin e - family and townhome products with a neighborhood -scale commercial component. The residential portion of the development will fit in very well with single-family residential uses across Hyland -Croy Road, while the commercial component will cre e appropriately scaled retail and office opportunities to serve the immediate vicin' y. The use of conservation design principles in planning this site creates a suitably transaction between the Glacier Ridge Metro Park on the west and development to t east of Hyland -Croy Road. State briefly how the proposed zoning and development relates to the Dublin Community Plan and, if applicable, tow the proposed rezoning meets the crAeria for Planned Districts [Section 153.052(B# The proposed development represents a comprehensive effort to follow Dublin's conservation design principles. While the current Community Plan calls for a to density than is being proposed here, that recommendation was based on expectatio that the Metro Park would expand to this area -The Metro Parks has since determined that such an expansion is notforthcoming. This application preserves the character of the area and embraces the nearby parkl nd as an amenity. Furthermore, the land plan furthers the goals that are being prom ed as a part of the Community Plan update creating diverse and unique residential neighborhoods that are served by nearby commercial development. HAS A PREVIOUS APPLICATION TO REZONE THE PROPERTY BEEN DENIED BY CITY COUNCIL WITHIN THE LAST TWELVE MONTHS? E3 YES XI NO if yes, list when and state the basis for reconsideration as noted by Section 153.234(A)(3) - IF A PLANNED DISTRICT IS REQUESTED, IS A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ATTACHED? *11 YES Q NO IF A PLANNED DISTRICT IS REQUESTED, IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT ATTACHED? 3p YES D NO Page 2 of 5 IV. PLEASE SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING FOR INITIAL STAFF REVIEW: Please submit large (24x36) and small (11x17) sets of plans. Staff may later request plans that incorporate review comments_ Fourteen (14) additional copies of revised submittals are required for the Planning and El 11 ❑ ❑ M 0 t,OFT rnrssrun TWO (2) ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATIONS AND THIRTEEN (13) COPIES Please notarize agent authorization, if necessary. FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY FOURTEEN (14) TAX PARCEL ID MAPS indicating property owners and parcel numbers for all parcels within 500 feet of the site. TEN (10) SCALED, SITEISTAKING PLANS SHOWING: a. North arrow and bar scale b- Location, size and dimensions of all existing and proposed conditions and structures (significant natural features, landscaping, structures, additions, decks, access ways, parking) - c Proposed Uses (Regional transportation system, densities, number of dwellings, building/unit types, square footages, parking, open space, etc.) it Size of the site in acres/square feet e. All property lines, setbacks, street centerlines, rights-of-way, easements, and other information related to the site. t. Existing and proposed zoning district boundaries. g. Use of land and location of structures on adjacent properties IF APPLICABLE, TEN (10) COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING SCALED PLANS: a. Grading Plan. b. Landscaping Plan. c- LighUng Plan. d. Utility and/or Stormwater Plan. e. Tree Survey, Tree Preservation and Tree Replacement Plans. IF APPLICABLE, TEN (10) COPIES OF SCALED, ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS with proposed colors and materials noted. IF APPLICABLE, FOUR (4) COPIES OF SCALED DRAWINGS INDICATING- a. Location of signs and sign type (wall, ground, projecting, or window). b. Sign dimensions, including letter sizes and proposed distance from sign to grade. c Copy layout and lettering styles (fonts) of signage d. Materials and manufacturer to be used in fabrication. e Total area of sign face (including frame) t. Type of illumination MATERIAUCOLOR SAMPLES (swatches. photos, plans. or product specifications). Include manufacturer name and number. V. CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS: Please attach additional sheets it necessary - It is the policy of the City of Dublin to notify surrounding property owners of pending applications under public review. List all neighboring property owners within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property based on the County Auditor's current tax list_ Electronic copies of lists are encouraged. PROPERTY OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE (not Mortgage Company or Tax Service) I Please see attached 1Y" I i i I l I i Page 3 of 5 VI. AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROPERTY: Site visits to the property by City representatives are essential to process this application. The Owner/Applicant, as notarized below, hereby authorizes City representatives to visit, photograph and post a notice on the property described in this application_ VIL UTILITY DISCLAIMER: The City of Dublin will make every effort to provide essential services to the property as needed. However, the rapid growth of the City of Dublin and surrounding vicinities has stretched the City's capacity to provide these services to the limit. As such, the City of Dublin may be unable to make all or part of said facilities available to the applicant until some further date. The Owner/Applicant acknowledges the approval of this request for rezoning by the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission and/or Dublin City Council does not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able to provide essential services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by the said Owner/Applicant. VIIL PROPERTY OWNERIAPPLICANT INFORMATION: This section must be completed. CurreniPropertyOwner/Applicant: Owner: HC Associates Applicant: Atlantic Realty Devel 5774 Finnegan Ct. Attn: Ari Wise Dublin, OH 43017 90 Woodbridge Center Mailing Address: 6th (Street, City, State, Zip Code) 0o ridge, Daytime Telephone: Fax: Phone: (7 32) 750-1111 Emad or Aftemate Contact Information: Fax Page 4 of 5 )pment )rive, toor IX. REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF OWNER: Please complete if applicable Attach additional sheets for multiple r X. X Representative: Ben W- Hale, Jr. and Aaron L. Underhill, attorneys enant, hitect Arc, Designer, Contractor, etc. -- Mailing Address: Smith & Hale (Street, City, State, Zip Code) 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, OH 43215 Daytime Telephone: Fax (614) 221-4255 (614) 221-4409 Email or Alternate Contact Information: aunderh i 110smi thandha 1 e . cont Who is the PRIMARY CONTACT PERSON for this application? Ben W. Hale, J r . or Aaron L. Underhill II AUTHORIZATION FOR OWNER'S AGENTIREPRESENTATIVE(S)- Please complete it applicable. This section must be notarized. I HC Associates, an Ohio general partnership the owner, hereby authorize the attorneys at the law firm of Smith & Hale to act as my representative(s) in all matters pertaining to the processing and approval of this application, indudi mod ing the ptojed- 1 agree to be bound by all representations and agreements made by the designated representative. 1 Signature of Current Property Owner. By: HC A ociates Date: f Z _ D( ,d S 8 swom to before me this — day of _ i l .20 C (r -7 .rMAI REEN L RILEYr Notary Public, State of Ohio l r -Y CommissioniregD9/39/2D09 Notary Public F of AYYLI .Arl 1 J ArrIUMV 1 r - I nrs searorr musr De cornpreteu anu nuiauzeu. Aaron L. Underhill, attorney I _,the owner or 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. , Signature of Owner or By: //[--j'V`jj,-%- Date: Authorized Representative: Atlantic Realty Development I 3/30/(,)G Subscribed and swom to before me this J day of 20 State of County of ^��( 1�y ` Notary Public NOTE: THE PRIMARY CONTACT PERSON WILL RECEIVE A FACSIMILE CONFIRMING RECEIPT OF THIS APPLICATION NATAM C. PATFUM Nowy Pdk stab at ow Page 5 of 5 riOf*0110n EXOM 09-04-10 SUBAREA "A" ZONING DESCRIPTION 34.4 ACRES Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Union, City of Dublin, Virginia Military Survey 6595, and being part of the 61.390 acre tract conveyed to H.C. Associates by deed of record in Deed Book 309, Page 713 (all references refer to the records of the Recorder's Office, Union County, Ohio) and more particularly described as follows: BEGININNG at the intersection of the centerline of Mitchell -Dewitt Road and the centerline of Hyland -Croy Road, being the northeasterly comer of said 61.390 acre tract; Thence, South 05° 18' 59" East, a distance of 302.52 feet, with the easterly line of said 61.390 acre tract, the centerline of said Hyland -Croy Road, to a point; Thence South 840 41' 0 V West, a distance of 667.47 feet, across said Hyland -Croy Road and said 61.390 acre tract, to a point; Thence across said 61.390 acre tract, the following courses and distances: North 050 18' 59" West, a distance of 100.51 feet to a point of curvature; With said curve to the left, having a central angle of 57° 13' 21", a radius of 225.00 feet, an arc length of 224.71 feet, and a chord that bears North 33° 5539" West, a chord distance of 215.49 feet to a point of tangency; North 62° 32' 20" West, a distance of 95.31 feet to a point; South 27° 27'40" West, a distance of 526.69 feet to a point of curvature; With said curve to the left having a central angle of 32° 46'39", a radius of 200.00 feet, an arc length of 114.41 feet and a chord that bears South 11° 04'21" West, a chord distance of 112.86 feet to a point of tangency; F South 05° 18' 59" East, a distance of 828.94 feet to a point, UG 1 7 2006 North 840 41' 01" East, a distance of 500.31 feet to a point, North 050 18'59" West, a distance of 177.76 feet to a point; Thence North 840 41' 01" East, a distance of 667.47 feet, across said 61.390 acre tract and across said Hyland -Croy Road, to a point in the easterly line of said 61.390 acre tract, the centerline of said Hyland -Croy Road; Thence South 05° 18'59" East, a distance of 193.82 feet, with the easterly line of said 61.390 acre tract, the centerline of said Hyland -Croy Road to the common comer of said 61.390 acre tract and the 2.273 acre tract conveyed to Harold J. McCarthy, Jr. and Catherine McCarthy by deed of record in Official Record 583, Page 228; Thence South 84° 23' 01" West, a distance of 395.15 feet, with the line common to said 61.390 and 2.273 acre tracts, to the northwest corner of said 2.273 acre tract; Thence South 04° 54' 59" East, a distance of 250.02 feet, with the line common to said 61.390 and 2.273 acre tracts, to the southwest comer of said 2.273 acre tract, being in the northerly line of the 132.883 acre tract conveyed to Board of Park Commissioners Columbus and Franklin County Metropolitan Park District by deed of record in Official Record 253, Page 341; SUBAREA "A" 34.4 ACRES -2- Thence South 84° 16' 21" West, a distance of 955.50 feet, with the line common to said 61.390 and 132.883 acre tracts, to the common comer of said 61.390 acre tract and the original- 46.508 riginal46.508 acre tract conveyed to Blyth Family LLC by deed of record in Official Record 288, Page 411; Thence North 05° 23' 59" West, a distance of 2490.02 feet, with the line common to said 61.390 and 46.508 acre tracts to the northwesterly comer of said 61.390 acre tract, being in the centerline of said Mitchell -Dewitt Road; Thence South 62° 31' 13" East, a distance of 1613.11 feet, with the northerly line of said 61.390 acre tract and said centerline, to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 34.4 acres of land, more or less. This description is for zoning purposes only, and is not to be used for deed transfer; EVANS, MECHWART, HAMBLETON, TILTON, INC. JMP:jmm/Augusto6 34_4 ac tm 60569.doc SUBAREA "B" ZONING DESCRIPTION 5.3 ACRES Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Union, City of Dublin, Virginia Military Survey 6595, and being part of the 61.390 acre tract conveyed to H.C. Associates by deed of record in Deed Book 309, Page 713 (all references refer to the records of the Recorder's Office, Union County, Ohio) and more particularly described as follows: Beginning for Reference, at the intersection of the centerline of Mitchell -Dewitt Road and the centerline of Hyland -Croy Road, being the northeasterly corner of said 61.390 acre tract; Thence South 050 18' 59" East, a distance of 302.52 feet, with the centerline of said Hyland -Croy Road, to a point; Thence South 840 41' 01" West, a distance of 667.47 feet, across said Hyland -Croy Road and said 61.390 acre tract, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence across said 61.390 acre tract, the following courses and distances: South 050 18' 59" East, a distance of 307.25 feet, to a point; South 840 41' 01" West, a distance of 500.31 feet, to a point; North 05° 18' 59" West, a distance of 97.43 feet to a point of curvature; With said curve to the right having a central angle of 32° 46' 39", a radius of 200.00 feet, an arc length of 114.41 feet and a chord that bears North 110 04' 21" East, a chord distance of 112.86 feet to a point of tangency; North 270 27'40" East, a distance of 526.69 feet to a point; South 62° 32' 20" East, a distance of 95.31 feet to a point of curvature; With said curve to the right, having a central angle of 57° 13' 21", a radius of 225.00 feet, an arc length of 224.71 feet, and a chord that bears South 33° 55'39" East, a chord distance of 215.49 feet to a point of tangency; South 050 18' 59" East, a distance of 100.51 feet, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 5.3 acres, more or less; This description is for zoning purposes only, and is not to be used for deed transfer; EVANS, MECHWART, HAMBLETON, TILTON, INC. JMP-.jmm/August06 53 ac zm 66569.doe SUBAREA "B" ZONING DESCRIPTION 5.6 ACRES Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Union, City of Dublin, Virginia Military Survey 6595, and being part of the 61.390 acre tract conveyed to H.C. Associates by deed of record in Deed Book 309, Page 713 (all references refer to the records of the Recorder's Office, Union County, Ohio) and more particularly described as follows: Beginning for Reference, at the intersection of the centerline of Mitchell -Dewitt Road and the centerline of Hyland -Croy Road, being the northeasterly comer of said 61.390 acre tract; Thence South 05° 18' 59" East, a distance of 302.52 feet, with the centerline of said Hyland -Croy Road, to a point; Thence South 84° 41' 01" West, a distance of 667.47 feet, across said Hyland -Croy Road and said 61.390 acre tract, to a point; Thence across said 61.390 acre tract, the following courses and distances: South 05° 18' 59" East, a distance of 553.75 feet, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; South 05° 18' 59" East, a distance of 485.01 feet, to a point; South 84° 41' 01" West, a distance of 500.31 feet, to a point; North 05° 18' 59" West, a distance of 485.01 feet, to a point; North 84° 41' 01" East, a distance of 500.31 feet, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 5.6 acres, more or less; This description is for zoning purposes only, and is not to be used for deed transfer; EVANS, MECHWART, HAMBLETON, TILTON, INC. JMP:jmm/August06 5_6 ac zm 60569.doc SUBAREA "C" ZONING DESCRIPTION 2.8 ACRES Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Union, City of Dublin, Virginia Military Survey 6595, and being part of the 61.390 acre tract conveyed to H.C. Associates by deed of record in Deed Book 309, Page 713 (all references refer to the records of the Recorder's Office, Union County, Ohio) and more particularly described as follows: Beginning for Reference, at the intersection of the centerline of Mitchell -Dewitt Road and the centerline of Hyland -Croy Road, being the northeasterly corner of said 61.390 acre tract; Thence South 05° 18' 59" East, a distance of 302.52 feet, with the centerline of said Hyland -Croy Road, to a point; Thence South 84° 41' 01" West, a distance of 667.47 feet, across said Hyland -Croy Road and said 61.390 acre tract, to a point; Thence across said 61.390 acre tract, the following courses and distances: South 05° 18' 59" East, a distance of 307.25 feet, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; South 050 18' 59" East, a distance of 246.50 feet, to a point; South 840 41' 01" West, a distance of 500.31 feet, to a point; North 05° 18' 59" West, a distance of 246.50 feet, to a point; North 84' 41' O1" East, a distance of 500.31 feet, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 2.8 acres, more or less; This description is for zoning purposes only, and is not to be used for deed transfer; EVANS, MECHWART, HAMBLETON, TILTON, INC. JMP:jmm/AugusW6 2_8 ac un 60569.doc SUBAREA "D" ZONING DESCRIPTION 4.9 ACRES Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Union, City of Dublin, Virginia Military Survey 6595, and being part of the 61.390 acre tract conveyed to H.C. Associates by deed of record in Deed Book 309, Page 713 (all references refer to the records of the Recorder's Office, Union County, Ohio) and more particularly described as follows: Beginning for Reference, at the intersection of the centerline of Mitchell -Dewitt Road and the centerline of Hyland -Croy Road, being the northeasterly corner of said 61.390 acre tract; Thence South 05° 18' 59" East, a distance of 302.52 feet, with the centerline of said Hyland -Croy Road, to a point; Thence South 84° 41' 01" West, a distance of 279.00 feet, across said Hyland -Croy Road and said 61.390 acre tract, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence across said 61.390 acre tract, the following courses and distances: With the arc of a curve to the left, having a central angle of 51° 07' 41", a radius of 55.00 feet, an arc length of 49.08 feet, and a chord that bears South 30° 52' 49" East, a chord distance of 47.47 feet, to a point, South 05° 18' 59" East, a distance of 108.35 feet to a point; South 84° 41' 01" West, a distance of 62.03 feet to a point; South 86° 48' 17" West, a distance of 54.04 feet to a point; South 01° 54' 41" East, a distance of 15.03 feet to a point; South 84° 41' 01" West, a distance of 118.43 feet to a point of curvature; With the arc of the said curve to the left having a central angle of 90° 00'00", a radius of 10.00 feet, an arc length of 15.71 feet, and a chord that bears South 39° 41' 01" West, a chord distance of 14.14 feet, to a point of tangency; South 05° 18' 59" East, a distance of 152.81 feet to a point; South 84° 41' 01" West, a distance of 14.00 feet to a point; South 07° 26' 15" East, a distance of 27.02 feet to a point; South 05° 18' 59" East, a distance of 153.04 feet to a point; South 03° 11' 43" East, a distance of 27.02 feet to a point; North 840 41' 0l" East, a distance of 14.00 feet to a point; South 05° 18' 59" East, a distance of 152.81 feet to a point of curvature; With the arc of the said curve to the left having a central angle of 900 00' 00", a radius of 10.00 feet, an arc length of 15.71 feet, and a chord that bears South 50° 18' 59" East, a chord distance of 14.14 feet, to a point of tangency; SUBAREA "D" 4.9 ACRES -2- North 84° 41' 01" East, a distance of 146.32 feet to a point; South 05" 18' 59" East, a distance of 14.00 feet to a point; North 82° 3345" East, a distance of 27.02 feet to a point; North 84° 41' 01" East, a distance of 62.03 feet to a point; South 05° 18' 59" East, a distance of 108.35 feet to a point; With the arc of a curve to the left having a central angle of 51 ° 07'41", a radius of 55.00 feet, an arc length of 49.08 feet, and a chord that bears South 20° 14' 52" West, a chord distance of 47.47 feet, to a point; South 84° 41' 01" West, a distance of 388.47 feet to a point; North 05' 18' 59" West, a distance of 861.00 feet to a point; North 84° 41' 01" East, a distance of 388.47 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 4.9 acres, more or less; This description is for zoning purposes only, and is not to be used for deed transfer; EVANS, MECHWART, HAMBLETON, TILTON, INC. JMP:jnun/AugusM 4_9 ac zm 60569.doc SUBAREA "E" ZONING DESCRIPTION 8.3 ACRES Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Union, City of Dublin, Virginia Military Survey 6595, and being part of the 61.390 acre tract conveyed to H.C. Associates by deed of record in Deed Book 309, Page 713 (all references refer to the records of the Recorder's Office, Union County, Ohio) and more particularly described as follows: Beginning for Reference, at the intersection of the centerline of Mitchell -Dewitt Road and the centerline of Hyland -Croy Road, being the northeasterly corner of said 61.390 acre tract; Thence South 05° 18' 59" East, a distance of 302.52 feet, with the centerline of said Hyland -Croy Road, to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence South 05° 18' 59" East, a distance of 861.00 feet, with the centerline of said Hyland -Croy Road, to a point; Thence South 84° 41' 01" West, a distance of 279.00 feet, across said Hyland -Croy Road and said 61.390 acre tract, to a point; Thence across said 61.390 acre tract, the following courses and distances: With the arc of a curve to the right having a central angle of 51° 07' 41", a radius of 55.00 feet, an arc length of 49.08 feet, and a chord that bears North 20° 14' 52" East, a chord distance of 47.47 feet, to a point; North 05" 18' 59" West, a distance of 108.35 feet to a point; South 84° 41' 01" West, a distance of 62.03 feet to a point; South 820 33'45" West, a distance of 27.02 feet to a point; North 05° 18' 59" West, a distance of 14.00 feet to a point; South 84° 41' 0l" West, a distance of 146.32 feet to a point of curvature; With the arc of the said curve to the right having a central angle of 90° 00'00", a radius of 10.00 feet, an arc length of 15.71 feet, and a chord that bears North 500 18' 59" West, a chord distance of 14.14 feet, to a point of tangency; North 05° 18' 59" West, a distance of 152.81 feet to a point; South 84° 41' 01" West, a distance of 14.00 feet to a point; North 03° 11' 43" West, a distance of 27.02 feet to a point; North 05° 18' 59" West, a distance of 153.04 feet to a point; North 07° 26' 15" West, a distance of 27.02 feet to a point; North 840 41' 01" East, a distance of 14.00 feet to a point; North 05° 18' 59" West, a distance of 152.81 feet to a point of curvature; SUBAREA "E" 8.3 ACRES -2- With the arc of the said curve to the right having a central angle of 90° 00' 00", a radius of 10.00 feet, an arc length of 15.71 feet, and a chord that bears North 39° 41' 01" East, a chord distance of 14.14 feet, to a point of tangency; North 84° 41' 01" East, a distance of 118.43 feet to a point; North 0 P 54' 41" West, a distance of 15.03 feet to a point; North 86° 48' 17" East, a distance of 54.04 feet to a point; North 84° 41' 01" East, a distance of 62.03 feet to a point; North 05° 18' 59" West, a distance of 108.35 feet to a point; With the arc of a curve to the right, having a central angle of 51° 07' 41", a radius of 55.00 feet, an arc length of 49.08 feet, and a chord that bears North 300 52'49" West, a chord distance of 47.47 feet, to a point; North 840 41' 0l" East, a distance of 279.00 feet to TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 8.3 acres, more or less; This description is for zoning purposes only, and is not to be used for deed transfer; EVANS, MECHWART, HAMBLETON, TILTON, INC. JMP: jmm/Augusro6 8_3 ac zm 60569.doc PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION SEPTEMBER 21, 2006 AS SUOM"EG TO COU"ICH, CITY OF DUBLIN- � ih._., Ff; R 1t C.`m _o & ). (O Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 31in, Ohio 43016-1236 1. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 06-064Z — Oak Park Mixed -Use — )ne: 614-410-4600 Mitchell -Dewitt Road and Hyland -Croy Road Fax: 614-410-4747 Location: 61.35 acres located at the southwest corner of Mitchell -Dewitt Road Web Site: www.dublin.oh-us and Hyland -Croy Road. Existing Zoning: R, Rural District. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District under the provisions of Code Section 153.050. Proposed Use: A mixed-use development that includes 108 housing units, 39,700 square feet of mixed-use space, and 31.3 acres of open space. Applicant: HC Associates, 5774 Finnegan Court, Dublin, Ohio 43017; represented by Atlantic Realty Development Corporation, 90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 600, Woodbridge, New Jersey 07095, and Ben W. Hale, Jr., Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Jamie E. Adkins, Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410-4644/Email: jadkins@dublin.oh.us. MOTION: To approve this rezoning/preliminary development plan because the high-level of development quality achieved in northwest Dublin is being maintained and will be furthered by this development, based on the evaluation of this development according to the adopted ten Land Use Principles, that Principles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10 are successfully executed in the proposed neighborhood, the proposed zoning and subsequent development will provide appropriate development standards for the site and will advance the general planning intent of this area, with 14 conditions: 1) That all requirements of the Stormwater Management and Stream Protection Regulations are met to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 2) That a Traffic Impact Study be completed acceptable to both the Union County Engineer and the City Engineer prior to submitting for final development plan; 3) That the applicant agrees to construct or contribute to any improvements the accepted Traffic Impact Study identifies, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 4) That the necessary road right-of-way, per the Thoroughfare Plan, be dedicated, with the final plat to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 5) That all proposed access points comply with the Division of Engineering Administrative Policy for Intersection Visibility Triangles and be designed to the satisfaction of the Union County Engineer, where applicable; 6) That all other access and traffic issues in this report be addressed prior to or during the final development plan as outlined in the report; Page 1 of 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION SEPTEMBER 21, 2006 1. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 06-064Z — Oak Park Mixed -Use — Mitchell -Dewitt Road and Hyland -Croy Road (Continued) 7) That the text be revised to incorporate comments regarding setbacks as outlined in this staff report; 8) That the single family houses include privacy enclosures around the patio areas that consist of masonry materials, unless otherwise approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission; 9) That the text be revised to require the parking ratio as illustrated on the preliminary plan; 10) That the text be modified to address issues related to signage as outlined in this staff report; l 1) That the text be revised to address the landscaping comments in this report; 12) That any connections to the path system within the Glacier Ridge Metro Parks be approved by the Park District staff prior to final development plan; 13) That the text be revised to eliminate restaurant related drive-thrus; and 14) That a comparable amount of stone and brick be used on the front, side and rear elevations of the single family homes, unless otherwise approved by Planning and Zoning Commission. * Ben Hale, Jr. agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 5-0. RESULT: This rezoning/preliminary development plan was approved. STAFF CERTIFICATION 4anner Page 2 of 2 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — September 21, 2006 Page 2 of 21 Mr. Gerber said the applicants bbLC I had agreed to the ns as listed in t ff report. Mr. Zimme as ed that Case 2 be pulled. erber announce order cases would be h as Cases 4, 3, 1, 2, and 5. [The utes reflect the pub ' ed agenda order.] 1. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 06-064Z — Oak Park Mixed -Use — Mitchell - Dewitt Road Jamie Adkins presented the case, including slides. She said this site, zoned R, Rural District, is located at the southwest corner of Mitchell -Dewitt and Hyland -Croy Roads. To the northeast is Dublin Jerome High School; to the southeast is Bishop's Run subdivision. The surrounding property is zoned R, Rural District, PUD, Planned Unit Development District, and PLR, Planned Low Density Residential District. This case was presented to the Commission on June 11, 2006, and the Commission favored the architecture and high quality of the design; however, Commissioners were concerned that the proposed land use density did not match the current Community Plan. They were also concerned about the inclusion of retail in close proximity to the high school. At that time, the case was tabled at the request of the applicant. Ms. Adkins said the applicant has worked with staff and revised the plans to address the concerns outlined by the staff, the Commission, and adjacent residents. On August 21, City Council established ten Land Use Principles to utilize as development guidelines in conjuction with the existing Community Plan and the evaluation of pending development applications. The ten Land Use Principles are to be consulted in order to adequately address policies and decision- making processes that may arise during the Community Plan update. Ms. Adkins stated that this rezoning application is for a mixed-use development consisting of 108 housing units, 39,700 square feet of retail and 31 acres of openspace. The current Community Plan designates the site as Low Density Residential with 0.5 to 1.0 units per acre, and discusses the need for transition to the Metro Park. This plan proposes a density of 1.76 units per acre and includes retail. Staff believes that the proposed development successfully incorporates many of the principles adopted by City Council and warrants a deviation from the future anticipated land use. Ms. Adkins noted that the main change from the previous meeting concerns the access points. Previously, there were two access points located on Hyland -Croy Road and a connection to the west. The plan has been modified to have one access point on Hyland -Croy Road and a second on Mitchell -Dewitt Road. The site layout has been modified in association with the change. Ms. Adkins said that Subarea A includes single-family lots as previously proposed; however, the configuration has changed. The new lot layout addresses staff's previous concerns regarding the need to separate the lots from the Metro Park and the adjacent lots. The design of this Subarea also decreases the density along the periphery of the site in proximity to the Meto Park. Subarea B includes smaller single-family lots clustered around internal openspaces. The configuration of this Subarea has been altered. Subarea C remains the same and includes the neighborhood center. Subarea D includes 36 townhome units with a modified layout. The applicant had revised the proposal by providing a 12 -foot rear yard setback from the alleys to address staff's Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — September 21, 2006 Page 3 of 21 concerns. Subarea E contains the proposed neighborhood retail center. The layout has been changed due to the new access point. There may be a need in the future along Hyland -Croy Road for additional right-of-way other than what is proposed with this rezoning application to accommodate the anticipated roadway width discussed with the update of the Community Plan and the future development of the Northwest Area. To date, traffic modeling is anticipating the need for a four- to five -lane divided roadway that will become a major north/south connection. Ms. Adkins said the site remains in compliance with the 200 -foot setback recommended in the current Community Plan, and includes a connection to the west in the event that adjacent property may develop. The text and site plan include several types of lots and associated criteria. Many of the lot standards remain unchanged including the setbacks and lot sizes. She presented a slide of the proposed Park Home lot plan which remains unchanged with a seven -foot building zone in the front of the lots. The Village Home lot plan also has the same seven -foot building zone in the front. The Townhome lot plan indicates the increased setback as required by the text for the rear -loaded garages and longer driveways. Ms. Adkins said the applicant is proposing six-foot privacy fencing for all of the residential units. Staff is supportive of the fencing for the townhomes units, and although the single-family lots (both sizes) are smaller, they are not consistent in scale to other cluster lots approved for privacy screening within the City. Staff believes that there may be situations where the proposed fencing may be appropriate, however the text does not sufficiently address that. Staff recommends that the applicant revise the text to appropriately address the fencing issue. Ms. Adkins presented the proposed retail center slide and noted that further detail will be provided at the final development plan stage. However, staff believes in order to maintain the neighborhood quality of this area, the uses proposed within the text should be further limited to exclude drive-thru eating establishments and other uses not suitable for a neighborhood -oriented center. The text proposes that each tenant is permitted a wall sign on the store front that fronts onto a private street, drive aisle, or parking area, and an additional blade sign near the parking area entrance. The proposed text further states that the maximum number of walls signs possible for tenant space is limited to two, plus the blade sign. The size and details of the wall signs are not listed. Staff recommends a standard size and style for all storefronts, regardless of size, consistent with other planned retail development of similar design. Ms. Adkins said the proposed residential architecture has remained unchanged since the previous proposal. The text states four-sided architecture shall be required so that similar architectural design elements and details shall be consistent throughout all elevations of the strucuture. Although the text is not extensively specific, staff will continue to work with the applicant to ensure that the high-quality design presented is constructed throughout all phases of the development. Ms. Adkins said the Village Home, Townhome, Neighborhood Center, and Retail Center architecture remains unchanged. The final architecture for the subareas will be reviewed at the final development plan stage. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — September 21, 2006 Page 4 of 21 Ms. Adkins said the proposed development is not intended to be the typical Dublin subdivision. While this proposal does not conform to the current recommended land use, staff believes that the high level of development quality achieved in northwest Dublin is being maintained and will be furthered by this development. Based on the evaluation of this development, according to the adopted ten Land Use Principles, staff believes that Principles 1 through 5, 7 and 10 are successfully executed in the proposed neighborhood. The proposed zoning and subsequent development will provide appropriate development standards for the site and will advance the general planning intent of this area. Staff recommends approval with the 12 conditions listed in the staff report: 1) That all requirements of the Stormwater Management and Stream Protection Regulations are met to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 2) That a Traffic Impact Study be completed acceptable to both the Union County Engineer and the City Engineer prior to submitting for final development plan; 3) That the applicant agrees to construct or contribute to any improvements the accepted Traffic Impact Study identifies, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 4) That the necessary road right-of-way, per the Thoroughfare Plan, be dedicated, with the final plat to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 5) That all proposed access points comply with the Division of Engineering Administrative Policy for Intersection Visibility Triangles and be designed to the satisfaction of the Union County Engineer, where applicable; 6) That all other access and traffic issues in this report be addressed prior to or during the final development plan as outlined in the report; 7) That the text be revised to incorporate comments regarding setbacks as outlined in this staff report; 8) That the text be modified to address the comments in this report pertaining to the proposed fencing for Subareas A and B, subject to staff approval; 9) That the text be revised to require the parking ratio as illustrated on the preliminary plan; 10) That the text be modified to address issues related to signage as outlined in this staff report; 11) That the text be revised to address the landscaping comments in this report; and 12) That any connections to the path system within the Glacier Ridge Metro Parks be approved by the Park District staff prior to final development plan. Ben W. Hale, Jr., representing the applicant, HC Associates, said the applicants want to do what Dublin wants by listening closely to the community and doing something that is in keeping with Dublin's vision of what they want to happen in the future. This proposed development has over 50 percent openspace. The applicants have recognized the importance of integrated high-quality architecture and materials in designing this project. The proposed plan has a variety of uses which is one of the Land Use Principles. They bought Corazon Club memberships for everyone that buys a unit. There will be five ponds. They had made significant changes to the plan after working closely with staff. Jeremy Halprin, Altlantic Realty Development, said they were excited about becoming a part of Dublin. The staff had done an excellent job working with them. They will continue to be flexible if there are any unresolved issues. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — September 21, 2006 Page 5 of 21 Michael Fite, The Edge Group, said that Ms. Adkins had done a fabulous job of integrating all the changes that they made. They had three goals when they left the Commission meeting last time. They wanted to continue to create a truly unique integrated community, to get a positive staff report, and to meet all ten of the adopted Land Use Principles. Mr. Fite said they had met seven of the ten principles. Primarily, the changes that they had made were based around vehicular circulation. They now have only one curb cut which will force driving through the town center part of the project instead of around it. They added traffic circles at the end of each road for turnarounds. There is a separation between the retail parking and the town home access. They reduced the amount of homes around the park. They have added water features in front, and the plan adheres to the setback. They have gone above and beyond on the architecture, trying to be diverse with the lot sizes and what is next to each other, yet maintaining the architectural theme of red roofs from one subarea to the next. Ralph Feasel, 8100 Hyland -Croy Road, said they met with a representative from Smith and Hale to review the changes. They thought limiting the access point off Hyland -Croy Road to one made sense. On which side of the road will the turn lane right-of-way be taken? Ms. Adkins said the developer will be required to dedicate right-of-way on their side for turn lanes. If there is not enough right-of-way, the developer would acquire what was necessary. Mr. Feasel asked about the parking in front of the retail section between the ponds and stores. At one time, it was to be parallel parking. The last time, it was going to be head -in parking, toward Hyland -Croy Road which means the lights would shine towards his residence. Mr. Hale said there was parallel parking in front of the building and head -in parking facing Hyland -Croy Road, but they are required by Code to have a minimum three-foot continuous hedge. Mr. Feasel asked about the two ponds in front of the stores. Mr. Fite said the pond detail would be worked out at the final development plan stage, but the idea was that they would be very manicured because it was the front of the buildings. There may even be stone along the back of the pond edge so that it is not a large grade down into the water. It would be lawn instead of cat tails. Mr. Walter asked about the Town Home privacy fences. Ms. Adkins said the text proposes a privacy fence separating the exterior patio area from the adjacent Town Homes. That is consistent with what has been approved recently by the Commission, although it did not meet the Fence Code. A six-foot fence is being proposed for both sizes of the single family lots, within three feet of a patio or deck which is not consistent with what the Commission had approved recently. However, the Commission has approved some screening elements taller than four feet for cluster condominium developments. Staff does not believe that these lots fall into that category, however, there may be a creative solution for the fencing that is not considered in the text now that staff would support. Mr. Hale said they felt especially on the corner lots, the proposed fencing was very appropriate. Mr. Walter said he was most sensitive to the Town Home fencing and finding a way to not repeat what was seen in Franklin, Tennessee with respect to the row of fencing behind the Town Homes. He requested that when staff looks at the final development plan they consider some variation in the fencing or some differences so there will not be that same continuous fencing. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — September 21, 2006 Page 6 of 21 Mr. Gerber agreed and referred to Condition 8 and said it troubled him because he thought the Commission would like to approve it instead of staff. Mr. Hale suggested Condition 8 read: "... subject to final development plan approval." Mr. Fishman said the fences that had been approved in Dublin do not look good after ten years. He suggested that instead of fences, walls matching the material of the house be used. He suggested also that all the fencing be masory walls which would lend to the quality of the buildings. Mr. Halprin agreed with Mr. Fishman about the houses having walls, but said the townhouse fences will not be visible from the outside. They are on the interior patios of the townhouse buildings. Mr. Hale said they have detached garages, so it is an area which separates yards for privacy. Mr. Fishman asked what would the fence material be and Mr. Fite repsonded that the fences would be made of a variety of materials such as wood or vinyl. Mr. Gerber said there was not enough Commission support for vinyl fencing. Mr. Fishman said that there was a commitment for masonry fences where there were single- family homes and he would like it to be upheld. He wanted something substantial used, even though it could not be seen because it affects the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Halprin said he did not think he had a problem with commiting to masonry, but he had not had a chance to review the cost of building a masonry wall and foundations. For the townhouses, they would not be able to use masonry because it would eliminate an extra foot or two in small areas. He agreed however, on the single-family houses that they would do something beautiful and if they had to come back to show the Commission exactly what it was, they would. He said he could not commit to brick. Mr. Fishman asked that the wall material match the front of the house, whether it was brick or stone, etc. Mr. Halprin said that it might be landscaping instead. Mr. Fishman said landscaping would be fine if it was more appropriate. He asked if the applicant would agree that on the single-family homes the wall would match the house material. Mr. Fite agreed that they could show the Commission at least one fence that they would like that was not masonry. He said if the Commission did not like it, they would not build it. Mr. Gerber said he did not want to hold this case up on this issue which would be seen at the final development plan stage. Mr. Hale said it would be masonry on the single-family homes, unless the Commission approved something else. Mr. Fishman said he would support that. Mr. Gerber requested that language for Condition 8 be provided. Mr. Gunderman clarified that Condition 8 applied to single-family homes. He suggested Condition 8 read: "That the text be modified so that all privacy enclosures in the rear yard areas be masonry or other material to be approved at the final development plan." Mr. Zimmerman asked if a four- or six-foot fence would be on the single-family lots. Ms. Adkins said the applicants are proposing a six-foot fence for all the residential uses. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — September 21, 2006 Page 7 of 21 Mr. Gerber noted that the staff was concerned about the six-foot fences in the staff report. He could not support six-foot fences for the single-family, and does not understand why they were being discussed. Mr. Gunderman clarified that they are not proposing six-foot fencing down the property lines. They are proposing enclosures around the patios, an area that would be within the building envelope for most houses. Mr. Halprin said for the single-family lots, the fence is around the patios and for the Town Homes, it is between the units. The fence will not be seen with the four-sided architecture. The Homeowners' Association will see that the fences are maintained. Mr. Hale agreed that the fences will be only masonry unless the Commission specfically approves something else. The Commissioners agreed that there should be no vinyl fencing between the Town Homes. Mr. Gerber asked that Condition 8 be revised. Mr. Hale requested that the condition read "patios" instead of "rear yards." Ms. Adkins read revised Condition 8: "That single-family houses include privacy enclosures around patio areas that consist of masonry materials unless otherwise approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission." Mr. Walter noted that the staff report indicated that Hyland -Croy Road would be expanded and additonal right-of-way will be needed. He asked how that would impact the front of this development and if the ponds would be eliminated. Ms. Adkins said the ponds would not be eliminated. The exact number of feet is unknown at this time. There still needs to be a setback from future right-of-way, so staff is confident that there will be enough frontage treatment. Mr. Hale said they are 200 feet from the new right-of-way, not the existing one. Mr. Gunderman said the new traffic models have not been run, which is what the right-of-way dedication was based on in the current Community Plan. It is the same policy used for all other projects, and he does not know if that envisioned a four -lane divided road in terms of the required right-of-way. It is a safe assumption that after the road is built, additional right-of-way will not be needed. Mr. Walter said a potential bikepath connection across Mitchell -Dewitt Road was brought up at the Community Plan update work session. He is not sure of the level of commitment for a bike tunnel because City Council is very concerned about the increasing cost. Would the developer be willing to work with Council on some sort of access across Mitchell -Dewitt Road in the event it does get increased? Mr. Gerber said a bike tunnel was not part of the Commission's purview. Council will see this application next, and if a tunnel is something they are concerned about, it will be discussed. Mr. Hale said they have agreed to pay for their required traffic improvements, and their fair share for other improvements later. They have not requested a TIF. However, with a roundabout Council might decide to do a TIF on the commercial part; that might be a way to finance improvements. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — September 21, 2006 Page 8 of 21 Ms. Cox said Council had approved a pedestrian bikepath study about tunnels. They discussed one at Tullymore Drive at the entrance on Hyland -Croy Road and the Metro Park. Engineering staff is currently studying the Hyland -Croy and Brand roads area. They are investigating a roundabout. If needed, they would could include a tunnel at that location due to pedestrian safety concerns. They would not be looking at identifying a tunnel location at Mitchell -Dewitt and Brand Roads, but Council is considering one at Hyland -Croy Road and Tullymore Drive. Mr. Walter asked about the bridge treatment over the North Fork of the Indian Run. Mr. Hale said they realized they would have to Dublinize the bridge. They have identified with the engineers and staff where they can take out the least amount of trees to cross the creek. The pipe under Hyland -Croy Road was undersized, so there is a large floodplain. They believed when the roundabout went in, the floodplain would get substantially smaller, but they realized that at the final development plan stage, the bridge will be an issue. Mr. Walter said he would like the final development plan to address denser plantings to actually increase and augment the existing tree line on the northwest side so that it will add to the rural character. That may help address another criteria. Mr. Hale agreed. When they cross the creek, they will have to remove trees and they were happy to increase the tree line. Mr. Walter said he would like to see the landscaping plan at the final develoment plan stage to see that it addresses the issue. Mr. Gerber and Mr. Zimmerman agreed that a condition was not needed. Mr. Hale said their openspace requirement under Code was about 4.5 acres, and they have over 30 acres. He said they are at 51 percent which is over the Conservation Design criteria. He said they have met many of the Conservation Design criteria. Ms. Jones thanked the applicant for the changes made. She said she particularly liked the entrance on Mitchell -Dewitt Road, however she was concerned about crossing the creek. She said her other concern was that the traffic study was not completed and data was not available, but she thought it had been addressed in Condition 2. Ms. Adkins said said staff is supportive of the project, based on the existing submitted study and the condition covered their concern. Ms. Jones said she wanted to be sure that the applicant works with staff on the right-of-way and cost-sharing. She said she liked the detail of the architecture and appreciated the applicant working with the neighbors. Ms. Jones said she also liked the openspace, especially the 200 -foot setbacks in addition to the new right-of-way. She asked that her concerns on the traffic and the corner and the creek are on the record. Mr. Zimmeman said that Ms. Adkins' staff report was very good and easy to read. He said the architectural detail at this stage is great. He referred to the drive-thru conditional uses listed in the text for Subarea E for the neighborhood commercial and read "...and associated with any permitted use in Subarea E." He said he assumed that that the use would be drugstore type uses, not fast food. Mr. Hale said the text could say "...except restaurant." He said there will be no drive-thru restaurants. Ms. Jones asked that there be a condition that the text reflects that there will be no drive-thru restaurants. Mr. Gerber requested that Condtion 13 be: That the text be revised to eliminate restaurant related drive-thrus. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — September 21, 2006 Page 9of21 Mr. Hale said said they have 4.5 parking spaces per square -foot, which is slightly under Code. Mr. Gerber asked what type of retail was expected. Mr. Hale said they hoped that they would get a restaurant and neighborhood kind of uses. He said they will have a variety of neighborhood kinds of uses. He said they want services for residents so that they will not have to drive to Avery Road. Mr. Zimmerman asked if the third -story was functional on the Town Homes, and Mr. Fishman asked if the third -story was included in the square footage. Mr. Fite said the Town Homes were two story buildings. He said there may be an attic space where someone might build a loft. Mr. Gerber said the text stated that the top could be 58 feet. Mr. Fite said it was an architectural element, purely for looks. Mr. Zimmerman said he liked the layout and design. He said there is a lot of openspace between and they are not connecting yard to yard. He said he thought the residential, single-family end had adhered to the Conservation concept. Mr. Fishman said the four-sided architecture was beautiful. He asked if the brick would be all the way around. Mr. Gerber said the elevation showed stucco on the back. Mr. Fishman said they did not want to see stucco on the back and asked for a condition that as much brick as there is on the front be on the back. Mr. Fite said he thought that was dangerous because they may want to do something special on the front, then it has to be on the back also. Mr. Gerber recalled that at the last meeting after they got back from Franklin, that the Commission wanted to change the architecture in Dublin and upgrade it. He said many times, even in Ballantrae, the rear elevations are all stucco. He questioned how they were considered to be four-sided. Mr. Fishman said in Franklin, they carried the brick all the way around. He said the spirit of this was they wanted to walk around the buildings and see brick all the way around. Mr. Gerber agreed with Mr. Fishman that he wanted to see the same materials on the front and the back. Mr. Halprin said on many of their projects with the four-sided architecture concept, they use the brick or stone on the front for the peaks, etc. He said when it is not appropriate on the back, they will go around the bottom and wrap a four -foot area around the house providing a breakup in the back also. Mr. Fishman said they do not want water tables and they do not want the building to be perceived as a stucco building with a water table. Mr. Fishman said because this was being done with a different density, he did not want to be responsible for a lot of stucco on the rear elevations. Mr. Gerber said the material did not have to exactly match on the back, but he did not want to see just stucco. Mr. Fite said the materials will be integrated. Mr. Gerber asked to see elevations. Mr. Fite said elevations will be part of the final development plan submittal. Mr. Fishman said there should be as much brick on the back as the front of the elevation, unless the applicant can come back to the Commission to convince them otherwise on a particular building. Mr. Walter suggested that a condition read: "That the character of the back must match the character of the front." Mr. Hale said in the past there has been four-sided architecture without any requirements. Mr. Fishman said in the past, Mr. Hale and others had agreed to four-sided integrated architecture Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — September 21, 2006 Page 10 of 21 and the rear turned out to be stucco. He said in Franklin, Tenneesee, the Commission saw stucco on the peak in the back, which was fine. Mr. Gerber said they had discussed architectural enforcement at other meetings. He said all the Commission discusses is matrixes and they see a few pictures. He asked what mechanisms does Dublin have in place to do something similar to that in Franklin. Mr. Gunderman said the City does not have the mechanism like they have in Franklin, because there, the city did nothing — the developer did it. He said what the City had done in all their projects in the last few years is look for what is called architectural diversity. He said it had been a difficult task and has not always been as successful as they would like. However, he said most of Dublin's subdivisions have been limited to it. He said they did not want to repeat the same model within a certain distance around any particular home. Mr. Gunderman said he thought that had done some good and had been imitated in other places, the Commission is not looking for that type of product in Dublin — they are looking for something different. Mr. Gunderman asked what was anticipated in terms of the exterior finishes on the fronts if and when the final development stage comes to the Commission for review. He asked if there will be a set number of units ready to review at the time of the final development plan, or had they planned on something more typical of Dublin's other projects. Mr. Hale agreed to have the architect go from the pretty pictures to drawings that are meaningful architecturally. He said they will show four-sided architecture in those buildings. Mr. Fite suggested that the condition be that the front sides and rears of all the homes will have comparable amounts of brick on them. He said it was a comparable amount of brick on the sides and rear so they do not get held to a formula. Mr. Gerber suggested Condition 14 read: "That a comprable amount of brick and or stone on all four sides as the front, unless the Planning and Zoning Commission determines otherwise at the final development plan." Mr. Fishman asked about the siding. Mr. Hale said it was Hardiplank and cedar. Mr. Fishman asked if the Commission would get to see where those materials would be used in the development, He asked if they could say there was too much Hardiplank, and they did not want it at that time. Mr. Gunderman said yes. Mr. Fishman said he thought there should be a way to cross the road from the high school. However, he did not want to force them to build a tunnel. He suggested a bike bridge. Ms. Cox said that a roundabout was currently being studied as an alternative for that intersection location. A recommendation has not yet been made to City Council for programming. Roundabouts are safe for pedestrians. Ms. Jones asked if it was addressed with Condition 2 with the traffic study and traffic circle. Ms. Cox the part that is in the traffic study for this development will be their contribution to the improvement done at that intersection. Mr. Gerber said that the retail was something new for Dublin. He is interested in the traffic capacity inside the entire development. If they put a chain restaurant in, it will draw customers from other areas and might be packed every night. He asked if staff and/or the applicant is satisfied with the traffic capacity without creating a mess inside the neighborhood or a flow of cars going in and out. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — September 21, 2006 Page 11 of 21 Mr. Hale responded that the street parking spaces get filled first. Mr. Gerber said he was not concerned about the parking, but he was concerned about the traffic flow. He asked if staff was satisfied. Ms. Adkins said there will be time to review the specific final layout at the final development plan. They have provided a lot of entrances and cross access points, and the gridded pattern helps. Mr. Hale pointed out that the median will also be helpful. Mr. Gerber said in the future, a neighborhood group may complain about traffic or noise, and he wanted to make sure that it will not be a problem. Mr. Fite said there will be traffic calming such as brick pedestrian crossings which make traffic slow down. No one will go into the center and try to weave their way into the residential to get off of Mitchell -Dewitt Road. Mr. Walter asked about the cut-thru lane shown on the northern side of the retail. Mr. Fite clarified that it was the drive-thru lane. Mr. Gerber asked why the development was being named Oak Park. Mr. Fite said there was a large oak tree in the middle of the site and it is next to a park. Mr. Fite said they will consider changing the development's name. Mr. Zimmerman asked if the retail and commercial would be built first. Mr. Fite said they had discussed the need to do it first, because it was their entry feature. He said there will probably be a lot of infrastructure, streets, etc. and houses before the retail, but there is no intention to build all the houses and let the retail sit. Mr. Gerber asked that there be a notice to residents or perspective residents that there will be retail and office. He said many times, homeowners are not told by the sales person about future plans. Mr. Hale said they were very confident that some of the retail buildings will get built first. Mr. Halprin said they did not see this as two separate things. He said the retail center was a big sales pitch. He said there will be posters showing the commercial center. Mr. Gunderman said since they had the discussion on the architecture he wanted to get the concept clear among everyone. He asked if the applicant was expecting to bring with the final development plan package, all the potential elevations. Mr. Gunderman asked how many elevations did they think would be in the single-family. David Keyser said the concept was three or four different types of the larger single-family and four different types of the smaller single- family. He said the Town Homes were already designed. He said they will bring full packages showing everything. He said the only thing that could change would be a sunroom within the building envelope. He said it would have to match with the overall asthetics, etc. Mr. Gunderman said he wanted to point that out, particularly in light of the diversity issue. He said this would raise the bar. He said they would be talking about a new level of detail as the starting point at the final development plan stage that most of the other projects discussed would not have had. Mr. Gerber said they had stated at the last time this applicant was here and tonight that the Commission wanted to raise the bar as it relates to this architectural review. Mr. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — September 21, 2006 Page 12 of 21 Gunderman said he could argue whether or not that is raising the bar or if they are building too many of the same houses. He said he was trying to get clear what is expected for the final development plan submission. Mr. Gerber said he hoped it was clear that they wanted to raise the level and quality of the architecture. He said he did not see many different models, which was fine for this project. Mr. Gerber said the final will be a little different with this development and they are going to review the architecture carefully. Motion and Vote Mr. Gerber made the motion to approve this rezoning/preliminary development plan because the high-level of development quality achieved in northwest Dublin is being maintained and will be furthered by this development, based on the evaluation of this development according to the adopted ten Land Use Principles, Principles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10 are successfully executed in the proposed neighborhood, the proposed zoning and subsequent development will provide appropriate development standards for the site and will advance the general planning intent of this area, with 14 conditions: 1) That all requirements of the Stormwater Management and Stream Protection Regulations are met to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 2) That a Traffic Impact Study be completed acceptable to both the Union County Engineer and the City Engineer prior to submitting for final development plan; 3) That the applicant agrees to construct or contribute to any improvements the accepted Traffic Impact Study identifies, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 4) That the necessary road right-of-way, per the Thoroughfare Plan, be dedicated, with the final plat to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 5) That all proposed access points comply with the Division of Engineering Administrative Policy for Intersection Visibility Triangles and be designed to the satisfaction of the Union County Engineer, where applicable; 6) That all other access and traffic issues in this report be addressed prior to or during the final development plan as outlined in the report; 7) That the text be revised to incorporate comments regarding setbacks as outlined in this staff report; 8) That single-family houses include privacy enclosures around patio areas that consist of masonry materials unless otherwise approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission; 9) That the text be revised to require the parking ratio as illustrated on the preliminary plan; 10) That the text be modified to address issues related to signage as outlined in this staff report; 11) That the text be revised to address the landscaping comments in this report; 12) That any connections to the path system within the Glacier Ridge Metro Parks be approved by the Park District staff prior to final development plan; 13) That the text be revised to eliminate restaurant related drive-thrus; and 14) That a comparable amount of stone and brick be used on the front, side and rear elevations of the single family homes, unless otherwise approved by Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Hale agreed to the above 14 conditions. Mr. Zimmerman seconded Mr. Gerber's motion to approve, and the vote was as follows: Ms. Jones, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 5-0.) Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — September 21, 2006 Page 13 of 21 Mr. Gerber thanked the applicants and said he looked forward to working with them and thought this was going to be a wonderful project. He called a short recess at 8:09 p.m. 2. Corridor Development District Sign Review 05-150CDDS — Trader Joe's Center Sign Package — 6301-6333 Sawmill Road Mr. Gerber swore in those who intended to testify in regards to thJs case. Mr. Zimmerman pulled thi onsent case and sXa�ster arificat/ing dition 8 was necessary, it was listed i e staff report: "That thplan tto require all existing signs confo within a determined time ame.Heggestemore specific timeframe. Claudia HUs said the condition spoke o a provision in the sign Ian that currently states that all new gnage will be /exis meet the sign plan, bu that except for the Japanese Ste use sign, none of tigns would be required o come intocompliance with the si plan. Ms. Husak said s that an amortizatio period is necessary so that existing on -compliant signs also cmpliance in a certai time period with the adopted master sign. Ben W, Hale, Jr. representing the applicantAesips except for the sign for th Japanese Steakhouse, whi they are committed to chate signs are architecturally ' tegrated into the bands. Gunderman noted that three of shown on the slide uId not comply with the sta dard. Mr. Z' erman asked what time period d been utilized in other sho ing centers. Ms. Husak sai a four-year timeframe was agreed t for the Village Square Sho ping Center. She said staff has visited that shopping center and as not comfortable re four ng four years for the Trader Joe's Center because it has many ore affected tenants than illage Square. Mr. Hale agreed and said that when Trader Joe's owed to the center; it was percent vacant. He said it is now 90 percent full with only two v ancies. He agreed to re ire compliance within five year, Mr. Gerber said he did not appose this appYi aff's recommendations, buXiontwas ought by City Council approving the CDD amendmsign review, the Commi going to start looking at all signs and really stah. He said the objecti here is to make sure the signs conform more with the arcthe surrounding are of only in terms of shape, size, and color. Mr. Gunde7dn said Mr. Gerber had orrectly stated the phi l( sop of the sign provision in the CDD. Heshe thought there w probably a question as tow t extent does the Commission want to Ohange particular signag at particular existing busine ses, and what is the architecture they e going for. He said this shopping center, muc more than most, had a definite arc ectural way of dealing with signage because they had a sign band designed into the ar itecture of the shopping center originally. STAFF REPORT DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 21, 2006 CITY OF DUBLIN.. Land Use and Long Range Planning '800 Shier -Rings Road ublin, Ohio 43016-1236 ,hone: 614-410-4600 Fax: 614-410-4141 Web Site: www.dublin.oh-us 1. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 06-064Z — Oak Park Mixed -Use — Mitchell -Dewitt Road and Hyland -Croy Road Location: 61.35 acres located at the southwest corner of Mitchell -Dewitt Road and Hyland -Croy Road. Existing Zoning: R, Rural District. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District under the provisions of Code Section 153.050. Proposed Use: A mixed-use development that includes 108 housing units, 39,700 square feet of mixed-use space, and 31.3 acres of open space. Applicant: HC Associates, 5774 Finnegan Court, Dublin, Ohio 43017; represented by Atlantic Realty Development Corporation, 90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 600, Woodbridge, New Jersey 07095, and Ben W. Hale, Jr., Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Jamie E. Adkins, Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410-4644/Email: jadkins@dublin.oh.us. UPDATE: This case was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 11, 2006. The Commissioners generally favored the proposed architecture and high quality of the design, however were concerned that the proposed land use and density did not match the current Community Plan. The Commission was also concerned about the inclusion of retail in proximity to the Dublin Jerome High School. The case was tabled at the request of the applicants. The applicants have revised the plan to address some of the concerns outlined by staff, the Commission and by an adjacent resident. BACKGROUND: On August 21, 2006 City Council established ten Land Use Principles to be utilized as development guidelines in conjunction with the existing Community Plan in the evaluation of pending development applications. The ten Land Use Principles are to be consulted in order to adequately address policies and decision-making processes that may arise during the Community Plan update process. The ten Land Use Principles are listed below: Interim Land Use Principles 1) High quality design for all uses, recognizing density has important economic implications, but is essentially an outcome not a determinant of creating a quality place. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report — September 21, 2006 Case No. 06-064Z — Page 2 of 13 2) Creating places to live that have a stronger pedestrian environment, connections to convenient services, and are conducive to multi -generational living and social interaction. 3) Creating places with integrated uses that are distinctive, sustainable and contribute to increasing the City's overall vitality. 4) Providing some retail services in closer proximity to residential areas as an important amenity to residents. The design considerations are very important. 5) Creating a wider range of housing choice in the community, as well as in new neighborhoods. 6) Preserving the rural character of certain areas of the community, including the appearance of roads, as well as the landscape. 7) Developing streets that create an attractive public realm and make exceptional places for people. 8) Creating better connected places, in part, to improve the function of the street network and also to better serve neighborhoods. 9) Creating streets that contribute to the character of the community and move a more reasonable level of traffic. 10) Providing opportunities to walk and bike throughout the community. Case Summary: This is a request for review and approval of a rezoning (preliminary development plan) for a proposed mixed-use development that includes a mix of 108 residential units and a retail and office component at the southwest corner of Hyland -Croy and Mitchell Dewitt Roads. A concept plan for this development was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission on January 5, 2006 and to City Council on February 6, 2006 (See history for Case 05-179CP). The proposal includes elements that differ from typical developments approved throughout Dublin. However, staff believes that this development successfully addresses a majority of the adopted ten Land Use Principles and that the proposed design features could establish a new high quality design aesthetic for other developable areas of the City. Therefore, staff recommends approval of this rezoning/preliminary development plan with conditions. Case Procedure: 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 returned to City Council for a public hearing and 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. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report — September 21, 2006 Case No. 06-064Z — Page 3 of 13 Review Criteria: 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 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. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report — September 21, 2006 Case No. 06-064Z — Page 4 of 13 CONSIDERATIONS: Site Characteristics: • Site Description. The 61.35 -acre site has 1,500 feet of frontage along Mitchell Dewitt Road and 1,300 feet of frontage on Hyland -Croy Road. The site is currently undeveloped with a large mature tree stand and undergrowth along the western and southern property lines. The North Fork of the Indian Run flows along the northern portion of the site with a large area of associated floodplain covering the site. • Zoning. The site is currently zoned R, Rural District. The proposed mix of uses including retail and office is not permitted within this district and therefore a rezoning is necessary. The land to the north, west, south, and portions to the east, are not within the City. To the northeast across Hyland -Croy Road is the Dublin Jerome High School zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District and to southeast are single-family homes zoned PLR, Planned Low -Density Residential District. Community Plan: Future Land Use and Density. The area plan within the Community Plan designates this site as "Recommended Metro Park Area," however the final location of the Glacier Ridge Metro Park was modified after the completion of the Community Plan. The current Future Land Use Plan was adjusted from the original based on the final location of the Glacier Ridge Metro Park. The preferred land use for this site is designated as "Residential -Low Density (0.5-1 du/acre)." Plans indicate a density of 1.76 dwelling units per acre and a four -acre commercial site. While the proposed density and retail component do not match the Community Plan, City Council and the Planning Commission have discussed the applicability of Land Use Principles 1 and 4 that state that design, not density, is a key factor to create a quality place, and that providing some neighborhood retail services in closer proximity to residential areas is an important amenity to residents. Staff believes that the proposed development successfully incorporates both principles and warrants a deviation from the future anticipated land use. • Community Plan Update. The Future Land Use Map in the Community Plan is currently being evaluated as part of the Community Plan update. This update is intended to revisit the current land uses, as well as the fiscal and traffic impacts for the future growth of developed and undeveloped portions of the City. On-going discussions with the Community Plan consultant, City Council, Planning Commission, and staff have revealed that a "neighborhood" approach to development is desired and the adopted ten Land Use Principles provide a tool in evaluating whether this proposal successfully achieves the desired approach. • Thoroughfare Plan. According to the current Thoroughfare Plan, Hyland -Croy and Mitchell Dewitt Roads are projected to need a right-of-way width of 80 feet. Additional rights-of-way to match the Thoroughfare Plan must be dedicated. The text states that 40 feet of right-of-way will be dedicated from the centerline of the roadway for both Hyland -Croy Road and Mitchell -Dewitt Road in conformance with the Thoroughfare Plan. There may be a need in the future for additional right-of-way in this area to accommodate the anticipated roadway widths discussed with the update of the Community Plan and the future development of the Northwest area. To date, the traffic modeling is anticipating the need for a four- to five -lane divided roadway that will become a major north -south connection. • Scenic Roads. The Community Plan identifies Hyland -Croy and Mitchell -Dewitt Roads as scenic roadways with a recommended 200 -foot setback for all new buildings in the development. The plans indicate adherence to this recommendation. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report — September 21, 2006 Case No. 06-064Z — Page 5 of 13 • Metro Park Plan Area. The Metro Park Area Plan recommends that the rural character of the area surrounding the Glacier Ridge Metro Park be preserved, that the natural features be preserved, and that high-quality clustered housing oriented to the Metro Park be encouraged. Staff believes that this application successfully addresses the recommendations of this area plan by preserving 50 percent open space, and incorporating a layout that is sensitive to existing vegetation, and proposing high quality of housing units. Site Layout: • General Layout. The site plan has been revised slightly since the June 11, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The proposal continues to include a mix of residential and commercial development with three types and a variety of sizes of residential units. The site access points have changed to include an access point off Mitchell Dewitt Road to the north, eliminating one of the two previous access points of Hyland -Croy Road based on input by the Union County Engineer. The single access point off Hyland -Croy Road has shifted to the south, eliminating the concern of potential headlight trespass onto an adjacent resident. The commercial component remains along Hyland -Croy Road and transitions westward into residential townhomes. A proposed neighborhood center is located within a central neighborhood green. This central green is surrounded by townhomes on the east, Village homes to the north and south, and green space to the west. Located along the western and southern portions of the development are Park home lots. A future road connection is shown at the southwest corner of the site. The large open spaces are located in the northern and eastern portions of the site, with smaller pockets of open space dispersed throughout the development. Mixed Use. This proposal includes a mixed-use component that will include residential, retail, restaurant and office uses. The plan indicates the mixed-use retail buildings will have close setbacks on proposed Village Drive with larger parking areas concealed behind the retail buildings. Private streets within this area will accommodate traffic and on -street parking. The plans indicate 39,700 square feet of retail space in two-story buildings with a varied architectural scale. While this portion of the development does not comply with the Community Plan it does follow Land Use Principles 3 and 4 that strive to provide areas of mixed-use and locate neighborhood serving retail. Staff believes that these planning principles are applicable and appropriate for this site. • Residential. The proposal specifies three types of housing units including townhomes, Village homes, and traditional single-family Park homes. Closest to the retail area are 36 two- to three-story townhome units. Further west are 39 proposed Village homes. The Village homes average 2,200 to 2,800 square feet and the homes generally have side - loaded garages creating a courtyard effect. The 33 Park homes are 8,000- to 11,000 - square -foot single-family lots along the southern and western sides of the development creating an overall transition of density to the Metro Park. The plan indicates varied lot widths and housing styles. The proposed lots also have reduced setbacks which create a more traditional style of streetscape. • Conservation Design. At the Concept Plan stage the site was evaluated as required by the Conservation Design Resolution, and staff determined that it was a good candidate for conservation design. Through recent discussions with the Community Plan Update however, staff has also determined that traditional neighborhood designs may be appropriate within the City as well. The proposed plan incorporates elements of both types of design including 50 percent open space, a mix of housing types, traditional streetscapes, and decreasing the intensity of uses towards the periphery of the site. Staff Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report — September 21, 2006 Case No. 06-064Z — Page 6 of 13 believes that the site plan has incorporated the most appropriate elements of conservation design and traditional neighborhood design. ParklandlOpen Space. The required open space and parkland dedication is 4.47 acres per Code based on 108 units located on 61.39 acres. Additionally, the Conservation Design Resolution requires 50 percent open space for residential development. The plans show 31 acres of open space dispersed throughout the development. Staff typically does not count setbacks, stormwater ponds or any areas that cannot be accessed by the public toward parkland dedication required by Code. These amenities are however, counted towards the 50 percent open space requirement for Conservation Design. Please refer to the "Open Space and Parkland" section for additional information. Subareas: • Subareas. The plan is divided into Subareas A through E, including B-1 and B-2. The development text provides an explanation of uses and basic development standards for each Subarea. • Subarea A — Park Home Lots: • Layout. Subarea A encompasses approximately 35.7 acres with 22.72 total acres of open space. The majority of lots in this Subarea are located along the southern and western perimeter of the site. Lots to the south are accessed via proposed Parkside Avenue and Garden Court via the main entry drive from Hyland -Croy Road. Lots to the west and north are accessed via the proposed North Fork Drive that connects to Mitchell -Dewitt Road. The layout of Lots 5 through 10 to the south in this Subarea has been changed to create a larger buffer adjacent to the Glacier Ridge Metro Park. In addition, the new access point to the north allows for Park home lots to flank this prominent street on both sides. The new layout of lots in this Subarea addressed staff's previous concerns regarding the need to separate lots from the Metro Park and the adjacent lots to the south. The design of this Subarea also decreases the density along the periphery of the site in proximity to the Metro Park. • Development Standards. The text states that lot sizes in this Subarea shall vary between 60 and 80 feet with a minimum lot depth of 125 feet and the preliminary plan adheres to these requirements. The text requires a minimum front yard setback of 13 feet and a maximum front yard setback of 20 feet. This requirement creates a seven -foot "building zone," which must contain the front portion of the building. Side yard setbacks are required to be six feet and the rear yard setback is 25 feet for dwellings. The development text requires garages to be located 10 feet behind the front fagade of each home. • Fences. Code permits all single-family lots to have four -foot fencing within the buildable area of a lot. Recent approvals by the Planning Commission for condominium and cluster home units have allowed six-foot screening with plant and high quality fencing materials within a small area for privacy. The development text indicates that six-foot fencing within three feet of a patio or deck will be permitted for lots in this Subarea. Staff believes that there may be situations where the proposed fencing may be appropriate; however, the text as proposed does not sufficiently address the usage of fencing to ensure consistency with City policies. • Ground Signage. The text permits two retail center and/or neighborhood identification signs on both sides of the intersection of North Fork Drive with Mitchell -Dewitt Road. Staff believes that two signs are inappropriate at this Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report — September 21, 2006 Case No. 06-064Z — Page 7 of 13 location and the number should be reduced to one sign that does not specifically advertise the retail area in order to deemphasize the importance of this entry. • Subarea B (BI and B2) — Village Homes. o Layout. Subarea B encompasses 11.1 acres and permits a maximum of 39 single- family cluster lots. The plans indicate two distinct areas of Village homes, with Subarea B 1 including 19 lots and B2 including 20 lots. This Subarea is located in the center of the site separated by the Neighborhood Clubhouse and greenspace in Subarea C. All Village homes face public streets and both areas surround two small (0.7- and 1 -acre) interior open spaces located at the rear of the lots. • Development Standards. The text states that lot sizes in this Subarea shall vary between 55 and 60 feet with a minimum lot depth of 125 feet. The text requires a minimum front yard setback of 13 feet and a maximum front yard setback of 20 feet. Side yard setbacks are required to be six feet and the rear yard setback is required to be 15 feet for dwellings. The development text states that a five-foot rear yard will be permitted for accessory structures. The applicant has indicated that the reduced rear yard requirement for accessory structures allows the opportunity to continue the street wall where the rear of lots abut the sides of other lots and provides flexibility for rear garages. Staff believes that considering the depth of these lots, this reduction is not warranted and that if the development text required or more strongly encouraged side- and rear -loaded garages with front access, a reduced setback for accessory structures may be necessary. • Fences. The applicant is proposing the same six-foot privacy fencing within three feet of a deck or patio for this Subarea as described in Subarea A. Though these lots are smaller, they are not entirely consistent in scale to other cluster lots approved for privacy screening within the City. Staff believes that there may be situations where the proposed fencing may be appropriate; however, the text as proposed does not sufficiently address these. • Subarea C — Neighborhood Clubhouse. Layout. Subarea C consists of 2.8 acres of primarily open space located in the center of the site with the clubhouse located at the eastern edge of this area. The proposed location of the clubhouse at the terminus of the main entry drive off Hyland -Croy Road creates an attractive vista, which addresses land use principle 7, developing streets that create an attractive public realm. A 6,000 -square -foot clubhouse for use by the residents in the neighborhood is permitted in this Subarea. The permitted uses include health and fitness, media rooms, conference rooms, gathering rooms, and non-commercial dining facilities. • Subarea D — Townhomes. • Layout. Subarea D consists of 4.9 acres and is located in the center of the site west of Subarea E. This Subarea contains 36 townhomes with a maximum of six attached units in one building. The buildings are oriented along three proposed public streets and face Park homes to the north and south and Village homes to the west. The townhomes are proposed with rear -loaded garages accessed from alleys shared with the retail parking area. • Development Standards. The text requires that the townhome lots have a minimum width of 24 feet, with a front yard setback of six and one-half feet. Staff was previously concerned that because the alleys for the townhomes are shared with the parking area for the retail Subarea, a sufficient rear yard be provided to avoid traffic conflicts due to visibility issues. The applicant has Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report — September 21, 2006 Case No. 06-064Z — Page 8 of 13 revised the proposal by providing a 12 -foot rear yard from the alleys. Staff believes that this addresses the previous concern. Fences. The proposed townhouse units have an exterior patio area between the main building and the detached garage. The development text therefore permits a six-foot in height, wood screening wall to separate the patio areas of each attached units. The text states that details will be provided at the final development stage. Staff recommends the use of high-quality materials for screening treatments be included at the final development plan stage. • Subarea E — Neighborhood Retail. General Layout. Subarea E includes a 8.3 -acre village retail area with office, restaurant, and retail uses along the Hyland -Croy Road frontage of this site. The main entrance off Hyland -Croy Road into the development also serves as the main entrance to the retail area. A large open space with two ponds has been provided, which is separated by the entry street along Hyland -Croy Road. A north -south street connects the main entry west of the open space and is lined with pull -in and parallel parking. This street connects west to the residential portions of this development. The central entry street terminates at the site for the neighborhood clubhouse. The retail are has been designed to create a strong street frontage along the north -south road with two L-shaped buildings. Parking has been internalized in two areas to the rear of the retail buildings, separated from the townhomes by access drives. The proposed layout of this area addresses several land use principles dealing with integrated mixed -uses, connectivity and street layout. Staff believes that the proposed layout of this area successfully provides retail services in close proximity to residential uses while taking great care to create a functional and integrated design. Development Standards. The text for this Subarea permits a maximum of 39,700 square feet of area, with no single tenant exceeding 20,000 square feet each. The permitted uses are limited to those contained within the Neighborhood Commercial and Community Commercial sections of the Code, along with dry cleaners, art galleries, wine stores, convenience stores, and other miscellaneous food stores. The text does exclude several uses contained in these Code sections such as motor vehicles and tire, battery, and accessory dealers, farm hardware and equipment stores, liquor stores, funeral services, and sexually oriented businesses. Drive-thru and outdoor service facilities, and outdoor dining patios are listed as conditional uses. Staff believes that in order to maintain the neighborhood quality of this area, the uses should be further limited to exclude drive-thru eating establishments and other uses not suitable for a neighborhood center. Parking and Loading. The Code requires a parking ratio of one space per every 150 square feet for retail shopping centers of this size, or 264 parking spaces. The development text proposes one space for every 250 square feet, or 158 parking spaces, with the combination of pedestrian activity and shared parking assisting in the overall parking need. The preliminary development plan indicates a ratio similar to Code for the site which staff believes should be reflected as the parking ratio for the site. Final details on the parking arrangement will be part of the final development plan. Signage. The text states that all signage will be externally illuminated. Wall Signage. The Code permits shopping centers to have one tenant sign for each of the tenants on the storefront; and one joint identification sign, or two for centers fronting on two roadways, for the entire center. The Commission Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report — September 21, 2006 Case No. 06-064Z — Page 9 of 13 has recently approved tenant signage for storefronts in specific situations where there are two fronts, to allow both sides to be identified appropriately. The text is proposing that each tenant is permitted a wall sign on the storefront that fronts onto a private street, drive aisle, or parking area, and a blade sign near the parking area entrance. The maximum number of signs possible per tenant space is limited to two. The size and details of the wall signs is not listed and the text states that this information will be submitted at the final development plan. Staff recommends a standard size and style for all storefronts regardless of size consistent with other planned retail development of a similar design. Ground Signage. The text permits two center and/or neighborhood identification signs north and south of the intersection of Oak Park Boulevard with Hyland -Croy Road. The maximum size of these signs is 50 square feet and six feet maximum height. The text also permits one wrought iron arch sign illustrated in the architectural elevations over each sidewalk on the north and south sides of proposed Central Avenue. These arch signs are proposed at a maximum of 20 square feet and maximum height of 18 feet. The text has been revised to state that these signs can not identify any single tenant, but only the name of the overall development. Traffic Study, Impacts and Access Considerations: ■ Traffic Study. A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) with a revision date of September 8, 2006 has been submitted, which City of Dublin staff has reviewed, but not yet accepted. At this time, comments regarding this study have not been received from the Union County Engineer's Office. The study indicates that the projected uses will generate more traffic than the preferred land use. The preliminary required improvements to mitigate the impacts of the additional traffic generated from this project are also identified in the traffic study. These include the following improvements at the proposed site access: At new public street intersection with Hyland -Croy Road: 1. Provide northbound left turn lane on Hyland -Croy Road. 2. Provide southbound right turn lane on Hyland -Croy Road. At new public street intersection with Mitchell -Dewitt Road: 1. Provide a westbound left turn lane on Mitchell -Dewitt Drive. The TIS also indicates that this site should fund a proportional share of traffic related improvements at numerous intersections in the study area. Further discussion with Union County, the City of Dublin, and the applicant is required to identify the associated costs with these improvements. ■ Access Points. The access point locations shown are acceptable to the City of Dublin and Union County. Both access points are within the jurisdiction of Union County. Staff recommends that all proposed access points comply with the Division of Engineering Administrative Policy for Intersection Visibility Triangles and be designed to the satisfaction of the Union County Engineer, where applicable. Additionally, the final development plan should include all adjacent and opposing curb cuts. This plan proposes two access points to existing public roadways as listed: 1) To Hyland -Croy Road approximately 700 feet south of Mitchell -Dewitt Road. 2) To Mitchell -Dewitt Road approximately 1,000 feet west of Hyland -Croy Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report — September 21, 2006 Case No. 06-064Z — Page 10 of 13 Roadway Management: Public Streets. All public streets are required to be constructed in accordance with the City of Dublin Code and the standards established by the City Engineer. This development contains public streets with a 50 -foot right-of-way with 28 feet of pavement from back to back curb and 60 -foot right-of-way with 36 feet of pavement from back to back of curb. Further discussion is necessary regarding the traffic circles that are planned at the eastern end of the site. The inclusion of these elements and the design shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The parallel parking spaces located immediately to the west of Village Drive North and Village Drive South, and the spaces located to the east of North Fork Drive should be eliminated due to their proximity to the intersections and the entrance from Hyland -Croy Road. Private Streets and Alleys. Private streets proposed should have a minimum of 22 feet of pavement measured from back of curb to. back of curb. All private streets and alleys shall meet the City Engineer's requirements for strength and durability. The preliminary development plan should more clearly indicate which roadways are to be public or private. • Street Names. A list of proposed street names has not been submitted for review. Street names cannot be repeated in the City to avoid confusion during emergency situations and mail delivery. The final street names should be submitted at the final development plan stage. Utilities and Stormwater: Water Supply. A 12 -inch water main exists on the east side of Hyland Croy Road that would provide service to this site. A 16 -inch water main exists on the north side of Brand Road to the east of Hyland -Croy Road. The preliminary development plan indicates a proposed connection to the 12 -inch water main on the east side of Hyland -Croy Road by a proposed eight -inch water main. • Sanitary Sewer Service. Sanitary sewer service is available in this area by means of a 12 - inch sanitary sewer located on the northeast corner of Hyland -Croy Road and Brand Road. • Stormwater Management. This site will be required to meet the updated Stormwater Regulations, including the Stream Corridor Protection Zone requirements. There is an identified Stream Corridor Protection Zone on this parcel. A floodplain analysis study has been submitted and should be revised as requested to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The applicant is responsible for obtaining and necessary permits from FEMA, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Ohio EPA, or other regulated agency. Platting: Final Plat. A final plat of the public streets and any proposed lots will be required. A right-of-way dedication of 40 feet from centerline is required on both Hyland -Croy Road and Mitchell -Dewitt Road. Any right-of-way required to construct transportation improvements shall be dedicated to the City of Dublin. Architecture: Residential Architecture. The illustrative architecture within the text demonstrates a high level of aesthetic quality and detail. The text states that building designs will be inspired by English and Irish garden cities, park -like ambience, rich architectural detail, and a sense of quality and permanence. The text permits brick, stone, manufactured stone, cementitious fiberboard siding, wood, and stucco as the main building materials, with Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report — September 21, 2006 Case No. 06-064Z — Page 11 of 13 wood, EIFS, copper, fiber -cement products, and aluminum (gutters and downspouts) as trim materials. The text permits dimensional asphalt shingles, wood, slate, copper, standing seam or tile as roofing materials. The text states that four-sided architecture shall be required so that similar architectural design elements and details shall be consistent throughout all elevations of the structure. Though the text is not extensively specific, staff will work with the applicant to ensure that the high quality design presented is constructed throughout all phases of the development. • Retail Architecture. The architecture proposed for the retail area indicates two-story buildings with taller accent features and portions of the structure. The text allows for a maximum height of 58 feet for the accent features and 35 feet for the main structure. The final details and elevations that conform to architecture presented with the preliminary development plan will be included at the final development plan stage. Open Space: • Open Space Requirements. Code requires a dedication of 4.4678 acres of open space based on 108 residential units and 61.39 acres, and the Conservation Design Resolution requires 50 percent open space or 30.69 acres. Staff believes that the exact amount of open space provided is not as important as the quality and design of parks and open spaces. • Open Space Plan. The text indicates that this proposal preserves approximately 50 percent (31 acres) of open space. The text includes an open space description for the manicured and rural open spaces. The final details and layout of these parks will be determined at the final development plan stage where minor adjustments may be necessary based on road widening requirements. • Rural Open Space. The plan proposes approximately 27 of the 31 acres of open space to be passive and rural in character. The majority of these spaces are within the 200 -foot setbacks, along the north side of the development, and include the trees at the southwest corner of the site. The intent of these spaces is to enhance the area with wetlands, ponds, meadows, trails and park structures that will incorporate the character of the Glacier Ridge Metro Park. These open spaces include ponds, wetlands, meadows, and a naturalized planting scheme. The final determination for open space dedication should be included at the final development plan stage. • Manicured Parks. The plan proposes several smaller neighborhood scale parks centrally located in the site totaling 4.5 acres. The central open space associated with the neighborhood center is the largest manicured park with a central pond and large lawn area. The remaining manicured park areas are located in small pockets in cul- de-sacs, or in Subarea B behind the proposed lots. Bikepaths and Trails: • Bikepaths. The development text illustrates linkages with the Glacier Ridge Metro Park, and along Mitchell -Dewitt and Hyland -Croy Roads in conformance with the current policies of the City and the Community Plan. The applicants have incorporated additional bikepaths into the plan to promote pedestrian activity and the relationship of this site to the Metro Park based on input by staff. Walking paths are proposed in the open spaces behind Village homes in Subarea B, with the southern path connecting to the Metro Park. Any connections to the path system within the Glacier Ridge Metro Parks must be approved by the Columbus and Franklin County Metropolitan Park District staff prior to final development plan. Each residential lot has access to a sidewalk or bikepath and the majority of the site is connected to the larger path system. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report — September 21, 2006 Case No. 06-064Z — Page 12 of 13 Tree Preservation and Landscaping: Tree Inventory/Replacement Tree replacement trees are a separate Code requirement from other Code required trees such as front yard trees, street trees, and buffers required by Code. Per Code, tree replacement should be indigenous species and must be 2'/2 inches at installation. Specific details will have to be submitted at the Final Development Plan. The site contains a well-defined, heavily wooded area at the southwest corner of the site, a tree row with one large Burr Oak along the western boundary, and the heavily wooded stream corridor along the northern boundary. The text indicates the intent to preserve as many trees as possible and that the Tree Preservation Ordinance will be met. The proposed site design is also sensitive to existing natural features and saves a majority of the trees, as well as making the signature Burr Oak a focal point of the central open space. Further detail regarding tree preservation and replacement will be required at the final development plan. • Street Trees. Street trees are required on all public streets and the City Forester must approve the species. The text indicates a new concept for street trees of 30- to 40 -foot, and 20- to 40 -foot spacing between street trees in Subareas A -B, and Subarea D respectively in order to create a more visually interesting street aesthetic. The text should be revised to state that trees will be medium or small sized trees and be selected from Group B, or C dependent on spacing. The proposed tree lawn is seven feet and Code allows a varied tree lawn of five to seven feet for medium sized trees. Staff believes that the reduced size will assist in the enhancing the aesthetic appeal of the streetscape. A street tree plan will have to be submitted with the Final Development Plan and approved by the City Forrester. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Oak Park development is not intended to be the typical Dublin subdivision and the applicant has worked with staff to address a majority of the issues and concerns previously discussed. While this proposal does not conform to the current recommended land use, staff believes that the high-level of development quality achieved in northwest Dublin is being maintained and will be furthered by this development. Based on the evaluation of this development according to the adopted ten Land Use Principles, staff believes that Principles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10 are successfully executed in the proposed neighborhood. The proposed zoning and subsequent development will provide appropriate development standards for the site and will advance the general planning intent of this area and staff recommends approval of this preliminary development plan/rezoning with 12 conditions. Conditions: 1) That all requirements of the Stormwater Management and Stream Protection Regulations are met to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 2) That a Traffic Impact Study be completed acceptable to both the Union County Engineer and the City Engineer prior to submitting for final development plan; 3) That the applicant agrees to construct or contribute to any improvements the accepted Traffic Impact Study identifies, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 4) That the necessary road right-of-way, per the Thoroughfare Plan, be dedicated, with the final plat to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 5) That all proposed access points comply with the Division of Engineering Administrative Policy for Intersection Visibility Triangles and be designed to the satisfaction of the Union County Engineer, where applicable; Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report — September 21, 2006 Case No. 06-064Z — Page 13 of 13 Bases: 6) That all other access and traffic issues in this report be addressed prior to or during the final development plan as outlined in the report; 7) That the text be revised to incorporate comments regarding setbacks as outlined in this staff report; ' 8) That the text be modified to address the comments in this report pertaining to the proposed fencing for Subareas A and B, subject to staff approval; 9) That the text be revised to require the parking ratio as illustrated on the preliminary plan; 10) That the text be modified to address issues related to signage as outlined in this staff report; 11) That the text be revised to address the landscaping comments in this report; and 12) That any connections to the path system within the Glacier Ridge Metro Parks be approved by the Park District staff prior to final development plan. 1) The development provides quality mixed-use development that complements the neighboring Glacier Ridge Metro Park. 2) The proposed development offers alternative styles of housing conducive to multigenerational living. 3) The development creates a distinctive neighborhood with important amenities to residents. 4) The development conforms to Zoning Code Section 153.055(A). PROPOSED LOT PLAN PARK HOMES VILLAGE HOMES TOWN HOMES (Lots 1-33)(Lots 3472) (Lots 73-108) 80' LOTS 60' LOTS END UNITS COMMERCIAL '®'�,-°, OPEN SPACE NEIGHBORHOOD "� gip RSE OO 70" LOTS 55' LOTS INTERIOR UNITS E IOR 0 'c/ NTEO.S. INTF.IOR 601 LOTS PONOSSTRE: WETLANDS 06-064Z Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road & Hyland- PROPOSED OPEN SPACE PLAN MORTH 06-064Z Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road & Hyland- PROPOSED STREET SECTIONS Section - Village Drive North and Village Drive South HOW NOME UNo- rATtO , TOGAMG1 F REM YARO ( NAPE COMM- MU._..y_. ___..... fiAMGE--_-- 10. OAIYE Uhf __ ONIVF UNE KEANO GOMMFACWI PAAIGNG ERCIAI N -3l' 13' td' t0' N -Y 19' _ ____ NIIVATE d11YE M Section - Town Home Access / Commercial Parking Section - Parkside Drive, North Fork Drive, and Pleasant Drive cON[ULLDiN6` � SIDEWALK i PAIIKNPG MM UNE (NEOUN OMVE UNE � MlfKtliG � 51DEWAEt[ + G&IIIDIPOAI 0.QYL 50' Section - Oak Park Boulevard Section - North Fork Drive, Meadow Court, and Garden Court 06-064Z Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road & Hyland - T -1 __J PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE SINGLE-FAMILY - PARK HOMES W Lot W tot 70' Lot 60' Conser Int Of Consistent sueewr. Design SINGLE-FAMILY -- VILLAGE HOMES Fn•l, drint SS' Lffi 60' comerLot i5 Consistent Nree;na Design MULTI -FAMILY - TOWN HOMES 38' 24' 24' Private Street • Garage Access 06-064Z Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road & Hyland- ADDITIONAL PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE SINGLE FAMILY — PARK HOMES SINGLE FAMILY — VILLAGE HOMES COMMUNITY CENTER 1-064Z ,zoning ak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road & Hyland- - - PROPOSED COMMERCIAL ARCHITECTURE EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION 06-064Z Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road & Hyland- �I r ,3L�tic j� �'j�yyyy N 111 .EI1�.tlF'101111'1.�lf 11!fe 06-064Z Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road & Hyland- PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION June 22, 2006 CITY OF DUBLIN.. Land Use and tong Range Planning "10 Shier -Rings Road Ain, Ohio 43016-1236 6ne: 614-410-4600 Fax: 614-410-4747 Web Sile: www.dubhn.oh-us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 2. Rezoning 06-064Z — Oak Park Mixed -Use — Mitchell -Dewitt Road and Hyland -Croy Road Location: 61.35 acres located at the southwest corner of Mitchell -Dewitt Road and Hyland -Croy Road. Existing Zoning: R, Rural District. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning to PUD, PIanned Unit Development District under the provisions of Section 153.050. Proposed Use: A mixed-use development that includes 108 housing units, 39,700 square feet of mixed-use space, and 31 acres of open space_ Applicant: HC Associates, 5774 Finnegan Court, Dublin, Ohio 43017; represented by Atlantic Realty Development Corporation, 90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 600, Woodbridge, New Jersey 07095, and Ben W. Hale, Jr., Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Jamie E. Adkins, Planner, and Tammy Noble, Senior Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410-4644/jadkins@dublin.oh.us, (614) 410- 4649/tnoble@dublin.oh.us. MOTION: To table this rezoning/preliminary development plan at the request of the applicant so that the applicant may address the concerns regarding land use and density expressed by the commission. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: This rezoning/preliminary development plan was tabled. STAFF CERTIFICATION ie E. Ad ins Planner 06-064Z Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road & Hyland- r"- I? - ,A Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — June 22, 2006 Page 6 of 23 Mr. Walte said he preferred th rand identity as matche He thought corpor a brands were appr no oncern to him. Ms ones said she did n h co r, size, and shape the same. ,g as the color and s0e requirements we fate. Mr. Saneho said the font used as e a strong opiru either way, as Ion as the Motion: Mr. eholtz moved Mr. Zimmermanseconded to appr a this Final Development P because the pro al is in keeping wi he land use charact approved at the time of rez ng, the landscap' will enhance the pearance of this elopment and the Emerald kway corridor, th roposal allows ne usinesses to provi e essential services Dublin and surrounding re 'dents, and the de v opment meets the eview criteria for mal dev opment plans, with ' e conditions: 1 That access points added around the atios as required b the Building and F' e Codes, subject to staff a roval; 2) That the curb uts not utilized as rt of this develop t be restored to in ch the existing curb and er; 3) That the esign of private dri pavement meet th ity Engineer's req 'rements for strengt and rability; 4) sidewalk connecti be made on the rth side of the vehi lar access points, s ject staff approval; That the plans be odified to show an required oil/water parators and that applicant show complian with the City of lumbus' Fats, Oils d Greases Progr previous to building pe t issuance; 6) 7) 8) That the ' e design comply th the Stormwater and Flood Control rdinances to the satisfac 'on of the City Engi er; That nant wall signs fac' g the street be p 'ng lot restricted to feet by 12 feet; at all tenant wall ' s comply with the That the 35-squar -foot groundsign fo the plans and at the joint ident scat: relocated in ' s place. ed to 2.5 feet by 12 eet and signs facing e 5 -foot height restri on; and previously prop ed gas station be re oved from i sign propo d on Woemer Te le Road be Vote: Mr. alter, yes; Mr. Fislhan, yes; Ms. Joy Mr. Zir9dierman, yes; and W. Saneholtz, yes. (A Mr. McCa h, ye , Mr. Gerber, yes; 7-0.) 2. Rezoning 06-064Z — Oak Park Mixed -Use — Mitchell -Dewitt Road and Hyland -Croy Road Jamie Adkins presented this case and slides. She said the site, zoned R, Rural District, is located at the southwest corner of Mitchell Dewitt and Hyland Croy Roads. She said surrounding zonings include PUD, Planned Unit Development District, for Dublin Jerome High School, and PLR, Planned Low -Density Residential District, for the Bishop's Crossing development to the east of the site. She said Glacier Ridge Metro Park is located to the west of this site. Ms. Adkins said a concept plan for this site was reviewed in January by the Commission, and the main concerns expressed were the proposed retail land use and the higher density proposed than the Community Plan suggested. She said an additional concern was the proximity to the high 06-064Z Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road & Hyland - Croy Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — June 22, 2006 Page 7 of 23 school. Ms. Adkins said this concept plan application was also reviewed by City Council where concerns expressed related to the density and land use as well. Ms. Adkins said the site plan proposes a total of 108 housing units and a total square footage of 39,000 for the retail area. She said there were two access points from Hyland Croy Road. Ms. Adkins said Subarea A includes single-family lots located in the south and west areas of the site. She said Subarea B included smaller single-family lots located in two areas in the center of the site. She said Subarea D includes 36 town home units located in the center of the site. She said Subarea E is the location of the retail and a portion of the open space along Hyland Croy Road. Ms. Adkins said Subarea C includes the neighborhood center. She said the site plan includes 31 acres of open space (approximately 50 percent of the site), in accordance with the Conservation Design Resolution which includes a mix of manicured and rural open spaces. She said the trees have been preserved and the existing large Burr Oak has been incorporated as a signature piece of the development. Ms. Adkins said the retail area proposes a parking ratio of one space per 300 square feet (139 spaces). She said Code requires one space per 150 square feet. She said staff is concerned that this ratio is not appropriate and a burden on the neighborhood. She said staff believes that the applicant should incorporate the increased parking ratio indicated on the preliminary development plan. Ms. Adkins said the proposal includes a variety of residential lots. She said the single-family lots as outlined in the text, have a minimum building setback of 13 feet, and a maximum building setback of 20 feet, leaving a building zone at seven feet. She said the text also allows for a 15 - foot accessory structure setback, however, staff does not believe that the proposed layout of the proposed residential warrants a decreased setback. She said additionally, there are smaller single-family lots proposed in Subarea B which have the similar seven -foot building zone in the front, and an additional five-foot accessory structure setback in the rear. Ms. Adkins said staff does not believe that this is appropriate with the proposed layout and believes that the incorporation of alleys into the center open space of this subarea may be appropriate for these units. Ms. Adkins said the proposed townhouse units have a 6.5 -foot front yard setback and a 3.5 -foot rear yard setback with rear loaded garages. She said staff is concerned that due to the shared access drive for these town homes and the retail use that there may be traffic conflicts and that the 3.5 -foot setback will not allow for adequate visibility for residents exiting garages. Ms. Adkins said the architecture for the single-family units included a mix of different building materials including brick, stone, manufactured stone, and cementious siding. She said staff is concerned that the text does not adequately address how the proposed illustrative architecture will be implemented throughout build out. Ms. Adkins said the proposed text provides the permitted signage for the retail area which includes wall signs on every side of a tenant storefront. She said staff is concerned that it is in excess of what Code would allow and that the signage for the center should be further refined 06-064Z Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road & Hyland- Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — June 22, 2006 Page 8 of 23 and that more detail may be necessary. She said in addition, the Code permits one center or neighborhood sign at each of the two main entrances on Hyland Croy Road. She said the text states the maximum size of each of these two signs at 50 square feet with a maximum height of six feet. She said the text also permits two other ground signs indicated as directional with a maximum square footage of 25 feet. Ms. Adkins said Code limits directional signage to four square feet, and staff is concerned that the result will not be the standard directional -scaled sign. She said the text also permits two wrought iron arch signs in the retail area at a maximum area of 20 square feet with a maximum height of 18 feet. She said staff does not believe that these individual tenant signs should be allowed on the arch signs - only the name of the overall development. Ms. Adkins said staff has recognized that some of the issues proposed may require a significant amount of time for staff and the applicant to work through. She said there are a number of remaining unresolved items on which staff would appreciate the Commission's feedback and input. She said staff is recommending a tabling and has included a list of items for the Commission to comment on in order for them to be resolved which include: 1) Whether the site is appropriate for the proposed land uses and densities; 2) Whether the high-level of development quality achieved in northwest Dublin is being maintained by this development; 3) The conflicts between the retail area and the residential portions of this development; 4) The development standards associated with the Village and Park homes including the reduced lot sizes and setbacks, high lot coverage, and the fencing, and addition of the alleys; and 5) All proposed uses and associated components within the retail area, in order to gain the necessary comfort level with this area. Mr. Gerber asked since this proposal does not meet the Community Plan, is not consistent with the Future Land Use Map, and there are setback and signage problems, why was this application before the Commission with staff recommending a tabling. Mr. Gunderman said in regards to this not complying with the existing Community Plan, the Community Plan is in the process of being amended. Mr. Gerber expressed a concern about not enforcing the current Community Plan until amended. Mr. Gunderman said the Commissioners had been to a number of joint meetings with City Council where issues concerning this type of development standard had been discussed and favorable responses were received. He said it did not seem appropriate to staff to throw this out in the normal way with just a comprehensive plan to review. Ben W. Hale, Jr., representing the applicant, said the developer was Atlantic Reality, a New Jersey developer. He said they tried to comply with the ten principles. He said there had been a considerable amount of architectural refinement since this application was last reviewed. He said the townhouses and the residential products are now integrated architecturally. He said the site plan and architecture is of the highest caliper. Mr. Hale said they felt with the Tartan West amenities, they did not need to provide a clubhouse or pool. He said they had contacted Tartan West and made an arrangement to buy memberships for residents of this community. 06-064Z Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road & Hyland- Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — June 22, 2006 Page 9 of 23 Mr. Hale said that they had no problem with the conditions listed in the staff report, but some needed further discussion and feedback from the Commission. Michael Fite, The Edge Group, said they were confident that the issues with the possible conditions could be resolved. He said signage was not an issue. He said the questions were: is the land use appropriate; are they trying to do a quality development; has it been cohesively designed from a land planning and architectural standpoint; are the densities appropriate; and are they trying to accomplish the drafted ten principles. He said they will resolve the 23 issues listed with staff. Mr. Fite requested Commission feedback regarding their feelings about the architecture proposed and if the community theme is appropriate. He wanted to know if the Commission felt they were proposing the diversity of housing types wanted. He said they were present to discuss the first five items listed in the staff report. Mr. Fite said he believed, from a proposed land use and density standpoint, this proposed development is appropriate. He said the first drafted land use principle was about quality, not density. He said he believed they were proposing a quality development that was equal or a higher scale than anything in the northwest quadrant of Dublin. He said they believed the architecture was integrated with the land use. He said they have created a pedestrian -friendly environment with the town homes, retail, and residential lot sizes and styles which worked cohesively. He said they wanted people to live, work, shop and walk in the development. Mr. Fite said they adhered to the 200 -foot setback on Hyland Croy Road and saved the trees. He said they had 50 percent open space proposed which they felt adhered to the adopted plan of Conservation Design. He said the Community Plan does not mention retail, but in all discussions they had heard from the consultants, this type of community based retail is an answer to traffic concerns and the ability to create communities seen in travels to Franklin, Tennessee. Mr. Fite said the roofs are shaded red to make an integrated as a village. He said they could work out the issue of town home garages versus retail parking lot. He said the small, 36,000 square foot retail center is purposely designed to attract people and to service residents. He asked for advice how to get through the process when the Community Plan was not done. Mr. Gerber asked to hear from the residents present before further discussion. Ralph Feasel, 8100 Hyland Croy Road said they were concerned about the 58 -foot height and the signage for the mixed use/retail portion of this development. He said their main concern was that the proposed north entrance was directly across from their house and that there will be light trespass from cars into their bedroom. He said they had not been contacted by Mr. Hale as requested at the City Council meeting regarding the light issue. He said at the previous Commission meeting, Mr. Fite said that the north/south street in front of the retail would have parallel parking, however, the drawing tonight indicated that the parking was head -in which meant more headlights would shine towards their house. He said on the plan, trees were shown on the west side, next to a vacant field. Mr. Feasel said the southern entrance would cause light trespass into future Bishops Run residences. 06-064Z Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road & Hyland- Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — June 22, 2006 Page 10 of 23 Mr. Feasel recalled that at the previous City Council meeting, Mr. Lecklider made the statement that he did not think that 108 units would support the 36,000 -square -foot retail, and said that the answer Mr. Hale provided was that it would draw from the surrounding subdivisions. He said business from other subdivisions would mean more traffic. He said there were contradicting statements made. Mr. Feasel said he preferred the Post Preserve -type of pond in this development over a cat tails. Steve Simonetti, developer of themed Tartan West, said he thought the concept, theme, and architecture were a good start. Mr. Simonetti said Tartan West residents had expressed a need and to have some amount of smal retail in this corridor and he agreed. He said he would continue to support the Commission in their ability to decide if and when the retail is developed. Mr. Fite said residents will live on or be close to a substantial amount of open space. He said bike trails proposed along Hyland Croy Road will connect to Glacier Ridge Metro Park. He said the village or court homes have three floor plans with a variety of elevations with different colors and lots sizes providing diversity. He said there were front- and side -load garages. He said as a detail they have agreed to set the garage facade back ten feet from the front of the house so that it does not dwarf the house itself. Mr. Fite said they spent much time and energy on the detailed single garage doors so that they do not become an obtrusive protrusion to the structure. He explained that the park homes next to Glacier Ridge Metro Park were scattered, 60 to 80 feet wide, with either front- or side -loaded garages. Mr. Fite said regarding ponds, the rural landscaping was in keeping with Glacier Ridge Metro Park - very naturalistic with grasses, wildflowers, and wetlands. He said they would work with staff on the front ponds, whether they are manicured or not. He said it was important to note that there was a park structure where people can ride their bicycles from the park and stop at a bicycle shop or perhaps an ice cream shop. Mr. Fite said they are preserving a creek. He said the pond on the 3.5 -acre open space will probably be manicured. He said the open space is designed to preserve the massive oak tree. Mr. Fite referred to Mr. Feasel's comment above regarding the 58 -foot height and said the real reason they asked for that maximum height was the entry feature. He said the central entry drive needed to be special and needed the verticality. He said the quality of the architecture will be carried through in whatever fashion the Commission and staff want. Mr. Hale addressed Mr. Feasel's concern about the commercial area. He said all commercial depends not just on the neighborhood, but other areas too. He said the City needed several neighborhood centers so that people would not drive far, resulting in traffic problems. Mr. Fite said they would address Mr. Feasel's concern regarding the headlight glare after the exact locations of the entrance points are determined. He said they had committed to making the entrance to the north right-in/right-out, based on Dublin's future plans. He said this was not the appropriate time to discuss how the lighting will be buffered. Mr. Gerber said if Dublin was going to remain cutting edge, then it should begin adopting the Franklin, Tennessee type of architecture. Mr. Zimmerman agreed. 06-064Z Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road & Hyland- Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — June 22, 2006 Page 11 of 23 Mr. Saneholtz said the Franklin, Tennessee architecture was outstanding. He said this proposed architecture was also attractive and different. However, he said there were other fundamental issues beyond design and architecture. Mr. Gerber and the other Commissioners agreed that a fantastic job had been done on the architecture. He the issue was the future use and the existing Community Plan. He said retail had been discussed, but this was a lot of retail. Mr. Walter agreed that the architectural detail was of a quality that had not been seen to date and he applauded the applicants. He was concerned about how this parcel related to the Metro Park. He said he was not sure about the density given its proximity to the Metro Park. Mr. Walter said this was not a good use for this site, considering its surrounding uses. Mr. Walter said he talked to Cathy Berger of Duke Realty regarding a 54 -acre Jerome Township site zoned retail by Jerome Township, south of the Metro Park entrance. He said they were currently looking to lease 400,000 square feet of retail space, and so the Commission was contrasting a 39,700 -square -foot retail property with a 400,000 -square -foot retail property that will be a half mile down the road. Mr. Walter said what happens in Jerome Township cannot be controlled. He said he thought there would be adequate retail for not only this subdivision, but all surrounding subdivisions to get what they need from the 400,000 -square -foot space. He said if the retail was located elsewhere, he would have a better feeling about it. Ms. Jones complimented the architecture and the thematic development. However, she said the City is still very early in the Community Plan update process in this area. Therefore, she said she was hesitant to move forward with any rezoning until there is a chance to further examine the Community Plan. She said at the open house last week, residents commented on different areas and the Commission has not had a chance to see the results. She said she would like to see those comments regarding retail and development in this area. Ms. Jones said if this moved forward and if the Commissioners all agreed that this style of development was something very positive, the retail may be too intense. Mr. Zimmerman echoed Ms. Jones' comments regarding this proposed land use. He said this corridor will be a huge issue in the Community Plan update. He said his biggest problems were the land use, density issues, and the retail. He questioned how much retail will be enough there. He noted that Bantry Greene will bring 67,000 square feet of retail. He said there has to be a balance. He said this is something to be considered after the Community Plan is updated, the amount of retail uses determined. He did not want to commit to this until the Community Plan is updated. Mr. Zimmerman complimented Ms. Adkins on her staff report. Mr. McCash said long-term city planning and development, pre- and post -car, pre- and post World War Il, needed to be studied to see how things have developed. He said for a time, they had moved away from having the local, mom and pop shop elements that were in our neighborhoods to the standard subdivisions that are everywhere. All of the retail and uses are 06-064Z Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road & Hyland- Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — June 22, 2006 Page 12 of 23 segregated, creating traffic problems which we have in Dublin, and over the years have tried to deal with from a road standpoint. He said people will not be separated from their cars. He said the other way to deal with traffic was to look at the land planning and city planning components, and rather than to have everything located in one central core, is to diversify it — not only by the development, but by the community. He said mom and pop shops and the dry cleaners, etc. are put in the area so that you do not bring all the traffic to Avery-Muirfield Drive. Mr. McCash said he figured this development was ten percent retail and ninety percent residential. He said the retail was a very small component of the overall plan. However, he was concerned about comments about the amount of retail, thinking that this retail was only going to serve this particular development of residential. He said it was not and was going to also serve Bishops Run and other nearby areas. He gave Indian Run Meadows as an example where Athenry Square and Mary Kelley's were located and he did not have to leave his neighborhood. He said with Dublin's connectivity of sidewalks and bike paths, it is getting people out of their cars to use those areas. Mr. McCash said he thought it important to get away from the 97 Community Plan where in many cases, they were not sure what to do with areas, so they were made a low-density residential component. He said they have discussed that density does not necessarily reflect, or impact on quality. He said it was really a quality issue. Mr. McCash said he thought this was a nice balance of uses and it had an excellent architectural layout. However, he said there were issues that needed to be addressed. He said he would hate to see the auto - oriented uses in the retail, particularly with the proposed Subarea E layout. He said the Community Plan is outdated in that particular cutting-edge design of the City's layout of components. Mr. McCash said he thought it was a good use from that standpoint. Mr. Saneholtz agreed that there were portions of the Community Plan that need revision. He said he had a difficult time trying to take a new concept and try to apply it in an area that is primarily under the old Community Plan. He said some of the things he saw in Franklin, Tennessee were great, a development of 1,500 acres, 400,000 square feet of commercial space, with a brand new interstate passing by. He said this is not an interstate — existing Hyland Croy Road neighborhoods have a certain character. Mr. Saneholtz said he loved this development. He said though, it was on the edge of the City and Dublin has no control just beyond this site. He thought it was very dangerous for the Commission right now to take on this kind of concept and change the character of the area, not knowing what could happen just to its south and west. He said he could not support this particular development on this particular site. He said it is land use and character of areas for him and he was not willing to overturn the character of that area with 40,000 square feet of commercial/retail. Mr. Saneholtz said he was sure there were parcels in the City where this development could go and it would be wonderful. He said that was why he wanted to get to the five points. He said many people put in a lot of time trying to keep a rural feel to the Metro Park area of Dublin and he would not back away from that until someone said the Community Plan dictated otherwise. Mr. Fishman said an incredible job was done and he enjoyed reading the book presented. He said he felt that this needed a lot of tweaking. He said this development would be an incredible contribution if it was placed somewhere in Dublin. Mr. Fishman said he did not think 36,000 square feet of commercial is a lot. He said the difference in this and Franklin, Tennessee is that their revenue comes from sales tax. He said they are geared to encourage retail because that is 06-064Z Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road & Hyland- Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — June 22, 2006 Page 13 of 23 where they get their revenue where Dublin does not. Mr. Fishman said he did not want to see another struggling center in a neighborhood. He said he agreed with Mr. McCash that the trend was small centers in residential. Mr. Fishman said this proposal would really change the character of the area. However, he would like this to be in Dublin because he felt it was worthwhile and different. He said he did not know whether this site was right or wrong. Mr. Gerber said the Community Plan for this area provided for some rural characteristics. Mr. Gerber said he thought the surrounding land did lend itself to this. He said he thought Dublin was grossly over -retailed, and what seemed to happen is that every time another shopping center is developed, all the retailers go to it, and leave the old ones behind. Mr. Gerber was undecided as to what the right size of retail would be. He said someplace, somehow this development deserved to be in Dublin and it would be welcomed. He said residents spend a lot of time in their cars going to and from experiencing frustration due to traffic. He said he understood that ODOT would install an exit ramp somewhere nearby. He said there would be a gas station, a Seven -Eleven, and a lot of retail and it was not known what Jerome Township would do. He said all the land along here was zoned for commercial and retail. He said that today's Community Plan is being updated and he did not know where it stood today since there has been much Council, Commission, and resident discussion. He said timing was everything, and perhaps now was just not the time for this development. Mr. Hale said Dublin's core is developed and if it wants an innovative product, it is going to happen on the edges, not in the middle. He said if the Commission does not think clustering is important and thinks larger lots are wanted, the end product will not be 50 percent open space. Mr. Hale said they had saved the edges north of the creek, setbacks on the front, and the woods on the south. He said by clustering and pulling it in, they have saved more of the rural character. He said good architecture and a good site plan, preserving the important parts of the environments and the setbacks north of the creek addresses a lot of the issues. Mr. Hale said he thought telling this developer to go away was a horrible mistake for the City. Mr. Walter said preserving land as rural is very important in Dublin's current and proposed future. Jeremy Halprin, representing Atlantic Realty Development Corporation, clarified that they would not necessarily just go away. He said their company had existed for 50 years and their success was by following his grandfather's feelings that when you enter a city, you want to stay there and do well for yourself and the city because that is how you cultivate relationships and run a successful business. He said Dublin was a special place and he understood why the Commission is scared to change anything and why the adoption of a new Community Plan is a difficult thing because Dublin is such a wonderful place. He said they are a very flexible company. Mr. Gerber asked what the size of the Shoppers at Athenry was. Ms. Adkins said it was 42,000 square feet total, including the UDF, offices, and daycare. She said the L-shaped building (the retail shops) is 26,000 square feet. 06-064Z Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road & Hyland- /-'� J Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — June 22, 2006 Page 14 of 23 Mr. Fite asked if it would help to evaluate what the plan would look like as the existing Community Plan suggests. Mr. McCash said it would be the same old, same old, and part of being the cutting edge really requires a leap of faith in looking at change and other innovative type ideas. He said this was really a dynamic change and the wave of where things were going from a land planning standpoint. He said it was a matter of wanting to stay in a comfort zone, or taking a leap of faith moving towards the cutting edge. He said it was not really a density issue. Mr. Saneholtz agreed it was not a density issue. He said he was trying to project that this was a sixty -acre parcel that is of a completely different character than the thousands of acres around it. He said the Commission looked at a 1,500 -acre development that was setting a new tone for a large area of a city. He said they could have 40,000 -square -foot pods of retail in six different locations throughout that coordinated plan for a large parcel of undeveloped land, similar to what Dublin has south of SR 161 in the Southwest Quadrant. He said that was where a coordinated feel and character could be developed. Mr. Saneholtz said he loved this concept and had been one of the proponents of this whole conservation concept. He said he thought this was great, but it just was not great here. Mr. Fishman said he thought this was a great concept and maybe 39,000 square feet of commercial was a little heavy for this if there is going to be 400,000 square feet south of the site. He noted that there was a strip of land between the site and the Metro Park that was in the township, and asked what was it zoned. Mr. Hale said he believed the Jerome Township Zoning map indicated it was Rural Residential. Mr. Fishman said he was concerned that the retail use would spread to this area. Ms. Jones said she definitely liked this concept and she thought this type of development with integrated uses needed to be embraced. She said her concern was with this site because the Community Plan update has not been finished. She said she thought some retail was probably needed in this area, but she wanted to make sure that it was planned for on more of a regional or area wide so that it is not scattered. She said the updated Community Plan should designate where the retail should be so that the character of this area is not changed. Ms. Jones said she was not opposed to an integrated development, she just needed to be confident that this is the right location and that it will fit in the overall scheme. She said if the finished Community Plan designated that this would fit in this area, she would have no trouble supporting it, she just needed to make sure the process is finished before they step forward. Mr. Fishman said the residents were adamant during the 1997 Community Plan process that as they went west, that the area would become less dense and more rural. He said he thought it was suggested, but never made codified that the Community Plan, for one -unit per acre and that it was to be very rural as the edges of Dublin. He said he thought this was a huge violation, even though this is a spectacular plan. Mr. Fishman said the Commission learned a lot in Franklin, Tennessee. He said their retail is integrated into the community, yet it is not because it sits on a highway. He said if it were on I- 06 -064Z Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road & Hyland- Crnw Rnarl Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — June 22, 2006 Page 15 of 23 270 and the shopping center were the buffer that is the way Franklin is. He said another thing about Franklin was that they have not just a park, but thousands of acres of hills around it. He said there will be radical changes in the character. He predicted that future residents will not want the retail because it will bring people in and disturb their peaceful neighborhood. Mr. Fishman said he did not want this applicant to go away, but the plan needed a lot of tweaking. He said it should be drawn out as the Community Plan is developed. Mr. Fishman suggested a tabling. Mr. Gerber summarized that some Commissioners said that the plan did not fit the land use. He asked if this was something they felt should be tweaked to fit the Community Plan. Mr. Saneholtz said when he looked at Dublin's borders, he looked at the eastern border (Sawmill Road) where a large retail center was approved only to have it fail because in an area that Dublin cannot control, the zoning and sign codes were looser and the square footage was less expensive. He said that was his concern. He said any parcels on Dublin's borders that are not already developed that have potential retail/commercial development nearby within a half mile, there is the risk that someone else can build more retail nearby and this will fail. He said he hoped that the consultants were taking that into consideration when they are helping to revise the Community Plan. Mr. Saneholtz said he appreciated Ms. Jones' perspective on this in that they should sit back and do what is best on a macro basis. He said the City's consultants are trying to make everyone understand that at US 33 and SR 42 there is going to be a regional mall in the future. Therefore, he said he could not commit to retail use on these parcels. Mr. Walter said he did not want to chase away a quality development. He said he preferred not to table this application because if it is tabled and effort on trying to develop this concept is continued and the Commission is fundamentally opposed to the concept, he would rather they spend effort/energy/time/money in finding an alternative site for this type of development than trying to work this space. He said he was fundamentally opposed to this development because it did not meet the review criteria in Section 153.055, numbers 2, 3, 4, and 12. He recommended a vote to provide clarity. Ms. Jones said it was a timing issue and that she would like to see the Community Plan finished in this area to see how it fits into Dublin's long range plan. She said it was hard to support it today because it was such a departure from the rural characteristic. She did not want to set a precedent that continued down the road. She said she would hate to lose the opportunity to work with the applicant. She said she was not sure this was the right development, at the right place, and at the right time. Mr. Fishman said he felt the developer should decide if the site is going to be profitable if they are allowed to put in 39,000 square feet of retail. Mr. Zimmerman noted that staff was recommending a tabling to work on a list of items. He said he was looking more towards a tabling rather than an up and down vote. He said staff still had a lot of issues. He asked where the Community Plan process was in the corridor area of the 06-064Z Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road & Hyland- Crov Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — June 22, 2006 Page 16 of 23 Community Plan. He asked if the area could be looked at soon to see what development could be and if this was what was wanted by the open house on June 14. Mr. McCash noted that two Commissioners were against any retail. He suggested that if the Commission's position was not to have retail in this area, then the developers could save money and the Commission could take it out. Mr. Hale requested a tabling because they heard comments about the retail. He said it was fair to give them the opportunity to discuss what they had heard and what changes they might have made. Mr. Gerber said it was the Commission's practice when an applicant requests a tabling that it be granted. Mr. Saneholtz said for him, it would not work, so he supported Mr. Walter's proposal that the Commission disapprove this rezoning. Mr. Gerber said the applicant had heard the Commission's comments regarding the Community Plan and its update, uses, the architecture, and whether or not the retail component really fitted. He agreed to table this but said the applicant should not waste the Commission's time by bringing back a plan that would waste their time. Mr. Saneholtz said he would support a tabling if it were done under that pretext. He wanted it to be clear that it was the applicant's choice. Mr. Gerber said no promises were being made that the Commission will approve this application next time. Motion: Mr. Gerber moved for a tabling as requested by the applicant's representative, Ben W,. Hale, Jr. and Mr. Walter seconded the motion. Vote: The vote was as follows: Ms. Jones, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. McCash, yes, Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Tabled 7-0.) Mr. Gerber requested that Mr. Hale contact Mr. Feasel about his lighting issue, and Mr. Hale agreed. Mr. Gerber called a short recess at 8:30 p.m. /ad ning 05-183Z — antry Greene — 97 6 Hyland -Croy R d er said this ca was tabled at the ay 11 meeting afte the Commission h heard the applicant's esentations and th residents' commen . He said it was ed primarily a mobile orkshop in Fr , Tennessee to rev' w architecture, la uts, site design among other t ' gs, which seeme o flow with not ly this applicatio , but the previous application h d. 06-064Z Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road & Hyland- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of _ Dublin City Council_ _ _Meeting February 6, 2006 Held 20 Page 9 Mr. Keens inquired if the cricket fi d would be in sufficien roximity to a playgrow that a b in play could present isk to children within t area. How far could a travel Mr. eshpande responded t t the ball is seldom hit utside the designated b ndaries. r. Keenan stated that e layout would need to dequately address saf y issues. Mr. Hahn stated that ere would be a signific t buffer from the edge the field to any adjoining use. Mr. Lecklider irXuired if there were any rogramming conflicts. Mr. Hahn re onded that there are n e. He added that in c parison to all other uses, cricV play provides very to mpact to the turf. Mr. M ash inquired if the fou soccer fields depicted the diagram /used.Mr. ahn responded that so er fields would not be cated in Emerale p pose of the soccer fiel depiction in the schem tc was to provide an of eld sizes. The lacross fields that wilt be in the ark are much smallil endorses the concept staff would proceed wi drafting of the agreem Mr. Lecklider inq red if the request for fr ue/inldwould ca e any burden to City staff. Mr. Hahn re onded that it would no Mr. Leckli r inquired clarification staff's reC ncil tonight. Mr. Hah stated that -staff reque Council's concept and directionproce with development of agreement. of that agreement wer topro e for less than a full fi d rental fee, that would be brought t ounsSalay requested cl fication that women'uld also be invo ed_Mr. Deshpande confir ed that they would be Mr. Keenan movyd to direct staff to proce d with development of agreement and to bring the draft reement along with de ils on the financial con derations, including capital outla and waiver of usage fe to Council Ms. Salay econded the motion. Vote on)fie motion: Mr. Keenan es; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr cCash, yes-, Mrs. Bol g, yes;/e Mayor Lecklider, ye • Concept Plan- Oak Park Mixed -Use - Mitchell -Dewitt Road and Hyland - Croy Road (Case No. - 05-179CP) Ms. Adkins stated that the concept plan was heard by the Planning Commission on January 5. Several issues were discussed including land conflicts with the Community Plan, the Community Plan update, proximity to Dublin Jerome High School and the overall proposed density. The site is in northwest Dublin at the southwest corner of Mitchell - Dewitt and Hyland -Croy roads. The high school is on the northeast corner of this intersection. The site is currently zoned R -Rural District. The conceptual plan includes a mix of 108 housing units and 36,000 square feet of mixed use retail space. Surrounding the retail are proposed town homes and single-family homes extending to the west. The plan also includes a community center to serve the development. Ben Hate, Jr. Smith & Hale, stated that he represents the applicant. The planner, Mike �I Fite is also present. The applicant, Atlantic Realty is a New Jersey corporation. This company was working on an earlier plan for an area of Dublin that was replaced with the Dublin Innovation Center project. The target market of this builder is empty nesters. They i have attended the Community Plan update sessions and noted the preferences expressed by the community. This concept provides for a mixed use development with three different housing types - all high end, selling for $400,000- $500.000. �I Michael Fite, The Edge Group, 6253 Riverside Group, stated that when Atlantic Realty i approached his company, they asked for a plan incorporating the desires of the 01-06-064Z Many principles were observed in creating this concept, including architectural div Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood j Mitchell -Dewitt Road & Hyla RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of _ _ Dublin City Council _ Meeun2__ iAtt—OnLE-- ,o—��— ------------ February -6,2006- Page 10 Held and open space. This plan includes 51 percent open space. He reviewed the details of I the site plan. The most significant component of the plan is the retail village, which has been integrated into the street pattern and the residential framework. The plan responds to Council's stated desire for developments that include neighborhood retail located in pods within the neighborhood. Ms. Salay noted that when this plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission, concerns were expressed regarding the proximity of the retail to the high school and the Metro Park. However, the Kroger Center is near Scioto High School and recently, in a proposed development to the north, the retail was pushed to the west where it would abut the Metro Park. With this concept plan, the retail faces Hyfand-Croy and is buffered from the Metro Park, yet it is perceived as a problem. Mr. Hale stated they have had discussions with the school system, and it is their belief the 1 school system will determine this type of development is an advantage to the high school. More importantly, when services are available to residents within their own neighborhood, it minimizes the impact of the development on the overall traffic. This concept is similar to !� the Market Place in New Albany. I Mr. Fite stated the development also embraces the advantages of being near the Metro I! Park with a bike trail that includes a gazebo. Mrs. Boring explained the Planning Commission's concerns about having a similar "Market Place" concept every other block. Although Council has expressed a desire to I have this type of development, does the City really want it in the northwest? This is an I a attractive but substantially large development. For purposes of comparison, The Shoppes ;I of Athenry is an approximately 42,000 square -foot retail center. The Planning Commission ;I did not object to the Oak Park concept plan, but rather raised the question regarding iCouncil's desires on some of the issues. I1 Mr. Hale stated in addition to discussing the proposed development with the schools, they II i� also met with the Director of Columbus Metro Parks, Mr. Peck believes the development j would increase the number of visitors for the Metro Park. The critical question for Council I i; i; is how much retail space is appropriate for this area. Ms. Salay inquired if the 200 -foot setback along Hyland -Croy would be matched on the I east along Bishop's Crossing. Mr. Fite responded that the setback along Bishop's Crossing is also 200 feet. Ms. Salay stated that Council is not as concerned with the appearance as with the issue i of conflicting uses - retail adjacent to residential It would be important to first build the retail, so that the home buyers could purchase their homes with that awareness. They may view it as an amenity if they are aware of its existence before purchasing a home. I The noise and appearance issues of the retail use must be appropriately addressed or it will impact the quality of life of the neighborhood. Mr. Fite responded his client is sensitive to that issue. Mr. Hale stated a phasing plan -- building some of the retail in the first phase -- and attractive architecture will be extremely important in this development. !I Il Ms. Salay stated she likes the concept plan. Her only concern is with the retail use. The rendering appears to indicate small-scale buildings in the "old village" style architecture, I which is very attractive. It would be essential to ensure that the businesses understand li that in consideration of the residential component of the development, there would be very I. minimal signage. Mrs. Boring noted in New Albany's Market Place, all the businesses have matching front it signage. I� Ms. Salay added she likes the concept of a self-contained community with the basic retail, park and pool. It will not be necessary then for residents to travel out of the subdivision so frequently. She is concerned about the long, straight street that runs north and south and I� ii ultimately stubs to the west. This is the type of street that encourages traffic to pick up speed. She suggested traffic -calming features be incorporated in the street design. it I i ii Mr. Lecklider stated this type of road does not lend itself to most traffic -calming me -06_064Z It would be better to construct it sufficiently narrow to discourage speeding. I; Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road & Hylai RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council_ _ Meeting_ LE - February 6, 2006 Page 11 Mr. Fite responded they would design the road to address the concern of traffic speed, ensuring a pedestrian -friendly neighborhood. Mr. Keenan noted student parking could spill over into this area from the nearby school. The high school issues a certain number of parking passes, and the remainder of student drivers often park within the adjacent neighborhoods. Mr. McCash inquired who owns the small strip of property to the west between this development and Glacier Ridge. Mr. Fite responded it is currently owned by a landscape nursery. A power line also runs through that strip. The concept plan provides a stub street to it to allow future community access, if desired. To the right of the tower, there is a huge oak tree - hence, the name of the subdivision, "Oak Park." Mr. McCash inquired if the Metro Park was interested in acquiring the strip of land Mr. Fite responded they would probably accept a land donation. Mr. Hale noted that Metro Parks would not be interested in extending a bikepath crossing over the creek. Mr. McCash stated the City has had problems with heavy retail located adjacent to a subdivision. However, the City is cognizant of those issues and they can be addressed adequately in a rezoning. He is also concerned about the potential for cut -through traffic on Street B, which runs between Hyland Croy and up to Mitchell -Dewitt Road. Mr. Fite responded that is a possibility, but it would be easier for traffic to travel to the intersection. As they work through the engineering issues, the locations of intersections will be considered_ The original plans did not contain a connection to Mitchell -Dewitt Road for a couple of reasons, one of which was the cost of constructing a crossing over the creek. The connection was added later to enhance the opportunity for interconnecting streets. There is no difficulty with the present layout, however,. as it runs parallel to the power line easement. There are no power towers on this site. Mr. McCash stated if Metro Parks does not acquire the strip of land immediately to the west of this site, he would be interested in seeing a planning concept for that parcel to fit it in with this development. Mr. Fite responded they would look at a potential use for that land as well. Mr_ McCash summarized this concept incorporates the progressive design standards that Council has been advocating. Arie Wise, Atlantic Realty thanked Council for taking time to review and comment upon the concept plan. One of the fundamental objectives of their company is to work with municipalities to discover what is desired in a residential development, and then to provide a project that is considered an improvement to the city. They look forward to working with Dublin. Mrs. Boring inquired if the intent is to maintain these roads as they currently exist — two lanes with a scenic/rural designation. Ms. Adkins responded that she will research the issue and report back to Council. The Thoroughfare Plan is being updated along with the Community Plan. Mrs. Boring noted it was not Council's intention to have a conservation design subdivision on every block. She is anxious for Council and the Planning Commission to meet and address the details of those concerns. Mr. Lecklider stated 108 units cannot support 36,000 square feet of retail. Mr. Hale responded the retail would also be supported by the development across the street. Ms. Salay stated there may be a difference related to expectations of those who rent property versus homeowners. Another factor is related to how the retail center is managed. If the center adheres to the City's noise ordinance, there should be no problems for the residents. Mr_ Lecklider inquired about Mr. Hale's reference to a library and gas station in th 06-0642 development, per the January 5, 2006 Planning Commission minutes. Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road & Hylar Minutes of --. _o.vra+iccn.ew+. wc.Fo„ulo ,o�.e i He RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ___Dublin City Council-----,------ Meeting_ February 6, 2006 Page 12 Mr. Fite responded that is an error. There will be no library or gas station. Mr. Hale stated that he does not recall the context of the statement, but he was likely referencing the type of neighborhood oriented uses which could be included. Mr. Lecklider inquired how the proposed density reconciles with what is occurring in the west and northwest, for example, Tartan West_ Mr. Hale responded the density for this development is 1.8 units per acre. Tartan West is the same_ The developments across the street are 2.2 and 2.3 units per acre. The Oak Park development will have a substantial amount of open space. Another consideration for the overall density in the area is that the Metro Parks purchased 500-600 acres more than anticipated at the outset. Mr. Fite noted it is critical to have a density that will support the community center. Higher density is a good thing, if managed correctly. Mr Hale stated there are three issues that cause concern about density: (1) the perception that the more dense a development, the less open space; (2) the impact on the school system; and (3) the impact on traffic. it has been shown this development will have a large amount of open space; the development will appeal primarily to empty nesters, which means it will have a positive impact on the school system; it will also have less impact on the traffic volume than a single-family development (six vehicles/day versus ten vehicles/day). ji Mrs. Boring stated the argument that this type of housing is used by empty nesters and ii not single family is not necessarily true. During City Council's New Albany tour, it was pointed out that many families with children live in the cluster housing near the high school. In fact, they preferred to be near the high school. Mr. Hale clarified that area was a two-story, single-family cluster — Pickett Place. The single story with master cluster housing near Market Place is primarily used by empty nesters. Mr. Lecklider requested clarification of Mr. Gerber's comment noted on page 9 of the January 5`' Planning Commission meeting minutes, questioning the likely agreement of Council and the Planning Commission on this case. Mr. Hale explained the discussion centered on finalization of the Community Plan update and the unlikelihood of City Council agreeing to the commercial component of this proposal before the Plan is finalized. Mr. Fite stated the general impression he had from the January 5"' P&Z meeting was the Commissioners liked the general concept, but could not approve it because it is not included within the current Community Plan. They realize the Plan update will not be approved until late summer or fall. In the interim, they seek only an indication from Council that this concept meets the expectations of the Plan update. Ms. Salay stated that in the meantime, the City needs to respond to the rezoning applications. It is necessary also to evaluate how the City's draft open space plan would integrate with a village center type of development and to determine how many village center development the City desires. Mrs. Boring stated it is necessary to be cautious. The City doesn't want to end up with an empty retail center in the middle of a subdivision, similar to the one in Muirfield. Mr. Lecklider stated he is hopeful that the standard will be set with this plan. Ralph Feasel, 8100 Hyland Croy Road recalled that the concept of the City's first IjCommunity Plan was that Dublin would never extend west of Hyland Croy. When this i, parcel was annexed to the City, however, he realized that development would occur here i in the future. On page 3 of the materials, there is an indication that the Indian Run flows from the east to the west. Of course, it flows from the west to the east, sometimes very 11 strongly. Since the Metro Park was developed, the field across from his family's property has had a constant flow of water during the spring months. The Metro Park removed all i i' the field tiles, so that it would become a wetland area_ Consequently, design work will be necessary to address this problem. There are two types of ponds in this area. The pond in Park Place is overgrown with reeds and other pond growth. In Post Preserve, the pond i is clean and well-maintained. Regarding the mixed use, the retail buildings appea-' taller than the homes. He trusts there is no possibility of a drive-through food sery 0�-064Z Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road & Hylar RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of -__ _ Dublin City Council Meeting -- - Held- - - -- - - - February6, 2006 - -- - -- - - - � OPage 13 - f alcohol sales. His major concern is with having two major entrances on Hyland Croy, particularly the northern entrance, which is directly across from his house outside his bedroom window. The issue of headlight trespass was recently addressed in an extension of the Bailantrae subdivision. He requests the same consideration be extended to him and his neighbors. He inquired if one entrance from Hyland Croy would suffice. Park Place has 147 units and only one entrance. If two entrances are indeed necessary, could the one be moved further south in the open field and the other further north? If the purpose of the second entrance is to serve the retail center, then he suggests the retail center not be built and that ten additional homes be included instead. At the second entrance of the park, traffic currently backs up to the corner. Mrs. Boring requested Mr. Fite and Mr. Hale to discuss these issues with Mr. Feasel. Mr. Lecklider asked Mr. Fite to address the drainage issue, the height of the mixed-use li buildings and the pond design. Mr. Fite responded the maximum height of the building is 35 feet, or two stories. They have not begun the design of the pond. They have discussed attempting to engage Metro Parks in the effort to construct a natural -type pond. Mr. Feasel indicated that he prefers a manicured pond. There is the potential of constructing a manicured pond in the front setback and a natural pond internally and within the low-lying area near the stream run. Mr. Lecklider inquired if any consideration had been given to the potential conflict of the north entrance with the Feasel property. Mr. Fite responded they were aware it is across the street. According to their maps, it is slightly south of the entrance, but they will work with Mr. Feasel to resolve the conflict through landscape or by adjusting the entrance slightly. Vice Mayor Lecklider thanked Mr. Fite and Mr. Hale for their presentation. /event,ich e Race Event cik staled information as prov/htphhthem eting materials regardi this ich will occur on Mon y, June Grea ace is an annual nental rally race inv ving up to 19 vehicles. Dublin has een o be an overnight op. If the evt n Historic Dublin, temp rary closure and High Street would be necepically, staff does not me to Council its are issue or road closuresan event, but because f the potential y are seeki input from Counc Mr. Lecklider asked out the timeframe fosure.Ms. Puskarcik res ndedthatbecause ofime, itcould be I ger than five hours. Mr. McCash inq ed if the race could ru through Dublin on the eekend to avoid the weekday traffi . Ms. Puskarci responded this is a na onal event and the rac is scheduled to travel through Du in on that day. It is n possible to change th ational agenda. Mr. MCC h commented it is not n easy matter to close reets on a weekday; i as a signific t impact on traffic, as idenced with the 5K n during the Irish Fest al. He has a eady received letters fr m concerned resident and business owners r garding the pot tial road closing. M . Puskarcik stated the rrounding property ow ers would be given ap opriate notice. s. Salay expressed su port for the event, whi fits in well with the co munity. She particularly likes the o ortunity for a family e nt, despite the inconv ience. Mr. Keenan stated t event should benefit e businesses in the Hi oric District. He expressed suppo or the event. Ms Puskarcik w keep Council apprise of any issues as the e nt approaches. CITY MANA ER REPORT/STAFF OMMENTS Ms. Brauti m noted that: 1. C nc-1 recently received - formation regarding a roposed increase in th City's d threshold. Staff req sts that Council refer is to the Finance Com ittee for review and recomme ation. Information was als orwarded from Ms. Te er, Court Admir Chief Justice Moy 's effort to abolish Ma is courts in Ohio Council direct st to begin a letter cam ign in support of M Mrs Boring noted tha t was prudent of the C Manager to make C issue before procee ng. She expressed su port for a letter campai suggests that cot irts a 06-064Z Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road & Hyland- PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION JANUARY 5, 2006 CITY OF DUBLIN_ Land Use and Long Roar Planning `°^A Shier -"s Qoad in, Ohio 43016-1136 t 614-410-4600 rnz: 614 410 4747 Web Site: wwwAubhn-oh-us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Concept Plan — 05-179CP — Oak Park Mixed -Use — Mitchell -Dewitt Road and Hyland -Croy Road Location: 61.35 acres located at the southwest corner of Mitchell -Dewitt Road and Hyland -Croy Road. Existing Zoning: R, Rural District. Request: Review and feedback for a mixed-use development concept, under the provisions of Code Section 153.053(C). Proposed Use: A mixed-use development that includes 108 housing units, 36,000 square feet of mixed-use space, and 31 acres of open space. Applicant: HC Associates, 5774 Finnegan Court, Dublin, Ohio 43017; represented by Atlantic Realty Development Corporation, 90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 600, Woodbridge, New Jersey 07095, and Ben W. Hale, Jr., Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Jamie E_ Adkins, Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410-4644/Email: jadkins@dublin_oh.us. RESULT: Much discussion was given to the Concept Plan. The Commission discussed the issues that the project did not meet the current Community Plan and the Commission was unsure of its relationship to the Community Plan update, that the density was too high, and that the location was inappropriate in close proximity to the Dublin Jerome High School. The Commission also gave positive feedback that it was a creative plan and a high quality project with a good mix of housing. There was no vote taken on this Concept Plan_ STAFF CERTIFICATION jJ.� a � Adkins— Planner 06-064Z Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road & Hyland- Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 5, 2006 Page 5 pude ase 7, and Ms. iss pulled Case Mr. Gerber ann nced the order o the cases would be ase 2, then Cases through 8 in ord 7 1. Concept Plan — 05-179CP — Oak Park Mixed -Use — Mitchell -Dewitt Road and Hyland - Croy Road Mr. Gerber explained that feedback from the Commissioners was being requested for this Concept Plan case. He said typically, the Commission does not engage in resident comment at this time. However, he assured that if this project came back there would be ample time, not only with this forum, but also with City Council to listen to all of the resident concerns and thoughts. Ms. Adkins presented slides and highlighted the staff report. She said the site, currently zoned R, Rural District located at the southwest corner of Mitchell -Dewitt and Hyland -Croy Roads. She said the Community Plan indicates the site as Low -Density Residential for 0.5 to one -unit per acre. The site plan includes 108 housing units, 36,000 square feet of mixed-use retail, and 31 acres of openspace. She said the site plan adheres to the Community Plan guidelines for a 200 - foot scenic road setback. Ms. Adkins said the proposed residential units fit the land use of this site, however, the density does not meet the current Community Plan Future Land Use Map. She said in addition, the Future Land Use Map does not include the proposed mixed -unit component. Ms. Adkins said staff does not believe that the proposed plan sufficiently addresses the required change of land use. She said recent discussions with the Community Plan consultants, City Council, and the Planning Commission have revealed that a more mixed-use approach to development is desired and staff is continuing to explore this concept with its application to this site. Ms. Adkins stated that the applicant is requesting Commission feedback regarding the appropriateness of this proposed change in land use to residential medium density with mixed-use retail. Ben Hale, the attorney representing the applicant, Atlantic Realty, explained how this New Jersey company chose Dublin, Ohio for their project. He said they want to build a product that mirrors the suggestions of the Dublin Community Plan consultants. He said this project is designed for empty nesters and said most of townhouses and court homes have first floor master suites. He said the pricing for townhouses will be in the $300,000 range, the court homes will be in the $400,000 range, and the single-family homes will be in the $450,000 range. The development will have a clubhouse and pool that are not typically in a primarily residential single-family subdivision. He said the applicants were concerned about the size of the project because the kind of amenity needed is expensive. Mr. Hale pointed out that there were many changes going on in this area. He said to understand the commercial use proposed, other things needed to be understood. He said the theory of the commercial uses by the consultants was that in the next few years, Dublin should build approximately 750,000 new square feet of commercial uses. He said that did not include a redeveloped Dublin Village Center. He said the concept was to do the square footage in neighborhoods, so that there is not a lot of traffic. However, he said this intersection would be largely rebuilt with the COIC and the Ohio State University projects. He said what is going on would create dramatic changes in this area and the nature of this intersection. 06-064Z Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road & Hyland- Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 5, 2006 Page 6 Mr. Hale referred to the elevation and said they were trying to create a streetscape that was very traditional with very traditional architecture. He said these types of projects more than pay for the number of school children they bring. He said traffic is much less, especially in peak hours because of the nature of the clientele. Michael Fite, The Edge Group, discussed the site plan. He said initially, their client asked what Dublin wanted. He said greenspace, attention to architecture, conservation principles, and diversity. Mr. Fite said they had tried to include everything in this plan. He said they thought the mixed-use component would make the subdivision vibrant and give people the opportunity to walk to it, versus driving down the street to what is a more regional retail draw. Mr. Fite said there were not many natural features on this flat site. They preserved a few trees and stream corridor that existed. He said they adhered to the 200 -foot setback along Hyland - Croy and Mitchell -DeWitt Road. Mr. Fite said the mixed-use component was centralized. He said diversity was addressed by integrating town homes, which they felt was an appropriate transition from the mixed-use component to the court homes, and the single-family homes. Mr. Fite said that in regards to greenspace, it is not just important to preserve the trees, but actually integrate greenspace into all parts of the plan. He said the greenspace would wrap around the Glacier Ridge Metro Park. He said a clubhouse is part of the mixed-use component, centrally located, which was unique in a single-family, mixed-use product. He said greenspace is interspersed throughout the entire site. Mr. Fite said that pedestrian -oriented streetscapes were another important component. He said that was why there were no cul-de-sacs. He said it was a New Urbanism approach where all streets are connected and walkable, all things heard as good planning principles. Mr. Fite said a stub was shown to the west because a parcel is not owned by the Metro Parks. Mr. Gerber asked what type of commercial uses were being considered. Mr. Fite said it was not commercial, in the sense of retail. He said they saw it as retail components, small shops that serve the surrounding neighborhood. He said there was also an opportunity for office uses so that residents can live and work in the development. Live/work units are being considered. He said it was not a strip center_ He said the commercial uses are oriented to the street, there are no front parking lots, and the parking is parallel so the street becomes a pedestrian friendly environment. He said the inspiration for this development was downtown Dublin. He said they tried to make the 200 -foot setback part of the community and part of the Metro Park with bike racks. He said the bikepaths shown through the 200 -foot setback are connected to the Metro Park. Mr. Fite said there were 12 miles of bikepath from the north to the south. Mr. Messineo asked how this would integrate with Dublin Jerome High School and not become a hangout for students. Mr. Fite said that they were aware of that concern and they tried to focus the uses on the retail to not attract the students. He said the details had not been finalized. 06-064Z Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road & Hyland- Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 5, 2006 Page 7 Mr. Messineo predicted that the students would use it for that. He asked how it would fit with the residential component that seems to be for empty nesters. Mr. Hale said they were trying to keep empty nesters in Dublin. He said this is also trying to service the hard working person who might work in the proposed tech park. Mr. Fite said another important component was the different size of the town homes. He said they would appeal to different types of people. He said the single-family lots were interspersed so that the widths were 60-65 feet wide. He said inside of each land use, they were taking it a step further and trying to be diverse within each area. He said there were two layers of diversity. Mr. Hale said they treated all the houses as though they were straight single-family uses. He said they thought the traffic impact study was very conservative and the numbers were much better than shown. Jeremy Halpern, Atlantic Realty Development Corporation, said he represented a member of a third generation of the family business dating back to 1957. He said his grandfather taught him a decade ago to work with communities and cities and things would work out the best for everyone. He said what was good for Dublin would be good for them. He said they hoped that the Commission saw the concept plan as a representation of that desire. Mr. Halpern said, to them the importance of having a small amount of retail with an empty - nester marketed village is that many times the community likes to have small stores near them to make their lives easier. He said a homeowners' association, with the exception of the townhouse, would take care of maintenance of the lawns, snow, etc. A certain number of units are required in order to achieve those goals. He thanked the Commission for their time. Ms. Reiss said she liked the mixed-use and sizes, however the concept plan was a little before its time because the Community Plan had not yet changed. She said until the Community Plan changed, she could not support the rezoning of this site. However, if the Community Plan is changed and it is finalized, she suggested what she did like and what changes could be incorporated easily. Ms. Reiss said she would like to see a lower density, not by changing the lot sizes, but just drop a unit or two. She asked how the live/work units would be counted into the density of dwelling units. Ms. Reiss said she would like a bikepath tie-in along Hyland -Croy Road more from the neighborhood so that going through the commercial area will not be necessary to utilize the bikepath. She said there was an area in the southeast corned seemed to be closest for a neighborhood bikepath access. Ms. Reiss said she would also like to see bike racks in places other than just the gazebo to encourage bicyclists_ Ms. Reiss asked if the town homes had garages. Mr. Fite said garages were located in the back. Mr. Saneholtz was interested if there were a small retail area on this parcel that there be coactivity to the high school and the neighborhood to the east of the site, without having to cross what will become a very busy thoroughfare in the future. He said there should be coactivity created without conflict between the traffic and this island of 60 -acres. 06-064Z Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road & Hyland- Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 5, 2006 Page 8 Mr. Saneholtz asked what was the purpose of the community center, and was it necessary for a residential community that was too dense if the commercial was developed. He wanted to better understand the analysis of the purpose of the community center and why later. He noted that Tartan West will have an athletic facility available to residents and the Dublin Community Recreation Center is not far away. Mr. Saneholtz questioned the price points for young professionals. Mr. Hale said the town homes should attract them. He said they would not be rentals. Ms. Boring said Ms. Adkins' staff report summarized how she felt. She said she appreciated Ms. Adkins upholding the principles that the Commissioners had expressed earlier. Ms. Boring said at first, she was encouraged, but she had a large conflict. She said the extra retail space is up for discussion as the City Council was not in total agreement. She said the mixed-use concept was interesting, but she asked where it would be. Ms. Boring said her conflict was with the Glacier Ridge Metro Park. She said the further north developed, the more density there is, and she did not agree with that. She said she liked the idea of this elsewhere in Dublin. She asked how to maintain the Glacier Ridge Metro Park ambiance. Ms. Boring said the residents, when the City purchased properties for the park, were led to believe that the metro park idea would be followed, and she was not sure it was being done. She said the conflict has to be resolved as a City Council decision. Ms. Boring said the conflict was too large for her to overcome to consider anything else. She said she had no problem with the clubhouse. Mr. Messineo agreed with Ms. Boring. He said it was an interesting concept with an interesting mix of commercial and different types of units. He said he was not sure that this was the location for it. He questioned empty nesters wanting to be across the street from the high school. Mr. Messineo said he wanted to see how it would fit with Dublin's master plan. He asked when it was expected to be completed. Mr. Gunderman answered that it would depend on a couple of other major projects. He estimated that it would be at the earliest, the middle of 2006. Mr. Messineo said this was a very interesting concept, but he was not sure it was the location for it. Mr. Zimmerman complimented Ms. Adkins on her staff report. He said it was well done. Mr. Zimmerman asked for a comparison of existing retail mixed-use of about the same size. He asked what was the size of the Shoppes of Athenry. Ms. Adkins said it was about 42,000 square feet. Mr. Zimmerman said he agreed with Ms. Boring, Ms. Reiss, Mr. Saneholtz, and Mr. Messineo that this was an interesting concept. He was concerned about this being across from the high school because of the noise. Mr. Zimmerman said he was waiting for the updated Community Plan to know where Dublin is going. 06-0642 Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road & Hyland- Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 5, 2006 Page 9 Ms. Boring said the Community Plan consultants had provided many ideas to ponder and it seemed the group kept reconsidering those items. She was not sure they had come to any kind of consensus, which was recognized by the staff. Mr. Gerber said he liked the idea and empty nester homes were needed as well as a variety of homes in Dublin. He said when conservation design was discussed; he thought it was one element very critical to the whole process. However, he said he was concerned with the retail. He did not want to create a natural tension between residents. He said a lot of that had been seen lately, and as time went on, they would see more of it. Mr. Gerber said it made sense to have it integrated because traffic in this area is bad. He said he did not see it improving in the near future. Mr. Gerber said in the six years he had served on the Commission the Community Plan had been his bible. He told Mr. Hale that it had not been changed and it still ruled today. He said he thought some people are more optimistic than others that, 1) there will be a meeting of the minds with City Council and the Planning Commission and what it ought to be, and 2) when that is going to happen. He said he was not sure this was in the proper location. He referred to another concept for Bantry Greene seen by the Commission a few weeks ago that had alleyways and some other similarities. He said with Tartan West, rural characteristics and density were discussed and those were the things that the whole area is supposed to have. He said ideally, it would be nice to sit with staff in a workshop and discuss that there is a lot going on in the area and perhaps a northwest plan is needed. He said Ms. Boring had made a good comment with respect to the park. Mr. Gerber said he felt the Commission was a little behind the ball here in the City. He said it is not as cutting edge as it used to be and that is unfortunate. He said these new ideas are being brought forth and it was unfortunate that the timing was not the same. Mr. Hale said it was interesting to him as to what was going on in Dublin because he did business in 26 separate jurisdictions. He said the real estate community really pays attention and says to clients what the city's trying to achieve and what their goals are. Mr. Fite said they had attended all the community meetings that talked about this and actually seen drawings that indicate this site having some of these similar uses. He said they are here to receive this feedback from the Commission. Mr. Gerber said there was no doubt, this was one of the most creative projects the Commission had seen in a long time and it was really a breath of fresh air. Ms. Boring said it looked like something that had been asked for and there was no question that it is far better than seen previously. Mr. Hale said this is a concept, and at the preliminary stage, all these details will be taken to the next level. He said they had to make this retail successful and do it right. He said two of the buildings are away from the front of the development and it will not look mammoth. He said it would look good. Mr. Gerber summarized the Commissioner's issues as density issues, proximity issues, and the Community Plan update issue. 06-064Z Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road and Hyland- Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 5, 2006 Page 10 Mr. Saneholtz referred to Mr. Hate's previous statement that this community could absorb 750,000 square feet of additional commercial space. He said he was at the Community Plan meeting where it was discussed that Dublin had enough retail space already and that the only thing that made sense was small neighborhood oriented and positioned retail. He said he brought that up because he did not want anyone leaving this meeting thinking Dublin needs more retail. Mr. Hale said he heard from the Community Plan consultants that over a 10- to 15 -year period to properly service the community another 750,000 square feet of service retail was needed. When retail is done in smaller pods, it does not create traffic problems. Mr. Hale said the project across up the street is very good housing, but it is very monolithic. He said when different buildings are introduced with different heights and shapes, they add to the fabric of the whole community. Mr. Messineo said he would like to know what type of retail would serve a community like this. Mr. Fite said the retail type would be something that would help the community and empathize the park amenity. Mr. Hale said dry cleaners, sit down restaurants, banks, a library, decorators, a coffee shop, gas station, hardware stores are types of neighborhood -oriented retail. Ms. Boring said the problem was philosophically, the Commission needed to look at what was going on in this area and address all the needs. She said the needs of the area are tied into the amount of traffic. She said the roadway improvements needed to be addressed. Mr. Hale said what the Commission said tonight was heard. Mr. Zimmerman asked that it be remembered that there will be residential living on top of the mixed use, and there have been problems lately with dumpsters and noise. He said it does not come into play until later when there is a Code Enforcement issue. Mr. Hale felt it was important to have a commitment as to what the first phase would be so that the parking lots and major parts of the buildings are done so that it is real and there is a feeling as to what it is so anyone buying will know basically what it would look like. Mr. Gerber ended the discussion by thanking Mr. Hale. 2. A ended Final Dev opment Plan 05 84AFDP — Tart West, Section , Parts I and it ub1 H) Gerber swore i those who intend to testify in reg s to this case. 06-064Z Rezoning Oak Park Neighborhood Mitchell -Dewitt Road and Hyland- DEVELOPMENT TEAM Developers: Atlantic Realty 90 Woodbridge Center Drive Woodbridge, NJ 07095 Phone: (732) 750-1111 Fax: (732) 750-9515 Contact Person: Ari Wise Email: ari.wise@AtlanticRDC.com Jerome Solove Development, Inc. 8101 North High St., Ste. 160 Columbus, OH 43235 Phone: (614) 985-6511 Fax: (614) 985-6577 Contact Person: Jerome Solove Email: isolove@solove.com Legal Representation: Smith and Hale 37 West Broad St., Ste 715 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 221-4255 Fax: (614) 221-4409 Contact Person: Ben Hale Email: bhale@smithandhale.com Contact Person: Aaron Underhill Email: aunderhill@smithandhale.com Land Planning / Landscape Architecture / Graphic Design: The EDGE Group 1400 Goodale Boulevard Columbus, OH 43212 Phone: (614) 486-3343 Fax: (614) 486-3344 Contact Person: Mike Fite Email: mfite@edgela.com Contact Person: Greg Chillog Email: gchillog@edgela.com OAK PARK Engineering: EMH&T 5500 New Albany Road Columbus, OH 43054 Phone: (614) 775-4500 Fax: (614) 775-4800 Contact Person: Greg Comfort Email: gcomfort@emht.com Contact Person: Diane Marin Email: dmarin@emht.com Architecture Meleca Architecture & Urban Planning The Empire Building 150 East Broad St. Ste. 600 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 224-0343 Fax: (614) 224-0890 Contact Person: David Meleca Email: meleca@melecaarchitecture.com Contact Person: David Keyser Email: keyser@melecaarchitecture.com Artist PWK Design 6371 Riverside Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Phone: (614) 562-4910 Contact Person: Paul Kelley Email: paul@pwkdesign.com TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I: DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW Executive Summary Introduction 1 Project Story Board 3 Site Description Location and Size 4 Existing and Surrounding Land Uses 4 Existing Conditions and Character 5 Aerial Photograph 6 Existing Conditions Map 7 Project Overview Proposed Uses and Plan Features 8 Neighborhood Residential — Park Homes 9 Neighborhood Residential - Village Homes 11 Neighborhood Residential - Town Homes 13 Neighborhood Commercial 15 Parks and Open Spaces 16 Access and Circulation 18 Provision of Utilities 21 PART II: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Sub -Area A 22 Description Permitted Uses and Development Standards Density, Height, Lot and/or Setback Commitments Access, Loading, Parking and/or other Traffic Related Commitments Architectural Standards Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space and/or Screening Commitments Graphics and Signage Model Homes Sub -Area B 26 Description Permitted Uses and Development Standards Density, Height, Lot and/or Setback Commitments Access, Loading, Parking and/or other Traffic Related Commitments Architectural Standards Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space and/or Screening Commitments Graphics and Signage Universal Maintenance Model Homes OAK PARK TABLE OF CONTENTS Sub -Area C 29 Description Permitted Uses and Development Standards Density, Height, Lot and/or Setback Commitments Access, Loading, Parking and/or other Traffic Related Commitments Architectural Standards Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space and/or Screening Commitments Graphics and Signage Maintenance Temporary Sales Office Sub -Area D 32 Description Permitted Uses and Development Standards Density, Height, Lot and/or Setback Commitments Access, Loading, Parking and/or other Traffic Related Commitments Architectural Standards Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space and/or Screening Commitments Graphics and Signage Universal Maintenance Model Homes Sub -Area E Description Permitted Uses and Development Standards Density Height Parking, Loading and Stacking Circulation Setback Requirements Landscaping Lighting Architecture Signage Maintenance General Development Standards Homeowners Association Stormwater Management/ Water Quality Open Space On Street Parking — Public Streets PART III: EXHIBITS 36 43 Regional Context Map A Vicinity Map B Aerial Photograph C Existing Conditions Map D Sub -Area Plan E Development Plan F Open Space Plan G OAK PARK TABLE OF CONTENTS Illustrative Master Plan H Birds Eye View I Architecture - Park Home Elevation J-1 Architecture - Park Home Elevation J-2 Architecture - Park Home Elevation J-3 Architecture - Park Home Elevation J-4 Architecture - Village Home Elevation K-1 Architecture - Village Home Elevation K-2 Architecture - Village Home Elevation K-3 Architecture - Village Home Elevation K-4 Architecture - Village Home Elevation K-5 Architecture - Town Home Perspective L Architecture - Clubhouse Elevation M Architecture - Commercial Elevation N-1 Architecture - Commercial Perspective N-2 Engineering - Index Sheet 1of3 Engineering - Preliminary Plat 2of3 Engineering - Preliminary Utilities 3of3 OAK PARK OAK PARK PART I DEVELOPMEJIT OVERVIEW PART ii 17EVELOPME/4T j7AADARI)f PART III f.XHI[blTf s 0 O 0 Ok EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction Oak Park will be a distinctive, mixed-use development reminiscent of traditional cross-roads villages and hamlets, providing residents a pedestrian -friendly neighborhood atmosphere. By utilizing conservation design and smart growth principles, the plan will offer a tremendous diversity of housing, shopping, working and recreational opportunities for local residents, all within a small geographic area. Careful attention to architectural details and styling will create a unified theme that is applied throughout the entire development. The combination of these uses, their organization and the application of high architectural standards will create a neighborhood environment that fosters community interaction and a great sense of identity. Park Homes, Village Homes and Town Homes will appeal to a wide demographic of home buyers, from young professionals to growing families to empty nesters. A neighborhood -scale commercial center will provide local residents convenient access to shops, restaurants and office space. Neighborhood Parks and Greens, Rural Open Spaces and the neighboring Glacier Ridge Metro Park will offer the community endless opportunities for both passive and active recreation. Existing tree rows, woods and streams are incorporated into large open space reserves around the perimeter of the community, preserving the rural character of Dublin's scenic roadways. A system of leisure trails, bike paths and sidewalks interconnect the residential, commercial and recreational uses. Residents and their guests may use the common spaces in the Neighborhood Clubhouse for exercise, fitness, meetings and social gatherings. i 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Oak Park will be built upon the design principles of traditional villages, thus creating a neighborhood that istruly unique in architectural character, diverse in housing choices, and self-sustaining as a mixed-use neighborhood. These elements, combined with the preservation of and connection to natural features, the interconnection of land uses, and the pedestrian friendly streets, will create a development that will be the model for future mixed- use neighborhoods in Dublin. 2 zi a N W � ). � a xZ O W Z 0 0 Q ° � O u W W R Z O.' z r fO Z� a Z W W xw u W Q 3 Z Q O Z m 7 Q° K a r a Z O Z i W Q F Z n O G a r V w F• �- O a c X m W ¢ a w � r V H Ox N z a z o w z J W2 r V Q° o N� w° i ^ a a o z ° 4 N W o o Z o o Q�3z l Q�Wozo xo' O w 0 W a 3 0 o p r � a 0 0 o rx•. z Z > V Q z a N o JJto oGZ° o z a Z J 2 �' x z _ ~ z O O 3 QW Q W }° r 2 a S m W w a¢ O K X 2 m a ?i a v+ a l7 a - i ir ¢a 'y ���y�AAA' `AAS -AA �a�3A�-A,�Obh�g=�3AAA 14 to 0 0 a= z o a Z a Q z ° Q oz n gw 0 r J= N m V? J a? v m z b° z?, a o O O �" G o a W a z z w m N Y� w O s n a Z ° J a a z 3 a z?° O 7---: a v j 1 a m o z a � 3�� w� a o z o z O? i ' J Y W 6 0 p W N z z m K Z s O O aa a N r p Q w z w o z 0 o zo o O x o z m= z g m z o w o G x> x m LL ' w m a o d o 0 g z a z Z a a o a m z z Z d! G a z o a Y ~ a o °o a w x w a u a ' z a w 3 w w N z a a a w a m Q w m y a= z g? o yr a?g N t z :. o o w N N 0 O l7 a w J N Z 5 3 x m z 3 s u x 0 m m 2° G Z l7 O G y 0 W l7 p '^ IW L. l7 vOi m e 7 vxi ° l7 2 a J K O w O o >> a v w a - i ir ¢a 'y ���y�AAA' `AAS -AA �a�3A�-A,�Obh�g=�3AAA 14 to 7 i; • 0 i SITE DESCRIPTION Location and Size • The site is located completely within the City of Dublin and Union County on a 61.390 acre parcel at the southwest corner of the intersection of Hyland -Croy and Mitchell -Dewitt Roads. • The property is approximately 2,050 feet in length north to south and approximately 1,350 feet in width east to west. There are 1,025 feet of frontage along Hyland -Croy Road and 1,600 feet of frontage along Mitchell -Dewitt Road. * Refer to Exhibits: A — Regional Context Map 8 — Vicinity Map C — Aerial Photograph Existing and Surrounding Land Uses The parcel is currently undeveloped agricultural land. • Surrounding land uses include the following: 1) Institutional - Dublin Jerome High School 2) Residential - Large lot residential and Bishop's Run Subdivision 3) Commercial - Nursery/ landscaping company 4) Parks - Glacier Ridge Metro Park • Glacier Ridge Metro Park offers over 11 miles of hiking, biking and bridle trails, nature programs, picnicking and playground equipment. Blue herons, wood ducks, turtles, dragonflies and other wildlife can be found at the 200 -acre restored Honda Wetlands Education Area, immediately to the south of Oak Park. * Refer to Exhibits: 8 — Vicinity Map a SITE DESCRIPTION Existing Conditions and Character • The site is predominantly cleared, agricultural land. • Approximately 585 trees exist on the property, 67 being "landmark trees" (24 inch caliper and greater.) • A small wooded area is located at the southwest corner of the site with mature tree rows being found along the western and southern property line as well as along the stream corridor in the northern portion of the property. • The site is flat, draining from southwest to northeast. • The North Fork Indian Run flows from west to east along Mitchell -Dewitt Road. • There are no delineated wetlands or ponds on the property. • There are no existing structures on the property. * Refer to Exhibits: C — Aerial Photograph D — Existing Conditions Map 5 SITE DESCRIPTION AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP SITE DESCRIPTION 0 a NORTH FORK INDIAN RUN EXISTING / I LEGEND TREE ROW • �• • EXISTING 24" CALIPER OR GREATER TREE ,j? EXISTING 6-24- CALIPER TREE OPEN SPACE FLOOD PLAIN FLOODWAY EXISTING STRUCTURES OVERLAND FLOW EXISTING WOODS / iI , / NS 84° 42' 00' W 395.15' 19 S 94° 35' 20" W \ GLACIER RIDGE \ METRO PARK � & IRONWEED� HONDA WETLAND EDUCATION AREA TRAIL PROJECT OVERVIEW Proposed Uses and Plan Features • This preliminary development plan requests the rezoning of ±61.390 acres from an existing R, Rural district to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a mixed-use development. • The following uses and densities are proposed: 1) Commercial 39,700 S.F. Floor Area Maximum 2) Residential 108 Total Units ±1.76 dwelling units per acre (108 units / 61.39 acres) 36 town homes 39 village homes 33 park homes 3) Parks ±31.3 acres of parks, greens and rural open spaces. • Oak Park will be a distinctive mixed-use neighborhood designed using conservation design and smart—growth principles as the building blocks of the community. The Oak Park neighborhood plan features the following: 1) A compact form and distinct edge yielding to large, continuous open space areas. 2) An interconnected network of tree lined, pedestrian -friendly streets. 3) Small, walkable neighborhood blocks. 4) Public parks, greens, preservation areas and connections to Glacier Ridge Metro Park within easy walking distance of homes. 5) A neighborhood commercial center within easy walking distance of homes. 6) A wide range of dwelling sizes and types. 7) A neighborhood clubhouse offering common space for recreational and social activities. 8) The Oak Park neighborhood is identified by a unified architectural style that is inspired by Engligh and Irish garden cities and early twentieth century American planning methods. * Refer to Exhibits: F — Development Plan H — Illustrative Master Plan A_ u • �� � - ='ars► ARS M - f, - `` _ ■ 1 `rri �� x 8 PROJECT OVERVIEW Neighborhood Residential - Park Homes • Park Homes will be located on the edges of the development, on lots numbered 1-33 in Subarea A. These lots are adjacent to the rural open spaces and Glacier Ridge Metro Park. • Park Home lots will be clustered, with reduced front and side setbacks, to preserve larger areas of common open space and create a more compact, village -style development. • Home sizes are planned to range from 2,500 to 3,800 square feet. The goal is to achieve a product that is a bridge between homes offered in conventional single family subdivisions and the "Village Home" component of the project. • Quality will be emphasized in this part of the project and these homes are considered high-quality. Both interior and exterior finishes and detailing will be of higher quality. • Park Home Lots will feature a variety of models, facades and materials in order to provide architectural diversity along the streetscape. 9 60' Lot to25' Rear Yard PROJECT OVERVIEW 80' Lot 70' Lot 60' Corner Lot Buildable Area r a 20' Max Setback 13' Min. Setback Build-To-Zone- Front uild-To-ZoneFront Yard Potential Fence As Part --- Public Street Of Consistent Streetscape Design • Lot Widths: 60', 70' and 80' wide. • Lot Depth: 125' minimum. • Front Setback: 13' minimum, no encroachments; 20' maximum. All front facades will be located in the building zone created by the minimum and maximum front yard setback. • Side Yard: 6' • Rear Yard: 25' • Garages: Front -loaded garages will be located a minimum of 10' behind the front fa4ade of each home. Side -loaded garages are permitted and encouraged. * Refer to PART 111, Sub -area A for complete development standards. * Refer to Exhibits: E — Sub -Area Plan F — Development Plan H — Illustrative Master Plan J — Park Home Elevations 10 PROJECT OVERVIEW Neighborhood Residential - Village Homes • Village Homes will be located in two pods in the interior of the neighborhood, on lots numbered 34-72 in Subarea B. • Village Homes will be clustered, with reduced front and side setbacks, to preserve larger areas of common open space and create a more compact, village -style development. • Village Homes range from 2,000-2,800 square feet in area. • The expected buyers are empty nesters who desire to move from a large traditional single family home into an alternative lifestyle that does not demand exterior maintenance, but, still provides detached living and a generous size. This market also attracts younger professionals, though typically not growing families. • Village Homes will have a high level of quality, both on the exterior and the interior. Typically, buyers in this price range have a desire to achieve longstanding goals for quality, layout and convenience in their living space. As a result, options often comprise a significant portion of the final purchase price. • Village Home Lots will feature a variety of models, facades and materials in order to provide architectural diversity along the streetscape. a -a PROJECT OVERVIEW cro -+ SS' i nt Fn' Cnrnar I nt Of Consistent StreetscaPe Design • Lot Widths: 55' and 60' wide. • Lot Depth: 125' minimum. • Front Setback: 13' minimum, no encroachments; 20' maximum. All front facades will be located in the building zone created by the minimum and maximum front yard setback. • Side Yard: 6' • Rear Yard: 15' primary structure; 5' accessory buildings. • Garages: Front -loaded garages will be located a minimum of 10' behind the front fa4ade of each home. Side -loaded garages are permitted and encouraged. * Refer to PART III, Sub -area B for complete development standards. * Refer to Exhibits: E — Sub -Area Plan F — Development Plan H — Illustrative Master Plan J — Village Home Elevations 12 PROJECT OVERVIEW Neighborhood Residential - Town Homes • Town Home Lots are located in the same block as the Neighborhood Commercial area on lots numbered 73-108 in Subarea D. • Town Homes are located to act as a transition from the Commercial Center area to the Court and Park Homes. • Front facades will be oriented toward the public streets, with parking and service areas located to the interior of the mixed- use block. • Town Homes will range from 1,200-2,500 square feet • The expected buyers are empty nesters and young professionals whodesirea lifestyle that does not demand exterior maintenance, but still provides a high quality home. This market typically does not attract growing families. • Town Homes will be high quality, both on the exterior and the interior. 13 U-1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 24' 24' Private Street - Garage Access Public Street Potential Fence As Part Of Consistent Streetscape Design • Lot Widths: 24' — interior units 38' — end units • Front Setback: 6'/2' minimum, no encroachments; 13' maximum. All front facades will be located in the building zone created by the minimum and maximum front yard setback. • Side Yard: 0' — attached units 6' — end units • Rear Yard: 12' • Garages: Garages will be located to the rear of the town homes and accessed via a private drive. * Refer to PART Ill, Sub -area D for complete development standards. * Refer to Exhibits: E — Sub -Area Plan F — Development Plan H — Illustrative Master Plan L — Town Home Elevations 14 PROJECT OVERVIEW Neighborhood Commercial • The Neighborhood Commercial area is centrally located within the development in Subarea E, along Hyland -Croy Road. • Various types of commercial uses including retail, restaurant and office uses may all co -exist in this area. The uses in this area will provide residents access to everyday goods and services. • Front facades will be oriented toward the streets, with parking and service areas located to the interior of the mixed-use block. • Pedestrian -friendly streetscapes will provide access to the shops, restaurants and offices. Private streets within this area will accommodate two-way traffic and parking on two sides. • Maximum Commercial Floor Area shall be 39,700 S.F. • All single commercial users shall have less than 20,000 S.F. of floor area. * Refer to PART 111, Sub -area E for complete development standards. * Refer to Exhibits: E — Sub -Area Plan F— Development Plan H — Illustrative Master Plan N — Commercial Elevations is Paw PROJECT OVERVIEW Parks and Open Spaces • ±30.6 acres (50%) of open space is required to meet the conservation design guidelines open space requirement. • Approximately 31.3 acres of open space is shown as being provided. Ownership and maintenance responsibilities will be shared between the City of Dublin and a home owners association and are designated on the Open Space Plan. Neighborhood Parks and Greens Neighborhood parks and greens are located within the interior of the residential areas. • These spaces will be traditional, manicured parks and greens, with open lawn areas, tree plantings as well as space for formalized plantings and community gardens. • Neighborhood parks and greens are located within walking distance of all residences and easily accessed by the public. Parks and greens are community elements that offer another opportunity for casual and formalized interaction among neighbors. A focal point in the central park will be a community clubhouse for use by the residents. This clubhouse will provide residents with a fitness facility, meeting space, media room and gathering and entertaining spaces. 16 PROJECT OVERVIEW Rural Open Spaces • Rural Open Spaces are located along the perimeter of the development. • These open spaces will take on the character of the neighboring Glacier Ridge Metro Park. • Wetlands, ponds, meadows, trails and park structures will bring the character of Glacier Ridge Metro Park to Hyland -Croy and Mitchell -Dewitt Roads, creating a visual and functional link between the Metro Park and the city's open space system. • The Rural Open Space areas will preserve the natural features that are present on the site, including a t2.5 acres woods, mature tree rows, a significant landmark oak tree and the North Fork of Indian Run. • Refer to Exhibits: F— Development Plan G — Open Space Plan H - Illustrative Master Plan M — Clubhouse Elevation 17 PROJECT OVERVIEW Access and Circulation • Vehicular access to the neighborhood will be from two access points, one along Hyland -Croy Road and one along Mitchell — Dewitt Road. • Oak Park Boulevard will provide an access point from Hyland—Croy Road. Oak Park Boulevard will continue westward to intersect with North Fork Drive • North Fork Drive will provide an access point from Mitchell — Dewitt. North Fork Drive will continue south to intersect with Parkside Avenue. • Parkside Avenue will provide a stub to the undeveloped property to the west. • A combination of interconnected public and private streets will provide internal circulation. Access to the mixed-use block for commercial and townhouse parking areas will be via private streets located at the rear of the buildings. • Village Drive North and Village Drive South will be private streets providing street frontage to the commercial uses. • A bike path will be located in the scenic corridor setback along Hyland -Croy and Mitchell -Dewitt Roads as well as around and through the development with a connection to the Ironweed Trail within Glacier Ridge Metro Park. • A system of sidewalks will provide interconnectivity between residential, commercial and park uses. * Refer to Exhibits: F — Development Plan H — Illustrative Master Plan COMMERCIAL STREETSCAPE & PARKING/ DRIVE DRIVE 90 DEGREE RURAL OPEN BUILDINGS LOADING LANE LANE PARKING SPACE 10, 11' 11' 17 PRIVATE COMMERCIAL STREET WITH PARKING 51' Section - Village Drive North and Village Drive South 18 PROJECT OVERVIEW COMMERCIAL COMMEROAL BUILDING SIDEWALK PARKING DRIVE LANE MEDIAN DRIVE LANE PARKING SIDEWALK BUILDING 10' 1t' 8' 11 10' 8'-15' R.O.W. 50' Section - Oak Park Boulevard TOWN HOME PATIO TOWN HOME AREA GARAGE +/- 24' REAR YARD SETBACK DRIVE LANE DRIVE LANE 12' 10' 10' PRIVATE DRIVE 20' Section - Town Home Access / Commercial Parking 19 LAND- SCAPE COMM - ISLAND COMMERCIAL PARKING ERCIAL +/- 7' 19' PROJECT OVERVIEW TOWN HOME/ DRIVE DRIVE PARKING TREE SIDE- FRONT YARD BUILD VILLAGE PARK HOME FY PARKING LANE LANE LANE LAWN WALT SETBACK ZONE HOME 6.5' 9' 1 28' 1 7' 4' 1 13' 7' 50' Section - North Fork Drive, Meadow Court, and Garden Court VILLAGE BUILD FRONT YARD I SIDE -I TREE PARKING DRIVE DRIVE TREE �SIDE-I FRONT YARD BUILD PARK HOME ZONE SETBACK WALKLAWN LANE LANE LANE LAWN WAL SETBACK ZONE HOMES 7' 13' 1 4' 1 7' 28' 1 7' 1 4' 1 13' Section - Parkside Drive, North Fork Drive, and Pleasant Drive 20 PROJECT OVERVIEW Provision of Utilities Water An existing 12" waterline is located along the east side of Hyland -Croy Road running from south of the Oak Park property approximately 570' up the east property line. Additionally, there is a 16" waterline located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Hyland -Croy and Mitchell -Dewitt Roads. Stormwater This property drains to the North Fork Indian Run which runs from west to east through the site, just south of the North property line. Sanitary An existing 12" sanitary sewer is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Hyland -Croy and Mitchell -Dewitt Roads at a depth adequate to service this site. Gas Service The Gas provider for this site is Columbia Gas. Electric Service The electric provider for this site is Ohio Edison. Telephone Service The telephone provider for this site is Verizon North. * Refer to Exhibits: Q — Preliminary Engineering 21 OAK PARK PART I [?EVELOPMEJ4T OVF12VIEW PART II [?EVELOPM"T j7AAl)ARUf PlAk'I Ili EXHINTf DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OAK PARK PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS October 27, 2006 Oak Park will consist of five (5) subareas, each of which will be subject to the development standards set forth below. Subarea A will be found along the perimeter of the site and will feature traditional single-family homes; Subarea B will be found on the north -central and south-central portions of the site and will feature court homes; Subarea C will be centrally located and will provide for a neighborhood clubhouse and open space; Subarea D will be found in the east -central area of the property and will provide for luxury townhomes; and Subarea E will be situated in the eastern portion of the site and will include a neighborhood commercial component designed to serve nearby residential development. General Development Standards that apply to the overall development are included after the subarea standards. SUBAREA A: "PARK HOMES" I. Description: Subarea A shall be located along the perimeter of the site and shall allow for the development of single-family detached homes. This subarea shall consist of approximately 34.4 acres and shall contain "Park Homes," which are single-family homes to be located on lots with reduced front and side yard setbacks. Permitted Uses and Development Standards: Permitted uses shall include single-family detached homes. All dwelling units shall comply with the design guidelines of the development standards in this text. Unless otherwise specified in the submitted drawings or in this written text, the development standards of Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin Code shall apply to this subarea. Basic development standards are compiled regarding proposed density, site issues, traffic, circulation, landscaping, and architectural standards. These component standards ensure consistency and quality throughout the development. III. Density, Height, Lot and Setback Commitments: A. The maximum number of dwelling units in Subarea A shall be thirty-three (33). B. Subarea A shall contain varying lot sizes to be distributed as depicted in the Final Development Plan. In this subarea, the minimum width at the building line shall be sixty (60) feet, provided that at least ten (10) lots shall have a minimum width at the building line of seventy (70) feet and at least ten (10) lots shall have a minimum width at the building line of eighty (80) feet. There shall be a minimum lot depth of one hundred twenty-five (125) feet for all lots in Subarea A. C. All homes in Subarea A shall maintain a minimum front yard setback of thirteen (13) feet from the right-of-way. Each lot shall maintain a maximum front yard setback of twenty (20) feet from the right-of-way. The minimum rear -yard setback of all homes in Subarea A shall be twenty-five (25) feet. The side yard setback shall be a minimum of six (6) feet. 22 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS D. Window wells may encroach into side yards a maximum of three and one-half (3 1/2 ) feet, provided that there shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet of separation between these permitted encroachments on adjoining lots, as measured from the nearest corners of the window wells. Where practicable, window wells shall be constructed using natural materials that compliment the architecture of each unit and shall be screened using an evergreen plant material or an alternative decorative screening mechanism. Air conditioners may encroach into side yards a maximum of two and one half (2 1/2 ) feet. All other encroachments into side yards shall be permitted in accordance with the City of Dublin Code unless otherwise set forth in this text. E. Maximum building heights: Thirty-five (35) feet as measured per the City of Dublin Code. F. The maximum lot coverage for each home in this subarea shall not exceed sixty percent (60%) of the total lot area as measured per the City of Dublin Code. G. There shall be a minimum building setback of two hundred (200) feet from the future rights-of-way of Hyland -Croy Road and Mitchell -Dewitt Road provided, however, that ponds, decorative structures, bike paths, sidewalks, walking paths, entry features, signage, public and private streets and any other encroachments permitted under the City of Dublin Code may be located within this setback. IV. Access, Parking and other Traffic -Related Commitments: A. All roadways constructed as a part of this subarea shall be public and shall be constructed in accordance with Section IV of the General Development Standards portion of this text. B. All dwelling units in this subarea shall front a public roadway. C. Sidewalks; walking trails, bike paths: A final system of sidewalks , walking trails and bike paths will be provided as approved in the Final Development Plan. Sidewalks shall be constructed of concrete and shall be a minimum of four (4) feet in width. Walking trails may be constructed of an impervious or pervious pavement type and shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet in width. Bike paths shall be constructed of asphalt and shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet in width. D. Access: Access to Subarea A shall be from a public street network connecting to Mitchell -Dewitt Road on the north and Hyland -Croy Road on the east. V. Architectural Standards: A. All structures shall meet the City of Dublin Zoning Code Residential Appearance Standards unless otherwise set forth herein. Depictions of the architectural scheme for this subarea accompany this text and are intended to provide general illustrations of the materials, colors, and scale of the product in the development. B. Architectural Theme: Building designs will be inspired by English and Irish garden cities distinguished by a park -like ambience, rich architectural detail, and a sense of quality and permanence. C. Exterior materials: 1. Cladding materials: The exterior of all structures in this subarea shall be constructed of all natural materials such as brick, stone, manufactured stone, wood, stucco, cementitious fiberboard, and other comparable materials, or any combination thereof. 23 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 2. Trim materials: Permitted exterior trim materials shall include wood, aluminum (for gutters and downspouts only), EIFS, copper, or fiber -cement products. 3. Roofing materials: All homes shall have dimensional asphalt shingles, wood, slate, copper, standing seam metal, and/or tile. D. Four-sided architecture shall be required so that similar architectural design elements and details shall be consistent throughout all elevations of the structure. Rear and side elevations of dwellings shall include quantities of brick and/or stone that are comparable to the quantity of brick and stone found on the front elevation of the same structure, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission as a part of the final development plan. E. Chimneys: All exterior portions of chimneys shall be finished masonry consisting of brick, stone, or manufactured stone. F. Garages: Where a garage fronts on a public street, it shall be placed a minimum of ten (10) feet behind the front fa4ade of the dwelling. Decorative garage doors with a "Carriage look" shall be provided on all units. G. Lighting: Each unit shall have a minimum of one (1) approved yard post light near the sidewalk at the front entry and one (1) wall -mounted porch light at the front door. Lamp locations shall be consistent from unit to unit. Vl. Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space and Screening Commitments A. All residential landscaping shall meet the requirements of Sections 153.130 through 153.148 of the City of Dublin Zoning Code unless otherwise set forth herein. B. Open Space: Open space shall be provided within this subarea as shown on the attached development plan. Open space standards are addressed in the General Development Standards section found at the end of this development text. C. Tree Preservation: It is the intent of the developer to preserve as many trees as possible in this subarea. The site shall meet the requirements of the City of Dublin's tree preservation and replacement ordinance. All trees to be preserved shall be protected by construction fencing placed outside of the critical root zone prior to the start of any construction and shall be maintained throughout the entire construction period. D. Street Trees: Street trees shall be required along all public streets. These trees shall be located in the tree lawn and shall be spaced a minimum of thirty (30) feet and a maximum of forty (40) feet on center. Spacing shall be determined at the time of Final Development Plan in order to ensure the proper streetscape for each portion of this subarea. All trees shall be a minimum of two and one-half (2'/2) inches in caliper at installation and shall be selected from the group of allowable tree species that is set forth in Section III(G) of the General Development Standards portion of this text. Trees may be grouped as indicated on the Final Development Plan, provided that the quality is in accordance with applicable City of Dublin landscaping standards. Trees shall not obstruct sight distance or signage, subject to staff approval. E. Lot Trees: In the event that the required number of lot trees (as determined by the City of Dublin Code) do not fit within the front yard of an individual lot due to space limitations, then those trees shall be relocated either to the rear of the lot or to another location in the subarea. 24 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS F. Temporary Fences: Fences used as temporary barriers during construction around vegetation must be sturdy and at least four (4) feet tall and shall be an orange or opaque snow -type fencing. All temporary fences must be removed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. G. Permanent Fences: Permanent fencing as a part of a consistent streetscape design shall be permitted to encroach into the minimum front yard setback and to run parallel to the property line on the front of each lot. A six (6) foot high privacy fence shall be permitted to enclose a deck or patio in the rear yards of of certain lots as indicated in the final development plan for this subarea, provided that they are located within three (3) feet of the patio or deck. Such fencing shall be constructed of masonry or other materials that are approved by the Planning Commission as a part of the final development plan for this subarea. Additional permanent fencing standards and details may be approved as a part of the Final Development Plan for this subarea. H. A woodland/tree row buffer shall be installed along the perimeter of the McCarthy Property in the southeast portion of the site. This buffer shall consist of thirteen (13) large shrubs (consisting of viburnum, witchhazel, chokeberry and/or lilac) per one hundred (100) lineal feet; five (5) understory trees (consisting of redbud, dogwood, serviceberry, crabapple and/or hawthorn) per one hundred (100) lineal feet; and five (5) shade trees (consisting of red maple, sugar maple, sweetgum, blackgum, shingle oak and/or red oak) per one hundred (100) lineal feet. I. A thirty (30) foot landscape buffer shall be located directly behind lots 11-16 as indicated on the attached development plan. Reasonable efforts shall be made to preserve existing trees within this buffer; the developer shall supplement the existing vegetation in the buffer area with deciduous and understory trees as approved as a part of the final development plan for these lots. VII. Graphics and Signage Commitments A. At the time of the submission of its initial Final Development Plan to the Planning Commission for any residential development, the developer shall present the Planning Commission with a graphics and signage plan for its review. This plan shall serve as the uniform graphics and signage plan for all residential development within the Oak Park PUD. Once the graphics and signage plan is approved as a part of the initial Final Development Plan, its terms shall apply to all residential graphics and signage within the PUD. In the event that the graphics and signage plan is silent on any matter addressed by the City of Dublin Sign Code, Sections 153.150 through 153.164, then the terms of those Code sections shall apply. B. One (1) sign identifying the Oak Park development shall be permitted at the intersection of Mitchell -Dewitt Road and North Fork Drive as shown on the attached development plan. This sign shall be designed to be similar in appearance to the joint identification signs that are permitted in Subarea E at the intersection of Hyland -Croy Road and Oak Park Boulevard. The sign shall be permitted a maximum of twenty-five (25) square feet of sign area per side and shall be two-sided. The sign shall be integrated into the entry features to be found at the intersectionandmay be oriented either parallel or perpendicular to Mitchell -Dewitt Road. The maximum height of this sign shall not exceed six (6) feet. ►AII�u1T•[aI' •C7"0 Homes may be used as model homes for the purpose of marketing and sales. A manufactured modular building or model home may be used as a sales office during the development of the project and the construction of homes therein, subject to City of Dublin Code Section 153.098. 25 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUBAREA B: "VILLAGE HOMES" Description: Subarea B shall be comprised of the north -central and south-central portions of the development. This subarea shall consist of approximately 10.9 acres and shall contain "Village Homes," which are single-family homes to be located on lots with reduced front, side and rear setbacks. Il. Permitted Uses and Development Standards: Permitted uses shall include single-family detached and cluster dwellings. All dwelling units shall comply with the design guidelines of the development standards in this text. Unless otherwise specified in the submitted drawings or in this written text, the development standards of Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin Code shall apply to this subarea. Basic development standards are compiled regarding proposed density, site issues, traffic, circulation, landscaping, and architectural standards. These component standards ensure consistency and quality throughout the development. Density, Height, Lot and Setback Commitments: A. The maximum number of dwelling units in Subarea B shall be thirty-nine (39) B. All lots within Subarea B shall have a minimum width at the building line of fifty-five (55) feet, provided, however, that at least fifteen (15) lots in this subarea shall have a minimum width at the building line of sixty (60) feet. There shall be a minimum lot depth of one hundred twenty-five (125) feet for all lots in Subarea B. C. All homes in Subarea B shall maintain a minimum front yard setback of thirteen (13) feet from the right-of-way. Each lot shall maintain a maximum front yard setback of twenty (20) feet from the right-of-way. The minimum rear -yard setback of all homes in Subarea B shall be fifteen (15) feet for dwellings. The minimum rear yard setback for accessory structures shall be five (5) feet on lots for which this reduced setback is approved by the Planning Commission as a part of the final development plan for this subarea. The side yard setback shall be a minimum of six (6) feet. D. Window wells may encroach into side yards a maximum of three and one-half (3'/z ) feet, provided that there shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet of separation between these permitted encroachments on adjoining lots, as measured from the nearest corners of the window wells. Where practicable, window wells shall be constructed using natural materials that compliment the architecture of each unit and shall be screened using an evergreen plant material or an alternative decorative screening mechanism. Air conditioners may encroach into side yards a maximum of two and one half (2'/z ) feet. All other encroachments into side yards shall be permitted in accordance with the City of Dublin Code unless otherwise set forth in this text. E. Maximum building heights: Thirty-five (35) feet as measured per the City of Dublin Code. F. The maximum lot coverage for each home in this subarea shall not exceed sixty percent (60%) of the total lot area as measured per the City of Dublin Zoning Code. IV. Access Parking and other Traffic -Related Commitments: A. All roadways constructed as a part of this subarea shall be public and shall be constructed in accordance with Section IV of the General Development Standards portion of this text. B. All dwelling units in this subarea shall front a public roadway. 26 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS C. Sidewalks; walking trails, bike paths: A final system of sidewalks , walking trails and bike paths will be provided as approved in the Final Development Plan. Sidewalks shall be constructed of concrete and shall be a minimum of four (4) feet in width. Walking trails may be constructed of an impervious or pervious pavement type and shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet in width. Bike paths shall be constructed of asphalt and shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet in width. D. Access: Access to Subarea B shall be from a public street network connecting to Mitchell -Dewitt Road on the north and to Hyland -Croy Road on the east. V. Architectural Standards: A. All structures shall meet the City of Dublin Zoning Code Residential Appearance Standards. Depictions of the architectural scheme for this subarea accompany this text and are intended to provide general illustrations of the materials, colors, and scale of the product in the development. B. Architectural Theme: Building designs will be inspired by English and Irish garden cities distinguished by a park -like ambience, rich architectural detail, and a sense of quality and permanence. C. Exterior materials: 1. Cladding materials: The exterior of all structures in this subarea shall be constructed of all natural materials such as brick, stone, manufactured stone, wood, stucco, and hardy - plank, or any combination thereof. 2. Trim materials: Permitted exterior trim materials shall include wood, aluminum (for gutters and downspouts only), EIFS, copper, or fiber -cement products. 3. Roofing materials: All homes shall have dimensional asphalt shingles, wood, slate, copper, standing seam metal, and/or tile. D. Four-sided architecture shall be required so that similar architectural design elements and details shall be consistent throughout all elevations of the structure. Rear and side elevations of dwellings shall include quantities of brick and/or stone that are comparable to the quantity of brick and stone found on the front elevation of the same structure, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission as a part of the final development plan. E. Chimneys: All exterior portions of chimneys shall be finished masonry consisting of brick, stone, or manufactured stone. F. Garages: Decorative garage doors with a "Carriage look" shall be provided on all units. G. Lighting: Each unit shall have a minimum of one (1) approved yard post light near the sidewalk at the front entry and one (1) wall -mounted porch light at the front door. Lamp locations shall be consistent from unit to unit. VI. Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space and Screening Commitments A. All residential landscaping shall meet the requirements of Sections 153.130 through 153.148 of the City of Dublin Zoning Code unless otherwise set forth herein. B. Open Space: Open space shall be provided within this subarea as shown on the attached development plan. Open space standards are addressed in the General Development Standards section found at the end of this development text. 27 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS C. Tree Preservation: It is the intent of the developer to preserve as many trees as possible in this subarea. The site shall meet the requirements of the City of Dublin's tree preservation and replacement ordinance. All trees to be preserved shall be protected by construction fencing placed outside of the critical root zone prior to the start of any construction and shall be maintained throughout the entire construction period. D. Street Trees: Street trees shall be required along all public streets. These trees shall be located in the tree lawn and shall be spaced a minimum of thirty (30) feet and a maximum of forty (40) feet on center. Spacing shall be determined at the time of Final Development Plan in order to ensure the proper streetscape for each portion of this subarea. All trees shall be a minimum of two and one-half (2'/z) inches in caliper at installation and shall be selected from the group of allowable tree species that is found in Section III(G) of the General Development Standards portion of this text. Trees may be grouped as indicated on the final development plan, provided that the quality is in accordance with applicable City of Dublin landscaping standards. Trees shall not obstruct sight distance or signage, subject to staff approval. E. Lot Trees: In the event that the required number of lot trees (as determined by the City of Dublin Code) do not fit within the front yard space of an individual lot due to space limitations, then those trees shall be relocated either to the rear of the lot or to another location in the subarea. F. Temporary Fences: Fences used as temporary barriers during construction around vegetation must be sturdy and at least four (4) feet tall and shall be an orange or opaque snow -type fencing. All temporary fences must be removed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. G. Permanent Fences: Permanent fencing as a part of a consistent streetscape design shall be permitted to encroach into the minimum front yard setback and to run parallel to the property line on the front of each lot. A six (6) foot high privacy fence shall be permitted to enclose a deck or patio in the rear yard of each lot provided that it is located within three (3) feet of the patio or deck. Additional permanent fencing standards and details may be approved as a part of the Final Development Plan for this subarea. _ VII. Graphics and Signage Commitments At the time of the submission of its initial Final Development Plan to the Planning Commission for any residential development, the developer shall present the Planning Commission with a graphics and signage plan for its review. This plan shall serve as the uniform graphics and signage plan for all residential development within the Oak Park PUD. Once the graphics and signage plan is approved as a part of the initial Final Development Plan, its terms shall apply to all residential graphics and signage within the PUD. In the event that the graphics and signage plan is silent on any matter addressed by the City of Dublin Sign Code, Sections 153.150 through 153.164, then the terms of those Code sections shall apply. VIII. Universal Maintenance Maintenance of all landscaping for individual lots within Subarea B shall be the responsibility of a forced and funded homeowners association to be formed as a part of this development. Owners of lots within Subarea B shall pay a fee for this service that is in addition to the homeowners association dues that will apply uniformly throughout the development. IX. Model Homes Homes may be used as model homes for the purpose of marketing and sales. A manufactured modular building or model home may be used as a sales office during the development of the project and the construction of homes therein, subject to City of Dublin Zoning Code Section 153.098. 28 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUBAREA C: NEIGHBORHOOD CLUBHOUSE Description: Subarea C shall be located on the central portion of the site and shall provide for the development of a neighborhood clubhouse and recreational open space. This subarea shall consist of approximately 2.8 acres. Permitted Uses and Development Standards: Permitted uses in this subarea are intended to provide social and recreational opportunities for the enjoyment of residents of the Oak Park community and their guests, and shall include a neighborhood clubhouse and associated open space. The following uses shall be permitted inside of the neighborhood clubhouse: health and fitness uses; media rooms; conference rooms; gathering rooms; and non-commercial dining facilities. Tennis courts, parks, open spaces, and related recreational uses and structures shall be permitted outside of the neighborhood clubhouse. Unless otherwise specified in the submitted drawings or in this written text, the development standards of Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin Code shall apply to this subarea. Basic development standards are compiled regarding proposed density, site issues, traffic, circulation, landscaping, and architectural standards. These component standards ensure consistency and quality throughout the development. III. Density, Height, Lot and Setback Commitments• A. The neighborhood clubhouse shall not exceed six thousand (6,000) square feet in gross floor area. B. There shall be a minimum building and pavement setback of thirteen (13) feet from all public streets. C. Encroachments into applicable setbacks shall be permitted in accordance with the City of Dublin Code. D. Maximum building heights: Thirty-five (35) feet as measured per the City of Dublin Code. IV. Access, Parking and other Traffic -Related Commitments: A. All streets within this subarea shall be public and shall be constructed in accordance with Section IV of the General Development Standards portion of this text. B. Internal private driveways may be utilized within the subarea as set forth in the Final Development Plan and shall be maintained by a forced and funded homeowners association. The specifications for these drives shall meet the requirements of the City of Dublin Code. C. Unless otherwise stated herein, all parking and loading shall be regulated by City of Dublin Code Section 153.200 et seq. D. Sidewalks; walking trails, bike paths: A final system of sidewalks , walking trails and bike paths will be provided as approved in the Final Development Plan. Sidewalks shall be constructed of concrete and shall be a minimum of four (4) feet in width. Walking trails may be constructed of an impervious or pervious pavement type and shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet in width. Bike paths shall be constructed of asphalt and shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet in width. 29 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS E. Access: Access to Subarea C shall be from a public street network connecting to Mitchell -Dewitt Road on the north and to Hyland -Croy Road on the east. V. Architectural Standards: A. Architectural Theme: Building designs will be inspired by English and Irish garden cities distinguished by a park -like ambience, rich architectural detail, and a sense of quality and permanence. B. Exterior materials: 1. Cladding materials: The exterior of all structures in this subarea shall be constructed of all natural materials such as brick, stone, manufactured stone, wood, stucco, and hardy - plank, or any combination thereof. 2. Trim materials: Permitted exterior trim materials shall include wood, aluminum (for gutters and downspouts only), EIFS, copper, or fiber -cement products. 3. Roofing materials: All structures shall have dimensional asphalt shingles, wood, slate, copper, standing seam metal, and/or tile. C. Four-sided architecture shall be required so that similar architectural design elements and details shall be consistent throughout all elevations of the structure. D. Chimneys: All exterior portions of chimneys shall be finished masonry consisting of brick, stone, or manufactured stone. VI. Buffering, Landscaping Open Space and Screening Commitments A. All landscaping shall meet the requirements of Sections 153.130 through 153.148 of the City of Dublin Zoning Code unless otherwise set forth herein. B. Open Space: Open space shall be provided within this subarea as shown on the attached development plan. Open space standards are addressed in the General Development Standards section found at the end of this development text. C. Tree Preservation: It is the intent of the developer to preserve as many trees as possible in this subarea. The site shall meet the requirements of the City of Dublin's tree preservation and replacement ordinance. All trees to be preserved shall be protected by construction fencing placed outside of the critical root zone prior to the start of any construction and shall be maintained throughout the entire construction period. D. Street Trees: Street trees shall be required along all public streets. These trees shall be located in the tree lawn and shall be spaced a minimum of thirty (30) feet and a maximum of forty (40) feet on center. Spacing shall be determined at the time of Final Development Plan in order to ensure the proper streetscape for each portion of this subarea. All trees shall be a minimum of two and one-half (2 �'/z) inches in caliper at installation and shall be selected from the group of allowable tree species that are set forth in Section III(G) of the General Development Standards portion of this text. Trees may be grouped as indicated on the final development plan, provided that the quality is in accordance with applicable City of Dublin landscaping standards. Trees shall not obstruct sight distance or signage, subject to staff approval. 30 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS E. Temporary Fences: Fences used as temporary barriers during construction around vegetation must be sturdy and at least four (4) feet tall and shall be an orange or opaque snow -type fencing. All temporary fences must be removed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. F. Permanent Fences: Permanent fences shall be permitted in this subarea in accordance with the standards set forth in the City of Dublin Zoning Code. VII. Graphics and Signage Commitments At the time of the submission of its final development plan to the Planning Commission for this subarea, the developer shall present the Planning Commission with a graphics and signage plan for its review. This plan, and any future amendments thereto, shall serve as the uniform graphics and signage plan for this subarea. In the event that the graphics and signage plan is silent on any matter addressed by the City of Dublin Sign Code, Sections 153.150 through 153.164, then the terms of those Code sections shall apply. VIII. Maintenance: Maintenance of all facilities in this subarea shall be the responsibility of the forced and funded homeowners' association that will be created as a part of this development. All buildings, structures, fences, paved areas, landscaped areas, and other improvements shall at all times be kept in good condition and repair and with a clean and orderly appearance. Landscaped areas shall be maintained with materials specified in the Final Development Plan and in a healthy living state, mowed, pruned, watered, and otherwise maintained as appropriate. All signage shall be kept in good repair. Lighting, painting and associated materials on signage shall be continuously maintained. IX Temporary Sales Office The neighborhood clubhouse may be used as a temporary sales office for the purpose of residential and commercial marketing and sales, subject to City of Dublin Zoning Code Section 153.098. 31 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUBAREA D: "TOWNHOMES" I. Description: Subarea D shall be situated in the east -central portion of the site and shall provide for the development of "for -sale" townhomes. This subarea shall consist of approximately 4.9 acres. Permitted Uses and Development Standards: Permitted uses in this subarea shall include attached townhomes. Unless otherwise specified in the submitted drawings or in this written text, the development standards of Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin Code shall apply to this subarea. Basic development standards are compiled regarding proposed density, site issues, traffic, circulation, landscaping, and architectural standards. These component standards ensure consistency and quality throughout the development. III. Density, Height, Lot and Setback Commitments: A. The maximum number of lots in Subarea D shall be thirty-six (36). Individual buildings shall contain a maximum of six (6) townhome units. B. Each lot in this subarea shall have a minimum width at the building line of twenty-four (24) feet. C. The minimum front yard setback shall be six and one-half (6 1/z) feet from a public right-of-way. There shall be a minimum rear yard setback of twelve (12) feet from the rear property line. D. There shall be no minimum side yard setback requirement for individual townhome units, provided, however, that each townhome building shall have a minimum side yard setback of six (6) feet from a property line. There shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet between each building in this subarea. E. Encroachments into applicable setbacks shall be permitted in accordance with the City of Dublin Code. F. Maximum building heights: Thirty-five (35) feet as measured per the City of Dublin Code. IV. Access, Parking and other Traffic -Related Commitments: A. Garages must adhere to the minimum side yard and rear yard setbacks along all public and private roads. B. All units shall be required to have a minimum of two (2) off-street parking spaces. C. All streets running along the front of townhome lots in this subarea shall be public and shall be constructed in accordance with Section IV of the General Development Standards portion of this text. All other streets within this subarea shall be private. Private streets shall have a minimum of twenty-two (22) feet of pavement. D. All dwelling units in this subarea shall front a public street and shall have rear -accessed garages, either attached or detached. 32 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS E. Sidewalks; walking trails, bike paths: A final system of sidewalks , walking trails and bike paths will be provided as approved in the Final Development Plan. Sidewalks shall be constructed of concrete and shall be a minimum of four (4) feet in width. Walking trails may be constructed of an impervious or pervious pavement type and shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet in width. Bike paths shall be constructed of asphalt and shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet in width. F. Access: Access to Subarea D shall be from a public street network connecting to Hyland -Croy Road on the east and to Mitchell -Dewitt Road on the north. Access also shall be provided from private streets in Subarea E. V. Architectural Standards: A. All structures shall meet the City of Dublin Zoning Code Residential Appearance Standards unless otherwise set forth herein. Depictions of the architectural scheme for this subarea accompany this text and are intended to provide general illustrations of the materials, colors, and scale of the product in the development. B. Architectural Theme: Building designs will be inspired by English and Irish garden cities distinguished by a park -like ambience, rich architectural detail, and a sense of quality and permanence. C. Exterior materials: 1. Cladding materials: The exterior of all structures in this subarea shall be constructed of all natural materials such as brick, stone, manufactured stone, wood, stucco, cementitious fiberboard, and other comparable materials, or any combination thereof. 2. Trim materials: Permitted exterior trim materials shall include wood, aluminum (for gutters and downspouts only), EIFS, copper, or fiber -cement products. 3. Roofing materials: All homes shall have dimensional asphalt shingles, wood, slate, copper, standing seam metal, and/or tile. D. Four-sided architecture shall be required so that similar architectural design elements and details shall be consistent throughout all elevations of the structure. E. Chimneys: All exterior portions of chimneys shall be finished masonry consisting of brick, stone, or manufactured stone. F. Garage: Garages may be either detached from or attached to the primary structure. Decorative garage doors with a "Carriage look" shall be provided on all townhome units. G. Lighting: Each unit shall have a minimum of one (1) approved yard post light near the sidewalk at the front entry and one (1) wall -mounted porch light at the front door. Lamp locations shall be consistent from unit to unit. VI. Buffering Landscaping Open Space and Screening Commitments A. All residential landscaping shall meet the requirements of Sections 153.130 through 153.148 of the City of Dublin Zoning Code. 33 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS B. Open Space: Open space shall be provided within this subarea as shown on the attached development plan. Open space standards are addressed in the General Development Standards section found at the end of this development text. C. Tree Preservation: It is the intent of the developer to preserve as many trees as possible in this subarea. The site shall meet the requirements of the City of Dublin's tree preservation and replacement ordinance. All trees to be preserved shall be protected by construction fencing placed outside of the critical root zone prior to the start of any construction and shall be maintained throughout the entire construction period. The site shall meet the requirements of Dublin's tree preservation and replacement ordinance. D. Street Trees: Street trees shall be required along all public streets. These trees shall be located in the tree lawn and shall be spaced a minimum of twenty (20) feet and a maximum of forty (40) feet on center. Spacing shall be determined at the time of Final Development Plan in order to ensure the proper streetscape for each portion of this subarea. All trees shall be a minimum of two and one-half (2'/z) inches in caliper at installation and shall be selected from the group of allowable tree species that is set forth in Section III(G) of the General Development Standards portion of this text. Trees may be grouped as indicated on the final development plan, provided that the quality is in accordance with applicable City of Dublin landscaping standards. Trees shall not obstruct sight distance or signage, subject to staff approval. E. Private Streetscape: Along private streets running behind townhome buildings, street trees and/ or shrubs shall be provided as approved in the final development plan for this subarea. Street trees and/or shrubs shall be located in a manner that creates a consistent streetscape design. F. Temporary Fences: Fences used as temporary barriers during construction around vegetation must be sturdy and at least four (4) feet tall and shall be an orange or opaque snow -type fencing. All temporary fences must be removed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. G. Permanent Fences: Permanent fencing as a part of a consistent streetscape design shall be permitted to encroach into the minimum front yard setback and to run parallel to the property line on the front of each lot. Additional permanent fencing standards and details may be approved as a part of the Final Development Plan for this subarea. A six (6) foot high privacy fence shall be permitted to separate courtyards created by the separation of town house units and garages, provided that such fences are not vinyl. H. The garages located behind the townhomes in Subarea D are intended to serve as a screening mechanism between the indoor and outdoor living spaces of the townhomes and the commercial uses in Subarea E. . No additional screening shall be required between these subareas. _ VII. Graphics and Signage Commitments At the time of the submission of its initial Final Development Plan to the Planning Commission for any residential development, the developer shall present the Planning Commission with a graphics and signage plan for its review. This plan shall serve as the uniform graphics and signage plan for all residential development within the Oak Park PUD. Once the graphics and signage plan is approved as a part of the initial Final Development Plan, its terms shall apply to all residential graphics and signage within the PUD. In the event that the graphics and signage plan is silent on any matter addressed by the City of Dublin Sign Code, Sections 153.150 through 153.164, then the terms of those Code sections shall apply. 34 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS VIII. Universal Maintenance Maintenance of all landscaping and building exteriors within Subarea D shall be the responsibility of a forced and funded homeowners association to be formed as a part of this development. Owners of lots within Subarea D shall pay a fee for this service that is in addition to the homeowners association dues that will apply uniformly throughout the development. VIII. Model Homes Individual townhomes may be used as model homes for the purpose of marketing and sales. A manufactured modular building or model home may be used as a sales office during the development of the project and the construction of homes therein. 35 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUBAREA E: NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL I. Description: Subarea E shall be located on the eastern portion of the site and shall allow for neighborhood -scale commercial uses. This subarea shall consist of approximately 8.3 acres. Permitted Uses and Development Standards: A. Permitted Uses: The following permitted uses shall be allowed in Subarea E, subject to the exclusions set forth in subsection II(B): 1. Those uses listed in City of Dublin Zoning Code Section 153.027(A), Neighborhood Commercial District, as that provision exists on the date that the Preliminary Development Plan is approved for this development. 2. Those uses listed in City of Dublin Zoning Code Section 153.028(A), Community Commercial District, as that provision exists on the date that the Preliminary Development Plan is approved for this development. 3. Dry cleaning and related services; art galleries; wine and other specialty stores (not including liquor stores); convenience stores; and miscellaneous food stores. B. Excluded Uses: The following uses shall be excluded from the permitted uses in subsection II(A) above and shall not be permitted in Subarea E: Motor vehicle dealers Tire, battery and accessory dealers Miscellaneous aircraft, marine and automotive dealers Lumber and other building materials dealers Heating and plumbing equipment dealers Electrical supply stores Farm hardware and equipment stores Hotels and motels Rooming and boarding houses Liquor stores Funeral service Sexually oriented business establishments C. Conditional uses: The following conditional uses shall be allowed in Subarea E, provided that they are approved in accordance with City of Dublin Code Section 153.236: 1. Drive-thru services in association with any permitted use other than restaurant uses in Subarea E 2. Outdoor service facilities, including, without limitation, outdoor dining patios 3. Auto -oriented commercial facilities 36 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS D. Unless otherwise specified in the submitted drawings or in this written text, the development standards of Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin Code shall apply to this subarea. Basic development standards are compiled regarding proposed density, site issues, traffic, circulation, landscaping, and architectural standards. These component standards ensure consistency and quality throughout the development. III. Density: A maximum of thirty-nine thousand seven hundred (39,700) square feet of retail and/or office floor area shall be permitted in the aggregate within Subarea E. Each single retail user within Subarea E shall have less than twenty -thousand (20,000) square feet of floor space. Outdoor dining patios and pedestrian areas shall be encouraged throughout Subarea E and shall be permitted in addition to the allowable aggregate building area in this subarea. The total square footage allowed for outdoor din- ing patios in Subarea E shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the total allowable aggregate build- ing area for structures in this subarea. IV. Height: The maximum height of all primary buildings in this subarea shall be forty (40) feet as measured per the City of Dublin Code. The towers and entry features that are parts of primary buildings, as indi- cated on the elevation in Exhibit N-2 attached to this text, shall have a maximum height of fifty-eight (58) feet. V. Parking, Loading, and Stacking: A. Unless otherwise stated herein or otherwise depicted on the Preliminary Development Plan, all parking and loading shall be regulated by Dublin Code Section 153.200 et seq. B. Parking shall be provided in Subarea E at the minimum rate of four and one-half (4.5) parking spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area. Regardless of parcel lines, phasing, and/or sequencing of building construction, Subarea E is intended to operate functionally as a single commercial area. Therefore, the parking ratio set forth herein shall apply in the aggregate to Sub- area E and nothing herein shall prohibit any single phase of development or individual parcel from deviating from this requirement. All parking spaces shall be available for use by all buildings (via cross easements, if necessary) within the subarea. Parallel, head -in, and angled parking spaces shall be permitted in this subarea as indicated on the Final Development Plan. In order to promote the ideal of a pedestrian -friendly neighborhood, patrons of the users in Subarea E shall be encouraged to park along public streets in Subarea D. Parking spaces found in Subarea D shall not be used to calculate the required number of spaces in Subarea E. C. Head -in parking spaces in this subarea shall have a minimum dimension of nine (9) feet by eighteen (18) feet. Parallel parking spaces shall have a minimum dimension of nine (9) feet by twenty-two (22) feet as shown on the detail in the Preliminary Development Plan. D. Any drive thru that is approved in accordance with this text shall provide stacking at the following rates per drive thru lane: Pharmacy — 6; All Other — per Code. E. Required loading spaces shall be provided to the rear of buildings in Subarea E. Additional spaces may be provided along Oak Park Boulevard and/or Village Drive North/South that serve the dual pur- pose of providing both patron parking and loading spaces, provided that the developer restricts the use of these spaces for loading purposes only during specified times. At the time of Final Development Plan, the developer shall provide details on these restrictions. 37 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS VI. Circulation: A. Oak Park Boulevard shall be a public street running through the middle of Subarea E and shall be constructed in accordance with Section IV of the General Development Standards portion of this text. All other streets in this subarea shall be private and shall be maintained by the developer or its assigns. The locations and specifications for these streets shall meet the requirements of the City of Dublin Code unless otherwise set forth herein. B. Private streets and drive aisles with no parking shall have a minimum width of twenty (20) feet; private streets and drive aisles with parking shall have a minimum width of twenty-two (22) feet. One- way private streets and drive aisles with or without parking shall have a minimum width of thirteen (13) feet. C. Sidewalks; walking trails, bike paths: A final system of sidewalks, walking trails and bike paths will be provided as approved in the Final Development Plan. Sidewalks shall be constructed of concrete and shall be a minimum of four (4) feet in width. Walking trails may be constructed of an impervi- ous or pervious pavement type and shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet in width. Bike paths shall be constructed of asphalt and shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet in width. D. Access to Subarea E shall be from an internal circulation system that connects to public streets as shown on the Preliminary Development Plan. VII. Setback Requirements: A. There shall be a minimum building setback from the future right-of-way of Hyland -Croy Road of two hundred (200) feet provided, however, that landscaping, ponds, decorative structures, bike paths, entry features, signage, and any other encroachments permitted under the City of Dublin Code may be located within this setback. B. Interior lot lines shall have a zero (0) setback for pavement and buildings. C. Setbacks from perimeter lot lines in Subarea E shall be zero (0) feet for pavement and twenty-five (25) feet for buildings. D. There shall be a minimum building setback of ten (10) feet from any public or private street. VIII. Landscaping and Open Space: A. Landscape Plan: Landscaping shall be permitted within the setback along Hyland -Croy Road. A landscaping plan for this subarea shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as a part of the Final Development Plan. Landscaping shall be in conformance with that which is approved as a part of the Final Development Plan. B. Open Space: Open space shall be provided within this subarea as shown on the attached develop- ment plan. Open space standards are addressed in the General Development Standards section found at the end of this development text. C. Interior Landscaping: In order to provide adequate parking for the uses in Subarea E, strict adher- ence to the interior landscaping requirements for vehicular use areas per the City of Dublin Code is not possible. Interior landscaping requirements for vehicular use areas in Subarea E shall adhere to the Code except as follows: 38 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1. Maximum contiguous area: No individual landscape area shall be greater than three hun- dred fifty (350) square feet in size, except that no individual landscape area shall be larger than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet in size in vehicular use areas over thirty thousand (30,000) square feet. 2. Tree islands within parking areas may have rounded corners and shall be a minimum of four (4) feet in width with a minimum length equal to eighteen (18) feet. 3. Per the City of Dublin Code, there shall be a minimum of one (1) tree provided for every five thousand (5,000) square feet of ground coverage. The developer shall use reasonable efforts to place these trees in interior landscape areas, but where the placement of these trees in such areas would cause aesthetic concerns it shall be permitted to plant them in open space areas elsewhere in the development, subject to staff approval. D. Parking Lot Screening: Required screening of vehicular use areas shall be in the form of a hedge that is a minimum of three (3) feet in height. No mounding shall be required. The garages located behind the townhomes in Subarea D are intended to serve as a screening mechanism between the indoor and outdoor living spaces of the townhomes and the commercial uses in Subarea E. Hedges shall also be provided as a screening mechanism in the landscape islands located parallel and adjacent to Lanes A, B, C, and D, as shown on the Preliminary Development Plan. No additional screening shall be required between these subareas. IX. Lighting: A. All lighting shall be in conformance with the City of Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines, except as provided for in this text. A lighting plan conforming to these guidelines shall be submitted to the Plan- ning Commission as part of the Final Development Plan for each phase of development. Lighting shall be in conformance with the plan that is approved as a part of the Final Development Plan. External lighting shall be cutoff type light fixtures. C. All parking, pedestrian, and other exterior lighting shall be on poles or wall mounted cutoff fixtures and shall be of a coordinated type and style. All light fixtures shall be decorative in nature and of a coordinating style to the architecture of this subarea. Fixture and pole specifications shall be included with the lighting plan that will be presented as a part of the Final Development Plan for each phase of development. D. All light poles and standards shall be dark in color and shall be a dark brown, black, or bronze metal. E. Parking lot lighting shall be limited to eighteen (18) feet in height to the top of the fixture. Con- crete bases of these light fixtures shall be limited to no more than thirty-six (36) inches above adjacent grade. F. Cutoff type landscape lighting and uplighting of buildings shall be prohibited. G. All lights shall be arranged to reflect light away from any street or adjacent property. H. All building illumination shall come from concealed sources. No colored lights shall be used to light the exterior of any building. 39 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS X. Architecture: A. Architectural Theme: Building designs will be inspired by English and Irish garden cities distinguished by a park -like ambience, rich architectural detail, and a sense of quality and permanence. B. The basic building materials shall be limited to hardiplank, cedar wood trim, brick, stone, stone/ stucco, stucco, and EIFS (trim only). C. Building materials and architectural detailing shall be consistent on all sides of buildings within this subarea. D. Architectural elements shall maintain traditional scale and massing. Pitched roofs and flat roofs that integrate strong cornice lines and parapets are encouraged. Pitched roofs and parapet walls that screen mechanical units must be consistent with the overall architectural theme. E. Roofing materials shall be either dimensional shingles, slate, standing seam metal or cedar shakes. F. Kiosks shall be permitted in this subarea in association with an automated teller machine use, provided that they meet the architectural requirements in this subarea. XI. Signage: A. Unless otherwise set forth herein, all signage shall comply with the City of Dublin Signage Code, Sections 153.150 though 153.164. B. A signage and graphics plan with exhibits conforming to these guidelines shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as part of the Final Development Plan for each phase of development. All sig- nage shall be in conformance with that which is approved as a part of the Final Development Plan. C. Wall Signage: The following signage standards recognize the unique configuration of the build- ings and parking within Subarea E and seek to promote effective means for the identification of uses to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Vehicular traffic will view the front facades of buildings in Subarea E from Hyland -Croy Road but in many instances will be required to park behind these buildings. The ability to utilize wall and blade signage on the front facades of buildings will enable passing vehicular and pedestrian traffic to identify a particular use from Hyland -Croy Road; the use of wall signs on the rear fa4ades of these same buildings will allow traffic to identify tenants from parking areas after trav- eling to the rear of the buildings. 1. One (1) wall sign shall be permitted on each tenant storefront that fronts onto Oak Park Boulevard, Village Drive North, or Village Drive South (e.g., on the front of the building). One (1) wall sign shall also be permitted above each tenant's parking area (rear) entrance (e.g., the rear of the building). In no instance shall any tenant be permitted to utilize more than two (2) wall signs (not including any permitted blade signs). 2. One (1) projecting blade sign of no more than three (3) square feet shall also be permitted on each tenant storefront that fronts onto Oak Park Boulevard, Village Drive North, or Village Drive South (e.g., on the front of the building). 40 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 3. All tenant wall signage and blade signage shall be located on a standard plaque of a consistent size and profile. 4. A total of three (3) sign plaque colors shall be permitted. 5. Text on the plaques shall be limited to white, black or gold lettering. 6. All wall -mounted signs shall be externally illuminated using gooseneck light fixtures. D. Site Signage: 1. A total of two (2) signs identifying the commercial center and/or residential development shall be permitted northwest and southwest of the intersection of Hyland -Croy Road and Oak Park Boulevard as shown on the attached development plan. These signs shall be designed to be similar in appearance to each other and to the identification sign that is permitted in Subarea A at the intersection of Mitchell -Dewitt Road and North Fork Drive. Each sign shall be permitted a maximum of fifty (50) square feet of sign area and shall be one-sided. These signs shall be integrated into the entry features to be found at each of these locations and may be oriented either parallel or perpendicular to Hyland -Croy Road. The maximum height of these signs shall not exceed six (6) feet. 2. Directional signage shall be permitted in accordance with the City of Dublin Sign Code. 3. One (1) wrought iron arch sign shall be permitted over each sidewalk on the north and south sides of Oak Park Boulevard near its intersection with Village Drive North and South. Each of these signs shall not exceed twenty (20) total square feet in sign area and shall not exceed eighteen (18) feet in height. This sign shall be used for joint identification of the commercial center and shall not be permitted to identify any single user or tenant. 4. Any ground -mounted signs shall have a rectangular profile and shall have a masonry base that is harmonious with the exterior materials used on the buildings in Subarea E. 5. All site signage shall be externally illuminated. No individual tenant identification shall be permitted other than on wall signs. I 41 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS XII. Maintenance: All buildings, structures, fences, paved areas, landscaped areas and other improvements shall at all times be kept in good condition and repair and with a clean and orderly appearance. Landscaped areas shall be maintained with materials specified in the plan and in a healthy living state, mowed, pruned, watered and otherwise maintained as appropriate. There shall be provided, and kept in good working order, trash compactors and/or depositories at approved locations which shall be emptied prior to becoming full and a pest and rodent control program shall be provided if necessary. Tenants will be required to deposit trash only in said compactors or depositories and said properties shall be kept free of litter under all reasonable conditions and parking and paved areas shall be swept where necessary. All signage shall be kept in good repair. Lighting, painting and associated materials on signage shall be kept in good condition. When, and if, vacancies shall occur, said spaces shall be deco- ratively maintained free of litter, dirt, and left over and/or deteriorated signage so as to appear ready for re -rental and re -occupancy provided that nothing herein shall be construed as interfering with the right to make reasonable repairs or alterations to said premises. XIII. Phasing: As a part of the Final Development Plan for the initial phase of development in Subarea E, the de- veloper shall be required to include plans for the development of either (a) the building that is to be located to the northwest of and adjacent to the intersection of Oak Park Boulevard and Village Drive North or (b) the building that is to be located southwest of and adjacent to the intersection of Oak Park Boulevard and Village Drive South. In the event that the construction of any building within Subarea E has not been commenced at such time as occupancy permits are issued for any dwelling units in Subarea D, then the developer shall seed and maintain the ground within Subarea E and shall erect a six (6) foot high privacy fence near the shared line between Subareas D and E behind all dwelling units. The developer shall be permitted to remove the fence at such time as the initial phase of development in Subarea E is complete or if such fence interferes with its ability to develop any portion of Subarea E in accordance with an approved Final Development Plan. 42 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The General Development Standards that follow apply to all subareas. Homeowners Association: All residential property owners located within the Oak Park PUD shall be required to join and maintain membership in a forced and funded homeowners association, which will be formed prior to any lots being sold. Homeowners association responsibilities shall be detailed within Declarations of Cov- enants and Restrictions as approved by the City of Dublin before being duly recorded in the office of the Union County Recorder. These Declarations of Covenants and Restrictions shall run with the land and shall include, without limitation, the requirements imposed upon the homeowners association in this text. Storm Water Management / Water Quality: The Oak Park PUD is to be developed as an integrated development with a substantial commitment to the provision of open space amenities, including ponds. In planning the open space and amenities, it is anticipated that full advantage will be made of consolidating the open space and water features. It is anticipated that the ponds will provide most of the storm water detention and water quality require- ments for all of the Oak Park PUD development. Accordingly, the storm water detention and water quality requirements of the City Code are not required to be satisfied for each Subarea within that Subarea. Rather, the subarea covered by each approved Final Development Plan and the subareas covered by each previously approved Final Development Plan, taken as a whole, must satisfy the storm water detention requirements of the City of Dublin Code. III. Open Space: A. The open space being provided in this project is ±31.3 acres. General open space areas are lo- cated in all subareas and are designated on the accompanying Open Space Plan — Exhibit G. B. The developer maintains the right to minor modifications of the open space plan (Exhibit G), subject to Final Development Plan approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. C. Areas designated as "Parks and Greens" shall be maintained and manicured at a standard that is similar to that applied to parks maintained by the City of Dublin. Areas designated as "Rural Open Spaces" shall retain a more natural character and shall require only periodic maintenance for purposes of improving safety and aesthetics of the area or the health of plant materials. E. Open space shall be dedicated to the City of Dublin as indicated in the Final Development Plan for each phase of development. Any open space that is not dedicated to the City of Dublin shall be maintained by a forced and funded homeowners association. F. Street Tree Species: A detailed street tree planting plan shall be provided in the Final Development Plan showing plant locations and spacing. Permitted street trees in the Oak Park development shall include the medium and small size trees listed in Group B and Group C of the Street Tree List of the Zoning Code. IV. Access Parking and/or other Traffic -Related Commitments: A. All public streets shall have a minimum right-of-way width of fifty (50) feet. Pavement width shall be a minimum of twenty-eight (28) feet measured back of curb to back of curb. All public streets shall be constructed in accordance with the City of Dublin Code and the standards established by the City of Dublin Engineer. 43 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS B. th a On street parking shall bepermittedvisions are made for dedicated parking spaces, lminimum twenty-eight may be twenty-eight (28) feet. If additionalnalprovisions located on two sides of the public street. C. Following approval of the first final development plan and prior to the issuance of the first building permit for any portion of the Oak Park and Mpchell-Dew�int, the developer tt Road to ensure tdhattthehetamount of real is forty (40) feet property along both Hyland -Croy Road of dedicated right-of-way from the centerlines of each of these roadways. 44 OAK PARK PART I [7f.VELOPMEJIT OVERVIEW PART II DEVELOPMENT j7A/l[)AR1?f PART III f.XHIF5ITf ddW /UINIDIA g00Z 'LZ jagolDo I m L•J 9 z J _ A Ill�ry'7'/-Qv�4 7' zs-F o0 ' �{j� �// /• Ow4 yF45FMENT Z ± 61.39 Ac. `T �• / TREES BY SPECIES AND CONDITION TOTAL GOOD FAIR POOR 6" thru 11" 331 217 67 47 12" thru 17" 134 78 33 23 18" thru 23" 53 36 18 16 24"+ 67 13 20 17 Total Trees 585 344 138 103 • EXISTING TREE - 24" CALIPER OR GREATER EXISTING TREE - 6-24" CALIPER OPEN SPACE FLOOD PLAIN ■ FLOODWAY t. EXISTING STRUCTURES I OVERLAND FLOW TREES BY SPECIES Apple 5 Apple multi -stem 5 Basswood 140 Basswood multi -stem 31 Beech 4 Bilternut Hickory 37 Boxelder 78 Boxelder multi -stem 16 Bur Oak 3 Bur Oak multi -stem 1 Cherry 12 Cottonwood 1 Cottonwood multi -stem 4 Crabapple i Crabapple multi -stem 2 Elm 4 Elm multi -stem 2 Green Ash 32 Hackberry 32 Hackberry multi -stem 8 Mockernut Hickory 1 Mockernut Hickory multi -stem 1 Pin Oak 2 Red Oak 27 Shagbark Hickory 33 Shagbark Hickory multi -stem 10 Silver Maple multi -stem 1 Sugar Maple 8 Swamp White Oak 1 Walnut 26 Walnut multi -stem 2 TOTAL SBS OAK PARK ■ Prepared for Atlantic Realty / Jerome Solove Development HEEDGEGROUP PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE GRAPHIC DESIGN w ww. e d g e l a, c om CL a z 0 0 z 0 v z f— X w 1 0 / O , SUBAREA 'A' F F�DWA 34?4 mac\ \\` DWAV BUFFER _ '� - - ---- 0 --O pT25 \ \ 24\ ) 26 \ , 1 \ y, 2723 42 22 V-1441 1, ` ( ` 28 211--��--7--� -.I 43 i - 29 I 30 I 31 I 32 / 33 20 44 19 AUBARE -- - -- ---��0 5.j 38 1 a''ip�D�A 18 `I7�,' / ;�. 46 '._I 4,$b4dif'S�aEA'D' ,oa oA I ' 17 /// 47 \' / 3fi -; s7 41911 Acy 1113' '101' m l 7 LANE 35 I W 16 Ili { Ali 96 51 52 - - , -, — - r I 34j,", O — U t1 - -- — i94 r SUBAREA V +/- 2.8 Ac. ED �J ----------- ------ _— 1 72 i I , 57 I 56 ` 55 I 54 53 _ III I I 71 a" II II III 58 S - 2• 70 III 59 5.6 Ac. 69 I' 60 68 C C C -- 92 U , 41 > ooa c:===a voo SUBAREA'E' -- +/- 8.3 Ac. 2 86 � I; v 85 W C 83 81 79 77 75I, 1 73 84 82 80I 711 76 741 _ I i _ I _ ---- – --- I 3 . 61 67 l ll 63 64 65 J 6266 ./ -- -'� 5 10 I 9 8 7 I 6 DI\ OAK PARK In Prepared for Atlantic Realty / Jerome Solove Development EDGEGROUP PANNING p LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE E TI, GRAPHIC DESIGN www.ed9oIa.coni .y h0m 4-1 c� DEVELOPMENT DATA Gross Area: Commercial Floor Area: Parking Required (Min) Parking Provided (Min) Residential Total Units: Town Homes: Village Homes: Park Homes: Gross Density: Open Space Open Space Required O S P ;d d' ±61.39 Acres 39,700 Square Feet 159 Spaces (4sp./l000sf.) 159 Spaces (4sp./l000sf) 108 Units 36 Units 39 Units 33 Units 1.76 D.U./Acre ±30.69 Acres(50%) rove e ±31.30 Acres(51 %) Neighborhood Parks: ±4.50 Acres Rural Open Spaces: ±26.80 Acres � T AY BUFFER ry F 2526 O 27 23 9y , qy 42 22 41 �, 28 21 , t� �• -�-- - 43 r 40 — 39 29 30 31 32 33 44 I I ' /r 19 45 38 MEADOW COURT L • 1 Q 45 37 .I� gal f0j 102 103 106 [IDS 97 -99' 1011 103 105 107' 4717 36 ANE A. ..x 35 yb > 1 48 49 50 51 52 J 34 y5 m o J93 OAK VIEW AVE. NORTH 92 Q 91 EQ OOAKVDo Ili OAK VIEW AVE. SOUTH 2 72 57 56 55 54 53 71 i 70 59 69 60 b8 61 67 62 - 63 164 65 r 66 PARKSIDE AVENUE GARDEN COURT 3 2 1 4 - - i 5 10 9 8 7 6 PARK HOMES VILLAGE HOMES TOWN HOMES (Lots 1-33) (Lots 34-72) (Lots 73-108) ■ 80' LOTS 60' LOTS ■ END UNITS 070' LOTS 55' LOTS ® INTERIOR UNITS ❑ 60' LOTS ■ COMMERCIAL ❑ OPEN SPACE BRq NO 'QO STREETSCAPE/ INTERIOR O.S. ■PONDS/STREAMS/ WETLANDS I i z Q z LU O J Uj LU 0 NEIGHBORHOOD r`1 CLUBHOUSE aJ O v O THEEDGEGROUP PLANNING OAK PARK, DUBLIN, OHIO ■ Prepared for Atlantic Realty / Jerome Solove Development LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Q 5 1 1 $ GRAPHIC DESIGN Job q www.ed9eIa.com F I C) CD fV NEIGHBORHOOD r`1 CLUBHOUSE aJ O v O THEEDGEGROUP PLANNING OAK PARK, DUBLIN, OHIO ■ Prepared for Atlantic Realty / Jerome Solove Development LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Q 5 1 1 $ GRAPHIC DESIGN Job q www.ed9eIa.com F .'� )09000000090000e- 00 00000.0 DEVELOPMENT DATA Open Space Open Space Provided: ±31.30 Acres (51 %) Rural Open Spaces: ±26.80 Acres Neighborhood Parks: ±4. SO Acres * Final Open Space areas, reserves, and maintenance will be provided at FDP. O sem, 9.2 Ac. (A) PARKS AND GREENS - TRADITIONAL MANICURED PARKS ❑ RURAL OPEN SPACES - NATURALIZED/ PASSIVE OPEN SPACES MEADOW/NATURALIZED AREAS WETLANDS/WETLANDS SHELF j EXISTING TREE MASSES BIKE PATH I WALKING PATH SIDEWALKS A DEDICATED TO CITY - MAINTAINED BY CITY 8 DEDICATED TO CITY - MAINTAINED BY ASSOCIATION t C OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY ASSOCIATION , 26 / f 24 A A 27 \i // 23 / / / 42 qv R /\ 22oo28 41 21 40 J 43 -- 30 31 32 . 33 \ 0 7 Ata 1 ' / O \ / 29 �� 19 45 11 MEADOW COURT 38 46 - - , 18 \ 37 98 0o 1o7 h 10( tae 199' 101 103 X1051'1071 _ 47 - — - 1 1 36 LANE A Zf Tj ! 351 W I , , 16 I 96 48 49 50 51 52 J��'34 m c I\ 9a �tD OAK VIEW AVE. NORTH ,a ---9 0'1 Ac. 2 >a _ 2.5 Ac. (C) o oOAK c=V=Z===tt VD o x � - 0.1,6c. x OAK VIEW AVE. SOUTH Z - 89_ V n --F) O 1 II 72 II u 1157 156 1 55 54 53 O 15 II II II es II II 71 L1 l 14 I III 58 70 I83, 81, 79 I 77 75' i73 1 I� II 2 II $9 69 1111 84 82 110 78 76 74 I - 13 II � I -- - Lu II 60 66 11 GARDEN COURT 12 II d II n- -- --- =-- 1 1� I 61 67 I �� 1 —� II II II 3 I 63 64 2 1 11 tl II 62 __ ---I 65 --L... —66 I PARKSIDE AVENUE 0.1 AC. 5 10 9 8 7 6 � 1 , 7.0 Ac. (A) a IN NIH r. PLANNING OAK PARK ■ Prepared for Atlantic Realty / Jerome Solove Development iHEEDGEGROUP LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE G GRAPHIC DESIGN www.edgeIa.com jr9*60960900991n 000000000000009" 690609600C DEVELOPMENT DATA Gross Area: ±61.39 Acres Commercial: Floor Area: 39,700 Square Feet Parking Required (Min): 159 Spaces (4sp./1000sf.) Parking Provided (Min): 159 Spaces (4sp./1000sf) J O Residential Total Units: 108 Units I� Town Homes: 36 Units I LEGEND Q COMMERCIAL 0 MEADOW/NATURALIZED AREA (TYR) tD Q TOWN HOME (TYR) O EXISTING TREES O N 0 VILLAGE HOME (TYR) © ASPHALT BIKE PATH Q PARK HOME (TYR) Q WALKING TRAIL 0' s0' 100' 200' NORTH N Q ENTRY FEATURE W/ SIGNAGE © PARK STRUCTURE N O NEIGHBORHOOD CLUBHOUSE Q COMMERCIAL CENTER SIGNAGE O Q POND EXISTING IRONWEED TRAIL Q WETLAND SHELF (TYR) Q EXISTING LANDMARK OAK TREE O Pre iHEEDGEGROUP PLANNING OAK PARK pared For Atlantic Realty / Jerome Solove Development LANDSCAPE ARCNITEC7URE GRAPHIC DESIGN H ww w. ed gx la.<om j I LEGEND Q COMMERCIAL 0 MEADOW/NATURALIZED AREA (TYR) tD Q TOWN HOME (TYR) O EXISTING TREES O N 0 VILLAGE HOME (TYR) © ASPHALT BIKE PATH Q PARK HOME (TYR) Q WALKING TRAIL 0' s0' 100' 200' NORTH N Q ENTRY FEATURE W/ SIGNAGE © PARK STRUCTURE N O NEIGHBORHOOD CLUBHOUSE Q COMMERCIAL CENTER SIGNAGE O Q POND EXISTING IRONWEED TRAIL Q WETLAND SHELF (TYR) Q EXISTING LANDMARK OAK TREE O Pre iHEEDGEGROUP PLANNING OAK PARK pared For Atlantic Realty / Jerome Solove Development LANDSCAPE ARCNITEC7URE GRAPHIC DESIGN H ww w. ed gx la.<om G �E h1 Rf g D�1 11 �� • �► ♦ H 4 8% NRIN.., C AT o �j� .off 0, �� �♦ ���♦ � ,/ e �� �i �!r � �• X01 �0�` •� �� !� ;�� =�' ��` �� ��►��i.`� 0��� �ho � �-. � . •/ �� � O �' O r Q +III i • �' �. • .r •� •� � _ /� � �/\� � 1.1 �I \/I u n 1111/ u n -- ► �,� I� H 'n' ���• ♦ ,� o •�' O �\�II�h ilir �u.rii�l �J o l' 1�►..�i 11, '�r � �� • '�1/• � 0� �'� � oa � .�� 101 i l ��■rr.rr,{d d-�r,�■r■r.tr, � i,� O o �► ! of .��� �, �,� - I' .�I �����■. ������ a '�.� � �. •./o� �/� �i �, �1 �.o �1 • �� 1101 , I ,��� >.��,♦ +Ips t ��Z�/� ,/j_� �I ��C: II �!�.■�NI'!��'���'1�!'1��_�Il�inl'��M'1t1�'��1t10 � : ► 4e O `' �� �/•� •O v -- �4 i� ■ ��'; � �1 � � � q+o�a>sasr. �O, ,�, O �,..,. �I po' O o'' �:� �, o ► % , 'ill „!�... :S (d _ _ t�► ,Aq ... 1i■ 1 i ►��i c /..,b I� • \,�/ ,oma '� �+ �; � �.. I. N� - � \. � � • II al�,'-,7■ � �' �a� gal �A :� „\.�f +IOI 101► II �� �� ��. �� - _ ,,v, ����, _ , ' ,,�, _ ■ �► ; �:� s • �►�'� II AI "� �_,� �,� ►,� �n! 1� r■►-� II �;I� ■� L. ■ 101 ill �' �� �'� M! oa o 1101 101+ _�� � .., �. �. � i'101 ��t�s � �► „ �:� •■�: �'� -- o amp qil �if 1 P 11 1011 G M■a' • ro.�., II 1011 +I` ° � _ ii0► ,r�ae 1 1 'A �ij o� IA Irre s_M �1�1 •�o�a�o�a�a�a�o�ia�'i.'�'^ • iia iia. � ����:�:�:• .ore*ss �a�a�o��e.s��.,���ai�a�a���s��� >i�i�'r ■� �� I�I 10,E •� � � le� `' I � 101 � ---- -----� � i, �Si► � II ;,— :� �; • � ��,i r oa, �,,� � • � I �I t .,r. � ►_•� � +- . � � '� ` �� ,�� �'�' X10► � �Ip 1111 IIII �■� �... ��I■� �,I , _ ,► la►...... _,ar �. ��o � �` 11g► X011 ,��_,PAPS �,,..- 1i aI�-.,�,� �1 � o �.►:� �,. � ISI_ oil ' I �;� c O • � � �C �Id� � ■ �% �ae><e� 1� ■ O p ►� r X101 1� •' � I. >•Is>• _ _ `ij II 11SEEN• i O i �i 11 1 ��'�i %iiii ifiPAI AAI 14P '1:1 1:1' MAN li '111 Ir.� ��� p ;li■�L.� II! 0 1� ,•■� ... -- - ,• �.■�■�'i ` ■ ISI � �•�1d1�1o1o a O c �� ■� I• (• � ■ �r�r ■ p ■■W■JI li :� �,� ► MAMMALMAMMAL+10� 111 II S` ,�,�'1, H_MINI\ _ � �i �� � /IAIt�� ��i� � b. o ,►,.1`, +101.1. o �r 4II 1 ��;�� � o= �VANF a WS o +1�1.101i ism ,101 .Yff Tr .Mai.id W MA 9 L 1� ►�� -- � . ` �s'i � U PROJECT DESCRIPTION 11,E .1/ 1/,, �� — it 1 1 'I � � �► '� .o �- _-,. 1�... �ti r� .' : ,, �,__��►� , � � kill ._ ,� � �� ►.����.� „ � �. ��:.:..►. 101 ." • ��■� � o � ��1 raaa��.��a��a�•.��a�low, a �r,� an.�a�a� � o�a�a�■a.�.aso:ate s�a,� s����ra,�o��` .�i. �Ls �..� .r.d IVA D of so, 100, 200' NORTH �f I z Q = LEGEND 0 Commercial 0 Town Home (Typ.) 0 Village Home (Typ.) 0 Park Home (Typ.) 0 Entry Feature with Signage 0 Neighborhood Clubhouse 0 Pond © Wetland Shelf (Typ.) 0 Meadow/Naturalized Area (Typ.) O Existing Trees © Asphalt Bike Path O Walking Trail © Park Structure © Commercial Center Signage Existing Ironweed Trail 0 Existing Landmark Oak Tree DEVELOPMENT DATA LU V) Oak Park will be a distinctive, mixed-use neighborhood A neighborhood scale commercial center will provide local GROSS AREA: ±61.39 ACRES reminiscent of traditional cross-roads villages and hamlets. residents convenient access to shops, restaurants and COMMERCIAL Oak Park will provide residents a pedestrian friendly, office space. Floor Area: 39,700 Square Feet neighborhood atmosphere. By utilizing conservation Parking Required (Min.): 159 Spaces (4 spaces/1,000 s.f) 1 design and smart growth principles, the plan will offer a Neighborhood Parks and Greens, Rural Open Spaces and Parking Provided (Min.): 159 Spaces (4 spaces/1,000 s.f) tremendous diversity of housing, shopping, working and neighboring Glacier Ridge Metro Park will offer the recreational opportunities for local residents, all within a community with endless opportunities for both passive RESIDENTIAL Total Units: 108 Units small geographic area. Careful attention to architectural and active recreation. Existing tree rows, woods and Town Homes: 36 Units unified theme that is details and styling will create a u streams are incorporated into large open space reserves P 9 Village Homes: 39 Units ! o applied throughout the entire development. The around the perimeter of the community, preserving the Park Homes: 33 Units o combination of these uses , their organization and high rural character of Dublin's scenic roadways. A system of Gross Density: 1.76 D.U./Acre architectural standards, will create a neighborhood leisure trails, bike paths and sidewalks interconnect the environment that fosters community interaction and a residential, commercial and recreational uses. Residents OPEN SPACE Open Space Required: ±30.69 Acres (50%) great sense of identity. and their guests may use the common spaces located in Open Space Provided: 131.30 Acres (51 %) the Neighborhood Clubhouse for exercise, fitness, Neighborhood Parks & Greens: ±4.50 Acres Park Homes, Village Homes and Town Homes will appeal meetings and social gatherings . Rural open spaces: ±26.80 Acres o to a wide demographic of home buyers, from young professionals to growing families to empty nesters. p OAK PARK Prepared for Atlantic Realty/ Jerome S o I o v e DevelopmentPLANNING GROUP LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE # 05118 THE GRAPHIC RAPHIC DESIGN F, At 19 Is 3WOH MlVd - 3bf11D311HD2V 9002 'LZ aagOIDO a D O W� 3WOH N8Vd - i2miD311HDIdV 9002 "LZ aago}:)0 t =Z a� 0 2 V V E 0 0 v 0 v 0 0 E 0 3WOH MVd - 3NnID311HDbV 9002 "LZ jagOIDO 3WOH 'ANVd - 3NmiD3iMD8V 900E 'LE IegOIDO 0- D D O oc W; I v E 0 0 E 0 3WOH 3DVIIA - 3NniD311HDdV g00Z 'LZ aagolD0 Y d O w LD W: 3WOH 39VIIIA - 32niD311HD8V 900E 'LZ JagOjDO CL O WE 3WOH 39VIIIA - idnID311HDHV 9002 "LZ aago3:)0 a. O W. - W; 3WOH 39VI IIA - idniD311HDbd 9002 "LZ aa9oiD0 CL D O C7 MOH 39VIIIA - 32 nID311HDaIV 9002 'LZ jagol:)O I Y Y Q a w 3WOH NMOL - 3bnID311HD)AV 9002 'LZ aago}a0 Y cr Q a Y Q 0 3Sf10Hon]D - 32nID311HD8V 90027 'L27 jago}:)0 IVIDb3NNOD - 3aniD3DMDD d 900Z "LZ jago}:)O d D 0 W.. IVIDD JIAAOD - 3aniDDIIHDNV I I I I I I I I- I I I I I I, I sl I I I I 9002 'LZ ja9O}DO z W.. 1\p -mZ xiw _ n .R po gL �m s R rs-pie gC(,3 C 3 Q co� N D S vS lap i m D oD - D 1� IJ — - n ^SAF n z 1\p -mZ xiw _ n nq ° Q gC(,3 C 3 Q co� N D S vS lap i m D oD 1\p -mZ xiw _ n nq ° Q gC(,3 C 3 Q co� N D z m D oD - D D ° Q - N D n z D v OAK PARK City of Dublin. Union County. Ohio I °m OAK PARK A z o z City of Dublin. Union County. Ohio { D M D Z o m s O nv c � j a�z 8 I °m OAK PARK A z o z City of Dublin. Union County. Ohio { D M D Z LMM m a O y' rn v z � < m m r- - O A � � Z Z s D D LMM OAK PARK City of Dublin. Union County. Ohio m a O y' rn v z � < m m r- - O A m Z A Z Z _ "> D D OAK PARK City of Dublin. Union County. Ohio