Resolution 049-19RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc., Form No. 30045
Resolution No.
49-19
Passed
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND ACCEPTING THE PLAT FOR
THE HAMLET ON JEROM E SUBDIVISION
WQ
WHE=REAS, application for approval of the plat for the Hamlet on Jerome has been
made under Chapter 152 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the plat application has been reviewed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, which has recommended approval and acceptance of the plat; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning and
Zoning Commission, the reports of staff, and the subdivision requirements of Chapter
152 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Dublin, and desires to approve said plat
and accept all rights of way, easements, and other interests dedicated to the City
therein;
NOW, WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of
Ohio, 5w"4 of the elected members concurring that:
Section 1. The City Council hereby approves and accepts the plat for the Hamlet on
Jerome subdivision, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit A.
Section 2. The City Manager, Law Director, Clerk of Council, and any other required
City employee or official are authorized to execute the plat on behalf of the City.
Section 3. Pursuant tecti n 4.04 of the Charter, this resolution shall take effect
immediately upon passage.
Passed this day ; 2019.
e
Mayor — P
ATTEST:
Clerk: of Council
siding Offer
Office of the City Manager
5700 Emerald
Parkways Dublin, OH 43017-1090
City of Dublin Phone: 614 410.4400 * Fax; 614.410-4490
Memo
To; Members of Dublin City Council
From; Dana L, McDaniel, City Manajp
Date, September 17, 2019
Initiated By, Jennifer M, Rauch, AICP, Interim Planning Director/Planning Manager
Claudia D, Husak, AICP, Senior Planner/Current Planning Manager
Ree A resolution approving and accepting the plat for the Hamlet on Jerome
Summary
This is a request, as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, to accept the
subdivision of 8.68 acres into 17 single-family Cluster Lots and one Estate Lot as well as the
provision of right-of-way for two public streets and two acres of open space,
Process
As provided by the Law Director's Office, when City Council approves Preliminary and Final Plats,
the platting process is solely for the subdivision of the properties to identify property lines,
establish easements, provide open space dedication, and create public rights-of-way, The site
layout, architectural character, and open space designs for the development were previously
approved by the required reviewing bodies,
Staff has recently been made aware that Franklin County changed submission requirements for
plats to require "specific legislative reference" by the municipality, This requirement came about
due to problems with documenting transfers when the plats were not approved with a legislative
number. While Dublin has passed plats via motion as far back as the 1980s, this new requirement
will change the acceptance of plats moving forward and will be implemented city-wide, regardless
of County.
Background
The Planning and Zoning Commission approved a final development plan and recommended
approval of the final plat on March 7, 2019, On October 11, 2018, the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval of the rezoning and preliminary plat, which were approved
by City Council on January 22, 20191
Description
The proposed plat is for the subdivision of 8,7 acres of land and includes the creation of 18 single-
family lots, two open space reserves and rights-of-way for the extension of Roma Drive and the
creation of Hamlet Court, Lots 1 through 17 are proposed within Subarea 8, The Estate Lot is
Subarea A is included as a platted lot as part of the subdivision, The plat includes street sections
and easements, as well as open space ownership and maintenance, and setback requirements,
Memo re; Resolution 49-19 Plat Acceptance of The Hamlet on Jerome
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
Page 2of2
The final plat depicts the extension of Roma Drive (public) from Corazon Drive, in Tartan West,
north toward the adjacent parcel, A new public road, Hamlet Court provides access to all proposed
lots, including the estate lot with the existing home to the rear of the property. Hamlet Court is to
be a cul-de-sac, Open space with associated landscaping is shown adjacent to Jerome Road to the
east and between the new lots and the existing home.
The Subdivision Regulations require the provision of 1016 acres of open space based on the 18
units on 8.7 acres of land. A total of 2,01 acres (23%) of open space is proposed in two reserves,
Reserve A (1.157 acres) includes the stormwater management pond and is located in the center of
the development. Reserve B (358 acres) is a passive open space adjacent to Jerome Road, Both
reserves will be dedicated to the City and maintained by the forced and funded HOA,
Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission
The Commission reviewed and recommended approval to City Council of the final plat at the March
71 2019 meeting with one condition:
1) That the applicant ensures that any minor technical adjustments to the plat are made
prior to City Council submittal,
The applicant has met the condition for the final plat,
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Resolution for the Final Plat for the Hamlet on Jerome at the
September 23, 2019 City Council meeting.
SITUATE:
SITUATED IN THE STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF UNION, TOWNSHIP OF WASHINGTON (OF FRANKLIN COUNTY), CITY OF DUBLIN, BEING
LOCATED IN VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NUMBER 3014, BEING ALL OF THAT 7.6559 ACRE TRACT AND ALL OF THAT 1.034 ACRE TRACT,
BOTH AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO HAMLET ON JEROME, LLC, OF RECORD IN INSTRUMENT NUMBER 201906180004491, ALL RECORDS
REFERENCED HEREON ARE ON FILE AT THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR UNION COUNTY. OHIO.
DEDICATION:
THE UNDERSIGNED, HAMLET ON JEROME, LLC, OWNER OF THE LANDS PLATTED HEREIN, DULY AUTHORIZED IN THE PREMISES, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT CORRECTLY REPRESENTS OUR "THE HAMLET ON JEROME", A SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1 THRU 18, RESERVES "A" AND
"B", AND A PLAT DEDICATING 1.139 ACRES OF LAND TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO, DO HEREBY ACCEPT THIS PLAT OF THE SAME AND DO
HEREBY DEDICATE TO PUBLIC USE AS SUCH ALL OR PARTS OF JEROME ROAD, HAMLET COURT AND ROMA DRIVE SHOWN HEREON AND NOT
DEDICATED HERETOFORE.
WITHIN THOSE AREAS DESIGNATED "DRAINAGE EASEMENT" ON THIS PLAT, EASEMENTS ARE HEREBY GRANTED TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN FOR
THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING MAJOR STORM WATER DRAINAGE SWALES AND OR OTHER STORM
WATER DRAINAGE FACILITIES AND FOR ACCESS TO DRAINAGE FACILITIES. NO ABOVE GRADE STRUCTURES, DAMS OR OTHER
OBSTRUCTIONS TO THE FLOW OF STORM WATER RUNOFF ARE PERMITTED WITHIN "DRAINAGE EASEMENT" AREAS AS DELINEATED ON THIS
PLAT. WITHIN THOSE AREAS DESIGNATED "UTILITY EASEMENT" ON THIS PLAT, EASEMENTS ARE HEREBY GRANTED TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN
FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING A SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWERS AND OTHER PUBLIC AND
QUASI -PUBLIC UTILITIES. WITHIN THOSE AREAS DESIGNATED "ACCESS EASEMENT" ON THIS PLAT, EASEMENTS ARE HEREBY GRANTED TO
THE CITY OF DUBLIN FOR THE PURPOSE OF INGRESS AND EGRESS. WITHIN THOSE AREAS DESIGNATED "SIDEWALK EASEMENT" ON THIS
PLAT, EASEMENTS ARE HEREBY GRANTED TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING AND MAINTAINING PUBLIC
SIDEWALKS. WITHIN THOSE AREAS DESIGNATED "WATERLINE EASEMENT" ON THIS PLAT, EASEMENTS ARE HEREBY GRANTED TO THE CITY
OF DUBLIN FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING A WATERLINE.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, DAN LORENZ, MANAGING PARTNER FOR HAMLET ON JEROME, LLC
HAS HEREUNTO SET HIS HAND THIS
SIGNED AND ACKNOWLEDGED
IN THE PRESENCE OF:
SIGN:
PRINT:
SIGN: _
PRINT:
STATE OF OHIO:
UNION COUNTY:
DAY OF .2019.
HAMLET ON JEROME, LLC
BY:
DAN LORENZ
MANAGING PARTNER
BEFORE ME A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID COUNTY PERSONALLY APPEARED DAN LORENZ, MANAGING PARTNER FOR HAMLET ON
JEROME LLC, WHO ACKNOWLEDGED THE SIGNING OF THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT TO BE THIER VOLUNTARY ACT AND DEED AND THE
VOLUNTARY COMPANY ACTAND DEED FOR THE USE AND PURPOSES HEREIN EXPRESSED THIS DATE OF .2019.
NOTARY PUBLIC
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
THE HAMLET ON JEROME
SUBDI VISION PLA T
STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF UNION
TOWNSHIP OF WASHINGTON (OF FRANKLIN COUNTY), CITY OF DUBLIN
VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NO. 3014
APPROVED THIS
DAY OF
2019
DIRECTOR OF LAND USE AND
LONG RANGE PLANNING
DUBLIN, OHIO
APPROVED THIS DAY OF '2019
CITY ENGINEER, DUBLIN, OHIO
APPROVED THIS DAY OF 2019, BY VOTE OF THE COUNCIL, WHEREIN ALL OF JEROME ROAD,
HAMLET COURT AND ROMA DRIVE, ALL DRAINAGE EASEMENTS, UTILITY EASEMENTS, SIDEWALK EASEMENTS AND
WATERLINE EASEMENTS DEDICATED HEREON ARE ACCEPTED AS SUCH BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO.
IN WITNESS THEREOF I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND
AND AFFIXED MY SEAL THIS DAY OF 2019.
CLERK OF COUNCIL, DUBLIN, OHIO
TRANSFERRED THIS DAY OF 2019
AUDITOR, UNION COUNTY, OHIO
FILED THIS DAY OF 12019
AT AM/PM RECORDER, UNION COUNTY, OHIO
RECORDED THIS DAY OF 2019
AT AM/PM FEE $
IN PLAT BOOK PAGES
S
SURVEY DATA:
Location Map
(Not To Scale)
Fields Dr
—
BASIS OF BEARINGS: BEARINGS HEREON ARE BASED ON THE
BEARING OF SOUTH 54 DEGREES 09 MINUTES 57 SECONDS EAST
FOR THE CENTERLINE OF JEROME ROAD, AS MEASURED FROM
GRID NORTH, REFERENCED TO THE NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF
1983 (2011) AND ESTABLISHED UTILIZING A GPS SURVEY AND NGS
OPUS SOLUTION.
SOURCE OF DATA: THE SOURCE OF RECORDED SURVEY DATA
REFERENCED IN THE PLAN AND TEXT OF THIS PLAT ARE THE
RECORDS OF THE RECORDER'S OFFICE OF UNION COUNTY, OHIO.
IN ADDITION, THE FOLLOWING SURVEYS ON FILE AT THE UNION
COUNTY ENGINEER'S OFFICE WERE USED:
SURVEY RECORD 10, PAGE 19; SURVEY RECORD 13, PAGE 405;
SURVEY RECORD 15, PAGE 120; SURVEY RECORD 16, PAGE 477;
SURVEY RECORD 23, PAGE 199; SURVEY RECORD 23, PAGE 200;
SURVEY RECORD 25, PAGE 8
IRON PINS: IRON PINS, WHERE INDICATED HEREON, UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED, ARE TO BE SET AND ARE SOLID REBAR, 8 INCH
DIAMETER, 30 INCHES LONG WITH A CAP INSCRIBED "ASI PS
8438".
PERMANENT MARKERS: PERMANENT MARKERS, WHERE
INDICATED HEREON, ARE TO BE SET AND ARE SOLID REBAR, 1
INCH DIAMETER, 30 INCH LONG WITH NO CAP.
SURVEYED AND PLATTED BY
AMERICAN
STRUCTUREPOINT
INC.
2550 CORPORATE EXCHANGE DR
SUITE 300
COLUMBUS, OHIO 43231-7659
TEL 614.901.2235 FAX 614.901.2236
www.structurepoint.com
BROW P. -
BINGHAM
8498
LEGEND
0I.P.F.
IRON PIN FOUND (SEE NOTES ON PLAT)
OO P.F.
IRON PIPE FOUND (SEE NOTES ON PLAT)
ff
RAILROAD SPIKE FOUND
oM.N.F.
MAG NAIL FOUND
Q
1" IRON PIN SET (NO CAP)
•
a' IRON PIN SET (W/CAP "ASI PS 8438")
♦
MAG NAIL SET
------- DRAINAGE EASEMENT
SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT
SIDEWALK EASEMENT
STORM SEWER EASEMENT
ACCESS EASEMENT
SETBACK LINE
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE SURVEYED THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE
FOREGOING TITLE CAPTION AND THAT SAID SURVEY AND PLAT ARE ACCURATE AND
CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. MONUMENTS ARE SET AS
SHOWN HEREON. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND DECIMAL PARTS THEREOF.
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR NO. 8438
THE HAMLET ON JEROME
SUBDIVISION PLAT
NOTE "A" - MINIMUM SET BACKS: ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE HAMLET ON JEROME IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF PLATTING SPECIFY THE
FOLLOWING DIMENSIONS FOR THE MINIMUM FRONT, SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR EACH LOT:
FRONT (1 THRU 17): AS SHOWN HEREON
REAR (LOTS 1 THRU 10): 10 FEET
REAR (LOTS 11 THRU 17): 20 FEET
SIDE (LOTS 1 THRU 17): 5 FEET (UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN AND DIMENSIONED HEREON)
LOT 18: PER THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT AND AS SHOWN HEREON
SAID ZONING REGULATIONS AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO PASSED SUBSEQUENT TO ACCEPTANCE OF THIS PLAT, SHOULD BE REVIEWED TO
DETERMINE THE THEN CURRENT REQUIREMENTS. THIS NOTICE IS SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF NOTIFYING THE PUBLIC OF THE EXISTENCE, AT
THE TIME OF PLATTING, OF CERTAIN ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPERTY. THIS NOTICE SHALL NOT BE INTERPRETED AS
CREATING PLAT OR SUBDIVISION RESTRICTIONS, PRIVATE USE RESTRICTIONS, COVENANTS RUNNING WITH THE LAND, OR TITLE
ENCUMBRANCES OF ANY NATURE, AND IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.
NOTE "B": AS PER THE CITY OF DUBLIN ZONING CODE, ALL LOTS WITHIN THE HAMLET ON JEROME ARE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS, CONDITIONS,
RESTRICTIONS (INCLUDING LIGHTING AND HOUSE SIZES) AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS AS OUTLINED IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
ENTITLED "THE HAMLET ON JEROME" AND THE DEVELOPMENT TEXT.
NOTE "C" -SCHOOL DISTRICT: AT THE TIME OF PLATTING, ALL OF THE HAMLET ON JEROME IS IN THE DUBLIN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT.
NOTE "D" -ACREAGE BREAKDOWN:
ACREAGE IN LOTS ----------------------- 5.533 ACRES
ACREAGE IN RESERVES ------------------- 2.015 ACRES
ACREAGE IN DEDICATED RIGHT OF WAY ------ 1.139 ACRES
TOTAL PLAT ACREAGE------------------- 8.687 ACRES
PID:3900150270370
MARYANN DAVIS
I.N.201801300000772
LOT 111
PID:3900150270360
MARK C. RUSSELL AND
LORI S. RUSSELL, TRUSTEES
OF THE MARK C. RUSSELL
AND LORI S. RUSSELL
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
O.R. 911, PG. 390
a" iron pipe w/ cap "MOYSURV7313"
TARTAN WEST SECTION FOUR PART 1
P.B. 5, PG. 140-143
PID:3900150270380
LISA L. CHOUNG, TRUSTEE OF THE
LISA L. CHOUNG REVOCABLE
TRUST DATED 10/23/2006
O.R. 879, PG. 758
LOT 110
EX. 25' NO DISTURB ZONE
P.B. 5, PG. 140
PL _
THE HAMLET ON JER OME
SUBDIVISIONPLAT
STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF UNION
TOWNSHIP OF WASHINGTON (OF FRANKLIN COUNTY), CITY OF DUBLIN
VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NO. 3014
iron pipe w/ cap "HOYSURV7318"
LOT/ROW LINE CURVE TABLE
Curve #
Length
Radius
Delta
Chord Length
Chord Bearing
C1
63.43'
64.00'
056046'55"
60.86'
N69030'48"E
C2
210.76'
51.00'
236046'54"
89.73'
S20029'11"E
C3
12.69'
51.00'
014°15'10"
12.65'
N89013'19'W
C4
85.71'
51.00'
096017'45"
75.98'
S35030'1 4"W
C5
81.61'
51.00'
091040'49"
73.17'
S58029'03"E
C6
30.76'
51.00'
034.33'10"
30.29'
N58023'57"E
C7
61.37'
65.73'
05302943"
59.17'
N61 °54'58"E
0' 30' 60'
SCALE: V=30'
PID: 1700150290000
PIETRO R. IACOBUCCI
O.R. 959, PG. 121
12.2572 AC.
EASEMENT CURVE TABLE
Curve #
Length
Radius
Delta
Chord Length
Chord Bearing
C8
56.42'
45.00'
071"50'19"
52.80'
S71'05'16"W
C9
108.92'
54.00'
115°34'17"
91.37'
N15°12'26'W
C10
20.04'
120.00'
009°34'06"
20.02'
S37'47'39"W
C11
59.04'
35.77'
094"33'19"
52.56'
N80'17'16"E
C12
17.94'
50.00'
020"33'30"
17.84'
N62"42'50'W
C13
77.40'
41.00'
108"0941"
66.41'
S18'54'44"E
C14
18.07'
51.00'
020°18'02"
17.98'
S22°47'40"E
C15
30.46'
51.00'
034"13'00"
30.01'
S50"03'1 VE
PID:3900150270030
THE CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO
O.R. 700, PG. 141
RESERVE"C"
TARTAN WEST SECTION 1, PART 1
P.B. 5, PG. 132-134
NOTE "E" - TAX PARCEL ACREAGE BREAKDOWN: THE HAMLET ON JEROME IS OUT OF THE FOLLOWING UNION COUNTY
PARCEL NUMBERS:
3900150280000 - 7.6559 ACRES (MAP # 1370000020001)
3900150281000 - 1.034 ACRES (MAP # 1370000020000)
NOTE "F" - RESERVES "A" AND "B": RESERVES "A" AND "B" ARE OWNED BY THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND MAINTAINED BY THE
HAMLET ON JEROME HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION.
NOTE "G" - FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION: AT THE TIME OF PLATTING, ACCORDING TO FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
NUMBER 39049CO018K (HAVING A MAP REVISION DATE OF JUNE 17, 2008), AND MAP NUMBER 39159CO395D (MAP REVISION
DATE DECEMBER 16, 2008), THE HAMLET ON JEROME PLAT AREA IS LOCATED ENTIRELY WITHIN ZONE "X" (AREAS
DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE OF THE 0.2% CHANCE FLOODPLAIN).
NOTE "H" - FENCES: NO FENCE MAY BE PLACED IN A "DRAINAGE EASEMENT" AREA. FENCES, WHERE PERMITTED IN THE
HAMLET ON JEROME SUBDIVISION, ARE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPROVED ZONING DEVELOPMENT TEXT
AND THE CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO ZONING CODE.
NOTE "I" - AT THE TIME OF PLATTING, ELECTRIC, CABLE AND TELEPHONE SERVICE PROVIDERS HAVE NOT ISSUED
INFORMATION REQUIRED SO THAT EASEMENT AREAS, IN ADDITION TO THOSE SHOWN ON THIS PLAT, AS DEEMED NECESSARY
BY THESE PROVIDERS, FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ALL OF THEIR MAIN LINE FACILITIES, COULD
CONVENIENTLY BE SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. EXISTING RECORDED EASEMENT INFORMATION ABOUT THE HAMLET ON JEROME
OR ANY PART THEREOF CAN BE ACQUIRED BY A COMPETENT EXAMINATION OF THE THEN CURRENT PUBLIC RECORDS OF
UNION COUNT, OHIO.
NOTE "J" - LANDSCAPE EASEMENT: WITHIN THAT AREA DESIGNATED "LANDSCAPE EASEMENT", AN EASEMENT IS HEREBY
RESERVED TO THE HAMLET ON JEROME HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING AND
MAINTAINING A MONUMENT SIGN AND APPURTENANT LANDSCAPING FEATURES.
THE HAMLET ON JEROME
SUBDIVISION PLAT
`c '
'30'49'W
),?,
j \Leg
2T
z
C
�
O
5
z
N
-'-'-'-'-'-'56.00'-'-'-
m
w
THE HAMLET ON JEROME
SUBDIVISION PLAT
�- S48°52'39"E
1 14.90'
•4'j\
00'25"W
17.32'
n
O
z
z
c
m
0
O
z
m
m
Iv
(NON -BUILDABLE AREA)
EX. 10' UTILITY EASEMENT
O.R. _, PG
-----------------------
i
0' 30' 60'
SCALE: 1"=30'
PID:3900150270030
THE CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO
O.R. 700, PG. 141
RESERVE"C"
TARTAN WEST SECTION 1, PART 1
P.B. 5, PG. 132-134
THE HAMLET ON JER OME
SUBDIVISIONPLAT
STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF UNION
TOWNSHIP OF WASHINGTON (OF FRANKLIN COUNTY),
VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NO. 3014
PID:1700150290000
PIETRO R. IACOBUCCI
O.R. 959, PG. 121
LOT/ROW LINE CURVE TABLE
Curve #
Length
Radius
Delta
Chord Length
Chord Bearing
C1
63.43'
64.00'
056046'55"
60.86'
N69030'48"E
C2
210.76'
51.00'
236°46'54"
89.73'
S20029'11"E
C3
12.69'
51.00'
014°15'10"
12.65'
N89013'19"W
C4
85.71'
51.00'
096°17'45"
75.98'
S35030'14'W
C5
81.61'
51.00'
091-40-49"
73.17'
S58°29'03"E
C6
30.76'
51.00'
034033'10"
30.29'
N58023'57"E
C7
61.37'
65.73'
053°29'43"
59.17'
N61 °54'58"E
CITY OF DUBLIN
EASEMENT CURVE TABLE
Curve #
Length
Radius
Delta
Chord Length
Chord Bearing
C8
56.42'
45.00'
071°50'19"
52.80'
S71'05'16"W
C9
108.92'
54.00'
115°34'17"
91.37'
N15°12'26'W
C10
20.04'
120.00'
009°34'06"
20.02'
S37'47'39"W
C11
59.04'
35.77'
094°33'19"
52.56'
N80°17'16"E
C12
17.94'
50.00'
020°33'30"
17.84'
N62°42'50'W
C13
77.40'
41.00'
108°0941"
66.41'
S18°54'44"E
C14
18.07'
51.00'
020°18'02"
17.98'
S22°47'40"E
C15
30.46'
51.00'
034°13'00"
30.01'
S50°03'1 VE
I
N
I�
IN
I�
I�
I
I
CORAZON DRIVE
- - - - - (p.8.5, PG 132)
I •�
PID:1700150240000
KENNETH R. WERNER
O.R. 889, PG. 44
PARCELI
1.700 AC.
pL �
PID: 1700150251000
CF ARCIS VIII LLC
I.N.201312120004248
TRACT 10
1.905 AC.
THE HAMLET ON JEROME
SUBDIVISION PLAT
19-olOFP -PUD 0 250 500 2
Final Plat
Cl� Of DublinThe Hamlet on Jerome Feet
9341 & 9351 Jerome Road
RECEIVED
Dublin 0 5 �oi9
OHIa. Ia. CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING
This is the general application form for Boards and Comppican
far the application type indicated below. Attach additional sheets If necessary,
o Administrative Appeal
o Admintstrative Departure
0 Amended Final Development Plan
0 Amended Final Development Plan • Sign
o Architectural Review Board
0 Basic Development Plan Review
0 Basic Site Plan Review
0 Building Code Appeal
0 Community Plan Amendment
0 Concept Plan
o Condl600al use
0 Development Plan Review • Bridge Street District
0 Development Plan Review • West Innovation District
o Demolition
9 Final Development Plan
N Final Plat
0 Informal Review
0 Master Sign Plan
0 Minor Modification
o Minor Projed Review
0 Minor Subdivision
0 Non -Use (Area) Variance
0 Preliminary Development Plan/PUD Rezoning
0 Preliminary Plat
D Site Plan Review • Bridge Street District
= Site Plan Review • We Innovation District
o Special Permit
0 Standard District Rezoning
0 Use Variance
0 Waiver Review
0 Wireless Communications Facility
0 Zoning Cade Amendment
ILE CG11
Planning 12017
Case # JL.• 010 FP
PLANNING APPLICATION
checklist with the requirements
U. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Promde iwomradon about
the property including sainting and proposed development.
Properly Adl
93q�,y3s�
Tax IDIPaNelNumtxr(s)
Parcel Sire(s)inhcres
(UstAq: a
jl- .- -I �bf
�UstEatSep areteYy):
169thk
;"iooisni10010103
1AjAuttipIt'i
ExIILand UsoDewsWment: EXISZoologDisold,
Proposed Land WiDevelopment
ProxodZoning Deft
Name (Individual or Organization):
Dgt,ttl.{NjCunA LccrLn�
Mailing Address (StreetN,Clty,State, ZIP): ^
q�I K,"
Emall/PhoneNOW'
5rAiit Toe �jM Emil U
For quesbans or more Informadon, please omtad Manning at 614.410.46001 wxnv.duNln01110 4gou
IV, APPLICANT(5): Complete this section if Ne pereonloivnimbon rep a enti g the applicant( property owner is different from the appliant
Name (Indiv dual orOrganl:abar)
Milling Address (Street, Ory, State, ZIP):
Phone Number:
Emall:
h Not Applicable
Name (Individual or Organization):
Mailing Address (SVK CNy State, ZIP):
Phone Number:
Email)
Not Applicable
I , the properlyowner, hereby aumorae
To ad as my representallveri In all matters pertaining to the processing and approval of this application, induding modification to the
appllcadom I agree to be bound by all representatons and agreements made by the dasignatad representative (listed in Secdons III Alor IV),
Original Signature of Property Avner (led in Section Iq: I Date
Subsolbdand sworn beforemethis_dayof ,ZU_
State of
County of Notary Public
I h.UWjX, the propertyowner oraithoN:edrepresentative, hereby authudreCity
representadves to enter photograph and past a notice on the property described In the apolpidon.
Original 9gnature0Property Owner orAuteorbdRepreserrtdve:�� A � Date.
AAA , _
For quer ionsormore lnlormatlan,plane compact Manning at614,41046001 www dubllnoho.&,gov
Page 3 of 3
VIII. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT: mea seetmn m st Ue uinpieled wuh an original signature and notarized.
Original Document Attached
I y LI`*k k � QV C, _ , the property owner or authorized representative, have read and understand
the consents of this appBabonThe infor lammriainedInthisapplication,ahachedexhibitsandotherinformationsubmittediscompleteand
In all resp¢crstrue and correct m nest of my knowledge and belief,
OhglnalSignatureofProperty Owner orA..uddth.odaedRepresensetive:�
Neal Decldon Due Date
(IfApplicadi
Receipt Number:
Subsmhadand morn before methis Zrdayof Mow ZO�t
Stateof Oah
Countyof FwLGl Notary Public
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
Case Title: R)D- Tui: M�Ct oQ lwgE
lRisdo
Dal d
]15Aq
Case Number: i •OIOFP
Amount Received:
Neal Decldon Due Date
(IfApplicadi
Receipt Number:
Reviewing Pool (Circle One): ART ARA BZA C PZC
Final Date of Detemllnetlon:
No Zone: b. J
Determination or Actlom
Related Cases:
Ordinance Number (If ApplkaMe):
For questions or more Informab'on, please contact Planning at 614,410,4600 1 www.dubllnohioUSA.gov
19-010FP: PUD - THE HAMLET *DANIEL LORENZ
ON JEROME 9341 JEROME RD
DUBLIN, OH 43017
RONALD & DAWN BOOKMYER CHRIS & DAWN RIEDEL ANDREW & ABIGAIL CRUM
9305 DONETELLO DR 9297 DONATELLO DR 9289 DONATELLO DR
DUBLIN, OH 43016 DUBLIN, OH 43016 DUBLIN, OH 43016
LISA ROMANELLI ROGER & LEEANNE BEGGS JORDAN & HOLLY CROWSON
9281 DONATELLO DR 9273 DONATELLO DR 9265 DONATELLO DR
DUBLIN, OH 43016 DUBLIN, OH 43016 DUBLIN, OH 43016
REDDY DUDIPALA DELAWARE COUNTY MARK & MELISSA STEMM
9257 DONATELLO DR COMMISSIONERS 9316 NAPLES LN
DUBLIN, OH 43016 101 N SANDUSKY ST DUBLIN, OH 43016
DELAWARE, OH 43015
SHEREEN SOLAIMAN
MARJORIE KLASS
STACY & DAVID WARNER
9308 NAPLES LN
9300 DONATELLO DR
9292 DONATELLO DR
DUBLIN, OH 43016
DUBLIN, OH 43016
DUBLIN, OH 43016
DAVID & SHEILA JONES
LISA CHOUNG
THOMAS & CHLOIS FLETCHER
9284 DONATELLO DR
9276 DONATELLO DR
9268 DONATELLO DR
DUBLIN, OH 43016
DUBLIN, OH 43016
DUBLIN, OH 43016
MARK & LORI RUSSELL
BONNIE FUSSNER
SHARON POOLEY
9260 DONATELLO DR
6948 CORAZON DR
6932 CORAZON DR
DUBLIN, OH 43016
DUBLIN, OH 43016
DUBLIN, OH 43016
DAVID & MARGHRETTA PIETRO IACOBUCCI LINDA & JAMES ROCK
ZIMPFER 5666 SATINWOOD DR 9420 JEROME RD
6916 CORAZON DR COLUMBUS, OH 43229 DUBLIN, OH 43017
DUBLIN, OH 43016
MATTHEW & HEIDI HALDIMAN
KENNETH WERNER
9388 JEROME RD
9360 JEROME RD
DUBLIN, OH 43017
DUBLIN, OH 43017
CF ARCIS VIII LLC
8070 TARTAN FIELDS DR
DUBLIN, OH 43017
DEL CO WATER COMPANY INC TARTAN WEST HOA EPCON MUIFIELD LLC
10817 MANLEY RD 9054 COTTER ST 500 STONEHENGE PKWY
DUBLIN, OH 43017 LEWIS CENTER, OH 43035 DUBLIN, OH 43017
RON & BECKY RAUSCH TIM & RITA CLARK JEANNE COUSINO
7027 CALABRIA PLACE 6709 VINEYARD HAVEN LOOP 6702 VINEYARD HAVEN LOOP
DUBLIN, OH 43016 DUBLIN, OH 43016 DUBLIN, OH 43016
GREG FREEHAUF
7022 TUSCANY DRIVE
DUBLIN, OH 43016
SHEILA NICHOLS
8826 VENTURA WAY
DUBLIN, OH 43016
RUSSGARDNER
6996 CORAZON DRIVE
DUBLIN, OH 43016
CLYDE WOODBURN
7070 TUSCANY DRIVE
DUBLIN, OH 43016
DANA BEATTY
6988 SANTORI LANE
DUBLIN, OH 43016
JUDY WHALEN
8857 VENTURA WAY
DUBLIN, OH 43016
CARRIE MIDDLETON
9306 BROLLIO VILLA DRIVE
DUBLIN, OH 43016
in; .t(n 11It Ih A�.-1I It
n�blin Planning & Zoning Commission
I'll I Thursday, arch 7.20.916.30 Who
The Foryint add Freh�ragearl 5curesedthe R) IN jonsfassad atdresmsaddi
P16L MIL Fee Oual confirmed
all hall due
Mother 0 YON
JdIF off off
War Frehinan No
Kindintr Sol Year
F� fKn
MandisrefilLnQrLexase
Was
19fal
Final Rod
Tiaposal
doe dubi Of 1) ad ii FOR) 17 singic4annOr closer Ind, one
deal ISO � woread Of When added, and regh:s-alotary Oil Fee Pi
area —he Side Is donstj Planned Unit Dredopi Dinort
Ofer
der Of JaMore Road, Red
approximately ,.opo,
wF�,,.
a0Pool Fred
under nO peoviPlOwn. or OL Ruff Reassul
Real. r
Claudia D road AICREal PlannfrCidnel nine Federal
P16L MIL Fee Oual confirmed
all hall due
Mother 0 YON
JdIF off off
War Frehinan No
Kindintr Sol Year
F� fKn
MandisrefilLnQrLexase
Was
%City of
Dublin
OHIO. USA
2. PUD —The Hamlet on Jerome, 9341 &93S1 Jerome Road, 19-011FDP,
Final Development Plan
3. PUD — The Hamlet on Jerome, 9341 & 9351 Jerome Road, 19-010FP, Final
Plat
Ms. Newell stated this is a proposal for all final details for the development of a residential
community consisting of 18 single-family lots and two acres of open space on an 8.69 -acre site
zoned Planned Unit Development District. The site is southwest of Jerome Road, approximately
1,000 feet south of the intersection with McKitrick Road. The Commission has the final authority
on this application, therefore witnesses will be sworn in. This is a request for a review and
approval of a Final Development Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050.
Ms. Newell swore in those individuals wishing to address the Commission on this case.
Ms. Husak stated that there are two separate case numbers for this project, one is for the Final
Development Plan; the other is for the Final Plat. That is due to the City's application fees for
2019, and Council's request that the two types of applications no longer be combined.
Previously, they have been combined. Because staffs presentation will cover both cases, the
Chair will want to read that additional case into the record.
Ms. Newell read the companion case into the record:
3. PUD - The Hamlet on Jerome, 9341 & 9351 Jerome Road, 19-010FP, Final Plat
Ms. Newell stated that this application is a proposal for the subdivision of 8.69 acres into 18
single-family lots, two acres of open space, and rights-of-way for two public streets on the
southwest side of Jerome (Manley Road) north of Corazon Drive. The site is zoned Planned Unit
Development District. This is a request for a review and recommendation of approval to City
Council for a Final Plat under the provisions of the Subdivision Regulations.
Case Presentation — Final Development Plan
Ms. Husak stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the rezoning application
for The Hamlet on Jerome Road on October 11, 2018 and made a recommendation of approval
to City Council, and in January 2019, City Council approved the zoning for the planned unit
development district. The site is on the south side of Jerome Road just north of Tartan West. It
currently has a single-family home that will be retained. Nothing has changed since the
rezoning, but the Applicant has provided the additional details required for the Final
Development Plan. The two public streets are Roma Drive, which extends to the north, and
Hamlet Court, which accesses all of the lots including the existing single-family home to the
rear.
Landscape Plan:
The Applicant has made changes responsive to Council's request that the landscaping be
enhanced around the open space, including additional amenities, outcroppings and plantings.
On the other side, the Reserve on Jerome Road accommodates the majority of the replacement
trees. Some details of the Final Development include: benches in the open space area, an entry
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 7, 2019
Page 2 of 9
feature sign, and the required consolidated cluster mailbox unit, as required by the United
States Postal Service (USPS) for all new development.
Maintenance Responsibility
During the rezoning review, Council revised the maintenance responsibilities and requested a
graphic depicting the open space maintenance responsibilities in the development. The
Applicant has included that graphic, which shows that the open space including the stormwater
management pond, is being maintained by the HOA. The original proposal was that the City
would provide that maintenance. The City will own all the open spaces.
Staff has been working with the applicant on the finalization of the details. The Final
Development Plan is provided for approval with nine conditions — some landscaping and some
engineering, which will be addressed during the construction drawing phase. Those conditions
include:
1) That the applicant updates the tree survey to indicate all surveyed species;
2) That the applicant work with staff in an attempt to preserve trees #44 and #56 during
construction;
3) That the applicant coordinates the planting of shrubs in larger clusters and in larger beds
to provide visual impact from a distance;
4) That the applicant should also increase the dimensions of the stone outcroppings;
5) That the applicant includes the expected maintenance costs and responsibilities in the
marketing materials, closing documents, and the model home for this development;
6) That the applicant continue to work with Engineering to demonstrate compliance with
stormwater requirements as defined in Chapter 53 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer;
7) That the applicant continue to work with Engineering to investigate the feasibility of
conveying the 100 -year flood routing underground via storm sewers in lieu of overland
flow to eliminate ponding on the undeveloped parcel to the northwest and of
reconstructing the existing section of Roma Drive, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer;
8) That the applicant provide an additional rear yard storm structure between Lots 11 and
12 and provide easement documentation demonstrating that the property owner of the
undeveloped parcel to the northwest is accepting of the proposed offsite grading to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of engineering's final plan of
approval; and
9) That the applicant continue to work with the City and the United States Postal Service to
establish an acceptable location for the cluster mailbox unit.
Case Presentation — Final Plat
The Final Plat is reflective of the subdivision regulations, setting aside the land for the lots to be
built on, as well as the rights-of-way for those public streets. All of the technical information is
included in the Final Plat, as required by City Code. Staff recommends approval of the Final
Development Plan, with the usual condition:
1) That any minor technical adjustments to the final plat be made prior to submission
to City Council.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 7, 2019
Page 3 of 9
Commission Discussion:
Mr. Fishman inquired if it had been determined if the existing single-family home would be
included in the homeowner association.
Ms. Husak responded that that property is not included in the homeowner association.
Ms. Fox inquired about the stormwater drainage and Engineering's concerns. There is an
attempt to divert some of the surface stormwater underground.
Mr. Hendershot responded that the concern relates to the significant amount of ponding that is
occurring offsite to the northwest and running down to this site. Staff is working with the
applicant to minimize the amount of ponding that is occurring, possibly diverting some of that
water overland and to the detention basin to the southwest.
Ms. Fox inquired if any of the drainage issues could be partially addressed with fencing.
Masonry fencing will be permitted in the future along that back lot line of the properties in that
area. Would staff anticipate that the masonry fencing would impact drainage?
Mr. Hendershot responded that in areas where there would be flood routing, there would be a
drainage easement. Fences would be prohibited within those areas to avoid obstructing the flow
of stormwater.
Ms. Fox inquired if staff has any concerns about the ability to mitigate stormwater drainage
issues.
Mr. Hendershot responded that there are no significant concerns. It is important to ensure that
there is proper drainage away from the homes. Flood routing is in place to ensure that up to a
100 -year storm event, ponding does not occur up against the homes. The goal is to minimize
the amount of ponding in the northwest area. It is important to ensure there is no impact to
any future development to the north.
Ms. Fox stated that Council expressed some concern that if there were a heavy rainfall, the
water from the pond could rise to overflow onto the flat berm around the pond.
Mr. Hendershot responded that the basin is sized so that a 100 -year storm event would be fully
contained in the basis. In addition, there is a spillway elevation that would divert the water at a
certain location.
Mr. Fishman stated that the pond is maintained by the homeowners' association, but whose
responsibility is the maintenance of the land around the pond?
Ms. Husak responded that the land around the pond is within Lot #18, which is Mr. Lorenz's
property and his maintenance responsibility.
Ms. Kennedy inquired about the connection of the sidewalk and bikepath in this development to
existing sidewalks/bikepaths within that area.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 7, 2019
Page 4 of 9
Ms. Husak responded that they would be connected. The streets are public, so will have
sidewalks, as required by Code. There is also a bikepath connection through the open space on
the northeast side. There will also be a bikepath along the entire Jerome Road frontage, which
will connect to the Tartan West bikepath.
Applicant Comments:
Dan Lorenz, 9341-9351 Jerome Road, Applicant, stated that the City review process has been
lengthy, and he is ready to begin the project.
Mr. Fishman stated that he continues to have a difficulty with the density. Although the density
includes the existing home on the site, that house is not included in the homeowners'
association.
Mr. Lorenz responded that he would be maintaining three acres, while the HOA will be
maintaining a very small acreage. It did not seem appropriate to include his property with the
HOA maintenance responsibility.
Mr. Stidhem stated that he was removing some of the maintenance burden from the HOA by
not including his property.
Mr. Fishman stated that his concern is that a future buyer of Mr. Lorenz's property would find
that they are included in the density of the entire site.
Mr. Lorenz responded that any future developer of his current property would be required to
pursue City approval through the usual planning and development process, so the Planning
Commission would have significant input in that approval.
Mr. Fishman stated that a separate property should not be included in the density of this
subdivision.
Ms. Husak clarified that the subdivision consists of 18 lots, one of which is comprised of three
acres. Including Mr. Lorenz's property in the density achieves the ratio of two units/per acre.
Mr. Fishman inquired if Mr. Lorenz would be permitted two units/acre, then.
Ms. Husak responded that he would not. His property is zoned as a single-family lot. There are
18 lots, one of which is already developed (Mr. Lorenz's).
Mr. Fishman inquired if Mr. Lorenz could incorporate another 8 lots on his three acres.
Ms. Husak responded that he could not. It would violate the zoning. It would be necessary to
seek a rezoning from the City. In addition, that rezoning would not meet the Community Plan
provisions.
Mr. Lorenz stated that his understanding is that with a Planned Unit Development, it is
necessary to seek City approval.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 7, 2019
Page 5 of 9
Ms. Newell stated that although this lot is much larger than the other lots, they are all part of
the PUD.
Ms. Fox inquired how a property zoned R1 could be part of a PUD.
Ms. Husak responded that relates only to the development standards. Whatever setbacks are
contained in the Zoning Code for R1 is what would be applicable to this lot, while the other lots
have much smaller setbacks.
Ms. Fox inquired about the property maintenance responsibility in one area. Mr. Lorenz already
has three acres to maintain. However, the last lot to the northwest will be part of Subarea A,
and directly adjacent the existing home. That parcel owner will be relying on Mr. Lorenz to
maintain what appears to be his side yard. Is there a reason the maintenance responsibility
does not end at the drive entrance in order to ensure that parcel would have landscaping
similar to the other lots?
Ms. Husak responded that the land is very treed in that area, so it would not be an area Mr.
Lorenz would need to mow.
Ms. Fox stated that on the preliminary landscaping plan, there were ornamental trees both at
the front and the rear of the properties, but they are not included in the final landscaping plan.
Todd Foley, Principal, POD Design, 100 North Woods Boulevard, Columbus, stated that he is the
landscape architect on this project. The Development Text stipulates that every lot is required
to plant a designated amount of trees. At the preliminary development stage, it was important
for them to establish their intent for the lot, to confirm their commitment. City Code requires
two trees per lot, and it is their intent to do so.
Ms. Fox stated that on the final landscaping plan, the trees are not depicted on L-1.1, but are
shown on L-1.4; she wants to ensure the trees will be included.
Mr. Foley confirmed that they would be included. Ultimately, the final design is the purview of
the homeowner, provided it is consistent with the Development Text.
Ms. Fox inquired if the developer would install the trees for the homeowner.
Mr. Foley responded affirmatively. It is a part of the development of each single-family home,
and the homeowner will be required to meet all the landscape standards, one of which is the
placement of those trees on their lot. The trees will be installed as part of the development of
their lot.
Mr. Husak noted that the trees would be reviewed by the City landscape architect in conjunction
with each individual building permit for the homes.
Mr. Fishman inquired who is responsible for putting in the trees. If the trees are not installed,
who is held responsible?
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of March 7, 2019
Page 6 of 9
Ms. Husak stated that the individual homeowner is required to have the trees installed, but their
builder will do so in conjunction with the permitting process.
Mr. Fishman inquired if the builder would make it his responsibility to do the installation.
Mr. Foley responded affirmatively; it is part of the City's permitting process.
Mr. Fishman stated that during the preliminary development review, the closeness of the
properties was discussed. Does one lot's air conditioning unit continue to encroach on their
neighbor's property?
Mr. Foley responded that earlier situation has been addressed. The lots have been sized and the
location of the air conditioning condensers identified appropriately. The hatching in the shown
exhibit shows that space between the lots. There is also a shared maintenance access that
traverses the properties.
Ms. Fox stated that the fencing is permitted to be four -foot high, along the perimeter, and may
be masonry and wrought iron or steel. Masonry encompasses many different materials — brick
stone, manufactured stone. It has been stated that these fences will be permitted to connect. If
different masonry materials are used along the perimeter of these homes, and those fences
connect, how will that mix and match fencing look? She would recommend the use of only one
material be permitted.
Mr. Foley stated that the fencing is permitted only along the rear of the properties. The HOA
design committee will have to review the fences. In addition, a drainage easement runs along
all the properties to the south, so they will not be permitted to have a masonry fence. There are
only a few lots on the north and five on the east with the ability to have that variety of masonry
fences. Their thinking was that a stone or brick fence adjacent to a wrought iron fence is a
complementary combination.
Ms. Fox stated that on the east side, those fences will be visible from the open space area. She
wants to ensure the result will be pleasing. Currently, the masonry wording is a little too vague.
Could it be tightened to avert a problem? Perhaps the HOA architectural design committee will
be able to address that.
Mr. Foley responded that with the size of these lots, they do not anticipate many fences along
the rear, although they are permitted. The HOA architectural design committee will be able to
address the issue.
Ms. Fox requested that an explanation be provided regarding how the usability of the pond was
improved.
Mr. Foley stated that there are topography changes between the cul-de-sac and the pond area,
and the access to the pond needed to be improved. There now is a meandering path to the
pond that transitions that grade, which includes some steps of rock outcropping. There will be a
bench at the pond, surrounded by a flat berm that is a maintained lawnspace. There will be
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 7, 2019
Page 7 of 9
pockets of landscaping in different areas, and trees will be planted around the pond. A fountain
in the pond will provide some ambient noise.
Ms. Fox stated that the bench is a good addition, but if there are no other benches, she is
hopeful that the rock outcroppings will provide additional opportunities for seating, as well.
Mr. Foley responded that they will.
Mr. Stidhem stated that this plan should be used in the future as a good example for how a
pond should be planned and function. In the past, typically ponds in this type of setting have
not offered any way of engaging with the people who live nearby. This is exactly the right kind
of plan for a pond.
Mr. Wilson inquired if the sidewalk on Jerome Road is an existing sidewalk.
Mr. Foley responded that it is not. It is an extension of the bikepath that currently exists in front
of the neighboring property to the east.
Mr. Wilson inquired what the reason is that the sidewalk is not being extended all the way to
the property line on the north end; it appears to stop three-four feet short. The same situation
appears to be true along Roma Drive.
Ms. Husak responded that it is likely a constructability issue. It is not possible to extend it all the
way to the property line without crossing the property line, and that site is not actually in the
City.
Mr. Hendershot stated that the right-of-way extends to the property line. From a
constructability standpoint, it is difficult to tie in that grade without going offsite to do that
work. They will get right-of-way to the property line so that in the future, if that road is
extended, there will be the opportunity to make that connection.
Mr. Wilson inquired if the requirements for the home elevations have been included. Is the City
involved in reviewing those architectural guidelines?
Ms. Husak responded that the Development Text includes the rules for materials, architectural
character, etc. For a subdivision with single-family homes, the Commission would not review
individual homes. Some character images were provided with the Preliminary Development
Plan. Those are part of the zoning and will guide the future architecture. The elevations are
individually reviewed at the Building Permit stage
Ms. Fox reiterated her preference would be that the masonry fencing wording be tightened to
ensure a pleasing appearance.
Mr. Foley stated that they are willing to work with staff to tighten that wording.
Mr. Boggs inquired if the text regarding the fencing line to which she is referring is found in the
Development text or in the Approved Development Plan.
Planning and Zoning Commission DRAFT
Meeting Minutes of March 7, 2019
Page 8 of 9
Ms. Fox responded that it is in the Development Text.
Ms. Newell noted that it states that, "permitted fencing materials shall be limited to masonry
and wrought iron/steel. Wood or vinyl fending shall not be permitted."
Ms. Fox stated that the masonry materials include brick, stone and manufactured stone.
Proposed fences would need to undergo design review, but because they are permitted alonc
the entire backline of the lots on the east side and will be viewed from the open space, some
consistency is desirable.
Mr. Stidhem inquired if she is concerned that cinder block would be used.
Ms. Fox responded affirmatively.
Ms. Newell stated that, actually, cinder block is masonry.
Ms. Fox stated that although that likely would not occur, she is concerned about avoiding
"worst case scenarios."
Mr. Boggs pointed out that the design review section in the Development Text, states that "all
homes shall be held to a high quality design construction. No improvements, change,
construction, addition, excavation or other work or action that in any way alters the exterior
appearance of the lots or common open space shall be commenced or continued without review
and written approval from the Design Committee." That is the H09s mechanism for controlling
that appearance. That language would include approval of fencing materials and how they
would interact with each other from lot to lot. That Development Text has been approved, so it
is the zoning for the site. No fencing plan is mentioned in the Final Development Plan. The
discussion from this meeting and from previous meetings where the Development Text was
reviewed would exist to guide any future fencing requests on this site. However, questions
about fencing are not before the Commission tonight.
Mr. Wilson inquired about the materials used for sidewalks and driveways. The only material
appears to be concrete.
Mr. Papsidero responded that page 17 of the Development Text provides for concrete
decorative unit pavers, brick or exposed wash, or a combination thereof for driveways.
Mr. Fishman inquired if blacktop drives are included.
Mr. Papsidero responded that they are not.
Mr. Boggs noted that the text specifically states that asphalt will be prohibited as a material.
Mr. Stidhem inquired if the applicant is in agreement with the nine conditions.
Mr. Lorenz indicated that he is in agreement with the nine conditions.
Mr. Stidhem moved to approve the Final Development Plan with the following nine conditions:
1) That the applicant updates the tree survey to indicate all surveyed species;
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 7, 2019
Page 9 of 9
2) That the applicant work with staff in an attempt to preserve trees #44 and #56 during
construction;
3) That the applicant coordinates the planting of shrubs in larger clusters and in larger beds
to provide visual impact from a distance;
4) That the applicant should also increase the dimensions of the stone outcroppings;
5) That the applicant includes the expected maintenance costs and responsibilities in the
marketing materials, closing documents, and the model home for this development;
6) That the applicant continue to work with Engineering to demonstrate compliance with
stormwater requirements as defined in Chapter 53 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer;
7) That the applicant continue to work with Engineering to investigate the feasibility of
conveying the 100 -year flood routing underground via storm sewers in lieu of overland
flow to eliminate ponding on the undeveloped parcel to the northwest and of
reconstructing the existing section of Roma Drive, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer;
8) That the applicant provide an additional rear yard storm structure between Lots 11 and
12 and provide easement documentation demonstrating that the property owner of the
undeveloped parcel to the northwest is accepting of the proposed offsite grading to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of engineering's final plan of
approval; and
9) That the applicant continue to work with the City and the United States Postal Service to
establish an acceptable location for the cluster mailbox unit.
Ms. Fox seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Ms. Newell, yes; Mr. Stidhem, yes; Mr. Fishman, no; Ms. Kennedy, yes;
Mr. Wilson, yes; Ms. Fox, yes.
Motion passed 5-1.
Mr. Stidhem moved to recommend approval to City Council of the Final Plat with one condition:
That any minor technical adjustments to the final plat be made prior to submission to
City Council.
Ms. Newell inquired if the Applicant was in agreement with the one condition
Mr. Lorenz indicated he was in agreement.
Mr. Wilson seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Fishman, no; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Stidhem, yes; Ms.
Newell, yes; Mr. Wilson, yes.
Motion passed 5-1.
City of
Dublin
OHIO. usn
19-010FP— THE HAMLET
Reviewing Board
Planning and Zoning Commission & City Council
Site Location
Southwest of Jerome Road, approximately 1,000
feet south of the intersection with McKitrick Road.
Proposal
Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan and
Preliminary Plat
Zoning
PUD, Planned Unit Development District
Property Owner
Melissa Lorenz
Applicant
Dan Lorenz
Representative
Todd Foley, Principal, POD Design
Applicable Land Use Regulations
Subdivision Regulations
Staff Recommendation
A. Approval of FP
Contents
1. Context Map.................................................2
2. Overview......................................................3
3. Proposal.......................................................4
4. Site Plan......................................................5
5. Criteria Analysis............................................5
6. Recommendations........................................6
Case Manager
Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Senior Planner
Current Planning Manager
(614) 410-4675
chusaknc dublin.oh.us
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 7, 2019
Summary
Subdivision of 8.68 acres into 17 single-family Cluster Lots
and one Estate Lot as well as the provision of right-of-way
for two public streets and two acres of open space.
Zoning Map
Next Steps
Upon approval a recommendation from the Planning and
Zoning Commission the final plat will be forwarded to City
Council for review and final approval.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 19-010FP The Hamlet
Thursday, March 7, 2019 Page 2 of 6
1. ■A_—
Southwest of Jerome Road, approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection with
McKitrick Road.
19-FinalP-PUD 0 250 500
FPlat
�.1 of Dublin The Hamletlet Jerome Feet
9341 & 9351 Jea rome Road
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 19-010FP The Hamlet
Thursday, March 7, 2019 Page 3 of 6
A. Case Summary
The site consists of t8.7 acres with approximately 270 feet of frontage along Jerome
(Manley) Road. The proposal is for 17 new single-family lots on two new public streets,
Hamlet Court and Roma Drive, with approximately two acres of open space and one estate
lot accommodating an existing single family home pursuant to the recent rezoning of the
site from R, Rural District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District.
B. Background
On October 11, 2018, Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the
rezoning and preliminary plat. On December 3, 2018, the first reading of this Ordinance was
held and on January 8, 2019, the applicant requested that the second reading be
postponed. The second reading occurred on January 22, 2019. Council members
commented on the proposed open space, density, and maintenance. Council was generally
supportive of the density and welcomed the proposed housing type for this site, but had
concerns about the maintenance costs of the storm water pond and the functionality of the
open spaces. Council approved the preliminary plat at this hearing as well as the rezoning
ordinance accompanying this request.
C. Site Characteristics
1) Natural Features
The site consists of two lots with approximately 270 feet of frontage along Jerome Road.
The site slopes moderately from the western and eastern boundaries towards the center
of the property. A pond is located in the center of the site and the rear of the site is
wooded.
2) Historic and Cultural Facilities
There are no historic or cultural facilities present on this site.
3) Surrounding Land Use and Development Character
• North: Unincorporated, Jerome Township (Residential)
• East: Unincorporated, Jerome Township (Residential and Tartan Fields
pond)
• South: Planned Unit Development, Open Space (Tartan West)
West: Planned Unit Development Residential (Tartan West, Subarea D)
4) Road, Pedestrian and Bike Network
The existing parcels have frontage on Jerome Road. A public road, Roma Drive extends
from Corazon Drive in Tartan West north to the site boundary. A shared -use path is
located to the south within the Tartan West open space.
5) Utilities
All utilities, including sanitary sewer, water, electric, and gas are available at this site.
Both existing homes are served by a septic system. The septic system as well as the
home on the eastern portion of the site will be removed.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 19-010FP The Hamlet
Thursday, March 7, 2019 Page 4 of 6
D. Proposal
The proposed final plat depicts the extension of Roma Drive (public) from Corazon
Drive, in Tartan West, north toward the adjacent parcel. A new public road, Hamlet
Court will provide access to all proposed lots, including the estate lot with the existing
home to the rear of the property. Hamlet Court is proposed to be a cul-de-sac. Open
space with associated landscaping is shown adjacent to Jerome Road to the east and
between the new lots and the existing home. The existing pond will be modified to
accommodate stormwater management for the proposal.
1) Final Plat
The proposed plat is for the subdivision of 8.7 acres of land and includes the creation of
18 single-family lots, two open space reserves and rights-of-way for the extension of
Roma Drive and the creation of Hamlet Court. Lots 1 through 17 are proposed within
Subarea B. The Estate Lot is Subarea A is included as a platted lot as part of the
subdivision. The plat includes street sections and easements, as well as open space
ownership and maintenance, and setback requirements.
2) Lot requirements
The Estate Lot is a parcel in the final plat. The lot is within Subarea A on the western
portion of the site and will be approximately 3.09 acres. Setbacks and development
standards for future modifications are regulated as an R-1 designated property,
according to the Zoning Code. A front building setback is indicated for this lot on the
final plat.
The Cluster Lots in Subarea B are to be a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. The
final plat indicates this requirement is met. The minimum lot width is 45 feet and the
minimum lot depth is 100 feet. The development text requires a front build zone ranging
from ten to 20 feet and requires the home to be within or at the build zone. Front-
loaded garages must be located a minimum of 20 feet from the right-of-way. The final
plat indicates the front setback regulations. The required rear yard is ten feet unless the
lot contains a drainage easement in which case it requires a 20 -foot rear yard setback,
as indicated by the final plat.
3) Open Space
The Subdivision Regulations require the provision of 1.16 acres of open space based on
the 18 units on 8.7 acres of land. A total of 2.01 acres (23%) of open space is proposed
in two reserves.
Reserve A (1.157 acres) includes the storm water management pond and is located in
the center of the development.
Reserve B (.858 acres) is a passive open space adjacent to Jerome Road.
4) Utilities
Public sanitary sewer is proposed along the new streets within the development and
connects into the existing eight -inch public sanitary sewer that was constructed as part
of the Tartan West Section 4 subdivision. The existing septic system will be removed
upon the completion and acceptance of the public sanitary sewer as well as the private
sanitary service to existing single family home within Subarea A in accordance with City
of Dublin, City of Columbus, and other regulatory standards. The applicant has met with
Engineering and the residents within Tartan West Section 4 that is adjacent to this
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 19-010FP I The Hamlet
Thursday, March 7, 2019 1 Page 5 of 6
development to provide an acceptable sanitary sewer connection and alignment behind
the existing single family home within Subarea A. The public sanitary sewer connection
and alignment behind the existing single family home as shown within the application
represents the agreed upon location by all parties.
Public water main is proposed along the new streets within the development and
connects into the existing eight -inch water main that was constructed as part of the
Tartan West Section Phases 1 & 2 development. All utilities are required to be designed
and constructed in accordance with the City of Dublin Standards, which includes
requirements of the City of Columbus.
4. Criteria Analvsis
Final Plat Analysis [Subdivision Regulations]
1) The plat document contains all applicable information and construction
requirements.
Criterion met with Condition. This proposal is consistent with the requirements of the
Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Code. The applicant will be required to make any
other minor technical adjustments prior to Council review. The plat includes street
sections and easements. Any necessary minor technical adjustments must be made
prior to submission to City Council.
+-� .- _ —
—xniuR 'ewni m
�� IE
� •y_ I
.E.�.•> 'I g
4. Criteria Analvsis
Final Plat Analysis [Subdivision Regulations]
1) The plat document contains all applicable information and construction
requirements.
Criterion met with Condition. This proposal is consistent with the requirements of the
Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Code. The applicant will be required to make any
other minor technical adjustments prior to Council review. The plat includes street
sections and easements. Any necessary minor technical adjustments must be made
prior to submission to City Council.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 19-010FP I The Hamlet
Thursday, March 7, 2019 1 Page 6 of 6
2) Street, sidewalk, and bikepaths are in accordance with standards for
improvement and maintenance.
Criterion met. All necessary standards have been provided as part of the proposed
final plat.
3) The proposal includes provisions for all utilities in accordance with
approved standards.
Criterion met. The plat establishes or identifies necessary easements for the
construction and maintenance of all utilities in accordance with applicable standards.
4) The proposal complies with all applicable open space requirements.
Criterion met. Two private open space reserves are platted as part of this
application.
5. R mrnnimendations
Final Plat
The proposal is consistent with all of the applicable review criteria contained in the Zoning
Code and Approval is recommended with the following conditions:
Conditions
1) That any minor technical adjustments to the final plat be made prior to submission to
City Council
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
Held January 22, 2019 Page 6 of 26
mill. nn;als aFe the biggest 6.......byyeF gFe p in the ee nt.y F... the fq 4 stFaig6t. eaF
()wning a heme, having a geed eaFeeF, having paths te FAal% a Wing in mYltl.
POSTPONED ITEM SCHEDULED FOR HEARING
Ordinance 89-18
Rezoning Approximately 8.68 Acres Southwest of Jerome Road, Approximately
1,000 Feet South of the Intersection with McKitrick Road from R, Rural District
to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (The Hamlet on Jerome) for 18
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Mlnures oJ' Dublin City Council _ _ 1lrrrur
WLL811 NW �I10S-UAYI�IY.N110 i..nv..-.
Held January 22, 2019 Page 7 of 26
Single-family Lots and 2.08 Acres of Open Space and a Preliminary Plat in
Accordance with the Subdivision Regulations. (Case 18-030CP/Z/PDP/PP)
Ms. Husak stated that the first reading of this Ordinance was held on December 3, 2018.
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this rezoning and preliminary
plat at their October 11, 2018 meeting. On January 8, 2019 the applicant requested
postponement of the second reading/public hearing to tonight.
The applicant and his team is present to respond to any questions, as well as staff.
• She shared a slide of the process for a PUD rezoning. At this point, the review is
of the zoning that this application establishes as well as the preliminary
development plan. If the rezoning and preliminary plat are approved tonight, the
application moves to the next step -- the Planning and Zoning Commission
reviewing the final development plan for this application.
• She noted that the Tartan West subdivision is to the west and south of the site
and is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District. To the north are large
single-family tracts In unincorporated Jerome Township. To the east are the
Tartan Fields subdivision and the Courtyards at Muirfield Ridge development
under construction in Concord Township.
The preliminary development plan includes a total of 8.6 acres, and the request is
to rezone that site from its current Rural District to the Planned Unit Development
District. The proposal is for 18 lots and the total density is two dwelling units per
acre. There are two public streets proposed: one is the extension of Ruma Drive
and the second is a new public street, Hamlet Court, which would access all of the
new lots as well as the existing lot on the western end of the site.
• The applicant proposes two subareas: Subarea A is the estate lot of one
residential lot on three acres. Subarea B is 17 cluster lots of 5,000 square feet
with a 45 -feet minimum width and 100 -foot depth. The lot coverage for Subarea
B would be 70 percent.
• The applicant is also proposing two reserve areas. There is a total of nearly three
acres of reserves — Reserve B along Jerome Road of about one acre to be owned
by the City and maintained by the homeowners association. This includes setback
areas for more rural roadways as well as tree replacement areas. There is also a
sidewalk from the lots to Jerome Road as well as along Jerome Road. Reserve A is
1.6 acres, which Includes a stormwater management pond that exists today, but
will be modified with this development to take care of all of the stormwater
management for this development.
• In terms of updates since the last reading, the applicant provided additional
information regarding the open space treatment. The details for that will be part
of the final development plan review at the Planning and Zoning Commission, but
the applicant did include some of the inspirational images as well as plantings,
seedlings, etc. for this pond in the packet.
• Finally, a discussion at first reading occurred related to parking for residents as
well as visitors/guests of the residents. The applicant did provide a study that
demonstrates that each of the lots can accommodate two cars within their
garage; two cars minimum within their driveway; and cars can be parked along
the public rights-of-way where hydrants would not be located. There Is a total
off-street parking available of 68 spaces, and the on street spaces would total 33.
• As outlined in the memo, staff recommends approval with 14 conditions as
recommended by the Commission. The applicant has fulfilled many of the
conditions via the plans and updated text. Any outstanding conditions would be
addressed at the final development plan stage. To date, about 70 percent of the
conditions have been addressed by the applicant. In addition, a sewer Issue that
the applicant had with a resident of Tartan West has been addressed.
Staff therefore requests two motions:
1. Approval of the ordinance
2. Approval of the preliminary plat
The conditions listed in the preliminary plat have also been addressed with what is before
Council tonight.
She noted that Mr. Lorenz, the property owner and developer and his team are present
tonight.
Minutes of
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
January 22, 2019 Page 8 of 26
Mayor Peterson invited the applicant and representatives to update Council regarding any
items raised at the last hearing.
Dan Lorenz, 8341 Jerome Road, apolicant/owner distributed a folder of images to
Council.
Ms. Husak noted that she has copies of these materials to display this evening, as well.
Mr. Lorenz stated that it is important to emphasize the quality of this subdivision, based
upon the marketplace wants and needs. The concept of this development is cluster
homes of high quality, requiring low maintenance and having a layered look. They are
being called "cottages." He asked his colleague to provide details.
Dwight McCabe, 7361 Currier Road, Plain City, OH stated that the overall concept of this
is having a streetscape that is much more intimate than a typical subdivision. The
proximity to the street is layered — not just right at the garage or front door. There is
landscaping and features within it that are next to the sidewalk and provide some privacy
and separation from the street. These features also address what occurs between
houses. Having a pleasant street experience in a small, clustered community like this was
the prime principle. In addition, they did not want an environment where all that is seen
upon entering the community is cars parked on the street. These will typically be empty
nester occupants, whose cars will be garaged. He cited Rivers Gate, a project off of
Fishinger Road along the Scioto River as similar In concept in terms of the streetscape.
The other aspect is that the owners have had large homes and now desire maintenance -
free living. There is some uniqueness of this location, including great public space
surrounding this property. There will be limited view of these cluster homes from the
surrounding area. It is designed to be intimate, with private homes of high quality. He
noted there is an Epcon project under construction across the road, and the sales there
are brisk, reflecting the high demand for this type of scaled down housing. This project is
the upgrade to the Epcon product.
Mr. Lorenz added that:
o The Epcon project across the road is three dwelling units per acre and is in
Concord Township.
o There was a question about the interaction between the existing single-family
estate lot home and the cluster homes. The estate lot home is beautiful and adds
to this community.
o The first two slides shown on the screen illustrate the quality of the community
they want to develop on this land. As the millennials move into Dublin and
purchase the larger homes, this development is an opportunity for people moving
out of large homes to remain in Dublin.
o There was a question about access to the pond, so detail was added of a gentle
ramp down to the pond with some stone benches for people to sit on and observe
the pond. This makes the space usable and connected to the community.
o The next page/slide shows the issue of density more broadly. Taking out the
common area, the density would be very similar to areas already approved and in
place in communities surrounding this property. This information was presented to
the Planning and Zoning Commission and they understood the concept and
recommended approval.
o The last page/slide relates to tree preservation. They are losing some trees along
the driveway, losing some trees in order to rebuild the pond to meet stormwater
requirements, and losing some trees by bringing in the sewer line. Aside from
this, the site Is well designed around the existing trees.
He offered to respond to questions.
Ms. Fox stated that this was reviewed at the Commission. His comparison with densities
of surrounding areas indicates the density is fairly typical. However, she measures the
density against the Community Plan and the land use principles. As she reviewed these,
most land use principles in the Community Plan have been met. He has done some
tweaking of the plans, and these can be reviewed by the Commission at the final
development plan. These include the sensitivity to establishing the land use in open
spaces. As a tradeoff for allowing more density, the applicant was asked for something in
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
January 22, 2019 Page 9 of 26
return — creating areas that are designed so that the natural features and the greenway
systems/open systems are really appreciated by those who live in the denser area. She
appreciates the fad that the pond area will be more usable. The Community Plan looks
for social connectivity for development, and this pond area will provide that opportunity.
It needs to be an intentional design element.
She noted that the cost for the City to maintain ponds is a Council policy issue. If the
City continues to add the costs of maintaining private ponds into the annual budget, it
could become burdensome. As for the design, she is looking forward to the next step with
landscaping plans.
Ms. De Rosa noted she appreciates the seating area around the pond. Will it be possible
to walk around that pond?
Mr. Lorenz responded that there is a level area all the way around the pond. [He shared
the view on a slide.] One can easily walk around that flat area. Placing rocks and trees
around the area will give it a park -like feel.
Ms. De Rosa commented that is a change from the last time this was reviewed when it
was indicated it was not feasible to have this walkway.
Ms. Husak noted there is currently no formal walkway around the pond. There is neither
a mulched or paved way around the pond. This relates to the state of the grading and
development. In terms of discussion with Engineering and how this pond will shape out, it
Is not likely there can be a formalized walkway around the pond, based on the grading.
Ms. De Rosa asked for a more definitive response.
Benjamin Miller, P E . 5120 Pleasant Chapel Road Newark stated that as part of the
requirements for the detention basin, there must be a 15 -foot wide maintenance berm.
It is basically flat, so one could walk around it, as it is a grass surface.
Ms. De Rosa commented that the conditions described do not seem to accommodate
walkability around the pond. At the last discussion of the application, there was
discussion of the tradeoffs being made for the density level requested — and that there
would be the ability to have this walkability around the pond. Is it feasible to have a
walkway around the pond from an engineering perspective? If so, would the applicant be
agreeable to doing so in order to make this usable greenspace for the residents?
Mr. Lorenz responded that asphalt would not be possible around the pond, but a mulched
area that can be walked would be suitable. Because of the way this is designed, during a
storm the water could overflow the bermed area. This would create a maintenance issue
for the Association. One of the concepts they proposed was to have the Association
decide if they want to set aside funds to maintain this berm area. If the Association does
not want to do so, it would not make sense to create this walkway. There is a balance
between usable versus not creating a maintenance burden. He is aware that Tartan West
residents are concerned with the costs of the maintenance of the towers on their
development.
Ms. De Rosa recalled the conversation being the higher density was a tradeoff for the
pond space being usable to the residents. She is not certain how this condition can be
added and accommodated, but it would be important to her. She also shares the
concerns expressed by Ms. Fox about the maintenance of this pond. As she understands
the current proposal, that pond would be the City's responsibility to maintain.
Ms. Husak clarified that this resulted from conversations that staff always has with
developers when they come in — with Planning, Engineering, Parks & Recreation — to
determine what makes sense in terms of the City stormwater system as a whole. There
were discussions with the previous Council in the 2014-2016 timeframe, and the
discussions included not only ponds that feed Into the public stormwater system, but also
open spaces within which the ponds are located in — and that these should be maintained
by the City. In the early development review of this application, the open space is not
publicly accessible and Is really accessible only to those living in this area. However, it Is a
stormwater pond that feeds into the public system, and from a maintenance standpoint,
it is very Important that it is maintained, inspected and functions well. This is the basis for
staffs view regarding the maintenance issue.
Ms. De Rosa stated staff provided a memo previously that indicated the mix of ponds
public and private throughout the City and how they are maintained. She is concerned
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes
He January 22, 2019 Page 10 of 26
with the ongoing costs of such maintenance. For a development of this size, she is not
certain the maintenance should be the City's burden.
Ms. Husak responded it is a difficult discussion. Staff often fields phone calls from
neighborhoods much larger that are seeking City assistance with maintenance
responsibilities for the open space, etc.
Mr. McDaniel noted he had shared information with Council about what prompted the
concept of the City taking on more of the pond maintenance responsibilities. The question
is, when this developer hands off the responsibilities for maintenance to the homeowners
association, can they sustain the maintenance required? Typically, when the City has
taken over stormwater maintenance responsibilities it has been the result of a hardship
situation where the association has requested relief from the City for certain maintenance
functions and costs. Over time, as the City has considered and reviewed such cases, one
common theme was that the split of responsibilities seemed to be the mowing
responsibilities, maintenance of hardscapes and trees OR the stormwater maintenance.
Of that list, if a hardship exists, maintaining the ponds was of most interest to the City to
ensure it functioned correctly. Having the right resources and expertise to do this pond
maintenance is critical as it ties into the larger stormwater system. If there was relief
requested due to a hardship situation, the stormwater was the responsibility that staff
would recommend be handled by the City. It was not established as a formal policy, but
there has been clear discussion memorialized in Council minutes. He summarized that the
question is whether this homeowners association will be able to sustain the level of
maintenance this development requires, or will the City be faced with a situation in the
future where the HOA comes forward and indicates the maintenance is too much for this
number of houses to bear and requests relief. He noted that stormwater is an important
item for the City to have engagement in, and it is likely the one piece that the City may
have to take over in the future. He would not be surprised if this HOA at a future date
seeks relief from the City for the pond maintenance responsibilities. Therein lies the
policy question for Council of whether they believe it is appropriate for the City to assume
such maintenance responsibilities.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes added that there is an additional option for maintenance
responsibility division as outlined. There is a clear fourth option of not creating a situation
where a future hardship will exist.
Mr. McDaniel agreed, noting this Is the point he is making about a policy question for
Council. If the request is for the City to assume this maintenance responsibility, or if the
City believes it is appropriate to do so, then the applicant needs to convince Council that
the HOA can sustain these responsibilities into the future; or the City takes it over now;
or there is some other direction given to the applicant.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that the cost of maintaining this pond, including
power to operate the aeration system would total about $4,000 per year. That translates
to $223 per unit. In reference to the Concord Township project under construction, she is
not certain what association their dues will be, given the maintenance responsibilities are
handled by the association. What is the intent for these homes in terms of maintenance?
Mr. Lorenz responded that a budget was assembled for what they believe would be
included in the maintenance. It totals about $250 per month per unit, which is consistent
with the neighbors around their area. In addition, they believe snow removal for
driveways needs to be an option, which would be $50/month additional. The $4,000 pond
maintenance would be another $40 per month per homeowner. The buyers will be given
information about what specific items will be maintained by the association — landscaping
and not hardscape. It includes maintenance of the common areas. The vision is to leave
the decision up to the HOA to decide what they want to include in the maintenance.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes asked staff to show the slide with the roadway network
that includes Roma Drive.
Ms. Husak stated that Roma Drive, as well as Corazon and Hamlet are all public streets.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes asked about Donatello Drive and the last section to the
vacant land. She assumes Roma Drive is intended to connect at that spot, and there will
likely be some more development coming in for the adjacent land.
Mr. Lorenz clarified that the land she references at the corner is to be a future fire station
for Washington Township.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that her concern is with creating a hardship
situation. It is not appropriate for the City to take on the maintenance for what will be
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of _ Dublin City Council Meeting
January 22, 2019 Page 11 of 26
essentially a private pond. If that is the City policy moving forward, there will likely be
many requesting this relief. She asked staff for the total number of ponds in the City of
Dublin and how many are maintained by the City.
Ms. Husak responded that it is approximately a 50/50 split in terms of maintenance by
the City or an HOA.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes noted it cannot be a 50/50 split, as she is aware there are
22 ponds in Muirflield that the City does not maintain. She believes there are 100 ponds in
the City that are not maintained by the City.
Ms. Husak clarified that the open space in Muirfield with the ponds is not owned by the
City. In the other neighborhoods, the open space is dedicated to and owned by the City,
which is a distinguishing factor.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that, regardless, she cannot see how the City could
take on this pond maintenance and afford this in the future. In terms of the layout and
the density, there are not many options given the T-shaped parcels and the roadway
access. But she Is not willing for the City to take on the maintenance and ownership of
the pond, because it is government's responsibility to have a level field and everyone
should participate in the same fashion. If the City is going to maintain this pond, then it
needs to maintain all ponds. For every 18 homes, the expense of annual pond
maintenance cannot be justified let alone the capital costs for long-term maintenance of
the pond. She does not want to create a hardship situation for future homeowners.
Mr. Keenan noted that the City has a difficult time in denying a response for relief in a
hardship situation, as evidenced in past cases. What is the legal recourse for the City for
an association that does not maintain the property?
Ms. Readier responded that the development text lists the responsibilities for the HOA.
From that point forward, the City has no additional technical liability. It is the
responsibility of the HOA. There could be Code enforcement issues if the landscaping
becomes overgrown, based on aesthetics.
Mr. Keenan asked, to the extent the pond is not operating correctly for the stormwater
system, if the City would have any recourse.
Ms. Readier responded if it is impacting to a degree of creating a public nuisance, the City
could correct the situation and place a lien on the property to cover those costs.
Mr. Keenan noted that has never been done previously.
Ms. Husak noted that the applicant did not propose this arrangement for maintenance. It
was based on discussion with staff and the last several developments that have come in
for approval.
Mr. Keenan stated that this is as broader policy discussion for Council — perhaps as a
retreat topic.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes noted that this applicant is unfortunately caught in the
middle of this policy issue.
Ms. De Rosa stated that the challenge is the City is not budgeting for this citywide
maintenance. She agrees with the Vice Mayor that, based on the number of units in this
proposed development, the price of the homes, and the fees that would be needed for
the maintenance, It doesn't seem to be a hardship situation. This should be included in
the homeowner association responsibilities.
Mr. Keenan pointed out that, consistent with history, the homeowners may return to the
City in the future seeking relief. He doesn't object to having the association be
responsible for the pond maintenance for this development. However, going forward, the
overall policy discussion needs to occur and made very clear.
Ms. Alutto agreed this is a policy discussion needed by Council. If the cost for pond
maintenance operations is approximately $4,000 per year, this translates to $20 per
home over and above the other maintenance responsibilities outlined in the budget that
was prepared. Her preference is that the estate property be part of the HOA, but it is
not, based on the current schedule. Another item of concern is the HOA cost breakdown,
and how does that become scalable for cost of living increases over time. Having a Flat
fee schedule would not account for increasing costs in the future.
Mr. McCabe noted that other communities in Central Ohio have taken on this challenge in
different ways. Other cities have water and sewer tap fees, capacity fees, etc., but they
Minutes
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
January 22, 2019 Page 12 of 26
also have a stormwater fee applied for the development project and the funds are
pooled. The basin is constructed to meet not only the City's standards, but is also an
Ohio EPA matter. A stormwater management plan is required to be submitted to the
State of Ohio, and that is the overriding permit that has the enforcement "teeth." The
enforcement falls on the underlying landowner of the stormwater basin. So when the
City takes ownership of the pond, the State of Ohio will look to the City for its
maintenance. This is something to consider as Council determines their future policy.
In addition to the additional stormwater impact fee, some cities actually have an ongoing
assessment. There is an operational fund, but the impact fee is somewhat of an
insurance policy to cover capital needs that arise.
Mr. McDaniel noted that the City has considered establishing a stormwater utility in past
years, and this could be part of the policy discussion.
Mr. McCabe added that there is an evolution of stormwater regulation that continues.
Council is facing a condition that has been growing and compounding over the years. It Is
appropriate to have that dialogue and discussion.
Ms. Fox noted that the City performed a study on pond maintenance and found that there
is an option for powering aerators with solar energy. This reduces the cost significantly.
A discussion is needed about this maintenance citywide, as the capacity for stormwater is
limited, especially as the City is built out. Adding more ponds becomes more of a burden
for maintenance for taxpayers. The developer could be responsible for the initial aeration
system installation, and if it is a solar installation, the power costs would be much less for
operation.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes clarified that the developer is responsible for the initial set-
up of such an aeration system; this discussion relates to the ongoing maintenance costs
for a system.
Ms. Husak noted that the developer pays for the aeration system, and if a City takes on
the maintenance responsibility, the City pays for the electricity to operate the system.
Ms. Fox asked staff for an update on the solar aeration system.
Mr. McDaniel responded that beta testing for these systems began on some ponds in late
2018; they seem to be operating well. Staff will continue to monitor that and implement a
couple more solar systems.
Ms. Alutto asked the applicant to respond to her question about the HOA cost breakdown
and how a flat monthly fee for the homeowners can be maintained over time and
continue to provide the level of service and maintenance described in the budget.
Mr. Lorenz responded the homeowners association will decide what they want to
maintain and manage the budget to do so into the future. The budget represents the
amount of area to maintain and is competitive with the costs for communities around
them.
Ms. Alutto asked if they have considered tying the fees to the value of the home —
making it a percentage of the value of the home. As the homes increase in value over
time, so then would the fees paid for maintenance
Mr. Lorenz responded that the decision regarding fees will be up to the HOA in the future.
He would prefer it be kept a more simple calculation. The homes are all of a similar size.
Mr. Keenan stated that this developer has invested significant time and money in bringing
this project to this point. They have responded to the questions raised by Council. He
believes the matter should be put on the floor for a vote, recognizing that a broader
discussion of the policy issues is needed going forward.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes asked if the applicant is willing to assume responsibility for
the maintenance of the pond — which means the homeowners association would have the
responsibility going forward. Would he be in agreement with adding this as a condition?
Mr. Lorenz responded affirmatively.
Mr. Keenan moved approval of Ordinance 89-18 with the addition of a 15' condition —
that the HOA will assume all responsibility for the pond maintenance and associated
grounds.
Mayor Peterson seconded the motion.
Mr. Lorenz confirmed he accepts this condition.
Minutes
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
January 22, 2019 Page 13 of 26
Vote on the motion: Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mayor Peterson,
yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes.
Mayor Peterson moved approval of the preliminary plat.
Ms. Alutto seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Ms. De
Rosa, yes; Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Fox, yes.
1]A]:RT.:RSZ[f VIfR!1R11T.!n:{'1T..TR.{'lTTJf.\IISC�lr11�11:H]11T.�1�-!1'7.
-T.�'T�R�I:. -
------------
Hill
Mq Mmmi; qt MA that theFe was also signifi east enve,ggtien at the fi Fst Feading abou
the g endmeni. F9 the Development /1g Feement She would like to Fequ. Fti
would be ham..... t addFess questionsFelated to the development a R IRt...
paint in the Fneeting.
------------------
NO W-111011-
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes Of Dublin City Council Meeting
•�•xEn ertorxFns.nevrmv.oxro Fo�s,o,
December 3, 2018 Page 3 of 21
INTRODUCTION /FIRST READING — ORDINANCES
Ordinance 89-18
Rezoning Approximately 8.68 Acres Southwest of Jerome Road, Approximately
1,000 Feet South of the Intersection with McKitrick Road from R, Rural District
to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (The Hamlet on Jerome) for 18
Single-family Lots and 2.08 Acres of Open Space and a Preliminary Plat in
Accordance with the Subdivision Regulations. (Case 18-030CP/Z/PDP/PP)
Mayor Peterson introduced the ordinance.
Ms. Husak presented the background and information regarding the rezoning.
Background:
This Ordinance is a request for review and approval of a rezoning of 8.68 acres from R,
Rural District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (The Hamlet on Jerome) and a
Preliminary Plat for the subdivision of the site into 17 single-family Cluster Lots and one
Estate Lot, two reserves of open space, and the right-of-way for a public street.
• The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this application on October 11,
2018 and recommended approval.
• On June 8, 2017, the Planning and Zoning Commission Informally reviewed and
commented on this proposal. Commission members commented on the proposed
land use, density, site layout, and architectural character. The Commission was
generally supportive of the density and welcomed the proposed housing type for
this site.
• If the rezoning is approved by Council, after the 30 -day referendum period has
passed, the applicant may file for a Final Development Plan.
Description:
The site consists of two lots with approximately 270 feet of frontage along Jerome Road.
The Tartan West subdivision is to the west and south of the site and is zoned PUD,
Planned Unit Development District. There is a street — Roma Drive, off Corazon Drive that
stubs into the site. To the north are large single-family tracts in unincorporated Jerome
Township. To the east are the Tartan Fields subdivision and the Courtyards at Muirrield
Ridge development under construction in Concord Township.
• The Community Plan Future Land Use map provides for a mixed residential rural
transition with a typical density of 1.5 dwelling units per acre. What is proposed is
approximately 2 dwelling units per acre.
• The Planning Commission recommends approval of the slightly greater density,
believing that the proposed quality and character warrants that increase.
Preliminary Development Plan:
The proposal is for 17 new single-family lots and one estate lot accommodating an
existing single family home; one new public street, Hamlet Court; and approximately two
acres of open space. The proposal provides for the extension of Roma Drive from
Corazon Drive, in Tartan West, north toward the adjacent parcel. The new cul-de-sac
public road, Hamlet Court, will provide access to all proposed lots and the estate lot with
the existing home. The proposed homes are targeted to empty -nesters.
Preliminary Plat:
The proposed preliminary plat subdivides 8.68 acres of land into 18 single-family lots and
two reserves of open space. The plat also provides right-of-way for a new public street.
The Subdivision Regulations require the dedication of 1.16 acres of open space, based on
the size of the site and the maximum number of units proposed; however, the applicant
is providing 2 acres.
Proposed Develooment:
The primary use for the development is proposed as single-family detached residential.
The text designates two Subareas for the development. Subarea A includes the Estate Lot
and is required to adhere to the R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District in the
Zoning Code for uses, accessory uses and development standards. Subarea B permits
cluster lots, parks and open space and the text also refers to the R-1 District in the
Zoning Code for permitted and accessory uses. The Estate Lot in Subarea A is permitted
to remain as it is in the proposed development text at a lot size of approximately three
acres. Setbacks and development standards are regulated based on the Zoning Code.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
December 3, 2018 Page 4 of 21
The Cluster Lots in Subarea B are to be a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. The lots
are narrow and short — a minimum lot width of 45 feet and the minimum lot depth of 100
feet. The higher lot coverage is offset with the open space areas.
Architecture:
Two types of homes of village character are proposed, one or one and half stories, lower
maintenance homes.
Open Space
The applicant is providing two reserve areas. Reserve A with Manley Road frontage has
an existing pond in the center of the reserve, which will be altered to accommodate
stormwater management. In total, there are approximately two acres of open space that
will be owned by the City and maintained by the HOA. Maintenance of the pond will be
the City's responsibility. There were concerns about the maintenance of the individual
lots, as there is a significant amount of HOA maintenance within the development,
particularly since the homes are an empty -nester type of product. The applicant was
asked to provide details on the maintenance responsibilities of the HOA versus the
individual homeowner, and that detail was provided. There are a couple of conditions that
relate to that. There are areas that are under common maintenance, HVAC areas.
Reserve B, an open space area adjacent to Jerome Road, will remain a naturalized area
and not an active area.
Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Rezoning/
Preliminary Development Plan to City Council on October 11, 2018 with the conditions
listed below. The applicant has addressed Conditions 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 14 and all other
conditions will be addressed at the final development plan stage.
Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Conditions
1) That the boundary of Subarea A be revised to more clearly align with the lot
driveway, subject to staff approval;
2) That the Estate Lot be included in the preliminary development plan as a lot;
3) That the development text address front yard setbacks for the Estate Lot and
clarify which lot numbers require which rear yard setback;
4) That the applicant work with staff to further minimize the extensive landscape
features on individual lots to be maintained by the HOA;
5) That the proposed development text be clarified to address whether or not the
Estate Lot will be required to be a member of the HOA;
6) That the applicant include the expected maintenance costs and responsibilities in
the marketing materials, closing documents, and model home for this
development.
7) That the development text and the preliminary development plan include access
and maintenance provisions between the homes for the AC units, landscaping
and screening;
8) That sanitary easements be established for the proposed public sewer along the
southwest side of Roma Drive; to the satisfaction of the City Engineer;
9) That the applicant provide a detailed grading plan, including site specific grading
between lots, with the submission of the Final Development Plan to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer;
10) That the applicant continue to work with the United States Postal Service (USPS)
and staff to determine an acceptable location and unit type of the duster mailbox
units
11) That the applicant continue to work with the City and the adjacent property
owner to the northwest of Reserve B to either acquire temporary grading
easements or to regrade Reserve B in order to provide positive drainage, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer
12) That the applicant provide additional grading information along reconstructed
Roma Drive to determine if temporary grading easements are required to provide
positive drainage; to the satisfaction of the City Engineer;
13) That the applicant continue to work with Engineering to demonstrate compliance
with stormwater requirements as defined in Chapter 53 to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer; and,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
December 3, 2018 Page 5 of 21
14) That the applicant continue to work with Engineering to determine an alternative
sanitary alignment to connect to the existing sanitary sewer located at 9284
Donatello Drive in order to minimize impacts to existing trees.
The Planning and Zoning Commission also recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat
to City Council on October 11, 2018 with the conditions listed below, which have been
met with this submission to City Council:
1) That the applicant make any other minor technical adjustments prior to Council
review•,
2) That the plat include the Estate Lot on the plat as a lot and address setback
requirements; and,
3) The applicant will need to revise the plat to identify maintenance responsibilities
for the two reserves prior to review by City Council.
Staff recommends City Council approval of both the rezoning and the preliminary plat at
the second reading/public hearing on January 8, 2019.
Council Ouestions:
Ms. Fox requested clarification of where on -street parking will be permitted.
Ms. Husak responded that the zoning code requires that the development accommodate
two -car garages, as well as two spaces in each driveway, and parking is permitted on one
side of the street -- on the side without a fire hydrant.
Ms. Fox inquired how many parking spaces would be possible on one side of the street,
given there are six houses and parking is not permitted at an intersection.
Ms. Husak responded that the lot sizes are a minimum of 45 feet, which would likely
accommodate two cars.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes inquired what is the driveway width — 22 feet?
Parking is not possible in front of a driveway, so the available on -street parking space
would be limited to approximately 22 feet.
Ms. Husak responded that it might actually be 16-18 feet.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that, typically, the garage door width is 16 feet, and
there would be an additional couple of feet on each side, resulting in a 20 -foot driveway.
Of the 45 -foot lot width, approximately 25 feet would be lost with the driveway, including
the driveway apron.
Ms. Fox stated that Planning and Zoning Commission was concerned with the closeness
of these units, and available parking space was one of the related issues. There are
concerns about adequate parking for the residents; in addition, there is visitor parking
only on one side of the street. Does that permit two-way traffic on the street?
Ms. Husak responded affirmatively.
Ms. Fox stated that regarding the HOA versus homeowner maintenance, her
understanding is that the homeowner is to provide maintenance of all fences, screening
walls, retaining walls and pillars on their property. However, there are retaining walls
between the properties — how is that responsibility addressed?
Ms. Husak responded that the graphic of the maintenance responsibilities provided by the
applicant indicates that although these are single-family lots, the maintenance is handled
similar to that in condominium developments. In the graphic, the pink areas are
maintained by the homeowner; the hatched areas between the homes are maintained by
the HOA, as well as the green areas.
Ms. Fox inquired if that is exclusive of the AC units.
Ms. Husak responded that the HOA is not responsible for the functionality of the AC unit,
but they are responsible for the area around the AC units.
Ms. Fox noted that the estate lot does not participate in the HOA. The 17 homes are
subject to the architectural design guidelines. Do the HOA responsibilities apply to the
estate lot?
Ms. Husak responded that they do not apply.
Ms. Fox stated it was indicated that If alterations were made to the home on the estate
lot, the alterations must adhere to some of the guidelines. However, there is no design
review committee.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meetmg
6ARRErt B&OlI1F.0.4UAttON.0lIID �wn810
Herr December 3, 2018 Page 6 of 21
Ms. Husak noted that the alterations also would not be subject to the zoning code, as the
home was built before the related code was passed.
Ms. Fox stated that her issue is that this development is proposed as a planned unit
development encompassing eight acres. It allows for a higher density based on the eight
acres, yet three acres are being carved out for one parcel, the estate lot remaining as a
single-family home. The remaining burden on the other five acres becomes 3 dwelling
units per acre, not 1.5 dwelling units. The Community Plan provides the expectation to
conform to density requirements. Although an 8 -acre development would be conforming,
a 5 -acre lot with 17 units would not. She views this as a 5 -acre planned unit development
(PUD).
Mayor Peterson requested clarification of the density for the three -acre, estate lot versus
the remaining five acres.
Ms. Husak responded that the first subarea is one unit per three acres; the second
subarea is three units per one acre.
Mayor Peterson inquired if the three acres is considered private property, not available to
the remaining development for walking purposes.
Ms. Husak responded affirmatively.
Ms. De Rosa inquired if there are walking paths around the pond.
Ms. Husak responded that at this point, those types of details are not available, as they
are reviewed during the Final Development Plan stage. At this time, paths are not
planned.
Ms. De Rosa stated that the available green space is therefore smaller.
Ms. Husak stated that there is a walking path planned where Roma Drive currently
deadends, leading to the east and out onto Manley Road.
Mayor Peterson stated that the end units to the right of Roma Drive have no need to walk
down to the end of the street.
Ms. Husak responded affirmatively.
Ms. De Rosa stated that was her concern — whether the pond would be an active space.
At this point, it is not.
Ms. Husak responded that is correct, but those details are typically worked out in the
Final Development Plan stage. There may be benches and a path, but it is not likely to
be a paved path.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes asked if the front facade of these homes is permitted to
have a 40% coverage garage.
Ms. Husak responded affirmatively.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that half of the view of these homes from the street
will therefore be of garages.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that a tree survey was included in the materials.
The second half of the survey stated only "tree" and a size. No species of tree was
indicated. Was this area researched for landmark trees? Some of the tree calipers
indicate that they might be trees of age, but without knowing the species, it would be
difficult to determine.
Ms. Husak responded that, at this point, the applicant has not indicated plans to do
anything other than replacing the trees per code. That is also typically defined at the
Final Development Plan. The Preliminary Plan stage requests only a tree survey.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that it appears that there are plans to remove a
significant number of large trees. Given all of this acreage and the fact that only a small
portion of it will be used, why wasn't the development designed around some of the
existing trees or more attempt made to do so? It appears that there are areas without
existing trees that aren't being used, while the development is using areas with large,
highly desirable trees of good quality. She is not very encouraged by this site planning,
which seems to disregard the natural features and the drainage.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes asked about the pond -- are the power and the aerator
supplied by the City, as well as all of the pond maintenance?
Ms. Husak responded affirmatively.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes responded that she cannot support this plan, largely
because this is essentially a private pond. There will be 18 units on this site. If the City
built a pond and provided its aerator, power, and treatment for every 18 residential units
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes oJDublin City Council l iorrung
BNAEI PBsmfiJB.O�VtBA.ON�Oa"..`
December 3, 2018 Page 7 of 21
in this City, there would be nothing remaining in the Operating Budget. As proposed, this
will be a significant expense and burden to the City to benefit three to flve homes. She
has requested staff to provide an estimate of that cost. This would burden the City for
this development's drainage solution into perpetuity. Accepting that burden is not a
judicious decision for the rest of the City. She does not believe this development has
been designed in the best manner for the taxpayers.
Mr. McDaniel responded that in the past few years, the City has taken on more of the
stormwater retention responsibility. There have been cases where the City has taken
over the actual aeration and operations of some of the stormwater systems. When staff
responds to the request she submitted earlier today, they will include that information, as
well. The City's actions have not been consistent, but are responsive to the hardships
and issues that have occurred. With this development, staff has attempted to be
proactive in regard to stormwater retention.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes responded that she understands that but does not believe
that for this number of units, that expense would be justified. She does not believe that
is the practice the City should adopt, as it will become increasingly burdensome. There is
a large amount of property to the northwest that will likely develop in a similar fashion.
If this becomes the City's practice, It will be problematic.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes referred to the slide image of the two homes side-by-side —
typically, these corridors become very unsightly. In a ten -foot area between two
buildings, It is not possible to grow a standard turf. Ultimately, these areas are mulched,
graveled or covered with something more unsightly. Therefore, some cluster home
communities put in a wing wall on opposite directions, which breaks up the sight view
down the corridor. The meeting minutes reflected some discussion about stone columns,
but she did not see any stone columns in the renderings. Are wing walls proposed at the
ends of these units?
Ms. Husak responded that the small squares in the renderings are intended to depict
those columns, which would be an option for the homeowner, not a requirement. The
white line on the rendering depicts a wall where there is a step down to the AC unit. The
wall is intended to hide the view of the AC unit or the landscaping/mulch In that area. It
is also intended to extend across the property line and meet both building walls.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that it would make it very difficult to replace the AC
unit. She would suggest, instead, a wing wall that would extend three-fourths of the
distance at the end of each. With that, access remains possible. Although grass and
plants are depicted in the drawings, with this alignment there would be no sunlight in
that area, which ultimately leads to gravel or mulch.
Ms. Husak noted that is one of the details that staff has been attempting to address.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes noted that Condition #14 reflects an attempt to change the
sanitary sewer alignment to reduce the impact to existing trees. How has that been
addressed?
Ms. Husak responded that the adjacent home contains stormwater structures within the
yard. When Tartan West was planned, the intent was for this site to be absorbed into
Tartan West development with this home's yard accommodating the stormwater
management. This homeowner presented a plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission
regarding his preference for the utilities layout. Staff and the applicant have visited that
site numerous times to meet with the homeowner to determine where that sanitary line
should be in order to minimize the structures in his yard and to minimize tree removal.
Although some tree removal will be necessary to install the sanitary line, the resident is
satisfied with how that will be addressed.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes inquired if there will be no need for that along Roma Drive.
Ms. Husak responded that is correct.
Ms. Fox noted that if this site plan is approved as laid out and the estate lot is sold in the
future, to what criteria would that parcel be subject? Would it be subject to this rezoning
with 2.0 dwelling units per acre, or would the parcel be treated as an RS?
Ms. Husak responded that it would be treated as an RI, but under the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) zoning. The PUD has standards for that lot, but they defer to 111.
Ms. Fox asked if there was desire in the future to develop the estate lot similar to the
other side of the property, could it be done?
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Mee
M Zn 3R 11M -DAYTON. M10 far
Held December 3, 2018 Page 8 of 21
Ms. Husak responded that it could not, unless that property owner requested an increase
in the density permitted for that parcel through PZC and City Council.
Ms. De Rosa inquired if this particular PUD is comprised of two zonings.
Ms. Husak responded that the PUD contains two subareas, one with the R1 zoning and
one with the zoning standards for cluster lots.
Ms. De Rosa inquired in which subarea does the retention pond lie.
Ms. Husak responded that it is located in Subarea B, which contains the cluster lots.
Applicant Testimony
Dan Lorenz, 9341 Jerome Roadstated that he is the property owner and developer.
With him are the civil engineer, the landscape designer, an architect for the Hamlet
design concept, representatives from Corinthian Homes, the proposed builder, and also
their sales manager. He noted the following:
• He purchased this property in 1996-1997, moved in in 1998, rezoning it into
Dublin, and their children have grown up there.
• In 2008, the area began to develop around them. At his point, they have more
land than they want to maintain, so instead of selling it and moving away from
Dublin, they have decided to develop it as affordable housing for other empty
nesters, so they do not have to leave Dublin.
• Over a year ago, development -related discussion began, and an informal review
by PZC last May received a positive response after which they have invested in the
details of the development.
• In regard to the parking in the proposed development, in addition to the two -car
garage, two cars in the driveway and one to two cars on the street, there is a
staging area along Roma Drive that could accommodate approximately 15 cars.
They can forward more detailed information to Council on how many parking
spots are available there.
• In regard to shared maintenance, after helpful conversations with staff who are
experienced with this issue, a plan has been developed. They can continue to
work with staff to develop and provide greater detail, however. The intent is for
these residents to have maintenance -free living within a quality environment
consistently maintained by a landscape contractor, and all for an appropriate HOA
fee.
• Regarding the comment that the plan is not well developed in view of the trees
and drainage, he disagrees. He is a civil engineer and has built 6,000 sites. A
significant amount of time was spent on this design. He invites Council members
to visit the site and view how it has been designed around the trees. Staff has
visited the site several times to determine how best to accomplish this. Referring
to a rendering of the plan, he pointed out three large trees that they have worked
to accommodate in the design. The area where the homes will be built is an open
field, but there are some existing trees along their driveway that they will lase.
There are also trees around the pond, but they are required to re -structure that
pond to meet City standards.
• In regard to drainage, the homes are close together and they cannot skimp on the
drainage. That is one of the biggest concerns of landowners — ensuring that the
drainage works appropriately. He believes that is the reason that the City has
asked to maintain this pond — to ensure it is maintained appropriately and there is
no future liability with the landowners. A significant amount of grading detail
around this pond is required to ensure that everything works appropriately and is
safe. The pond has to be re -built to meet the current needs and concerns.
• In regard to the concern about his parcel not being included in the HOA, they
believe this is the fairest solution, due to the amount of land needed to be
maintained on the estate lot. The HOA members would be paying only for the
maintenance of their subarea.
Mayor Peterson requested clarification of the density issue. One would assume that the
density would be determined for the entire parcel, and that the open space would allow
the units to either be fewer or spread over a greater area, so that all of the units would
enjoy all of the property on the development. The way it is proposed, the three acres
and the pond -- if there are no paths -- are separate. It seems as though there are two
Minutes
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
December 3, 2018 Page 9 of 21
halves, and all of the houses are crowded onto the right half, and all of the open space is
on the left half, and the two are not to co -mingle. Although the "yellow area" is counted
in the density, it is not common space.
Mr. Lorenz responded that they decided to handle it in that way In order to reduce the
area the HOA was required to maintain. The intent was to have the HOA area include
only area of value to them. In regard to the pond, there will be a bench area around the
pond. The residents will be able to walk around that area and enjoy the pond. Walking
to the pond will be possible, as there will be sidewalks on both sides of the street. They
worked with staff on the objective of providing that safety and connectivity. Looking at
the greater area surrounding the development site, there are also pond areas within
Tartan West with surrounding walking paths. That adjoining area will also be an amenity
for the proposed development.
Mr. Reiner inquired if the intent is to put slab boulders around the lake, as depicted in the
rendering, to pull in that edge.
Mr. Lorenz responded that the goal is to create a place to sit and enjoy the pond;
however, the wall of boulders will not surround the entire lake.
Mr. Reiner inquired if gravel or other materials would be used in the other areas that will
slope to the pond edge.
Mr. Lorenz stated that at this point, there is just existing grass. They have not reached a
greater level of detail, but it can be provided when available, if Council desires.
Ms. Alutto inquired if the area to the southeast is dedicated greenspace within Corazon.
Ms. Husak responded affirmatively.
Dwight McCabe, 7361 Career Road, Plain City, stated that he concurs with the comments
about the spacing between the homes. Driving through different communities, he has
taken pictures of the areas between the houses. Regardless of the width, from a zoning
viewpoint, those are areas that are typically not used well. His goal is to address those
areas in a more useful manner. When moving houses together, it is important to make a
separation all the way from the street. Wing wall separators have been mentioned, and
that reflects their mindset, as well. However, for these houses they are most interested
in creating a layering from the street. When the houses are very close together, it is
desirable to create a walkable place on the street itself. This makes the houses more
intimate. The purpose of having these walls that are closer to the sidewalk is to bridge
that gap. Behind that wall, planting materials will be provided at the front edge of the
housing units. When that grows, It won't be possible to view the space in between. The
goal is to see something of interest all the way down the sidewalk — building face and
landscaping. From the streetscape point of view, the primary objective is not to have that
in-between space. The second objective is to make it simple for a homeowner to maintain
their AC equipment, and that will also be addressed.
Mr. Reiner stated that he understands the intent to break off the corridor space. The
graphic depicts plant materials, including a tree; have they developed that thought any
further?
Mr. McCabe responded that this plan was for the rezoning. The Final Development Plan
will have greater detail. However, they have completed projects elsewhere that
successfully accomplished this concept. In some of those projects, there have been walls
all the way across the face of the housing units; he does not see that occurring for this
development. They have had discussions concerning where to create breaks to reduce
the walls, mindful of not creating any ongoing homeowner expenses, but tailored to the
needs of this type of community.
Mr. Reiner stated that sometimes actual walls can be used, sometimes plant materials. Is
the intent to use primarily plant materials?
Mr. McCabe responded that is not the case. There will be some permanent walls on the
elevations that are not possible to clip out, as can occur with plant materials.
Ms. Fox stated that because all of the density is in the five acres, is it possible to
incorporate better uses of the pond space and green spaces. At an earlier P&Z meeting,
some Commissioners suggested a fire pit or a small dock. She understands that the
other acreage is an estate lot, but is there any reason the greenspace can't be made
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council Meering
JM-.A1"N.ONIO f.ew
December 3, 2018 Page 10 of 21
more incorporating and usable for the other 17 homes, not just a stormwater retention
pond? It would feel more like a planned unit development than it currently does.
Mr. McCabe responded that Mr. Lorenz would have preferred to shrink his remaining
property. He is undecided about how long he will remain in that large house; he may
eventually decide to downsize. While reducing his space would have been preferable, the
dilemma is that there is actually a stream that runs through that area that creates a very
solid demarcation, and the stream cannot be touched. From a jurisdictional point of
view, it has to remain as it is. During their planning process, new EPA regulations were
issued and their permits have been revised. The volume of that basin increased because
of jurisdictional and permitting matters. Due to the increase, extensive berming from the
stream bed to the pond must be constructed before the retention pond construction can
be done. There is an approximate 22 -foot fall across that distance — a dramatic
landscape to be able to construct the required retention basin. The size of the basin has
to be increased significantly due to the retention requirements. The pond currently
handles the stormwater runoff from the property to the northwest. When that property
develops, it will be required to have its own stormwater retention, but for now, this basin
must be larger to accommodate the runoff from the property to the northwest in addition
to the 17 new housing sites. Ultimately, this basin will be oversized. Absent that
stream, the new development could have been closer to the estate home.
Mr. Lorenz stated that there was concern about building any structures around the pond,
because the new homeowners would have to pay for the maintenance of those
structures.
John Kirk. 8136 Flynn Lane, Dublin, REMAX Premier Choice, stated that he has been a
real estate agent for 21 years in Dublin.
• In regard to the parking, the clientele who are looking for these types of homes
typically consist of two residents per home, not families, where there would be
multiple residents in the home with multiple cars. Primarily, there will be garage
parking.
• In regard to maintenance of the common areas, the biggest Issue for subdivisions
is when the homeowners have different lawn care companies who perform their
work different hours and different days of the week. There is lawn equipment
parked in the subdivision much of the time. The maintenance in this community
Will be done one day of the week. This will eliminate the need for vehicle traffic
to weave in and out of parked maintenance vehicles.
• In addition, the homes on the north side will have courtyard garages, which will
allow more driveway space.
• The clients for this community do not want large yards, nor are they looking for
additional amenities because they do not want the amenity costs. They are
looking for a lifestyle. Many of the people interested in purchasing this type of
housing product will not be in the home more than 50% of the time, as they go to
Florida during the winter months. In the summer they travel as well, so some
would be there even less time. There won't be the parking issues that can occur
in a normal subdivision.
Ms. De Rosa stated that she served on the Planning and Zoning Commission when their
informal review occurred. Some changes in density have been made since that first
hearing. Could the road that leads from the cul de sac to the estate home potentially be
moved to create an opportunity for less density?
Mr. McCabe responded that they would have preferred that; in fact, the plan initially had
more units in this area, but the Issue was the stormwater retention basin. The slope of
the grade between the northwest edge of the basin and the driveway is 4:1, the
maximum permitted. With that, the driveway would be at the elevation of these homes.
When it rains, the water level in the basin increases. There has to be a certain elevation
for this to work, and that is where it is. An attempt was also made to place the cul de
sac further to the West, but that did not work, either. There also has to be a minimum
slope from the edge to the cul de sac.
Ms. De Rosa stated that it would seem the only other alternative would be placing less
units in the area.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
BARKER..E.0. ....H. F-6101
December 3, 2018 Page 11 of 21
Mr. McCabe responded that a minimum number of units is necessary to make the project
financially feasible. With the loss of another unit, there would be no project.
Ms. Fox stated that her understanding is that along the street there is a one -foot drop of
the roofline, sloping towards the pond. Moving down the street, there is a sense of
orientation toward the pond, due to the 4:1 slope in that direction. Is the pond visible
from the street or located below view?
Mr. McCabe stated that the pond is not visible from the street due to the slope. The view
would be of the mature trees to the west. Currently, Mr. Lorenz has a view of the pond
from his home. After the berming is constructed, his view also will be eliminated.
Ms. Fox inquired what the view would be midway up that street.
Ben Miller, 5120 Pleasant Chapel Road, Newark, Ohio, stated that he is a civil engineer on
this project, and he designed the utilities and grading. The view from the street would be
of the existing tree line that follows the creek -- all of the existing trees will remain along
the creek. There is an approximately 30-35 foot fall from Jerome Road down to the
creek. At the end of the court, it will be possible to look down into the pond. The drop
from the cul de sac to the pond is approximately six to eight feet.
Mr. Reiner inquired if the slope to the creek is maintainable.
Mr. Miller responded affirmatively. The pond is designed to meet the City's stormwater
design requirements for the pond, which is the 4:1 maximum slope.
Mr. Reiner inquired if the existing trees along the creek would be impacted by the
construction related to the stormwater retention pond modifications.
Mr. Miller responded that the top of the existing bank of the creek was used as a starting
point, so none of the natural features there will be impacted. Per City requirements,
there will be a 15 -foot maintenance berm all the way around the pond that is essentially
flat, so there will be pedestrian accessibility to the pond.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes inquired if the normal level of the pond would be
approximately 20 feet lower than the back of the curb.
Mr. Miller responded that it is 10 feet from the normal water level to the maintenance
berm and there is about five feet of storage, so it would be approximately 15 feet from
the water level to the right-of-way line.
Mr. Lorenz noted that there won't be an island in the middle of the cul de sac. Staff did
not want that due to the maintenance needs.
Mr. Reiner stated that over the years, the City has experienced numerous issues with
existing HOAs not being sufficiently funded for needed maintenance projects, so they
later have requested assistance from the City. The HOA fee with this development will be
$249 per month. It would be preferable for the HOA to maintain water features in the
future, rather than the City. The City would like new projects to be planned accordingly.
It is a huge expense for the taxpayers to maintain private ponds. In fairness to taxpayers,
it would be good if that cost could be covered by the HOA.
Vice Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that, recently, there were also some underground
water storage solutions required along Coffman Road.
Mr. Miller responded that is acceptable. It was staff's direction that the City preferred to
handle the stormwater retention pond maintenance. If the HOA is going to be
responsible for maintaining it, it will be designed to avoid the need for future dredging.
There will be a second reading/public hearing at the January 8, 2019 Council meeting.
M+...r PeteFs. n Fn ed b... Ai... the c9 neil D hg of OFder F.. AddFegg OFdi..A. eeq go -I0
thFough 95 18 tegetheF.
Ms U40 g_ onded the .notion
\I ate -the Fn Viee Player 6...eFese MGFem^ , Mayor Peterson i Me AI Mn
Pis. CM
w r. r De Porgy yes. M
r Relner. Mr Keenan,
The Clerk reed the nArnes of the folloyAno n here, owners and their addresses into the
record
RECORD OF ACTION
Citvaf
Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
oeio. USA Thursday, October 11, 2018 16,30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the fallowing proposal at this meeting:
1, R- The Hamlet on Jerome 9341&9353 Jerome Road
18.030CP(i(PDPIPP Concept Plan /Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan
Preliminary Plat
Proposal; Rezoning from a Rural District to a Planned Unit Development District
with a Preliminary Development Plan for a residential community
consisting of one existing single-family lot and 17 new single4mily lots;
and a Preliminary Plat for the subdivision of appmInnately8,6 acres,
Location: West of Jerome Road, approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection
with Mcrlrck Road,
Request: Review and Informal feedback on a Concept Plan; a review and
recommendation of approval to Cry Council for a Rezoning with a
Preliminary Development Plan under the provisions of toning Code
Section 153,050; and a reoww and recommendation 0 approval for a
Preliminary Plat, prior to a formal review by City Council under the
provisions of the SubdNlsion Regulators,
Applicant: Daniel E, Lorenz, represented by Todd Foley, POD Design
Planning Contact; Claudia D, Husak, AICP, Senior Planner
Contactlnformatan; 614,410,4675, chusak@dublin,oh,us
Case Information: www.dublinohicusa.gov/pzc/18.030
MOTION #1: Mr, Stldhem moved, Mr, Miller seconded, to recommend approval to qty Council far a
Rezoning coupled with a Preliminary Development Plan with 14 conditions:
1) That the boundary of Subarea A be revised to more cleary align with the lot
driveway, subject to staff approval;
t) That the Estate Lot be Included In the preliminary development plan as a lot;
3) That the development tett address front yard setbacks for the Estate Lot and clarify
which lot numbers require which rear yard setback;
4) That the applicant work with staff to further minimize the extensive landscape
features on Individual lots to be maintained by the HOA;
S) That the proposed development text be clarified to address whether or not the
Estate Lot will be required to be a member of the HOA;
Page 1 of 3
PLANNING 580 Shier Ring Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614,410.4600 fax 614.4104747 Wei
L R- The Hamlet on Jerome 934199351 Jerome Road
18.030CPIZIPDPIPP Concept Plan/ Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan
Preliminary Plat
6) That the applicant Include the expected maintenance casts and responsibilities in the
marketing materials, closing documents, and model home for thisdevekpment;
7) That the development text and the preliminary development plan include access and
maintenance provisions between the homes for the AC units, landscaping and
screening;
8) That sanitary easements be established for the proposed public sewer along the
southwest side of Roma Drive; to the satisfaction of the Oty Engineer;
9) That the applicant provide a deralled grading plan, Including site specific grading
between lots, with the submission of the Final Development Plan to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer;
16) That the applicant continue to work with the United States Postal Service (USPS) and
staff to determine an acceptable location and unit type of the cluster mailbox units;
11) That the applicant continue to work with the City and the adjacent property owner to
the northwest of Reserve B to either acquire temporary grading easements or to
regrade Reserve Bin order to provide positive drainage, to the satbfaci of the
City Engineer;
12)let the applicant provide additional grading information along reconstructed Roma
Drive to determine if temporary grading easements are required to provide positive
drainage; to the satisfaction of the City Engineer;
13) 711 the applicant continue to work with Engineering to demonstrate compliance
with stormwater requirements as defined in Chapter 53 to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer;
14) That the applicant continue to work with Engineering to determine an alternative
sanitary alignment to connect to the existing sanitary sewer located at 9284
Donabello Drive in order to minimize Impacts to existing trees, and,
15) That the HOA will be responsible for pond maipti was added by 4Coundl
dudngthe approvalofOdneace89.18 on January 11, 2019
VOTE: 5-1,
RESULTI The Rezoning with a Preliminary Development Plan was recommended to City Council for
approval with 14 condRlons.
;1441;1 X14 �l'bt f x�p
Uictorla Newell
Yes
StephenStidhem
Yes
Warren Fishman
No
William Wilson
Absent
lane Fox Yes
Kristina Kennedy Yes
Bob Miller Yes
Page 2 of 3
PLANNING SHO Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747 duhnnnhlaup.gov
1. R— The Hamlet on Jerome 9341& 9351 Jerome Road
18.030CPrijPDPjPP Concept Plan/Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan
Preliminary Plat
MOTION #J; Mr, Sddhem moved, Mr. Miller seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for a
Preliminary Plat with three conditions,
1) That the applicant make any other minor technical adjustments prior to Council
review;
2) That the plat include the Estate Lot on the plat as a lot and address setback
requirements; and
3) That the applicant will need W revise the plat to identity maintenance responsibilities
for the two reserves prior to review by City Council,
VOTE; S-1.
RESULT; The Preliminary Plat was recommended for approval and forwarded to City Council for final
review with three conditions.
RECORDED VOTES;
Victoria Newell
Yes
Stephen Stidhem
Yes
Jane Fox
Yes
Bob Miller
Yes
Warren Fishman
No
Kristlna Kennedy
Yes
William Wilson
Absent
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Aka
audia D. Husak, AICP, Senior Planner
Page 3 of 3
PLANNING 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ord 13016 On 614,410.4600 fax 614.410,4747 dublleohloum,gov
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
October 11, 2018 — Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 20
1. The Hamlet on Jerome 9341 & 9351 Jerome Road
18-030CP/Z/PDP/PP Concept Plan
Rezoning with a Preliminary Development Plan
Preliminary Plat
The Chair, Victoria Newell, said this application is a proposal for Rezoning from Rural District to a Planned
Unit Development District and a Preliminary Development Plan for a residential community consisting of
one existing single-family lot and 17 new single-family lots. She said this application is also for a
Preliminary Plat for the subdivision of approximately 8.6 acres. She said the site is west of Jerome Road,
approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection with McKitrick Road.
The Chair said this is a request for a review and informal feedback for a Concept Plan; a review and
recommendation of approval to City Council for Rezoning with a Preliminary Development Plan; and a
review and recommendation of approval for a Preliminary Plat, prior to a formal review by City Council
under the provisions of the Subdivision Regulations.
Claudia Husak explained this application falls into the other category, which is not administrative and
there is no swearing in of witnesses because the Commission is being asked to make recommendations
to City Council and Council will make the final determinations on both components.
Ms. Husak explained the Planned Unit Development process as approximately 50% of the City is within a
PUD.
Ms. Husak presented aerial views of the site, which is within Dublin and pointed out the large property
next to this site on the north side, which is in Jerome Township and not in the City's jurisdiction. She
noted the large area to the south is an open space area within Tartan West. She noted the small stub
street that connects this property with Corazon Drive is part of Tartan West when it was originally zoned
and laid out to accommodate future development and eliminate curb cuts onto Jerome Road. She added
there are two, single-family homes on the site, existing on two parcels. She said the smaller structure
closest to Jerome Road is intended to be demolished and a larger home on the rear of the property will
be retained that also has access to Jerome Road via a long winding road. She added there is a large pond
in the center of the site.
Ms. Husak presented the Future Land Use Map in the Community Plan, which guides and establishes
policy for development and redevelopment within the City that includes established land use for every
property. She said the overall density proposed for this application is two units per acre. She said this
was generally accepted by the Commission at the Informal Review last year, due to the type of housing
that was proposed, the market being reached, and the quality of the proposed architecture.
Ms. Husak presented the proposed Preliminary Development Plan and noted Roma Drive continues
through this development as a public street and stubs at the Jerome parcel should it ever develop. She
said the second public street proposed is Hamlet Court, which is a cul-de-sac to provide access to a
majority of the proposed lots. She said the existing home to be retained within this development will have
access off of that court. She said the pond will also be retained and will be revised to accommodate
stormwater management for the entire development. She added there is open space proposed along the
Jerome Road frontage as well as the area around the pond in the center of this site.
Ms. Husak presented a subarea map illustrating two subareas: Subarea A is the (estate lot) existing of a
single-family home on approximately three acres and Subarea B is for the cluster lots for this
development to the east. She said the lots are required to be a minimum of 5,000 square feet and this
proposal meets that requirement. Other requirements are to include a minimum width of 45 feet width
and a maximum 100 -foot depth, which these lots meet. She said there is a 20 -foot required front build
zone and the rear yard setbacks should be between 10 to 20 feet, depending on the location of the lot.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
October 11, 2018 — Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 20
Ms. Husak indicated the applicant was asked to assign lot numbers to clarify lots in the development text
and the setback requirements assigned to each. She said side yard setbacks coincide with minimal
distance between buildings, which is five feet for the setback and 10 feet between buildings. She added
there is an allowance in the development text for air conditioning units to encroach within those side
yards. She said lot coverage is permitted to be up to 70%. In these types of developments, Staff has
seen a larger home on a small lot that has been approved in the past and appears to be appropriate here
as well.
Ms. Husak presented a graphic illustrating the areas of the open spaces proposed. She noted that
Reserve A, in the center of the site surrounding the pond, consists of t1.2 acres. She said the applicant
has proposed to double the amount they are required to dedicate per the subdivision regulations. She
explained open space dedication requires the applicant to publicly dedicate land so the City ultimately will
own these open spaces. She said Reserve A is to be maintained by the HOA and the functionality of the
pond would be maintained by the City, as this will serve as stormwater management.
Ms. Husak noted that Reserve B, also owned by the City, is just under an acre of open space along
Jerome Road, which will also be maintained by the HOA and accommodates a path that goes from the
neighborhood out to Jerome Road and the applicant will also install a path along Jerome Road. She
added tree replacements will be planted within this area.
Ms. Husak presented images of the proposed architecture for three different types of buildings proposed
as well as their intended location. She said there are two distinct home elevations — building type C is
located on the north side of the property and can accommodate a side -loaded garage; building types A &
B are similar, if not the same with a front loaded garage. She said the applicant has architectural
requirements, material requirements, and within the development text there are requirements for
additional architectural elements and detailing on the side street and rear views where they are backing
up to a street along Jerome Road.
Ms. Husak presented the plan details and pointed out the retaining walls, steps, and the HVAC units
between the buildings as they fit within the topography. She said in the development text, it requires
screening for the courtyard garages, which can be a hedge or stone walls and they are supposed to be
maintained by the homeowners. She said they appear to be an optional requirement in terms of if it has
to be a stone wall or it could be a hedge but from a maintenance standpoint, Staff was concerned that
might be a burden on the homeowner in the future but the applicant chose to retain that feature.
Ms. Husak noted there is quite a bit of detail in terms of a Preliminary Development Plan, but given the
tight layout of this site and the large lot coverage, Staff requested the applicant provide additional
information on how the space between buildings would be handled. She said one of the suggestions,
which she pointed out on the slide, is that where the air conditioning unit would sit for any house, there
will be a retaining wall and steps that would provide access from the exterior and walls would extend
across the lot lines.
Ms. Husak reported Staff was unable to find anything in the development text that specifically speaks to
that or how maintenance across the property lines would be handled. She said the applicant indicated
that the maintenance would be taken care of by the HOA and those types of maintenance costs can
become quite expensive as well as the open spaces that are to be maintained between those lots. She
said Staff has drafted several conditions that speak to maintenance by HOAs as this is a subject that has
been raised at the Council level quite a bit in the last few years. She said one of the questions Staff
considered was whether or not the Estate Lot is actually part of the HOA while it is paying into the HOA.
She added Staff had concerns regarding the HOA maintaining the proposed extensive landscaping and
open spaces as well as the additional costs the homeowner would incur. She said Staff requested the
applicant be up front with that information as they are marketing homes having a model or signing
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
October 11, 2018 — Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 20
closing documents so buyers are aware that there are additional financial obligations beyond the
mortgage and taxes that come with purchasing a home in this development.
Ms. Husak presented the open space character details and character that illustrate a rural feel, a passive
open space so there will be no swing sets or programing, just walkability, especially along the eastern
portion of that open space.
Ms. Husak presented the Preliminary Plat of which there are three conditions of approval she already hit
upon, which again the applicant has been working with the Engineering Division because it is a tight site
as proposed.
Ms. Husak said there are 13 conditions in total proposed for the Rezoning with the Preliminary
Development Plan that the applicant reviewed. She said Staff is recommending approval with the
understanding those conditions will be addressed either prior to this going to Council, at the Final
Development Plan stage, or thereafter, if it has to do with marketing and model homes, etc. She said the
13 conditions are as follows:
1) That the boundary of Subarea A be revised to more clearly aligned with the lot driveway, subject
to Staff approval;
2) That the Estate Lot be included in the Preliminary Development Plan as a lot;
3) That the development text address front yard setbacks for the Estate Lot and clarify which lot
numbers require which rear yard setback;
4) That the applicant work with Staff to further minimize the extensive landscape features on
individual lots to be maintained by the HOA;
5) That the proposed development text be clarified to address whether or not the Estate Lot will be
required to be a member of the HOA;
6) That the applicant include the expected maintenance costs and responsibilities in the marketing
materials, closing documents, and model home for this development;
7) That the development text and the Preliminary Development Plan include access and
maintenance provisions between the homes for the AC units, landscaping and screening;
8) That sanitary easements be established for the proposed public sewer along the southwest side
of Roma Drive; to the satisfaction of the City Engineer;
9) That the applicant provide a detailed grading plan, including site specific grading between lots,
with the submission of the Final Development Plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer;
10) That the applicant continue to work with the United States Postal Service (USPS) and Staff to
determine an acceptable location and unit type of the cluster mailbox units;
11) That the applicant continue to work with the City and the adjacent property owner to the
northwest of Reserve B to either acquire temporary grading easements or to regrade Reserve B
in order to provide positive drainage, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer;
12) That the applicant provide additional grading information along reconstructed Roma Drive to
determine if temporary grading easements are required to provide positive drainage; to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer; and
13) That the applicant continue to work with Engineering to demonstrate compliance with
stormwater requirements as defined in Chapter 53 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Ms. Husak said the Preliminary Plat approval is recommended with three conditions:
1) That the applicant make any other minor technical adjustments prior to Council review;
2) That the plat include the Estate Lot on the plat as a lot and address setback requirements; and
3) That the applicant will need to revise the plat to identify maintenance responsibilities for the two
reserves prior to review by City Council.
The Chair asked the members if they had any questions for Staff.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
October 11, 2018 — Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 20
Bob Miller asked when the Informal Review took place and Ms. Husak answered there were 19 lots in
June 2017. Mr. Miller noted that the number of units is down from 19 to 18. He asked why the Tartan
West PUD is not opened up to this development. Ms. Husak answered the applicant has not chosen to
and they are not required to do so but if they wanted to, there would not be a regulation against it. Mr.
Miller said the density now is 1.5 units per acre. Ms. Husak said the density proposed at the Informal
Review was 2.2 units per acre. Mr. Miller said he recalled the Commission being supportive of that density
level. Ms. Husak clarified the actual density now is not 1.5 but rather 2.0 units per acre. She said the 1.5
number refers to what is recommended in the Community Plan.
Mr. Miller inquired about the encroachment. Ms. Husak explained there is an allowance in the
development text that states the unit can encroach and the plans do not appear to show the unit
encroaching. She indicated that typically during a Preliminary Development Plan, Staff does not concern
themselves with where the AC units are located. She said with the more densely used lots, the grading,
and the retaining walls crossing lot lines, Staff requested that information sooner rather than later. She
said the plans show the retaining walls end at each building wall, not providing access between the
homes. She said the drawings appear to show one would have to go over the wall to get to the step but
details will be worked out and the applicant can speak more to how this will be in a real built
environment.
Mr. Miller asked if it is typical for the City to maintain any and all ponds in the City and Ms. Husak
answered affirmatively. She said the distinction here is the functionality of the stormwater management
as is the pond. She added the City mows around ponds, and trims trees, mulches and fertilizes but that is
not the intent here. She said there are many different scenarios across the City; there is neither a policy
nor a standard.
Steve Stidhem asked if the City is putting in a sprinkler system there. Ms. Husak said the applicant would
put the system in. He clarified the City would also pay for the electricity for the equipment in the pond.
Mr. Stidhem said the applicant is going for a certain PUD because of the nature of this land. Ms. Husak
explained the applicant cannot just zone themselves into Tartan West. She said that was a PUD
established in 2002, with geography, density, and a boundary. She said the applicant could call this
development the "Hamlet of Tartan West" but it would be in name only. She said the only thing worth
discussing potentially would be if the residents wanted to join the HOA for Tartan West as that is private
and nothing to do with the City.
Mr. Stidhem asked for clarification on the boundaries of the open spaces and the reasons to which they
were determined. Ms. Husak said the boundary would follow the curve of the road.
Kristina Kennedy inquired about the pedestrian pathways. She said there are sidewalks through the
development area but wondered if there were any plans for pathways/walkways around the pond. Ms.
Husak answered nothing is currently proposed for around the pond.
Warren Fishman said (not on mic) this is a beautiful place but the density is proposed at 2.0 units per
acre and only 1.5 units per acre are recommended in the Community Plan. He said five-foot, side yard
setbacks are incredibly tight and asked why Staff is entertaining the idea of that higher density. He said
the site is five acres overall in size but the estate house takes up three acres, so in actuality, the density
will be 17 units on 2 acres. He said these units are proposed with mostly front -loaded garages and they
take up half the house; all that will be visible here will be garage after garage.
Ms. Husak explained, in terms of the way density is measured, it is measured by the acreage of the
whole site and not by subareas as part of Staff's evaluation. She said Tartan West has different size
clusters within their development and their density is 1.8 units per acre. She said when this application
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
October 11, 2018 — Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 20
was informally reviewed by the Commission last year, the density number was generally acceptable. She
said there is an allowance in the development text to permit 40% of the elevation to be a garage for the
front loaded garages.
Mr. Fishman repeated his dislike for the density proposed. He said he agreed with Mr. Miller when he
suggested the applicant join the Tartan West PUD.
Ms. Husak clarified Tartan West is done; the City cannot open the border and join that PUD. She said the
only thing that could be done would be to create a subarea of Tartan West but it would be its own,
legislative PUD.
Victoria Newell inquired about the retaining walls crossing the property lines and if they have occurred in
other places. Ms. Husak said there are not similar instances and that is why Staff is hesitant to accept this
on the surface.
Jane Fox said she was not on the Commission when this application was reviewed in 2017. She referred
to the minutes from that meeting whereas the Commission had concerns and what changes have been
made from then to now. She said "clearer access to open space and usability not only by the residents
but the public" and "making sure the open space was functional" were some concerns. She said visitor
parking was another. She noted the other concern was landscaping. Ms. Husak pointed out that one lot
was eliminated as part of the new plan; now there is access to the open space, and she noted a new
path. She said in terms of usability of open space, she said along Jerome Road it is appropriate to have a
more rural feeling and fitting in with similar designs within Tartan West. She said details for the open
space surrounding the pond would be addressed at the Final Development Stage or sometimes the HOAs
will do that later after people move in and figure out what they want to have there.
Mr. Miller inquired about parking. Ms. Husak answered there is on -street parking on one side of the street
and the driveways are deep enough to accommodate parking. Additionally, she said there is parking
available on one side of Roma Drive.
Ms. Fox said the pond is being renovated but here are a lot of large trees along the southwest edge,
many of which are in good condition and not really in the construction area, so why those would have to
be removed was her question. Ms. Husak said Staff can review and have the applicant address.
The Chair invited the applicant to come forward.
Dan Lorenz, 9341 Jerome Rd, thanked Staff for assisting to develop his plans over the last 16 months. He
said he and his wife moved onto this property in 1997, built a home, built up the property, dug a pond,
filled the field, and planted the trees down the road. He said he is a site developer and civil engineer and
has done a lot of site work here in Dublin so he knows firsthand what it will take for this proposed
development. He said Tartan West had not been built yet when they arrived. He said they raised four
children and shared 20 wonderful years there. He indicated that now that the kids are raised, they were
pondering what was next so they decided to develop this property with the idea in mind to satisfy the
needs of many of their friends. He indicated people are looking to stay in Dublin but would like to
downsize and have a cozy, high-quality, maintenance free, life.
Mr. Lorenz said John Kirk and his wife are some of the top salespeople in the region and he is present
this evening. He said he had called upon Mr. Kirk to help him understand what the needs were in the
current marketplace. He said Dwight McCabe was also present as he has worked with him in construction
over the past 30 years and Mr. McCabe has been working on this Hamlet concept over the last 10 -15
years. He said it consists of layered landscaping and a high-quality community that is very unique and
needed. With Mr. McCabe's concept in hand, and Mr. Kirk's recommendation on builders, he reported
they conducted interviews and selected Corinthian, Joe Aulino and Kevin Koch and they are also present.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
October 11, 2018 — Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 20
Mr. Lorenz said they are the top builder in Dublin, building $1 -mil to $5 -mil homes with a great
reputation. He indicated a lot of their clients are looking for this solution also as they are interested in
building smaller, quality homes. He said his son John will also help with the development. He said they
selected American Structure Point and Ben Miller as their civil engineer. He said the landscape architect
will be Todd Foley, POD Design and he has done a lot of work in Dublin.
Mr. Lorenz said he had a neighborhood meeting. He said they met with the Tartan West Board, invited
residents in Tartan West to their home of which 25 people attended. He said there were concerns about
increased traffic but the only real person this will impact is Mr. Jones as they tie into a sanitary sewer. He
reported they have had three meetings with the Jones' trying to resolve that issue to minimize the impact
this new development would have on their property. He said they discussed becoming part of Tartan
West years ago when they were proposing their development and they decided they were not going to
gain a benefit from it and did not make sense at the time to become a part of it.
Mr. Lorenz said he does not like the agreements Tartan West has with the City such as charging the
residents a $900 -a -year fee to maintain all the large structures and landscaping there. He said he does
not believe homeowners should have to pay a fee where they gain no benefit; he plans to be as
affordable as possible. He said Staff had told him there will be a common maintenance so they received
information from a landscaper on prices and what range they might fall. He said he understands he will
buy the fountain for the pond and the City will pay for the electricity to the fountain and maintain the
outlet structure to ensure the stormwater is managed properly. He said in his experience as a civil
engineer with Epcon for 10 years, stormwater drainage was the number one complaint received.
Mr. Lorenz addressed Mr. Fishman's concern about density by stating there were three other subareas,
like Tartan West that had higher density than he was proposing that were approved over the years. He
reported that was included in their last review in front of the Commission.
Mr. Lorenz stated they are committed to following the City's tree replacement policy and they are
showing over 125 trees that will be planted for the 34 trees they are removing to provide the same
amount of caliper. He said there are currently trees that line both sides of his driveway. He pointed out
the area that will need to be cleared in order to build on that one particular lot.
Mr. Lorenz explained the topography and where the land drops significantly ±30 feet so it makes that
property very unique and valuable. He pointed out where the walkout and non -walkout basements were
planned. He said for this level, plans are usually 60% completed and these engineering plans are 80 or
90% completed to ensure this will work. He said he certainly understands Staff's perspective as they
have really challenged them to figure out a lot of the details.
Todd Foley, Pod Design, said he thought Ms. Fox was concerned with the trees around the pond area. He
explained they need to bring the pond up to grade standards, which will cause the trees to be removed.
He said their landscape plan shows they will concentrate some reforestation throughout the site both the
front open space and around that pond area.
Mr. Foley said the applicant has reviewed the total of 16 conditions and they are in agreement with it all
and fully intend to respond to those so Staff is satisfied with the outcome. He said, from a maintenance
perspective, the overall vision for this is so a buyer can purchase a high quality home with top-notch
finishes, stay in Dublin, and not have to take care of anything on the perimeter. He said they still need to
work out the side yard areas. He said the thought behind this is we can all live in this community
together and have assurances that the front appearances of the buildings and the landscaping will be
maintained consistently at a high level of quality that is complimentary to everyone that resides here.
Mr. Foley pointed out these buildings are representative of the six or so lots on the south side, closest to
the Tartan West area. He indicated that due to the existing grade of that site, and the way Roma Drive
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
October 11, 2018 — Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 20
comes into the project, there are a lot of parameters that have guided how they would develop this
parcel and mold this land to make it livable. He pointed out the two outdoor amenity areas where a
covered porch is on the second level with a walkout patio on the rear of the first level. He said they have
to make some transition space to get the front of the house to work. He said there is a 7 to 9 -foot grade
change so a step was designed there with a decorative retaining wall that would happen lower. He said
they will need to provide access to maintain the side of the buildings and the AC units and realizes he will
need to provide clarity to that as it is a unique scenario. He said from a landscape maintenance
perspective, if a resident has decorative columns, or fencing, or walls out front or there is a hedgerow,
those are all elements that will fall under the purview of the maintenance agreement that the residents
will be paying into. He said they have analyzed all the components that will be covered by the
maintenance and what will be asked of the homeowner when they purchase one of the homes and what
that obligation is going to be. He believes it is an asset the way they have designed this project, this will
be an amenity that will keep the intended appearance of the community consistent.
Ms. Husak asked about the development text where the homeowner is required to maintain pillars and
fences on the property. She said Mr. Foley just stated they would be under common maintenance. Mr.
Foley said he contradicted himself and Ms. Husak is correct as referenced in the development text.
Jane Fox said she was concerned with the five-foot, side yard setbacks and lot coverage. She said this is
one of the most beautiful designs she has ever seen - absolutely stunning. She said she believes the
quality of design, landscaping detail, and the impression that it makes is just lovely. She restated that 10
feet is so very close and the lot coverage so very large. She said she does not understand how a mower
would maneuver in that area. She said lots 11 — 17 are the only ones with that topography of walk out
lots. Mr. Foley explained Lots 1 — 5 are modern court type lots and Lots 6 — 10 are the traditional front
loaded garages. Ms. Fox said the lot coverage does not bother her as much because with a hamlet there
is going to be dense lot coverage but again she remarked how tight they were, next to each other. She
asked how five-foot side yards are permitted in this part of the city. Ms. Husak answered it is the PUD
process. She said 10 feet in between buildings can work from a building code standpoint.
Ms. Fox inquired about the sizes intended for these homes. Mr. Foley said between the three footprints,
there is a range from 2,000 to 3,000 square feet counting the walkout conditions. He added that part of
the design intent with this is creating a type of home where someone may be at a stage in their life when
they may not desire the yard. He said they can come here and are not paying for a lot that has that extra
turf. He said the design of the buildings itself, the way that the internal spaces are designed take into
account the buildings are closer so a bedroom is not located right across from someone's patio, for
example. He said from a land perspective, there is the frontage along Jerome Road, setbacks required
and conditions of the pond, which make the developable part of this project left for where the buildings
are located.
Dwight McCabe, 7361 Career Road, Plain City said his grandfather owned Dan's property and the
property that is Tartan was his uncle's property. He stated they have built properties just like this so they
are very familiar with what happens in the spaces between the houses. He also noted the spaces
between the homes, lot coverage, and height in Tartan West is worse compared to this development. He
explained in more detail the statements made by Mr. Foley regarding the internal designs of these units
so one unit is afforded windows that face out to a certain space and the opposite unit has different
window locations. He said he does not like to see a lot of space between homes because it is not used as
a living space and more just an area to mow. He said the proposed units are designed where the resident
"lives" in the rear and the side of their unit is separate from the next door neighbor for more privacy. He
said the air conditioning units were intended for the sides of the units when there is a walkout lower
patio and the others were placed in the rear. He said their approach is a walkable, European -like hamlet
in a car -centric area, which they need to balance. He said the landscape walls at the street all play
together, allowing them to get a little closer to the street while achieving a separation.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
October 11, 2018 — Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 20
Ms. Fox asked Mr. McCabe to clarify the location of the units with the lower walkouts and what their vista
would be. Mr. McCabe asked her to think about German Village with its small little garden spaces - that is
what this sets itself up for. She asked about the units that do not offer those walkout spaces. For the
units on Jerome Road, Mr. McCabe said there is a back space, which is mounded and landscaped they
can consider their own as they look out but it is not their space. He said the area labeled 'A' backs up to a
reforestation area of woods.
Steve Stidhem inquired about the north side, by Jerome Township; it is unknown what could be
developed there and the City has no jurisdiction over that area. He asked if there is a boundary of
vegetation of some sort that is planned there. Mr. McCabe answered there were not specific plans for
that area. He said the expectation is, the way the road works, there will be an annexation and the road
will loop into a continuation of residential.
Mr. Stidhem asked the area just south of Subarea 'A' will be a green space in Tartan West to which Ms.
Husak answered affirmatively.
Mr. Miller said this development appears to be extremely high end. He asked for the starting price point
anticipated. Mr. Lorenz answered as affordable as possible in the range of $600,000 - $750,000. He said
the first floor is approximately 1,900 square feet, second floor maybe 500 square feet, and the lower
levels coming in at 500 — 1,000 square feet.
Kristina Kennedy indicated it sounds as if the applicant has completed some level of market research of
who these buyers will be. She asked for more information on the target market for this community.
John Kirk, 8136 Flynn Lane, Dublin, said he has been a real estate agent for 21 years in Dublin, raised
two kids through Dublin Schools, and has seen the market change up and down. He said he is the sample
child of this project. He explained five years ago they sold the 6,700 -square -foot house and downsized to
an empty -nester house at 5,400 square feet. He said they have been working through this plan for
almost two years using themselves to devise the best concept during this period of their lives. He said
they consider the livability from front to back. He said a lot of this clientele will be living here 6 — 7
months out of the year and the rest of the time spent elsewhere. They want to come back to Dublin
where their family still resides, come back to a place that is theirs for the holidays that is big enough but
they do not have to worry about maintenance. He said he is president of the lawn association for his
property in Highland Village where they charge $220 per month and he has not pulled a weed in four
years. He said he used to spend $750 just for mulch in his old house and had to install it himself. He said
he has a long list of people interested in the Hamlet.
Warren Fishman (not on mic) said this was a nice development and asked if the three acres were covered
by the HOA. Mr. Foley said the three acres in the back of this development would not be part of the HOA
and would be able to have its own separate maintenance contract, in a separate bucket. Mr. Fishman
suggested it is not really part of the development, then; on paper anything can be done but physically it
is two separate parcels. He said when people do not have to maintain their property, they want lots of
property and space between their neighbors so five feet is really close no matter how you do it. He said
the City has gone through a lot of trouble to devise a Community Plan and a future development plan
using experts and consultants looking at the properties and that is why 1.5 -units -per -acre was
established; he has a hard time getting past that. He added parking is going to be a problem, especially
when Grandma has Thanksgiving dinner and company comes over and so on. He said that is the
complaint in some of the denser developments right now. He reiterated this project is proposed as too
dense. He said the applicant makes a good point about the trees but the new trees that will be planted
will only be one or two -inch -caliper trees at best.
Mr. Stidhem asked if any kind of walkway is intended for around the pond since it has to be renovated
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
October 11, 2018 — Meeting Minutes
Page 10 of 20
Mr. Foley said part of bringing this pond to current standards requires a shelf to be around the top and
presently they do not have plans to drag a path down through there at all. He said there is going to be a
grading transition down from the end of Hamlet Court. He said they also have to consider the
juxtaposition of Mr. Lorenz's house and these cluster homes coming together.
Mr. Stidhem encouraged the applicant to install a path around the pond, even if it is just mulched as it
can be a great amenity. He asked if the units will be wired or planned for plumbing to use renewable
energy in any way. Mr. McCabe answered they are all waiting for Tesla; there is no question they have
the solution and it is like buying a refrigerator any more. He said this is like when they used to hardwire
all the new houses with CATS and then all of a sudden CATS was not needed. He suggested everyone is
going to own a Tesla pack to be mounted in the garage, and they will do two things - they will pull off
peak demand power so the least expensive power you can buy is power that happens in the dead of
night so it will pull power off the grid, charge up those batteries off the grid that is balanced to the
ultimate need is and then with solar added to the unit, it rebalances that whole formula. He said the
Tesla roof is phenomenal — they are working out the bugs. Mr. Stidhem said he agreed and his point is —
is there a way to prepare the construction while waiting - to be prepared for the power wall and the solar
panels on the roof versus having to retrofit them later, which is generally an expensive proposition. Mr.
McCabe said it was a good consideration. He said the easy way to do something like that is to determine
where the in and out will be for a conduit.
Mr. Fishman asked if the City is going to pay for the electricity to run the pump in the pond. He asked if
that was done in other areas as he thought the HOA covered the cost. Ms. Husak answered the City has
not decided yet what kind of aerator will be in this pond. She added she was in a meeting just the day
before about solar being the way to go in the future and there are a couple of test ones out there in the
community right now. In areas where the city has the stormwater function maintenance of the pond or
the maintenance of the entire open space, the electricity is paid by the City and the park staff will turn
the fountains off as the seasons change.
Ms. Fox asked if the sticking point here is the proximity between the buildings. She asked if it would be
possible with a slight change in the arrangement, if 12 feet could be achieved instead of 10 feet. Mr.
Foley said he appreciates the thought but they have looked at this extensively through a number of
different scenarios to find a solution. He said Roma Drive provides a constraint as it cannot be shifted one
way or the other and stay within the design standards. He said the pond area will impose constraints
given the grading they have to manage to bring it up to current code, beside all the setback
requirements. He said 10 feet between buildings may seem like an abnormal width collectively but it is
not an uncommon design feature of the community.
Mr. Lorenz noted they proposed 19 units originally and have since lost two units per the cul-de-sac and
pond designs; it would not be feasible financially if they lose more units.
Ms. Fox said this is a stormwater pond and the City maintains them because they worry about algae, etc.
She asked about silt buildup and if it can be controlled in this pond. Mr. Lorenz said they excavated below
what it is designed to do so when silt does build up, it will still be kept under control.
Ms. Fox asked if stormwater would only be draining into this pond from this development. Mr. Lorenz
pointed out the possible sources draining into this pond. Ms. Fox said around Ballantrae, as soon they
developed that area, and all the construction dirt drains into this pond, you will not have one any more.
She said all their ponds are filling up due to adjacent construction development.
Mr. Miller referred to the Planning Report where it stated the four-sided architecture that is required. He
explained to him, it means wrapping the entire building. He read a sentence from the report... "For all
other side elevations, brick or stone will extend two feet past the corner of the house with the remaining
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
October 11, 2018 — Meeting Minutes
Page 11 of 20
fagade being stucco." He said this would not be four-sided architecture and asked the applicant to clarify.
Mr. Lorenz affirmed the brick will not wrap the entire unit.
Keith Hake, 10596 Wellington Boulevard, Powell, said he is part of Corinthian and there are specific
regulations for four-sided architecture and they are all in the Dublin Code. He said there needs to be a
certain amount of windows, certain rooflines, etc. As far as taking stone and detail around the side, Mr.
Hake said, since the units are only 10 feet apart, they intend to die within a natural corner and then past
that, stucco or some type of siding would be used or a mixture of both. He said anything that faces a
street will be predominantly stone and a lot of detail. He said they will probably do that on the rear as
well to break the facades up and want the rear to be very attractive since people will be living back there.
He said only maintenance people will be walking between the buildings and with the landscaping, there is
no need for stone in between the units.
Mr. Lorenz stated they plan to spend money where it will be valuable to the homeowner and want the
units to be affordable. Mr. Miller said he just wanted clarification because four-sided architecture to him
means materials would come all the way around.
Mr. Stidhem inquired about the water table and if that stone would wrap the unit on all four sides. Ms.
Newell added a water table is to cover a little over two feet above grade. Mr. Lorenz said the material for
the water table will be around the sides where it will be visible. Mr. Stidhem said when stucco goes to the
ground, it becomes unattractive near the bottom so that is his concern but he also understands it will not
be very visible but he is concerned from a longevity perspective as well; it can become problematic. Mr.
Lorenz said he is confident as they have hired the best builders in town.
Mr. Fishman said he read in the text that units can have four different materials. He said we usually
never see the real brick or stone as the material usually ends up being stucco stone and stucco. He said
since this is being marketed as a high-quality development, he assumes the applicant will use real brick
and stone and asked if that assumption was correct.
Joe Aulino, 3959 Flynn Road, said the materials they propose to use is a cultured stone and they have
been using the product since it came out on the market; the accent brick will be a cut, full brick into a
half-inch slab. He said the board and batten will be used on some of the front porch areas. Mr. Fishman
asked why brick and stone were written in the text but they do not plan to use those materials. Mr.
Aulino clarified the brick they will use is thin -set brick and he had not seen the text.
The Chair invited the public to speak.
David Jones, 9284 Donatello Drive, in the Tartan West neighborhood, said he is neighbors with the
Lorenz's as their property backs up to their property. He said they have been a citizen of Dublin for 34
years and his kids went all the way through Dublin Schools and he is proud of the history of Dublin. He
said his issue is with the direction the sewer is going. He presented a picture of his backyard and said a
natural tree line would be cut down to run the sewer where they are proposing and that is one of the
reasons he and his neighbors bought their houses. He said they are a tremendous value to him because
it eliminates the visibility of the Lorenz's home. He said the new manhole proposed would go in the
middle of his backyard, which is close to the back of his house.
Mr. Jones said he has been working with the City's engineer, Michael Hendershot, and he has come up
with an alternative plan, which Mr. Lorenz agreed to, yesterday. He noted he already has three manholes
in his yard, one in the front and two in the back. He said if this fourth one was added to his yard and the
fifth one across the lot line, he would be looking at five manholes out of his windows, which would be a
record for a half -acre lot in Dublin. He presented the alternative plan for the sewer line to go in what he
called the natural utility and cable corner. Additionally, he said it would only breach the tree line once but
by coming in straight, the amount of trees to be eliminated has decreased and Mr. Lorenz plans to plant
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
October 11, 2018 — Meeting Minutes
Page 12 of 20
more trees. He explained the sewer would flow the same way and would not be lengthened. He
explained how the alternative plan would be a better plan for long-term maintenance, as well.
Dave Warner, 9292 Donatello Drive, right next door to Mr. Jones. He said he has the specific issues with
the manholes that he just explained. He said whatever the solution ends up being, as these folks work
through all this, to please consider where the trees become bigger and thicker heading north through the
Tartan West neighborhood. He said the original farmer's fence was there, the barbed wire, and all the big
trees grew up along there on both sides of the property line. He said if a backhoe has to dig to a depth of
20 feet, he thinks it will destroy all those root systems. He said the triangle area of land contains a lot of
dead ash trees and thins out significantly.
Ms. Fox said she is glad the issue of the sewer was brought up because sometimes that is overlooked in
these situations. She asked about buffering. Ms. Husak explained there is nothing in the Zoning Code that
requires buffering the same land uses from each other. She said if there were different land uses
opposite each other, a buffer would be required. She said the City tries not to make a practice of creating
landscape buffers where there are adjacent neighborhoods. She said there have been instances where
existing tree rows have been preserved and made into a tree preservation zone or a no -disturb zone to
preserve trees that create a natural buffer.
Ms. Fox asked Staff to suggest what the Commission could require that tree line is not disturbed,
especially when it comes to the construction of sewer easements. Vince Papsidero asked if Ms. Fox was
referring to the property to the north. Ms. Fox said the Commission only has control over this PUD and
wants to know what the options are for looking ahead. Ms. Husak answered the City has easements in
place for that sewer. Ms. Newell said when there are already easements on that property, the City cannot
deny someone the right to access the easement. She explained when the prospective homeowner
purchased that property and the property was platted, those easements were listed on their deeds for
their property. She said a sewer line cannot be made to go a different direction even a slope of a sanitary
piping will dictate what direction the City can go to access the most available sanitary piping. She said it
is unfortunate when trees have to be eliminated; she feels for the residents that live here, but the
easement that is in place dictates the sewer lines. Ms. Fox said she understand that, she is concerned
about any new sewer lines to avoid placement so trees are left undisturbed.
Mr. Lorenz said he is committed to working with Mr. Hendershot on the sewer route. Ms. Fox asked if
there was anyone available from engineering to speak to this issue.
Michael Hendershot said he met with Mr. Jones and his neighbors and he supports the lines that Mr.
Jones proposed. He said the important thing is to go back and look at the survey to minimize the impacts
to the trees. Mr. Fishman asked if there was an easement back there. Mr. Hendershot clarified there is an
easement on Mr. Jones' property but not on Mr. Lorenz's property.
Mr. Stidhem said generally he is very supportive of the project and it appears as a great solution for this
parcel and he is not concerned about the close proximity of the homes. He said he understands the
reasons. He said the applicant has done a great job with the engineering and appreciates all the efforts.
He stated it is definitely different than the previous plan. He said he believes this development will be a
high quality neighborhood and looks forward to actually seeing it built.
Ms. Kennedy said when her parents became empty nesters and their first move was to go into a twin villa
community it was not understood by the family. She understands there is a need for this type of housing
in Dublin and appreciates that the applicant has reviewed market research to understand what type of
people would want to be here. She said with overcrowding in the schools being a hot topic currently, she
appreciates that this community seems to be focused on the empty -nester and not so much in attracting
families, which will avoid the school overcrowding issues Dublin is facing right now. Generally, she said,
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
October 11, 2018 — Meeting Minutes
Page 13 of 20
she is in support of this plan and said the applicant has done a beautiful job with the construction design
and everything else.
Ms. Fox said she is concerned about the loss of trees around the pond, especially the large ones, which
are 20 to 24 -inch -caliper trees. Mr. Lorenz apologized for not having pictures to share but explained the
trees she is referring to were Weeping Willows planted 20 years ago. He said they are no longer in good
condition but have grown well, being so close to the pond.
Mr. Hendershot said to come into compliance with stormwater management requirements, the slopes
need to be cored and the pond will be dug deeper. He said with the grades coming down from the
addition of homes, the area will be tight from a grading standpoint.
Mr. McCabe said the state of Ohio passed a whole new surface lot and stormwater permit in April 2018.
The amount of water that has to be stored inside these basins went up dramatically, he said.
Mr. Hendershot added Dublin has its own requirements for water quantity in addition to water quality so
from a quantity standpoint, the master plan regulates based on the site acreage based on the site
developments. From a quality standpoint, he said, the State changed that recently so more water needs
to be stored to achieve water quality requirements. He said for this development, the water quantity
dictates the size of the basin and that has not changed since last year. He said they may be able to
modify the southwest portion of the basin to see if they can keep those grades. He said the challenge
just might be the existing grades around those large Weeping Willows compared to what they need
based on elevations of the street coming down but they will look at this further to see what they can
save, if possible.
Ms. Fox noted in Tartan West, it was stated earlier they have 10 feet between the homes. She asked Ms.
Husak to clarify but she did not have that answer before her.
Ms. Fox said we have not resolved the walls that connect one building to another. She asked if that is a
safety access concern because movement is being blocked from the front yard to the back yard and if
that was an unusual situation. She indicated she is not very supportive of the closeness of the buildings
but said she did not want to disapprove this application based on that because there are so many great
qualities to consider with this development. Ms. Husak said to some extent that is why some of the
conditions have been requested by Staff, not just from how this is going to work, but how potential
homeowners will be made aware that this is the condition they are signing up for in terms of the walls
touching houses across from one another. She said, in general, the maintenance that is laid out here for
a single-family platted lot, on a public street, Staff has not seen HOA maintenance at this extent
anywhere in the City and likely not at these price points that are expected for their monthly fees.
Mr. Fishman said with Staff's guidance, he is confident that the applicant is going to do a quality job and
present a quality development. He said he still has a hang up about the density. He said the goal in
Dublin is to do better and better and better and if we think there is going to be a situation with the
density as it was zoned at 1.5 -units -per acre, there is no reason to make it denser. Ms. Husak clarified it
is zoned for 1 -unit -per acre and the 1.5 -units -per acre is noted in the Community Plan. He said he would
love to agree because he believes this applicant's heart is in the right place but physically, parking is
going to be a problem and closeness is going to be a problem, which is the same problem at the Moors.
He suggested the site plan could be tweaked to make it a better development. He emphasized people like
open space especially if they are not maintaining it. He said he is very much in favor as there is a need
for empty -nester housing but we need to strive to do better so that is why he cannot totally support this
project.
Mr. Miller said he lives in Tartan West in a patio home and he likes John Kirk at a five bedroom house and
when the kids were all gone, downsizing to a patio home. He said he has 12 feet between he and his
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
October 11, 2018 — Meeting Minutes
Page 14 of 20
neighbor and the width of 10 to 12 feet is not as big of a concern. He said they do not have parking
problems on Ventura Way, which is a cul-de-sac. He said there have been times when someone has a
Christmas party or a Memorial Tournament party where parking can become an issue but it is a pretty
cooperative group. All in all, the quality of life for them increased dramatically because they no longer
have lawn maintenance. For the sake of a previous Commission member, he applauded the Corinthian
folks because they have done a great job on the window side of the buildings in terms of limiting what is
seen from one building to another - having windows on one side and not on the other. He stated he
loved this style of living and what he hears from people in his age group, is exactly what John was
eluding to. There are a lot of folks that do not want to leave Dublin; they do not want the big house and
Muirfield has a bunch of these developments all throughout for that particular purpose. He said the
Commission was very supportive of this project in their preliminary review. In fairness to the developer,
he indicated, they walked away from that meeting with an understanding that they had the backing of
the Commission. He said they have come back to us with a development that actually has two less units
than what they reviewed the first time. He said the overall development has come back at a higher
standard than he was expecting and he was expecting a pretty high standard at that Informal Review. He
said this development fits very well within this area.
Ms. Newell reported she attended the previous meeting and they spent a lot of time reviewing this
proposal that some of the Commissioners did not get to see. She reported the applicants did
presentations on what the actual densities were of nearly all of the surrounding properties and it was not
coming in at the 1.5 -units -per -acre and that has to be considered when looking at the surrounding
properties. She said she is not comfortable holding this applicant to a completely different standard as
the last piece being developed. She said she is comfortable with the two acres for the Hamlet. She said
even though there are two different subareas, they are united in the PUD text that is put in place so they
cannot be viewed individually. She said she understands the engineering constraints with this site as this
has been very well presented and the solution very well done. She said she has no problem with the
limitation of the 10 -foot clearance between the lots as they are treating that condition very well. She said
the retaining walls going across are unusual so she was a little concerned from a legal standpoint if that
was an issue that needed to be dealt with in some way.
Ms. Husak said allowance in the development text clarified is ultimately what Staff is asking.
Ms. Newell said she gets the sense that the applicant really wants to work with the surrounding property
owners and when the trees that will be eliminated is discussed there is a utility easement. She said they
are proposing a new one to go in there but in reality, if something happened to the sanitary piping, and it
needed to be accessed on the easement and it means trees need to come down, that is what happens
with utility easements so that cannot be controlled. She said she feels sorry for the residents to say that
but that is what the utility easements are for and utility companies have the right-of-way access. She
concluded she is very supportive of the project.
Mr. Jones said it is not the existing easement in his yard that is the issue, it is the new easement that
would be placed in the Lorenz yard. Ms. Newell said she realized that but it is tying into an existing
easement already so any of the trees that are on Mr. Jones' side of the property line in the easement
always have the potential of coming down. She said the trees that are on the other side of the property
line are regulated under the PUD text so we cannot place control or force the applicant on either side; it
is the nature of utility easements. She said she is empathetic and would not like that to happen on her
property either but she knows what the legal bounds are.
Mr. Stidhem said it sounds as though they have reached an agreed solution and will work through the
details. Ms. Fox asked if that could be made a condition — a discussion with Engineering to look at the
alternative location of the sanitary sewer instead of the proposed one. Ms. Husak said she could do that,
which would bring the total number of conditions up to 14.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
October 11, 2018 — Meeting Minutes
Page 15 of 20
Ms. Husak asked if there were any other questions or concerns
Ms. Fox asked about protecting that tree line from any future destruction if Mr. Lorenz were to move. Mr.
Miller asked if the Commission is overstepping here. Ms. Fox asked if this has to be completed this
evening or done later and Ms. Husak said the distance for a tree preservation area cannot be negotiated
at a later date. She said the tree preservation zone will need to be defined in the Development Text so a
condition would have to refer to that as well as shown on the Preliminary Plat because the Zoning Code
does not have a tree preservation zone definition and will have to allow for that sanitary extension. Mr.
Papsidero agreed tree preservation zones are all over town but the particulars have to be worked out
with the applicant. Ms. Newell said the Commission has never placed a condition of approval like this. She
said typically, it would be developed within the text of the PUD. Mr. Boggs said his concern is that we find
ourselves adding conditions that end up as cross purposes as we have tree preservation and then we are
necessarily having to put in a sanitary sewer line in the back there and where that would come into
conflict or not. Ms. Fox said she would step away from that. Mr. Boggs indicated the additional condition
that has been drafted as to the sanitary sewer - condition #14, which is that the applicant continue to
work with Engineering to determine an alternative sanitary sewer alignment to connect to the existing
sanitary sewer located 9284 Donatello Drive, which is Mr. Jones' address in order to minimize the effect
on existing trees. In doing that, he said the goal is consistent with the discussion tonight to minimize the
impact on those trees for the location of that sanitary line, for the benefit of Mr. Lorenz's view, and Mr.
Jones' back yard integrity.
The Chair asked Mr. Lorenz if he was in agreement with those 14 conditions to which he answered
affirmatively. She asked if there were any further comments from the Commissioners. [Hearing none.]
Motion and Vote
Mr. Stidhem moved, Mr. Miller seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for a Rezoning coupled
with a Preliminary Development Plan with 14 conditions:
1) That the boundary of Subarea A be revised to more clearly aligned with the lot driveway, subject
to Staff approval;
2) That the Estate Lot be included in the Preliminary Development Plan as a lot;
3) That the development text address front yard setbacks for the Estate Lot and clarify which lot
numbers require which rear yard setback;
4) That the applicant work with Staff to further minimize the extensive landscape features on
individual lots to be maintained by the HOA;
5) That the proposed development text be clarified to address whether or not the Estate Lot will be
required to be a member of the HOA;
6) That the applicant include the expected maintenance costs and responsibilities in the marketing
materials, closing documents, and model home for this development;
7) That the development text and the Preliminary Development Plan include access and
maintenance provisions between the homes for the AC units, landscaping and screening;
8) That sanitary easements be established for the proposed public sewer along the southwest side
of Roma Drive; to the satisfaction of the City Engineer;
9) That the applicant provide a detailed grading plan, including site specific grading between lots,
with the submission of the Final Development Plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer;
10) That the applicant continue to work with the United States Postal Service (USPS) and Staff to
determine an acceptable location and unit type of the cluster mailbox units;
11) That the applicant continue to work with the City and the adjacent property owner to the
northwest of Reserve B to either acquire temporary grading easements or to regrade Reserve B
in order to provide positive drainage, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer;
12) That the applicant provide additional grading information along reconstructed Roma Drive to
determine if temporary grading easements are required to provide positive drainage; to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer;
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
October 11, 2018 — Meeting Minutes
Page 16 of 20
13) That the applicant continue to work with Engineering to demonstrate compliance with
stormwater requirements as defined in Chapter 53 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and
14) That the applicant continue to work with Engineering to determine an alternative sanitary
alignment to connect to the existing sanitary sewer located at 9284 Donatello Drive in order to
minimize impacts to existing trees.
The vote was as follows: Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Mr. Fishman, no; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Miller,
yes; and Mr. Stidhem, yes. (Recommendation of Approval 5 — 1)
Motion and Vote
Mr. Stidhem moved, Mr. Miller seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for a Preliminary Plat
with three conditions:
1) That the applicant make any other minor technical adjustments prior to Council review;
2) That the plat include the Estate Lot on the plat as a lot and address setback requirements; and
3) That the applicant will need to revise the plat to identify maintenance responsibilities for the two
reserves prior to review by City Council.
The vote was as follows: Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Fishman, no; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Miller,
yes; and Mr. Stidhem, yes. (Recommendation of Approval 5 — 1)
o:+��
�rmn i ism
� nesrna
��
rrrie:rrr...
..
-
......
......101111
.1.0
1110 11
IRECORD OF ACTION
Cigof
Nblin Planning & Zoning
DWO USA Thursday, June 8, 201716,30 pin
Commission
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the fdlowing action atth s meeting:
1, The Hamlet on Jerome
17-053INF
9341 & 9351 Jerome Road
Informal Review
Proposal: A residential community Including 19 new single-family homes on 8,1•
acres on the west side of Manley Road, 550 feet north of Corazon Drive.
Request: Informal review and feedback of a potential future rezoning and
development application
Applicant; Daniel & Mellssa Lorena, property owners,
Planning Contact: Lori Burchett AICP, Planner B.
Contact Information: (614) 410.4656, Iburcheaftbiin.ah.us
RESULT: The Commission Informally reviewed and commented on this proposal for a residential
community Inducing 19 new single-family homes on 8.7 -acres on the west side of Manley Road, 550 feet
north of Corazon Drive, Commission members commented on the proposed land use, density, site layout,
and architectural design The Commission was generally supportive of the density and welcomed the
proposed housing type on this she, Commissioners discussed landscaping, and access to and through the
site for pedestrians, Some Commissioners were concerned regarding the lack of visitor parking and the
usability of the common open space, The Commission recommended the applicant create clear access to
the open space and ensure the space Is functional for future residents,
STAFF CERTIFICATION
PUNNING 5800ShnerRings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 phoreE14A10,46D0 fax 614,410,4747
The Hamlet on Jerome
17-053INF
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
June 8, 2017 — Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 20
9341 & 9351 Jerome Road
Informal Review
The Chair, Victoria Newell, said the following application is a request for a residential community
including 19 new single-family homes on 8.7 -acres on the west side of Manley Road, 550 feet north of
Corazon Drive. She said this is a request for an Informal Review and feedback of a potential future
rezoning and development application.
Lori Burchett presented an aerial view of the site and noted that direct access is provided to the site by
the existing Roma Drive. She pointed out: the land to the south, west, and east is part of the Tartan
West, Planned Unit Development, Subarea "D" and consists of single-family residences; adjacent to the
south of the property is common open space for Tartan West, owned by the City of Dublin; and to the
north is unincorporated Jerome Township.
Ms. Burchett presented the Community Plan and noted the Future Land Use Map designates the parcel as
Mixed Residential Rural Transition that allows for a typical density of 1.5 units per acre with a mix of
housing types on smaller lots to provide for greater provisions of open space. At this typical density, she
stated a maximum of 13 lots would be permitted on this site.
Ms. Burchett presented the proposed site plan and explained that the residence on the northern parcel is
proposed to be demolished and the home toward the rear of the large southern lot is proposed to
remain. She said the proposal includes 19 new home sites geared toward empty -nesters located toward
the front of the property. She summarized the conceptual proposal is for 20 lots located on 8.6 -acres, at
a density of 2.3 units per acre.
Ms. Burchett presented the conceptual proposed architecture and lot layout. She reported the applicant
has indicated the style will incorporate traditional architectural themes with colors, materials, and details
that are reflective of a traditional English Cottage style.
Ms. Burchett presented the proposed floor plan and site layout. She indicated the lot coverage for this
type of development pattern appears to exceed the Code limit of 45%. However, she said empty -nester
type developments with common maintenance have been approved with higher lot coverage allowances
through the PUD process.
Ms. Burchett said the Commission is asked to provide feedback to the applicant based on the following
discussion questions:
1. Is the proposed land use and overall density appropriate?
2. Is the proposal appropriate to the character of the surrounding development pattern?
3. Does the common open space provide a functional and usable space for future residents?
4. Are there other considerations by the Commission?
Bob Miller asked if we have any indication as to what might be developed across Manley Road in
unincorporated Jerome Township. Phil Hartmann said Kroger still owns the property and Ms. Burchett
said she is not aware of any development moving forward.
Cathy De Rosa asked how much wooded area would be lost. Ms. Burchett said the common area is 2.72
acres along Manley Road and the common area with the stormwater pond and remaining lot is 2.32
acres.
The Chair invited the applicant to come forward.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
June 8, 2017 — Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 20
Dan Lorenz, 9341 Jerome Road, said he is a civil engineer and he would be the developer. He introduced
Dwight McCabe who is the architect. He said Mr. McCabe's grandparents owned the property at one
point. He indicated he and his wife moved here 20 years ago and built on this property and that they had
a lot of privacy before the Tartan West development. He said they excavated the pond, the field, and had
a great time raising their four kids there and they are empty -nesters now. He explained he has friends
that are looking at places in Dublin where they can down -size and have less maintenance. He indicated
he is trying to find a solution for everybody and wants to know if this would work.
Mr. Lorenz pointed out that he wanted a public road, not a private one he has to worry about. He
reported they conducted a residential meeting at Tartan West about a month ago and nobody showed up
despite all the emails and letter notifications that were sent out.
Mr. Lorenz said they took the architecture from a neighboring site and added it to their proposal. He
pointed out the road that he plans to extend across for connectivity. He said storm drainage goes into the
pond, and noted where the sanitary sewer lines are located. He said there are very few trees and that
they would probably add trees. He thought his property was set up to include everything that Dublin
would want and they would be able to keep the residents in the community as they are looking for an
alternative solution. He said the layout incorporates a large first floor master suite with full bath and
walk-in closet with privacy off the back, an additional bedroom or den, 2,500 square feet, plus there is an
option to build bedrooms upstairs and there is a basement. He believes the density makes sense.
Dwight McCabe, 7361 Currier Road, Plain City, Ohio, said he lives about halfway between Dublin and
Plain City. He confirmed this property was his grandfather's so he is very familiar with it and the property
backtowards Dublin was his uncle's.
Mr. McCabe indicated he does not like small parcels of land that are left between developments as they
usually become unsightly. He said they are proposing that these homes will function like there is a zero
lot line and the idea here is to maximize the use of the footprint. He said they propose the building wall
to have windows in it but they would be translucent for bathrooms and utility rooms located behind. As
the occupant is looking out the living room windows, and covered patio, he explained the space would be
owned by the occupant. He said the great room would have a cathedral ceiling and there is an oversized
kitchen with an island. He reported they have a model built out in Tipp City, just north of Dayton, and
one does not feel crowded in the house even with 50 guests in there at one time. He said it is an
extremely flexible plan and the expectation would be a product for empty -nesters and who will have
space for the kids or grandkids when they come home. He said the architecture is not cast in stone and
could go many directions.
Chris Brown said he definitely picked up on the setback idea. He asked about parking for guests that
come at the holidays because he said that was the only thing that stuck out for him needing to be
addressed. He stated he liked the architecture. He said it seems dense plunked into the middle of
everything but relative to other communities going on, it is very similar and fits that niche.
Ms. De Rosa asked what would happen in the common area. Mr. McCabe said the homeowners could
deal with that. The pond area itself, he restated, is a retention pond. He said the area along Manly Road
would be a great place for grandkids to run off some energy as it is safe with sidewalks and a landscape
buffer.
Ms. De Rosa indicated this concept is really interesting as she likes the English gardens but thought the
area along Manley should be developed along with this theme instead of leaving it as a field.
Jon Kirk, Remax Real Estate Agent, 8136 Flynn Lane, Dublin, Ohio, said this is not just a field of houses.
He said the east end of the property is very high and the water drains down to the pond so the houses
on the east end will have an overlooking view of this small little hamlet and there will be a tiered look to
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
June 8, 2017 — Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 20
the houses, there will not be a direct line, which will provide a great view of the gardens as they venture
down the street.
Mr. McCabe added for the houses that sit up, they could have walkout basements. He said this group is
not looking for clubhouses and pools but maybe a fire pit where they can all congregate perhaps and
drink a beer.
Ms. De Rosa said this is different from proposals the Commission has seen, the covered patios and theme
are very interesting, but thinks there are some opportunities here for the empty nesters, and fits quite
nice in this setting.
Mr. Lorenz asked if a 50 -foot right-of-way has been approved in Dublin but there is still that 26 — 28 -foot
wide road that we could park cars on.
Mr. Brown said the trick becomes the spacing of the driveways and how many cars can fit in between;
that is the issue. He said it becomes a problem when cars stack up at the holidays or someone is having
a party and that needs to be considered. Mr. Lorenz asked if he should consider the turnaround at the
end.
Mr. Miller indicated parking is not going to be as bad as at the Moors.
Ms. Burchett suggested that Engineering be involved in this conversation.
Mr. Miller asked how many walkouts could be built on this parcel. Mr. McCabe answered at least five
could be possible. Mr. Miller indicated that is very attractive.
Steve Stidhem said he loves it and cannot wait to see them be built because he is an empty -nester. He
said fire pits or benches for the common area rather than just an open field is the way to go. He
suggested a path around the pond would be interesting and maybe a small dock or areas for people to sit
and fish.
Mr. McCabe said he has received solid feedback from cyclists; they would love the idea to get out here.
Victoria Newell said the overall density can be appropriate. She said the English Tudor style architecture
is lovely but she just sees one model and no variety. She said the plan is very rigid, there is no change in
the setback between houses, it is not staggered in any way, very rhythmic as one goes down the street
so having the same building fagade again and again is not going to provide the sense of character the
applicant is pursuing. She said it might be nice for the pathway that goes across the driveway is treated
differently as one is walking through a neighborhood with driveways followed by more driveways.
Mr. McCabe answered that they are getting to a place where they are figuring out the marketable
product for this location, those types of issues would definitely be addressed. He said there are multiple
options they could consider.
Ms. Newell said the back common area is great, currently there is no way for the residents to get to the
front common area so for that to be usable, there needs to be a path of travel and amenities need to be
developed. Lastly, she said parking is an issue.
Mr. Miller inquired about the prices. Mr. Lorenz answered a range of $500,000 - $650,000.