Resolution 028-20RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc., Form No. 30045
Resolution No.
28-20
Passed , 20
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND ACCEPTING THE PLAT FOR DEER
RUN ESTATES
WHEREAS, application for approval of the plat for Deer Run Estates 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,EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of
rZ
Ohio,of the elected members concurring that:
Section 1. The City Council hereby approves and accepts the plat for Deer Run
Estates, 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 to Section 4.04 of the Revised Charter, this resolution shall take
effect immediately upon passage.
Passed this ���day of 12020.
Mayor — Presiding Officer
ATTEST:
Clerk of Council
Office of the City Manager
nEmerald
of Dublin Phone: 614-410-4 0 • Fax: 614-410-4490
14--4 10-449 0 43017-1090
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager
Date: May 19, 2020
Initiated By: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Director
Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Senior Planner/Current Planning Manager
Re: A resolution accepting the plat for Deer Run Estates
Summary
Memo
This is a request, as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, to accept a revision
to the lot dimensions and the private access drive for a previously approved Final Plat. The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of a Final Development Plan and Final
Plat for Deer Run, Subarea A on May 5, 2016 and City Council voted to accept the Final Plat on
May 23, 2016.
The rezoning, preliminary development plan, and preliminary plat were approved by the Planning
and Zoning Commission in February of 2011. City Council approved Ordinance #11-11 rezoning
51.7 acres from R-1: Restricted Suburban Residential District to Planned Unit Development District
(Deer Run) in March of 2011. The preliminary plat had established 11 Lots predominately located
within Subarea A towards the northern edge of the site. The private street had access within
Subarea A and a reserve along the Scioto River for common 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 design for the development are approved
separately by the required reviewing bodies.
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
Two single-family homes are located on the north side of Deer Run Creek, which is located along
the southern edge of Subarea A. A private drive. Deer Run Drive, provides a connection to Dublin
Road through Subarea B. The site is heavily wooded with mature trees throughout the entire site
and the site has significant grade change due to Deer Run Creek and Scioto River to the east.
Memo re: Resolution 28-20 Plat Acceptance of Deer Run Estates
Tuesday, May 19, 2020
Page 2 of 2
Description
The purpose of the preliminary and final plat is to ensure conformance with the requirements set
forth in Sections 152.085 through 152.095 of the Code, exclusive of other standards in the Code.
The proposal includes the previously approved four single-family residential lots and one reserve
with a single private drive servicing the subdivision. Two of the lots, Lots 12 & 13, are developed
with single-family homes. This proposal will adjust the lot line between Lots 14 and 15 and modify
the access easement to provide for a turnaround for emergency vehicles on Lot 15, a previously
platted shared access and utility easement on Lot 15 will be eliminated. An access and utility
easement will be created to ensure all lots have adequate access. The modifications will require
less of an extension of Deer Run Drive. Lot 14 will slightly increase in size and Lot 15 will slightly
decrease. None of the proposed changes impact the development character of the previous
approved Final Development Plan and the Final Plat and all lots will be the development text
requirements.
The request is made in an effort to reduce the footprint of the private drive and provide more
flexibility on the location of the futures homes on Lots 14 and 15, given the topography and
wooded nature of the site. The lot sizes vary considerably due to existing site conditions and
developable land. Lot 14 is 2.453 acres, and Lot 15 is 4.719 acres.
Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission
On April 30, 2020, the Commission reviewed and recommended approval to City Council of the
final plat with the below 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 plat.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Resolution for the Final Plat at the May 26, 2020 City Council
meeting.
Situated in the Stale of Ohio, County of Delaware, City of Dublin, and in Virginia
Military Survey 2545, being a Re—Subdivision of tot 14 4 tut 15, as numbered
and delineated upon the recorded plat of 'Deer Run Subarea A b Partial
Re—SubdMdon of Deer Ron Eslates' as sham of record Plat Book 1426, Page
1656-1657 amtomig 7.172 acres of lad mora of lose, all references being to
those of record in the Recorder's Office, Delaware Coun ise, Ohio.
Deer Run Estates Lot Ownerships:
Lot 14 Beteg in the nens of DEER RUN LAND, LLC per 'Deer Run Subarea A h
Partial Ra—Subdivhdon of Deer Run Estates' Plat Book 1426, Page
1656-1657.
Lot 15 Being in the name of DEER RUN LAND, LLC per 'Deer Run Subarea A Nk
Partial Re—Subdivision Door Run Estado Plot Book 1426, Page
1656-1657.
The undersigned, GDDRDE H. BENNEIT, JR, Vico President, authorized signor of
DEER RUN LAND LLC a limited liability company, by ower of the lands platted
herein, duly outhaized in the premises dose hereby certify that this plat
correctly represents Its a Re—Subdivision of Let 14 R Lot 15 of Deer Run
Subarea A & Partial Re—Subdivision of Deer Run Estates and Easements
containing lots numbered 14 to 15, both inclusio, and hereby accepts this plat
of game.
The undersigned further ogress that any use or improvements on this land shall
be in conformity with all sailing valid zoning, platting, health or other lawful
rube and regulations, including applicable off—street parking and loading
requirements of the qty of Dublin, Ohio, for the benefit of bef and all ether
subsequent owners or asegn taking title from, under or through the urderdgned.
Easements are hereby reserved in, over and under areas desigrakd on thin plat
as 'Easemed', *Drainage Easement', Each of the aforementioned designated
easements permit the construction, operation and maintenance of all public and
quasi public utilities above, berwath, and on the surface of the ground and,
where necessary, are for the construction, operation, and maintenance of service
connections to all adjacent bis and lands and for storm water droinsge. Within
those areas designated *Drainage Easement' on this plat an additional easement
is hereby reserved for the purpose of constructing, operating and mointoming
major storm water drainage swabe and/or other above ground storm water
drainage foclNiea. No above grade sbuct rm dome or ober obstructions to the
flow of storm water runoff are permitted within Drainage Easement areas as
delineated on this plat unless approved by the Dubin qty Engineer.
Easem e. are hereby reserved in, over and under areas designated on this plan
as 'Private Utility Easement' (PUT) for the construction, operation and
maintenance of storm water runoff drains, fadlitkg and moinine watedis
fac ase. Such facilities shell be owned and maintained by a modes association
for the Deer Pan development Said facilities will not be dedicated to the qty of
Dubin and the qty of Dublin will not be responsible for the maintenance of said
facilities.
In wiser senor. GEDINE R IEMETT. JR cob RaMwe of BEIR RIM UVA LLC, has lierenib
d hb lad are _dW d -2s,__.
6T30R6E R 1011M. JR
Ws, Rsdwe
SPATE OF ahlD
CeerIY OF DEAWK s
Bohm n% a Nay Rale in and for add Sob, paaieIt appmed GEDRDE H. BENNEb JR" Vim
Rude i of DEER RIM LJJrD. LEC who adnambdped the dies
60'
ar bWwrnt b he
Me � acarid M� On weather d awl and d RAIN DC far tis ur
In Wbea 1110001. 111001 liweub d as, had and arced as, sin' sealale _ dry. d —
20—
me aemsidm .BYa
lAEay Rhea, slob Of ado
RE -SUBDIVISION OF LOT 14 & LOT 15 OF
DEER RUN SUBAREA A & PARTIAL RE -SUBDIVISION OF
DEER RUN ESTATES AND EASEMENTS
STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF DELAWARE, CITY OF DUBLIN
NOTE 'A' — Non—exclusive utility easements are Matted for the construction.
operation and maintenance of public and private ubTRies, dour
rater management and service corrections theala; above and
beneath the surface of the ground.
NOTE 'B' — For any easement shown on this plat that coins a storm sewer,
culvert, over land open ditch flood route, detention basin, retention bean and/or
other storm water structure (herein referred to as storm sewer). the storm sewer
rights are senior to be rights of any other pubic or private utility, or interest
utilizing the easement. Any cods associated with the damage, repair, replacement
or relocation of any buried or above ground focitly or structure that is necessary
to abs the maint mance, repair or replacement of the storm sewer shell be the
regwWbiNy of the owner of sold utility, facility or structure. When maintenance,
repair or replacement of a storm sewer causes SM removal of any tress,
plantings, landscaping, fence, driveway or any other feature located within the
easement, the replacement and cast of said items shell be the responsibility of
the owner of the underlying property or homeowners association B applicable.
NOTE V — Within those areae of land designated 'Drainage Eaeensnt' on this
Mat, an additional easement is hereby reserved for the purpose of constructing,
operating and mambaiuirg major storm water drainage codec and/or other dorm
water drainage fac➢Rks, No above grade shicturss, dons or other obstructions
to the flow of storm water runoff are permitted within Drainage Easement ansa
as delineated on this plat. Easement areas down hereon outside of the plotted
area am within lands owned by the undersigned and easements aro hereby
reserved therein for the uses and purposes expressed herein.
NDIE *D' — Drives shall riot encroach into any side yard drainage easement.
NOTE 'E' — BE ADVISED: A sub—surface drainage system may exist on this The
system and/or outlet R located on this properly mast be maintained at all timet
NOTE 'F' – On file with the County Engineer, Code Compliance, General Health
District, and platting authodtias are pians infilcating thaature and location of
various subdivision improvements.
NOTE V – Deviation in house locations and location and design of household
sewage systems sham on development plans on fib with the Delaware
City/County General Health District may be allowed only B alternate locations and
designs are submitted to, coordinated with, and approved by Code Compliance,
Township Zoning and Health District authoriln
NOTE 'H' — Easements are hereby reserved in, over and under areas of land
designated on this plat as 'Easement' or 'Dmkoge Easement', for the
construction, operation and maintenance of all public and quad public utilities
above and beneath the surface of the grand and, where necessary, for the
construction, operation and mallatenence of service connections to all adjacent
lots and lands and for dorm eater drainage, excepting that within said areae
designated "Emernerd' and *Drainage Easement' hereat' no gas Ens, underground
telephone, electric or television cable line or conduR or any other utility line shell
be installed or placed on a tarso or alignment that both 1) is parallel with or
apprmdnately parallel with any sxieting (existing at the Ume of sold irsMlmerd
or placement) sanitary sewer line in a said easement area and 2) has any point
therein closer than fen fast to mid sanitary sawar line untrue said course or
alignment is approved, in writing, by the Delaware County Sanitary Engineer. No
right angle or neer right angle crossing of said linea or conduits and and sewer
Is hereby rerricted.
NOTE'r – Where indicated, sanitary sewer easements are solely for construction,
operation and maintenance of public and/or private sanitary sewam and service
connections and may be crossed by other utilities.
9TO tins of Day d
1144._ lad IAw and IaaO
saw d
1
Dish one
the — Dow d_
all, Iripker, asbN oleo
=W tins _ Day of 10_� by the Co nd o the CRY d C
Davdkkk44 allo
Cly of Doan RNA" Na
In N lead I her Irredo
we ne had o d0 rimed ny nd ale awe d Carew, Ddew,
Oh
dry, 14.
Tromeened the _ dey of —
20_ Adler. Ddowae Cawlj, Ohio
Rmam, noe Cowly, Ohio
V.M.S. 2545
NOTE 'J' – Access to the Public: Road (tight of Way from the late within the CAD
shell be restricted to the Common Access Drive located within the Common
Access Drive Easement
NOTE 'M' – Said coling regulations and any amendments thereto passed
subsequent to the acceptance of this pint, should be reviewed to detanline the
then current requirements. This notice Is solely for the purpose of notifying the
pubic of the to dente, at the time of platting. of certain zoning regualtions
applicable to this properly. This notice should not be interpreted as creating plat
or subdivision restrictions. private use restrictions covenants running with the land
or titis encumbrances of any nature, and is for informational purposes only.
Acreage Breakdown: The Dew Run Subarea A Nk Partial Re–subdMisbn of Door
Run Estates is comprised of the (dowing Delaware County Panel Numbers with
the acreage beteg platted out of each.
Lots 14 Parcel Number 60043310004000 2 .453 Acres
Lots 15 Parcel Number 60043310005000 4.719 Acres
yleilJl
7.172 Acres
The Re—Subdivision of Lot 14 k Lot 15 of Deer Run Subarea A 3 Partial
Re—subdhdsion of Deer Run Estates is comprised of the fallowing components.
Acreage in Lots 7.172 Acres
Acreage in Reserves 0.000 Aeras
Acreage in B/W: &ODD Anse
TOTAL ACREAGE 7.172 Acres
"Not
�h�E �FOhi'o
JOHN JEFFREY',
RAAB T
-,a i 7863 i
�•�'• ."ONAL'S� J� ,
alb' a 1771
BASIS OF BEARINGS: The bearings shown hereon are based on the Ohio State
Plane CoonfilnaEe System, South zone, as per NAM (2011 adjuebnerd). Control
for bearings was from a field tmrerse which was Bed (referenced) to said
coordinate system by GPS observations of Franklin County Engineering Department
monuments MCNEAL and 04-0088.
SOURCE OF DATA The sources of recorded survey data referenced in the plan
and text of this plat are the records of the Delaware County, Ohio, Recorders,
IRON PINS: Iron pins, where indicated, hereon, unless otherwise noted, are to be
set and are 'ion pipes, 3/4 inch inside d'amehr, thirty inches long with a plastic
cop inscribed 'OHM'.
PERMANENT MARKERS: Permanent markers are to be eco—inch diameter,
thirty—inch long, sold iron pins with an aluminum cop punched to indicate the
actual location of the poled
We do hereby ar16y thot we hoe surveyed the
above premises, prepared the attached plot and tot
said plot is correct. N dimensions aro in fed and
decimal ports thereof.
0 — Iron Pin Set (See Survey Data)
0 — Iron Pipe Found 3/4' I.D., 30" tong with Plastic Cap
Inscribed "OHM"
® — Perwan rt Marker (See Survey Data)
By John J. Raab
Profaelond Surveyor No. 7863 Dab 05/05/2020
11
OHM10
ARCMI = ENGINE BANNERS
580 NORTH 4TH STREET
SURE 830
COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215
OHM-ADVISORS.COM
RE -SUBDIVISION OF LOT 14 &LOT 15 OF
DEER RUN SUBAREA A &PARTIAL RE -SUBDIVISION OF
DEER RUN ESTATES AND EASEMENTS
STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF DELAWARE, CITY OF DUBLIN
KERRY GLEN
V.M.S. 2545
I I I / \ I
P.B. 19, PG. 39 /
HILAND HEIGHTS Na 2
x
P.B. 7, PG. 281
0.90' a
N69' 52' 41"E 1473.82' 110.65
.30' 436.24' / 306.64 2 L13 L14 L15 /'�7I' �. 492'7
ca � / N20/'/0T 1/9'W s
0.00 E
SETBACK cam, S69 52 41 "W
143.00
2so. / / 40. W 50' ACCESS &
UTILITY EASEMENT
LRESERVE °A" / ti/ 40' ACCESS SETBI�K M
LOT 24
ANFi1SEMIENT LOT 13 N 2.025 ACRES
o,
S62' 41 ' 25"E
LOT 14 166.25
M — TOTAL DEER RUN LAND, LLC
P.N. 600-433-10-004-000
ACRES
18.419 � \ � \ 2.453 Ac /
/ DEER RUN LAND, LLC
P.N. 600-433-10-003-000 ) 10
2.590 AC ' D�
LOT 12
v
L
\' , DEER RUN SUBAREA A
ooh
,ter E\ & PARTIAL RE -SUBDIVISION
OF DEER RUN ESTATES 8
I
.ITY ;
EMENT
T '
I
I
' I
i
I
I
I I
LOT 25
20� 5.147 ACRES
I
I
LOT 15
DEER RUN LAND, LLC
\ P.N. 600-433-10-005-000 I
\ 4.719 AC I
N \ I
\ 1
\ I
BK 1426, PG. 1656-1657
\ \ ED y,"
I
/
PARTIAL NESSBBDIVISBO&
OF DEER RUN ESTATES
\ / BK 1458, PG. 2105-2106
\ \ / DEER RUN SUBAREA B & /�
PARTIAL RE -SUBDIVISION / \ �TJ
OF DEER RUN ESTATES \ O
-`'T BK 1458, PG. 2105-2106
I
/ \ \ \ \ \ N24' 23'105.61
PEPE
ACCESS ED / EASEMENT
R. 462 PG. 82
I
Line Table
Line
L
BEARING
LB
19.53
N73' 21' 06"E
L9
251.06
N37' 26' 06"E
L10
198.26
N53' 04' 13"E
IT 1
85,47
N22' 36' 33"E
L12
72,48
N65' 43' 28"E
L13
26,77
N67' 25' 55"E
L14
1.45
N68' 21' 56"E
L15
27.50
NW 21' 560E
L16
55.11
N71' 51' 56"E
L17
133.70
S72' 28' 341
Curare Table
Curve
L
R
DELTA
CHORD LENGTH
CHORD BEARING
C5
94.03
150.00
35'55'00"
92.50'
N55' 23' 361
C6
81.87
300.00
15'38'07"
81.61'
N45' 15' 09"E
C7
66.46
125.00
30'27'40"
65.68'
PST 50' BYE
C8
81.27
104.00
44'46'20"
79.22'
N44' 07' 261
C9
124.47
200.00
35'39'30"
122.47'
N89' 41' 411
I
b
GRAPHIC SCALE. 1 Inds 80 fat
0 30 80 120 180
LEGENQ:
� 18.93'
--- EASEMENT TO BE VACATED
w I
Ul) I
M
E I
M I
rn I
I
�I
W \
N
N \
C- \\
�s \
s� O� \
0 \
�L \
%lot \
SUBDIVIDER: DEER RUN LAND, LLC
330 W. SPRING STREET, ST. 400
COLUMBUS, OH 43215
11
OHM10
ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PLANNERS
580 NORTH 4TH STREET
SUITE 630
COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215
OHM-ADVISORS.COM
DEER RUN SUBAREA A
(AMENDED) FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN STATEMENT
1. Project description describing the proposed Planned Unit Development, outlining the basic
scope, character, and nature of the project. Please state how the proposed Planned Unit
Development relates to existing land use character of the vicinity, to the Dublin Community
Plan, and any other applicable standards such as the Residential Appearance Standards.
Deer Run Subarea A consists of 4 existing single family lots on approximately 17.1 acres. This
proposed amended final development plan seeks to make minor modifications related to lot
lines of the un -built lots, access, and utilities.
The lots will continue to meet the requirements of the PUD Preliminary Development Plan and
text in maintaining a minimum 2.0 acre lot size, a total of 4 single-family lots, the same density,
and open space configurations.
The Community Plan calls for this site to be Suburban -Rural Residential (0.5-1.0 du.ac):
Residential development used to accommodate environmentally sensitive areas or sites
affected by physical features. Homes may consist of single-family structures on larger
lots ranging from 1 to 2 acres or larger or in developments that preserve open space and
natural features by concentrating development in open areas. Sites may include public
utilities or on-site services where public utilities are unavailable.
The character of the proposed modifications maintains the existing density of 0.234 du/ac. The
proposed modifications seek to reduce the private street and its footprint on this property with
significant natural features. The goal is to lend flexibility for the ultimate home -buyer to design
a home and driveway configuration that can best work with the features of the sites.
2. State how the proposal is consistent with the development plan for the Planned District. For
an Amended Final Development Plan, explain how the proposal differs from the approved
Final Development Plan.
The amended final development plan illustrates the following modifications:
• Adjust the lot line dividing lots 14 and 15.
• Adjust the width and radii of Lot 13's east -most driveway connection to provide a 90 -
degree hammerhead emergency vehicle turn -around. Modify the access easement to
include this turn -around area.
• Reduce the extension of Deer Run Drive and the shared access -and -utility -easement to
the proposed north panhandle of lot 14. The extension will maintain connection points
for utilities and private driveway to Lot 15.
• Eliminate the shared access -and -utility easement on Lot 15.
• Extend a utility easement along the Lot 14/15 property line and plan for a lift -station to
serve Lots 14 and 15 only.
2/6/2020
3. Explain how the proposed development meets the review criteria for Final Development Plan
approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission §153.055(8)
(I) The plan conforms in all pertinent respects to the approved preliminary development plan provided
however, that the Planning and Zoning Commission may authorize plans as specified in § 153.053(E)(4),-
The
53.053(E)(4);
The proposed modifications do not change the character of the neighborhood, maintains the
same number of proposed homes and same density, and the same amount of open space.
(2) Adequate provision is made for safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular circulation within the site
and to adjacent property,,
The project consists of a very low density. Vehicular circulation is by use of a very simple street
network, the street widths are purposefully made narrow to encourage slower speeds, and
minimize the visual impact on the natural character of the site. Pedestrian circulation will also
be via the street network, as approved in the preliminary plan, due to the very low volume
nature of the streets.
(3) The development has adequate public services and open spaces;
The project will access and extend sewer and water service already located on site. Open space
is provided on site consistent with those planned in the preliminary development plans and will
not change with this application.
(4) The development preserves and is sensitive to the natural characteristics of the site in a manner
that complies with the applicable regulations set forth in this code;
The proposed modifications are in an effort to reduce the potential footprint of the private
street and provide more flexibility within the lots to locate homes and driveways to work with
the existing features of each site. Development areas in Subarea A are limited by a 100 year
floodplain that protects trees and the most significant topographic and geologic features. Itis
intended that individual homes will be designed to work with the natural character of each
home site as much as possible.
(5) The development provides adequate lighting for safe and convenient use of the streets, walkways,
driveways, and parking areas without unnecessarily spilling or emitting light onto adjacent properties or
the general vicinity, -
The development seeks to maintain the natural character of the site as an amenity to the
neighborhood, and as such, is seeking to not include lighting in the development plans for the
project, as was prior approved for Subarea A, and approved for Subarea B. Architectural light
fixtures may be used on homes.
2/6/2020
(6) The proposed signs, as indicated on the submitted sign plan, will be coordinated within the PUD and
with adjacent development are of an appropriate size, scale, and design in relationship with the
principal building, site, and surroundings; and are located so as to maintain safe and orderly pedestrian
and vehicular circulation;
There is an existing entry gate and small identity sign (Shared with Subarea B) which will be
maintained. Address signage may be incorporated at individual driveway points to aid in
wayfinding.
(7) The landscape plan will adequately enhance the principal building and site; maintain existing trees
to the extent possible; buffer adjacent incompatible uses; break up large expanses of pavement with
natural material; and provide appropriate plant materials for the buildings, site, and climate;
The natural character of the site is its strongest amenity, and the goal in Deer Run has always
been to minimize the footprint of improvements. Any trees removed as a result of the proposed
improvements will be replaced per the requirements of the PUD Text, if necessary. Landscape
plans for individual home sites will be submitted with those home's plans.
(8) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site which complies with the
applicable regulations in this code and any other design criteria established by the city or any other
governmental entity which may have jurisdiction over such matters;
The site provides storm drainage through swales located alongside the private streets, with
appropriate outlet points.
(9) If the project is to be carried out in progressive stages, each stage shall be so planned that the
foregoing conditions are complied with at the completion of each stage;
The project is expected to develop the streets and utilities first. Home sites will be developed
individually as market demands.
(10) The Commission believes the project to be in compliance with all other local, state and federal laws
and regulations.
The project strives to meet applicable regulations.
2/6/2020
DEER RUN ESTATES—APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011
Development Text
Introduction:
Deer Run is a +/- 51.7 acre Planned Unit Development in the City of Dublin. The site is
situated just west of the Scioto River, and straddles the boundary line between Franklin
and Delaware Counties. The site is bound by Kerry Glen Subdivision to the North, the
Scioto River and City of Dublin owned property to the East, Memorial Drive and
Amberleigh Subdivision to the South, and Dublin Road to the west.
The site is unique in that it is heavily wooded, and contains a variety of topography,
including a large ravine that bisects the site. This PUD seeks to provide a variety of
residential choices that will embrace the existing character, and preserve as much of
the natural features as possible through the use of large lots, and smaller, clustered
lots.
Deer Run March 28, 2010 1
Preliminary Development Plan
DEER RUN ESTATES—APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011
General Development Standards
1) Applicability:
The development will consist of three subareas (Subareas A -C), each of which is
subject to the applicable standards set forth in the text. Except where defined in this
text, the development shall meet the standards in the City of Dublin Code.
11) Residential Lot Types:
Subarea A is the northern -most portion of the site, north of the large ravine, and is
made up of Estate Lots. Subarea B is the central portion of the site, south of the large
ravine, and is also made up of Estate Lots. Subarea C is the southern -most portion of
the site and is made up of Cluster Lots.
III) Residential Architectural Standards:
A) All dwelling units shall comply with the design guidelines of the development
standards in this text, except for any existing buildings or site improvements that
will remain. Redevelopment or alterations to those existing elements shall be in
compliance with the design guidelines of the development standards in this text.
Unless otherwise specified in the submitted drawings or in this written text, the
development standards of Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin Code shall apply to
this subarea.
B) All structures shall meet the City of Dublin Zoning Code Residential Appearance
Standards, unless otherwise set forth in this text.
IV) Setbacks:
Setbacks from the perimeter of the PUD site shall be as follows:
A) Minimum building and pavement setback from Dublin Road right-of-way shall be
one hundred (100) feet. The private access and utility easement shall be
permitted to encroach on this setback as shown on the plans.
B) Minimum building and pavement setback from Memorial Drive right-of-way shall be
one hundred (100) feet.
C) The minimum building and pavement setback from all other PUD perimeter
property lines shall be twenty five (25) feet. Access and utility easements shall be
permitted to encroach on these setbacks, as shown on the plans.
Deer Run March 28, 2010 2
Preliminary Development Plan
DEER RUN ESTATES—APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011
D) The existing private drive from Dublin Road, as well as its proposed extension
along the northern property line, shall be permitted to encroach on these setbacks,
as shown on the plans.
V) Graphics and Signs:
A) At the time of the submission of its initial Final Development Plan to the Planning
and Zoning Commission for any residential development, the developer shall
present the Planning Commission with a graphics and signage plan for its review.
This plan, and any future amendments thereto, shall serve as the uniform graphics
and signage plan for the entire PUD both for the initial phase of residential
development on the site and any phase of residential development occurring
thereafter. Once the graphics and signage plan is approved as a part of the initial
final development plan, its terms shall apply to all residential graphics and signage
within the PUD.
B) In the event that the graphics and signage plan is silent on any matter addressed
by the City of Dublin Sign Code then the terms of those Code sections shall apply.
VI) Landscaping Vision:
Landscaping shall maintain a natural appearance along Dublin Road and Memorial Drive,
in common open spaces, along the private streets in subareas A and B, and throughout
undeveloped areas of the site. Subarea C may appear more formalized to complement
the intended "European village" style of the architecture. More formalized landscaping
may be designed to complement the individual homes in all subareas. Landscaping
should be designed to complement appearance and plant material existing in the
adjoining woods and natural areas. A significant effort shall be made to preserve the
natural features, including existing trees and topography, particularly in Subarea B.
VII) Expiration of Zoning Approval:
A) This PUD requests an exemption from the Dublin Zoning Code which requires the
submission of a final development plan within three years of approval of this
preliminary development plan and the Planned Development District designation.
This preliminary development plan shall remain in effect until such time that a Final
Development Plan is approved.
VIII) Home Owners' Associations
Deer Run March 28, 2010 3
Preliminary Development Plan
DEER RUN ESTATES—APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011
A) Two separate forced and funded homeowners' associations shall be established:
one for Subareas A and B, and one for Subarea C.
B) The associations shall own and maintain all common facilities, including but not
limited to open spaces, private streets, private utilities, and access gates and
signs, common area landscaping and fencing.
IX) Public Improvements
A) A five (5) foot wide concrete sidewalk will be installed per city standards within the
right-of-way along the north side of Memorial Drive. The sidewalk, as shown on
the plan, will tie into the existing bike path to the west.
B) The applicant will be responsible for any roadway improvements identified within
the finalized Traffic Impact Study, subject to approval by the City Engineer.
X) Perimeter Fencing
A) The existing black, 4 -rail, wood fence along Dublin Road and Memorial Drive shall
be permitted to remain and be maintained in its existing location.
B) The length of black, 4 -rail, wood fencing that extends from the east boundary of
the property along Memorial Drive and onto the City of Dublin property shall be
removed from the City of Dublin property and relocated by the applicant at time of
construction of either this development or the city park, whichever comes first.
C) A survey for the final development plan shall verify any additional off-site
encroachments and their correction shall be made as part of the final development
plan.
Deer Run March 28, 2010 4
Preliminary Development Plan
DEER RUN ESTATES—APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011
Subarea A: Estate Lots
1) Description:
A) Subarea A shall be located on the northernmost portion of the site adjacent to
Dublin Road to the east, Kerry Glen Subdivision to the north, the Scioto River to
the east, and Subarea B separated by the ravine to the south. This subarea shall
be approximately 18.5 acres and shall contain "Estate Lots" as described below.
The subarea includes two existing single-family homes that shall be permitted to
remain.
11) Permitted Uses:
A) Permitted uses shall include single-family detached homes, and the current use of
the existing building on proposed Lot #2 as a guest lodge / clubhouse.
B) Accessory Uses shall be as permitted by City of Dublin Code.
III) Density, Height, Lot and/or Setback Commitments:
A) The maximum number of dwelling units shall be four (4). The maximum density
shall be 0.22 du/ac.
B) Minimum Lot size shall be 2 acres.
C) Setbacks
(1) The minimum front yard setback shall be twenty-five (25) feet from the
private street easement line.
(2) The minimum side yard setback shall be twenty-five (25) feet from each side
property line.
(3) The minimum rear -yard setback shall be 30 feet from the property line, or
the 100 -year flood line, whichever is greater...
D) Encroachments into applicable setbacks shall be in accordance with the City of
Dublin Code, or as outlined within this text.
E) Maximum building height shall be thirty-five (35) feet. Height shall be measured
from the finish grade at the front or main fagade of the house to the height of the
dominant roof mass. Architectural features that exceed this height must be
Deer Run March 28, 2010 5
Preliminary Development Plan
DEER RUN ESTATES—APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011
compatible with the style and massing of the overall architecture of the building
and shall be approved by staff.
F) There shall be only one principal use permitted on each lot, and such lot shall not
be covered more than 30% by structures.
G) Homes shall be permitted to have walk -out basements so as to minimize the need
for extensive site grading.
IV) Access, Loading, Parking and/or other Traffic -Related Commitments:
A) Access
(1) Access to Subarea A shall be from Dublin Road at the existing curb -cut and
shall provide shared access to Subarea B. The common access easement
of approximately 0.7 acres within Subarea B shall be owned and maintained
by the homeowners association.
B) Private Streets
(1) All dwelling units in this subarea shall have access from a private street.
(2) The existing private street width and decorative gravel surface contribute to
the natural and rural character of this site. It is the intent of this plan to
maintain that character by matching the existing private street as much as
possible.
(3) All streets constructed as a part of this subarea shall be privately owned and
maintained and shall be combined access and utility easements.
(4) All private street easements shall have a minimum width of fifty (50) feet. All
existing private streets and driveways shall be permitted to remain.
(5) The future extension of the private street shall be a minimum width of twelve
(12) feet. The street shall provide a widened "bump -out' at new hydrant
locations to provide a minimum width of twenty-six (26) feet. The extension
of the street and any utilities shall be adjusted within the easement so as to
minimize removal of trees.
(6) Curbs and gutters shall not be required.
(7) All private streets shall be designed per the City of Dublin engineering
standards, except as noted above and so as to accommodate access by
emergency vehicles.
Deer Run March 28, 2010 6
Preliminary Development Plan
DEER RUN ESTATES—APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011
(8) Pavement surface may be asphalt top -dressed with decorative gravel to
match the appearance of the existing private street.
C) Existing Bridge
(1) The existing bridge shall be evaluated at final development plan to verify
that vehicle load limits are suitable for emergency access. Should
improvements be required based on the results of the study, such
improvements shall be required to be completed prior to the submission of a
building permit for Subarea A.
(2) Signage identifying load limits shall be posted at both entrances to the
bridge.
D) Sidewalks, bike paths, or leisure trails shall not be required.
E) Estate Lot driveways
(1) Materials shall be asphalt top -dressed with decorative gravel to match the
appearance of the existing private street or the driveway materials permitted
per City of Dublin Code.
(2) Multiple curb -cuts may be permitted from the private street where
appropriate and approved by the City. Multiple curb -cuts shall be based on
safety, design aesthetics, and lot entry.
(3) The existing driveways of the existing homes shall be permitted to remain.
(4) This subarea shall otherwise be exempt for residential driveway code.
V) Architectural Standards:
A) Design Review: All homes within this subarea are envisioned to be custom homes
and shall be held to a high quality of design and construction. No improvements,
change, construction, addition, excavation, landscaping, tree removal, 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. The committee shall be appointed by the Trustees of
the Association, and shall consist of at least three members. Design review
procedure shall be outlined within the deed restrictions of the lots.
B) Architectural Diversity: In order to ensure that there is architectural diversity,
homes located on adjacent lots within Subarea A shall be required to utilize either
Deer Run March 28, 2010 7
Preliminary Development Plan
DEER RUN ESTATES—APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011
(1) different floor plans or (2) different architectural styles. In the event that homes
with the same architectural style are built on adjacent lots, then, in addition to
being required to incorporate different floor plans, these homes also shall be
required to use different exterior colors and materials.
C) Exterior materials:
(1) All buildings shall incorporate four-sided architecture.
(2) Finish building materials shall be applied to all sides of the exteriors of all
buildings.
(3) Colors shall be harmonious and compatible with colors of the natural
surroundings and other adjacent buildings, if any. The Design Committee
shall have the sole right to approve or disapprove materials and colors,
consistent with the approved development text and approved final
development plan.
(4) Cladding materials: The exteriors of structures in this subarea shall be
constructed of brick, stone, manufactured stone, wood, stucco, cementitious
siding, and other comparable materials, subject to approval by Planning (or
any combination thereof).
(5) Trim materials: Permitted exterior trim materials shall include wood,
aluminum (for gutters and downspouts only), copper, EIFS fiber -cement
products, or composite wood, products. Shutters shall be considered "trim"
for purposes of this development text.
(6) Roof materials: All homes shall have dimensional asphalt shingles, wood,
slate, tile, metal, or copper.
VI) Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space and/or Screening Commitments
A) All residential landscaping shall meet the landscape requirements of the City of
Dublin Zoning Code, unless specified within the development text.
B) Open Space: Subarea A shall contain approximately 1.2 acres of common open
space, located along Dublin Road. Common Open Space shall be maintained by
a forced and funded homeowners association.
C) All existing trees in fair or good condition shall be preserved within the common
open space, except in locations of necessary common access and utility
Deer Run March 28, 2010 8
Preliminary Development Plan
DEER RUN ESTATES—APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011
easements. Any area not occupied by trees shall be maintained as lawn, planting
area for screening purposes, or as natural vegetation.
D) Tree Preservation:
(1) It is the intent of the developer to preserve as many trees as possible in this
subarea due to the heavily wooded nature of the site.
(2) A tree survey will be provided at the final development plan identifying any
trees within the proposed development footprint of any site improvement
that will be removed. A tree replacement plan shall also be provided
identifying tree replacement in accordance with the requirements as outlined
below in Section (3). A good -faith effort shall be made to limit any tree
removal to only those areas within the development footprint, to be identified
on the final development plan.
(3) The site shall meet the following tree preservation and replacement
requirements:
a. Any trees in good or fair condition removed from the common open
space area (except as noted above) or from any required rear yard
setback measuring between 6 inches up to and including 18 inches
(DBH) in width shall be replaced on a tree -for -tree basis, and
b. Any trees in good or fair condition greater than 18 inches (DBH) removed
from the site shall be replaced on an inch -for -inch basis.
(4) All trees to be preserved shall be protected by tree preservation fencing in
accordance with the City of Dublin's tree preservation fence details and
guidelines.
E) Street Trees shall not be required along any private streets. Any landscaping along
the private street should maintain a natural appearance.
F) Existing vegetation along the north property line shall be preserved as a landscape
screen.
VII) Gate and Entry Sign
A) Gate
(1) The access shall be permitted to have an entry security gate, allowing 24-
hour emergency access, and shall be approved by Washington Township
Deer Run March 28, 2010 9
Preliminary Development Plan
DEER RUN ESTATES—APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011
Fire Department. The existing gate shall be permitted to remain, so long
as the Washington Fire Department requirements are met.
(2) The gate shall have decorative masonry columns and wing -walls not more
than six (6) feet in height. The gates shall be decorative in appearance
and not more than six (6) feet in height.
B) Sign.
(1) Entry feature signage shall be permitted at the private drive entrance along
Dublin Road.
(2) The entry sign(s) may be incorporated into the gate structure indicating the
development name.
(3) The sign shall not exceed 20 square feet in size
VIII) Model Homes
A) Model homes shall not be permitted in this subarea.
Deer Run March 28, 2010 10
Preliminary Development Plan
DEER RUN ESTATES - APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
As Submitted to Council March 28, 2011
With modifications as proposed July 8, 2016
Subarea B: Estate Lots
1) Description:
Subarea B shall be located on the central portion of the site adjacent to Dublin Road to the east,
Subarea A and the ravine to the north, the Scioto River to the east, and Subarea C to the south.
This subarea shall be approximately 15.65 acres and shall contain five (5) "Estate Lots" as
described below.
11) Permitted Uses:
A) Permitted uses shall include single-family detached homes.
B) Accessory Uses shall be as permitted by City of Dublin Code.
III) Density, Height, Lot and/or Setback Commitments:
A) The maximum number of dwelling units shall be five (5). The maximum density shall be
0.319 du/ac.
B) Minimum Lot size shall be 2 acres.
C) Setbacks
(1) The minimum front yard setback shall be twenty-five (25) feet from the private street
easement line.
(2) The minimum side yard setback shall be twenty-five (25) feet from each side property
line.
(3) The minimum rear -yard setback shall be 30 feet from the property line, or shall be the
tree preservation line, or the 100 -year flood line, whichever is greatest.
D) Encroachments into applicable setbacks shall be in accordance with the City of Dublin Code,
or as outlined within this text.
11
Deer Run
Preliminary Development Plan
E) Maximum building height shall be thirty-five (35) feet. Height shall be measured from the
finish grade at the front or main fagade of the house to the height of the dominant roof mass.
Architectural features that exceed this height must be compatible with the style and massing
of the overall architecture of the building and shall be approved by staff.
F) There shall be only one principal use permitted on each lot, and such lot shall not be covered
more than 30% by structures.
G) Homes shall be permitted to have walk -out basements so as to minimize the need for
extensive site grading.
IV) Access, Loading, Parking and/or other Traffic -Related Commitments:
A) Access
(1) Access to Subarea B shall be from Dublin Road at the existing curb -cut and shall
provide shared access to Subarea A.
(a) Refer to Subarea A for shared access and gate provisions.
B) Private Streets
(1) All dwelling units in this subarea shall have access from a private street or from
driveways reaching the private street system, which is located between the buildable
lot areas and the ravine as depicted on the Final Development Plan.
(2) The existing private street width and decorative gravel surface contribute to the natural
and rural character of this site. It is the intent of this plan to maintain that character
by matching the existing private street as much as possible.
(3) All streets constructed as a part of this subarea shall be privately owned and
maintained and shall be combined access and utility easements.
(4) All private street easements shall have a minimum width of fifty (50) feet. All existing
private streets shall be permitted to remain.
(5) The proposed private street shall be a minimum width of eighteen (18) feet. The street
shall be widened at hydrant locations as shown on the plan to provide a minimum
width of twenty-six (26) feet. The street and any utilities shall be adjusted within the
easement so as to minimize removal of trees.
(6) Curbs and gutters shall not be required.
(7) All private streets shall be designed per the City of Dublin engineering standards,
except as noted above, and so as to accommodate access by emergency vehicles.
(8) Pavement surface may be asphalt top -dressed with decorative gravel to match the
appearance of the existing private street.
12
Deer Run
Preliminary Development Plan
C) Sidewalks, bike paths, or leisure trails shall not be required.
D) Estate Lot driveways
(1) Materials shall be asphalt top -dressed with decorative gravel to match the appearance
of the existing private street or the driveway materials permitted per City of Dublin
Code.
(2) Multiple curb -cuts may be permitted from the private street and/or to private driveways
for lots where appropriate and approved by the City. Multiple curb -cuts shall be based
on safety, design aesthetics, and lot entry.
(3) This subarea shall otherwise be exempt for residential driveway code.
V) Architectural Standards:
A) Design Review: All homes within this subarea are envisioned to be custom homes and shall
be held to a high quality of design and construction. No improvements, change, construction,
addition, excavation, landscaping, tree removal, 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. The committee shall be
appointed by the Trustees of the Association, and shall consist of at least three members.
Design review procedure shall be outlined within the deed restrictions of the lots.
B) Architectural Diversity: In order to ensure that there is architectural diversity, homes located
on adjacent lots within Subarea A shall be required to utilize either (1) different floor plans or
(2) different architectural styles. In the event that homes with the same architectural style
are built on adjacent lots, then, in addition to being required to incorporate different floor
plans, these homes also shall be required to use different exterior colors and materials.
C) Exterior materials:
(1) All buildings shall incorporate four-sided architecture.
(2) Finish building materials shall be applied to all sides of the exteriors of all buildings.
(3) Colors shall be harmonious and compatible with colors of the natural surroundings
and other adjacent buildings, if any. The Design Committee shall have the sole right
to approve or disapprove materials and colors, consistent with the approved
development text and approved final development plan..
(4) Cladding materials: The exteriors of structures in this subarea shall be constructed of
brick, stone, manufactured stone, wood, stucco, cementitious siding, and other
comparable materials, subject to approval by Planning (or any combination thereof).
13
Deer Run
Preliminary Development Plan
(5) Trim materials: Permitted exterior trim materials shall include wood, aluminum (for
gutters and downspouts only), copper, EIFS, fiber -cement products, or composite
wood, products. Shutters shall be considered "trim" for purposes of this development
text.
(6) Roof materials: All homes shall have dimensional asphalt shingles, wood, slate, tile,
metal, or copper.
VI) Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space and/or Screening Commitments
A) All residential landscaping shall meet the landscape requirements of the City of Dublin
Zoning Code, unless specified within the development text.
B) Open Space: Subarea B shall contain approximately 1.9 acres of common open space,
located along Dublin Road. Common Open Space shall be maintained by a forced and
funded homeowners association.
C) Each Estate Lot within Subarea B shall contain a portion of platted tree preservation area
totaling 3.9 ac. This area shall be located generally south of the buildable lot areas and
access easement that traverses the subarea. No structures or other site improvements may
be built within this area. All existing trees and topography shall be preserved as approved
on the Final Development Plan.
D) All existing trees in fair or good condition shall be preserved within the common open space,
except in locations of necessary common access and utility easements. Any area not
occupied by trees shall be maintained as lawn, planting area for screening purposes, or as
natural vegetation.
E) Tree Preservation
(1) It is the intent of the developer to preserve as many trees as possible in this subarea
due to the heavily wooded nature of the site.
(2) A tree survey will be provided at the final development plan identifying any trees within
the proposed development footprint of any site improvement that will be removed. A
tree replacement plan shall also be provided identifying tree replacement in
accordance with the requirements as outlined below in Section (3). A good -faith effort
shall be made to limit any tree removal to only those areas within the development
footprint, to be identified on the final development plan.
(3) The site shall meet the following requirements regarding tree preservation and
replacement:
a. Any trees in good or fair condition removed from the common open space area
14
Deer Run
Preliminary Development Plan
(except as noted above) or from any required rear yard setback measuring
between 6 inches up to and including 18 inches (DBH) in width shall be replaced
on a tree -for -tree basis, and
b. Any trees in good or fair condition greater than 18 inches(DBH) removed from the
site shall be replaced on an inch -for -inch basis.
(4) All trees to be preserved shall be protected by tree preservation fencing in accordance
with the City of Dublin's tree preservation fence details and guidelines.
F) Street Trees shall not be required along any private streets. Any landscaping along the
private street should maintain a natural appearance.
VII) Model Homes
A) Model homes shall not be permitted in this subarea.
15
Deer Run
Preliminary Development Plan
DEER RUN ESTATES—PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011
Text Modifications for Subarea C — Approved by Planning
and Zoning Commission December 4, 2014
Subarea C: Cluster Lots
1) Description:
Subarea C shall be located in the southern portion of the development east of Dublin Road, along
the north side of Memorial Drive, and west of the existing City of Dublin parkland along the Scioto
River, and south of Subarea B. This subarea shall consist of approximately 17.1 acres and shall
contain "Cluster Lots" as described below.
11) Permitted Uses:
A) Permitted uses shall include single-family detached dwellings. .
B) Accessory Uses shall be as permitted by City of Dublin Code.
III) Density, Height, Lot and/or Setback Commitments:
A) The maximum number of dwelling units in Subarea C shall be thirty-seven (37).
The maximum density shall be 2.2 du/ac.
B) Cluster Lots shall vary in size as shown on the site plan with a minimum width of
sixty (60) feet at the maximum depth of the front build zone.
C) The minimum lot depth shall be of one hundred -twenty (120) feet.
D) Lots 19 and 33 shall be exempt from the minimum lot width and minimum lot depth
requirements. The lot dimensions are permitted to be as approved on the Final
Development Plan. These lots will be required to meet all other setback
requirements specified for Subarea C.
E) Setbacks
(1) There shall be a front build zone of zero (0) feet to ten (10) feet, as
measured from the private street easement line. Any portion of the structure
shall be built at or within the build zone.
(2) The minimum rear -yard setback shall be thirty (30) feet from the property
line.
(3) The minimum side yard setback shall be five (5) feet from both side property
lines.
(4) Minimum building separation shall be ten (10) feet.
(5) The parking setback shall be zero (0) feet from the private street easement
line.
Deer Run March 28, 2010 1
Preliminary Development Plan
DEER RUN ESTATES—PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011
Text Modifications for Subarea C — Approved by Planning
and Zoning Commission December 4, 2014
F) Encroachments into side yards by bay -windows, chimneys, air conditioner
condensers, decks, or porches shall not be permitted.
G) Encroachments up to 10 feet into the rear yard setbacks are permitted for patio,
decks and fences, subject to approval by Planning.
H) Maximum building height shall be thirty-five (35) feet. Height shall be measured
from the finish grade at the front or main fagade of the house to the height of the
dominant roof mass.
1) Lot Coverage: The maximum impervious coverage of any single lot shall not
exceed 70%.
J) Homes shall be permitted to have walk -out basements so as to minimize the need
for extensive site grading.
IV) Access, Loading, Parking and/or other Traffic -Related Commitments:
A) All streets constructed as a part of this subarea shall be privately owned and
maintained and shall be combined access and utility easements.
(1) Entry Boulevard:
(a) An entry boulevard shall provide access from Memorial Drive and shall
be aligned to the intersection of Autumnwood Way.
(b) Easement width shall be a minimum of fifty-four (54) feet.
(c) Width of each drive lane on either side of the median shall be a
minimum of fifteen (15) feet measured back of curb to back of curb.
(d) The median shall be eight (8) feet in width measured back -of -curb to
back -of -curb.
B) All other private streets:
(1) Easement width shall be a minimum of forty (40) feet.
(2) Pavement width shall be a minimum of twenty-two (22) feet measured back
of curb to back of curb.
(3) The street shall be widened at hydrant locations as shown on the plan to
provide a minimum width of twenty-six (26) feet back -of -curb to back -of -
curb.
Deer Run March 28, 2010 2
Preliminary Development Plan
DEER RUN ESTATES—PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011
Text Modifications for Subarea C — Approved by Planning
and Zoning Commission December 4, 2014
C) Stormwater Management
(1) In lieu of traditional concrete gutters, streets may utilize permeable paving in
up to three (3) feet wide strips adjacent to the face of both curbs, as part of
the stormwater management system. The final width, infiltration trench,
and overflow shall be sized and finalized at final engineering and shall be
approved bythe City of Dublin engineering staff.
(2) Permeable Gutters shall be maintained regularly with routine street -
sweeping to remove foreign objects that could block drainage. The use of
sand as a winter street treatment should be avoided as it can clog the
permeable pavers. Maintenance shall be the responsibility of the
homeowner's association.
D) On -street parking shall not be required. The need for on -street parking will be
evaluated with the final development plan. Should on -street parking be desired,
bump -outs may be provided in areas as shown on the plan to provide a minimum
width of twenty-six (26) feet measured back -of -curb to back -of -curb. The number
of on -street spaces will be determined with the final development plan.
E) Minimum Parking: All units shall be required to have a minimum of two (2) parking
spaces within a garage, and two (2) parking spaces in driveway stacking area or in
an auto -court for side -load garages.
F) All units in this subarea shall front a private street.
G) Garages
(1) Garages shall adhere to the minimum side yard and rear yard setbacks.
(2) Garage elevations shall be detailed consistently with the main building
fagade.
(3) Front load garages shall be setback a minimum of eighteen (18) feet from
the access easement line.
(4) Side load garages with an auto court shall be permitted on all lots, and shall
be required on lots 70 foot wide or greater. Side load garages may be used
to meet the front build zone requirement.
(5) A minimum of 14 lots shall contain side loaded garages.
Deer Run March 28, 2010 3
Preliminary Development Plan
DEER RUN ESTATES—PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011
Text Modifications for Subarea C — Approved by Planning
and Zoning Commission December 4, 2014
H) Driveways
(1) Driveway materials shall be concrete, decorative unit pavers, or a
combination thereof. Asphalt, gravel, and mulch shall be prohibited as
driveway materials.
(2) Driveway curb -cuts shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in width.
1) Auto -Courts
(1) Auto courts shall be screened from the street and from the adjoining lot by a
four (4) feet tall screen. Double screening and waste spaces should be
avoided, and it is encouraged that the design of lots be coordinated with
adjoining lots to share screening alongside lot lines. The maintenance of
any screen shall be the responsibility of the lot owner on which the screen is
constructed.
(2) The screen may be made of a decorative masonry wall detailed to
complement the main building fagade, or an evergreen hedge, and may be
permitted to encroach into the front and side yard setbacks.
(3) Hedge material shall be sized to reach the required height within four (4)
years of installation and shall be planted within a minimum three (3) feet
wide planting bed.
(4) Hedge material may be used in combination with piers detailed to
complement the main building fagade, and / or decorative metal fencing.
(5) Screening oriented toward an adjoining lot may be located adjacent to the
property line. The auto -court may be permitted to encroach into the side
yard up to the screening.
J) Sidewalks, bike paths, or leisure trails shall not be required along the private
street.
K) A four (4) foot wide pedestrian path shall be provided from the end of the eastern-
most private street to the future City of Dublin park, as shown on the plan. Final
path location shall be coordinated with City staff.
Deer Run March 28, 2010 4
Preliminary Development Plan
DEER RUN ESTATES—PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011
Text Modifications for Subarea C — Approved by Planning
and Zoning Commission December 4, 2014
V) Architectural Standards:
A) Design Review: All homes shall be held to a high quality of design and
construction. No improvements, change, construction, addition, excavation,
landscaping, tree removal, 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. The
committee shall be appointed by the Trustees of the Association, and shall consist
of at least three members. Design review procedure shall be outlined within the
deed restrictions of the lots.
B) Architectural Design
(1) Four-sided architecture shall be required on all homes, all elevations on a
home shall be architecturally consistent.
(2) Front fagade:
A minimum of 20% of the front fagade shall be stone or brick.
(3) Side fagades:
When the side fagade of a unit is visible from the private street or is oriented
towards the private street, the amount of brick and stone used on the side
fagades shall be proportional to the amount used on front fagades, as
architecturally appropriate, subject to Planning approval.
(4) Rearfagades:
When the rear fagade is visible from the public or private street, or is
oriented toward the private street or a neighboring lot's side fagades, the
amount of brick and stone used on the rear fagades shall be proportional to
the amount used on front fagades, as architecturally appropriate, subject to
Planning approval.
(5) A change in materials must occur in architecturally appropriate locations.
(6) Exterior cladding materials:
Brick, stone, manufactured stone, wood, stucco, cementitious siding, or any
combination thereof.
(7) Trim materials
(a) Brick, stone, wood, aluminum (for gutters and downspouts only), copper,
EIFS fiber -cement products, composite wood and vinyl products.
Shutters shall be considered "trim".
(b) Windows and doors on the front and sides of the house shall incorporate
trim that is architecturally appropriate.
(8) Colors shall be earth -tone, or mimic natural materials. High-chroma colors
are not permitted.
Deer Run March 28, 2010 5
Preliminary Development Plan
DEER RUN ESTATES—PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011
Text Modifications for Subarea C — Approved by Planning
and Zoning Commission December 4, 2014
(9) Roofs
(a) Minimum pitch shall be 8 inch rise to12 inch run Permitted Materials:
dimensional asphalt shingles, wood, slate (including manufactured
slate products), or tile. A metal roof, such as copper, may be permitted
for up to 20% of the total roof area.
(10) Chimney Materials: Same as permitted Exterior cladding materials, with the
exception of wood.
(11) Lighting:
Each house shall have a minimum of one yard -post light near the walk of
the front entry, and one porch -light near the front door.
(12) Front porches shall not be required. However, when included, the style of
the porch must support the style of the house. Glass and screens shall be
prohibited from front porches.
(13) Garage Doors shall be a maximum 18 feet wide opening.
C) Diversity
Homes located on adjacent lots shall be required to utilize different floor plans and
different massing configurations.
D) Architectural Style
The intended architectural style of this subarea is "Romantic Revival". Appendix 1
Architectural Guidelines is included as a guide to illustrate common characteristics
of that style. Homes should be design based on interpretation from these
guidelines, and also to meet the minimum requirements in this section.
VI) Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space and/or Screening Commitments
A) All residential landscaping shall meet the landscape requirements of the City of
Dublin Zoning Code, unless specified within the development text.
B) Open Space: Subarea C shall contain approximately 7.3 acres of common open
space. Common open space shall be maintained by the homeowners association.
C) Common open spaces may incorporate utility easements and facilities including
stormwater management facilities, such as detention, conveyance swales, or rain
gardens.
D) All existing trees in fair or good condition shall be preserved within the common
open space, except in locations of necessary common access and utility
easements or storm water management facilities. Any area not occupied by trees
shall be maintained as lawn, planting area for screening purposes, or as natural
Deer Run March 28, 2010 6
Preliminary Development Plan
DEER RUN ESTATES—PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011
Text Modifications for Subarea C — Approved by Planning
and Zoning Commission December 4, 2014
E) Tree Preservation
(1) It is the intent of the developer to preserve as many trees as possible in this
subarea due to the heavily wooded nature of the site.
(2) A tree survey will be provided at the final development plan identifying any
trees within the proposed development footprint of any site improvement
that will be removed. A tree replacement plan shall also be provided
identifying tree replacement in accordance with the requirements as outlined
below in Section (3). A good -faith effort shall be made to limit any tree
removal to only those areas within the development footprint, to be identified
on the final development plan.
(3) The site shall meet the following requirements regarding tree preservation
and replacement:
a. Any trees in good or fair condition removed from the common open
space area (except as noted above) or from any required rear yard
setback measuring between 6 inches up to and including 18 inches
(DBH) in width shall be replaced on a tree -for -tree basis, and
b. Any trees in good or fair condition greater than 18 inches(DBH)
removed from the site shall be replaced on an inch -for -inch basis.
(4) All trees to be preserved shall be protected by tree preservation fencing
in accordance with the City of Dublin's tree preservation fence details
and guidelines.
F) Lot Landscaping
(1) Lot Trees: In the event that the required number of lot trees (as determined
by the City of Dublin Code) do not fit within the front yard space of a Cluster
Lot due to space limitations, then those trees shall be relocated either on the
rear of the lot or elsewhere in the subarea as indicated on the Final
Development Plan.
(2) Front Yard Landscaping
(a) All lots shall incorporate landscaping between any street -facing building
elevation or auto -court screen and the private street back -of -curb.
(b) Landscaping shall be ornamental in nature consisting of any combination
of shade trees, ornamental trees, shrubs, perennials, annuals, and
lawn and designed to enhance the character of the streetscape, house,
and auto court screen.
Deer Run March 28, 2010 7
Preliminary Development Plan
DEER RUN ESTATES—PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011
Text Modifications for Subarea C — Approved by Planning
and Zoning Commission December 4, 2014
(c) Plantings shall not obstruct sight visibility triangles of driveways or street
intersections
(d) All material shall be sized, installed and maintained to City of Dublin
code requirements. Maintenance shall be the responsibility of the lot
owner.
G) Street Trees:
(1) Street Trees shall not be required along private streets.
(2) The entry boulevard median shall incorporate ornamental landscaping
consisting of ornamental trees, shrubs, perennials, annuals, or any
combination thereof.
(3) Plantings shall not obstruct sight visibility triangles of driveways or street
intersections
H) Permanent Wood Screening:
(1) Wood screening at a height of up to four (4) feet shall be allowed to
encroach 10 feet into the required rear yard setback and be located along
the side property lines, provided that such screening does not extend beyond
the front fagade of the home. Gates may be included. It is encouraged that
fencing be arranged so that adjoining lots can tie into fences along side
property lines, eliminating double fences and wasted side yard space.
(2) Maintenance responsibilities shall be addressed within the deed restrictions.
VII) Gate and Entry Sign
A) Gate
(1) The boulevard access shall be permitted to have a security gate for each
drive lane, allowing 24-hour emergency access, and shall be approved by
Washington Township Fire Department.
(2) The gate shall have decorative masonry columns and wing -walls not more
than six (6) feet in height. The gates shall be decorative in appearance and
not more than six (6) feet in height.
B) Sign.
(1) Entry feature signage shall be permitted at the private drive entrance along
Memorial Drive.
(2) The entry sign(s) may be incorporated into the gate structure indicating the
development name.
(3) The sign shall not exceed 20 square feet in size.
Deer Run March 28, 2010 8
Preliminary Development Plan
DEER RUN ESTATES—PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011
Text Modifications for Subarea C — Approved by Planning
and Zoning Commission December 4, 2014
VIII) Model Homes
Model homes may be constructed and used as sales locations, but these will be typical
of residential architecture planned for the subarea, and will ultimately be sold as
residences.
Deer Run March 28, 2010 9
Preliminary Development Plan
y City ®f Dublin
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
5800 Shier Rings Road
RECORD OF ACTION
Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236
Absent
phone 614.410.4600
fax 614.410.4747
AUGUST 18 2016
i
www.dublinohiousa.gov
Absent
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
1. Deer Run, Subarea B Deer Run Drive
16-052FDP/FP Final Development Plan/Final Plat
Proposal: The subdivision and development of 5 single-family estate lots located in
Subarea B of the Deer Run Planned Unit Development. The site is on the
east side of Dublin Road, approximately 300 feet north of Memorial
Drive.
Request: Review and approval of a Final Development Plan under the provisions of
Zoning Code §153.050 and review and recommendation of approval to
City Council for a Final Plat under the provisions of the Subdivision
Regulations (Chapter 152 of the Dublin Code of Ordinances).
Applicant: Michael Close, Deer Run Land, LLC.
Planning Contact: Logan Stang, Planner I.
Contact Information: (614) 410-4652, Istang@dublin.oh.us
MOTION #1: Ms. Mitchell motioned, Mr. Stidhem seconded to approve three text modifications:
1. To modify the development text so that the rear yard setback is defined by the tree preservation line,
100 -year floodplain, or 30 feet from the property line, whichever is greatest.
2. To modify the development text to state that the location of the private street and connections to all
lots will be depicted on the Final Development drawings.
3. To modify the development text to revise the location of the tree preservation zone per this
application.
VOTE: 4-0
RESULT: The text modifications were approved.
RECORDED VOTES:
Victoria Newell
Yes
Amy Salay
Absent
Chris Brown
Absent
Cathy De Rosa
Yes
Robert Miller
Absent
Deborah Mitchell
Yes
Stephen Stidhem
Yes
Page 1 of 2
flo Deer Run, Subarea S
16-052FDP/FP
Deer Run Drive
Final Development Plan/Final Plat
MOTION #2: Ms. Mitchell motioned, Ms. De Rosa seconded to approve the Final Development Plan
with three conditions:
1) That the applicant provide the name of the private drive subject to Engineering and Fire approval
prior to submitting for building permitting;
2) That the applicant continue to work with Staff to identify the required number of caliper inches to
be replaced on the site; and
3) That the applicant pay a tree replacement fee for outstanding caliper inches prior to submitting
for building permitting,
VOTE. 4-0
RESULT-. The Final Development Plan was approved.
RECORDED VOTES.
S:
Victoria Newell
Yes
Amy Salay
Absent
Chris Brown
Absent
Cathy De Rosa
Yes
Robert Miller
Absent
Deborah Mitchell
Yes
Stephen Stidhem
Yes
MOTION #3: Ms. De Rosa motioned, Mr. Stidhem seconded to recommend approval to City Council for
a Final Plat with the following condition:
1) That the applicant ensures that any minor technical adjustments to the plat are made prior to
City Council submittal.
RESULT. The Final Plat was recommended for approval.
Victoria Newell
Yes
Amy Salay
Absent
Chris Brown
Absent
Cathy De Rosa
Yes
Robert Miller
Absent
Deborah Mitchell
Yes
Stephen Stidhem
Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Logan�Ianner
Page 2 of 2
RECORD OF ACTION
City of
Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission
OHIO, USA Thursday, April 30, 2020 1 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
2. Deer Run Estates — Subarea A
20-031FP Final Plat
Proposal: A revision to a previously approved Final Plat to revise lot dimension and
easements.
Location: West of Dublin Rd, t 850 feet north of the intersection with Memorial
Drive and zoned Planned Unit Development District.
Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a Final Plat
under the provisions of the Subdivision Regulations.
Applicant: Rick Fay, OHM Advisors
Planning Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Senior Planner, Current Planning Manager
Contact Information: 614.410.4675, chusak@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/20-031
MOTION: Ms. Fox moved, Mr. Grimes seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for the Final
Plat with the following condition:
1) That the applicant make any minor technical adjustments prior to submitting the plat for Council
acceptance.
VOTE: 6 - 0
RESULT: The Final Plat was recommended for approval to City Council.
.1;10101.1014 BILT1610 4-5
Jane Fox
Yes
Warren Fishman
Yes
Kristina Kennedy
Yes
Mark Supelak
Yes
Leo Grimes
Yes
Rebecca Call
Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Claudia D. Husak, AICP
Senior Planner, Current Planning Manager
PLANNING 5800 Shier Rinas Road Dublin. Ohio 43016 Dhone 614.410.4600 fax 614.410.4747
DRAFT
city of
Dublin
OHIO, USA
MEETING MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Commission
Thursday, April 30, 2020
Ms. Fox moved, Mr. Grimes seconded to approve the following cases by consent:
1. Deer Run Estates— Subarea A, 20-030AFDP, Amended Final Development Plan
Lot dimension and easement adjustments to a previously approved Final Development
Plan for a site west of Dublin Rd, ± 850 feet north of the intersection with Memorial Drive
and zoned Planned Unit Development District.
APPROVAL WITH ONE CONDITION:
1) That the applicant work with staff to reestablish the required landscape screen
along the northern property line.
2. Deer Run Estates — Subarea A, 20-030FP, Final Plat
A revision to a previously approved Final Plat to revise lot dimension and easements for a
site west of Dublin Road, ±850 feet north of the intersection with Memorial Drive and
zoned Planned Unit Development District.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT TO CITY COUNCIL WITH ONE
CONDITION:
1) That the applicant make any minor technical adjustments prior to
submitting the plat for Council acceptance.
3. Sundai Student Tutoring, 20-042CU, Conditional Use
An educational and research use in an existing 1,150 -square -foot tenant space west of
Frantz Road, ±950 feet north of the intersection with Blazer Parkway, zoned Planned Unit
Development District (Millennium Office Complex).
APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE WITH NO CONDITIONS
4. Townp lace Suites Marriott, 20-OSSWR— BSD -C, Waiver Review
A waiver to allow building vents and louvers on street facing facades for a site on the
south side of Upper Metro Place, ±550 feet west of the intersection with Frantz Road and
zoned Bridge Street District - Commercial.
APPROVAL OF THE WAIVER WITH NO CONDITIONS
Vote: Mr. Supelak, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Mr. Fishman, Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Call,
yes.
[Motion passed 6-0]
IElItu
ciTy of
blin
OHIO, UST
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 30, 2020
20-030FP — DEER RUN ESTATES
Summary
Minor adjustments to the lot dimensions
and access easement for a previously
approved Final Plat.
Site Location
The site is east of Dublin Rd, t 850 feet
north of the intersection with Memorial
Drive and zoned Planned Unit Development
District.
Zoning
PUD, Planned Unit Development District
Deer Run Estates, Subarea A
Property Owners
Deer Run LLC
Applicant/ Representative
Rick Fay, OHM Advisors
Applicable Land Use Regulations
Subdivision Regulations
Case Manager
Claudia D. Husak, AICP
Senior Planner/Current Planning Manager
(614) 4104675
chusaki
Gena.IreO^ -
m
,Deer
-.It -- r-�,
Or CG;
0
SITE Deer
Run
s
1� Pesaro
av'
Fes. o ,Dr:} ..-
Mem
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-031FP I Deer Run Estates
Thursday, April 30, 2020 1 Page 3 of 4
i nuarv1ew
Background
The Commission recommended approval of a Final Development Plan and Final Plat for Deer
Run, Subarea A on May 5, 2016 and City Council voted to accept the Final Plat on May 23,
2016.
The rezoning, preliminary development plan, and preliminary plat were approved by the
Planning and Zoning Commission in February of 2011. City Council approved Ordinance #11-11
rezoning 51.7 acres from R-1: Restricted Suburban Residential District to Planned Unit
Development District (Deer Run) in March of 2011. The preliminary plat had established 11 Lots
predominately located within Subarea A towards the northern edge of the site. The private
street had access within Subarea A and a reserve along the Scioto River for common open
space.
Site Characteristics
Natural Features
Two single-family homes are located on the north side of Deer Run Creek, which is located
along the southern edge of Subarea A. A private drive. Deer Run Drive, provides a connection
to Dublin Road through Subarea B. The site is heavily wooded with mature trees throughout the
entire site and the site has significant grade change due to Deer Run Creek and Scioto River to
the east.
Surrounding Land Use and Development Character
North: R-2: Limited Suburban Residential District (Kerry Glen Subdivision)
South: PUD; Planned Unit Development District, Deer Run, Subareas B & C (Single-family
Residential)
East: City of Columbus (Single-family Residential)
West: PLR; Planned Low Density Residential District, The Reserve (Single-family Residential)
Road, Pedestrian and Bike Network
The site has access to Dublin Road through a private Drive, which will be extended to provide
access to the proposed lots.
Utilities
The site is served by utilities.
Proposal
This application is a request for review and recommendation of acceptance to City Council of a
revision to the lot dimensions and the private access drive for a previously approved Final Plat
An amended Final Development Plan (Case#20-030AFDP) accompanies this request.
Details
The purpose of the preliminary and final plat is to assure conformance with the requirements set
forth in Sections 152.085 through 152.095 of the Code, exclusive of other standards in the
Code.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-031FP I Deer Run Estates
Thursday, April 30, 2020 1 Page 4 of 4
The proposal includes the previously approved four single-family residential lots and one
reserve with a single private drive servicing the subdivision. Two of the lots, Lots 12 & 13, are
developed with single-family homes. This proposal will adjust the lot line between Lots 14 and
15 and modify the access easement to provide for a turnaround for emergency vehicles on Lot
15, a previously platted shared access and utility easement on Lot 15 will be eliminated. An
access and utility easement will be created to ensure all lots have adequate access. The
modifications will require less of an extension of Deer Run Drive. Lot 14 will slightly increase in
size and Lot 15 will slightly decrease. None of the proposed changes impact the development
character of the previous approved Final Development Plan and the Final Plat and all lots will be
the development text requirements.
The request is made in an effort to reduce the footprint of the private drive and provide more
flexibility on the location of the futures homes on Lots 14 and 15, given the topography and
wooded nature of the site. The lot sizes vary considerably due to existing site conditions and
developable land. Lot 14 is 2.453 acres, and Lot 15 is 4.719 acres.
Zriterit. ialysis
Final Plat — Subdivision Regulations
1) Plat Information and Construction Requirements
Criteria 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 minor
technical adjustments prior to submitting the plat for Council acceptance.
2) Street, Sidewalk, and Bikepath Standards
Criteria met. An access easement is provided for the private street. Sidewalks and bikepaths
are not required as outlined in the Deer Run development text for Subarea A.
3) Utilities
Criteria met. This plat establishes necessary easements for the construction and
maintenance of utilities in accordance with all applicable standards.
4) Open Space Requirements
Not Applicable. No open space dedication is required with this application. A common open
space for the community is required per the Deer Run development text, which has been
previously platted and no changes are proposed.
4. Recommendation
The proposed Amended Final Plat is consistent with all the applicable review criteria. Staff
recommends approval with one condition.
1) That the applicant make any minor technical adjustments prior to submitting the plat for
Council acceptance.
Minutes
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
May 23, 2016 Page 11 of 24
3. Several years ago, an analysis was conducted of the area of the Historic
District in which Mr. Carroll lives, which indicated it could potentially
accommodate 1,000 parking spaces. The storm sewer had been installed
under Blacksmith Alley, and the City was interested in improving the
area with parking, landscaping and lighting. After serving on that
committee, he realized that the landowners, primarily the business
owners, were not interested in having those improvements. Council has
been looking at that area for some time, has had, and continues to
have, great interest in ensuring that the Historic District is preserved.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Peterson inquired if any Council members wished to remove an item from the
consent agenda.
Ms. Amorose Groomes requested that Resolution 31-16 be removed from the consent
agenda and placed on the regular agenda as she has questions about it.
There were no requests for other items to be removed from the consent agenda.
Mayor Peterson moved approval of the actions listed for the remaining six items listed on
the consent agenda.
Vice Mayor Reiner seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Reiner, yes; Mr.
Keenan, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes.
• Approval of Regular Council Meeting Minutes of 5-9-16
• Notice to Legislative Authority — Stock transfer for D5 and D6 liquor permits for
4415 WDG Road Inc. dba The Pint Room, 4415 W. Dublin -Granville Road and
Patio — Dublin, OH 43017
• Ordinance 23-16 (Introduction/first reading)
Changing the Fund Type Classifications of Certain Funds According to Guidance
Issued by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board and the State of Ohio
Auditor's Office. (Second reading/public hearing — June 13 Council meeting)
• Resolution 29-16 (Introduction/vote)
Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the Service Center Addition and Renovation
Project.
• Resolution 30-16 (Introduction/vote)
Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the Glick Road Section One Shared Use
Path Project.
• Approval of Preliminary/Final Plat — Deer Run, Subarea A (Case 15-
120FDP/PP/FP)
IIEM REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA
Resolution 31-16
Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Letter of Agreement with Ohio
Power Company for the Design and Construction of an AEP Overhead to
Underground Relocation Project, in Conjunction with the Crosby Court
Business Park Project.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if in the attached Letter of Agreement, page one, Item B,
the word "to" should be inserted before the word "lower". She believes it is unclear as
written.
Ms. Readier responded that the word "to" could certainly be inserted in front of the word
"lower" for clarification purposes.
Ms. Readier responded that the word "to" will be included in the first sentence of
Subsection B, under the Background Information.
Vote on the Resolution: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Reiner, yes; Ms.
Alutto, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes.
pDublin PUNNING AND WNIING COMMISSION
an) am onat Plot
_ RECONDOFACIION
Tounivan
vaidaidnal ass MY So 2O16
Are Famin and song Grt meso I took yea At iris a don at in Is man ng. eer nONve
L. Door
15-aNM� PIUMPrPFillGeneral Plan/Pregminagand nny Pbls
Propose 1 h2 yords own and Of her an4Namwlc¢ and so ands
as did a To Exer Run Saint in Sunday A 0 he Cedar Run
Unrand Unit Dealyfusent Period The dre is oil the east PUT W
Dean i and 300 yet radi at Memonal Drives
aloe[Ri ddap"t�A Of a Tons Tarsa ml Pan m da We Vision
district 153.050 and overar and PeClOrnoldnior at
ji To Gym c Pool Pats wens Ina
Provisions of the Tgola
Mfol igen
t
Mpllmnc LGl repucnad ryNlehaal ClmeanO Toll hand, 5A.
Parn no Added lar f
Amk¢mOrmaMn. (619) m an bne�ImVDdeblln".us
NOAON #1'. ills stay motioned 1r. 5oddem saooJm oapprove ore Nil oa.:apmear Plan Alin
taid condi ions,
brnuJdlrgpemnnog, add lacmai ads for ouaanding coupon Frim praM anything
2) IT it UL all a Ad Paris Word Alm island; anal to TRIP Pool rose Prodd
not rmi6nde reserved the Impas oil as
nal leah melmny pmpi. V(°noy
1. Deals Run, deal A Dur Run law
�attheoppem�,"Ma�2rm�ro"tattled5JUU,mEM�WO.p�re„asmuseP,�o,m
VOTE: 4-0
Mile � ism
Rel
(Mthv he Term
Aral
Mercer Miller
ye�
CiryufDBblin
Plammngn ing FLAvivi ANNE) ZONING O
ING CiNMSISM
md
Ali ° 430 16 1236
qxre 614 410 400 MEETING MINUTES
no 614 410 4747
vow, '"'°°n'a'w MAV5,2016
MENDA
1. gear Run, Subareas A gear Run Drive
15-120FDP/PP/FP Final Development Plan (Approved 4—o)
Preliminary and Final Plats (Approved 4 —o)
2. BDDDRN— Bridge Park East, Blocks B&C Riverside Drive and Dale Drive
16-02OMSP Master Sign Plan (Approved 5-0)
The Vice Chair, Chris Brown, called the meeting to order at631 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Other Commission members present were'. Amy Slay, Robert Miller, Deborah Mi hell, and Stephen
4lahem. Victoria Newell and Cathy De Rua were absent CUP repremn atices present were. Claudia
Hunk, Vince Papslaero, Philip Hartmann, Tim teckllaep Logan sang, Nichols Mahn, Aaron Stanford,
Alan Perkins, and Laurie Wright
Ailmmistraeve Business
Moron and Vote
Ms. Mitchell moved, Mr. Miller seconded, to approve the April J, 2016, meeting minutes as presented
The vote was as followAa'. Ms. Slag yes, Mr. Brown, yes, Mr. Stil yes, Mr. Miller, yes, and Ms.
Mitchell, yes. (Approved 5-0)
The VI® Chair, Chris Brown briefly explained the roles and procedures of the Planning and Zoning
Commission . He said certain cares on tonight's agenda may be approved by consent He stated Case 1—
Deer Run Is eligible for consent Wright He asked if anyone Fort the public intended to speak with
regard to Case 1. He determined the care should be removed Foca the consent agenda and reviewed in
its entirety.
Mr. Brown said the cares would be bead In He published order Foca He agenda and recorded In He
minutes as such. He recused himself Foca the first case as there was a conflict of interest . He stated
Commissioner Miller woultl run thle porton ofthe meeting.
1. Deer Run, Subareas A Deer Run Drive
15-120FDP/PP/FP Final Development Plan/Preliminary and Final Plats
Bob Miller said the following application Is a proposal for the subdivision and development of our, single
family m6 and steels as part of the Deer Run Subdivision in Subarea A of the Deer Run Planned Unit
Development District He said the site Is on the east sloe of Dublin Road and 300 feet north of Memorial
Drive. He said this Is a request for review and approval of a Final Development Plan under the provision
of Zoning Code Shun 153.050 and review and recommendation of approval to CUP Council for
Preliminary and Final Plats under the provisions of the Subdivision Regulations.
Mr. Miller mom in anyone intending to address the Commission regarding this care
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
May 5, 2016 — Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 10
Logan Stang presented an aerial view of the site and explained the PUD consists of three Subareas — A,
B, and C. He noted that only Subarea A is associated with this application, located on the north, adjacent
to the Kerry Glen subdivision. He presented the proposed Site Plan and explained Subarea A includes the
plating of four single-family properties and the extension of a private drive. Two of the proposed lots he
said are already developed with single-family homes leaving the remaining land to the east, along the
river, available for the additional two lots. He said the development contains a single access point from
Dublin Road that is located in Subarea B, which contains a gated entry feature. He said the homes are
custom built and will require review and approval by a Design Committee created by the homeowners
association. He stated the site is heavily wooded and Deer Run runs through the southern portion of
Subarea A and has a large floodplain that extends into both Subareas A and B.
Mr. Stang presented the Tree Protection/Removal Plan. Due to the wooded nature of the site, he said the
development was approved for a Tree Waiver holding the developer liable for replacing any tree removed
that the diameter is greater than 18 inches and trees removed from common open space or rear yards
that are between 6 inches and 18 inches in diameter. He said this proposal outlines the trees impacted by
the extension of Deer Run Drive; and tree removal from the two remaining properties will be reviewed at
the building permit stage. Based on the Tree Waiver and this proposal, he stated, the applicant is
required to replace a total of 258 caliper inches.
Mr. Stang presented the Landscape Plan that outlined a total replacement of 82.5 caliper inches due to
site constraints. He reported the applicant will be required to pay a Fee -in -Lieu of replacement for the
remaining inches, prior to filing for building permits.
Mr. Stang presented the Preliminary and Final Plats for the four lots. He noted the plat outlined the
private access and utility easement where Deer Run Drive is located and where all utility services are
provided to the existing and proposed properties. He explained a reserve is located on the west side of
the site, adjacent to Dublin Road that provides common open space for the development and is a
requirement of the development text. He said this reserve along with the private drive will be maintained
by a homeowners association that will consist of Subareas A and B. Subarea C has a separate HOA he
said.
Mr. Stang said approval is recommended for the Final Development Plan with one condition:
1) That the applicant pay a tree replacement fee for outstanding caliper inches prior to submitting
for building permitting.
Mr. Stang said approval is recommended to City Council for Preliminary and Final Plats with one
condition:
1) That the applicant ensures that any minor technical adjustments to the plat are made prior to
City Council submittal.
Bob Miller inquired about the gate that is fairly close to Dublin Road and if there was any discussion
about potential stacking. He indicated with four houses, he did not anticipate a problem. Mr. Stang said
stacking outside the gate has not been a concern as it is far enough away from the right-of-way, per
Engineering.
Aaron Stanford explained for that type of use and intensity it was not a concern, similar to the situation
at the southern edge of Deer Run.
Steve Stidhem suggested that more than the four lots would feed off that gated entry. Mr. Stang said
Subarea B can only have 5 lots so a total of 9 lots would use that gate.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
May 5, 2016 — Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 10
Mr. Stidhem inquired about sidewalks. Mr. Stang said sidewalks are not a requirement for a private drive
Mr. Miller invited the public to speak with regard to this case.
Susan Linwood, 5033 Glenaire Drive, said her house is located right next to this site in the Kerry Glen
Subdivision. She asked how many trees would be cut down as she was concerned about the noise and
dust that would generate. She said it will also change her view off of her patio.
Mr. Stang presented the proposed Site Plan again to locate her house specifically. He explained the
majority of work would occur east of her property. He said there will still be a buffer right behind her
house.
Roger Curry, 10820 Edgewood Drive, asked the Commission if they had seen the property.
Mr. Miller responded the property is awesome and a beautiful piece of property without a doubt
Mr. Curry indicated it is a forest that contains upwards of five mega trees and this is unique. He said he
was concerned about the trees that would possibly replace these mega trees.
Mr. Stang restated the applicant is responsible for replacing 258 caliper inches based on the Tree Waiver
and the Code requirements.
Mr. Curry said he and his wife enjoy the property and the wildlife that appear. He said this property is
special and historic. He said Dublin is green and this should be preserved. He said this property could
include a canoe livery and walking paths because there are no places like it and asked the Commission to
consider alternatives.
Jerry Ellis, 10815 Edgewood Drive, said the majority of his property abuts the driveway extension. He
noted the scale of the plans are very small and difficult to read but found the driveway will run through
the drip line of his Chinquapin Oak, which is on the Dublin Register of trees and has the green tag
attached to it. He said some of the farmer's fence has grown into some of the bark on the south side. He
said he is concerned about any roadway development in the vicinity of that tree that would be a 50 -foot
area under the drip line of the tree. He indicated the trunk of the tree is 11 feet in circumference and the
drip line is out about 20 — 30 feet. He said at that location at the crest of the hill, that is where the
driveway will begin to curve. He asked that the driveway be moved over. He said he and his wife have
lived there for 29 years and enjoys the tree. He explained it produces little tiny acorns that the squirrels
like to eat. He concluded it is a tree worth preserving.
Mr. Miller said he does not know of what tree Mr. Ellis is speaking of. Mr. Stang said he did not know the
specifics of that tree either but the applicant has worked closely to preserve as much along that buffer as
possible and to maneuver the road as far south as they can to preserve as many landmark and full-grown
trees in the area as possible. He said the City's Zoning Inspectors will be out to the site monitoring the
roadway extension to ensure the trees are being protected and cared for.
Mike Close, 7360 Bellaire Avenue, said he has lived there for 36 years and is as familiar with the property
as anybody with the exception of the Vice Chair who is the property manager and that is why he had to
recuse himself.
Mr. Close referred to the Planning Report with two conditions. He said the first is the correction of the
Plats; that has already been done. He said the second is the payment of the tree preservation fee and he
has that check in hand. He said obviously, they consent to the conditions. He indicated he understands
where the neighbors are coming from. He said nobody will be touching the ravine where there might be
Indian remains. He said when the elf lights are on down in the ravine at night, it is one of the most
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
May 5, 2016 — Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 10
impressive sites he has ever seen in the City of Dublin. He said it was actually a tree farm originally and
thought the Walter family had planted ±20,000 trees over time. He stated he has worked closely with
Staff to preserve trees and is willing to make any adjustments they may need to make to ensure the
trees are preserved. He said the more trees, the more value to the property. He emphasized that they
work with Staff to consider drip lines, etc. that may be impacted during construction.
Mr. Close reminded the Commission that the function of the submission of the Final Development Plan is
to merely ensure that it is in compliance with the Preliminary Development Plan and there have been no
changes to that plan. He said any changes that have been made have been requested by the City.
Amy Salay asked Mr. Stang to point out Mr. Ellis' house on the proposed Site Plan. Mr. Stang indicated
that property was not called out on this plan but pointed to where the Ellis house is located.
Ms. Salay said she thought the road is far enough away from the Oak tree in question to which Mr. Stang
agreed.
Ms. Salay said she was concerned about preserving the tree line on the north side. She said she would
hate for any neighbor adjacent to construction to lose a tree. She suggested an on-site meeting with
construction folks, the City Forrester, and the neighbors would go a long way.
Mr. Close said that is exactly what the applicant did for Subarea C.
Ms. Salay said she would appreciate having that meeting written as a condition to which Mr. Close
agreed.
Mr. Stidhem indicated the road might need to be moved to accommodate trees. Mr. Close said that is not
unusual. He said the applicant may be back for a minor adjustment to the Final Development Plan
anyway when the buyers decide how they want their houses situated.
Mr. Miller asked Ms. Husak to write in a condition
Mr. Miller reported he walked the property on Sunday, walked all the way back by the river and found the
property to be spectacular.
Mr. Close clarified that the property does not go all the way down to the river as the City owns that
portion.
Mr. Miller closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
Mr. Stang presented the second condition that was added to the Final Development Plan:
That the applicant and Staff work with adjacent residents to field locate tree protection fencing and
coordinate minimizing the impacts on trees adjacent to existing properties.
Mr. Miller called for comments from the Commission.
Mr. Stidhem said he noticed that the City had land there. He stated he appreciated the public comments.
He said the City does a tremendous job with parks and open space.
Mr. Miller said when he was on the property, there were a couple of guys fly fishing on the river. He
noted when he came down the hill, the view was like what could be found in a movie.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
May 5, 2016 — Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 10
Mr. Miller asked if there were any further questions or comments. [Hearing none.] He called for a motion
to approve the Final Development Plan with two conditions:
1) That the applicant pay a tree replacement fee for outstanding caliper inches prior to submitting
for building permitting; and
2) That the applicant and Staff work with adjacent residents to field -locate tree protection fencing
and coordinate minimizing the impacts on trees adjacent to existing properties.
Mr. Close agreed to the conditions.
Motion and Vote
Ms. Salay moved, Mr. Stidhem seconded, to approve the Final Development Plan with two conditions. The
vote was as follows: Ms. Mitchell, yes; Mr. Miller, yes; Mr. Stidhem, yes; and Ms. Salay, yes. (Approved 4
—0)
Motion and Vote
Ms. Salay moved, Mr. Stidhem seconded, to recommended approval to City Council for Preliminary and
Final Plats with the following condition:
1) That the applicant ensure any minor technical adjustments to the plat are made prior to City
Council submittal.
The vote was as follows: Mr. Miller, yes; Ms. Mitchell, yes; Mr. Stidhem, yes; and Ms. Salay, yes.
(Approved 4 — 0)
2. BSD SRN — Bridge Park East, Blocks B & C Riverside Drive and Dale Drive
16-028MSP Master Sign Plan
The Vice Chair, Mr. Brown, said the following application is a proposal for an amendment to a previously
approved Master Sign Plan to include parking garage signs for a new 8.2 -acre, mixed-use development
east of Riverside Drive, ±430 feet north of the intersection with West Bridge Street and south of the
intersection with (future) Bridge Park Avenue. He said this is a request for review and approval for a
Master Sign Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.066.
The Vice Chair swore in anyone intending to address the Commission regarding this case.
Nichole Martin said the applicant has a presentation of their own but would be happy to answer any
questions the Commission may have.
Joell Angel-Chumbley, 1176 Overlook Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45238, said with the two options, she
wanted to give a background on the changes since they last presented to the PZC. She said there is a
primary Parking Marquee sign on Longshore Street at the C4/C5 buildings and on Banker Drive on
buildings B4/B5, and secondary Parking Marquee signs to coordinate.
Ms. Angel-Chumbley presented the sign location map to note they will be showing a video of the
approach on Longshore Street from a car view.
Chris Brown noted the biggest concern before was the overall size of the PARK sign so he suggested she
dwell on that during her presentation.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
May 5, 2016 — Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 10
Ms. Angel-Chumbley said they reduced the size of the primary Parking Marquee signs from 150 square
feet to 100 square feet. She said the secondary Parking Marquee signs were reduced from 42 square feet
to 32 square feet on the one option and from 42 square feet to 28 square feet on the other. She said
they have eliminated the text "PARK" and focused on the circle "P".
Ms. Angel-Chumbley indicated they added whimsy to the design. She presented the interior of the
parking garage to show the graphic package; the pattern was inspired by the (future) pedestrian cable
bridge. She said the grid represents a typographic view of Dublin and the triangles represent the assets
of the City. She said Bridge Park is an integrated neighborhood inside of downtown so the graphic system
developed with Crawford Hoying and the City for the parking experience reflects the design. She said the
interior pattern is reflected in the exterior pattern linking the inside to the outside.
Ms. Angel-Chumbley presented design option #1, which is also the recommended design of the ART. She
pointed out the primary and secondary signs that differ in size/scale. She noted the circle "P" is the
primary message, especially when illuminated at night with LED lighting. She said lighting has been
added so the word "Longshore" can be read from a distance. She said they performed research to show
how much light would actually be radiated from the interior of the parking garage and discovered there is
a lot more shadowing than anticipated so they believe it is important to light the signs as much as they
a re.
Ms. Angel-Chumbley presented design option #2, where the lighting is more contained to the face of the
sign. She noted there is less pattern and the design is more about the identification of the circle "P" and
the text "Longshore". She said the pattern is more secondary in this option. She described the sign as
being a wedge coming off the edge of the building. She said there is no edge light on this design but will
be lit front and back, illuminating the blue vertical striping that is seen in the daylight.
Ms. Angel-Chumbley presented the city-wide comprehensive wayfinding system that they are connecting
back to aesthetically. She presented the new design for the fagade of the parking garage along with the
family of other signs to show the relationship within the whole comprehensive wayfinding system.
Ms. Angel-Chumbley presented the video and pointed out the signs approaching the Longshore Street
garage. She said the series of wayfinding signs will align with the other architectural elements in the
streetscape.
Mr. Brown inquired about light pollution for the apartments across the street. Ms. Angel-Chumbley said
the light will not be really bright; it will be more of an edge glow and the fabricator can adjust the
amount of light.
At the conclusion of the applicant's presentation, Ms. Martin asked to go through the ART's
recommendation.
Ms. Martin reported that the ART's recommendation is design #1. She explained the way design #2
would play out in the environment is not necessarily the way it is depicted on the screen. She said design
#2 is rather dark and the way the streets are oriented and the shadows that are going to be cast by the
garage, both during the day and at night, the ART determined that design #1 is most appropriate. She
said there are strengths to each design but #1 really incorporated both the city-wide wayfinding, the
Bridge Park wayfinding, and the placemaking element.
Ms. Martin said approval is recommended for the Master Sign Plan with two conditions:
1) That the applicant provide an approved MSP containing all approved signs for Blocks B and C to
Planning, prior to sign permitting including an updated General Regulations Matrix, sign location
elevations, and approved parking garage marquee signs; and
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
May 5, 2016 — Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 10
2) That the applicant provide additional lighting for the interior of the primary sign in design #1.
Mr. Miller asked the applicant which design they preferred. Ms. Angel-Chumbley answered there are
strengths to both designs. She indicated the first design will be a little bit more obvious during the
daytime and will have more vibrancy at night due to the lighting of the parking garage. The second
design she said the circle "P" would be seen from a distance more than anything else about the sign. She
said if the circle "P" is what you want to focus on, design #2 is best but if you want to pull the pattern
from the interior to the exterior, it helps tie the city system with the Bridge Park experience, therefore
design #1 is the choice. She indicated the graphics planned for the inside of the garages are really cool
to welcome the visitor to the garage. She said they want the garage to be an experience, in spite of it
being a garage and the beautiful murals should help with that also building on the grid pattern for the
City. She said the ART's recommended choice is probably the applicant's preference.
Deborah Mitchell said design #1 is great from a branding perspective. She indicated that everything that
Ms. Angel-Chumbley said, she immediately picked up upon. She reiterated that she is a big fan of design
#1.
Mr. Stidhem said he asked for feedback in his workplace and it was a 50/50 split. He said even additional
designs were suggested. He said the second design is easier to see if he is not a frequent visitor of the
area. He inquired about the LED lighting; it can be really harsh.
Blake Kishler, 807 Broadway Street, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45202, said the light will be diffused.
Matt Starr, Crawford Hoying Development Partners, 555 Metro Place, added context to the signs.
Mr. Stidhem inquired about color coding. Ms. Angel-Chumbley said even from the outside, one can see
the colored levels. She said blue is the parking color but it is also the Bridge Park brand color. She said
the first level will be the blue level as the welcome level. She indicated a lot of thought went into
developing the brand out as a connective element to the existing city brand and experience. She said
they talked about Bridge Park being a neighborhood asset to the City, part of a mosaic of a broader
experience. She said the iconic (future) pedestrian bridge was an inspiration.
Mr. Stidhem said his concern was which entrance he should enter. He said if one is not familiar with the
area and might have been turned around by shopping etc, will one be able to identify which garage they
came out of.
Ms. Angel-Chumbley said the outside will be identified through nomenclature so on the canopy of the
garage there will be 18 -inch letters that state "Longshore Street" along the canopy so at street level it will
be visible in/out as well as the vertical marquee sign. She said the garages will not be differentiated by
color but instead by nomenclature.
Mr. Stidhem said he was impressed with all the thought that went into this proposal. He said it was a
great idea to tie-in with the design of the (future) pedestrian bridge.
Ms. Salay inquired about the lighting that was added for design #1. Ms. Martin explained there was
discussion at the ART with respect to how the two sign packages were similar/different, and
strengths/weaknesses of each. She said Engineering had noted that it was critical that people be able to
identify which garage they were coming in/out of. She said the two garages straddle two of the same
streets so they are both located in between Mooney Street and Longshore Street. She emphasized the
visibility of the name for each garage was important. She said due to the light study, it was determined
that not enough light would be cast onto the sign from the interior deck of the parking garage, hence the
request for additional lighting.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
May 5, 2016 — Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 10
Ms. Angel-Chumbley said the applicant built on the ART's recommendation before presenting to the PZC
this evening.
Ms. Salay stated she really likes design #1, especially the way it is being illuminated at night with the
triangles lit and likes the lighting on the side as long as it is subdued. She agrees the parking garage
needs to be identified but she does not want it to be blinding if one is in their office or adjacent
residence. She said she was excited about this sign package and she does not get excited about signs
very much.
Ms. Angel-Chumbley stated the goal is to make sure that the sign integrates well with the architecture
and the applicant does not want it to be about the sign but by the holistic building and if the signs fit
thoughtfully with other elements in the streetscape.
Ms. Mitchell said she thought the sign package that was a functioning element is very artful and
welcoming.
Mr. Brown described the sign package as sophisticated and eclectic.
Mr. Miller said he likes design #1 and thanked the applicant for their diligence because the PZC slowed
down the process.
Mr. Brown said he liked design #1 much better. He said he has to memorize why the grid and the
triangles exist so he can explain it to all the guests. He noted it was interesting that the triangles act like
arrows pointing down to the entrance but our (future) iconic bridge is kind of an up arrow design.
Mr. Brown asked if any of the Commissioners had any issues with the sizes as they have dwelled on that
a lot in the past.
Ms. Salay said she believes they got it right.
Mr. Brown said adequate lighting is needed for safety but at the same time, if one looks up from a street
level into the lights shining down, it becomes glaring. He said he hopes the interior lighting of the
garages are carefully placed with consideration of that so lighting does not read heavily from the street.
Mr. Starr reported extensive photometric tests have been conducted and they have met the Code; they
are not excessive in any way. He said they have debated painting the ceiling white because it could make
the garage feel bigger and safer but they have not landed on that yet; that would make it brighter from
the outside as well.
Mr. Brown suggested it is important to have a dynamic element on the outside of the garage. He said he
comes from the Indianapolis area where they incorporated banners. He said Dublin has annual festivals
etc. where we get concerned about signs. He said a garage engages the street. He encouraged adding
banners for the Memorial Tournament or the Irish Festival to add life and vitality.
Mr. Stidhem said he likes design #1 as did Ms. Salay and Mr. Miller.
Ms. Mitchell said she loves the plan as it has come a long way and she never thought she would be so
excited about parking signs.
Mr. Brown called for a motion to approve a Master Sign Plan with two conditions:
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
May 5, 2016 — Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 10
1) That the applicant provide an approved MSP containing all approved signs for Blocks B and C to
Planning, prior to sign permitting including an updated General Regulations Matrix, sign location
elevations, and approved parking garage marquee signs; and
2) That the applicant provide additional lighting for the interior of the primary sign in design #1.
Motion and Vote
Ms. Mitchell moved, Mr. Stidhem seconded, to approve the Master Sign Plan with two conditions. The
vote was as follows: Mr. Miller, yes; Mr. Brown, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Stidhem, yes; and Ms. Mitchell,
yes. (Approved 7 — 0)
Planning Items
Ms. Husak said, based on the work session City Council conducted in April for the Bridge Street
developments going on (Riverside Park Master Plan) it is now the intent to have the Master Plan for the
park be scheduled for adoption by Council as a resolution at their meeting on May 23rd. She said as part
of that, we are going to have to amend the Community Plan afterwards to show land that currently is not
shown as parkland in that area so that is something the Commission can expect to see. She said that
would call for a recommendation to City Council to adopt the future land use map of the area plan in the
Historic District to include additional land in the Master Plan for the park. She indicated then Council will
start the review of the Basic Plan for parks pieces.
Ms. Husak said staff wrote a follow-up memo and materials to Council included in their packet which also
answered the Commission's questions as a follow-up. She indicated as soon as Council has received that
information, it will be shared with the Commission.
Communications
Ms. Husak said there is only one planning application for the PZC to review on May 19"1, which is the next
section of Riviera. She said Staff would like to use the available time for presentations: 1) Economic
Development — by Rachel Ray in her new capacity as an Economic Administrator; and 2) Engineering —
by Tina Wawszkiewicz to provide an overview of the street network in the Bridge Street District as well as
safe biking in the City.
Ms. Husak said Greg Dale will provide training to all the Boards and Commissions as a consolidated
evening on June 23rd. She said the training would be held at the 5800 building on Shier Rings Road to
provide dinner and a more informal platform. She said Chair and Vice Chair training would be offered
from 5:00 pm to 6:00 pm, dinner at 6:00 pm, and training provided by Mr. Dale would begin at 6:30 pm.
She encouraged the Commission to suggest training ideas that could be incorporated.
Steve Stidhem said he would like to talk about more of the planning side and solar panels - how they can
be incorporated into our planning as a City. He said he is seeing it on a few houses but it is the exception
rather than the rule and it is one of the things he is passionate about.
Bob Miller asked if training with City Council was still slated for May 161'. He said on May 191h, he will be
attending AIA and will not be available for that evening's training.
Amy Salay said City Council and the Commission used to get together several times a year to talk about a
subject or the various development happening in the City but also to get better acquainted on a personal
level. She suggested green initiatives could be discussed at a dinner beyond May 161 because that is one
of Council's goals for 2016. She said there are two things she hopes to get accomplished on May 16"1.
She said one topic is the ART; Council wants to learn how their process works, what is working/what is
not, and when it comes into play as it has been around for a few years. Mr. Papsidero confirmed the ART
began in 2012. Ms. Salay said the second topic for May 16"' is to discuss signs and architecture overall.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
May 5, 2016 — Meeting Minutes
Page 10 of 10
Ms. Husak said she would coordinate the logistics with Anne Clarke as it would be held at City Hall and a
dinner is included.
Chris Brown inquired about a broader issue - for every single-family residence built there is a net cost or
gain of dollars. Ms. Salay said Council had discussed that topic and they prefer that the PZC not consider
the economic development component when reviewing applications.
Mr. Brown said the other part of what Mr. Stidhem brought up was sustainability including types of
materials and methods, etc., which is near and dear to his heart. He indicated there is a life -cycle cost to
every building but recognizes that some buildings are not meant to last 200 years and some are not
meant to last just 3 years but that is a case by case analysis of the structures.
Mr. Stidhem inquired about traffic and if Frantz and Post Roads could be included in the presentation by
Engineering.
Vince Papsidero said along with the Intersection Study that is going to be starting soon there is also the
Western Roads Alignment Study on the north side of Bridge Street and of course the Framework Study,
which can all be part of that conversation.
Mr. Miller inquired about the cut-thru road in Riviera that is bothering him because the developer does
not want it but it is going to happen. Phil Hartmann recommended that topic not be discussed this
evening. Ms. Husak said it is going to get addressed in the materials provided to the Commission for the
meeting on May 19"' because the application for Section 3 includes that road that connects to Firenza,
which was conditioned in the rezoning - that the connection not take place until the Hyland -Croy
connection is in place.
Mr. Miller asked if that road could be eliminated at this stage. Ms. Husak answered no.
Mr. Brown called for any further questions or comments. [Hearing none.] He adjourned the meeting at
7:51 p.m. and said the next meeting for the Commission will be May 19, 2016.
As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on May 19, 2016
1vot Dublin
'I'll"Ind.ol
PLANNING AND ZONING MMMISMON
RECORDx
....."Ilehd...v.v
aacx a0. mae
e
w 0 THAI ANN Orif
asamFOP/n/FP
a lUerebpment Plan/ Prellmlnary A It Flnal Nat
traded
11P, SUI end If III 111hpledernfly III a I
on the east GI Of DI RIP,
300 had I it I'll drive
P�u�
l P12 I ander the freedom of
forint ad, S1111n And I Or II no
0.NCu
ry+N Foal
PIK adQr the al dsumnmmn mPnl+inn,
Andicant:
ffinineµ we evv LwO
Calmnnn
Col
Slp)j10
tmorrel
IIII
a aprc/l. us
h5?rI
xma Irel Demmpn
m PPryPddrhnoe and Find Pat applicamn III pont at the
equal co Do appeal
enter 1p the Mellon,
STAFF CEIRTIFICATION
dGn.��K
Fene';III P
CiryufDeblin
Plammngn ing FLAWNG AIS ZCiRRQNG CCiMMISSICNJ
Rwd
Ali On. 430 16 1236
qxre 614 410 400 MEETING MINUTES
ho 614 410 4747
vow, .dubluohnum.vP. MARCH 10, 2016
MENCH
1. ME Quad, Subarea 3, Wyandotte Woods PCC—Hawthorne Commons
The Chair, Victoria Newell, called the meeting to order at 531 p.m. and lad the Pledge of Allegiance
Other Commission members present were. Cathy Oe Rosa, Deborah Mitchel, and Stephen 4lahem. Amy
Si Chris Brown, and Robert Miller were absent Om representatives present were Philp Hartmann,
Jennifer Rauch, Claudia Husak, Devayanl Pul Aaron Stanford, Michael Hendershot, Alan Pehh, Lori
BuNaett, and Flora Rogers.
Ailmmistraeve Burnes
Motion and Vote
Ms. Newel moved, Mr. Stlahem seconded, to accept He documents into He record. The vote was
as
fellows'. Ms. Mitchell, yes, Ms. De Rosa, yes, Ms. Newell, yes, and Mr.4ltlhem, yes. (Approved 9 -D)
Motion and Vote
Ms. Newell moved, Ms. Mitchell seconded, to approve the January 21, 2016, meeting minutes. The vote
was
ltlbem,
as follows'. Ms. De Rosa, yes, Mr. S yes, Ms. Mitchell, yes, and Ms. Newell, yes. (Approved 9 -
0)
The Char briefly explained He rues and procedures of He Planning and zoning Commission . She said
He Deer Run, Subarea A care was postponed prior to He meeting and there were no cares eligible for
He consent agenda. She noted trat not all of He Commission members were in attendance but there Is a
quorum for voting and three out of He four in attendance would need to vote favorably for a care to be
approved She said she wanted all the applicants to know trat three of the seven members were absent
in care Day wanted to table Her care based on attendance
Wyandotte Woods Boulevard
15-118FDP
Final Development Plan (Tabled 9 —o)
2. Biagg tragi Woods PB B
Cosgray Road
15-1191
Text Modification O pproved 9—o)
Final Development Plan (Approved 9-0)
Final Plat (Recommended for Approv9 9 —o)
3. Deer Run, Subarea A
5000 Deer Run Drive
15-120FDP/PP/FP
Final DevelopmentPlan/Preiminary and Final Plat
(POSTPONED prior to the meeting)
9. NE Quad POD, Subarea 2,
Wyandotte Woods, Section 9 (lots 203-216, Lots 236 and
237, and Lots 250-257) and Section 10 (Lots 217235, and Lots 238-249)
Wyandotte Woods Boulevard
15-108FDP/FP
Final Development Plan (Approved 9—o)
Final Plat (Recommended for Approv9 9 —o)
The Chair, Victoria Newell, called the meeting to order at 531 p.m. and lad the Pledge of Allegiance
Other Commission members present were. Cathy Oe Rosa, Deborah Mitchel, and Stephen 4lahem. Amy
Si Chris Brown, and Robert Miller were absent Om representatives present were Philp Hartmann,
Jennifer Rauch, Claudia Husak, Devayanl Pul Aaron Stanford, Michael Hendershot, Alan Pehh, Lori
BuNaett, and Flora Rogers.
Ailmmistraeve Burnes
Motion and Vote
Ms. Newel moved, Mr. Stlahem seconded, to accept He documents into He record. The vote was
as
fellows'. Ms. Mitchell, yes, Ms. De Rosa, yes, Ms. Newell, yes, and Mr.4ltlhem, yes. (Approved 9 -D)
Motion and Vote
Ms. Newell moved, Ms. Mitchell seconded, to approve the January 21, 2016, meeting minutes. The vote
was
ltlbem,
as follows'. Ms. De Rosa, yes, Mr. S yes, Ms. Mitchell, yes, and Ms. Newell, yes. (Approved 9 -
0)
The Char briefly explained He rues and procedures of He Planning and zoning Commission . She said
He Deer Run, Subarea A care was postponed prior to He meeting and there were no cares eligible for
He consent agenda. She noted trat not all of He Commission members were in attendance but there Is a
quorum for voting and three out of He four in attendance would need to vote favorably for a care to be
approved She said she wanted all the applicants to know trat three of the seven members were absent
in care Day wanted to table Her care based on attendance
NE Quad, Subarea 3, Wyandotte Woods PUD — Hawthorne Commons
Wyandotte Woods Boulevard
15-118FDP Final Development Plan
The Chair, Ms. Newell, said the following application is a proposal for 86 multi -family dwelling units for an
approximately 13 -acre, vacant site and all associated site improvements as part of the Wyandotte Woods
neighborhood in Subarea 3 of the NE Quad Planned Unit Development District. She said the site is south
of the eastern portion of Wyandotte Woods Boulevard and west of the intersection with Emerald
Parkway. She said this is a request for review and approval of Minor Modifications to the Development
Text and a Final Development Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050. She said the
Commission is the final authority on this application and anyone intending to address the Commission will
need to be sworn -in.
The Chair swore in anyone intending to address the Commission with regard to this case.
Jennifer Rauch said the density permitted is 120 units and 86 units are proposed. She said the Final
Development Plan is the final action for this proposal. She reported the Commission has informally
reviewed this case several times during the past year to provide feedback and in February 2016, the
Commission reviewed the Final Development Plan but it was tabled by the applicant due to the significant
concerns regarding the intensity of the overall development. She said the main topics at that time were
encroachments into the setbacks, buffering, connectivity, general architecture, and stormwater
management that included the entry pond.
Ms. Rauch presented an aerial view of the site, adjacent to the Dublin Scioto High School located to the
southwest and the single-family section to the north. She presented the revised Site Plan. She noted the
applicant modified the layout of the units and eliminated the encroachment to the setbacks but the
overall number of units had not changed. She said the applicant has better incorporated northwest
multiple use path into the development and modified the location of the multiple use path on the east
side of the site. She said the building architecture is similar to what was proposed previously, a more
modern, contemporary style with the same building materials of stone, siding, glass, and accents of
metal panels. She presented the proposed front, rear, and side elevations, as well as the perspectives for
the streetscape and the rear of the units. She presented an additional graphic from the applicant to show
the decks and patios and a section view of the proposed development to show the grading, mound, and
landscaping as it relates to the existing single-family development. She also showed a view as seen from
the existing development at installation and then years following the installation after the trees had
matured to provide more screening. She presented the proposed elevations of the community center
located off the main entrance that is unchanged from the previous presentations. She presented a
revised sign for the entry that will now be externally illuminated.
Ms. Rauch said approval is recommended for the Final Development Plan with 13 conditions
1) The applicant work with Legal to finalize deed restrictions to provide age restrictions for future
tenants.
2) The discrepancy with the proposed elevation for building C will need to be revised prior to the
building permit submission.
3) The applicant work with Staff on opportunities to group garage locations on buildings C, F, H,
and P.
4) The plans be revised to incorporate a sidewalk on the north side of the entrance drive connecting
Wyandotte Woods Boulevard to the community center.
5) The applicant will be required to provide a 25 -foot access easement at the northwest portion of
the site to the City to maintain the 8 -foot -wide, shared -use path that will be constructed as part
of the site development.
6) The applicant and owner continue to work with the City on coordinating the details of the access
easement, path construction, and plant materials for the connection of the path from the school
site through to Wyandotte Woods Boulevard.
7) The final layout and location of the eastern path will need to be field verified to minimize any
impacts to the existing trees in the vicinity.
8) The applicant incorporate passive amenities such as benches and/or informal paths within the
small open space areas, to the extent possible.
9) Final revisions to the plans regarding the alley width and turning radii will be required with the
building permit submission, subject to approval by Washington Township Fire Department.
10) The applicant will be required to ensure tree replacement for the site occurs in accordance with
the Code or obtain approval of a tree Waiver from City Council.
11) The applicant address the site grading concerns identified within the report, subject to approval
by Engineering.
12) The portion of landscaping located around the entry pond be completed by fall 2016 or with the
occupancy of the community center building, whichever occurs first, and a fountain be added to
the entry pond.
13) The applicant continue working with Engineering to address all technical comments regarding
stormwater management and continue to demonstrate all stormwater requirements as defined in
Chapter 53 are met as well as not adversely impacting the school property.
Victoria Newell inquired about the condition regarding stormwater management and grading on the site.
She asked the conditions and if the applicant will be able to satisfy the grading requests. Michael
Hendershot answered he feels confident with the proposed grading and there is adequate drainage from
the buildings.
Ms. Newell asked if the legacy trees will be preserved given the grading to happen around them. Mr.
Hendershot said Staff has worked with the applicant with grading in mind to see if any more of the
landmark trees could be preserved. He explained the way the grading is proposed, the trees should
survive.
Steve Stidhem inquired the fire access conditions. Ms. Rauch clarified the width of the alley needs to be
increased; it is 15 feet wide now and it needs to be 16 feet wide, which the applicant has demonstrated
will work.
Cathy De Rosa asked how many landmark trees have been identified in this plan. Ms. Rauch pointed out
the landmark trees to be preserved.
The Chair invited the applicant to come forward.
Glen Dugger, attorney representing the applicant, 37 W. Broad Street, thanked Staff for assisting them in
returning to the Commission in an expeditious timeframe. He said the applicant has addressed many of
the issues raised at the review last month. He noted they realigned the whole site and units no longer
encroach into the setbacks, which was a significant concern to the Commission and surrounding
neighbors. He said with this proposal, the pond may appear in the same place but it is actually 10 feet
further to the north. He said he likes the way the entrance drive terminates into a view corridor. He noted
they addressed the pedestrian access of the northwest corner. He said they removed retaining walls that
were on the previous plan as the units are now out of the setbacks. He reported they met with the
neighbors and they engaged in an appropriate discussion about this plan and he has provided them with
additional information. He said his landscaper has stated that this proposal is being landscaped as heavily
as possible without overcrowding plant material as it matures. He emphasized this is a one-story
community and there are several conditions written into the request for approval and they agree with all
of the conditions as written.
Deborah Mitchell thanked the applicant for responding to the concerns
Mr. Stidhem asked if there were any outstanding issues not addressed. Mr. Dugger answered there is a
question about whether this is too dense that he believes is a subjective judgement and defended his
proposal.
Ms. De Rosa asked the applicant if they agree to grouping the garages and Mr. Dugger said he did. He
said he did not go through each of the 13 conditions listed to agree to each one individually but assured
the Commission they agreed to all. He said the applicant intends to work with Staff.
The Chair invited the public to speak with regard to this case.
Eric Lichtenfeld, 7789 Kelly Drive, said he is concerned about traffic on Wyandotte Woods Boulevard that
may also be impacted by the other development for this area. He said the neighborhood could see an
increase of 100 vehicles. He said he moved into the neighborhood this past summer. He said he lived in
Los Angeles, CA for ±20 years and there is almost nothing as corrosive to the enjoyment of a community
as clogged traffic. He indicated that once this has been endured, it is at the top of the list for concerns.
Jerry Kosicki, 4313 Wyandotte Woods Boulevard, said no development is perfect but there is a lot to like
about this one. He said the neighbors really like the single -story design and 55 -plus restriction as a place
for older folks to age in place, which is very much needed in Dublin. He indicated how gratified he was as
so many of their suggestions have been incorporated into this proposal. He said he liked the amount of
density of 86 units rather than 120 but is concerned about the size of the footprint and how many trees
will actually survive after all of the intensive regrading is complete. He said on the north side, it is nearly
a solid wall of buildings that back up to his neighborhood. He said the west side as viewed driving east on
the street is overwhelming and oppressive, not welcoming or inviting. He said everything in this site
appears to still be crowded and crammed in. He reported the neighbors are concerned about the legacy
trees being saved. He said hundreds of trees have been removed in their neighborhood already to make
room for the development in Sections 9 & 10. He questions the City's ability to oversee the tree
removal/replacement process and said ironclad assurances are needed.
Kathy Harter, 7825 Holiston Court, thanked the City for listening to the neighbors and thanked Staff for
their prompt responsiveness to their questions. She confirmed the neighbors met with Mr. Dugger a
couple of weeks ago, which was appreciated. She said they like the bike paths and connections. She said
trees are very important and she hopes that everyone makes this their quest to save as many trees as
possible. She said there are 13 landmark trees and 7 are listed to be saved. She asked if a couple more
could be saved by modifying the pond or the parking lot for the community center. She said the lettering
on the sign for the entrance is a stark white and would prefer to see it mesh better with the other
portions of the neighborhood as a stone effect. She suggested grasses to be incorporated into the
landscaping to soften the look.
Mr. Stidhem inquired about her comment that the sign should be coordinated with the rest of the
neighborhood.
Ms. Harter said they have spent ±$10,000 this year on the front part of Wyandotte Woods at Riverside
Drive to install a new sign that has columns and wording engraved into the stone and landscaping placed
around it. She said they participated in the Beautify Your Neighborhood Grant program provided by the
City. She said stone to this community is important; they even have natural stone areas at the cul-de-
sacs and would like to stone continued throughout this development.
Brett Page, 7638 Kelly Drive, said he appreciated the collaboration the neighbors have received recently.
He said the intensity of the development has been reiterated as a strong concern. He said he
understands this meets the Code but asked the Commission if this is the kind of standard Dublin should
have, allowing structures to be built to the very edge of the property as he has not seen this anywhere
else in Dublin and is concerned this might set a precedent. He asked if some of the units on the north
end could be removed to minimize the footprint. He inquired about signs and asked if the name of the
manager of the development needs to be included or if it should just state Hawthorne Commons. He
asked if the entryway could be just a right- only, out of the property to minimize cross traffic. He
indicated the property owners probably did not anticipate the pond to expand in size and asked how
trees could fit into the north end of the pond area. He said water already comes up to the lot line. He
said the connectivity to the Dublin Scioto High School is special so walkability within this development is
desired. He noted that all the trees were stripped away this past week in Sections 9 & 10, which was
disturbing to him. He asked that if trees cannot be replaced on this property, if they can be planted in
other areas in Wyandotte Woods. He said trees provide a calming effect and when they are removed, it is
noticeable.
Amy Kramb, 7511 Riverside Drive, asked that this proposal be tabled once again as there are a lot of
conditions that Staff has included for an approval and she believes there should be more conditions in
place based on all the comments this evening. She indicated it is not fair to leave all these conditions in
Staff's hands and the residents deserve to review this plan again, especially in terms of the pond,
grading, and landscaping. She said she is not supportive of the stark, black metal cabinet for the sign at
the entry, which is found nowhere in that area; everything is stone with pin -mounted letters or wooden
with carved letters. She suggested that if the sign has to be made of metal, that it be a softer color. She
said the name of the developer should not be on the sign, just the name of the development itself. She
reiterated that they are all concerned with the trees, especially after seeing what happened in Sections 9
& 10. She said on the west, it is one really long building proposed with only a 10 -foot separation. She
said even in the BSD there would have to be another block in between or a mid -block walkway. She
suggested two cuts like on the south side. She inquired about the dumpster and if there will be
appropriate screening. She said the grading for the pond is confusing as to which development it is for as
the same conditions are listed in both applications. When she sat on the PZC, she said they reviewed the
pond and the grading comes right up to the property line. She indicated she did not know what trees can
grow well on a slope and in water on the north side of the pond so she urged the Commission to look at
the landscaping plan closely. She restated that she wanted the Commission to table this application
tonight.
The Chair clarified the Commission cannot actually table a case; the applicant needs to request that a
case be tabled.
Gindu Venkatesh, 4063 Wyandotte Woods Boulevard, said he resides in the first house near the pond and
the water from the pond currently encroaches into his lot. He said he is concerned because he just heard
that the pond will be increased in size. He said Sections 9 & 10 should have their own retention pond and
not increase the size of this pond. While standing in his back yard, he said the structure is visible from
one end to the other end so he requested that it be reduced in size.
Sue Hutras, 7834 Silver Rose Court, said she agreed with everyone's comments and appreciated Mr.
Dugger's willingness to work with the neighbors. She said she is still not supportive of this density
because Wyandotte Woods is named as such for a reason. She suggested some of the inner units be
two -stories to reduce the footprint and increase the green space. She indicated she understands one-
story units for senior housing but the garages are still the focal point and she finds that unattractive. She
said she has three kids at Dublin Scioto High School and she still does not see the connectivity. She said
the stadium is right there and teenagers will find the shortest way there, not necessarily following paths.
She said she was concerned about safety because there are not continuous sidewalks. She said she
would love to see a project like the one by the movie theater in Dublin where the garages are all on the
backside with a small roadway.
Rajeev Desai, 4071 Wyandotte Woods Boulevard, said he is the second neighbor on the north side and
agreed with his neighbor and that it was like living in a fort; he asked for some breathing space. He
explained that next to his property line is the pond so he does not know how trees are going to fit there.
He stated he is not supportive of the pond almost doubling in size as he is already experiencing water in
his property. He indicated development in Sections 9 & 10 will cause more water problems.
Eric Lichtenfeld said he is still unclear about connectivity from the neighborhood to Dublin Scioto High
School.
The Chair said there was no one else from the public requesting to speak; she closed the public comment
portion of the meeting. She asked Staff to address the traffic concerns.
Michael Hendershot said the traffic study was performed as part of the original rezoning of this entire
area, which encompassed this development and the traffic study did account for the proposed
development here as well as Sections 9 & 10. He reported Engineering continuously monitors the
operations of the public infrastructure and they feel comfortable with the infrastructure in place as it
relates to the proposed development. He reported the traffic study did not warrant a right-in/right-out so
Engineering does not feel that is necessary based on the trip generations for this development.
Vicki Newell asked him if he recalled what those numbers were. Mr. Hendershot responded he could not
recall but the traffic study showed a density of 120 units and this proposal has less units at 86.
Ms. Newell asked about the detention pond and why it is specifically at this location as she thought that
was determined a long time ago. Mr. Hendershot said the retention pond was constructed as part of
Wyandotte Woods Section 8 and not sized to accommodate the development of Sections 9 & 10. He said
the applicant has proposed to expand the basin to the south by ±20 feet to accommodate the
development of Sections 9 & 10.
The Chair noted that Sections 9 & 10 was a separate case but she asked why they need to come to this
location. She asked why it cannot be located somewhere else.
Mr. Hendershot said the pond was sized and located for the undeveloped portion of Sections 9 & 10. He
said it was determined with prior development approval that was an appropriate place for the basin. He
indicated the applicant can explore other measures that can be taken so that basin does not have to be
modified but as proposed in Sections 9 & 10, they are meeting stormwater requirements by increasing
the basin.
The Chair clarified stormwater management was approved for Sections 9 & 10 to use this pond.
Mr. Stidhem asked if there were limitations on the depth of the pond. Mr. Hendershot said the water level
for a 100 -year storm is what was taken into account for the maximum ponding so it should be the same
elevation as it is today and not an increase in water level.
Cathy De Rosa asked if there is a status check because if the water is backing up there now; she said it is
"supposed to be appropriate" but was it. She asked how this is monitored. Mr. Hendershot said that may
be a testament to the maintenance of the pond that is not occurring or the outlet structure is causing the
water to be ponding more than it was designed to be. He suggested that is something that should be
checked because it was not designed to go into the neighbors' property.
Ms. Newell agreed this is not the way a detention pond should normally function.
Mr. Stidhem asked who owns it and would be responsible for checking it. Mr. Hendershot answered
Homewood owns it and is responsible. He added the expansion is occurring to the south so there will be
no new grading along the northeast portion.
Ms. Newell inquired about the slope sides that will be there when the modification is finished. Mr.
Hendershot replied it is probably around a 4 to 1 or a 3 to 1 coming down.
Ms. De Rosa inquired about the trees planned for along the pond and Ms. Newell questioned how the
trees will survive within that area.
Jim Lipnos, Homewood Corporation, 2700 East Dublin -Granville Road, said in Section 3 of Wyandotte
Woods there is a retention basin with similar slopes that have 50 or 60 trees planted on it and those have
been maintained. He said they have replaced trees for those that died but it is maintained by the
Homeowner's Association. He said with regard to the previous questions about the level of the pond and
if it was getting deeper. He explained the pond is not getting deeper; the normal pool elevation, which is
where it would be on a normal day, is actually getting lower. He said the pond is not getting deeper, it is
actually getting shallower. He said the capacity for storm events becomes deeper. He said in a 100 -year
storm event, where the water level is today, is where we would be in a 100 -year storm event. He said
the overflow structure in a pond is below the elevation of the back fill lots. He said the trees would be
planted within the first 15 — 20 feet of the top bank from the property line and at that point would not be
more than a 4 to 1 slope, where trees are planted all the time.
Ms. De Rosa said she heard the Homeowner's Association would be responsible for maintaining these
trees once this is done. Ms. Rauch confirmed that was true for the north side.
Ms. De Rosa said maybe the maintenance of the pond is the root cause of the problem
Mr. Lipnos said there is some discrepancy in this interpretation of what that pond is today. He said the
pond was built with Section 8 with a full understanding that it was going to handle the stormwater for
Sections 9 & 10. He said this goes back to the overall stormwater management report done 25 -plus years
ago. He said "the pond" is currently a temporary sediment basin. He said it is not maintained, not treated
for chemicals. He said it will become a pond when they develop the next sections, finish the landscaping,
and put in the fountain and it will be maintained by the HOA.
Mr. Stidhem said if my property was right next to a pond and the water was coming up into my yard, I
would contact the City and not contact PZC. He said the City would then inspect to assess the problem.
Mr. Lipnos said there have been no complaints.
Ms. De Rosa requested clarification as she counted six landmark trees and she has heard in the
discussion this evening that seven would be maintained. Ms. Rauch answered the plans show six trees.
Mr. Dugger said there may be some confusion with the tree survey. He said trees identified on the south
are actually on school property. He confirmed there are six landmark trees preserved on this property.
Dennis Karem, 8220 Industrial Parkway, Environmental Management, Plain City, Ohio, 43064, said the
tree located in area where the clubhouse parking lot is proposed is dead and identified as such. He
confirmed there are six remaining landmark trees. Ms. De Rosa asked how many in total there were. Mr.
Karem answered 11 — 12 trees.
The Chair requested the tree survey be presented on screen.
Ms. Rauch noted the various trees. Mr. Karem said they did a comprehensive study for Staff indicating
trees to remain or be removed. He said the multi -stem apple tree (landmark) in the area of the proposed
pond is not a high quality tree. Ms. Mitchell requested clarification that the study has been validated.
Ms. Rauch said tree protection fencing is provided during construction. She said more heavy-duty type
fencing has been used in the past around landmark trees so that could be incorporated into this plan. Mr.
Dugger said a chain-link fence will be used around the landmark trees to protect them.
Ms. Newell inquired again about the apple tree. Ms. Rauch said the survey shows it is in good condition.
Claudia Husak said the survey has it listed as a 14 -inch Maple tree with four trunks. Mr. Karem
questioned if they were all looking at the same tree on the survey, which was confirmed. He seemed
surprised it was listed as a maple. He said the trouble with multi -stem trees is they might not be in as
good condition as others as they are subject to cracking.
Ms. Newell asked if there is any chance that tree could be saved and if something different could be done
with the pond. Mr. Dugger said the applicant considered a design with that tree on a type of peninsula or
island but he thought the overall grading of the site would not work for that. She asked him to elaborate.
Sean Gillian, EP Ferris and Associates, 880 King Avenue, Columbus, Ohio, said throughout the multiple
iterations of the grading plan, there was quite a few criteria they were expected to meet with the design
in terms of tying in the grade with the existing surrounding grade. He said it was a balancing act to save
as many trees as possible. He said this tree could not be saved.
Mr. Dugger said there was concern about through -pedestrian traffic. He stated there is a five to six-foot
tall chain-link fence along the entire south boundary of this property that was probably constructed when
the high school was built. He said he assumed this was part of the security perimeter fencing. He said it
would not be easy for someone to cross this property and then scale the fence to enter the stadium. He
said the applicant is not concerned about having a significant amount of cut -through traffic for that very
reason.
Mr. Dugger said Homewood would landscape and maintain the areas on the north side of the pond. He
said Treplus is obligated to landscape and maintain the southern portion of the pond. He said the
northern portion will eventually be conveyed to the HOA because it is part of Sections 8, 9 & 10.
Ms. De Rosa asked for clarification for responsibility for maintaining landscaping around the pond. She
asked when it gets transferred over to the HOA, who ensures the plantings become viable before the
HOA is responsible. Mr. Dugger said typically it would be turned over to the HOA during the 90% transfer
of the houses built in Sections 9 & 10.
Mr. Lipnos said they do not have to transfer over to the HOA until a year of the last lot transferring. He
said it is normally done when 90 — 95% is complete. He said sometimes they will deed the land over to
the HOA earlier. He said there is a one-year warranty on the trees when they are planted.
Ms. De Rosa clarified that it is the HOA's responsibility immediately but there is a one-year warranty on
the vegetation. Mr. Lipnos said the actual pond is maintained by the HOA, by Homewood, not Treplus.
Ms. Mitchell asked about the rationale for the sign; she liked the change and the lighting of the sign but
wondered about the construction materials and the design of it.
Mr. Dugger said when this was reviewed last time, the applicant understood there was a strong
preference about not having it internally illuminated and they made that change to be externally
illuminated. He said there has not been previous discussions in terms of the other comments. He said
Wyandotte Woods has a routed sign. He said he thought the proposed sign was more professional and
the stone base was consistent with Dublin's standards.
Ms. Mitchell said her inference is that this community is more modern so the sign could be more modern
so she asked if that was the rationale. Ms. Husak said from Staff's standpoint, the sign matches the
architecture and the feel of this neighborhood. She said this is not necessarily Wyandotte Woods and not
Hawthorne Commons at Wyandotte Woods. She said they reviewed comments from the Commission and
determined it still had character and quality that fit.
Mr. Stidhem asked if the name of the developer is allowed and in this case, Treplus Communities. Ms.
Husak said contents of signs cannot be regulated.
Ms. Newell referred to the review criteria and said she appreciated how hard this applicant worked with
the neighborhood. She indicated this is the most positive feedback she has heard from the residents on
any of the cases. She said she struggles with the criteria to provide adequate public space; there is not
much usable space on this site. She said the open areas are where the detention ponds are located. She
said she also struggles with the tree preservation on the site in terms of the quantity of trees being
removed because that has been the natural feature of this site. She said she was okay with removing the
one tree in the pond area since others would be preserved. She restated she is comfortable just having
sidewalks on one side of a street. She said the one sidewalk in the far north corner should connect to the
community center. She suggested cross walks. Mr. Dugger said the reason the applicant did not do a
sidewalk where she noted was because there would be 9 or 10 driveway crossings, some of which will
have a car parked. He said they would also have to provide a ramp up, ramp down, all the way across.
He said they placed sidewalks on the front of the units without the driveway crossing. He said he liked
the idea of the cross walk in the location she noted. Ms. Newell said she would like to see that as a
condition in the application request.
Ms. Newell asked Staff if benches can realistically be incorporated in open space. Ms. Rauch said 'to the
extent possible'. She said there might be space in the existing tree canopy.
Ms. De Rosa thanked the applicant for all their work with the residents. She said she is the lover of
sidewalks on both sides of a street, consistent with what she said at the last review. She said we are
trying to accomplish walkability particularly in a 50 -plus neighborhood. She said she still wants to see
more open space. She questions whether the density can be improved to attain more green space since
the adjacent neighborhood has so much more green space.
Mr. Stidhem inquired about the land owned by the school to the west. Ms. Rauch said they use it for
athletic fields.
Philip Hartmann said the schools are going through Master Planning this year so they probably would not
have anything. Ms. Rauch said the schools have been part of this conversation. Mr. Dugger added the
applicant has been in constant contact with the schools.
Mr. Stidhem agreed with the lack of open space, which does not meet the review criteria. He said he
really worries about the ponds as the existing pond is an absolute mess. He suggested maybe the City
could maintain the ponds like they have done in other areas. He said he is a fan of sidewalks on both
sides of a street but understands this layout. He agreed with the suggested location of a cross walk. He
reiterated that the dumpster should be appropriately screened.
Ms. Mitchell added there is a tension here that is natural because there are trade-offs involved and when
we consider density, we have to recognize it is a multidimensional concept. She indicated when building
cars in a factory, everyone wants to go faster, with lower cost, and higher quality but you can never get
all three. She said then the decision becomes what you give on. She said with density, there are the
number of units, the height of units, and then the economic logic. She said space is multidimensional,
too; it includes grass and open space but also involves what the eye sees. She said she has resided in
places where things are very tall and looming, even though there is open space at ground level, it is
really important to consider all. She questions what the best way is to approach a trade-off. The Chair
said the decision has to be based on the review criteria.
Ms. De Rosa questions whether the Commission has done all they can to determine the appropriateness
of a trade-off. She asked if they pushed every lever so they are certain this is where it could be. She said
a lot of strides have been made in a lot of places but she is still concerned with the north side.
Ms. Newell said she did not think density was the question to ponder. She said the applicant is allowed to
have 86 units. Ms. De Rosa said it is the way it sits on the property that is the question. Ms. Newell
explained it is criteria #3 for usable open space. She said she can get around walkability and path of
travel but struggles with open space because it just includes the two ponds and the small space left at
the entries.
Mr. Dugger said the reason they got this plan to fit within the setback area was by reducing the size of
the garages. He said they were a little larger to accommodate storage or a work bench but now they are
a standard -depth garage. He said they reduced the total building cover by 12% per building and ±5,000
square feet over the entire site. He said while it looks like the old plan, it fits within the setback lines and
created the additional space on the east side and view corridor coming in through the entrance.
Ms. Newell said those are all distinct improvements. She said she appreciated that they staggered the
buildings because aesthetically, she preferred them staggered but she could not support the units
encroaching the property line.
Mr. Stidhem said he applauded all the work that had been done and for the applicant working so well
with the neighbors. He said he would like to see a walkway and benches around the pond in the middle
of the site.
Mr. Dugger said he thought it was going to work that way with the internal pond. He said he is
concerned about providing a hardscape around that pond but a mulch path might be a good alternative.
He said stormwater management with this site has been a challenge all along.
Ms. Rauch said the concern is with the grading. She presented a rendering of the central pond and the
open space surrounding it. She said it was determined that the grading around the pond is too significant
to accommodate a walkway.
Mr. Dugger reiterated that the grade falling from one side of the site to the other has been a challenge.
The Chair asked if there were further questions or comments. [Hearing none.]
Mr. Dugger requested a five-minute recess.
The Chair reconvened the meeting and reminded the applicant they have the right to request to table the
case since only four Commissioners were present.
Mr. Dugger said his contract expires in one week and they are currently trying to obtain an extension
because he wants the full Commission to review this application. He said some issues were raised this
evening that he does not know how to deal with on the spot. He said they are trying to reach the owner
so an extension could be issued to address the issues appropriately.
The Chair asked if it is possible to pause this review, move onto other cases, and reopen this case later
this evening. Mr. Hartmann said that was fine if the applicant did not have an objection. Mr. Dugger said
he did not object to a postponement to later in the evening. The Chair indicated this situation has not
occurred before. Mr. Dugger apologized to the residents in attendance for delaying the proceedings. The
Chair said she wanted to be fair to the applicant.
Motion and Vote
Ms. Newell moved, Ms. De Rosa seconded, to postpone the case until after the next case is reviewed.
The vote was as follows: Ms. Mitchell, yes; Mr. Stidhem, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; and Ms. Newell, yes.
(Approved 4 — 0)
The Chair resumed the meeting for this case.
Mr. Dugger reported the applicant has some additional time to work on the issues raised this evening but
would need to get on the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting. The Chair said she thought the
Commission could make an exception.
Ms. Husak asked if the applicant would provide revised materials or if they will return with the same
materials. Mr. Dugger said he did not know at this point and he probably would not have an answer until
Monday. Ms. Husak said if the applicant is requesting to table the application that the 15 -day rule would
need to be waived.
Mr. Dugger said Staff has been wonderful and the applicant will do everything they can to provide them
with materials in an expedient manner. The Chair stated it is a tough application. Mr. Dugger officially
requested that this application be tabled.
Motion and Vote
Ms. Newell moved, Ms. De Rosa seconded, to table the Final Development Plan at the request of the
applicant and waive the 15 -day rule to return to the next scheduled Commission meeting. The vote was
as follows: Mr. Stidhem, yes; Ms. Mitchell, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; and Ms. Newell, yes. (Tabled 4 — 0)
2. Ballantrae Woods PUD Cosgray Road
15-119FDP/FP Final Development Plan/Final Plat
The Chair, Ms. Newell, said the following application is for a subdivision and development of 45 single-
family lots and 90 detached condominium units as part of the Ballantrae Woods Planned Unit
Development. She said the site is east of Cosgray Road and north of the Conrail railroad tracks. She said
this is a request for review and approval of Minor Modifications to the Development Text and a Final
Development Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050 and request for review and
recommendation of approval to City Council of a Final Plat under the provisions of the Subdivision
Regulations. She noted the Commission will be required to vote on these requests separately. She said
the Commission is the final authority on Minor Modifications to the Development Text and the Final
Development Plan; anyone intending to address the Commission will need to be sworn -in.
The Chair swore in anyone intending to address the Commission with regard to this case.
Devayani Puranik stated the Final Development Plan is the final step of the approval process. She
reported the Rezoning was approved September 8, 2015, and Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval to City Council July 9, 2015. She said the character of the area is rural residential
with limited commercial activity and presented an aerial view of the site. She noted the northern sections
have wooded areas and there are tree rows along the railroad tracks.
Ms. Puranik said the Final Development Plan layout and density is consistent with the Preliminary
Development Plan with 45 single-family lots, 90 detached condominium units, and the open space is 18.2
acres with an overall density of 2.72 units per acre. She said no major updates have been made
regarding the site layout.
Ms. Puranik said the site is immediately west of Churchman Road with three access points, two of which
will align with streets to the east. She said the private drives provide access to the condominium units
and public roads will serve the single-family lots. She said the best buffer is 100 feet from the CXS
railroad tracks with mounds and landscaping to the height of t6 — 8 feet continuously from north to
south. She said the buildings will be 25 feet from the property line and will be buffered by landscaping
along the southern property line. She said the open space is mainly along the buffer setback with a half -
acre of open space within the condominium development. She said connectivity is continuous throughout
this site with sidewalks and shared -use paths.
Ms. Puranik said the proposed architecture for the condominiums has eight different elevations, seven of
which were part of the Preliminary Development Plan. She explained it is a cottage theme that includes
high pitched roofs, dormers, and detailed window trim. She said all units are required to have four-sided
architecture and permit the same primary building materials as the single-family residential units. She
said design elements include a door that is at least 17 square feet in area, windows with minimum
requirements for trim, chimneys, decorative gable vents, porches, or other appropriate design features
for the approved architecture. She noted the applicant has added an eighth elevation that has a
prominent wall of glass not consistent with the architectural theme and Development Text. She said Staff
has recommended that this elevation be modified to better integrate with the required architectural
theme. She added Staff is concerned that the architectural detailing on some side elevations is lacking.
She explained that while the units will be 12 feet apart, there are large blank walls shown on the
submitted elevations.
Victoria Newell asked which elevation was added. Ms. Puranik pointed out the elevation and presented
the conceptual architecture proposed. Ms. Puranik explained because the applicant is introducing this
elevation, they are also proposing additional design elements to include in the Development Text. She
presented all the elements in addition to what has been previously approved. She presented the
architectural drawings and noted the two new design elements proposed that they are proposing and to
add the descriptions to the Development Text. She noted currently the text requires single -hung windows
with a grid pattern of either 4/4, 6/6, or 9/9; they are requesting the modification for a fixed window
pane with a minimum of 2 grids creating a minimum of 3 faux lights. She said the additional dormer
styles include one windowed dormer and two dormers with dot motifs (one roof dormer and one porch
dormer). She reported Staff is concerned that the large window addition and the two closed dormers do
not successfully integrate into the architectural theme of "Carpenter Gothic". She said the other proposed
window modification provides consistency between approved design elements and the Development Text
while providing flexibility for additional design elements for windows and allows the residential units to
have natural light in smaller areas of the home. She said Staff supports the minor text modification to
permit the additional window and dormer styles except the large 9 -square window and dot -motif
dormers.
Ms. Puranik said Staff recommends approval of a Final Development Plan with five conditions:
1) That the applicant work with Staff to modify elevation C-8 of the condominium units for
consistency with the architectural theme and meet the requirement of building materials
permitted by the approved Development Text;
2) That the applicant modify the side elevations for the condominium units to introduce additional
design elements to avoid large blank surfaces and achieve four-sided architecture;
3) That the applicant enter into an infrastructure agreement with the City of Dublin to address the
fee to be paid for off-site traffic impacts, prior to the Recommendation of the Final Development
Plan recording of a plat for any portion of the site, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer;
4) That the applicant resolves discrepancies between the Summary Table, Final Plat, and
Development Text for open space reserves and area numbers prior to City Council review for
Final Plat; and
5) That the applicant work with Staff in all areas that require disturbances in the reserve areas to
locate the amenities in the least impactful manner.
Ms. Puranik presented the Final Plat that shows all the required setbacks, right-of-ways, and lots, but said
the applicant needs to show continuous building lines and include "Reserve R" that was part of the
Preliminary Development Plan that includes the preservation of landmark trees.
Ms. Puranik said approval is recommended for a Final Plat with two conditions:
1) That the applicant ensure that any minor technical adjustments to the plat, are made prior to City
Council submittal, and
2) That the applicant revises the plat and summary table to include "Reserve R" for landmark tree
protection and reserve area numbers and ownership details per approved Development Text.
Ms. Newell asked if vinyl windows were in the original Development Text to which Ms. Puranik confirmed
The Chair invited the applicant to approach the Commission.
Scott McClintock, Kass Corporation, 6210 Taylor Road SW, Pataskala, Ohio 43062, said many of the items
have been addressed. He said each of the conditions on the Final Development Plan and Final Plat can be
addressed. He said he believes there are some solutions to the large bank of windows on the Hanover
elevation. He said an agreement has been created in principle with Engineering and Development; just
the paperwork is needed for final process. He concluded he has no issues with the conditions.
Ms. Newell asked why the additional style elevation was proposed. Mr. McClintock said there were
footprint items this design worked better for, bringing an entertainment type room to the front and
opening a central area allows for a patio space to be centrally located. He explained each of the other
layouts have the patio space utilizing the back of the structure.
Ms. Newell asked if there was a specific location for each of the design styles planned for the site to
provide a variety. Mr. McClintock said that would be driven by sales. He said the overall plan contains a
footprint each of the buildings will fit into.
Cathy De Rosa asked for clarification on the second condition on the Plat about Reserve R for the
land mark tree.
Ms. Puranik presented the Site Plan and noted the two landmark trees that are part of the reserve, which
was not reflected on the Plat.
Steve Stidhem confirmed there were three new window types proposed that Staff did not want added to
the Development Text. Ms. Puranik explained the windows now become a primary material and that was
not listed in the Preliminary Development Plan and do not match the size and style of others.
The Chair invited the public to speak with regards to this case. [Hearing none.] She opened the meeting
up to discussion for the Commissioners.
Ms. Newell said she agreed with Staff in regards to the ninth elevation as it stands out differently from
the others. She said that elevation is missing the arched windows typical for this style but overall she
likes the design of the structures. She reiterated that architectural elements that appear so well in
drawings need to be brought to the reality of the final built product. She said she was fine with the minor
development text change.
Mr. Stidhem said he liked the layout and design. He asked what the square footage was for each of the
units.
David Parsley, Vice President of Sales, said all three units range between 1,900 — 2,100 square feet
without the optional second floor. He said the applicant will not allow the same units to be built next to
each other.
Ms. Newell requested that be made a condition. Deborah Mitchell suggested it be written in the design
matrix requirements. Ms. Newell emphasized it should be written in some fashion beyond what is in the
text currently.
Ms. Puranik said a diversity matrix was submitted with the application at one point and Staff will request
it again.
Ms. Mitchell said her main concern was the variability; she liked the architecture. She said if the reality
looks like the renderings, the development will look great.
Mr. Parsley clarified there are four different units so a full matrix could not be used but would ensure the
same elevation would not be built side-by-side.
Ms. Newell said she did not want to see a unit used throughout, heavy handed because it was popular.
Claudia Husak said a matrix could be worked out. Ms. Puranik said she added the sixth condition.
The Chair asked the applicant if they were in agreement with all six conditions for the Final Development
Plan. Mr. McClintock answered he accepted each of the conditions and wanted to make sure the sixth one
was to be worked out with Staff and a full matrix was not expected.
Ms. De Rosa concluded she loved the way the plan looks; specifically the green space and flow.
Motion and Vote
Ms. Newell moved, Mr. Stidhem seconded, to approve the Minor Text Modification. The vote was as
follows: Ms. Mitchell, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mr. Stidhem, yes; and Ms. Newell, yes. (Approved 4 — 0)
Motion and Vote
Ms. Newell moved, Ms. Mitchell seconded, to approve the Final Development Plan with six conditions as
presented:
1) That the applicant work with Staff to modify elevation C-8 of the condominium units for
consistency with the architectural theme and meet the requirement of building materials
permitted by the approved Development Text;
2) That the applicant modify the side elevations for the condominium units to introduce additional
design elements to avoid large blank surfaces and achieve four-sided architecture;
3) That the applicant enter into an infrastructure agreement with the City of Dublin to address the
fee to be paid for off-site traffic impacts, prior to the Recommendation of the Final Development
Plan recording of a plat for any portion of the site, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer;
4) That the applicant resolves discrepancies between the Summary Table, Final Plat, and
Development Text for open space reserves and area numbers prior to City Council review for
Final Plat;
5) That the applicant work with Staff in all areas that require disturbances in the reserve areas to
locate the amenities in the least impactful manner; and
6) That the applicant provides a diversity matrix for the condominium subarea.
The vote was as follows: Mr. Stidhem, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Ms. Mitchell, yes; and Ms. Newell, yes.
(Approved 4 — 0)
Motion and Vote
Ms. Newell moved, Ms. Mitchell seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for a Final Plat with
two conditions:
1) That the applicant ensure that any minor technical adjustments to the plat, are made prior to City
Council submittal, and
2) That the applicant revises the plat and summary table to include "Reserve R" for landmark tree
protection and reserve area numbers and ownership details per approved Development Text.
Mr. McClintock agreed to the two conditions.
The vote was as follows: Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mr. Stidhem, yes; Ms. Mitchell, and Ms. Newell, yes.
(Approved 4 — 0)
3. Deer Run, Subarea A 5000 Deer Run Drive
15-120FDP/PP/FP Final Development Plan/Preliminary and Final Plat
This application was postponed prior to the meeting at the request of the applicant.
4. NE Quad PUD, Subarea 2, Wyandotte Woods, Section 9 (Lots 203-216, Lots 236 and
237, and Lots 250-257) and Section 30 (Lots 217-235, and Lots 238-249)
Wyandotte Woods Boulevard
15-308FDP/FP Final Development Plan/Final Plat
The Chair, Ms. Newell, said the following application is for the subdivision and development of 55 single-
family lots as part of the Wyandotte Woods neighborhood in Subarea 2 of the NE Quad Planned Unit
Development. She said the site is north of the eastern portion of Wyandotte Woods Boulevard, south and
west of the existing stub at Kelly Drive. She said this is a request for review and approval of a Final
Development Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050 and a request for review and
recommendation of approval to City Council of a Final Plat under the provisions of the Subdivision
Regulations. She noted the Commission will be required to vote on these requests separately. She said
the Commission is the final authority on Minor Modifications to the Development Text and the Final
Development Plan and anyone intending to address the Commission will need to be sworn -in.
The Chair swore in anyone intending to address the Commission with regard to this case.
Claudia Husak reported Logan Stang did all the hard work on this case but was on vacation so she would
present on his behalf.
Ms. Husak said this is the last single-family portion of the Wyandotte Woods neighborhood. She
presented an aerial picture of the site. She explained the Final Development Plan is the last step for the
Planning and Zoning Commission along with a recommendation for the Final Plat to be approved by City
Council. She presented the two sections contemplated for approval. She said the connection of Kelly
Drive from the north to the roundabout is proposed along with the creation of Domnall Drive and Kelly
Court within the site. She reported all of the development requirements have been met in terms of front
building lines, and rear and side yard setbacks, etc. She said the applicant has been asked to provide
additional details for driveway spacing, which they have submitted satisfactorily.
Ms. Husak said there are conditions for the pond landscaping, which includes the north side of the pond.
She presented the landscape plan, which is included with this application. She explained tree removal is
also being addressed that has taken place over time. She said staff is working to ensure all the number of
trees that were approved to be removed in the previous sections were replaced. She said Wyandotte
Woods was approved for a Tree Waiver in the early 2000s so all the tree replacements planned for this
area are under a Waiver approved by City Council. She indicated trees were removed last week including
one tree to the north of Section 9 that was removed as there was a discrepancy on the survey and on
table whether it was slated for removal or not. She said there are utilities being installed near there so
the survival of this tree would not be great in any event.
Ms. Husak presented the Final Plat for Section 9. She said the applicant had included a tree preservation
zone, noted in green. She said there are no tree preservation zones whatsoever within Wyandotte Woods
and the Plat does not include any language for what the definition of a tree preservation zone would be
nor does the City have such language in the Subdivision Regulations or the Zoning Code. She said the
applicant has been asked to remove that zone from the Plat. She presented the Final Plat for Section 10.
She said Staff has assumed that as this application moves forward that it would get approved by City
Council potentially as two separate actions.
Ms. Husak said approval is recommended with seven conditions
1) That the applicant continue to work with Staff to identify potential planting areas for the tree
replacement balance;
2) That the applicant pay a Fee -in -Lieu of replacement for the remaining tree removal balance prior
to building permitting;
3) That the portion of landscaping located around the pond be completed by fall 2016 or with the
completion of the retention basin grading, whichever occurs first;
4) That, in the event the multi -family development remains undeveloped, the applicant provide
landscaping for the entire pond by the deadline outlined in Condition 3;
5) That the applicant continue working with staff on the grading, site components, and other final
details for the retention basin located south of Wyandotte Woods Section 8 to ensure all
components of the basin are coordinated with the multi -family project;
6) That a fountain be added to the retention basin south of Wyandotte Woods Section 8; and
7) That the applicant continue working with Engineering to address all technical comments
regarding stormwater management and demonstrate all stormwater requirements are met as
defined in Chapter 53.
Ms. Husak said approval to City Council is recommended for a Final Plat with two conditions:
1) That the applicant revise the tree protection zone along Lots 211 to 215 to a No -Disturb Zone
prior to City Council submittal; and
2) That the applicant ensures that any minor technical adjustments to the plat are made prior to
City Council submittal.
Victoria Newell asked if a "Do Not Disturb" area could replace the tree preservation zone. Ms. Husak said
there is going to be disturbance for the utilities to be installed. Steve Stidhem further questioned the
reasoning for not permitting a tree preservation zone. Ms. Husak explained the setback is more than that
area in any event. She indicated the setbacks are 50 feet. Ms. Newell said nothing could be built there
but the land is owned by the respective landowners and they could remove trees.
Cathy De Rosa asked if the trees have all been cut and the area graded. Ms. Husak said the trees have
been cut but the land has not been graded.
The Chair invited the applicant to come forward.
Jim Lipnos, Homewood Corporation, 2700 E. Dublin -Granville Road, reiterated these are the last two
sections of Wyandotte Woods. He indicated he was present to answer questions.
Cathy De Rosa inquired about stormwater management. Mr. Lipnos said the overall stormwater
management is for the entire site. He explained Sections 8, 9, & part of 10 drain to the basin within
Subarea 3.
Steve Stidhem inquired about the pond that was discussed for two cases this evening. Mr. Lipnos said the
pond needs to be completed prior to the homes being built.
The Chair invited public comments.
Jerry Kosicki, 4313 Wyandotte Woods Boulevard, indicated this process has exposed some weaknesses in
the City's development regulations or policies/procedures. He asked how hundreds of trees can be
removed in different phases without Final Development Plans and there are no penalties involved. He
asked the Commission to address the issues with City Council. He inquired about the really big pond that
is supposed to serve a large area for stormwater management; the process is not transparent enough so
prospective buyers know what they are really getting into.
Kathy Harter, 7825 Holiston Court, said she has been in contact with Jim Lipnos about some of the
neighbors' concerns and he relayed information about the site. She said there is a lot going on in their
neighborhood and communication is very important. She said they like the idea of being connected with
the bike path but the entrance to the bike path needs landscaping and Homewood does not feel that is
their obligation. She asked who would be responsible for that and the bike path. She indicated that the
neighbors would like to be involved when decisions are being sought about the entrance. She inquired
about the cost of maintenance of the pond, once it is completed because then it is the responsibility of
the HOA. She estimates the cost to be $2,000 for each pond and there are two in this area. She
expressed concern about the trees that will be planted around the pond. She said she lives at the
beginning of the development where there is a detention pond that works well but the trees that were
planted around it have not done well and a one-year warranty is not enough. She asked that the
entrance be reconfigured: the sign is too far back, the landscaping is not appropriate for a proper
entrance, and the roundabout needs something planted in the center or perhaps stones added. She
asked if all the cul-de-sacs could be coordinated and all the mailboxes be painted the same color.
Brett Page, 763 Kelly Drive, said his lot is the closest to the northeast corner and has resided there for 10
years. He said until 2013 there was a wetland in that area. He reported he called the Ohio EPA and his
Webelos did a conservation project back there as ducks, coyotes, and all kinds of animals that considered
that area their home along with a 26 -inch Cottonwood tree, a 20 -inch Cottonwood both at about 80 feet
high. He said they had hoped that would be kept as a beautiful feature of that area as development went
in but that was the first area to be cut down. He questioned how beautiful majestic trees could be cut
down before a Final Development Plan was approved. He said after consulting pictures, there was a
beautiful buffer in the tree preservation area that is now completely gone that lined a walkway going
north and south that many of the neighbors use that wraps around Emerald Fields Park. He said he can
now view the entire park from the back of his home. Now that seven or eight trees have been removed,
he said they now have a lot of cut -through traffic through their backyards from the park. He thought
there was a connected path in previous plans from Section 9 to the park. He asked that a unit be
eliminated to put in a walkway to the park. He said there was a twin maple right next to his property that
supposedly was in the way of the utilities to be installed but it is not on the buildable part of the land. He
reported he called Mr. Hiatt to ask him to look at that tree as they were scraping the land and he
indicated it was marked to be preserved. Mr. Paige said it was removed. He questioned the usefulness of
tree surveys if something like that can happen and with no communication with the neighbors that have
been living there for years; they have been stewards of the land for the past 10 -plus years. He requested
a lot of replacement trees since the area is now barren and all buffers gone. He said it has been a
shocking change in Sections 9 & 10. He asked that landscaping be provided to soften the area and have
it blend in with the rest of the neighborhood. He requested that construction traffic not be permitted on
Kelly Drive.
Daniel Zupnick, 4080 Wyandotte Woods Boulevard, pointed out his house, which was purchased in 2014
and indicated they knew this land was going to be raised. He reported the trees that were replaced in his
yard are now dead and he is responsible for replacement now. He asked if the one-year warranty could
be extended. He explained trees were planted, staked, and mulched in his yard before the house was
completed and before the builder could put the grass in, they had to move the trees and they died. He
said they were replaced but kept falling over 45 degrees. He said at that point, it was passed the one-
year warranty and became his responsibility. He asked that scenario be prevented from happening to the
new owners.
The Chair asked for further public comment. [Hearing none.] She closed the public portion of the
meeting. She requested to see the review process slide. She emphasized this application has gone
through Concept Plan approval, through Rezoning and the Preliminary Development Plan, and now the
process is in the final stage — the Final Development Plan approval. She explained the Commission's task
is to compare the Final Development Plan with the Preliminary Development Plan. She requested that
anything that has significantly changed to be highlighted by Staff.
Ms. Husak explained there are a couple of areas in the City where large areas were included in
Preliminary Development Plans that have taken a long time to finish out. She provided an example where
it takes time to fill out hundreds and hundreds of houses — Ballantrae Woods is a 500 -acre zoning district.
Ms. Newell inquired about the detention pond. She said it is sad there is not a way to regulate a
temporary basin when it is in that form for so long. She indicated she is sympathetic to the adjacent
homeowners' frustration as nobody wants to live next to that. She said it is really unfortunate it has taken
this long to get to the point. She indicated she understands the function of detention and retention
ponds. She explained a pond completely draining out is a detention pond. She said what is proposed on
these sites are retention ponds. She said the City has struggled with detention ponds, getting grass to
grow in them because they remain wet enough. She said retention ponds are easier to maintain. She
asked if the HOAs normally maintain those.
Ms. Husak said the HOA would be expected to maintain that open space. She said the City sometimes
maintains the structural integrity of the ponds. In terms of how many houses there are in Wyandotte
Woods and how little manicured open space there is to maintain, she stated the City has taken on over
maintenance for maybe three neighborhoods over the years that have asked and that is in the last 20
yea rs.
Ms. Newell asked if there is an ability to regulate time for tree replacement. She said she knows that one-
year is a standard warranty.
Ms. Rauch added that is a standard practice with every development. Ms. Newell said she just wanted to
make sure there was not a way to address it. She said there is one landmark tree that was taken down.
Ms. Husak said that one was shown on the survey to be preserved and in the table to be removed, which
was then removed. She clarified she did not say all the landmark trees are being preserved.
Ms. Newell said she has heard from residents this evening that trees were cut down that they believed
were supposed to remain. She said her understanding of Staff's presentation is that only one tree that
was supposed to remain was cut down and asked if that was an accurate statement.
Ms. Husak said there was discrepancy in the information. She said Staff has written a condition that is
requesting the reconciliation of all of these documents. She said after discussions with Staff, the tree was
not expected to survive, regardless.
Ms. Newell asked why any of the other trees were approved to get cut down. Ms. Husak said it happened
with the tree removal permit.
Ms. Husak stated the US Fish and Wildlife Service has a deadline for tree removal that is March 31" to
protect the Indiana Bat as an endangered species in our habitat.
Ms. Newell said she wanted to ensure that we are not left with a situation where trees have been
removed that should not have been. She said we have the ability to address it and hopes the people
responsible will be held accountable.
Ms. Husak said the City does not have a tree preservation requirement; there is a tree replacement
requirement. Ms. De Rosa asked if that applied to the landmark trees to which Ms. Husak replied
affirmatively.
Ms. De Rosa asked if the tree permit was issued because this was a Fee -in -Lieu situation. Ms. Newell
answered no it was not. She explained a permit is filed to get a foundation started. She said if it was
already approved that those trees could come down and the applicant filed the appropriate permit, they
were permitted to take those trees down. Ms. Newell emphasized she was sympathetic to the residents.
She indicated part of the trees on that side of the river made it spectacular. She apologized for the
Commission being held to the previous zoning.
Mr. Stidhem asked about the cost to the HOA. Ms. Newell encouraged the residents to go to City Council
to ask for assistance.
Mr. Stidhem agreed with the earlier comment about the end of the bike path and that landscaping should
be added.
Ms. De Rosa inquired about the tree replacement proposed for some of those homes as a buffer.
Mr. Lipnos reiterated that the land around the existing pond is owned by the City of Dublin. He said the
HOA takes care of the landscaping and trees; the City treats the pond, currently. He said there is a table
for the tree replacements. He said in Sections 9 & 10, trees that are required to be replaced are a certain
caliper of six inches or greater. He said in Section 9, there are 14 trees removed and in Section 10, there
are 50 trees. He said the applicant is replacing 50 trees along Summit View along the Section 3 side. He
said landscaping will be done all around the pond. He explained the buffer landscaping between the lots,
there is a build reserve zone typically but the electric, phone/cable, and storm lines usually run along
that. He said they are required to replant trees and there are 37 trees remaining that they do not have
room for but have to plant the trees as part of the development. He said when they go in and are
accepted, the lots are turned over to the builders. He said in this case, his lot was sold to a different
builder and depending on house size, those trees could be moved. He said they are going to replace as
many trees as possible in the buffer zones and those they cannot they will pay the Fee -in -Lieu.
Ms. De Rosa inquired about the statement "replace as many as we possibly can". She asked if that was
worked out with the City. Ms. Husak clarified the applicant either finds room for the trees with the City's
assistance or they pay the Fee -in -Lieu.
Ms. Newell said in the past, Staff will normally walk the sites because the true picture cannot be realized
on paper - where to plant ten trees, for example.
Mr. Lipnos said the applicant has replaced over 300 trees in Sections 3 through 8 and paid the Fee -in -
Lieu for the outstanding 200 trees. He said the homes that are there, went through the same process.
The Chair asked to review the conditions
Ms. Husak said no changes were made to the Final Development Plan conditions and for the Final Plat,
#1 was changed to state "The applicant revised the tree protection zone along Lots 211 to 215 to a "No
Disturb Zone" prior to City Council submittal.
Mr. Lipnos asked what the language is for the "No Disturb Zone". Ms. Husak said it means no playground
equipment plus no mowing, etc. Mr. Lipnos indicated when there is a large area that cannot be mowed,
all that is achieved is gaining snakes, mice, and deer tick complaints. He said he is not going to object to
the condition although it is not desirable.
Ms. Newell said she is happy to discuss that. She said wildlife and ticks are part of Ohio's environment.
She indicated the naturalized areas in Dublin are what makes Dublin so fabulous. She said she is on the
side of saving natural areas. She said she can support the No Disturb Zones.
Ms. Husak said a tree preservation zone would have been the same thing.
Mr. Lipnos said with a tree preservation zone, the developer can go in there, grade it, and seed it but not
with a No Disturb Zone. Ms. Newell restated the City does not have any regulations for tree preservations
zones. Ms. Husak said she assumes the lawn stops where the zone starts.
Mr. Lipnos said he would need a condition to ensure there were no utilities in that area. Ms. Newell said
she supports that idea.
Ms. De Rosa asked if it was possible to add a condition about landscaping to make the entry and the bike
path appear as they should instead of a driveway.
Mr. Lipnos said he was corrected; that area is part of the Final Development Plan for Section 8 and there
is a landscape plan for that area of which the applicant will comply.
Ms. Newell asked the applicant if he was in agreement with the seven conditions for the Final
Development Plan:
1) That the applicant continue to work with Staff to identify potential planting areas for the tree
replacement balance;
2) That the applicant pay a Fee -in -Lieu of replacement for the remaining tree removal balance prior
to building permitting;
3) That the portion of landscaping located around the pond be completed by fall 2016 or with the
completion of the retention basin grading, whichever occurs first;
4) That, in the event the multi -family development remains undeveloped, the applicant provide
landscaping for the entire pond by the deadline outlined in Condition 3;
5) That the applicant continue working with staff on the grading, site components, and other final
details for the retention basin located south of Wyandotte Woods Section 8 to ensure all
components of the basin are coordinated with the multi -family project;
6) That a fountain be added to the retention basin south of Wyandotte Woods Section 8; and
7) That the applicant continue working with Engineering to address all technical comments
regarding stormwater management and demonstrate all stormwater requirements are met as
defined in Chapter 53.
Mr. Lipnos questioned #4. He said if Treplus development does not get approved and Homewood takes
the land back, they would submit their plan for landscaping on the multi -family side which could take a
couple years to get approval. He said there are no homeowners to the south; it is basically the school
and vacant land so he is not buffering it from anybody. He said the plan could significantly change; he
does not know what that future application would look like.
Ms. Husak said we have to get this done because we just do not know what the future brings.
The Chair said she realized that but clarified that if the applicant needs to change the design in the future
because the other development does not happen, the applicant has to return to the Commission, starting
a new application. She said what is being put into place tonight is continuing what was there. She said
the residents have lived long enough with a sediment basin that is not functioning properly. She said we
need some guarantee this is going to get resolved and this condition is the only way to ensure that as a
Commission.
Mr. Lipnos said he understands her point and agrees to the landscaping to the north.
Motion and Vote
Ms. Newell moved, Ms. Mitchell seconded, to approve the Final Development Plan with seven conditions
as written. The vote was as follows: Mr. Stidhem, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Ms. Mitchell, yes; and Ms.
Newell, yes. (Approved 4 — 0)
Motion and Vote
Ms. Newell moved, Ms. Mitchell seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for a Final Plat with
two conditions:
1) That the applicant revise the tree protection zone along Lots 211 to 215 to a No -Disturb Zone
prior to City Council submittal; and
2) That the applicant ensures that any minor technical adjustments to the plat are made prior to
City Council submittal.
Mr. Lipnos agreed to the conditions.
The vote was as follows: Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mr. Stidhem, yes; Ms. Mitchell, yes; and Ms. Newell, yes.
(Approved 4 — 0)
Planning Items
[There were none.]
Communications
Ms. Husak introduced Lori Burchett, Planner II, as the most recent addition to the Planning Department.
The Commission welcomed her aboard.
Ms. Husak congratulated Ms. Newell and Chris Brown on their re -appointment by City Council. She said
the swearing in will take place at the first Commission meeting in April and the elections for Chair and
Vice -Chair will also occur.
Ms. Newell adjourned the meeting at 10:24 p.m.
As approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 21, 2016.