Resolution 16-21
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager
Date: March 16, 2021
Initiated By: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Director
Chase J. Ridge, AICP Candidate, Planner I
Re: Resolution 16-21 – Acceptance of a Final Plat for the Overlook at Tartan (Case
#20-171FP)
Summary
This is a request for acceptance of a Final Plat to subdivide ±23.94 acres into 56 single-family lots
with four reserves of open space totaling ±7.84 acres and to dedicate right-of-way for five public
streets.
Process
As provided by the Law Director’s Office, when City Council approves preliminary and final plats,
the platting process is solely for the subdivision of the properties to identify property lines,
establish easements, provide open space dedication, and create public rights-of-way. The site
layout, architectural character, and open space designs for the development are part of a
separate application process, approved by the required reviewing bodies.
Background
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and approved the Final Development Plan and
recommended approval to City Council of the Final Plat on January 21, 2021. On December 12,
2019, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Rezoning/Preliminary
Development and Preliminary Plat, which were approved by City Council on February 24, 2020.
Description
The 23.94-acre site has approximately 1,350 feet of frontage along Hyland-Croy Road and 950 feet
of frontage along McKitrick Road. The site is comprised of four whole parcels totaling 23.794 acres
and one partial parcel totaling 0.146-acre.
The proposed plat subdivides 23.94 acres of land from five existing parcels ranging in size from
0.146 acres to 13.688 acres. The plat facilitates the development of 56 single-family lots, rights-of-
way for the extension of Brenham Way and Emmet Row Lane, as well as three new public streets,
and four open space reserves. The plat includes street sections and easements, as well as open
space ownership and maintenance, and also notes setback requirements.
The 56 platted single-family lots are generally in two sizes. Courtyard Lots, located on the
perimeter of the site, are a minimum of 60 feet wide at the building line and a minimum of 125
feet deep. Patio Lots, located on the interior of the site, are a minimum of 52 feet wide at the
building line and require a minimum lot depth of 125 feet. The smallest lots are 6,500 square feet
Office of the City Manager
5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017-1090
Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 Memo
Memo re: Resolution 16-21 - Final Plat - The Overlook at Tartan
Tuesday, March 16, 2021
Page 2 of 2
and the largest lot is 12,545 square feet. Minimum required front yard setbacks are 15 feet with a
maximum of 25 feet, which are documented on the plat as a building line. Minimum side yard
setbacks are 6 feet for each side, and the minimum rear yard setback is 25 feet.
The plat extends right-of-way for Brenham way (public) from Baronet Boulevard, in Tartan Ridge,
south toward McKitrick Road. Emmet Row Lane is also extended west from its current terminus at
Brenham Way, then curving to the south to intersect with Overlook Drive, a new public street. The
proposed plat establishes rights-of-way for three new public streets: Overlook Drive, Highland
Lane, and Claymore Drive. Overlook Drive terminates before intersecting with Brenham Way, and
extends to the west, curving south to intersect with Highland Lane and Claymore Drive. Highland
Drive is a new east-west public street. Claymore Drive extends south, ultimately connecting to
Brenham Way.
The Subdivision Regulations require the provision of 3.56 acres of open space. A total of 7.84
acres of open space is proposed in four reserves. Reserves B, C and D total 0.619 acres, and are
located adjacent to Brenham Way for the purpose of passive open space. Reserve A, 7.257 acres,
is located along McKitrick and Hyland-Croy Roads and includes the stormwater management pond
and overlook amenity in the northwest portion of the site. The development text and preliminary
plat approved by City Council on February 24, 2020 outlined all ownership and maintenance
responsibilities for the reserves and their amenities. All reserves will be dedicated to the City. The
passive open space and stormwater pond within Reserve A will be maintained by the Tartan Ridge
master association, which the owners of the Overlook at Tartan Ridge will be required to join. The
overlook amenity and associated path within Reserve A will be maintained by the Overlook at
Tartan sub-association. Reserves B, C and D will be maintained by the Tartan Ridge master
association, which the owners of the Overlook at Tartan Ridge lots will be required to join.
Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and recommended approval to City Council of the
Final Plat at the January 21, 2021 meeting with one condition:
1) That the applicant ensures that any minor technical adjustments to the plat are made
prior to City Council submittal.
The applicant has met the condition for the Final Plat prior to City Council Review.
Recommendation
Acceptance of Resolution 16-21 for the Final Plat for the Overlook at Tartan at the March 22, 2021
City Council meeting.
21Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Union, Townships of Jerome and Washington(Franklin County), City of Dublin, and in Virginia Military Survey Number 2991,containing 23.975 acres of land, more or less, said 23.975 acres being comprised of a partof Reserve "Q" of the subdivision entitled "Tartan Ridge Section 5 Part 2", of record inPlat Book 5, Page 315, said Reserve "Q" being conveyed to CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIOby deed of record in Instrument Number 201806150004700, and all of those tracts of landconveyed to ROMANELLI AND HUGHES BUILDING COMPANY by deed of recordin Instrument Number _______________________, Recorder's Office, Union County,Ohio.The undersigned, CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO, an Ohio muncipal corporation, byDANA McDANIEL, City Manager, and ROMANELLI AND HUGHES BUILDINGCOMPANY, an Ohio corporation, by VINCENT ROMANELLI, President, owners ofthe lands platted herein, duly authorized in the premises, do hereby certify that this platcorrectly represents their "THE OVERLOOK AT TARTAN RIDGE", a subdivisioncontaining Lots 1 to 56, both inclusive, and areas designated as Reserve "A", Reserve "B",Reserve "C" and Reserve "D", do hereby accept this plat of same and dedicate to publicuse, as such, all of Brenham Way, Claymore Drive, Emmet Row Lane, Highland Lane,Hyland-Croy Road, McKitrick Road and Overlook Drive (5.952 acres more or less), shownhereon and not heretofore dedicated.The undersigned further agrees that any use or improvements on this land shall be inconformity with all existing valid zoning, platting, health or other lawful rules andregulations, including applicable off-street parking and loading requirements of the City ofDublin, Ohio, for the benefit of itself and all other subsequent owners or assigns taking titlefrom, under or through the undersigned.Easements are hereby reserved in, over and under areas designated on this plat as"Easement", "Drainage Easement" or "Sidewalk Easement." Each of the aforementioneddesignated easements permit the construction, operation, and maintenance of all publicand quasi public utilities above, beneath, and on the surface of the ground and, wherenecessary, are for the construction, operation, and maintenance of service connections toall adjacent lots and lands and for storm water drainage. Within those areas designated"Drainage Easement" on this plat, an additional easement is hereby reserved for thepurpose of constructing, operating and maintaining major storm water drainage swalesand/or other above ground storm water drainage facilities. No above grade structures,dams or other obstructions to the flow of storm water runoff are permitted withinDrainage Easement areas as delineated on this plat unless approved by the Dublin CityEngineer. Within those areas designated "Sidewalk Easement" on this plat, an additionaleasement is hereby reserved for the construction and maintenance of a sidewalk for use bythe public.Approved this _____ Day of _______ ___________________________________20___ Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning, Dublin, OhioApproved this _____ Day of _______ __________________________________20___ City Engineer, Dublin, OhioApproved this ______ day of ______________, 20___, by vote of Council, wherein all ofBrenham Way, Claymore Drive, Emmet Row Lane, Highland Lane, Hyland-Croy Road,McKitrick Road and Overlook Drive dedicated hereon are accepted as such by the Councilof the City of Dublin, Ohio. The City of Dublin, Ohio by its approval and acceptance ofthis plat does hereby vacate that portion of Baronet Boulevard shown hereon by hatching.In Witness Thereof I have hereunto ___________________________________set my hand and affixed my seal this Clerk of Council, Dublin, Ohio_____ day of __________, 20___.THE OVERLOOK AT TARTAN RIDGEIn Witness Whereof, DANA McDANIEL, City Manager of CITY OF DUBLIN,OHIO, has hereunto set his hand this day of , 20___. Signed and Acknowledged CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO In the presence of: ______________________________ By _____________________________ DANA McDANIEL, City Manager_____________________________STATE OF OHIOCOUNTY OF FRANKLIN ss:Before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared DANAMcDANIEL, City Manager of CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO, who acknowledged thesigning of the foregoing instrument to be his voluntary act and deed and the voluntary actand deed of CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO for the uses and purposes expressed herein.In Witness Thereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal this_____ day of ___________, 20___.My commission expires _______ ____________________________________ Notary Public, State of OhioSURVEY DATA:BASIS OF BEARINGS: Bearings are based are based on theOhio State Plane Coordinate System as per NAD83. Controlfor bearings was from coordinates of monuments McNeal andFCGS 6648, with a bearing of North 15° 07' 53" West, asestablished by the Franklin County Engineering Department,using Global Positioning System procedures and equipment.SOURCE OF DATA: The sources of recorded survey datareferenced in the plan and text of this plat, are the records ofthe Recorder's Office, Union County, Ohio.IRON PINS: Iron pins, where indicated hereon, unlessotherwise noted, are to be set and are iron pipes, thirteensixteenths inch inside diameter, thirty inches long with aplastic plug placed in the top end bearing the initials EMHTINC.PERMANENT MARKERS: Permanent markers, whereindicated hereon, are to be one-inch diameter, thirty-inchlong, solid iron pins. Pins are to be set to monument thepoints indicated and are to be set with the top end flush withthe surface of the ground and then capped with an aluminumcap stamped EMHT INC. Once installed, the top of the capshall be marked (punched) to record the actual location of thepoint.I hereby certify that the land ___________________________________by this plat was transferred Union County Auditoron 20___.I hereby certify that this plat was filed _________________________________for recording on ____________20___, Union County Recorderand that it was recorded on _________20___ in Plat Book , Pages_____plat records of Union County, Ohio.Fee $__________In Witness Whereof, VINCENT ROMANELLI, President of ROMANELLI ANDHUGHES BUILDING COMPANY, has hereunto set his hand this day of____________, 20___. Signed and Acknowledged ROMANELLI AND HUGHES In the presence of: BUILDING COMPANY______________________________ By _____________________________ VINCENT ROMANELLI, President______________________________STATE OF OHIOCOUNTY OF FRANKLIN ss:Before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared VINCENTROMANELLI, Owner of ROMANELLI AND HUGHES BUILDING COMPANY,who acknowledged the signing of the foregoing instrument to be his voluntary act anddeed and the voluntary act and deed of said ROMANELLI AND HUGHES BUILDINGCOMPANY, for the uses and purposes expressed herein.In Witness Thereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal this_____ day of ___________, 20___.My commission expires _______ ____________________________________ Notary Public, State of Ohio
CLAYMORE DRIVECLAYMORE DRIVEHIGHLAND LANEOVERLOOK DRIVEEMMETEMMET ROWLANEBRENHAM WAYHYLAND-CROY ROAD(COUNTY ROAD 2) MCKITRICK ROAD (COUNTY ROAD 10)ROW LANETHE OVERLOOK AT TARTAN RIDGE22NOTE "A" - MINIMUM SETBACKS: Zoning regulations forThe Overlook at Tartan Ridge in effect at the time of plattingspecify the following dimensions for the minimum front, side andrear yard setbacks for each lot:Front 25' Building Line (maximum) 15' Courtyard Garage/Porch Line (minimum) Unless otherwise indicated hereonSide Yard 6 feet each side (minimum)Rear Yard 25 feet (minimum)Said zoning regulations and any amendments thereto passedsubsequent to acceptance of this plat, should be reviewed todetermine the then current requirements. This notice is solely forthe purpose of notifying the public of the existence, at the time ofplatting, of certain zoning regulations applicable to this property.This notice shall not be interpreted as creating plat or subdivisionrestrictions, private use restrictions covenants running with the landor title encumbrances of any nature, and is for informationalpurposes only.NOTE "B" - FENCES: No fence may be placed in a “DrainageEasement” area. Fences, where permitted in the The Overlook atTartan Ridge subdivision, are subject to the requirements of theCity of Dublin code.NOTE "C" - FEMA ZONE: At the time of platting, all of TheOverlook at Tartan Ridge is within Zone X (areas determined to beoutside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) as shown on FEMAFlood Insurance Rate Map for Union County, Ohio andIncorporated Areas Map Number 39159C0395D, with effectivedate of December 16, 2008.NOTE "D" - UTILITY PROVIDERS: Buyers of the lots in TheOverlook at Tartan Ridge subdivision are hereby notified that, atthe time of platting, utility service to The Overlook at Tartan Ridge,power is provided by Ohio Edison and Union Rural Electric andtelephone service is provided by Frontier Communications.NOTE "E": As per City of Dublin Zoning Code, all lots withinThe Overlook at Tartan Ridge are subject to the terms, conditions,restrictions (including lighting and house sizes) and specialassessment districts as outlined in the preliminary plat entitled “TheOverlook at Tartan Ridge” and said Zoning Code.NOTE "F" - SCHOOL DISTRICT: At the time of platting, allof The Overlook at Tartan Ridge is in the Dublin City SchoolDistrict.NOTE "G" - ACREAGE BREAKDOWN: Total acreage: 23.975 Ac. Acreage in rights-of-way: 5.985 Ac. Acreage in Reserves 7.843 Ac. Acreage in remaining lots: 10.147 Ac.NOTE "H" - RESERVE "A": Reserve "A", as designated anddelineated hereon, will be owned by the City of Dublin, Ohio andmaintained by an association comprised of the owners of the feesimple titles to the Lots in The Tartan Ridge Subdivision(s) for thepurpose of passive open space/storm water detention and any otheruses allowed by the then current zoning. The Overlook structure andassociated path adjacent to the retention basin within Reserve "A"shall be maintained by a sub-association comprised of the owners ofthe fee simple titles to the Lots in The Overlook at Tartan RidgeSubdivision(s).NOTE "I" - RESERVES "B", "C" AND "D": Reserves "B", "C"and "D", as designated and delineated hereon, will be owned by theCity of Dublin, Ohio and maintained by an association comprised ofthe owners of the fee simple titles to the Lots in The Tartan RidgeSubdivision(s) for the purpose of passive open space/storm waterdetention and any other uses allowed by the then current zoning.NOTE "J" - ACREAGE BREAKDOWN: The Overlook at TartanRidge is out of the following Union County Parcel Number and MapNumber:P.N.3900140580000 6.944 Ac.M.N.1271303003001P.N.3900140580020 13.688 Ac.M.N. 1360000196000P.N.4000140580020 2.717 Ac.M.N. 1360000195000P.N.4000140580920 0.146 Ac.M.N. 1370112006000P.N.4001470581010 0.448 Ac.M.N. 1370104002001NOTE "K" - VACATION OF PUBLIC STREETS: The portionof Baronet Boulevard dedicated to the City of Dublin by thesubdivision plat entitled "Tartan Ridge Section 5 Part 2", of recordin Plat Book 5, Page 315, shown hereon by hatching is herebyvacated.NOTE "L" - PARKING: 5 parallel parking spaces are beingprovided in each of these areas on Emmet Row Lane, OverlookDrive and Claymore Drive.NOTE "M": At the time of platting, electric, cable, and telephoneservice providers have not issued information required so thateasement areas, in addition to those shown on this plat, as deemednecessary by these providers, for the installation and maintenanceof all of their main line facilities, could conveniently be shown onthis plat. Existing recorded easement information about TheOverlook at Tartan Ridge or any part thereof can be acquired by acompetent examination of the then current public records, includingthose in the Union County Recorder's Office.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 21, 2021
Page 7 of 17
Ms. Call inquired if the applicant had any objection to the conditions as stated.
Mr. Todd responded that he had no objection.
Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Supelak seconded amending the motion to incorporate an additional condition.
Vote on the amendment: Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes;
Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes.
[Motion passed 7-0]
Vote on approval of the Preliminary Development Plan with the following six (6) conditions.
1) Sidewalk to be installed along the Dublin Center Drive in lieu of a shared use path; and sidewalk to
be installed along Dublin Center Drive, from Sawmill Road to the first access point to promote
walkability for the area and site in alignment with the BSD Code.
2) Prior to Final Development Plan submittal, the applicant confirm that the holder of the utility
easement will permit new trees to be planted within the easement and provide affirmative
documentation to the City.
3) The applicant work with the City’s Landscape Zoning Inspector to refine the street wall height and
plant selections prior to the Final Development Plan.
4) The applicant update the photometric plan to comply with BSD Lighting Uniformity requirements,
and maximum permitted lumens per square feet.
5) The applicant provide all sign fabrication details and material with submission of the Master Sign
Plan.
6) The applicant work with staff to identify seating locations and specifications.
Vote: Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Schneier,
yes; Ms. Call, yes.
[Motion passed 7-0]
5. The Overlook at Tartan Ridge, Hyland-Croy and McKitrick Roads, 20-170FDP, Final
Development Plan
A request for review and approval of final details for development of 24.5 acres with 56 single-family
homes, 7.9 acres of open space, and five public streets on a site located northeast of the intersection
of Hyland-Croy Road with McKitrick Road and zoned Planned Unit Development – Tartan Ridge, Subarea
F.
6. The Overlook at Tartan Ridge, Hyland-Croy and McKitrick Roads, 20-171FP, Final Plat
A request for review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a Final Plat to subdivide 24.5
acres to establish 56 single-family lots, 7.9 acres of open space, and five public rights-of-way.
Staff Presentation
Mr. Ridge stated that Case 5 is a request for review and approval of a Final Development Plan for the
development of a residential community consisting of up to 56 single-family lots and 7.9 acres of open space
on a 24.5-acre site. Case 6 is a request for review and recommendation of approval to City Council for an
associated Final Plat. A Concept Plan for this project was reviewed by the Commission in July 2019; in
December 2019, the Commission reviewed and recommended Council approval of a Preliminary Development
Plan and Preliminary Plat; and City Council approved the Preliminary Development Plan and Plat in February
2020. The Final Development Plan review assures the plan is in compliance with the Preliminary Development
Plan and Development Text and provides an opportunity for the Commission to review and approve the final
landscape and design details.
Site
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 21, 2021
Page 8 of 17
The site is located northeast of the intersection of Hyland-Croy Road and McKitrick Road, west of Tartan
Ridge, north of Tartan West, south of Glacier Ridge Elementary School and east of Glacier Ridge Metro Park.
It is currently undeveloped but contains a stormwater management pond in the northwest corner of the site,
as well as a silo in the southwest corner of the site.
Proposal
The proposal is for the construction of 56 single-family lots with 7.9 acres of open space, and associated
public streets, sidewalks and shared use paths. There are two lot sizes – Courtyard and Patio. Courtyard lots
are a minimum of 60 feet wide at the building line and a minimum of 125 feet deep. These lots are primarily
located on the perimeter of the site. Patio lots are a minimum of 52 feet wide at the building line with a
minimum lot depth of 125 feet. Patio lots and are primarily located in the interior of the site. The minimum
setbacks for both Courtyard and Patio lots are 15-20 feet front yard setback; 25 feet rear yard setback; and
5-foot side yard setbacks. Lot coverage is limited to 60 percent. Per the Development Text, the architecture
is European Country and Midwest vernacular styles. Key massing principles outlined in the Development Text
include a prominent street presence, appropriate proportions, clean intersections and purity of form. Permitted
exterior materials include stone, manufactured stone, stucco and wood or cementitious fiberboard. A map
was provided that depicts the neighborhood connectivity. Sidewalks are proposed throughout the entirety of
the site, including along all frontages and leading to a proposed overlook amenity in Reserve A (northwest
portion of the site). An eight-foot-wide shared use path is proposed along McKitrick Road, turning north along
the entire length of Hyland-Croy Road. The applicant is proposing a number of landscape improvements with
this application, the most notable of which is proposed for the exterior of the site in Reserve A, along Hyland-
Croy Road and McKitrick Road. The applicant is proposing a naturalized mix of deciduous, ornamental and
evergreen trees within this reserve. Mounding is also proposed along Hyland-Croy and McKitrick roads. The
dry basin in the southeast corner of the site has been removed and replaced with landscaping. The applicant
has added street trees along the frontages of both Hyland-Croy and McKitrick roads, as required by Code.
These trees will be staggered along the new paths and will be located within the reserve, which is maintained
by the master HOA. Plant species for the hedges in front of the new homes have been narrowed to boxwood,
gray juniper and vintage gold false cypress. Detail for the stone veneer pillars at the sidewalk entries to each
home is also included in the landscape package. The pillars will incorporate a brick band at the top to match
the driveway materials and be topped with a limestone or concrete cap. The proposed height of the pillars (5’
4”) is taller than those in Tartan Ridge. Staff is recommending that the height of these pillars be reduced to
match those in Tartan Ridge. The proposal includes one rectangular ground sign identifying the neighborhood
at Brenham Way and McKitrick Road. The sign is an engraved cast stone sign, 25 square feet in size. The
lettering is proposed to be black, and the sign sits atop a stone-clad monument. The monument is capped
with a four-inch cast stone cap. The sign will be approximately five feet in height at its tallest point. The
overlook amenity proposed for the northwest portion of the site provides a unique opportunity for the residents
and general public to spend time, with several seating options and tables proposed on the patio and under a
covered pavilion. A two-sided fireplace is proposed on the north side of the pavilion. The pavilion, 24 feet in
width and 28 feet in length, is constructed primarily of cedar beams and columns, stone veneer, and is
sheathed with a dimensioned asphalt shingle. Furniture for the overlook patios and pavilion include white
plywood picnic tables and white Adirondack chair and table sets. The patio is a decorative aggregate material
and the overlook amenity is clad in a ProVia Ohio Vintage Limestone veneer. All products associated with the
overlook amenity are as proposed or are to be an “owner approved equal.” Should the applicant desire to
utilize an alternative material, staff recommends that the applicant provide the alternatives to staff prior to
obtaining building permits to ensure a product of equal or greater quality, subject to staff approval.
Final Plat
The final plat is for the subdivision of an approximately 24-acre site into 56 single-family lots; 7.9 acres of
open space; and five (5) public rights-of-way.
The applications were reviewed against all applicable criteria and staff recommends approval of the Final
Development Plan with five (5) conditions and the Final Plat with one (1) condition.
Applicant Presentation
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 21, 2021
Page 9 of 17
Gary Smith, G2 Planning & Design, 720 E. Broad Street Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43215, applicant’s
representative, stated that there have been many previous discussions with the Commission and Council, and
they have received significant assistance from staff. They are in agreement with staff’s recommended
condition. The primary concern they have relates to the tree replacement requirements. They had always
envisioned that all the additional plantings in the buffer would count toward the required tree replacement.
However, staff is calculating it differently, and requiring that they provide an additional 200 caliper inches.
They are already providing approximately 570 new trees on this site. What is shown on the plan is a total of
1,200 caliper inches. They believe that more than compensates for the 53 trees that are being removed to
permit this development. Per the Planning Commission’s previous request, they have added a considerable
number of trees to the buffer line, resulting in a dense, heavily planted buffer. Staff has asked that they
remove and relocate some of the trees around the pond. They would be willing to relocate those into the
buffer area, but would like the Commission’s consideration of the tree replacement issue. Penalizing the
applicant by requiring another 100 trees is overkill, and likely exceeds the intent of the City’s Tree Replacement
requirements.
Ms. Call inquired if what is being required is 100 inches or 100 trees.
Mr. Smith responded that staff is indicating the total tree replacement is 1,421 inches. Based on their
calculations, they are providing 1,202 inches. That is a difference of 200 inches, which equates to
approximately 100 trees.
Ms. Call requested staff’s clarification of the Code requirements and the related history.
Mr. Ridge stated that there are three requirements: the street tree requirement; the tree replacement
requirement; and the buffer requirement. The 1,421-inch total is a compilation of the requirements of all
three. The applicant’s intent was to overplant the buffer to compensate for some of the required replacement
inches. The issue is a result of differing interpretation of the requirements between staff and the application.
Staff has recommended a condition that the applicant plant no more one-third of the required replacement
trees in the buffer.
Ms. Call inquired if the applicant could use one-third of the required replacement in the buffer.
Mr. Ridge responded affirmatively.
Mr. Smith stated that for the buffer proposed in their rezoning application, their calculation began with the
normal buffer requirements, but to that, they also added the anticipated tree replacements. The result was
that the buffer included normal buffer trees, but also tree replacement trees. Unfortunately, it seems that
distinction was not made clear in their Development Text. Now, staff is indicating that the replacement trees
are still owed. In view of how the differing calculations occurred, they are requesting the Commission grant
them leniency, as they are already planting a large number of trees on the site.
Ms. Martin stated that the Preliminary Development Plan, which includes the Development Text, has already
been adopted by Council. Unfortunately, the Final Development Plan does not provide the flexibility to
interpret the text differently than what was clearly identified in that text. Additionally, the requirement that
no more than one-third of the replacement inches be double-counted in the buffer is consistent with staff’s
interpretation for recently approved developments.
Public Comments
No public comments were received on this application.
Commission Questions
Ms. Kennedy inquired if staff has, or can suggest, recommendations for locations where the additional 200
inches could be planted beyond the buffer.
Mr. Ridge responded affirmatively.
Ms. Kennedy inquired if the request for removal of trees near the stormwater retention pond was for the
purpose of improving walkability in that area, or for a different reason.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 21, 2021
Page 10 of 17
Mr. Ridge responded that the intent was to open up a vista to the pond and amenities.
Mr. Smith responded that they have no objection to moving those trees to other areas of the site. Their
request relates only for leniency in the 200-inch replacement requirement. Due to the large number of trees
already being added to the site, the additional amount would be punitive.
Mr. Schneier inquired where the access to the patio amenity was located.
Mr. Ridge responded that the access to the amenity is from the interior. A path is proposed from one of the
public streets to that amenity area. There will be no access from the shared-use path on the exterior of the
site.
Mr. Schneier stated that he asks because the staff report states, “it provides a unique opportunity for the
residents and general public to spend time at the amenity.” However, is it correct that the amenity is not
intended for public use; it is an amenity only for the residents?
Mr. Smith responded that is correct.
Mr. Grimes inquired if there had been any consideration for including a connection from the interior of the
site – perhaps between Lots #7 and #8, to the shared-use path along Hyland-Croy Road. It would provide a
more convenient access to the school and the park.
Mr. Smith responded that such discussions did occur with the Preliminary Development Plan, but the developer
did not wish to include that connection, particularly by the amenity area, which will be maintained by the HOA
for the residents. The rezoning was approved without those connections, and they would prefer not to include
such connections.
Mr. Fishman inquired if the paths would be maintained by the homeowner association (HOA).
Mr. Smith responded that the internal sidewalks and the path to the overlook amenity area would be
maintained by the HOA. He does not recall the understanding regarding the paths along Hyland-Croy and
McKitrick roads.
Kevin McCauley, Stavroff Land and Development, 6689 Dublin Center Drive, Dublin, representative for Tartan
Ridge LLC stated that he is unsure who is maintaining the perimeter pathway.
Mr. Fishman stated that if it is a public path, the public should have access to it.
Mr. McCauley responded that the public has access to any perimeter pathways, regardless of who is
maintaining it. The required pathways were approved with the rezoning and not part of this application.
Ms. Fox stated that she would like to compliment the applicant on the pond overlook amenity. It will set a
wonderful standard for other developers. Because it is so attractive, she understands staff’s desire to open
up the view to it. She is attempting to see where 100 addition al trees could be located; the site already seems
dense. The goal is to create a lovely streetscape and view into the development. She is not supportive of
forcing more trees onto the site, but rather, creating the desired aesthetic.
Mr. Fishman stated that he is supportive of using as many of the trees as possible. We can never have too
many trees. The buffer can be made denser, or they can be placed in the area where the pond and open
space intersect with the road.
Mr. Supelak stated that this is an attractive, well thought-out community, and the overlook amenity is very
attractive. The biggest hurdle is the tree replacement. He agrees that, if possible, locations for the replacement
trees should be found. If they cannot be placed in the buffer, there are ample places to add landscaping. He
loves the development.
Ms. Kennedy stated that she is in agreement with maintaining the tree replacement requirement to the extent
possible. Staff has said that there are places to put the trees. She is impressed with the overlook amenity.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 21, 2021
Page 11 of 17
Ms. Fox stated that there does not appear to be much barrier between Lots #23 - #26, which back up to
Glacier Ridge Elementary School. If there is any place where trees should be placed, it is on the boundary
between the school and the homes on those rear lots. They would provide a valuable noise buffer.
Mr. Fishman expressed agreement with Ms. Fox’s recommendation. As discussed previously, other evergreens
could be replaced with deciduous trees. Between the school and the houses would be a perfect place to add
evergreens. In addition, this is a dense development having only 6-foot side yards; surrounding the homes
with trees would improve the look.
Mr. Schneier stated that he prefers quality over quantity and is not certain that he agrees that more trees are
always best. He is curious if the issue is related to aesthetics or to the economics of the project. If the applicant
is motivated by the economics, not the aesthetics, that should be clarified. He agrees with Ms. Fox that trees
should be added where there is a reason to add them, versus attempting to get as many trees on the site as
possible.
Mr. Fishman expressed agreement.
Ms. Call stated that staff’s recommendation is to decrease the height of the 5-foot, 4-inch pillars to match the
other pillars in Tartan Ridge; how tall are the other pillars?
Mr. Ridge responded that the typical height of the pillars in Tartan Ridge is 48 inches.
Ms. Call requested clarification of the HOA open space maintenance requirement.
Mr. Ridge responded that the Master HOA is responsible for maintaining the majority of Reserve A, which is
primarily the large exterior of the site. The sub association is responsible for maintenance of the overlook
amenity, the path to that amenity, and the hedgerows and pillars.
Ms. Fox inquired if the Development Text requires a certain number of trees, or if there would be opportunity
for further discussion of that topic by the Commission.
Mr. Boggs responded that the replacement inches must be provided on the site; however, the Commission
can discuss whether those inches could be counted within the buffer area.
Ms. Fox stated that if the text requires a certain number of trees within the buffer, a certain number of
replacement trees, and a certain number of street trees, it does not seem there is much flexibility in the
numbers, only in the location of the trees.
Ms. Martin stated that the applicant is requesting to double-count the trees, so, essentially, the replacement
trees would be permitted to be counted in the buffer. Staff is recommending that no more than one-third of
the replacement inches be permitted to be double-counted. That recommendation is based upon previous
developments, including one also located on Hyland-Croy Road -- Autumn Rose Woods. However, this is
ultimately the Commission’s decision.
Mr. Fishman requested clarification of the term “double counting;” does that result in the same number of
trees, or less?
Ms. Martin responded that fewer trees would be provided by using the calculation that one-third of the
replacement trees may be used to fulfill the planting requirement in the buffer. It would not be substantially
fewer, but it would allow the applicant some flexibility.
Mr. Schneier inquired if the applicant is willing to accept staff’s recommendation as a condition.
Mr. Smith inquired if staff’s recommendation is that up to one-third of the trees that were required in the
Development text could be used for buffer trees, or if the recommendation was that one-third of the trees
planted in the buffer overall could count toward the tree replacement. They would be agreeable if staff is
willing to accept that one-third of the trees required in the Development Text are applicable as replacement
trees, versus none of them being applicable. He agrees with Ms. Fox that it is the aesthetic that is important,
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 21, 2021
Page 12 of 17
not the number. They already are providing a large number of trees, a very dense buffer and a great aesthetic,
and would be willing to plant additional trees at the rear of the lots bordering the school.
Ms. Call stated that Mr. Smith refers to trees that have already been provided in the buffer. Since the initial
application, has the applicant already provided trees in the buffer?
Ms. Martin responded that the applicant must fulfill the requirements of their Development Text, including the
buffer requirements.
Ms. Call inquired the number of trees that have already been provided in the buffer and the number of trees
that remain to be added.
Mr. Boggs stated that the buffer requirement is specific in terms of the type of trees and the frequency of
their planting within the buffer area: two evergreen trees per 30 linear feet; three ornamental trees per 90
linear feet; and one other deciduous tree per 45 linear foot, planted in a naturalized manner. That formula
will produce a certain number of trees and a certain frequency within the border.
Ms. Call inquired if the applicant is already meeting that requirement within the buffer zone.
Mr. Smith responded that in the buffer area, they currently have 67 deciduous shade trees, 116 evergreen
trees, and 60 ornamental trees. They exceed the text’s buffer requirement for deciduous trees by 95.5 inches
in deciduous trees; exceed the requirement for evergreen trees by 22.5 inches; and exceed the requirement
for ornamental trees by 42 inches. They have more trees in the buffer than is required by the Development
Text.
Ms. Call inquired what is their tree replacement requirement.
Ms. Martin responded that, based on the applicant’s description , they would be able to reduce the total number
of buffer trees to those required by the Development Text. They are separately required to provide tree
replacement inches. The condition recommended by staff is that one-third of those replacement inches could
be provided in the buffer.
Ms. Call inquired how many replacement inches are required for this project.
Mr. Boggs responded that per staff’s report, 626 inches are required.
Ms. Call stated that one-third of 626 inches is approximately 209 inches; the 160 inches in excess of what is
required would cover most of that.
Ms. Martin stated that what makes the calculation difficult is that the buffer requires trees not inches, but the
tree replacement requirement is in inches.
Ms. Call stated that the tree replacement requirement of 626 inches could be reduced by the 160 overage
inches in the buffer.
Mr. Smith stated that staff indicated that they could not use any of trees required by the buffer to account for
replacement trees, and no more than one-third of the replacement inches can be placed in the buffer.
Therefore, other locations would need to be found for the remaining two-thirds. That is more of a limitation
than a concession.
Ms. Martin responded that the difficulty is in lining up the trees and replacement inches. However, once the
number of trees required in the buffer is known, that number could be multiplied by 2.5 inches (typical
diameter of a new tree). That calculation would produce the total number of inches required in the buffer,
and one-third of the replacement inches (209 inches) could be credited against that requirement.
Mr. McCauley stated that staff has indicated that we have 200 fewer inches than are required, which is
approximately 100 trees.
Ms. Martin clarified that it would be 80 trees.
Mr. McCauley stated that of the 80 trees, staff has indicated that one-third can be placed in the buffer. That
would reduce the number to 59-60 trees. We are already planting approximately 570 trees on this 24-acre
site or 24 trees per acre; that is a large number of trees.
Mr. Fishman suggested that the applicant could place the 59 trees wherever they determine to be appropriate
on the site.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 21, 2021
Page 13 of 17
Mr. McCauley stated that at the Preliminary Development Plan approval, Mr. Fishman stated that he wanted
a denser buffer, and, accordingly, that is what was incorporated into the Development Text. The request was
not for a denser buffer, plus street trees and replacement inch es. When they submitted the Final Development
Plan, they believed they were meeting all the requirements. There is no more space left for additional trees.
After the FDP was submitted, staff indicated that we had not met the tree replacement requirement, but that
was the first time it was mentioned. If they had been aware of the requirement earlier when Mr. Fishman
requested a denser buffer, he would have inquired if the replacement inches would be counted in doing so.
However, with the PUD review, there was no mention of the tree replacement requirement or fees in lieu of.
Mr. Fishman stated that the compromise would be to put the additional 60 trees in the buffer zone.
Mr. McCauley responded that Mr. Romanelli already is spending $300,000 in trees, and the Commission would
like him to add an additional 60 trees, or another $50,000-$60,000. Yet a review of the earlier meeting minutes
will verify that was not required. This is the first time the tree replacement requirement has been mentioned.
We have already over-treed the site; now, the request is for more trees. Mr. McCauley inquired if they agree
to the condition, would they be able to submit a tree replaceme nt waiver request to City Council. Mr. Romanelli
has done amazing things for this City, so he would like to ensure he has the legal opportunity to contest this
requirement. If Mr. Romanelli would not be permitted to request a waiver, could a condition be added with
this approval providing him the opportunity to make that request?
Mr. Boggs stated that, per the Rules of the Planning and Zoning Commission, when conditions for approval
are applied, the Commission must request the agreement of the applicant. If the applicant does not agree,
the condition would not be added. Then the question is if the Commission would approve the FDP without
that condition.
Mr. McCauley inquired if those conditions are accepted, could an additional condition be added that the
applicant may come back with a tree waiver request.
Mr. Fishman stated that he would prefer to reach a compromise that can be approved.
Ms. Martin stated that the tree waiver process is not under the purview of PZC. A condition would not be
necessary; the applicant is entitled to that process, should he choose to pursue it. Tree waiver requests are
considered by City Council. There are site considerations that make a site eligible, such as heavily wooded
sites.
Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Fishman had requested additional evergreens. Evergreen and ornamental trees are
allowed to provide only a certain percent of the tree replacement requirement, and they are probably at that
limit already. If the Commission desires additional evergreens, they have no objection, but they want to make
sure that they would count toward the replacement requirement.
Ms. Call stated that the Commission’s request relates to the distribution of the evergreens, not necessarily the
count of those trees. The request was for the purpose of providing screening next to private residences, and
not in view spaces; it is a request, not a requirement.
Mr. Smith responded that they would have no objection to providing additional evergreens behind the lots
bordering the school; however, they would want those to count toward the required replacement inches. In
addition, it is necessary to ensure that providing evergreens in that location would not necessitate removal of
evergreens from the buffer in order to meet the percent requirement.
Ms. Fox stated that it is important to remember the intent of our Code. The percentages provided are for the
purpose of ensuring screening where it is needed. We do not want to overscreen, resulting in a wall of
evergreen trees and not an aesthetic streetscape. She would prefer leniency in regard to the kind of trees,
working with the City’s landscape architect to achieve the best aesthetic along Hyland-Croy Road.
Mr. Smith requested that the site plan with the trees be shown.
Ms. Martin suggested that the application be tabled. That would provide opportunity for staff and the applicant
to bring the case back to the Commission, along with additional tree numbers and a Minor Text Modification,
clarifying the Development Text.
Ms. Call requested the applicant’s preference.
Mr. Smith requested clarification of the reference to a Minor Text Modification.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 21, 2021
Page 14 of 17
Ms. Martin responded that a Minor Text modification must be minor in nature. It cannot provide a tree waiver
within the Development Text. It would resolve only the issue at hand tonight, providing clarity of the text
meaning and raw numbers in terms of inches, trees and dollars.
Mr. Smith responded that it appears that the outcome would not be changed, the outcome would just be
made more clear. It would be beneficial to provide clarification in the text that one-third of the trees in the
buffer could count toward the tree replacement requirement, as was their original intent. However, if there is
no opportunity to make a modification that accomplishes that, he does not see the value of tabling the
application.
Mr. Boggs stated that once the absolute number of trees in the buffer had been determined and the number
of caliper inches calculated, a Minor Text Modification could be written and approved that would eliminate the
need to go before City Council.
Mr. Smith responded that they have already done the math and provided it to staff. They know the number
of inches required in the buffer and the number of caliper inches they are providing in the buffer. That is how
they arrived at the 200-inch deficit between staff’s interpretation and their interpretation. If tabling the
application cannot impact that number, he cannot ask his client to delay, based on an uncertain result.
Mr. McCauley confirmed that due to the construction season, they would not want to delay the start of the
project.
[Site plan with trees shown.]
[Discussion continued regarding revising the percentage of replacement trees permitted to fulfill buffer
requirements and the percent of evergreens permitted.]
Ms. Martin noted that the percent of evergreens is based on the historic implementation of the tree
replacement requirements; no finite number is identified. All of the developments recently approved have no
more than 50% evergreens, strategically placed to provide screening.
Commission consensus was to amend Condition #3 from one-third to one-half and to add Condition #6 to
address the tree replacement issue.
The applicant indicated they had no objections to the six (6) conditions.
Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Supelak seconded approval of the Amended Final Development Plan with the following
six (6) conditions:
1) That the applicant reduce the height of the proposed pillars to match the existing pillars in Tartan
Ridge, subject to staff approval.
2) The applicant continue to work with staff to fulfill each of the tree replacement requirements, or that
the applicant pay a fee-in-lieu for the remaining inches.
3) The applicant plant no more than 1/2 of the required tree replacement inches to fulfill buffer
requirements.
4) The applicant shift a portion of the trees surrounding the stormwater facility in the northwest portion
of the site to allow for a more open vista from the west, subject to Staff approval.
5) The applicant provide staff with any alternative materials or furniture selections pertaining to the
overlook amenity area prior to obtaining building permits to ensure materials of equal or greater
quality are utilized, subject to staff approval.
6) The applicant work with staff to increase the percentage of evergreens adjacent to or interior to lots
#23 - #26, and that these additional trees apply toward the tree replacement requirement.
Vote: Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes;
Mr. Schneier, yes.
[Motion passed 7-0]
Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Supelak seconded a recommendation for City Council approval of the Final Plat with
the following condition:
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 21, 2021
Page 15 of 17
1) That the applicant make any minor technical adjustments prior to submittal to City Council.
Vote: Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes;
Mr. Supelak, yes.
[Motion passed 7-0]
PRESENTATION: MOBILITY STUDY UPDATE
Presentation on the Dublin Mobility Study, a multi-phase strategic plan, to support the community’s evolving
mobility needs.
Staff Presentation
Mr. Rayburn presented an update on the City’s Mobility Study, noting that the presentation would provide
guidance on how development applications could be considered through a mobility lens. The Dublin Mobility
Study was undertaken in 2017 with the goal of planning innovative transportation improvements to support
the needs of the community. Initially, a large public workshop gathered public opinion, which led to the
visioning and establishment of key objectives for Phase I of the study. Phase II prioritized the objectives more
specifically, and Phase III crafted that information into pilot projects. Those projects resulted in better
information and secured grant and funding opportunities. The mobility effort is currently at the end of Phase
IV, wherein a few of the pilots have moved into permanent mobility programs and consideration of long-term
funding. Phase V will look more deeply into specific focus areas.
Mr. Rayburn reviewed the key objectives of the study:
1) Support economic development
2) Promote equitable access to mobility
3) Expand multimodal options
4) Improve public health
5) Preserve our environs by focusing on future growth
To accomplish those objectives, the following items were prioritized:
1) Micro-transit, including shuttles and circulators, providing shorter trips through the COTA service and
augmenting those services.
2) Shared micro-mobility, including bike shares and scooters
3) Concepts for mobility hubs
4) Wayfinding on the City’s shared-use paths
5) Complete and smart streets.
Micro-transit – Dublin Connector:
The Dublin Connector provides mobility independence for those aging in place and those with disabilities. It
also provides first and last mile connections for the workforce. Bus commuters to Dublin have often needed
to utilize Uber and Lyft to complete their trips, at a cost of $200-$400/month. As part of the Covid-19 response,
the City discontinued the regular shuttle services to senior/disabled shuttle services in March through
September 30, 2020, in order to limit the exposure for City’s most vulnerable citizens. Instead, the City
pivoted to a delivery service to provide food and essential goods to senior citizens in the community. Staff has
tracked key performance indicators to be able to further evaluate and improve mobility services. The indicators
showed that the Dublin Connector effort had diverted over 10,000 miles for vehicle commuters, reducing the
congestion on Dublin’s roadways and resulting in cleaner air in the community. Approximately 7,700 rides
have been provided for Dublin citizens since 2018. The following top destinations for those using the micro-
transit shuttles are: AC Marriott, Walmart, Kroger, Friendship Village of Dublin, COTA 21 Stop J/Tuttle Mall,
Tuttle Mall, Sawmill Meijer, Dublin Food Pantry, Giant Eagle, and Heartland of Dublin. From those destinations,
three cluster sites can be seen: Historic Dublin, Sawmill Road, and Tuttle Mall. Next steps for the Dublin
Connector Micro-Transit include:
1) Consider utilizing City vehicles to maximize branding opportunities and lower operating costs.
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 21, 2020
20-170/171FDP/FP – Overlook at Tartan
Summary Zoning Map
A request for review and approval of a
Final Development Plan for the
development of a residential community
consisting of up to 56 single-family lots
and 7.9 acres of open space on an
approximately 24 acre site. Additionally,
this is a request for review and
recommendation of approval to City
Council for an associated Final Plat.
Site Location
The site is located northeast of the
intersection of Hyland-Croy Road and
McKitrick Road.
Property Owners
DVC 6700 Associates LLC; The Shoppes
at Tartan Ridge LLC
Applicable Land Use Regulations
Zoning Code Section 153.050-153.056
Case Manager
Chase J. Ridge, AICP Candidate, Planner I
(614) 410-4675
cridge@dublin.oh.us
Next Steps
Upon approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission for this Final Development Plan, the
Final Plat (case #20-171FP) will be forwarded to City Council for final review prior to recording
with the County. Subsequent to recording, the applicant will be able to submit building permits.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-170/20-171FDP/FP – Overlook at Tartan
Final Development Plan/Final Plat
1. Context Map
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-170/20-171FDP/FP – Overlook at Tartan
Final Development Plan/Final Plat
2. Overview
Case History
The approximately 24-acre site was annexed into the City of Dublin in 2002 (Ord. 71-02) and
originally rezoned in 2007 (Ord. 16-07) to PUD, Planned Unit Development District, Tartan
Ridge. The zoning for this subarea originally called for a mix of housing and commercial
development.
The Planning and Zoning Commission provided non-binding feedback on a concept plan for this
site in July of 2019.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and recommended approval to City Council of
the request to rezone the site from PUD, Tartan Ridge to PUD, The Overlook at Tartan in
December 2019.
City Council approved the rezoning and preliminary development plan as well as the preliminary
plat for this site in February 2020 (Ord. 07-20).
Site Characteristics
Natural Features
The site is undeveloped, except for a stormwater management pond that was installed as part
of a previous phase of the Tartan Ridge development. There are trees and an abandoned silo
located in the southwest portion of the site. A stream runs west to east in the northern portion
of the site.
Surrounding Land Use and Development Character
North: R: Rural District (Educational – Glacier Ridge Elementary)
East: PUD: Tartan Ridge (Single-Family)
South: PUD: Tartan West (Single-Family)
West: Jerome Township (Park and Recreation – Glacier Ridge Metro Park)
Road, Pedestrian and Bike Network
The site has frontage on Hyland-Croy Road to the west (±1,365 Feet) and McKitrick Road to the
south (±975 Feet). A shared use path exists along the eastern portion of the site with runs
north off McKitrick Road.
Process
Approval for the development of a PUD is a three-step process, outlined below:
Concept Plan
Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan
Final Development Plan
The final development plan is the final review stage for approval of a PUD. At this stage of
review, the PZC makes a determination based on conformance with the PDP and the approved
development text.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-170/20-171FDP/FP – Overlook at Tartan
Final Development Plan/Final Plat
Final Development Plan
Site Layout and Access
The site is rectangular in shape and is situated west of the Tartan Ridge neighborhood and
south of Glacier Ridge Elementary School. The proposal extends Brenham Way to the south to
connect to McKitrick Road, and extends Enfield Trace to the west to connect to Brenham Way.
Emmet Row Lane is also to be extended on the north end of the site and will curve to the south
connecting to a new stubbed public street, Overlook Drive. Two additional public streets are
proposed to provide access to the center and southern portions of the site, Highland Lane and
Claymore Drive. Primary access to the lots will be from McKitrick Road via Brenham Way.
A left turn lane will be constructed from McKitrick Road to the new public roadway connection
of Brenham Way. This improvement will serve to fulfill the existing Tartan Ridge Infrastructure
Agreement that lists the improvement as ‘required’ with the new street connection. This
proposed development will eliminate a previously approved street connection from Hyland-Croy
Road to Tartan Ridge and therefore will not require any improvement to Hyland-Croy Road,
which is also listed as an improvement to be made with any new street connection in the
Infrastructure Agreement.
Sidewalks are proposed throughout the entirety of the site, including along all frontages and
leading to a proposed overlook amenity in Reserve A (northwest portion of the site). An eight-
foot wide shared use path is proposed along McKitrick Road, turning north along the entire
length of Hyland-Croy Road.
A future roundabout is proposed for the intersection of Hyland-Croy Road and McKitrick Road.
As this development will likely be constructed prior to this capital improvement being
completed, the applicant is developing and connecting to the existing pedestrian and bikepath
system at Hyland-Croy and McKitrick Roads to provide safe connections and crossings.
Development Details
The development text is the regulating document that outlines the development standards for
the development including uses, lot requirements, and architecture and materials. City Council
approved the development text for the site and the request to rezone in February, 2020.
Uses
Per the approved development text, the permitted uses in Subarea F are limited to single-family
homes.
Development Standards
The proposal includes 56 single-family lots generally separated into two different sizes.
Courtyard lots are a minimum of 60 feet wide at the building line and a minimum of 125 feet
deep. These lots are primarily located on the perimeter of the site.
Patio lots are a minimum of 52 feet wide at the building line and require a minimum lot depth of
125 feet. Patio lots and are primarily located in the interior of the site.
The smallest lots are +/-6,500 square feet and the largest lot is +/-12,545 square feet in size.
Lot coverage is limited to 60 percent for all lots, including structure and driveway.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-170/20-171FDP/FP – Overlook at Tartan
Final Development Plan/Final Plat
For courtyard homes, the front yard setback is a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 25 feet
from the right-of-way, or otherwise shown on the preliminary plat. For patio homes, the front
yard setbacks are also a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 25 feet. However, front loaded
garages must be located at the maximum setback of 25 feet while non-garage portions of the
front façade may be permitted to extend up to the minimum 15-foot setback. Rear yard
setbacks for both lot types is 25 feet from the rear property line. The minimum required side
yard setback is 6 feet.
At-grade patios on both the patio lots and courtyard lots may be permitted to encroach a
maximum of 10 feet into the required rear yard provided that no walls greater than 36 inches in
height are incorporated into the patio design. Window wells may encroach into the side yards a
maximum of three and one-half feet, provided that there is a minimum of eight feet of
separation between these permitted encroachments on adjoining lots. Air conditioners may
encroach into side yards a maximum of two and one-half feet.
All residential structures are limited to a maximum height of 25 feet, as measured per the City
of Dublin Code.
Open Space and Landscaping
The applicant is proposing a number of landscape improvements with this plan, the most
notable of which is proposed for the exterior of the site, along Hyland-Croy Road and McKitrick
Road (Reserve A). Here, the applicant is proposing a naturalized mix of deciduous, ornamental
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-170/20-171FDP/FP – Overlook at Tartan
Final Development Plan/Final Plat
and evergreen trees within this reserve. This is consistent with other developments along the
corridor and provides screening and privacy for the new homes. At the request of Staff, the
applicant has provided a section plan showing how the trees and mounding screen the homes
from Hyland-Croy Road. Since the PDP, the applicant has adjusted utilities and grading in
Reserve A to help preserve some trees.
The applicant is proposing to replace all 626 inches removed from the site with 271 trees
located in the reserves. The development text buffer requirements prescribe the number of
deciduous, evergreen and ornamental trees adjacent to the proposed homes along Hyland-Croy
and McKitrick Roads. The buffering requirement is a requirement on its own, as is the street
tree requirement and the tree replacement requirement in the Code; therefore, staff has
determined that the tree replacement inches should not be used to fulfill portions of the
buffering requirements. Staff recommends that the applicant continue to work with Staff on
fulfilling each individual landscape requirement, or that a fee-in-lieu be paid for the remaining
inches. Staff also recommends that no more than 1/3 of the required replacement inches be
utilized to fulfill buffer requirements.
The applicant has added street trees along the frontages of both Hyland Croy and McKitrick
Roads, as required by Code. These trees stagger the new paths and will be located within the
reserve maintained by the master HOA.
Along the northwest portion of the site, the applicant is proposing a less dense cluster of trees
and no mounding so that a vista of the existing pond is possible from the west. Staff
recommends shifting some of the trees in front of the pond to open views from Hyland-Croy
Road to this amenity and the overlook, subject to Staff approval.
Plant species for the hedges in front of the new homes have been narrowed down to boxwood,
gray juniper and vintage gold false cypress. A detail for the stone veneer pillars at the sidewalk
entries to each home is also included in the landscape package. The pillars will incorporate a
brick band at the top to match the driveway materials and be topped with limestone or concrete
cap. The proposed height of the pillars (5’ 4”) is taller than those in Tartan Ridge. Staff is
recommending that the height of these pillars be reduced to match those in Tartan Ridge. Front
yard trees will be required at each home per Code, and the applicant has provided a list of
suggested trees. Pear trees will not be permitted.
Proposed for the southeast portion of the site is an entry feature surrounded by low and mid-
height plantings with taller evergreens behind. The pond overlook and shelter in the northwest
portion of the site will also include low and mid-height plantings as well as some ornamental
trees. All of the cluster box unit locations will be landscaped using a mix of plantings including
evergreen trees, deciduous trees, and low and mid-height plantings.
Architecture
The Tartan Ridge development is unique in its detailed architectural requirements, which
prohibit overlapping forms, particularly for roofs and require symmetry in design and window
placement. In addition, diversity of architecture is strictly enforced. The Overlook at Tartan will
have a decidedly different feel to it, but incorporates many of the same elements found
elsewhere in Tartan Ridge. The applicant has indicated that the character of the Overlook at
Tartan neighborhood will be identified by European Country and Midwestern Vernacular
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-170/20-171FDP/FP – Overlook at Tartan
Final Development Plan/Final Plat
architectural styles.
Key massing principles outlined in the development text include a prominent street presence,
appropriate proportions, clean intersections and purity of form. These principles intend to
provide the same high-quality architecture as is found elsewhere in Tartan Ridge. Massing
issues such as continuous walls and awkward proportions shall be prohibited in this subarea.
Permitted exterior materials include stone, manufactured stone, stucco, wood or cementitious
fiberboard. The primary building materials on the front elevation of a home are required to be
represented on all elevations, similar to what already exists in Tartan Ridge. A masonry water
table, a minimum of 30 inches high or to the height of the window sill is required on all
elevations. No walls are permitted more than two cladding materials unless otherwise approved
by the Architectural Review Committee.
The applicant has identified 17 lots that are considered highly visibile throughout the
development. These homes are primarily on corner lots or along Brenham Way, where side
elevations are highly visible. For these homes, additional cladding requirements exists as to
ensure a high-quality aesthetic throughout the neighborhood. These homes must be rendered
with a constant cladding material on all sides exposed to view. This requirement will also ensure
consistency throughout the entirety of Tartan Ridge.
Shutters, when used, are to be used consistently on all elevations and to be sized to fully cover
the associated window. Shutters must be a flat panel or board and batten style.
Permitted roof materials include an architectural grade asphalt shingle, wood shake, wood
shingle, or natural or synthetic slate. Metal standing seam materials are permitted on porches,
hyphens, and dependencies.
Permitted garage configurations include street loaded/front oriented and street loaded/
courtyard oriented. Double bay overhead doors and garages containing three or more bays are
permitted. However, garages shall comprise no more than 45 percent of the total linear width
of the front elevation. Driveways are to be constructed of brick pavers.
As part of this proposal, the applicant has indicated that the HOA declarant shall form an
Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to review all architecture to ensure that all dwellings and
accessory structures comply with or exceed the architectural standards set forth in the
development text.
Entry Sign
The proposal includes one rectangular ground sign identifying the neighborhood at Brenham
Way and McKitrick Road. The sign is an engraved cast stone sign, 25 square feet in size. The
lettering is proposed to be black, and the sign sits atop a stone-clad monument. The monument
is capped with a four-inch cast stone cap. The sign will be approximately five feet in height at
its tallest point.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-170/20-171FDP/FP – Overlook at Tartan
Final Development Plan/Final Plat
Overlook Amenity
The overlook amenity proposed for the northwest portion of the site provides a unique
opportunity for the residents and general public to spend time, with several seating options and
tables proposed on the patio and under a covered pavilion. A two-sided fireplace is proposed on
the north side of the pavilion. The pavilion, 24 feet in width and 28 feet in length, is constructed
primarily of cedar beams and columns, stone veneer, and is sheathed with a dimensioned
asphalt shingle. Furniture for the overlook patios and pavilion include white polywood picnic
tables and white Adirondack chair and table sets. The patio is a decorative aggregate material
and the overlook amenity is clad in a ProVia Ohio Vintage Limestone veneer. All products
associated with the overlook amenity are as proposed or are to be an “owner approved equal”.
Should the applicant desire to utilize an alternative material, Staff recommends that the
applicant provide the alternatives to Staff prior to obtaining building permits to ensure a product
of equal or greater quality, subject to Staff approval.
Stormwater Management
The proposal includes the use of two stormwater management facilities. Along with the
construction of new public storm sewer and drainage structures. The existing stormwater pond
in the northwest portion of the site is proposed to be slightly altered with this proposal and is
situated within Reserve A. A dry basin originally proposed in the southeast portion of the site
has been removed and replaced with landscaping. The existing pond in Tartan Ridge (southeast
portion of the site, east of Brenham Way) will be modified to accommodate the proposed
development. The existing stormwater management pond east of Brenham Way is owned by
the City of Dublin and is proposed to continue to be owned and maintained by the City of
Dublin.
Utilities: Water
This site will gain access to public water for domestic and fire protection service by the
proposed construction of water mains and fire hydrants extended from an existing eight-inch
water main in the immediate area.
Utilities: Sanitary Sewer
Sanitary sewer will be available to the development by means of the proposed construction of
new public sanitary sewer mains, structures and associated sanitary sewer services to each
proposed lot. Engineering analysis was submitted that demonstrated that the anticipated
sanitary sewer flow from this development would be less than what would be expected from
the currently approved zoning.
Final Plat
Overview
The final plat is for the subdivision of an approximately 24-acre site into 56 single-family lots
with rights-of-way for four new public streets and open space reserves. The plat includes open
space ownership and maintenance, setback requirements, and easements.
Lot Details
The final plat includes 56 single-family lots generally separated into two different sizes. Based
on the development text that is proposed for this development, courtyard lots are required to
be a minimum of 60 feet wide at the building line with a minimum depth of 125 feet.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-170/20-171FDP/FP – Overlook at Tartan
Final Development Plan/Final Plat
Patio lots are required to be a minimum of 52 feet wide at the building line and require a
minimum lot depth of 125 feet.
The smallest lots are +/-6,500 square feet and the largest lot is +/-12,545 square feet in size.
Lot coverage is limited to 60 percent, including structures and driveways.
Open Space
The Subdivision Regulations require the provision of 3.56 acres of open space based on the 56
units on 24 acres of land. A total of approximately 7.9 acres (32.2%) of open space is proposed
in five reserves.
Reserve A (7.4 acres) is located along McKitrick Road and Hyland-Croy Road. This reserve
contains a majority of the proposed open space and includes a stormwater management pond
in the northwest portion of the site. The existing stormwater management pond is to be slightly
modified with this application.
Reserves B, C, and D (0.4-acre total) serve to separate the new homes from Brenham Way and
the existing homes to the east. Reserve E (0.1-acre) is located in the northeast portion of the
site and serves to separate lot 26 (proposed) from the existing lot 225 in Tartan Ridge.
Streets/Sidewalks/Shared Use Paths
All streets are to be constructed with a width of 28 feet from back-of-curb to back-of-curb.
Right-of-way widths are 50 feet. There are 15 on-street parking spaces proposed in the
development, five on each of the three north-south oriented streets.
Sidewalks are proposed throughout the entirety of the site, including along all frontages and
leading to a proposed overlook in Reserve A (northwest portion of the site). An eight-foot wide
shared use path is proposed along McKitrick Road, turning north along the entire length of
Hyland-Croy Road.
Since the Preliminary Plat, the applicant has revised the right-of-way dedication at the corner of
Hyland-Croy Road and McKitrick Road to include a typical chamfer, as required by Code.
Stormwater Management and Utilities
The existing stormwater pond in the northwest portion of the site is to be slightly altered with
this proposal and is situated within Reserve A. The existing pond in Tartan Ridge (southeast
portion of the site, east of Brenham Way) will be modified to accommodate the proposed
development. The plat states that Reserve A is to be owned by the City and maintained by the
lots in the Tartan Ridge Subdivision(s). The overlook structure and associated path are to be
maintained by The Overlook at Tartan Ridge homeowners sub-association. The existing
stormwater management pond east of Brenham Way is owned by the City of Dublin and is
proposed to be maintained by the City of Dublin.
Public utilities will be provided through public easements and/or right-of-way as shown on the
final plat.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-170/20-171FDP/FP – Overlook at Tartan
Final Development Plan/Final Plat
3. Criteria Analysis
Final Development Plan [153.055(B)]
1) The proposal is consistent with the approved preliminary development plan.
Criteria Met. The Final Development Plan is largely consistent with the approved
Preliminary Development Plan.
2) Adequate provision is made for safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular circulation
within the site and adjacent property.
Criteria Met. The plan allows for safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular circulation.
The applicant is proposing sidewalks throughout the development, as well as a shared-
use path on the perimeter of the site. The applicant has continued to work with
engineering staff to ensure the street layout and design is adequate, as well.
3) The development has adequate public services and open spaces.
Criteria Met. This development provides adequate public services and provides more
open space than is required.
4) The development preserves and is sensitive to natural characteristics of the site while
complying with applicable regulations.
Criteria Met. This development is proposed on a site that is largely vacant, flat, and not
heavily wooded.
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.
Criteria Met. The development provides adequate lighting without emitting onto adjacent
properties.
6) The proposed signs, as indicated on the submitted sign plan, will be coordinated within
the Planned Unit Development and with adjacent development; are of an appropriate
size, scale, and design in relationship with the principal building, site, and surroundings;
and are located so as to maintain safe and orderly pedestrian and vehicular circulation;
Criteria Met. The proposal calls for a routed cast-stone sign, approximately 25 square
feet in size. The sign sits atop a stone clad base, which is topped with a stone cap. The
sign is appropriately designed and is compatible with surrounding development.
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;
Criteria Met with Conditions. The applicant is proposing to install fewer inches than Staff
calculates is necessary to meet each tree replacement or planting requirement. The
applicant should continue to work with Staff to ensure these requirements are met, or
pay a fee-in-lieu for the remaining inches. The applicant should also shift trees away
from the northwest stormwater facility to create a more open vista from Hyland-Croy
Road, subject to Staff approval. The applicant should plant no more than 1/3 of the
required replacement inches to fulfill buffer requirements, subject to Staff approval. The
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-170/20-171FDP/FP – Overlook at Tartan
Final Development Plan/Final Plat
applicant should reduce the height of the driveway pillers to better align with the
existing pillars in Tartan Ridge, subject to Staff approval.
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;
Criteria Met. The applicant has worked with staff to ensure adequate infrastructure is
provided.
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;
Not Applicable. The development is not proposed in stages.
10) The City believes the project to be in compliance with all other local, state, and federal
laws and regulations.
Criteria Met. The proposal appears to be in compliance with all local, state and federal
laws and regulations.
Subdivision Regulations
1) Plat Information and Construction Requirements.
Criteria Met. The proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Subdivision
Regulations and Zoning Code. The applicant will be required to revise the plat to make
any other minor technical adjustments prior to Council review.
2) Street, Sidewalk, and Bikepath Standards.
Criteria Met. All necessary standards have been provided as part of the proposed final
plat.
3) The proposal includes provisions for all utilities in accordance with approved standards.
Criteria Met. The final plat identifies or establishes all necessary easements for the
construction and maintenance of all utilities.
4) Open Space Requirements.
Criteria Met. Open space reserves are platted as part of this application, providing more
open space than required for this proposal.
5. Recommendations
Approval of the Final Plat is recommended with the following condition:
1) That the applicant make any minor technical adjustments prior to submittal to City
Council.
Approval of the Final Development Plan is recommended with the following conditions:
1) The applicant reduce the height of the proposed pillars to match the existing pillars in
Tartan Ridge, subject to Staff approval.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-170/20-171FDP/FP – Overlook at Tartan
Final Development Plan/Final Plat
2) The applicant continue to work with Staff to fulfill each of the tree replacement
requirements, or that the applicant pay a fee-in-lieu for the remaining inches.
3) The applicant plant no more than 1/3 of the required tree replacement inches to fulfill
buffer requirements.
4) The applicant shift a portion of the trees surrounding the stormwater facility in the
northwest portion of the site to allow for a more open vista from the west, subject to
Staff approval.
5) The applicant provide Staff with any alternative materials or furniture selections
pertaining to the overlook amenity area prior to obtaining building permits to ensure
materials of equal or greater quality are utilized, subject to Staff approval.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes
Held
February 24, 2020 Page 2 of 9
Mr. Dring mentioned two programs that DCVB is doing that do not involve the hotels:
Celtic Cocktail Trail and Irish Fairy Doors of Dublin. There are many establishments taking
part in these trails and they are able to track these programs. For example, the Fairy Door
program has brought visitors from 43 states and 8 countries.
The Downtown Dublin Strategic Alliance, consisting of the City of Dublin, DCVB, the HDBA
and Crawford Hoying is still going strong. They are meeting monthly and collaborating for
the benefit of all.
Mayor Amorose Groomes thanked him for the update.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
There were no comments from citizens.
CONSENT AGENDA
Notice to Legislative Authority of a New DS] liquor permit for Frank & Carls Dublin
LLC, dba Frank & Carls, 6558 Longshore Street, Dublin, Ohio 43017
Notice to Legislative Authority of a New DSA liquor permit for DRE Reit OPCO LLC,
dba Residence Inn, 6364 Frantz Road, Dublin, Ohio 43017
There was no request to remove an item from the Consent Agenda.
Mr. Peterson moved to approve the actions for the two items on the Consent Agenda.
Ms. Alutto seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Keeler, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Mr.
Peterson, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes.
SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING —ORDINANCES
Ordinance 06-20
Rezoning Approximately 3.47 Acres East of Hyland -Croy Road, South of
Mitchell -Dewitt Road from PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Oak Park,
Subarea E) to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Oak Park, Subarea F)
for the Future Development of up to 12 Single -Family homes and 0.66 Acre of
Open Space.
Ms. Rauch stated that the applicant has requested to postpone this item until the March
16, 2020 Council meeting.
Mayor Amorose Groomes moved to postpone the second reading of Ordinance 06-20 to
the March 16, 2020 Council meeting.
Ms. Alutto seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes,
yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes.
Ordinance 07-20
Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan of +/- 24 Acres from PUD,
Planned Unit Development District (Tartan Ridge, Subareas D1, E and F) to
PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Tartan Ridge Subarea F) for the
Future Development of Up To 56 Single -Family Homes and 7.9 Acres of Open
Space. The Site is North of McKitrick Road and East of Hyland -Croy Road. (Case
19-0842/PDP)
Ms. Rauch stated that there have been no changes since the first reading. Planning and
Zoning Commission has recommended approval with five conditions:
The Preliminary Development Plan Subarea map be revised to include the existing
storm water management pond in the southeast portion of the site that is to be
redesigned, prior to Council review•,
The applicant continue to work with staff to ensure that the street names and
naming method is appropriate;
The applicant work with staff to clarify HOA membership;
The applicant remove the dry basin, add green space in the area and landscape
material in the area, subject to staff approval; and
The applicant provide opaque landscaping on the mound along Hyland -Croy Road.
Mr. Gary Smith. G2 Planning and Design, 720 East Broad Street, came forward on behalf
of the applicant and validated that they are in agreement with the five conditions.
Minutes
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Council
February 24, 2020 Page 3 of 9
There was no public testimony offered.
Vote on the Ordinance: Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes;
Mr. Keeler, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes.
Mayor Amorose Groomes moved Resolution 16-20 forward on the agenda as it is related
to Ordinance 07-20.1
Resolution 16-20
Approving and Accepting the Preliminary Plat for The Overlook at Tartan Ridge.
Ms. Alutto introduced the Resolution.
Ms. Rauch stated that this plat was recommended for approval by Planning and Zoning
Commission with the following four conditions:
The applicant ensures that any minor technical adjustments and updates to the plat in
accordance with the accompanying Preliminary Development Plan are made prior to
City Council submittal;
The applicant continue to work with staff to ensure that the street names are
approved and indicated properly on the plat;
The applicant revise the preliminary plat prior to Council review to reflect a typical
chamfer at the corner of Hyland -Croy Road and McKitrick Road, as required by Code;
and
The applicant revise the plat to accurately display the planned 100 -foot right-of-way
for Hyland -Croy Road.
There was no public testimony offered.
Vote on the Resolution: Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes;
Mr. Keeler, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes.
INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING — ORDINANCES
Ordinance 08-20
Authorizing the Provision of Certain Incentives to g2o, LLC to Induce it to Lease
or Purchase a Facility to Locate and Expand its National Headquarters and its
Associated Operations and Workforce, All Within the City; and Authorizing the
Execution of an Economic Development Agreement.
Ms. Alutto introduced the Ordinance.
Ms. Gilger stated that g2o LLC is planning a relocation and expansion of their corporate
headquarters, currently in Columbus. This agreement would result in the relocation of
approximately 150 jobs from Columbus to Dublin, and would expand by adding 60 jobs by
2027. The proposal is for a seven-year, 15% performance incentive that is only on the
new 60 jobs after they relocate.
There was no public testimony offered.
In response to Ms. Fox's question regarding incentives, Ms. Gilger stated that the 60 new
jobs is the minimum number that they would need to achieve to qualify for the incentive.
There is a cap in the agreement, so anything more than 60 up to the cap would qualify.
Ms. Fox asked about how the City verifies the performance of the companies that are
incentivized. Is there an annual report with the details of the agreements so the trends
can be monitored? Ms. Gilger stated that she is provided with a report from Finance to
monitor how companies are performing, if they have hit their cap, etc.
Mr. McDaniel stated that the payroll is the number that is verified, not the head count of
employees.
Ms. Fox stated that she was hoping that reports may help to flag under -performing or
struggling companies. She would like to know that we can identify and assist companies
With other resources if they need it.
Minutes of
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council Meeting
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101
Held
February 10, 2020 Page 13 of 26
Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that the Ordinance is scheduled for second reading/public
hearing on February 24. It is possible that the applicant may request an extension of time
to address issues. Staff will inform the HOA leadership of any change to the anticipated
hearing schedule.
Ordinance 07-20
Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan of +/- 24 Acres from PUD,
Planned Unit Development District (Tartan Ridge, Subareas D1, E and F) to
PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Tartan Ridge Subarea F) for the
Future Development of Up To 56 Single -Family Homes and 7.9 Acres of Open
Space, The Site is North of McKitrick Road and East of Hyland -Croy Road. (Case
19-084Z/PDP)
Ms. Alutto introduced the Ordinance.
Ms. Husak stated this is a rezoning request for approximately 24 acres within the Tartan
Ridge neighborhood. She shared an aerial of the site at the corner of McKitrick and
Hyland -Croy Roads. It is fairly vacant at this time, but there is a green silo on the site and
a stormwater management pond that is being used currently as part of Tartan Ridge and
will be enlarged with this application. She shared a view of the entire Tartan Ridge
neighborhood, which was zoned in 2007 and is about 190 acres. It was zoned during the
time that Oak Park was zoned and this area was slated for commercial development as
well as some townhome units. With this proposal tonight, all of those uses would change
to single-family residential. There are 56 lots proposed at a density of 2.3 units per acre,
and 7.5 acres of open space is proposed, mainly along the Hyland -Croy and McKitrick
frontage and the stormwater management pond. The applicant has been working with
staff and has also meet with the HOA leadership and adjacent residents. The proposal is
for an empty nester market type of home — patio homes. She shared details, noting that
the applicant is continuing some of the standards that make Tartan Ridge a unique
neighborhood, including pillars at the end of driveways and hedge treatment along the
frontages of the homes. There is also a matrix of where side -loaded garages or court -
loaded garages could be utilized within this proposal. Staff has also worked with the
applicant and their architects on continuing that architectural style that is unique to Tartan
Ridge. They have proposed some sample elevations. The pond will include amenities — an
overlook with seating areas and a gazebo. There were discussions between the applicant,
staff and the PZC in terms of maintenance and how that will be handled in this area. The
applicant is proposing to have a sub association, but also be part of the overall Tartan
Ridge Association. This particular amenity would be maintained by the Overlook
Association.
PZC recommended approval to Council at their December meeting. Staff has been working
with the applicant to ensure they have fulfilled the conditions that could be met prior to
tonight's hearing. There are a couple items that will be addressed with the final
development plan. She offered to respond to questions.
Mayor Amorose Groomes invited the applicant to present.
Kevin McCauley, 6689 Dublin Center Drive, stated he is present on behalf of the ownership
group, Stavroff Land and Development. With him are Gary Smith, G2 Planning & Design;
Jim Ohlin, Romanelli & Hughes; and Brad Schoch, architect of record for the project.
Stavroff has been part of the Tartan Ridge project since the beginning — assembling the
land, zoning the property, developing the property and marketing the retail portion of the
property over the past 12 years. The property was zoned in 2007 for 68,500 square feet of
retail; 24 town homes; and five single-family lots. Primarily, they were working on
marketing the retail for the past 10-12 years. They have learned that retail is just not right
for this property at this time. They worked with residents, HOA reps, staff, Council
members and PZC members to determine what product would work in this location. They
believe that what is proposed meets the concerns they have heard. They did survey
residents of Tartan Ridge to understand what they want to see in the community. They
learned that the majority of the residents did not want the retail. What is being proposed
tonight are 56 patio homes, with the elimination of 68,500 square feet of retail, 24
townhomes and five lots. This proposal removes an extra turn lane, reducing infrastructure
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO
Held
February 10, 2020 Page 14 of 26
costs for the residents. Stavroff is proud to bring this project forward as part of the
community.
Form 6101
Gary Smith, G2 Planning & Design noted that they are asking for Council's consideration in
replacing that 68,500 square feet of retail with an additional 27 homes for a total of 56
homes. The intent is to develop a high quality, single-family, empty -nester community.
This is a product designed to be highly compatible with the existing residential component
of Tartan Ridge and which fills a growing demand for housing that caters to a high end,
empty -nester buyer. The target market for Romanelli & Hughes in this product are people
moving out of an existing single-family home and desiring an empty -nester home in the
same community where they have lived. The proposal would incorporate nearly all of the
architectural requirements from the original Tartan Ridge zoning, with the exception of the
items that relate to the two-story product. This is a one-story product with no stairs aside
from a bonus room access. The landscape and streetscape requirements from the original
Tartan Ridge development will also be incorporated to blend this seamlessly with the
existing development patterns. The Tartan Ridge columns and hedges are included in this
upscale, walkable development that utilizes those traditional neighborhood development
principles embodied in Tartan Ridge. All driveways and private sidewalks will be brick
pavers, and the community will include some large setbacks along McKitrick and Hyland -
Croy. Those setbacks will include a considerable amount of mounding and landscaping, a
variety of evergreen, deciduous and ornamental trees. The site itself is somewhat
challenging, as it is long and linear. The existing pond will be enlarged to serve some
additional capacity for the development. The existing Brenham Way defines the eastern
boundary of the site. In the neighborhood meetings, they learned that the residents did
not want any new homes fronting on Brenham Way, especially across from the existing
houses. That forced the layout of the site as it is now with the blocks turned
perpendicular. Public sidewalks are included throughout the development, which has public
streets. Those public streets will connect all of the buyers in the Overlook to the
greenspace network of Tartan Ridge as well as along McKitrick to the School and Hyland -
Croy. A community overlook shelter will be installed as part of the development, and will
include a fireplace and seating areas for the residents of the development. Floor plans will
be offered in two basic configurations: a traditional patio home with patio in the rear and
front -facing garage; and a courtyard type home where the garage is turned to the side.
Setbacks will be varied throughout the development. The build -to lines will be between 15
to 25 feet, allowing architecture to be closer to the road and creating some varied distance
to the road for various product. All of the homes within the Overlook will be part of the
overall Tartan Ridge HOA. The overall HOA will take care of the maintenance of all of the
open space, with the exception of the Overlook itself. A sub association will also be formed
and will take care of the condo -type maintenance — mowing of the yards, snow removal,
etc. for the Overlook residents. Architecture will be European country, Midwestern
vernacular that is common throughout the Tartan Ridge development. The last item of
note is they have incorporated a number of guest parking spots, parallel parking spots,
along with the required cluster mailbox units for all new residential. They have pull -off
parking associated with those at the end of each block, and each is within a short walking
distance of the residences served. He offered to respond to questions.
Ms. Fox stated that PZC reviewed this rezoning as well as the Oak Park rezoning. This
particular rezoning was supported by the residents who came forward. She commended
the developer for the many conversations they had with the residents during the process
and the willingness to listen to their feedback. She was very pleased with the cooperation
the developer and the residents exhibited in this rezoning application. PZC was quite
complimentary about the proposal and felt this was a good plan.
Ms. Alutto stated that in the PZC minutes, she read about the possibility for additional
shared -use path connections. This will provide an opportunity for some of those.
Mr. Smith responded that all of the frontage of McKitrick and Hyland -Croy were to have
that shared -use path, but because the commercial languished, that has not happened.
Those connections will be made with this development.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of MeetingDublinCityCouncil
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101
February 10, 2020 Page 15 of 26
Held
Ms. De Rosa asked about the setbacks from Hyland -Croy Road — are those 100 feet?
Mr. Smith responded that there is 10 feet of right-of-way, so the setback is 90 feet to the
lot line. With the additional 25 -foot rear setback, it is approximately 115 from the back of
the homes to the right-of-way of Hyland -Croy.
Ms. De Rosa commented that in driving on Hyland -Croy on the east side, a more rural
feeling has been maintained because of the setbacks of the homes. Is the intent to have
some continuity in the look and flow of that?
Mr. Smith responded that the setback is fairly large and generally consistent with other
areas up and down Hyland -Croy. They have incorporated an extensive amount of
mounding of up to 4-6 feet, depending on the width of the easements.
Mayor Amorose Groomes stated it appears to be consistent with the homes immediate to
the north on the image shown.
Ms. De Rosa stated it is important to have that feel, even though the area is no longer
rural. Who owns the retention pond?
Ms. Husak responded it is a City -owned reserve to be maintained by the HOA.
Mr. Reiner stated the architecture is very nice. The site plan, however, could have been
more creative in the layout of the homes to avoid a grid of houses locked into each other.
Mr. Smith stated it is a patio home community and is set up to be similar to developments
like Epcon, but on a nicer scale. The buyers want small lots and nice interior spaces. The
site plan itself was very challenging, as not being able to turn houses toward Brenham
Way dictated the layout of the streets.
Mayor Amorose Groomes asked about the architecture of the homes that front Brenham
Way. Will the sides of those residential units be treated differently?
Mr. Smith responded affirmatively, noting there are requirements for all the sides of all of
those homes. Every corner that is visible to the outside will be treated with additional
architectural detail.
Mayor Amorose Groomes asked if all of the driveways have the capacity to store a car
clear of the sidewalk.
Mr. Smith responded affirmatively. The reason the setbacks are staggered is to allow for
the two product types of homes. All of the houses with a front facing garage will have a
minimum of 20 feet from the sidewalk to the face of the garage. They are allowing for the
rest of the body of the house to project forward of that garage line from an architectural
standpoint. The side load has the accommodation for the car parking as well.
Mayor Amorose Groomes asked staff if the required setbacks needed for any
improvements along Hyland -Croy in the future have been secured.
Ms. Husak responded affirmatively, noting that is part of the setback requirement as the
roundabout is to be constructed at McKitrick and Hyland -Croy.
Mayor Amorose Groomes asked if there is adequate setback for a perhaps boulevarded
street that may be in place in the future.
Ms. Husak responded affirmatively.
Mr. Reiner stated that was his question, as well.
Ms. Husak responded that the setback is 90 feet as previously stated. It is adequate to
accommodate a boulevard.
There was no public testimony offered regarding the Ordinance.
There will be a second reading/public hearing at the February 24 Council meeting.
Mayor Amorose Groomes noted she will recuse herself from Ordinance 34-19, as her
family members are employed at the Dublin Chamber of Commerce. (She left the Council
Chamber.)
Vice Mayor De Rosa presided in her absence.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019
Page 17 of 32
[Motion passed 4-2]
[5-minute recess]
Ms. Newell stated that Cases 4 and 5 would be heard together.
4. The Overlook at Tartan Ridge, McKitrick and Jerome Road, 19-094, Rezoning
with Preliminary Development Plan
5. The Overlook at Tartan Ridge, McKitrick and Jerome Road, 19-085
Preliminary Plat
Ms. Newell stated that Case 4 is a request for a recommendation of approval to City Council for
a rezoning with preliminary development plan of approximately 24 acres for the future
construction of up to 56 single-family homes and approximately 7.9 acres of open space. The site
is within the Tartan Ridge Planned Unit Development District, northeast of the intersection of
Hyland-Croy Road and McKitrick Road. Case 5 is for the same site and the request is for a
recommendation of approval to City Council for preliminary plat to subdivide the site. The
Commission will hear the cases together.
Staff Presentation
Mr. Ridge stated that the site is currently zoned PUD, Tartan Ridge, and contains all or portions
of Subareas D1, E and F, which permit a mix of uses including townhomes and commercial uses.
The site is located northeast of the intersection of Hyland-Croy Road and McKitrick Road and is
currently undeveloped. There is an existing stormwater pond in the northwest portion of the site
and a solitary tree stand in the southwest portion of the site. The proposed plan for approximately
24 acres includes 56 lots with an average density of 2.33 dwelling units per acre and eight acres
of open space. Lot sizes are proposed in two different sizes. There are 34 patio lots that are a
minimum of 52 feet wide at the building line with a minimum lot depth of 125 feet. The remaining
22 courtyard lots are located on the perimeter of the site and are a minimum of 60 feet wide at
the building line and a minimum of 125 feet deep. Lots range in size from 6,500 square feet to
10,800 square feet. Lot coverage is limited to 60 percent, including structure and driveway.
Sideyard setbacks are a consistent six feet minimum across the site. Rear yard setbacks are 25
feet throughout site. Front yard setbacks are a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 25 feet
from the right-of-way, or as otherwise shown on the preliminary plat. For patio homes, the front
yard setbacks are also a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 25 feet. Front-loaded garages
must be located at the maximum setback of 25 feet while non-garage portions of the front façade
may be permitted to extend up to the minimum 15-foot setback. The rear yard setback for both
lot types is 25 feet from the rear property line. The minimum required side yard setback is 6 feet.
The development text also requires that a minimum of 22 lots in the development have court-
oriented garages. On the southeast corner of the site is Lot 1. Due to the separation/isolation and
odd lot shape, staff is recommending that the applicant remove Lot 1 from the plan. The applicant
has put an emphasis on walkability throughout the site with sidewalks along all frontages, as well
as connection and expansion to the shared-use paths along McKitrick and Hyland-Croy Roads. An
existing connection to the school site to the north is to remain. There is significant landscaping
around the perimeter of the site. The applicant is proposing mounding at a height of 3 - 5 feet
with trees on top and behind in a naturalized manner. The proposed pond amenity will be a part
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019
Page 18 of 32
of the existing stormwater management pond in the northwest portion of the site. The amenity
will include a patio space and shelter structure with seating.
The development text requires that a hedgerow be planted and run parallel to the front property
line as seen elsewhere in Tartan Ridge. It also requires gates and gatepost if a sidewalk is to
connect from the front door to the public sidewalk. Brick, stone, or wood posts are permitted
materials for the gateposts. Per the development text, driveways are to be constructed of brick
pavers, which is a character element unique to this subarea. Outdoor spaces can be constructed
within the footprint of the home. Open spaces such as at-grade patios will also be permitted to
encroach 10 feet into the rear yard setback, pr oviding increased outdoor amenity space, if desired
by the homeowner. Per the development text, the HOA will be responsible for maintaining all
open spaces as well as the hedgerow in front of the homes. An important architectural element
will be carried over from Tartan Ridge into this subarea, which is the consistent use of cladding
materials across all façades. The City-owned pond will be re-designed slightly. Staff is
recommending the subarea map include the existing stormwater management pond in the
southeast portion of the site that is to be redesigned with this proposal. It is also requested that
the applicant continue to work with staff to ensure the street names and naming method is
appropriate and that the applicant revise the plat to reflect a typical chamfer at the corner of
Hyland-Croy and McKitrick Roads. The rezoning and preliminary development plan have been
reviewed against all applicable criteria, and staff recommends approval with three conditions. The
plat has also been reviewed against all applicable criteria and staff recommends approval with
four conditions.
Commission Questions
Ms. Call inquired what is the reason for recommending deletion of Lot 1.
Mr. Ridge responded that Lot 1 is separated from the rest of the community by a sewer easement.
The lot is irregularly shaped, larger than the other lots and isolated.
Ms. Call inquired if the easement is a no-build zone.
Mr. Ridge responded affirmatively.
Mr. Fishman stated that he would assume that the area where the pond is located would be
unbuildable, so it would become part of the common area.
Mr. Ridge confirmed that would be the case.
Ms. Fox stated that there is a lovely area on the northwest side with the pond area. The City has
many retention ponds. There is opportunity to utilize them as an amenity for developments, and
this is a good-sized development. If Lot 1 is eliminated, has staff suggested that a nicer amenity
be created at this end of the development, as well?
Mr. Ridge responded that staff has not made that request.
Ms. Fox inquired how stubbing off the one street, currently unnamed, would impact ability for
emergency vehicles and trucks to turn around.
Mr. Ridge responded that the proposed name of the street is Jasmine Glen Drive.
Ms. Kennedy inquired between which lot numbers the proposed street would be located.
Ms. Fox responded that the street lies between Lot 32 and 30. She is curious about why that
street has been stubbed.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019
Page 19 of 32
Mr. Ridge responded that some neighbors across the street were concerned about the glare of
vehicle headlights into their homes and the closeness of that intersection to the one at Baronet
Boulevard.
Ms. Fox inquired if all were public streets.
Mr. Ridge responded affirmatively
Ms. Fox requested confirmation that truck turnaround would not be an issue there.
Mr. Ridge responded affirmatively.
Ms. Newell inquired how a fire vehicle would turn around, if the street terminates there.
Staff responded that it would be necessary for the vehicle to back up.
Ms. Newell stated that there is no ability for a fire vehicle to turn around. Once the roundabout
is constructed, is there a distance requirement between that and another lane that would stop
and turn?
Staff responded that there is no such requirement.
Ms. Fox asked about the City policy on adding a left turn lane.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that it has been the City’s practice for many years that with any
new access point into a subdivision, a left turn lane be required to preserve the through
movements on the roadway and provide safe access/egress from the development.
Ms. Fox inquired if construction of that turn lane is the responsibility of the developer when
constructing the development.
Mr. Hammersmith responded affirmatively. It is built as a public improvement consistent with the
City’s standards, which the City then inspects and accepts.
Ms. Fox inquired if there have been any exceptions to that practice.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that there has been none during his tenure with the City.
Ms. Kennedy inquired if the left turn is near Lot 1.
Mr. Hammersmith responded affirmatively; it is the McKitrick Road access point, the eastbound
left-turn lane.
Kevin McCauley, Stavroff Land and Development, 6689 Dublin Center Drive, Dublin,
representative for Tartan Ridge LLC, stated that with him tonight are Gary Smith, G2 Planning &
Design, Jim Ohlin, Romanelli & Hughes and Steve Shell, EMH&T Engineering. Previously, they
presented the Concept Plan for this development to the Commission. Stavroff has been involved
with this project since its inception. They made the initial land purchase for what is now Tartan
Ridge. In 2007, they believed there would be a commercial element in this development. In 2019,
retail is not an option, and the majority of the residents have indicated they are not supportive
of retail within the development. They would prefer to have the subdivision completed now rather
than wait five to fifteen years for potential retail to occur. The current market overwhelmingly
indicates that a detached, empty-nester product within a community such as this is desired.
Dublin residents wanting to downsize will be able to remain within Dublin, be part of the Tartan
Ridge community and have a maintenance-free lifestyle. He believes Tartan Ridge is one the best
developments he has ever been involved with, and these high-end homes, built by Romanelli &
Hughes, will continue that quality. The Commission’s concerns shared at the Concept Plan review
were noted and have been addressed; Mr. Smith will elaborate on those. As required by City
Engineering, a left-turn lane into McKitrick Road will be constructed. However, there is an
established New Community Authority, which must pay for the turn lane. Although the developer
would build the turn lane and receive a 5% return on his investment, the residents of Tartan
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019
Page 20 of 32
Ridge pay into that Community Aut1hority. The residents paid for the other existing three
intersections. No one is opposed to the turn lane, but the residents do not want to pay for it.
However, the turn lane is not part of the rezoning matter before the Commission at this time. It
could be a later matter for staff’s or Council’s consideration.
Mr. Hammersmith stated that when he responded to the Commission’s earlier question regarding
the left-turn lane into this development, he responded in general terms. This turn lane and the
other turn lanes constructed earlier with this development were part of an infrastructure
agreement approved by City Council in 2008, and only a City Council action could modify that
agreement.
Gary Smith, G2 Planning and Design, 720 E. Broad Street, Columbus, stated that since July, they
have been working on the architectural elements of the development, tweaking the plan and
making significant changes to the development text. The Romanelli & Hughes product has been
modified to meet the needs of this development. This is a 24-acre portion of the existing Tartan
Ridge development and this portion is in the southwest, below Glacier Ridge Elementary School.
What is currently approved for that area are five single-family homes, 24 townhomes, and 68,000
square feet of retail and commercial uses, potentially including gas stations, convenience stores,
restaurants and associated uses. The developer has been working on the retail piece of the
development for the past 12 years, but no viable option was identified. Because there was a
strong desire to have the community completed, they looked for other options. Some form of
lower-density residential was determined to be the best use. The City is fortunate to have an
abundance of single-family product, and has been trying to broaden the spectrum of lifestyle
options for its residents, such as the Bridge Park product. What is proposed is a continuation of
that effort to address another lifestyle need. There is a niche of Dublin homeowners who no
longer need a large, single-family home. However, they value their network of friends in Dublin
and prefer not to move away. They continue to want a high-end home, but with limited
maintenance requirements. They may prefer to travel a good portion of the year without the
demands of caring for a home here. The proposed development will attract those types of buyers.
They are requesting approval of 56 high quality, empty-nester patio homes. Because 29 single-
family homes are already approved here, essentially, they are requesting to exchange another 27
patio homes for the 68,000 square feet of retail previously planned. The site is long, linear and
encumbered by heavy setbacks along Hyland-Croy and McKitrick Roads. There is an existing pond
in the northwest corner of the site, which will be used for stormwater retention. The site dictates
the layout of the development. Early in the process, neighbors across the street on Brenham Way
indicated that they were not excited about having lots fronting the street across from their homes
and asked them to consider turning the layout to avoid that situation. Therefore, the long, linear
site, pond and need to avoid having homes fronting the road across from Brenham Way have
dictated the layout. In July, the Commission discussed the gridded layout of the development.
While it may appear so in a Google view, he has often viewed similar developments and found
that a ground-level experience of the site feels different. Upon entering the community, a
spectacular model home will be seen. There was some discussion about eliminating Lot 1, but for
them, Lot 1 is extremely important. The home on that lot will be the nicest home in the
development and will be a critical sales tool. Although the home will be a little further apart due
to the easement, many other elements will tie the home to the development, such as the
landscaping, hedge treatment and the columns. Upon driving further into the community, the
site will look much as it does today. On the right side will be the existing park and the homes on
Brenham Way; on the left side will be a linear greenspace. Mounding and landscaping will be
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019
Page 21 of 32
incorporated into that space. The same Tartan Ridge hedge will follow all the sidewalks. In a
number of locations, benches will be provided, giving residents the opportunity to sit. There will
be no long streets or blocks in this community. Although there is a grid pattern, due to the very
short grids, drives and turns, the focus will be on the architecture. On 17 homes, additional
architecture treatment on the sides will be required due to those sides being more exposed to
the view. The lots along the perimeter have been widened and changed to courtyard lots, and a
variance in setbacks will provide architecture that peaks in and out of the view, creating more
interest. The courtyards will provide intimate spaces framed by the architecture. This will be
complemented by other elements that are part of the Tartan Ridge experience, including an
architectural style consistent with the existing development; hedge treatment along all the roads;
and masonry columns adjacent to each driveway. With 56 driveways, there will be 112 masonry
columns, costing a total of $250,000. There will be a significant investment on the landscape
treatment on the street frontages. Every home will have a brick driveway and matching brick
private sidewalks, which is an element not required for the existing Tartan Ridge development.
The pond amenity will now be more central to the units than in the earlier plan. With a fireplace
and covered seating area, it will be a place for the residents to enjoy. Along the perimeter will be
a lush landscape buffer and extensive mounding along Hyland-Croy and McKitrick Roads. Not only
will it buffer the rear of the homes, it also will make the drive along those roads feel pastoral.
This development will replace a proposed use that would not be viable and is unpopular with
many of the Tartan Ridge residents with a use that is in high demand and will serve the needs of
the aging portion of Dublin’s population. In addition, this development will result in a considerable
reduction in the amount of traffic anticipated for the area. Patio homes typically generate less
trips per day than other residential development, and its traffic will not be at peak times. These
high-value homes will have high property taxes but make little impact on the schools. Due to its
many attributes, this is probably the best housing development possible for this area.
Ms. Fox stated that it appears they have discussed the proposed housing development with the
neighbors and attempted to address any concerns.
Mr. McCauley responded that there are two different HOAs. They have met with some of those
board members to receive their input, and a survey was sent out to residents earlier to obtain
feedback.
Ms. Call inquired how the variances in home alignments would impact the front setbacks of the
homes, including the garages and the sidewalks.
Mr. Smith responded that the garage doors do not face the sidewalk. The minimum setback for
the garages is 15 feet from the right-of-way where the sidewalk is located; the maximum distance
is 25 feet. The varied depth in homes will create interest on the street.
Ms. Kennedy inquired if the existing pedestrian trails to Glacier Ridge Elementary Schools would
also connect to this community.
Mr. Ridge responded affirmatively.
Mr. Fishman inquired if the smaller pond would remain wet year round.
Mr. McCauley responded that it would be a dry basin. Although it will provide a potential overflow
area, it would rarely have water.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019
Page 22 of 32
Steve Shell, EMH&T, 5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH, stated that they were taking
advantage of an open area for potential overflow storage, to provide flexibility for the City pond
to the west. The proposed basin may not remain.
Mr. Fishman stated that for aesthetic reasons, the City typically prefers a wet pond, which can
fulfill the same purpose.
Mr. Smith stated that because it is a tight area, there is a concern about having a wet pond there,
which would be connected to the larger pond on the west side. They would work with City
Engineering on that function.
Mr. Shell stated that this would be a “bubble up” system. In higher storm events, upper storage
basins are used. They would only be wet with a 50-year event or above, so water would rarely
be seen in that area.
Mr. Smith stated that stormwater that would typically flow under the surface could bubble up out
of it here during a greater event storm. They would consider the potential opportunity for making
it a wet basin as well as landscaping opportunities, should it remain dry.
Mr. McCauley stated that it would be very difficult to make this a wet pond. It would be necessary
to make the pond even larger to do so.
Ms. Newell stated that if the house on Lot 1 were eliminated, which is staff’s recommendation,
more area would be available.
Mr. McCauley stated that the wet pond would be unnecessary, as there would seldom be a storm
event to make it wet. Because it is a high spot, it would be difficult to make it wet all the time for
aesthetic purposes only.
Ms. Husak stated that the City discourages wet ponds within proximity to a road; a 50-ft. setback
from the right-of-way is typically required.
Mr. Fishman noted that the dry basins he has seen around the City usually are full of weeds and
overgrowth. There would need to be a commitment from the developer that a dry basin would
be well landscaped and maintained.
Mr. Smith responded that they are able to make that commitment. This will be a well maintained
community. The residents will have a high level of expectations. They will work with staff to
ensure what is planted will be maintained and look attractive.
Ms. Kennedy inquired about the price point of these homes.
Mr. Smith responded that the home prices would be approximately $600,000-$650,000.
Mr. Fishman stated that he likes the development, except for Lot 1. He believes eliminating that
lot would improve the greenspace view from the street.
Mr. Smith responded that while he understands his point, having a model home located on that
lot is a critical marketing piece for them. It also would provide a terminus for the architecture of
the greater development, rather than having it bleed out to nowhere. This home will be a
centerpiece, a showpiece for the community.
Mr. Fishman stated that the neighbors would prefer to see open space. Many subdivisions do not
have that, but Tartan Fields does. Its open space is a “Wow”factor. He would concur with staff’s
recommendation to eliminate that lot.
Ms. Call stated that every parcel presents its own unique features. The setbacks along McKitrick
Road here are very nice, and the open space being provided with this development already
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019
Page 23 of 32
exceeds the amount required, which is 3.56 acres. The actual space provided is 7.9 acres. Lot 1
would be in addition to that.
Ms. Kennedy inquired if information regarding proposed developments such as this are shared
with the School District, so that it can be factored into its redistricting considerations.
Ms. Husak responded that she is unsure if the Schools are aware of the proposed development.
However, an empty nester product would not have much impact on their redistricting
considerations.
Mr. Boggs stated that Dublin Schools redistricting is based on projections of development, not
this specific development, but upon expected residential infill within the District’s footprint.
Ms. Call stated that the Schools are aware of the proposed developments that are before the
Commission. This type of development, however, would have little impact.
Ms. Fox stated that she likes the mounding and landscaping along the road. It will create a nice
entrance along Hyland-Croy and McKitrick Roads. She likes the enhancements to the pond
amenity and public gathering area. The mounding appears to stop behind Lot 17, and the
topography around the pond is not extreme. Is there a way to provide connectivity from inside
the development out to Hyland-Croy Road, perhaps with a path? The Community Plan
recommends providing connectivity from one neighborhood to another. Due to the nearby school,
a path connection to Hyland-Croy would be beneficial.
Mr. Smith responded that connectivity has been discussed. The concern is that this is an empty
nester community. They do not want to encourage pedestrian traffic into the community from
the street. They would be willing to explore connectivity from another location, but not directly
from the street. They do not want to advertise a path through the community to be used by
bikers or pedestrian traffic along Hyland-Croy.
Ms. Fox stated that she understands. However, residents of the community would appreciate a
connectivity to the existing bikepath. Perhaps it could be provided on another corner.
Mr. McCauley stated that throughout Tartan Ridge, there are many other connection points.
Residents of this community would have to go outside the community to access one of those
paths, but they are confident the residents would prefer that to the alternative. Today, we are
constructing pedestrian bridges to encourage our community to walk; perhaps it is fine to
encourage the residents of the community to walk down to the street to a central point to access
the 1,000-acre park across the street. To have people cutting through this neighborhood would
not have a desirable impact.
Ms. Fox stated there are many pedestrian and bike paths around the proposed development, so
that opportunity exists. Many of her friends have moved to communities designed for ages 55
and older. What they enjoy is a community center where they can gather. Was there any
consideration for using Lot 1 for that purpose?
Mr. Smith stated that Lot 1 was originally used for a community gathering spot, using the fireplace
feature. However, Romanelli & Hughes has not experienced interest from potential homebuyers
for having a community center, especially in a community this small. It is expensive to support
the needed level of architecture, maintenance, heating and cooling needs by HOA dues from 56
lots. Financially, it would be more possible for a community of 150 patio homes to support a
fitness center.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019
Page 24 of 32
Ms. Fox stated she believes an attractive architectural feature would provide a nice introduction
to the community. Perhaps an open-sided feature without a high level of maintenance would be
an option to consider.
Mr. Smith clarified that the ultimate purpose of Lot 1 for Romanelli & Hughes is to have a model
home to be used as a sales center for the development. A model home will showcase what they
are selling in the community, but its ultimate repurpose is a home.
Mr. McCauley stated that they have been working on developing this area for 12 years and one
year on this specific plan. A model home on Lot 1 will be their sales location, and the home will
be the highlight of the community. After 12 years of effort, eliminating that critical feature is too
great a risk to take. When everything is completed and the hedgerows are present, this piece will
be well integrated into a beautiful development. Taking this one off the board is a significant ask
for the Commission to make of the developer. That home is extremely important to kick off this
community. Gathering places for the community have been incorporated elsewhere in the
development.
Jim Ohlin, Romanelli & Hughes, 148 W. Schrock Road, Westerville Ohio 43081, stated that Lot 1
is the gateway to and the signature piece for the community. Opportunities like this to have a
model that will stand out are very important to them. It will be a showcase at the entrance versus
just another open greenspace. In considering providing amenities, they always consider the
burden that would be placed on the HOA. They are providing multiple amenities within this
community. These homeowners will expect a high level of detail for their mounds, greenspace,
mulch beds, trees and shrubs – and all that comes with a price. From the HOA’s perspective, the
pond overlook, in particular, will require costly maintenance. To include an additional clubhouse
feature for 56 patio homes would be very burdensome to the homeowners. They have spent a
lot of time discussing this layout internally. Former Planning Director Mr. Papsidero has been
integral to that planning effort.
Ms. Newell stated that she agrees with staff’s condition. She understands that L1ot 1 is the
premier property for marketing purposes. However, Lot 2 could serve that purpose just as well.
Eliminating Lot 1 would improve the entry into the community.
Mr. Fishman concurred. In regard to Ms. Fox’s suggestion, he does not believe another amenity
should be placed on Lot 1. Greenspace alone will provide a nice entrance. Lot 2 can be used to
provide a spectacular model home. Overall, he believes the development plan is beautiful.
Public Comment
David Lakin, 7128 Glacier Ridge Boulevard, Dublin, OH, stated that he formerly served on the
Tartan Ridge HOA. He is hopeful that all of the construction traffic will come in from McKitrick
Road and not through the main portion of the neighborhood. He is concerned about the school
crossing for Glacier Ridge Elementary. When they refer to the HOA, are they referring to a new
HOA or the master HOA?
Ms. Husak responded that this development will have a new HOA.
Mr. Lakin inquired if the residents of this new development also would pay into the master HOA.
Current residents pay $800/year to maintain the hedgerows and the City’s open spaces.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019
Page 25 of 32
Ms. Husak responded that, as proposed, they would not.
Mr. Lakin stated that on page 32 of the existing development text, the statement is made that all
residential property owners located within Tartan Ridge PUD shall be required to join and maintain
membership in a forced and funded homeowners association. Why would these homes not be
included, as well? This is important because the master HOA maintains many acres of City land
within Tartan Ridge. They were told that due to the proximity they all have to the land, all should
share the burden of the maintenance cost. It directly affects the residents’ property values and
quality of life. These new homes will share that same neighborhood. It would appear that all the
residents in the existing development will be sharing in the cost of the left turn lane into the new
development, but the new homeowners will not be sharing in the maintenance cost of the
common areas. It would make sense for all the common area to be included in the master HOA,
and all residential homeowners should pay equally into the master HOA.
Ms. Husak stated that there are two HOAs for the area to the north. There is also an HOA for the
alley-loaded lots. Because they also pay into the master HOA, they pay more than $800/year.
Mr. McCauley stated that, as envisioned, the new development would have its own HOA and be
responsible for its 7.5 acres of open space and right-of-way, and not be part of the Tartan Ridge
master HOA. This new development will have a high level of maintenance costs in addition to its
open space, including the pond and pond amenity, the brick driveways and the sidewalks, and
the lawns and landscaping needs for the individual homes. This is a conversation that he and Mr.
Ohlin could have with the Tartan Ridge HOA board to see how they would like to proceed. He is
unsure the master HOA would want to take on what will be a heavy burden for these additional
56 lots. It would require more than $800/year per home to cover those costs.
Mr. Lakin stated that there are two other subareas within the subdivision that pay into their own
HOAs for private roads and specific maintenance within those subareas, in addition to paying in
the master HOA. The maintenance for all the common land, including that which abuts the villa
homes is paid by the master HOA. Although they do not own the land, they are responsible for
the maintenance. If the City of Dublin would be willing to assume some of the responsibility for
maintenance of their own land, that could be an option. Is there any opportunity for the Hyland-
Croy roundabout capital project to be scheduled to coincide with the construction of the turn
lane?
Ms. Newell responded that issue is not part of the purview of the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Mr. Lakin stated that the varieties of the hedge materials in Tartan Ridge were determined by the
City. They have accumulated information on which hedge varieties have lived and which have
not. They would like to share that information with staff at the appropriate time. The HOA has
been burdened with replacing hedges every year, because they are not the correct variety. They
now have historical information on what has proven to be successful within their neighborhood.
Ms. Kennedy referred to Mr. Lakin’s earlier comment about second HOAs that can handle the
specific maintenance needs of their areas. Would it be appropriate for the Commission to provide
such a recommendation for the proposed development?
Mr. Boggs stated that HOA considerations do not address the criteria before the Commission;
however, that item could be addressed by City Council. Without knowing details about the status
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019
Page 26 of 32
of the master HOA and the details of the proposed declarations and covenants for the new HOA,
he cannot provide better guidance. It would be beneficial for the applicant and the master HOA
leadership to meet and discuss these issues.
Ms. Fox suggested a condition be added that information with those details be provided to City
Council for their consideration of this rezoning. The development text does describe the HOA
obligation. This new rezoning area is part of an overall much larger development. If the new
development is being treated differently than the existing development, that is an issue Council
would want to be made aware of.
Mr. Boggs responded that Council would want to be made aware of this matter. Including such a
condition would be responsive to the criteria that the common areas be maintained appropriately.
Typically, Planning staff and the Commission do not address how that occurs other than requiring
that there be a forced and funded HOA. How those responsibilities are shared is not part of this
Commission’s purview.
Ms. Fox stated that the reason she suggests Council be made aware of the matter is, in the past,
Council has been petitioned by HOAs for relief when HOAs have experienced financial burdens
because these specifics were not clearly addressed with the development. It would be preferable
to have a good understanding of this issue as it relates to the overall development and ensure
that an exception is not made that will create a problem for the master HOA, and ultimately, the
City.
Mr. Lakin noted that essentially, this would be defunding the master HOA the funds from the 29
homes that originally were planned in Tartan Ridge – funds he assumes were factored into
calculation of the HOA fee.
Ms. Call stated that the City does not address HOA fund calculations. Looking at the drawing
provided, there is a red dotted line circling the development area; what does that denote?
Ms. Husak responded that an outline of the entire Tartan Ridge development as it exists today
was provided; the hatched area designates the proposed development area.
Ms. Call stated that, in her view, if this area is being included in Tartan Ridge, it should be included
financially, as well. That may mean that a sub association is needed to address the maintenance
of the greater amenities in the proposed development. Although that is outside the purview of
this Commission, it needs to be addressed by some party. Perhaps the Commission could direct
staff to determine the proper body to address it and ensure that it is communicated to City
Council.
Mr. Fishman agreed, noting that perhaps these residents should pay into the master HOA and
have their own sub association, as well. However, much of this area originally was planned as
commercial property. The commercial area was not part of the earlier HOA fee calculation.
Mr. Lakin responded that there were two parcels involved. The commercial component was
planned on the right edge, and 29 homes are in the remaining area.
Mr. McCauley stated that, currently, he is not sufficiently knowledgeable of the master HOA
document provisions; however, they would abide by the stated terms. If the documents state
that this area is to be included in the overall forced and funded HOA, they will comply. If the
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019
Page 27 of 32
documents are unclear on the matter, they would discuss the issue with the master HOA
leadership. In addition to lawns, this new area also will have 7.5 acres of open space and a pond
amenity. The master HOA may not want to maintain that area. Because this area will have a
higher degree of maintenance demands, the applicant was willing to handle that financial
responsibility in its entirety. The anticipated financial costs would be calculated, and the parties
would meet and discuss them.
Mr. Lakin stated that the Stavroff group has been excellent to work with, and he has spoken with
Mr. McCauley frequently. They like the proposed development plan. In regard to a home on Lot
1 – as a resident in the community, he has no objection to the developer’s plan.
Kevin Lutz, 9179 Brenham Way, Dublin, stated that his home is located across from the stubbed
street. If that street were to cut through, vehicle lights would be an issue for his family; he
appreciates the consideration that was made. Although he would prefer the area remain a
soybean field, development will inevitably occur. He has heard that they have been trying to
identify the right development for 12 years. It is better that it be development that is controlled,
and a residential development is much better than the 68,000 square feet of commercial that
could have been programmed. That amount of commercial space would not be a coffee shop and
ice cream parlor; it would be a strip mall. He applauds the work that has been done with the
streets, avoiding any direct access off Hyland-Croy Road that would have resulted in cut-through
traffic through their neighborhood. Glacier Ridge Elementary School is their neighbor. Putting any
commercial development here would have required a significant level of caution. Having an
empty-nester neighborhood makes much more sense. From 3:00-4:00 p.m., Brenham Way is
occupied by 20-25 vehicles making school pickups. The proposed development will complement
that practice. If a showcase home on Lot 1 will sell all the houses in the division faster, then he
supports giving them Lot 1. He would prefer the building process not take eight years! What
their neighborhood needs is to be connected. They do not have a bikepath connection. For his
children to ride their bikes to Jerome High School, they must either walk their bikes along Hyland-
Croy Road or cut through a cornfield. This project will permit a bikepath to be constructed from
Glacier Ridge Elementary to Jerome High School, meeting a real need. Although the residents
may not want to pay for another left turn lane, that is a better option than the two left-turn lanes
that would have occurred with a commercial development. In that case, a left-turn lane off
Hyland-Croy Road would have been necessary, as well. There would also be a curbcut on the
needed bikepath. Currently, the stretch of road from the elementary school to McKitrick Road has
no curbcuts, so children can bike safely down to that intersection.
Ms. Kennedy stated she appreciates the great public feedback and their opinions regarding a
house on Lot 1. The Commission appreciates hearing the voice of the residents.
Max Long, 1057 Hyland Croy Road, Dublin, stated that Jerome Township, Union County and the
City of Dublin have worked together on forming a comprehensive plan – The Crossroads Area
Plan. In 2015, the City agreed to Jerome Township’s and Union County’s plan. In the Land Use
Plan, it was indicated that a rural area would be maintained throughout Hyland Croy Road. Jerome
Village has already built 27 homes; 38 homes are planned; and a total of 5,300 homes are
projected. In addition to Glacier Ridge Elementary, another elementary and middle school will be
added on the same road. Glacier Ridge Elementary is set back 200 feet. When the Oak Park
development was adopted, 230 feet of road frontage was required. For Corazon, 300 feet was
required; for the Pulte Homes Autumn Rose development, 215 feet of road frontage was required.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019
Page 28 of 32
Does the text for this development require that the ROW be extended from 40 feet to 50 feet
from the center of the road?
Mr. Ridge responded that is the fourth condition, which was added after the staff report was
distributed.
Mr. Long stated the road is at the back of the pond. Lots 8 - 17 are within 100 feet of the road.
Mid Ohio Regional Planning Commission has indicated that Hyland-Croy will be changed to a four-
lane road with an island. When that is completed, will any setback remain? On the Corazon
property to the south, the islands are built up, earthen dams with trees, so those homes cannot
be seen. According to page 4-2 of this plan, the backs of the homes will not be exposed to the
existing road; yet, Lots 8-17 are within 100 feet of the road. The plan also provides for the homes
to be architecturally staggered on the lots. With only a 3 to 5-foot mound, there will be a direct
view into the rear patios of these homes. It was understood that new residential development
was not to be permitted to encroach upon this area. What will the distance be between the
anticipated traffic circle and Lot 8?
Mr. Ridge responded that he does not have that information at hand.
Mr. Long stated that for comparison purposes, Glacier Ridge Elementary has a 250-foot setback.
The O’Brien property at 9635 Hyland Croy has a 450-foot setback, and the other properties to
the south range from 300 feet to 200 feet. Dublin has preserved that setback in the past. There
will also be a path immediately next to the road. He does not want his children walking along this
road. He lives on this road, which has a 45-mph speed limit. It is often difficult to exit their
driveway. This is a heavily traveled road, and these houses will be next to the road. The area
plans, including the Jerome Township Comprehensive Plan and the Crossroads Area Plan required
some setbacks. The Gorden Property in Dublin provides a 50-ft. setback from the right-of-way;
adjacent to that is a service road, and an additional 100 feet is required on the inside before
building is permitted. That plan provides a significant open area -- why was nothing similar
required for this development? He is concerned this development will destroy the rural feel driving
along Hyland-Croy Road.
Commission Questions
Ms. Newell inquired if the City Code has setback requirements for this area. At one time, certain
City roadways were considered scenic, typically with requirements for 200-foot setbacks. Does
the Community Plan address this?
Ms. Husak stated that the speaker referred to The Crossroads Plan. Staff has reviewed that plan,
discussed the issue with Union County and verified that The Crossroads Plan does not address
homes backing up to Hyland-Croy Road. Many of the properties that were mentioned are not
within the City’s jurisdiction. All properties on the west side of Hyland-Croy Road are in Jerome
Township and were developed as very rural lots. The City’s Zoning Code does not require a
setback greater than the right-of-way width. Some of the neighborhoods, such as Bishop’s
Crossing, Bishop’s Run and Park Place, which are now 10-15 years old, were built when the City
was working on a plan called, “The Road to WOW.” That plan, which was never adopted,
proposed standards for greater setbacks from Hyland-Croy Road, and in exchange, higher density
would be permitted. The 2007 Community Plan provided for the roadway characteristics of a
scenic, rural roadway with a setback requirement of 200 feet. The Community Plan was updated
in 2013, along with the Northwest Glacier Ridge Area Plan, and that revision eliminated some of
the roadway characteristics and setbacks. The current setback requirement is 80-100 feet. What
is proposed with this plan is 100 feet, so it is consistent with the Community Plan. The Community
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019
Page 29 of 32
Plan is a policy document. Mr. Long is referring to Township documents, which the City of Dublin
does not have. She is unsure if the Township’s 2018 document has the same language, although
that document has not been approved.
Ms. Newell referred to Exhibit C-1, which is an EMH&T plan. Running along Hyland-Croy Road,
there are a number of dashed lines; what do they denote?
Mr. Smith stated that there are existing easements along Hyland-Croy Road, including a gas line.
He believes the dashed lines designate those lines.
Ms. Newell inquired if there are any easements for future roadway improvements.
Mr. Smith responded that there are not. However, they will be dedicating 50 feet of right-of-way
along Hyland-Croy Road, pre staff’s request, which will result in a total of 100 feet.
Mr. McCauley stated that the existing zoning, which includes the commercial development,
permitted the development to be closer than 200 feet. He believes a setback of 150 feet was
permitted. The new plan will provide 100 feet from the future road right-of-way.
Ms. Husak stated that staff has verified the future easement is for gas lines.
Mr. Smith stated that he previously served as the Zoning Officer for Jerome Township, so he is
familiar with the aforementioned documents. He was present when the Township, City and the
County adopted the Crossroads Area Plan. That plan never contemplated land up this far. Its
focus area was the area surrounding Costco, the additional piece of industrial land at the
intersection of SR161 and US33, and the Jacquemin Farms and Gorden Farms pieces. The
different entities were attempting to reach a common ground on that area. He also wrote the
Township’s Comprehensive Plan in 2009. That plan does not contemplate 200-foot setbacks from
anything. It does address land use, rural development and conservation development. Specific
setbacks were not established for any roads. From a Code standpoint, rural residential lots within
the Township must have a minimum setback of 50 feet from the right-of-way. From Jerome
Township’s perspective, additional setback for any new development within the Township is
preferred. Of the last four-five past developments, however, where houses backed up to the road,
nothing more than 80-100 feet was required. This development would be consistent with the
Township’s policy.
Ms. Call stated that the bikepath is shown in the drawings as continuing along the existing trail
that runs adjacent to Glacier Ridge and continuing down to the roundabout. Is there a schedule
for phasing in that path along with the development?
Mr. McCauley responded that it would be installed when the street paving occurs, or soon
thereafter.
Ms. Newell stated that one of the previous citizen comments referred to the location of the
construction entrance. Has the location of that entrance been determined?
Mr. McCauley stated that he does not believe it has, but he does not believe there would be any
objection to having it off McKitrick Road.
Ms. Fox referred to the condition requiring elimination of the home on Lot 1. Like Mr. Fishman,
she does not support dry retention basins. They tend to look unfinished. From an engineering
standpoint, what are the options to make it look attractive? That is at the main entrance. She
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019
Page 30 of 32
would not be opposed to having an attractive piece of architecture in that location. Otherwise,
there would be an unattractive dry basin and a flat field.
Ms. Call requested clarification of the reason for staff’s recommendation to delete Lot 1.
Mr. Ridge stated that staff recommended that it be deleted because it appeared isolated from the
remaining lots, is shaped irregularly and is larger than the other lots.
Mr. McCauley stated that they could agree to remove the dry basin concept, leaving it as open
greenspace with some landscaping. They would work with staff on how to modify the other pond
appropriately for the site. However, they do need to have Lot 1 remain. As heard tonight, the
neighbors support Lot 1 remaining in the plan. Although it appears irregularly shaped in the plans,
when completed, it will be as attractive as the other lots. Therefore, he would request that
condition be removed. They have no objection to the remaining conditions.
Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Supelak indicated that they have no objection to Lot 1 remaining.
Mr. Fishman requested clarification of the height of the mounding along Hyland-Croy Road.
Mr. Ridge responded that it would be three to five feet in height and include trees.
Mr. Fishman stated that he would like to see it heavily landscaped, but not with landscaping
material, per se. He would prefer pine trees or something that will achieve an opaque screening.
Ms. Newell stated that a variety of plantings could achieve that.
Mr. Fishman stated that the plan appeared to provide many deciduous trees. He requested that
the applicant commit to making the screening opaque – in whatever way that might be achieved.
Mr. Smith stated that there would be an opportunity for discussion of landscaping details with the
Final Development Plan. They are required to bring back a Final Landscape Plan to the
Commission.
Ms. Newell inquired if the applicant is in agreement with the revised five conditions.
Mr. McCauley confirmed the applicant was in agreement.
Ms. Kennedy moved, Mr. Fishman seconded to recommend approval of the rezoning with
Preliminary Development Plan to City Council with the following five conditions:
1) That the Preliminary Development Plan subarea map be revised to include the
existing storm water management pond in the southeast portion of the site that
is to be redesigned, prior to Council review;
2) That the applicant continue to work with staff to ensure that the street names
and naming method is appropriate;
3) That the applicant work with staff to clarify HOA membership;
4) That the applicant remove the dry basin and add green space and landscaping
within the area, subject to staff approval; and
5) That the applicant provide opaque landscaping in the mounding along Hyland
Croy Road.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019
Page 31 of 32
Vote: Mr. Supelak, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Ms.
Newell, yes.
[Motion passed 6-0]
Ms. Newell inquired if the applicant is in agreement with the four conditions.
Mr. McCauley confirmed the applicant was in agreement.
Ms. Call moved, Ms. Kennedy seconded to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat to City
Council with the following four conditions:
1) That the applicant ensures that any minor technical adjustments and updates
to the plat in accordance with the accompanying Preliminary Development Plan
are made prior to City Council submittal;
2) That the applicant continue to work with staff to ensure that the street names
are approved and indicated appropriately on the plat; and
3) That the applicant revise the Preliminary Plat prior to Council review to reflect
a typical chamfer at the corner of Hyland-Croy Road and McKitrick Road, as
required by Code.
4) That the applicant revise the plat to accurately display the planned 100-foot
right-of-way for Hyland-Croy Road.
Vote: Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Ms.
Call, yes.
[Motion passed 6-0]
6. Dublin Gateway (Gorden Development), 7270 & 7150 Hyland-Croy Road,
17-061, Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan
A request to rezone ±45.4 acres from Rural District to Planned Unit Development District to
facilitate the future development of 91 single-family homes and up to 200 living units for seniors
with varying levels of care in one or more buildings and approximately 12.7 acres of open space.
7. Dublin Gateway (Gorden Development), 7270 & 7150 Hyland-Croy Road,
17-061, Preliminary Plat
A request to subdivide ±45.4 acres into one lot for a senior care facility and 91 single-family lots,
rights-of-way for five public streets, and six open space reserves.
Ms. Call moved, Mr. Supelak seconded to table Cases 6 and 7.
Vote: Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Mr.
Supelak, yes.
[Motion passed 6-0]
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Rauch reported that staff is attempting to schedule a joint meeting with City Council, the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the Architectural Review Board shortly after the beginning