Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Ordinance 82-21
To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager Date: November 30, 2021 Initiated By: Megan O’Callaghan, P.E., Deputy City Manager/Chief Finance and Development Officer Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Director Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner Re: Ordinance 82-21 – Hyland Glen Rezoning approximately 42.5 acres from R, Rural District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District for development of 102 single-family lots with 12.4 acres of open space and associated site improvements on the east side of Hyland- Croy Road, north of the intersection with Post Road under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050 (Case 21-117Z/PDP). Update Ordinance 82-21 was introduced to City Council on November 8, 2021 and postponed to December 6, 2021 to allow the applicant additional time to prepare information requested. Council expressed support for the proposal and recommended approach for Gateway Reserve A. Members requested additional information regarding the lot and building coverages to accommodate outdoor amenities, maintenance proforma, and stormwater ownership and maintenance responsibilities. The applicant has provided these items for Council’s review. Building/Lot Coverage City Council requested the applicant provide graphics to demonstrate how outdoor amenities will be accommodated on the lots. The applicant has prepared a series of graphics showing the variety of lot sizes with the building footprint, driveway and area within the rear yard for patio space. The development text has also been updated to require a minimum of 10 feet between the building and the required rear yard setback to allow for patio or outdoor living space. A home may encroach within the 10-foot setback provided a minimum of 140 square feet is provided for the patio or outdoor living space. Maintenance Proforma City Council expressed concerns about the costs provided in the maintenance proforma for the development and requested the costs be updated to account for inflation, which has been completed. As with the initial version, Parks Operations has reviewed the proposed information and determined it reflects the appropriate items and cost. Stormwater Maintenance City Council requested information regarding the background for stormwater ownership and maintenance responsibilities to understand how the current proposal fits within the overall Office of the City Manager 5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017-1090 Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 Memo Memo re. Ord. 82-21 Hyland Glen – Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan November 30, 2021 Page 2 of 14 Citywide policy. The ownership and maintenance responsibility of stormwater management basins in residential subdivisions within Dublin has evolved over time. Prior to approximately 1999, homeowners’ associations (HOAs) maintained stormwater basins located within their neighborhoods. This responsibility was established for a residential subdivision at the time the subdivision was being reviewed and approved through Dublin’s planning and development review process. From roughly 1999 to 2015, the past practice was changed and Dublin received ownership of residential basins while HOAs received the maintenance responsibility. This resulted in 46 of the 154 residential stormwater basins owned by Dublin being maintained by an HOA. Presently, the current practice is for the ownership and maintenance of a residential stormwater basin to be determined on a case-by-case basis during the planning and development review process. Since 2015, nearly all residential stormwater basins within a subdivision are constructed on land to be owned by the City of Dublin (typically designated as “Reserve” areas) and maintained by the City of Dublin. This current practice is due to the City of Dublin being best suited to maintain residential stormwater basins to ensure they are properly maintained and in good working order, and the desire to not add to the 46 basins previously mentioned. The current practice has been applied to several recently approved subdivisions which include Riviera, Autumn Rose Woods, the Overlook at Tartan Ridge and Aryshire Farms. While the Dublin Community Services Advisory Commissions (CSAC) and the Public Services Committee of Council have reviewed and discussed the maintenance of residential stormwater management basins, there has not been any formal policy or recommendation adopted by City Council. This has resulted in the maintenance responsibility being determined on a case-by-case basis. Summary Ordinance 82-21 is a request for review and approval of a rezoning from R, Rural District, to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Hyland Glen), for 42.5 acres located in Union County to facilitate development of 102 single-family homes, at density of 2.4 dwelling units per acre, with 12.4 acres of open space and associated site improvements in accordance with the Dublin Community Plan. Background On September 16, 2021, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and recommended approval to City Council of the Hyland Glen rezoning, brought forth by The Paragon Building Group (Virginia Homes), finding the recommendations of the Community Plan and criteria in the Zoning Code met. Previously on December 7, 2020, City Council disapproved a rezoning request, brought forth by Schottenstein Real Estate Group, for development of 90 single-family lots and 150 unit Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) with 12.4 acres of open space and associated site improvements finding the recommendations of the Community Plan and criteria in the Zoning Code not met. Memo re. Ord. 82-21 Hyland Glen – Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan November 30, 2021 Page 3 of 14 Process Establishing a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is a three-step process: 1) Concept Plan; 2) Preliminary Development Plan/Rezoning; and 3) Final Development Plan. The proposed Hyland Glen neighborhood completed the first step in May 2021. The proposed preliminary development plan/rezoning application is the second step in the PUD process. Each preliminary development plan/rezoning application presents a unique set of circumstances distinct from previous proposals. A preliminary development plan establishes the framework for future development and a rezoning establishes the right to develop in accordance with the preliminary development plan. Following the approval of the preliminary development plan, an applicant may proceed to the third step in the process, which is the final development plan, where details including architecture, landscaping, and sign design are finalized. The criteria set forth in the Zoning Code for approval of a preliminary development plan/rezoning are provided for reference at the end of this memo. The Gateway Reserve (Reserve A) located at the intersection of Hyland-Croy Road and Post Road is under consideration as a future standalone Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project to be designed, constructed, and maintained by the City of Dublin excluding any commitments of the developer as detailed in the Infrastructure Agreement. Identifying Reserve A as a city-led project provided City Council the option of deferring final determination of the preservation of historic structures located outside the extent of the stormwater management basin. Specifically, Council may defer a decision on preservation/demolition of the home, barn, granary and cellar until the gateway improvement is designed. This strategy provides additional time to thoughtfully coordinate the design of Reserve A with Post Road Interchange construction and incorporate a city entrance feature. City Council will have the opportunity to review the project scope and design details as part of the CIP update process as well as with the bid acceptance for the project. Neighborhood Engagement The developer has engaged the surrounding neighbors by sharing the development plan with a representative of the Post Preserve HOA, which was subsequently distributed to the neighborhood. Similarly, City of Dublin Staff has been in regular contact with surrounding neighbors to ensure the latest information regarding the US-33/SR 161/Post Road interchange, including allowance for right-in-right-out at Post Preserve Boulevard, and Hyland Glen subdivision are made available. The neighborhood is supportive of a new single-family neighborhood in lieu of the previously proposed ACLF. Single-family lots of comparable sizes to the existing neighborhoods are particularly appreciated along the north and east bounds of the site. Community Plan The Community Plan is a key policy document adopted by City Council to guide decision-making for the future of Dublin’s natural and built environments. When a rezoning is under consideration it is important to consider the Community Plan recommendations. Future Land Use Classifications The Community Plan identifies two future land use classifications for the proposed site: the northern third is Suburban Residential Low Density (1-2 dwelling units per acre), and the Memo re. Ord. 82-21 Hyland Glen – Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan November 30, 2021 Page 4 of 14 southern two thirds is Mixed Residential Low Density (up to 3 dwelling units per acre). Specifically: Suburban Residential Low Density (1-2 du/ac) “Modern suburban residential pattern that characterizes most development in Dublin. Residences are primarily composed of single-family dwellings on lot sizes that commonly average 0.25-acre. Public services are necessary, and larger projects may include a mix of densities that together do not exceed the average density.” Mixed Residential Low Density (Up to 3.0 du/ac) “Areas are intended to provide a mix of housing options and transition from existing single- family neighborhoods at a typical density of 3.0 du/ac.” Proposal The proposal is for development of 102 residential lots with 12.4 acres of open space on a 42.5 acre site. The proposed density is 2.4 dwelling units to the acre, which aligns with the Community Plan recommendations of up to 113 lots under the two future land use recommendations. Northwest Glacier Ridge – Special Area Plan General The Area Plan highlights a need to protect the rural and natural character of the area, and encourages context sensitive roadway design with native and naturalized plantings incorporated into open spaces, varying setbacks, and rights-of-way. Additionally, the Special Area Plan includes a specific recommendation to “preserve farmstead structures for integration with open space setbacks”. Further detail regarding historic preservation is provided below. Proposal The proposed development is consistent with the established character of the Hyland- Croy Road corridor by providing a variable 100-foot setback and is consistent with the adjacent neighborhood lot sizes along the north and east boundaries. The plan incorporates preservation of select historic structures into the Gateway Reserve (Reserve A). Historic and Cultural Resources The site contains a historic farmstead located at the intersection of Hyland-Croy Road and Post Road. The Gorden Farmstead dates to the early 20th century, with a series of structures built and demolished overtime between 1900 and 2010. Today, the farmstead is comprised of series of structures, with approximate periods of construction: a house (1900-1930, 1955), a barn (early 1900s), milking parlor (later addition to barn), cow shed (1900-1930s), milk house (early 1900s), tool shed (1980), steer shed (much later addition to barn), granary (early 1900s), and cellar (1930s). Previously demolished structures, with year demolished, include an outhouse (1962), chicken house (2010), and tool shed (2010). The farmstead is not under the purview of the Architectural Review Board as it is not listed on Appendix G: Outlying Historic Properties. Although is considered in the City’s 2017 Historic and Cultural Assessment (HCA), which identified the farmstead, as a unit, is ‘Recommended Eligible’ Memo re. Ord. 82-21 Hyland Glen – Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan November 30, 2021 Page 5 of 14 for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Although noted that a number of the structures have been modified overtime and/or have fallen into disrepair. The structures were not individually evaluated at the time. The property has been visited and reviewed by Preservation Designs, the City’s historic preservation consultant and as well as Structural Erectors, a construction firm with expertise in historic structures as well as numerous City Staff from a variety of departments and a representative of the Dublin Historic Society. Preservation Designs performed a detailed review of the existing structures and Structural Erectors provided a cost estimate to rehabilitate, stabilize, or demolish each structure. Additionally, Staff reviewed the demolition criteria for historic structures set forth in the ARB Code recognizing that this property is not subject to the criteria. Full reports are provided in Council’s packet with the findings summarized below. Preservation Designs Preservation Designs evaluated the property as a group of historic structures as well as the nine individual historic structures (A-I). The evaluation takes into account the City’s 2017 HCA and provides a more detailed review. Preservation Designs concluded that the entire complex, with exception of the tool shed, is an excellent example of a twentieth-century farmstead and is eligible as a whole complex for the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A (event) and Criteria C (design/construction). Additionally, the barn (B) and the farmhouse (A) were each determined to be eligible under Criteria C on their individual merit due to the construction technique and overall integrity. The remaining structures were noted to contribute to the overall farmstead complex and Memo re. Ord. 82-21 Hyland Glen – Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan November 30, 2021 Page 6 of 14 recommended to be retained if the City were to retain a majority of the structures but not recommended to be retained if only a portion of structures are preserved. Structural Erectors (SE) Structural Erectors provided estimated costs for rehabilitation and demolition of each structure are based on Preservation Designs report dated June 30, 2021 and on a site visit on October 7, 2021. The farmhouse, barn, milking parlor, cow shed, milk house, steer shed, granary, and cellar were evaluated. The tool shed was not evaluated. The cow shed (D), milk house (E), tool shed (F), and steer shed (G) are within the area of influence of the proposed stormwater management basin and are proposed to be demolished. Historic Analysis The farmstead is not under the purview of the Architectural Review Board as it is located outside of the Historic District and is not identified on Appendix G. For reference purposes, staff has reviewed the proposed demolition against the review criteria to provide a frame of reference for Council’s review. For contributing properties, the review criteria focus on whether an economic hardship exists necessitating demolition. It is important to note that the City is not seeking an economic return on investment. 1) Will all economically viable use of the property be deprived without approval of the demolition? 2) Will the reasonable investment-backed expectations of the property owner be maintained without approval of the demolition? 3) Was the economic hardship created or exacerbated by the property owner? The use of these above criteria are intended to understand the property owner’s future use and economic viability of the property, and whether retaining the historic structures impairs that future use. The proposal is the complete redevelopment of the Gorden property for residential development in alignment with the Future Land Use recommendations. The Community Plan recognizes the historic farmstead and recommends the retention of structures to preserve the historic character. The Gateway Reserve has been identified and set aside to provide a gateway amenity at the Hyland-Croy and Post Roads intersection, and US-33/SR 161 interchange that include the retention of several historic structures, passive amenities and required stormwater management for the larger redevelopment of the remainder of the site. The development proposal strives to balance development potential, infrastructure improvements, stormwater management, and historic preservation. As identified, four structures are required to be removed to accommodate the required stormwater basin and associated grading, which include the cow shed, milk house, tool shed, and steer shed. The remaining structures on the site include farmhouse, cellar, barn, milking parlor and granary and require Council’s determination regarding retention or demolition. The following analysis provides an overview of the findings to assist with this determination. Memo re. Ord. 82-21 Hyland Glen – Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan November 30, 2021 Page 7 of 14 A. Farmhouse The exterior of the home has undergone significant alterations, but overall the home was identified as an excellent example of an early 20th century farmhouse and maintains excellent interior integrity. The structural analysis identified foundation problems related to water, structural issues with the roof, as well as aesthetic alterations needed (roof replacement, painting and interior/exterior details). This structure was identified with the largest cost to rehabilitate. B. Barn The barn was identified as an excellent example of an early 20th century barn and demonstrates detailed historic construction technique (mortise and tenon with saw cut patterns). Minor repairs were identified that include wood siding repairs and painting. C. Milking Parlor The parlor was attached to the barn as a later addition. It requires stabilization or removal to address the structure issues identified or it will impact the barn. The parlor was identified to need extensive roof and structural repairs and replacement. D. Cow Shed (to be removed - conflicts with stormwater) The cow shed is adjacent to the barn and milking parlor, but structurally independent. The analysis identified structural decay to the foundation walls, framing and exterior over time. The cow shed was identified to need extensive roof and structural repairs and replacement. E. Milk House (to be removed - conflicts with stormwater) The milk house includes a cinder block masonry construction with minor deterioration, and the analysis identified painting and roof replacement. Historic Structure Analysis Historic Structure NRHP Eligible Rehabilitate ($) Demolish ($) A. Farmhouse Complex and Individually 250,000 19,800 B. Barn Complex and Individually 19,600 N/A C. Milking Parlor Complex 19,400 8,700 D. Cow Shed (To be removed - conflicts with stormwater) Complex 28,400 9,200 E. Milk House (To be removed - conflicts with stormwater) Complex 4,800 3,800 F. Tool Shed (To be removed - no historic value/conflicts with stormwater) N/A N/A N/A G. Steer Shed (To be removed - conflicts with stormwater) Complex 21,800 5,800 H. Granary Complex 28,300 5,800 I. Cellar Complex 12,300 3,800 Memo re. Ord. 82-21 Hyland Glen – Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan November 30, 2021 Page 8 of 14 F. Tool Shed (no historic value/to be removed) The tool shed is not considered eligible and was not evaluated. G. Steer Shed (to be demolished - conflicts with stormwater) The steer shed was identified to have structural decay to the foundation, framing and exterior over time. The analysis identified the need for wood repairs, paint and roof replacement. H. Granary The granary is located on the axis with the barn and includes the same circular saw cuts as the barn, which emphasizes a unique relationship between the barn and the granary. Moderate deterioration was identified and steps should be taken to stabilize. The analysis identified the need for wood repairs, paint, roof replacement, and wood foundation repair. I. Cellar The cellar was not identified as a distinctive construction, but the location and date provide relationship to the farmhouse. The analysis identified the need for wood repairs, paint and roof replacement. Recommendation Staff considered the location of the site and particularly the home at the exit ramp of the US-33/SR 161/Post Road Interchange improvements and adjacent shared use path. Staff reviewed the programmatic requirements that would be needed to ensure the historic areas are accessible (i.e. parking, restrooms), as well as site programming as the majority of our historic barns are a passive amenity excluding the Coffman Homestead which has extensive grounds, parking, and restrooms. Staff has discussed alternative measures to represent the homestead could be remembered should not all structures be retained. The final details of the landscape design including preservation, programming, plant selections, and other amenities will be developed as a CIP project lead by the City of Dublin with City Council’s review and approval. In consideration of all factors outlined above, Staff recommends preservation of two historic structures with this development, which include the barn and the granary with all other structures recommended to be removed. The preservation of these two structures (barn and granary) retain the relationship between the outbuildings as one of the most unique attributes of a farmstead, and provide the opportunity to preserve Dublin’s past while also providing integration with future improvements in the area. Should Council determine preservation of structure in addition to the barn and the granary require further consideration, the determination on additional structures may be deferred to consideration of a future CIP project. Thoroughfare Plan Hyland-Croy Road is located within Union County’s jurisdiction. The planned right-of-way width identified in the Thoroughfare Plan is 100 feet. The Thoroughfare Plan calls for Hyland-Croy Road to be a rural character roadway, which is characterized by generous setbacks ranging from 100 to 200 feet, integration of open views and vistas into adjacent development, naturalized landscaping focusing on native species, and the use of trees, fencerows or Memo re. Ord. 82-21 Hyland Glen – Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan November 30, 2021 Page 9 of 14 woodland plantings to provide additional screening. Final detail of how these characteristics are achieved will be provided in the final development plan. Proposal The project provides the necessary 50 feet of additional right-of-way required by the Community Plan. The plan also accommodates ample space to establish a rural character roadway along Hyland-Croy Road. Overview Site The 42.5 acre site is comprised of two parcels and has approximately 3,300 feet of frontage along Hyland-Croy Road and 500 feet of frontage along Post Road. Each parcel contains a residence with access to Hyland-Croy Road. A historic farmstead is located along Post Road. The site is surrounded by established single-family neighborhoods. Three existing street connections stub into the undeveloped site: Springview Lane, Stillhouse Lane, and Holbein Drive. Preliminary Development Plan Three sections of development are proposed. Section 1 contains 40 lots in the ‘middle’ of the site between Springview Lane and the South Fork of the Indian Run. Section 2 contains 33 lots south of Springview Lane and north of the Gateway Reserve. Section 3 contains 29 lots north of the South Fork of Indian Run and south of Park Place. The main access into the site is from Hyland-Croy Road onto Moorland Drive, which is the centrally located along the frontage of the site. There are two secondary access points along Hyland-Croy Road: a restricted access point at Springview Lane and full access point at Holbein Drive. A connection is provided through Stillhouse Lane to the Post Preserve subdivision. Approximately 12.4 acres of open space are provided across reserves (A-F). Reserve A is a community Gateway Reserve. The final design and programming of the Gateway Reserve is not under consideration with the preliminary development plan request and will be considered by City Council with a future CIP project with the exception of the stormwater management basin including historic structures within the area of influence basin as set forth in the Infrastructure Agreement Details Uses/Density Hyland Glen permits single-family residential, parks and open space, model homes and sales offices, and home occupation. The density proposed is 2.4 dwelling units to the acre (du/ac). Surrounding neighborhood densities are as follows: • Post Preserve – 1.85 du/ac • Park Place – 1.54 du/ac • Wyndham Village – 1.9 du/ac • Autumn Rose Woods – 1.55 du/ac Memo re. Ord. 82-21 Hyland Glen – Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan November 30, 2021 Page 10 of 14 Development Standards *Patios may not encroach into any setback Architecture/Building Materials Four base single-family homes are proposed, which include a variety of architectural styles (Craftsman, Euro, and Traditional) to meet architectural diversity requirements defined in the development text. The color palette is proposed to consist of natural earth tones in a warm and cool hues. Homes fronting Hyland-Croy Road are required to have additional architectural elements including, but not limited to a stone/synthetic stone watertable, shutters with operable hardware, or masonry entry piers. The development text permits 1-2-story homes with a maximum height of 35 feet, which is consistent with the Code allowances in residential zoning districts. The proposal is to permit a variety of primary cladding materials, specifically all-natural materials, including: brick, stone, manufactured stone, wood, engineered wood, fiber cement siding, stucco or any combination thereof. The text also defines trim materials permitted for trim that include: wood, PVC, foam, and fiber cement products. Foam trim is not permitted at ground level. Permitted roof materials are dimensional asphalt shingles (240lbs/sq weight) and metal standing seam. Windows are permitted to be vinyl. Front loaded garages are permitted, and decorative doors with stamped pattern and hardware are required. Garage doors are permitted to be up to 50 percent to be consistent with other neighborhoods previously approved in Dublin. Storage sheds are prohibited within the subdivision while fences and pools are permitted per Code. Minimum Requirements Requirement Interior Lots Perimeter Lots Lot Area 6,660 sq. ft. Lot Width 60 feet south of Indian Run; 70 feet north of Indian Run Lot Depth 110 ft. Front Yard Setback 20 ft. Side Yard Setback* 5 ft. 7.5 ft., except lots 48 and 55 then 10 ft. is required adjacent to Post Preserve Rear Yard Setback* 10 ft. 25 ft. for north; 30 ft. for east Minimum Distance Between Structures 12 ft. Max. Lot Coverage 70% 60% Parking 2 garage spaces and 2 driveway spaces per home Memo re. Ord. 82-21 Hyland Glen – Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan November 30, 2021 Page 11 of 14 Open Space Seven reserves of open space are proposed to be established. Details are as follows: Open Space Reserve Ownership and Maintenance Reserve Description Ownership Maintenance A (Gateway) Future CIP Project 2.0-acres Gateway Reserve located at intersection of Post and Hyland-Glen Roads including historic structures, shared-use paths, and agricultural landscaping to be determined as part of a future CIP project. Stormwater basin and other improvements required of the developer by the Infrastructure Agreement will be detailed with the FDP City City B 0.7-acre Hyland-Croy Road setback south of Springview Lane. The reserve includes entry features and a shared-use path. City HOA C 1.0-acre Hyland-Croy Road setback between Springview Lane and Moorland Drive. The reserve includes entry features and a shared-use path. City HOA D Each 3.8-acres open space reserves north of Moorland Drive and south of Holbein Drive. The South Fork of the Indian Run divides the two reserves. The area includes two stormwater management basins, entry features, and shared-use paths and will also provide for a continuation of the open space and wildlife corridor from Indian Run Meadows west through Red Trabue along the South Fork of the Indian Run. City City/HOA* E City City/HOA* F 1.1-acre in size and is the Hyland-Croy Road setback north of Holbein Drive. The reserve includes entry features and a shared-use path. City HOA *The City shall only maintain storm water management basins and appurtenances thereto which serve storm water functionality An Open Space Maintenance proforma has been provided, as a condition of approval, to City Council for consideration. The proforma is intended to anticipate HOA maintenance costs and dues. The proforma excludes the Gateway Reserve as it will be owned, designed, and maintained by City. Parks Operations reviewed the proforma and found it to be consistent with present day costs, and recommends the budget be revised to include costs for weekly bed maintenance. Transportation Analysis Traffic Impact Study As the property is requesting rezoning for the proposed land uses, the applicant is required to have a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) performed by a qualified professional engineer. The TIS models the traffic on the existing roadways, evaluates impacts of the additional traffic on the surrounding roadway network and recommends mitigation measures for these impacts. In July 2021, the applicant submitted a TIS as required for this rezoning application, which was considered prior to the September 16, 2021 PZC meeting. The City of Dublin and the Union County Engineer’s Office are partners in the review of the TIS as Hyland-Croy Road is within Union County’s right-of-way. The initial study provided an analysis of the anticipated traffic generated by the proposed development. The study provided at the time of the PZC hearing recommended certain improvements to mitigate the anticipated development traffic impacts, but was not yet accepted by the City of Dublin or the Union County Engineer’s Office. Memo re. Ord. 82-21 Hyland Glen – Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan November 30, 2021 Page 12 of 14 Most recently, an amended and revised TIS was submitted on October 20, 2021 and is under review. The TIS should be finalized and accepted by both the City of Dublin and the Union County Engineer. As a result of the unique relationship between this proposed development and the planned Post Preserve Access Modifications associated with the programmed US-33/SR 161/Post Road Interchange Improvements, a non-traditional funding approach is being proposed to address the transportation improvements necessary for this development. As a companion to this rezoning, an Infrastructure Agreement is proposed and will be considered by City Council through a separate Ordinance being considered concurrently with the rezoning application. The Infrastructure Agreement will address regional transportation improvements, the internal roadways in the development, intersection improvements, gateway entrance features, right-of- way and easement dedications, and necessary utility extensions. Additionally, the Agreement establishes the cost sharing commitments for the applicant and City while also determining the phasing and timing to the necessary improvements. Interchange Improvements The plans for improvements to the interchange at US-33/SR 161/Post Road interchange include a realignment of the northbound off-ramp US-33/SR 161 to align with the current intersection of Hyland- Croy Road and Post Road (see image). The ramps will not align with any vehicular access points proposed with this development. Although previously a roundabout, the intersection control at the northbound off-ramp US-33/SR 161, Hyland- Croy Road, and Post Road will now be a traffic signal. The proposed access points for this development will connect to Hyland-Croy Road at locations located nearly 800 feet to the north for the nearest intersection and over 2,700 feet away from the northern most proposed access point. Stormwater Management and Utilities The proposal includes the construction of multiple stormwater management basins, storm sewer pipes, and associated structures to meet stormwater management requirements set forth in Chapter 53 of the City of Dublin Code of Ordinances. The applicant has located and sized these facilities based on a stormwater management report that analyzed the existing and anticipated drainage for the area and has provided calculations for the sizing of the retention basins and storm sewer pipes. The applicant will need to continue to work with Engineering to demonstrate compliance with Chapter 53. A stream corridor protection zone is located near the northern third of the proposed site. This area has been delineated and has been kept free of proposed buildings, stormwater management facilities and other prohibited uses in this zone. Memo re. Ord. 82-21 Hyland Glen – Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan November 30, 2021 Page 13 of 14 Access to public water for domestic and fire protection use will be available by the construction of new public water main from the south along Hyland-Croy Road. Additionally, this proposal provides for the construction of new public water main within the development, including new fire hydrants. New public sanitary sewer is proposed with this development to provide access for the proposed lots. This will connect to existing sanitary sewer located to the east of this development. Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission At the September 16, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Staff recommended approval to the Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (6- 1) to City Council finding the recommendations of the Community Plan and criteria in the Zoning Code met with conditions. The applicant has addressed all condition that are required to be addressed prior to City Council’s review. Preliminary Development Plan/Rezoning Conditions: 1) The applicant work with the City’s landscape Zoning Inspector to ensure the tree survey, tree preservation plan, tree removal/replacement plan, and landscape plan are updated as detailed in this Staff Report with the Final Development Plan submittal. 2) The applicant submit a proforma detailing anticipated open space maintenance costs for the City and HOA prior to submitting the rezoning for consideration by City Council. 3) The applicant continue to work with the City of Dublin and Union County to complete the traffic impact study to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Union County Engineer, prior to submitting the rezoning for consideration by City Council. 4) That the applicant work with the City of Dublin and Union County to develop an Infrastructure Agreement for consideration by City Council to be submitted in conjunction with the Rezoning application to City Council. 5) The applicant continue to work with Engineering, prior to submittal of the Final Development Plan, to ensure compliance with the City of Dublin Chapter 53 Stormwater Management and Stream Protection Code. 6) The applicant work with the City of Dublin to finalize phasing of public streets prior to submission to City Council to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 7) The applicant revise the development text to eliminate thin-brick as a permitted building material. 8) The applicant revise the development text to clarify ‘foam’ trim is not permitted at ground level, 9) The applicant revise the development text to prohibit patio encroachments into any setback. 10) The applicant revise the development text to require a minimum distance between structures (MDBS) of 12 feet. City Council Recommendation Approval of Ordinance 82-21. Memo re. Ord. 82-21 Hyland Glen – Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan November 30, 2021 Page 14 of 14 D.C.O. 153.055(A) – Preliminary Development Plan Criteria 1) The proposed development is consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable standards of the Zoning Code; 2) The proposed development is in conformity with Community Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, Bikeway Plan, and other adopted plans or portions thereof as they may apply and will not unreasonably burden the existing street network; 3) The proposed development advances the general welfare of the city and immediate vicinity and will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding areas; 4) The proposed uses are appropriately located in the city so that the use and value of property within and adjacent to the area will be safeguarded; 5) Proposed residential development will have sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives of the Community Plan; 6) The proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and protects the natural resources of the site; 7) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided; 8) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on the surrounding public streets and to maximize public safety and to accommodate adequate pedestrian and bike circulation systems so that the proposed development provides for a safe, convenient and non-conflicting circulation system for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians; 9) The relationship of buildings and structures to each other and to such other facilities provides for the coordination and integration of this development within the PD and the larger community and maintains the image of Dublin as a quality community; 10) The density, building gross floor area, building heights, setbacks, distances between buildings and structures, yard space, design and layout of open space systems and parking areas, traffic accessibility and other elements having a bearing on the overall acceptability of the development plans contribute to the orderly development of land within the city; 11) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site so as to maintain, as far as practicable, usual and normal swales, water courses and drainage areas; 12) The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed development justify any deviation from the standard development regulations included in the Zoning Code or Subdivision Regulation, and that any such deviations are consistent with the intent of the Planned Development District regulations; 13) The proposed building design meets or exceeds the quality of the building designs in the surrounding area and all applicable appearance standards of the city; 14) The proposed phasing of development is appropriate for the existing and proposed infrastructure and is sufficiently coordinated among the various phases to ultimately yield the intended overall development; 15) The proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing or planned public improvements and not impair the existing public service system for the area; 16) The applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service the new development. H Y L A N D G L E N R E Z O N I N G S T A T E M E N T 2021-07-26 I. Introduction The Hyland Glen Planned Unit Development District is being created in order to provide a residential front door to the City of Dublin at Hyland-Croy and Post Roads. It will provide a transition of homes and lot sizes from the existing Post Preserve and Park Place neighborhoods to a new commercial corridor along the western side of Hyland-Croy Road (within Jerome Township) and the southern portion of Post Road. These areas will see increased commercial development and traffic from a new interchange off ramp from US 33. Property to the west and northwest of the site is currently zoned Planned District for commercial and multi-family housing in Jerome Township. Property to the south of the proposed zoning district is anticipated to develop commercially in the future as well. This community will provide for the development of single-family homes on fee simple lots with public streets and open space. This community will be located west of and adjacent to the existing Post Preserve residential subdivision and south of and adjacent to the Park Place residential subdivision. Lots within the proposed zoning district that share a common boundary with those subdivisions will include single-family homes with lot sizes and setbacks that are similar to those located in the already-developed communities. The lot sizes within the proposed community will provide a transition from north to south and east to west as a buffer from anticipated commercial uses to the west and south. This proposal will also provide for the extension of three public streets stubbed into the eastern boundary line of the proposed zoning district (Post Preserve) and will provide connectivity to Hyland-Croy Road. The leisure trail system along Hyland-Croy Road and from the Post Preserve neighborhood will be extended into and through this site. II. State how the proposed rezoning relates to existing land use character of the vicinity and to the Dublin Community Plan. The proposed rezoning relates to the existing land use character in the vicinity as detailed in Item I above. It also meets the recommendations of the Community Plan. The Community Plan recommends Mixed Residential Low Density (southern 2/3rds of the site) and Suburban Residential – Low Density (northern 1/3 of the site.) The land use recommendations call for a maximum density of 3 dwelling units per acre and to provide a mix of housing options and transition from existing single family neighborhoods. This proposed community seeks a density of approximately 2.4 units per acre. III. Explain how the proposed rezoning meets the criteria of the Planned Districts 153.052 (B) The proposed PUD has been designed in accordance with the standards of Dublin City Codes and accepted planning principles to ensure the use of land, buildings, and other structures are sensitive to the surrounding built environment and respectful of anticipated future land uses in the area. The lot sizes of the residential uses being provided makes the planned district form of zoning appropriate for this proposal. The physical relationship of buildings and other site improvements to one another and surrounding open space, as created by building size, mass, height, shape, and setbacks, shall result in a harmonious development within the PUD and adjacent properties. IV. If a previous application to rezone the property has been denied by City Council within the last twelve months, list when and state the basis for reconsideration as noted in 153.234 Not Applicable. H Y L A N D G L E N P R E L I M I N A R Y P L A T S T A T E M E N T 2021-07-26 I. Explain the proposed development and/or use of lots providing type and number of dwelling units and type of business or industry. The Hyland Glen Planned Unit Development District is approximately 42.5 acres and will contain 102 fee simple single family lots with public streets. The neighborhood will provide a transition in density and lot sizes from Post Preserve homes to future commercial along the west side of Hyland Croy in Jerome Township. Lot sizes will range from a minimum of 60 feet to 80 feet and wider. Park and open space areas are provided throughout the site. A community park is proposed at Post and Hyland Croy which preserves significant historic structures from the Gorden Homestead. The development of single-family homes will be as provided in the Development Standards below. The development of the site will facilitate needed future connections from Post Preserve to Hyland Croy Road. The future Post Road Interchange improvements will require closure of the Post Preserve entrance at Post Road. II. State how the proposed rezoning relates to existing land use character of the vicinity, to the Dublin Community Plan and any other applicable standards and the Residential Appearance Standards. The proposed PUD rezoning relates to the existing land use character in the vicinity as detailed in Item I above. It also meets the recommendations of the Community Plan. The Community Plan recommends Mixed Residential Low Density (southern 2/3rds of the site) and Suburban Residential – Low Density (northern 1/3 of the site.) The land use recommendations call for a maximum density of 3 dwelling units per acre and to provide a mix of housing options and transition from existing single family neighborhoods. This proposed community seeks a density of approximately 2.4 units per acre. The proposed development has been designed to applicable standards of the Dublin City Codes and will meet the intent of the Residential Appearance Standards as indicated in the Preliminary Development Text. III. State the type of sewerage disposal proposed for the development if public facilities are not available. If other than a treatment plant, letters from OEPA and the County Health Department stating what type of sewerage disposal will be approved. The proposed PUD will be served by public sanitary sewer extensions from adjacent development. H YLAND G LEN Z ONING L EGAL D E SCRIPTION Parcel Description of 42.553 Acres Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Union, Township of Jerome, Virginia Military District Survey No. 3452, begin those 43.523 and 1.949 acre tracts conveyed to Denise Ann Gorden Trustee and Roger Warren Gorden Trustee by deeds of record in Official Records 783, Page 368 and Page 376, (all references are to the records of the Recorder’s Office, Union County, Ohio) and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the northwesterly corner of the remainder of said 43.523 acre tract, the northeasterly corner of that 2.919 acre tract conveyed to the Union County Board of Commissioners by deed of record in Instrument Number 201903280002067, in the southerly line of the subdivision entitled “Park Place Section 1”, of record in Plat Book 5, Page 33; Thence North 85° 33’ 49” East, with said southerly line, a distance of 541.86 feet to the northwesterly corner of the subdivision entitled “Post Preserve Section 3”, of record in Plat Book 5, Page 161; Thence South 04° 16’ 31” East, with the westerly lines of said “Post Preserve Section 3”, the subdivision entitled “Post Preserve Section 2”, of record in Plat Book 5, Page 91, and the subdivision entitled “Post Preserve Section 1”, of record in Plat Book 5, Page 66, a distance of 3525.04 feet to the most northerly corner of that 0.564 acre tract conveyed to the City of Dublin by deed of record in Official Record 307, Page 88, being in the westerly right-of-way line of Post Preserve Road; Thence with said westerly right-of-way line, with the arc of a curve to the left, having a central angle of 13° 12’ 46”, a radius of 639.79 feet, an arc length of 147.54 feet, a chord bearing of South 46° 41’ 09” West and chord distance of 147.21 feet; Thence with said westerly right-of-way line of Post Preserve Road, the northerly right-of-way line of Post Road and the easterly right-of-way line of said Hyland-Croy Road by deeds of record in Official Record 307, Page 88, Official Record 796, Page 529 and Official Record 796, Page 523, the following courses and distances: South 83° 38’ 47” West, a distance of 12.40 feet; North 52° 45’ 27” West, a distance of 210.05 feet; North 60° 55’ 15” West, a distance of 76.06 feet; North 55° 07’ 57” West, a distance of 81.39 feet; North 25° 23’ 15” West, a distance of 131.24 feet; North 09° 37’ 47” West, a distance of 95.61 feet; North 07° 10’ 09” West, a distance of 110.71 feet; North 19° 31’ 55” West, a distance of 202.55 feet; North 12° 15’ 36” West, a distance of 125.47 feet; North 04° 15’ 16” West, a distance of 2118.08 feet; and North 04° 13’ 32” West, a distance of 618.34 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 42.553 acres, more or less. EVANS, MECHWART, HAMBLETON & TILTON, INC. 2021-04-21 H Y L A N D G L E N P L A N N E D U N I T D E V E L O P M E N T P R E L I M I N A R Y D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N D E V E L O P M E N T T E X T D E C E M B E R 6 , 2021 Page 1 of 7 I. SITE DESCRIPTION The site is approximately 42.5 acres and contains 102 single family lots. The neighborhood provides a transition in density and lot sizes from single-family development in the City of Dublin (east) to future commercial development in Jerome Township (west). The development facilitates necessary connections from Post Preserve (Springview Lane, Stillhouse Lane, and Holbein Drive) to Hyland-Croy Road due to US 33/SR 161/Post Road Interchange improvements. Lot sizes range from a minimum of 60 feet up to 80 feet and wider. Park and open space areas are provided throughout the site. A gateway reserve is located at the intersection of Post Road and Hyland-Croy Road, which preserves significant historic structures from the Gorden Farmstead. The development of single-family homes will be as provided in the Development Standards below. II. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: A. Permitted Uses: Permitted uses shall be as follows: 1. Single-family detached residences. 2. Publicly or privately-owned parks and open spaces and storm water facilities. 3. Model homes and sales offices, in accordance with Dublin City Code Section 153.073(B). 4. Home occupation uses in association with a permitted dwelling, in accordance with Dublin City Code Section 153.073(A). B. Owners’ Association: Prior to commencing construction of the first residential lot, the Developer shall establish a homeowners’ association (“HOA”) to govern the subdivision. The written instruments that create the HOA shall be recorded with the Office of the Recorder of Union County, Ohio and shall require each homeowner to pay an assessment charge to the HOA for the purpose of funding the operations and obligations of the HOA. C. Density, Lots and Setbacks: 1. Definitions: For the purposes of the development standards set forth in this text: a. Interior Lots shall be defined as lots with no property lines adjacent the east (Post Preserve) and north (Park Place) boundaries of the site. b. Perimeter Lots shall be defined as lots with a side or rear property line adjacent to the east (Post Preserve) and north (Park Place) boundaries of the site. 2. Number of Units: There shall be a maximum of 102 residential lots, consisting of all single- family homes. H Y L A N D G L E N P L A N N E D U N I T D E V E L O P M E N T P R E L I M I N A R Y D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N D E V E L O P M E N T T E X T D E C E M B E R 6 , 2021 Page 2 of 7 3. Lot Coverage: a. Maximum lot coverage on interior lots shall not exceed 70%. b. Maximum lot coverage for perimeter lots shall not exceed 60%. 4. Lot Widths and Depths; Frontage: a. All lots shall front on a public street. b. All lots shall have an average minimum lot depth of 110 feet and a minimum lot size of 6,600 square feet. Corner lots may have a lot depth less than 110 feet but not less than 100 feet. c. There shall be a minimum lot width of 60 feet for interior lots south of the stream and 70 feet for interior lots north of the stream. Lot widths shall be measured at the building setback line, or a minimum lot widths as shown at the building setback line as indicated on the Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat. d. Perimeter lots south of the stream shall have a minimum lot width of 70 feet and perimeter lots north of the stream shall have a minimum lot width of 80 feet, or a minimum corner lot width as shown at the building setback line as indicated on the Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat. 5. Setbacks: a. Post Road: A gateway reserve dedicated in Reserve A, shall be located along Post Road. The gateway may contain existing historic structures. There shall be no minimum building setback for these existing structures. The preservation of historic structures located outside the stormwater management basin will be established as part of a city-led CIP project. The minimum setback for any new parking area and buildings shall be 50 feet as measured from the edge of the Post Road right-of-way and 20 feet from any internal right-of-way. Leisure paths, basins/storm water facilities and sidewalks may be located within these setbacks. Right-of-way to serve the internal streets shall be permitted within the Post Road Setback. b. Hyland-Croy Road: For all lots located north of Springview Lane, there shall be a minimum pavement and building setback of 100 feet as measured from the edge of the right-of-way of Hyland-Croy Road. Leisure paths, basins/storm water facilities and sidewalks may be located within these setbacks. Right-of-way to serve the internal streets shall be permitted within the Hyland-Croy Setback. H Y L A N D G L E N P L A N N E D U N I T D E V E L O P M E N T P R E L I M I N A R Y D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N D E V E L O P M E N T T E X T D E C E M B E R 6 , 2021 Page 3 of 7 For all lots located south of Springview Lane, the pavement and building setback shall vary as indicated on the Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat. Leisure paths, basins/storm water facilities and sidewalks may be located within this setback. c. Front Yards: There shall be a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet for homes from any public right-of-way. On corner lots, the 20 foot front yard setback shall be required form both public street(s) right-of-way and shown on the Final Development Plan. d. Rear Yard Setbacks: The minimum rear yard setback for all lots shall be measured from the rear property line. For all interior lots the minimum rear yard setback shall be 10 feet. The minimum rear yard setback for perimeter lots that back into the eastern boundary line shall be 30 feet. The minimum rear yard setback for lots that back onto the northern boundary line shall be 25 feet. e. Side Yard Setbacks: The minimum side yard setback for all lots shall be measured from each side property line. All lots shall have a minimum side yard setback of 5 feet; except perimeter lots where the lot’s side property line is coterminous with the eastern boundary line, the minimum side yard setback from that side property line shall be 10 feet. f. Patios: No patio may encroach into any setback. A minimum of 10 feet is required between the rear of the home and the required rear yard setback to allow for patio or outdoor living space. A home may encroach within this 10-foot allowance provided a minimum of 140 square feet is provided to the side or rear of the home within the buildable area for patio or outdoor living space. g. Structure Separation: A minimum distance of 12 feet shall be required between structures. D. Access, Parking, Pedestrian, and Traffic-Related Commitments: 1. Off-Street Parking: Each single-family home shall have a minimum two-car garage and shall be required to have a minimum of 2 off-street parking spaces on their driveways in addition to parking spaces within the garage 2. On-Street Parking: On-street parking shall be permitted on public streets in accordance with Dublin City Code. 3. Access Points: Primary vehicular access to and from the development shall be provided from Hyland-Croy Road in the locations shown on the approved Preliminary Development Plan. 4. Other Street Widths and Rights-of-Way: The internal vehicular transportation system shall include only public streets. These public streets shall include extensions of Holbein Drive, Stillhouse Lane, and Springview Lane westward into the development and the construction of other public streets as generally shown on the Preliminary Development Plan. All public H Y L A N D G L E N P L A N N E D U N I T D E V E L O P M E N T P R E L I M I N A R Y D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N D E V E L O P M E N T T E X T D E C E M B E R 6 , 2021 Page 4 of 7 streets shall have a minimum right-of-way width of 50 feet and a pavement width of 28 feet measured back-of-curb. Public streets shall be of curb and gutter construction. 5. Tree Lawns: The tree lawn shall be 8 feet in width except in transition areas to allow for connectivity and continuity with existing streets, sidewalks and leisure paths in the adjacent Post Preserve development. 6. Public Street Improvements and Construction: The applicant has submitted a traffic study for review of the City in conjunction with the filing of the Preliminary Development Plan. Public street improvements that are required with respect to the development shall be determined in the approved traffic study. The respective obligations of the Developer and the City with respect to the construction of these public street improvements and the payment of related costs shall be detailed in a separate written infrastructure agreement between them shall be based upon the traffic study. 7. Leisure Trails; Public Sidewalks: Asphalt leisure trails with a width of 8 feet shall be constructed by the Developer in the general locations identified in the approved Preliminary Development Plan. Final locations for asphalt leisure paths shall be approved as part of a Final Development Plan. Public sidewalks shall be constructed of concrete, shall be a minimum of 5 feet in width, and shall be located on both sides of all public streets other than those adjacent to Hyland-Croy Road as depicted on the Preliminary Development Plan. E. Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space and Screening Commitments: 1. Parkland and Open Space: Parkland and open space shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of Dublin City Code as indicated in the approved Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat. All open space reserves shall be owned by the City and maintained by the HOA with the exception of Reserve A, located at the corner of Post Road and Hyland-Croy Road, which shall also be maintained by the City. The functionality of the storm water basins and appurtenances thereto, located in Reserves A, D, and E, shall be maintained by the City. Final details of these open space reserves, excluding Reserve A, shall be approved as part of a Final Development Plan. 2. Hyland-Croy Road – Rural Roadway Corridor Landscaping: a. A detailed landscape plan for the rural roadway corridor along Hyland-Croy shall be provided as part of the Final Development Plan, including detailed explanations for maintenance and which clearly identifies the level of maintenance for which the HOA will be responsible. b. The rural roadway corridor landscape may include low earth mounds with gentle slopes not greater than 4:1, fencing, walls entry features and signage at key locations. In lieu of formal street tree plantings, deciduous trees shall be provided at a ratio of 4 trees per 100 linear feet of frontage. Native tree species should be considered in the landscape plan and trees may be planted in groupings provided the total quantity equals 4 trees per 100 linear feet. Shrub plantings and ornamental grasses may be included as part of the overall rural roadway corridor landscape concept. 3. Post Road Landscaping: A detailed landscape plan for the Post Road frontage shall be provided as part of a future CIP project for the gateway reserve located within Reserve A. H Y L A N D G L E N P L A N N E D U N I T D E V E L O P M E N T P R E L I M I N A R Y D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N D E V E L O P M E N T T E X T D E C E M B E R 6 , 2021 Page 5 of 7 The landscape details for Reserve A shall be coordinated with the interchange improvements and future CIP project. 4. Storm Water Basins: Storm water basins may be located within the required setbacks and shall have a minimum of 1 fountain or aerator provided in each. All final details regarding stormwater management shall be provided as part of the Final Development Plan. 5. Street Trees: Street trees shall be planted per code except the minimum caliper may be 2 inches at installation. 6. Landscaping: Except as otherwise provided in other sections of this text, the minimum landscaping size at installation shall be per City of Dublin Code Section 153.133 Minimum Landscape Requirements. Performance assurances shall be provided for landscaping in accordance with City of Dublin Code. 7. Stream Corridor Protection Zone: a. A stream corridor protection zone shall be created along the stream located as shown on the Preliminary Development Plan. The final widths of this zone shall be approved as part of the Final Development Plan, provided that they shall be substantially consistent with that which is approved as part of the Preliminary Development Plan. b. Storm water basin outlets may encroach into the stream corridor protection zone and floodway in Accordance with Chapter 53 of the City of Dublin Code. c. A pedestrian path shall be permitted to cross the stream corridor protection zone in a location that is approved as part of the final engineering and in accordance with all required state and/or federal permits. 8. Preservation of Existing Vegetation: Existing protected trees along the east property line shall be preserved per code. The removal of protected trees is permitted in conformance with the Tree Preservation Plan approved with the approved Final Development Plan. Any additional tree removals shall be reviewed by the City prior to removal. Tree replacement shall comply with code. 9. Fences: Fences, shall be permitted within open space Reserves per Dublin City Code and shall be approved as part of the Final Development Plan. F. Tree Replacement: 1. Trees planted that are not required to fulfill another landscape requirement in the code or this text may be counted toward the required tree replacement. This includes but is not limited to tree plantings around storm water management areas, in open spaces and Community Park, along property perimeters, and of the tree plantings along the rural corridor. G. Signs: 1. It is the intent for the signage to be consistent in character along the frontage of Hyland- Croy and Post Roads. H Y L A N D G L E N P L A N N E D U N I T D E V E L O P M E N T P R E L I M I N A R Y D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N D E V E L O P M E N T T E X T D E C E M B E R 6 , 2021 Page 6 of 7 2. A comprehensive signage package shall be submitted for review and approval as part of a Final Development Plan in accordance with the general requirements provided below. All signs shall meet the City of Dublin sign code unless specifically altered herein. a. Three entry features shall be permitted along Hyland-Croy road within the setback along either side of the three vehicular entries. These entry features may include but not be limited to fencing, walls, columns, landscaping, and signs as indicated below. b. Three signs shall be permitted and may be incorporated into the entry feature designs as described herein. Each sign area shall not exceed 20 square feet and 6 feet in height. Each sign proposed shall be installed and maintained by a home owners’ association. Signage shall be incorporated into a masonry base and/or masonry column. Sign location/setback shall be determined in accordance with required site distance. Signs may not be located within any utility easements or right-of-way. 3. Additional signage may be approved with the final development plan. H. Architectural Standards: All single-family homes shall meet the residential appearance standards in Dublin City Code Section 153.190 unless otherwise provided in this text or as a part of home building elevations and materials that are approved as part of a Final Development Plan. 1. Maximum Building Height: Homes may be 1, 1 ½ or 2 stories and may have a maximum height of 35 feet as measured in accordance with Dublin City Code. 2. Exterior Materials: Permitted primary and trim materials for buildings are as follows: a. Cladding Materials: The exterior cladding of all structures on all lots shall be finished using all natural materials, including full-depth brick, stone, manufactured stone, wood, engineered wood, fiber-cement siding products, stucco or any combination thereof. b. Trim Materials: Wood, PVC, foam, or fiber-cement products. Foam trim shall not be permitted at ground level. Shutters shall be considered as trim for the purpose of meeting the Residential Appearance Code requirements. c. Roofing Materials: 25 year or better dimensional asphalt shingles (minimum 240 lbs/square weight) and metal standing seam. d. Windows may be vinyl. 3. Architectural Diversity: At the time that this zoning text has been submitted for review as part of the Preliminary Development Plan application for this zoning district, it is anticipated that a minimum of 4 base single-family home designs will be used to meet market demand. Variations in materials and colors of the exterior elevations will be incorporated to provide diversity in terms of exterior appearances. Material colors shall be natural earth tones in both cool and warm hues, colors may include blues and grays. Diversity shall also be provided such that the front elevations of any home shall not be the same as the home H Y L A N D G L E N P L A N N E D U N I T D E V E L O P M E N T P R E L I M I N A R Y D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N D E V E L O P M E N T T E X T D E C E M B E R 6 , 2021 Page 7 of 7 immediately adjacent to the home on either side or the home directly across the street. Homes fronting on Hyland-Croy Road shall require additional architectural features on the front or side façade, which may include but not be limited to: stone/synthetic stone water tables, shutters with operable hardware, masonry entry piers, etc. 4. Garages: Front-loaded and attached garages shall be permitted on each home. Single- bay or double-bay garage doors shall be permitted. All garage door openings shall be a maximum 50% of the front linear home façade, with decorative stamped pattern and hardware. 5. Skylights: Skylights shall be permitted only in portions of the roof that are not visible from the public street, parkland, or open space that is adjacent to the parcel on which a home is located. 6. Solar Panels: Solar panels shall be permitted only on portions of the roof that are not visible from the public street, parkland, open space that is adjacent to the parcel on which a home is located. All fasteners and conduit shall be concealed. All associated mechanicals shall be screened. 7. Lighting: a. Security lighting, when used, shall be of a motion sensor type. b. One post light shall be permitted on each residential lot. Post lights and fixtures shall be consistent in height, color and appearance as determined at the Final Development Plan. c. Lighting of entry features and any additional proposed lighting shall be provided and approved at time of Final Development Plan. Ground mounted lighting shall be shielded and landscaped. 8. Storage Buildings: Storage buildings shall be prohibited. I. Utilities: a. All new utility lines and wiring shall be placed underground. b. Utility easement locations and widths shall be determined in the Final Development Plan. c. No construction shall be permitted in utility easements unless approved by City staff. CIVIL ENGINEER &LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTINDEX OF DRAWINGSJ:\20210326\Dwg\04Sheets\PDP\0 Cover.dwg Last Saved By: mnerici, 8/26/2021 5:57 PM1. REGIONAL CONTEXT MAP2. VICINITY MAP3. EXISTING CONDITIONS4. ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN5. SITE PLAN6. PHASING MAP7. OPEN SPACE & CONNECTIVITY8. OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN9. HYLAND-CROY RURAL CORRIDOR ENLARGEMENT10. LANDSCAPE NOTES & DETAILS11. UTILITY PLAN12. UTILITY PLAN13. UTILITY PLAN14. GRADING PLAN15. GRADING PLAN16. GRADING PLAN17. STREET SECTIONS18. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN19. TREE PRESERVATION DATA TABLEHYLAND GLENPRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENTPLANDUBLIN, OHIOVicinity MapScale: 1" = 2000'US-33 Hyland-Croy Rd Post Rd.SiteOCTOBER 20, 2021APPLICANTDATEPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SECRETARY DATEPREPARED FOR:THE PARAGON BUILDING GROUP, LTD.DBA VIRGINIA HOMES485 METRO PLACE SOUTHSUITE 350DUBLIN, OHIO 43017 ⅊⅊⅊Ex BasinEx Basin⅊⅊⅊JEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTYJEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTYJEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTYUNION COUNTYFRANKLIN COUNTYUNION COUNTYFRANKLIN COUNTYHYLAND-CROY ROADPARK MILL DRIVEUS-33SR-161POST PRESERVE BLVDPOST ROADPOST PRESERVESECTION 3SITECITY OFDUBLINPOST PRESERVESECTION 1POST PRESERVESECTION 2PARK PLACESECTION 1STILLHOUSE LANESPRINGVIEW LANEHOLBEIN DRIVE19HYLAND GLENCITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIOPRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANSHEETGRAPHIC SCALE:20210326OCTOBER 20, 2021HYLAND GLENPREPARED BY:485 Metro Place SouthDublin, Ohio 43017Suite 350The Paragon Building Group, LTD.dba Virginia HomesJ:\20210326\Dwg\04Sheets\PDP\1 Regional Context Map.dwg, Last Saved By: mnerici, 8/26/2021 3:34 PM Last Printed By: Brown, Patricia, 10/19/2021 10:26 AM4 Xrefs: 20170464-PDVP-TB, 20170464-CS-REFR-E, 20170464-CS-REFR-PDP-BLDG-N, 20170464-CS-REFR-PDP-NREGIONAL CONTEXT MAP300' 0 150' 300' 600' 900'1SITE ⅊⅊⅊Ex BasinEx Basin⅊⅊⅊JEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTYJEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTYJEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTYPARK MILL DRIVEHYLAND-CROY ROADPOST PRESERVE BLVDPOST ROADPOSTPRESERVESECTION 3POSTPRESERVESECTION 1POSTPRESERVESECTION 2PARK PLACESECTION 1HOLBEIN DRIVESTILLHOUSE LANESPRINGVIEW LANEBLAKEMORE LANEZONED:RRREGIONAL RETAILDISTRICT(JEROME TWP)ROYAL PLUME DRIVEWELDON ROADZONED:RRURAL(DUBLIN)ZONED:PDPLANNEDDEVELOPMENTDISTRICT(JEROME TWP)ZONED:PDPLANNEDDEVELOPMENTDISTRICT(JEROME TWP)ZONED:TFTECHNOLOGYFLEX DISTRICT(DUBLIN)EXISTINGZONED:RRURAL DISTRICTZONED:PLRPLANNEDLOW DENSITYRESIDENTIAL(DUBLIN)ZONED:PLRPLANNEDLOW DENSITYRESIDENTIAL(DUBLIN)ZONED:PLRPLANNEDLOW DENSITYRESIDENTIAL(DUBLIN)ZONED:PLRPLANNEDLOW DENSITYRESIDENTIAL(DUBLIN)ZONED:PDPLANNEDDEVELOPMENTDISTRICT(JEROME TWP)ZONED:PDPLANNEDDEVELOPMENTDISTRICT(JEROME TWP)EXISTINGZONED:RRURAL DISTRICTMOORLAND DRIVESTILLHOUSE LANEHOLBEIN DRIVEWOOLEY DRIVEWILDE DRIVESPRINGVIEW LANEBANSHEE DRIVEBARKSDALE DRIVEGORDEN DRIVESTILLHOUSE LANE19HYLAND GLENCITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIOPRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANSHEETGRAPHIC SCALE:20210326OCTOBER 20, 2021HYLAND GLENPREPARED BY:485 Metro Place SouthDublin, Ohio 43017Suite 350The Paragon Building Group, LTD.dba Virginia HomesJ:\20210326\Dwg\04Sheets\PDP\2 Vicinity Map.dwg, Last Saved By: mnerici, 8/27/2021 12:36 PM Last Printed By: Brown, Patricia, 10/19/2021 10:27 AM4 Xrefs: 20170464-PDVP-TB, 20170464-CS-REFR-E, 20170464-CS-REFR-PDP-BLDG-N, 20170464-CS-REFR-PDP-NVICINITY MAP150' 0 75' 150' 300' 450'2 POST PRESERVE BLVDEx 8" SanEx 8" WMEx 8" WMEx 8" WMEx 15" SanEx 12" SanEx 8" WMEx 8" SanEx 8" SanEx 8" SanEx 12" SanEx 12" SanEx 8" SanEx BasinEx 10" SanEx 10" SanEx 10" SanEx 10" SanEx 8" WMEx 8" SanEx 8" WMEx 8" WMEx 12" WMEx 8" SanEx FHEx FHEx FHEx 8" WMEx BasinEx 24" StmEx 24" StmEx 24" StmEx 12" StmEx 18" StmEx 18" StmEx 21" StmEx 18" StmEx 12" StmEx 24" StmEx 24" StmEx 24" StmEx 12" StmEx12"StmEx 18" StmEx12"StmEx12"Stm Ex12"StmEx12"StmEx12"StmEx 24" StmEx 21" StmEx 21" StmEx 8" MP GMEx12"StmEx 18" StmEx 12" StmEx 12" StmEx 12" StmEx 12" StmEx 15" StmEx 15" StmEx 15" StmEx 15" StmEx15"StmEx36"StmEx 36" StmEx 36" StmEx 12" StmEx 12" StmEx 12" StmEx12"StmEx12"StmEx 36" StmEx12"StmEx 12" StmEx 24" StmEx BldgEx BldgsEx Granary(DND)Ex Gravel DriveEx Woven-wire FenceEx Woven-wire FenceEx Woven-wire FenceEx Woven-wire FenceEx Woven-wire FenceEx BridgeEx ℄ StreamEx BldgsEx GuardrailEx UtilityPole (Typ)Ex Sign(Typ)Ex Utility Pole(Typ)Ex Sign(Typ)Ex OverheadUtility WireEx OverheadUtility WireEx OverheadUtility WireEx 4' SidewalksEx 4'SidewalksEx 4' SidewalksEx 8' PathStream CorridorProtection Zone/FloodplainFloodplainSPRINGVIEW LANEBLAKEMORE LANESTILLHOUSE LANEHOLBEIN DRIVEHYLAND-CROY ROADPARK MILL DRIVEROYAL PLUME DRIVEPOST ROADSouth ForkIndian Run2370South ForkIndian Run2350North ForkIndian Run8360South ForkIndian Run2350SITE±42.5 ACRES25' DublinUtilityEasementHighwayEasement10'TemporaryConstructionEasement10' DublinUtilityEasementWidth of GasEasementUnknown⅊⅊⅊⅊⅊⅊JEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNJEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTYJEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTYEx. R/WEx. R/WEx. R/WEx Barn Ex Bldg (TBR)FloodwayFloodway + 20'Ex Asphalt DriveEx BldgsEx GravelDrive 19HYLAND GLENCITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIOPRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANSHEETGRAPHIC SCALE:20210326OCTOBER 20, 2021HYLAND GLENPREPARED BY:485 Metro Place SouthDublin, Ohio 43017Suite 350The Paragon Building Group, LTD.dba Virginia HomesJ:\20210326\Dwg\04Sheets\PDP\3 Existing Conditions.dwg, Last Saved By: mnerici, 8/26/2021 3:36 PM Last Printed By: Brown, Patricia, 10/19/2021 10:36 AM4 Xrefs: 20170464-PDVP-TB, 20170464-CS-REFR-E, 20170464-CS-REFR-PDP-BLDG-N, 20170464-CS-REFR-PDP-NEXISTING CONDITIONS150' 0 75' 150' 300' 450'3NOTES:See Tree Survey Plan, Sheets 18-19 for tree locations.TBR - To Be RemovedDND - Do Not DisturbKEY:Gas Easement25' Dublin Utility Easement(No Description of Facilities Contained Within)Highway Easement10' Temporary Construction Easment10' Dublin Utility Easement(No Description of Facilities Contained Within)Gas Easement END 100'SBPOST ROADPOST PRESERVE BLVD100'8988877475767778796936 35 34 334901706823567891011 121314 15 16373830292827262524232221201718193940414243444571727331 3280818283848586969594939299100 101 102989746 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 555657 58 596061 62 63 64 65 66 6791EX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/WSPRINGVIEW LANEMOORLAND DRIVEBLAKEMORE LANESTILLHOUSE LANESTILLHOUSE LANEHOLBEIN DRIVEHOLBEIN DRIVEWOOLEY DRIVEWILDE DRIVEPARK MILL DRIVESPRINGVIEW LANEBANSHEE DRIVEBARKSDALE DRIVEPOST PRESERVESECTION 2POST PRESERVESECTION 1POST PRESERVESECTION 3EX. R/WEX. R/WEX. R/W50' R/WDEDICATEDCONCEPTUALSTORMWATERMANAGEMENTAREA50' R/WDEDICATED50' R/WDEDICATEDRESERVE "E"±3.8 AC.RESERVE "B"±0.7 AC.RESERVE "D"±3.8 AC.RESERVE "A"±2.0 AC.RESERVE "F"±1.1 AC.RESERVE "C"±1.0 AC.STILLHOUSE LANEGORDEN DRIVE20' BLDG STBK20' BUILDING SETBACK20' BUILDING SETBACK20' BUILDING SETBACKSETBACK20' BLDG25' BUILDING SETBACK30' BLDG STBK20' BLDG STBK20' BUILDING SETBACK20' BUILDING SETBACK20' BUILDING SETBACK20' BUILDING SETBACK20' BLDG STBK20' BLDG STBK20' BLDG STBK20' BUILDING STBK20' BUILDING SETBACK20' BLDG STBKSETBACK50' BUILDING & PAVEMENT30' BUILDING SETBACK30' BUILDING SETBACKSETBACK20' BLDG20' BUILDING SETBACK20' BUILDING SETBACK10' BLDG STBK10' BLDG STBK20' BUILDING SETBACK100' BLDG & PAVEMENT SETBACKBLDG & PAVEMENT SETBACK VARIES15'MAINTENANCEBERM20' EASEMENT20' EASEMENT2' EASEMENT20' EASEMENT20' EASEMENT20' EASEMENT20' ESMT20' EASEMENTEASEMENT30' EASEMENT20' EASEMENTEASEMENT30' EASEMENTEX. 10' EASEMENTEX. 10' EASEMENTEX. EASEMENTEASEMENT20' EASEMENT20' EASEMENT20' EASEMENT30' EASEMENT30' EASEMENT20' EASEMENTEASEMENTEASEMENT20' EASEMENT15'MAINTENANCEBERMSTREAM CROSSING(TO BE STRUCTURALLYEVALUATED ANDDETAILED AT FINALENGINEERING)2' EASEMENT20' EASEMENT20' EASEMENT20' EASEMENT20' EASEMENT20' EASEMENT20' EASEMENT2' EASEMENT2' EASEMENT20' EASEMENT20' EASEMENTHYLAND CROY ROAD100' BLDG & PAVEMENT SETBACK58'60'45'60'63'60'49'60'61'60'POST ROAD91011 1245 46 47CONCEPTUALSTORMWATERMANAGEMENTAREARESERVE "A"±2.0 AC.SETBACK50' BUILDING & PAVEMENTBLDG20' EASESITE PLAN150' 075'150'300'450'5NOTES:Proposed Public Streets will be Connected to Existing Streets. ( Springview Lane, Stillhouse Lane, andHolbein Drive) Tree Lawns Shall Transition from Existing 7' to 8'.Existing Hammerhead at Springview Lane to be Removed; as Existing Easements Allow, with StreetConnection to Proposed DevelopmentFuture Post Road/Hyland Croy Road Improvements Shown for Reference OnlyCost and Level of maintenance required for HOA Open Spaces to be defined with Final DevelopmentPlan.11121242.5 ACRESTOTAL ACREAGE:SITE STATISTICS: TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS:6.46 ACRES/(15.2%)TOTAL OPEN SPACE REQUIRED:102GROSS DENSITY:2.4 LOTS/ACRE±12.4 ACRES/(29.1%)TOTAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED:- LAND DEDICATION:- 42.55 X .02 = 0.85 / ACRES- .03 X 102 LOTS = 3.06 ACRES- RECREATIONAL FACILITIES:- 0.025 X 102 = 2.55 ACRES3.91 ACRES19HYLAND GLENCITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIOPRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANSHEETGRAPHIC SCALE:20210326OCTOBER 20, 2021HYLAND GLENPREPARED BY:485 Metro Place SouthDublin, Ohio 43017Suite 350The Paragon Building Group, LTD.dba Virginia HomesGRAPHIC SCALE:60' 0 30' 60' 120' 180'33Proposed CBU Locations. Locations to be Finalized with USPS at Time of Final Development Plan***4 POST ROADPOST PRESERVE BLVDSECTION 233 LOTS⅊⅊⅊Ex BasinEx Basin⅊⅊⅊JEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTYJEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTYJEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTY898887747576777879693635 34 334901706823567891011121314 15 163738302928272625242322212017181939404142434445717273313280818283848586969594939299100101 10298974647 48 4950 515253 5455565758 596061 62 6364 65 66 6791SECTION 329 LOTSSECTION 140 LOTSSPRINGVIEW LANEMOORLANDDRIVEBLAKEMORE LANESTILLHOUSE LANESTILLHOUSE LANEHOLBEIN DRIVEHOLBEIN DRIVEWOOLEY DRIVEWILDE DRIVEPARK MILL DRIVESPRINGVIEW LANEBANSHEE DRIVEBARKSDALE DRIVEGORDEN DRIVESTILLHOUSE LANEHYLAND CROY ROAD19HYLAND GLENCITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIOPRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANSHEETGRAPHIC SCALE:20210326OCTOBER 20, 2021HYLAND GLENPREPARED BY:485 Metro Place SouthDublin, Ohio 43017Suite 350The Paragon Building Group, LTD.dba Virginia HomesJ:\20210326\Dwg\04Sheets\PDP\6 Subarea & Phasing Map.dwg, Last Saved By: pbrown, 10/19/2021 10:49 AM Last Printed By: Brown, Patricia, 10/19/2021 10:50 AM4 Xrefs: 20170464-PDVP-TB, 20170464-CS-REFR-E, 20170464-CS-REFR-PDP-BLDG-N, 20170464-CS-REFR-PDP-NPHASING MAP150' 0 75' 150' 300' 450'611321NOTES:Proposed Public Streets will be Connected to Existing Streets (Springview Lane, Stillhouse Lane, HolbeinDrive). Tree Lawns Shall Transition From Existing 7' to 8'.Existing Hammerhead at Springview Lane to be Removed; as Existing Easements Allow, with StreetConnection to Proposed DevelopmentFuture Post Road/Hyland Croy Road Improvements Shown for Reference OnlyProp Moorland Drive, Stillhouse Lane, Springview Lane, Holbein Drive and neighborhood entrance featuresshall be provided for, constructed, and open to traffic per the Infrastructure Agreement.1234444444 ⅊⅊⅊Ex BasinEx Basin⅊⅊⅊JEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTYJEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTYJEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTY8988877475767778796936 3534 334901706823567891011121314 15 163738302928272625242322212017181939404142434445717273313280818283848586969594939299100 1011029897464748 49 50 5152 53 5455 5657 58 596061 6263 646566 6791SPRINGVIEW LANEMOORLAND DRIVEBLAKEMORE LANESTILLHOUSE LANESTILLHOUSE LANEHOLBEIN DRIVEHOLBEIN DRIVEWOOLEY DRIVEWILDE DRIVEPARK MILL DRIVESPRINGVIEW LANEBANSHEE DRIVEBARKSDALE DRIVEPOST PRESERVESECTION 2POST PRESERVESECTION 1POST PRESERVESECTION 3UNION COUNTYFRANKLIN COUNTYCONCEPTUALSTORMWATERMANAGEMENTAREARESERVE "E"±3.8 AC.RESERVE "B"±0.7 AC.RESERVE "D"±3.8 AC.RESERVE "A"±2.0 AC.RESERVE "F"±1.1 AC.RESERVE "C"±1.0 AC.Ex ℄ StreamStream CorridorProtection ZonePOST ROADPOST PRESERVE BLVDGORDEN DRIVESTILLHOUSE LANEHYLAND CROY ROAD19HYLAND GLENCITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIOPRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANSHEETGRAPHIC SCALE:20210326OCTOBER 20, 2021HYLAND GLENPREPARED BY:485 Metro Place SouthDublin, Ohio 43017Suite 350The Paragon Building Group, LTD.dba Virginia HomesJ:\20210326\Dwg\04Sheets\PDP\7 Open Space & Connectivity.dwg, Last Saved By: mnerici, 8/27/2021 12:49 PM Last Printed By: Brown, Patricia, 10/19/2021 10:53 AM4 Xrefs: 20170464-PDVP-TB, 20170464-CS-REFR-E, 20170464-CS-REFR-PDP-BLDG-N, 20170464-CS-REFR-PDP-NOPEN SPACE &CONNECTIVITY PLAN150' 0 75' 150' 300' 450'7KEY8' PEDESTRIAN PATH (OWNED & MAINTAINED BY CITY)5' SIDEWALKOPEN SPACE - AREA TO BEMAINTAINED BY CITYOPEN SPACEOPEN SPACE - AREA TO BEMAINTAINED BY HOA* The City Shall Maintain Functionality ofStorm Water Management Basins andAppurtenances thereto which ServeStorm Water FunctionalityNOTES:Proposed Public Streets will be Connected to Existing Streets. ( Springview Lane, Stillhouse Lane, andHolbein Drive) Tree Lawns Shall Transition from Existing 7' to 8'.Existing Hammerhead at Springview Lane to be Removed; as Existing Easements Allow, with StreetConnection to Proposed DevelopmentCost and Level of maintenance required for HOA Open Spaces to be defined with Final DevelopmentPlan.112112RESERVE OWNERSHIP/MAINTENANCE PLANSAcresOwnership Maintained ByReserve "A"± 2.0 Ac CITY CITYReserve "B" ± 0.7 Ac CITY HOAReserve "C" ±1.0 Ac CITY HOAReserve "D"± 3.8 Ac CITYCity/HOA*Reserve "E" ± 3.8 Ac CITYCity/HOA*Reserve "F" ± 1.1 Ac CITY HOA6.46 ACRES/(15.2%)TOTAL OPEN SPACE REQUIRED:±12.4 ACRES/(29.1%)TOTAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED:- LAND DEDICATION:- 42.5 X .02 = 0.85 / ACRES- .03 X 102 LOTS = 3.06 ACRES- RECREATIONAL FACULTIES:- 0.025 X 102 = 2.55 ACRES3.91 ACRES3 MOORLAND DRIVE⅊⅊⅊Ex BasinEx Basin⅊⅊⅊JEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTYJEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTY8988877475767778796936 35 34334901706823567891011 12131415 16373830292827262524232221201718193940414243444571727331 3280818283848586969594939299100 101 102989746 47 4849 505152 53 5455 5657 58 596061 62 6364 65 666791POST ROADPOST PRESERVE BLVDEx 60' R/WRESERVE "E"±3.8 AC.RESERVE "B"±0.7 AC.RESERVE "D"±3.8 AC.RESERVE "A"±2.0 AC.RESERVE "F"±1.1 AC.RESERVE "C"±1.0 AC.CONCEPTUALSTORMWATERMANAGEMENTAREAJEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTYSPRINGVIEW LANEBLAKEMORE LANESTILLHOUSE LANESTILLHOUSE LANEHOLBEIN DRIVEHOLBEIN DRIVEWOOLEY DRIVEWILDE DRIVEPARK MILL DRIVESPRINGVIEW LANEBANSHEE DRIVEBARKSDALE DRIVEPOST PRESERVESECTION 2POST PRESERVESECTION 1POST PRESERVESECTION 3STILLHOUSE LANEGORDEN DRIVEHYLAND CROY ROAD19HYLAND GLENCITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIOPRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANSHEETGRAPHIC SCALE:20210326OCTOBER 20, 2021HYLAND GLENPREPARED BY:485 Metro Place SouthDublin, Ohio 43017Suite 350The Paragon Building Group, LTD.dba Virginia Homes150' 0 75' 150' 300' 450'8OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLANHYLAND-CROY RURALCORRIDOR LANDSCAPE,SEE SHEET 9LANDSCAPE LEGENDDECIDUOUS STREET TREEDECIDUOUS SHADE TREEORNAMENTAL TREEEVERGREEN TREESIDEWALKTREELAWNINTERNAL STREETTREELAWNBIKEPATHHYLAND-CROY RURAL CORRIDORR.O.W.HYLAND-CROYTREE GROUPINGSLAWNHYLAND-CROY TYPICAL RURAL CORRIDOR SECTION ELEVATIONA'ANotes:1. Landscape materials shall be selected to be tolerant ofwet, dry, and windy conditions.2.Stormwater basin shall provide either one (1) fountain oraerator per basin.1121NOTES:Proposed Public Streets will be Connected to Existing Streets. ( Springview Lane, Stillhouse Lane, andHolbein Drive) Tree Lawns Shall Transition from Existing 7' to 8'.Existing Hammerhead at Springview Lane to be Removed; as Existing Easements Allow, with StreetConnection to Proposed DevelopmentFuture Post Road/Hyland Croy Road Improvements Shown for Reference Only12POSSIBLE WALLAND/OREVERGREENSHRUBENTRY FEATURE (SIGNAGEAND LANDSCAPE TO BEPROVIDED WITH FINALDEVELOPMENT PLAN)33PRESERVE EXISTING TREESWHERE POSSIBLE ADJACENTTO BARN AND GRANARY.TO BE FINALIZED WITH FINALDEVELOPMENT PLAN. 3635344123567891011121314 15 16373830292827262524232221201718193940414243444546 47 48 49 5051 52 53 545556575859606162 63 64 65EMOORLAND DRIVESPRINGVIEW LANEBANSHEE DRIVEBARKSDALE DRIVESTILLHOUSE LANEGORDEN DRIVEHYLAND CROY ROAD747576433907273969594939291OLBEIN DRIVEWILDE DRIVELANDSCAPE LEGENDDECIDUOUS STREET TREEDECIDUOUS SHADE TREEORNAMENTAL TREEEVERGREEN TREE19HYLAND GLENCITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIOPRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANSHEETGRAPHIC SCALE:20210326OCTOBER 20, 2021HYLAND GLENPREPARED BY:485 Metro Place SouthDublin, Ohio 43017Suite 350The Paragon Building Group, LTD.dba Virginia Homes9HYLAND-CROY RURALCORRIDOR ENLARGEMENT60' 0 30' 60' 120' 180'MATCH LINE -- SEE BELOWMATCH LINE -- SEE ABOVEHYLAND-CROY RURAL CORRIDORLANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENTHYLAND-CROY RURAL CORRIDORLANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENTNOTE: ALL LANDSCAPING,FENCING, COLUMNS, ANDENTRY FEATURES ARECONCEPTUAL WILL BEPROVIDED AT FDPPORTION OF THE POND TREESAND RURAL CORRIDDORTREES TO INCLUDE OCTOBERGLORY MAPLES TO BECONSISTENT WITH THEBURKART LANDSCAPE PLANAT INTERSECTION.INTERSECTIONENLARGEMENTSEE SHEET 10TREES PERBURKARTINTERSECTIONLANDSCAPEPLAN 891011 121345 46 47 4819HYLAND GLENCITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIOPRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANSHEETGRAPHIC SCALE:20210326OCTOBER 20, 2021HYLAND GLENPREPARED BY:485 Metro Place SouthDublin, Ohio 43017Suite 350The Paragon Building Group, LTD.dba Virginia Homes10Rootball PreparationDeciduous Tree PlantingShrub PlantingPlanting Bed EdgeRootball SettingPlanting Area EstablishmentEvergreen Tree Planting0GRAPHIC SCALE:40' 0 20' 40' 80' 160'Post Road Intersection EnlargementTREES PERBURKARTINTERSECTIONLANDSCAPEPLANEVERGREENTREES FORSCREENINGORNAMENTAL GRASSES REMINISCENTOF ROWS IN CORNFIELDPONDBARNGRANARYPOND PLANTINGS TO INCLUDEPLANT MATERIALSCONSISTENT WITH BURKARTLANDSCAPE PLAN Ex 30" StmEx 24" StmEx 12" StmEx 18" StmEx 18" StmEx 24" StmEx 18" StmEx 12" StmEx12"StmEx 18" StmEx12"StmEx12"Stm Ex12"StmStmEx12"StmEx 24" StmEx 24" StmEx 21" StmEx 21" StmPOST ROADPOST PRESERVE BLVDTreeProtectionFence (Typ)TreeProtectionFence (Typ)Ex 20' DrainageEasementEx UtilityEasementPOST ROAD20' UtilityEasement30' DrainageEasementJEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTYEx BasinJEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTY30' Building &Pavement Setback100' Building &Pavement Setback20' UtilityEasement41235678910111213141516201718194546 474849505152535420' DrainageEasementProp DrainageEasement20' UtilityEasementReserve "B"Reserve "A"20' Bldg Setback20' Bldg Setback20' Bldg Setback15'Berm2' UtilityEasement20' DrainageEasement2' UtilityEasement15' UtilityEasement2' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasementTreeProtectionFence (Typ)BANSHEE DRIVEBARKSDALE DRIVEPOST PRESERVESECTION 12' SWEasement20' UtilityEasement19HYLAND GLENCITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIOPRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANSHEETGRAPHIC SCALE:20210326OCTOBER 20, 2021HYLAND GLENPREPARED BY:485 Metro Place SouthDublin, Ohio 43017Suite 350The Paragon Building Group, LTD.dba Virginia HomesJ:\20210326\Dwg\04Sheets\PDP\13 Utility Plan.dwg, Last Saved By: pbrown, 8/27/2021 4:31 PM Last Printed By: Brown, Patricia, 10/19/2021 11:03 AM4 Xrefs: 20170464-PDVP-TB, 20170464-CS-REFR-E, 20170464-CS-REFR-PDP-BLDG-N, 20170464-CS-REFR-PDP-NUTILITY PLAN50' 0 25' 50' 100' 200'11CONTINUATION LINESEE SHEET 12StormwaterManagementAreaNP=928.0100 Yr=932.0±Typical Internal LotNOTES:Proposed Public Streets will be Connected to Existing Streets (Springview Lane, Stillhouse Lane, HolbeinDrive). Tree Lawns Shall Transition From Existing 7' to 8'.Existing Hammerhead at Springview Lane to be Removed; as Existing Easements Allow, with StreetConnection to Proposed DevelopmentFuture Post Road/Hyland Croy Road Improvements Shown for Reference Only1233 Ex 30" StmEx 30" StmEx 12" StmEx 24" StmEx 24" StmEx 24" StmEx FHEx WatEx WatProp DrainageEasement20' UtilityEasement 20' DrainageEasement20' UtilityEasement30' DrainageEasement20' UtilityEasementTreeProtectionFence (Typ)TreeProtectionFence (Typ)20' DrainageEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement25' UtilityEasement15' BermSTILLHOUSE LANESPRINGVIEW LANEMOORLAND30' DrainageEasement25' UtilityEasementJEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTY20' Bldg Setback10' Bldg SetbackExisting Zoning:Rural District R20' Bldg Setback20' Bldg Setback20' Bldg Setback30' Bldg Setback100' Bldg & Pavement SetbackEx. RWEx. R/W20' Bldg Setback20' BldgSetback20' Bldg Setback20' Bldg Setback20' Bldg Setback100' Bldg & Pavement Setback30' Bldg Setback20' Bldg Setback20' Bldg SetbackReserve "D"20' Bldg Setback69363534331706823738302928272625242322212018193940414243447172733132535455565758596061626364656667Reserve "D"Reserve "C"25' DrainageEasement20' UtilityEasement2' UtilityEasement2' UtilityEasement2' UtilityEasement20' DrainageEasementDRIVE20' UtilityEasement15' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasementyent20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasementTreeProtectionFence (Typ)3' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasementTreeProtectionFence (Typ)FeSTILLHOUSE LANESPRINGVIEW LANEPOST PRESERVESECTION 2POST PRESERVESECTION 1STILLHOUSE LANEGORDEN DRIVEHIGHLAND CROY ROAD20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement2' UtilityEasement2' UtilityEasementSPRINGVIEWLANE19HYLAND GLENCITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIOPRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANSHEETGRAPHIC SCALE:20210326OCTOBER 20, 2021HYLAND GLENPREPARED BY:485 Metro Place SouthDublin, Ohio 43017Suite 350The Paragon Building Group, LTD.dba Virginia HomesJ:\20210326\Dwg\04Sheets\PDP\13 Utility Plan.dwg, Last Saved By: pbrown, 8/27/2021 4:31 PM Last Printed By: Brown, Patricia, 10/19/2021 12:15 PM4 Xrefs: 20170464-PDVP-TB, 20170464-CS-REFR-E, 20170464-CS-REFR-PDP-BLDG-N, 20170464-CS-REFR-PDP-NUTILITY PLAN12CONTINUATION LINESEE SHEET 13CONTINUATION LINE SEE SHEET 11LEGEND50' 0 25' 50' 100' 200'Ex ℄ StreamStream Crossing(To be structurallyevaluated and detailed atfinal engineering)StormwaterManagementAreaNP=924.4100 Yr=928.5±Typical Internal Lot121NOTES:Proposed Public Streets will be Connected to Existing Streets (Springview Lane, Stillhouse Lane, HolbeinDrive). Tree Lawns Shall Transition From Existing 7' to 8'.Existing Hammerhead at Springview Lane to be Removed; as Existing Easements Allow, with StreetConnection to Proposed DevelopmentFuture Post Road/Hyland Croy Road Improvements Shown for Reference Only123 Ex 8" WMEx 12" StmEx 12" StmEx 15" StmEx 15" StmEx 15" StmEx 15" StmEx15"StmEx36"StmEx 36" StmEx 36" StmEx 12" StmEx 12" WMEx 12" StmEx12"StmEx12"Stmx 36" StmEx12"StmEx 12" StmEx 60' R/WWELDON ROADEx 12" SanEx 8" SanE 10" SEx 10" SanEx 8" SanEx 8" WMEx 75' R/W30' DrainageEasement20' DrainageEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasementExEasement20' UtilityEasement25' DrainageEasementTreeProtectionFence (Typ)TreeProtectionFence (Typ)TreeProtectionFence (Typ)20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement15' Berm15' BermHOLBEIN DRIVE20' UtilityEasement30' DrainageEasement20' UtilityEasement⅊⅊JEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTY20' Bldg Setback20' Bldg Setback20' Bldg SetbackExisting Zoning:Rural District (RU)20' Bldg Setback20' Bldg Setback100' Bldg & Parking Setback20' Bldg SetbackEx. R/WEx. R/W20' Bldg Setback10' Bldg Setback100' Bldg & Pavement Setback20' Bldg Setback20' Bldg Setback10' Bldg Setback20' Bldg SetbackReserve "D"Reserve "G"(Open Space)±4.0 Ac.20' DrainageEasement8988877475767778799080818283848586969594939299100101102989791Reserve "F"Reserve "E"25' Drainage Easement2' UtilityEasement2' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement3' UtilityEasement3' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasementTreeProtectionFence (Typ)HOLBEIN DRIVEWOOLEY DRIVEWILDE DRIVEPARK MILL DRIVEHYLAND CROY ROADDrainageEasement2' SWEasement2' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement19HYLAND GLENCITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIOPRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANSHEETGRAPHIC SCALE:20210326OCTOBER 20, 2021HYLAND GLENPREPARED BY:485 Metro Place SouthDublin, Ohio 43017Suite 350The Paragon Building Group, LTD.dba Virginia HomesJ:\20210326\Dwg\04Sheets\PDP\13 Utility Plan.dwg, Last Saved By: pbrown, 8/27/2021 4:31 PM Last Printed By: Brown, Patricia, 10/19/2021 12:18 PM4 Xrefs: 20170464-PDVP-TB, 20170464-CS-REFR-E, 20170464-CS-REFR-PDP-BLDG-N, 20170464-CS-REFR-PDP-NUTILITY PLAN13CONTINUATION LINESEE SHEET 12StormwaterManagementAreaNP=924.4100 Yr=928.5±LEGEND50' 0 25' 50' 100' 200'Stream CorridorProtection Zone/FloodplainEx ℄ StreamStream Crossing(To be structurallyevaluated and detailed atfinal engineering)Typical Internal LotNOTES:Proposed Public Streets will be Connected to Existing Streets (Springview Lane, Stillhouse Lane, HolbeinDrive). Tree Lawns Shall Transition From Existing 7' to 8'.Existing Hammerhead at Springview Lane to be Removed; as Existing Easements Allow, with StreetConnection to Proposed DevelopmentFuture Post Road/Hyland Croy Road Improvements Shown for Reference Only121StormwaterManagementAreaNP=924.4100 Yr=928.1±3 HYLAND-CROY ROADPOST ROADHYLAND-CROY ROADPOST ROADPOST PRESERVE BLVDHYLAND-CROY ROADPOST ROAD30' Building &Pavement Setback100' Building &Pavement SetbackTreeProtectionFence (Typ)TreeProtectionFence (Typ)Ex 20' DrainageEasement15' BermJEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTYEx BasinJEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTY10FG=935.09FG=935.18FG=935.17FG=935.16FG=935.45FG=935.44FG=935.13FG=935.22FG=935.61FG=935.611FG=934.812FG=934.813FG=934.414FG=934.415FG=934.716FG=934.619FG=934.518FG=934.317FG=934.520FG=935.054FG=934.853FG=934.352FG=934.451FG=934.850FG=934.849FG=934.448FG=934.247FG=934.846FG=934.845FG=934.920' Bldg Setback20' Bldg Setback20' Bldg Setback20' UtilityEasement30' DrainageEasement20' UtilityEasement20' DrainageEasementProp DrainageEasement20' UtilityEasement2' UtilityEasement20' DrainageEasementBANSHEE DRIVEHYLAND CROY ROADBARKSDALE DRIVE3' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasementTreeProtectionFence (Typ)2' SWEasementDrainageEasement20' UtilityEasement15' UtilityEasement8' SharedUse Path19HYLAND GLENCITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIOPRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANSHEETGRAPHIC SCALE:20210326OCTOBER 20, 2021HYLAND GLENPREPARED BY:485 Metro Place SouthDublin, Ohio 43017Suite 350The Paragon Building Group, LTD.dba Virginia HomesJ:\20210326\Dwg\04Sheets\PDP\16 Grading Plan.dwg, Last Saved By: pbrown, 9/17/2021 8:33 AM Last Printed By: Brown, Patricia, 10/19/2021 3:21 PM4 Xrefs: 20170464-PDVP-TB, 20170464-CS-REFR-E, 20170464-CS-REFR-PDP-BLDG-N, 20170464-CS-REFR-PDP-NGRADING PLAN14CONTINUATION LINESEE SHEET 1550' 0 25' 50' 100' 200'3NOTES:Proposed Public Streets will be Connected to Existing Streets (Springview Lane, Stillhouse Lane, HolbeinDrive). Tree Lawns Shall Transition From Existing 7' to 8'.Existing Hammerhead at Springview Lane to be Removed; as Existing Easements Allow, with StreetConnection to Proposed DevelopmentFuture Post Road/Hyland Croy Road Improvements Shown for Reference Only123StormwaterManagement AreaNP=928.0100 Yr=932.0± STILLHOUSE LANESPRINGVIEW LANEEx 30" StmEx 30" StmEx 12" StmEx 24" StmEx 24" StmEx 24" StmEx ℄ Stream69FG=931.656FG=934.455FG=934.843FG=934.670FG=932.568FG=932.044FG=934.242FG=934.641FG=934.240FG=933.839FG=933.338FG=933.337FG=933.336FG=932.735FG=932.734FG=932.857FG=934.058FG=933.623FG=933.624FG=933.225FG=933.026FG=933.527FG=933.528FG=933.329FG=932.930FG=933.331FG=933.333FG=932.859FG=933.260FG=933.161FG=933.662FG=933.563FG=933.264FG=933.065FG=933.466FG=933.467FG=932.771FG=932.572FG=932.773FG=932.722FG=934.032FG=932.920' Bldg Setback10' Bldg Setback20' Bldg Setback20' Bldg Setback20' Bldg Setback30' Bldg SetbackEx. RWEx. R/W20' Bldg Setback20' BldgSetback20' Bldg Setback20' Bldg Setback20' Bldg Setback100' Bldg & Pavement Setback30' Bldg Setback20' Bldg Setback20' Bldg SetbackTreeProtectionFence (Typ)15' Berm15' BermJEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTY2FG=935.61FG=935.621FG=935.019FG=934.5FG=934.320FG=935.054FG=934.853FG=934.330' DrainageEasementProp DrainageEasement20' UtiltiyEasement20' DrainageEasement20' UtilityEasement30' DrainageEasement20' UtilityEasementTreeProtectionFence (Typ)20' DrainageEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement25' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement25' DrainageEasement20' UtilityEasement2' UtilityEasement2' UtilityEasement20' DrainageEasement3' UtilityEasement3' UtilityEasementSTILLHOUSE LANESPRINGVIEWLANEHYLAND CROY ROADSPRINGVIEWLANEGORDEN DRIVESTILLHOUSE LANEHYLAND CROY ROADMOORLAND DRIVE3' UtilityEasement20' UtiltiyEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasementTreeProtectionFence (Typ)2' UtilityEasementStream CorridorProtection Zone/FloodplainTreeProtectionFence (Typ)2' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement15' UtilityEasementSPRINGVIEWLANE20' UtilityEasement8' SharedUse Path8' SharedUse Path8' SharedUse Path19HYLAND GLENCITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIOPRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANSHEETGRAPHIC SCALE:20210326OCTOBER 20, 2021HYLAND GLENPREPARED BY:485 Metro Place SouthDublin, Ohio 43017Suite 350The Paragon Building Group, LTD.dba Virginia HomesJ:\20210326\Dwg\04Sheets\PDP\16 Grading Plan.dwg, Last Saved By: pbrown, 9/17/2021 8:33 AM Last Printed By: Brown, Patricia, 10/19/2021 3:22 PM4 Xrefs: 20170464-PDVP-TB, 20170464-CS-REFR-E, 20170464-CS-REFR-PDP-BLDG-N, 20170464-CS-REFR-PDP-NGRADING PLAN15CONTINUATION LINESEE SHEET 16CONTINUATION LINE SEE SHEET 1450' 0 25' 50' 100' 200'StormwaterManagement AreaNP=924.4100 Yr=928.5±Stream Crossing(To be structurallydetailed and evaluatedat final engineering)121NOTES:Proposed Public Streets will be Connected to Existing Streets (Springview Lane, Stillhouse Lane, HolbeinDrive). Tree Lawns Shall Transition From Existing 7' to 8'.Existing Hammerhead at Springview Lane to be Removed; as Existing Easements Allow, with StreetConnection to Proposed DevelopmentFuture Post Road/Hyland Croy Road Improvements Shown for Reference Only123FloodwayFloodway + 20' HOLBEIN DRIVEEx 12" StmEx 12" StmEx 15" StmEx 15" StmEx 15" StmEx 15" StmEx15"StmEx36"StmEx 36" StmEx 36" StmEx 12" StmEx 12" StmEx12"StmEx12"Stm36" StmEx12"StmEx 12" StmStormwaterManagement AreaNP=924.4100 Yr=928.1±Ex ℄ Stream90FG=931.389FG=931.088FG=931.674FG=932.475FG=931.676FG=930.877FG=930.878FG=930.879FG=930.891FG=932.280FG=931.081FG=931.082FG=930.683FG=931.184FG=931.185FG=930.786FG=931.287FG=931.696FG=933.095FG=933.094FG=933.193FG=932.792FG=932.399FG=931.7100FG=930.9101FG=930.998FG=930.797FG=931.0102FG=931.2WELDON ROAD20' Bldg Setback20' Bldg Setback20' Bldg SetbackExisting Zoning:Rural District (RU)20' Bldg Setback20' Bldg Setback100' Bldg & Parking Setback20' Bldg SetbackEx. R/WEx. R/W20' Bldg Setback10' Bldg Setback100' Bldg & Pavement Setback100' Bldg & Pavement Setback20' Bldg Setback20' Bldg Setback10' Bldg Setback20' Bldg SetbackTreeProtectionFence (Typ)TreeProtectionFence (Typ)TreeProtectionFence (Typ)15' Berm15' Berm⅊⅊JEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTY100' Bldg & Pavement Setback30' DrainageEasement20' DrainageEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement25' DrainageEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement30' DrainageEasement20' Utility Easement20' UtilityEasement25' Drainage Easement2' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement3' UtilityEasement3' UtilityEasementSightTriangleSightTriangleHOLBEIN DRIVEWOOLEY DRIVEPOST PRESERVESECTION 3WILDE DRIVEHYLAND CROY ROAD20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasementStream CorridorProtection Zone/FloodplainTreeProtectionFence (Typ)Stream CorridorProtection Zone/Floodplain20' UtilityEasement8' SharedUse Path2' UtilityEasement6' SW/SharedUse Path Esmt8' SharedUse PathExistingGas EsmtDrainage Easementharede PathJ:\20210326\Dwg\04Sheets\PDP\16 Grading Plan.dwg, Last Saved By: pbrown, 9/17/2021 8:33 AM Last Printed By: Brown, Patricia, 10/19/2021 3:24 PM4 Xrefs: 20170464-PDVP-TB, 20170464-CS-REFR-E, 20170464-CS-REFR-PDP-BLDG-N, 20170464-CS-REFR-PDP-NGRADING PLAN16CONTINUATION LINESEE SHEET 1550' 0 25' 50' 100' 200'StormwaterManagement AreaNP=924.4100 Yr=928.5±Stream Crossing(To be detailed atfinal engineering)19HYLAND GLENCITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIOPRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANSHEETGRAPHIC SCALE:20210326OCTOBER 20, 2021HYLAND GLENPREPARED BY:485 Metro Place SouthDublin, Ohio 43017Suite 350The Paragon Building Group, LTD.dba Virginia Homes1NOTES:Proposed Public Streets will be Connected to Existing Streets (Springview Lane, Stillhouse Lane, HolbeinDrive). Tree Lawns Shall Transition From Existing 7' to 8'.Existing Hammerhead at Springview Lane to be Removed; as Existing Easements Allow, with StreetConnection to Proposed DevelopmentFuture Post Road/Hyland Croy Road Improvements Shown for Reference Only123Floodway + 20'Floodway J:\20210326\Dwg\04Sheets\PDP\17 Street Sections.dwg, Last Saved By: lvanover, 8/27/2021 2:24 PM Last Printed By: Brown, Patricia, 10/19/2021 3:26 PM4 Xrefs: 20121422-VG-TREE-INVT-E(SouthZone), 20121422-CNPT-TB, 20170464-PDVP-TB, 20170464-CS-REFR-E19HYLAND GLENCITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIOPRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANSHEETGRAPHIC SCALE:20210326OCTOBER 20, 2021HYLAND GLENPREPARED BY:485 Metro Place SouthDublin, Ohio 43017Suite 350The Paragon Building Group, LTD.dba Virginia Homes150' 0 75' 150' 300' 450'17STREET SECTIONSSlope:Slope:3/16"/ft.13'-0"43Not to Scale3/16"/ft.14'-0" paving section25'LC50' R/W3/16"/ft.Slope:13'-0"R/W4'3/16"/ft.122'-0"8'-0" Min14'-0" paving section3/16"/ft.25'53/16"/ft.Slope:Per RD-05SidewalkPer RD-05Sidewalk4'Stillhouse LaneBanshee DriveBarksdale DriveSpringview LaneTree Lawn2'-0"PARTIAL BIKEPATH SECTIONSlope:3/16"/ft.8'Wilde DriveWooley DriveGorden DriveTYPICAL 28' B/B SECTION50' R/WItem 204, Subgrade Compaction6Item 304, 6" Aggregate BaseItem 301, 3" Bituminous Aggregate Base Course53Item 441 (448), 1.75" Asphalt Concrete, Intermediate Course,Item 441 (448), 1.25" Asphalt Concrete, Surface Course,12PAVEMENT LEGEND Type 1, Pg 64-22, Medium Traffic. *Type 2, Pg 64-22, Medium Traffic.Item 653 - 3" Topsoil Furnished And PlacedItem 659, Seeding And Mulching78' Bikepath WhereShown on PlanSlope: 3:1 Max.Slope: 3:1 Max.City of Dublin concretecombination curb & gutter RD-02No. 57aggregate4" sub drainODOT item 707.31or 707.33Profile gradeEarthR/W2' SW Esmt2' SW Esmt76Slope:Slope:3/16"/ft.12'-0"8'-0" Min.43Not to Scale3/16"/ft.14'-0" paving section25'LC50' R/W3/16"/ft.Slope:16'-0"R/W8' Shared3/16"/ft.122'-0"8'-0" Min.14'-0" paving section3/16"/ft.25'53/16"/ft.Slope:Use Path Per RD-05Per RD-05Sidewalk4'Tree LawnTree Lawn2'-0"Holbein DriveTYPICAL 28' B/B SECTION50' R/WSlope: 3:1 Max.City of Dublin concretecombination curb & gutter RD-02No. 57aggregate4" sub drainODOT item 707.31or 707.33Profile gradeEarthR/W2' SW Esmt763'-0"Slope: 3:1 Max.Slope: 3:1 Max.45'-0"Slope:Slope:3/16"/ft.VariesVaries43Not to Scale3/16"/ft.Varies paving section30'LC60' R/W3/16"/ft.Slope:VariesR/W4'3/16"/ft.122'-0"Varies paving section3/16"/ft.30'53/16"/ft.Slope:Per RD-05SidewalkPer RD-05Sidewalk4'Tree LawnTree Lawn2'-0"Springview Lane EntranceTYPICAL VARYING B/B SECTION60' R/WSlope: 3:1 Max.City of Dublin concretecombination curb & gutter RD-02No. 57aggregate4" sub drainODOT item 707.31or 707.33Profile gradeEarthR/WSW Esmt76Slope: 3:1 Max.Not to ScaleMoorland Drive EntranceHolbein Drive EntranceTYPICAL 40' B/B SECTION60' R/WSlope:Slope:3/16"/ft.12'-0"8'-0" Min.433/16"/ft.20' paving section30'LC60' R/W3/16"/ft.Slope:12'-0"R/W4'3/16"/ft.122'-0"8'-0" Min.20' paving section3/16"/ft.30'53/16"/ft.Slope:Per RD-05SidewalkPer RD-05Sidewalk4'Tree LawnTree Lawn2'-0"Slope: 3:1 Max.City of Dublin concretecombination curb & gutter RD-02No. 57aggregate4" sub drainODOT item 707.31or 707.33Profile gradeEarthR/W6767Slope: 3:1 Max.8'-0" MinTree LawnVariesSW Esmt3' SWEsmt3' SWEsmt6767676' SW/Shared UsePath Esmt STILLHOUSE LANEPARK MILL DRIVEHYLAND-CROY ROADBLAKEMORE LANESPRINGVIEW LANEHOLBEIN DRIVEWELDON ROAD⅊⅊⅊Ex BasinEx Basin⅊⅊⅊JEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTYJEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTYJEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTYMOORLAND DRIVESTILLHOUSE LANEHOLBEIN DRIVEWOOLEY DRIVEWILDE DRIVESPRINGVIEW LANEBANSHEE DRIVEBARKSDALE DRIVEPOST PRESERVESECTION 2POST PRESERVESECTION 1POST PRESERVESECTION 3STILLHOUSE LANEGORDEN DRIVEJ:\20210326\Dwg\04Sheets\PDP\18 Existing Tree Survey.dwg, Last Saved By: mnerici, 8/27/2021 4:14 PM Last Printed By: Brown, Patricia, 10/19/2021 3:28 PM4 Xrefs: 20121422-VG-TREE-INVT-E(SouthZone), 20121422-CNPT-TB, 20170464-PDVP-TB, 20170464-CS-REFR-E19HYLAND GLENCITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIOPRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANSHEETGRAPHIC SCALE:20210326OCTOBER 20, 2021HYLAND GLENPREPARED BY:485 Metro Place SouthDublin, Ohio 43017Suite 350The Paragon Building Group, LTD.dba Virginia Homes150' 0 75' 150' 300' 450'18EXISTING TREE SURVEY1NOTES:Tree Protection Fence Required to be Maintained along the entire East and North Property Line ThroughConstructionFencing Should be Placed as far from Tree as Possible. Tree Removal and Replacement will be finalized during FinalDevelopment Plan Process.1211 19HYLAND GLENCITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIOPRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLANSHEETGRAPHIC SCALE:20210326OCTOBER 20, 2021HYLAND GLENPREPARED BY:485 Metro Place SouthDublin, Ohio 43017Suite 350The Paragon Building Group, LTD.dba Virginia HomesJ:\20210326\Dwg\04Sheets\PDP\19 Existing Tree Data.dwg, Last Saved By: mnerici, 8/27/2021 4:05 PM Last Printed By: Brown, Patricia, 10/19/2021 3:30 PM4 Xrefs: 20170464-PDVP-TB, 20170464-CS-REFR-E, 20170464-CS-REFR-PDP-BLDG-N, 20170464-CS-REFR-PDP-N19EXISTING TREE DATA TABLELEGENDDead Dead TreesOffsite Trees POST R OAD PO S T P R E S E RV E B LVD POST R OAD SPRINGVIEW LANEJEROME TW N S H P / U N I O N C O U N T Y CITY OF DU B L I N / U N I O N C O U N T YJEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTYS P R I NG V I EW L A N E BANSHEE DRIVE BARKSDALE DRIVE POST PRESERVE SECTION 1 HIGHLAND CROY ROAD SPRINGVIEWLANE4 125678910 11 12 13 14 15 16 23222120171819 424344 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 7 2 HYLAND GLEN CITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIO PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHEET GRAPHIC SCALE: 20210326NOVEMBER 17, 2021HYLAND GLEN PREPARED BY: 485 Metro Place South Dublin, Ohio 43017 Suite 350 The Paragon Building Group, LTD. dba Virginia Homes \\CMHDATA01\Project01\20210326\Dwg\04Sheets\Exhibits\2021-11-15-Open Area Plan.dwg, Last Saved By: mnerici, 11/17/2021 12:50 PM Last Printed By: Nerici, Megan, 11/17/2021 12:53 PM4 Xrefs: 20170464-PDVP-TB, 20170464-CS-REFR-E, 20170464-CS-REFR-PDP-BLDG-N, 20170464-CS-REFR-PDP-NOPEN SPACE AREA PLAN 50'0 25'50'100'200' 1 NOTE: HOUSE FOOTPRINTS SHOWN FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. FINAL HOUSE CONFIGURATION/PLACEMENT SHALL BE DETERMINED BY DEVELOPER AND IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT SET FORTH WITHIN THE PROJECT SUBMITTAL. INDIVIDUAL HOME OWNER EXTERIOR AMENITY AREA (I.E. STRUCTURES, WALLS, HARDSCAPE) INDIVIDUAL HOME OWNER EXTERIOR GREEN SPACE AREA (I.E. TREES, SHRUBS, OTHER LANDSCAPING WHERE APPLICABLE. PORTIONS OF SOME LOTS MAY CONTAIN UTILITY EASEMENTS PROHIBITING PLANTING) LEGEND 20'30'14'10'10'31'41'14'10'21'31'14'10'14'10'20'50'\\CMHDATA01\Project01\20210326\Dwg\04Sheets\Exhibits\2021-11-15-Open Area Plan.dwg, Last Saved By: mnerici, 11/17/2021 12:50 PM Last Printed By: Nerici, Megan, 11/17/2021 12:56 PM4 Xrefs: 20170464-PDVP-TB, 20170464-CS-REFR-E, 20170464-CS-REFR-PDP-BLDG-N, 20170464-CS-REFR-PDP-NTYPICAL LOT COVERAGE DIAGRAMS 20'0 10' 20'40'80' 2 2 HYLAND GLEN CITY OF DUBLIN, UNION COUNTY, OHIO PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHEET GRAPHIC SCALE: 20210326NOVEMBER 17, 2021HYLAND GLEN PREPARED BY: 485 Metro Place South Dublin, Ohio 43017 Suite 350 The Paragon Building Group, LTD. dba Virginia Homes110'60' PAD 40 X 60 10' REAR YARD 20' FRONT YARD TYPICAL 40 x 60 PAD LOT COVERAGE ± 40% LOT AREA 6600 SF BUILDING PAD / PATIO / DRIVE/ SIDEWALK ± 2700 SF 110'60' PAD 42 X 48 10' REAR YARD TYPICAL 42' X 48' PAD LOT COVERAGE ± 36% LOT AREA 6600 SF BUILDING PAD / PATIO / DRIVE/ SIDEWALK ± 2400 SF 110'60' PAD 41 X 57 10' REAR YARD TYPICAL 41' X 57' PAD LOT COVERAGE ±40% LOT AREA 6600 SF BUILDING PAD / PATIO / DRIVE/ SIDEWALK ± 2650 SF 20' FRONT YARD 20' FRONT YARD NOTE: HOUSE FOOTPRINTS SHOWN FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. FINAL HOUSE CONFIGURATION/PLACEMENT SHALL BE DETERMINED BY DEVELOPER AND IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT TEXT SET FORTH WITHIN THE PROJECT SUBMITTAL.5' SIDE YARD5' SIDE YARD5' SIDE YARD5' SIDE YARD5' SIDE YARD5' SIDE YARDPATIO PATIO PATIO 130'70' PAD 52 X 60 30' REAR YARD TYPICAL 52' X 60' PAD LOT COVERAGE ±40% LOT AREA 9100 SF BUILDING PAD / PATIO / DRIVE/ SIDEWALK ± 3600 SF 20' FRONT YARD5' SIDE YARD5' SIDE YARDPATIO 11/29/2021Operating ExpensesYear One AmountYear Two AmountThree AmountYear Four AmountYear Five AmountTurf Mowing (28 cuts) 28,000.00 28,840.00 29,705.20 30,596.36 31,514.25Spring/Fall Cleanup, Bed Edging/Mulching 12,000.00 12,360.00 12,730.80 13,112.72 13,506.11Fertilizing/Weed Control 7,750.00 7,982.50 8,221.98 8,468.63 8,722.69Irrigation Maintenance ‐ Entries 1,500.00 1,545.00 1,591.35 1,639.09 1,688.26Electricity 1,750.00 1,802.50 1,856.58 1,912.27 1,969.64Water 10,050.00 10,351.50 10,662.05 10,981.90 11,311.37Shrubs/Tree care/replacements 700.00 721.00 742.63 764.91 787.86TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES61,750.00 63,602.50 65,510.59 67,475.88 69,500.18Management ExpensesAccounting Services 200 200 250 250 250Legal Expenses 500 500 500 500 500Insurance Expenses 1500 1500 1600 1600 1600Postage and Delivery Expenses 100 100 100 100 100TOTAL MANAGEMENT EXPENSES2300 2300 2450 2450 2450TOTAL OPERATING AND MANAGEMENT EXPENSES64,050.00 65,902.50 67,960.59 69,925.88 71,950.18EXPENSE PER LOT (102)627.94 646.10 666.28 685.55 705.39ANNUAL DUES 650.00 650.00 675.00 700.00 700.00Detail:Reserve Area B,C,D,E,F (approx. 9 acres)3 Entry Features102 LotsHYLAND GLEN DEVELOPMENT HOA PROFORMA * Artist Rendering | Builder reserves the right to alter finished product.© All Rights Reserved, KNUDSON GLOSS ARCHITECTS 2-25-21 l VALUES THAT MATTER CRAFTSMAN ELEVATION EURO-COTTAGE ELEVATION 11.30.10RESIDENCE ©2016 knudson gloss architects/Home Builders Network ©2016 knudson gloss architects/Home Builders Network ©2016 knudson gloss architects/Home Builders Network TRADITIONAL ELEVATION *Elevations are Conceptual. They depict character and general elements of the proposed homes. HYLAND GLEN CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS 2021-07-26 CRAFTSMAN ELEVATION TRADITIONAL COTTAGE ELEVATION ©2020 knudson gloss architects/Home Builders Network ©2020 knudson gloss architects/Home Builders Network 05-30-17 l VALUES THAT MATTER * Artist Rendering | Builder reserves the right to alter finished product. 01-05-21 l VALUES THAT MATTER MODERN FARMHOUSE ELEVATION ©2020 knudson gloss architects/Home Builders Network *Elevations are Conceptual. They depict character and general elements of the proposed homes. HYLAND GLEN CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS 2021-07-26 CRAFTSMAN ELEVATION EURO ELEVATION ©2016 knudson gloss architects/Home Builders Network ©2016 knudson gloss architects/Home Builders Network 05-30-17 l VALUES THAT MATTER * Artist Rendering | Builder reserves the right to alter finished product. 11-16-18 l VALUES THAT MATTER TRADITIONAL ELEVATION ©2016 knudson gloss architects/Home Builders Network *Elevations are Conceptual. They depict character and general elements of the proposed homes. HYLAND GLEN CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS 2021-07-26 CRAFTSMAN ELEVATION EURO ELEVATION ©2016 knudson gloss architects/Home Builders Network ©2016 knudson gloss architects/Home Builders Network 05-30-17 l VALUES THAT MATTER * Artist Rendering | Builder reserves the right to alter finished product. 11-16-18 l VALUES THAT MATTER TRADITIONAL ELEVATION ©2016 knudson gloss architects/Home Builders Network *Elevations are Conceptual. They depict character and general elements of the proposed homes. HYLAND GLEN CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS 2021-07-26 1 MEMO To: Nichole Martin, AICP Planner II, City of Dublin From: Christine Trebellas, AICP, Registered Architect, LEED Green Associate Vivian C. Majtenyi, AIA, NCARB Historic Preservation Consultants Date: June 30, 2021 Re: 7298 Post Road / 7298 Hyland-Croy Road, Second Review The approximately 44-acre property on the corner of Post and Hyland-Croy roads consists of an early twentieth-century farm complex along Post Road as well as a ca. 1983 brick ranch house and a ca. 1977 brick and wood frame ranch house along Hyland-Croy Road. The City of Dublin’s Historical and Cultural Assessment (HCA) lists the early twentieth-century farm complex as recommended individually-eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as a distinctive local example of agriculture in the Dublin area. The City of Dublin Planning Department contacted Preservation Designs LTD in April 2021 to conduct an independent analysis of the historic integrity of the farmstead complex to the supplement the 2016 HCA. The report addressed the historic context, National-Register eligibility, and historic integrity of the farmstead site and concluded that the farm complex was eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A (Event) and C (Design/Construction) as an excellent example of a farmstead from the early twentieth century. In addition, the main barn was determined individually eligible for the National Register under Criterion C, (Design/Construction), as an excellent example of a barn of this period with the potential for scholars to learn more about its mortise-and-tenon and heavy sawn timber construction. The City of Dublin then contacted Preservation Designs LTD in June 2021 to study the main house and determined its historic integrity since the exterior of the building had several modifications. The firm joined representatives from the City of Dublin on June 15 to view the interior of the home with the current owner. In addition, the barn and granary were surveyed once again to better determine their structural integrity as well as their historic nature. As such, this report will address the historic integrity of the Gorden house and review the possible preservation alternatives for the barns and other outbuildings of the farm complex. These comments are based on the reviewers’ understanding of the National Register Criteria for Evaluation as well as their professional experience and judgement regarding historic architecture and preservation projects. However, these comments do not (and cannot) identify every issue that may be of concern to the City of Dublin and the Planning Department. As always, the final determination of these issues lies with the City of Dublin. A. Main House The Gorden house is a one-and-one-half-story wood-frame T-shaped structure with an asphalt-shingle roof and a one-story hip-roof front porch facing the road. The house appears to date to circa 1900, with additions in the 1930s (the kitchen, back porch and rear bedroom upstairs) and 1955 (bathroom). White vinyl horizontal siding covers the exterior walls, but the original exterior horizontal wood siding can be 2 seen in the rear wall of the enclosed rear porch. The aluminum storm windows as well as the aluminum awnings are also later additions. However, the other exterior windows—the one-over-one wood sash windows—may be original. The exterior aluminum storm windows and vinyl siding could be removed to reveal period windows as well as period siding, which were usually left intact when vinyl siding was added. The interior of the house consists of two rooms on the first floor—a living room and dining room—as well as a kitchen to the rear. The east room contains a set of stairs in the corner accessing two bedrooms and a large landing / office on the upper floor. Overall, the living and dining rooms have remarkable integrity, including period wood floors, wood base, door trim, and four-panel wood doors with period hardware. The one-over-one sash windows also date to the period of construction and include period molding— including bulls-eye corner blocks. Even the entry door appears to date to the period of construction with its divided lights and door hardware. To the rear of the dining room and living room lies the kitchen. Although the wood floor of the kitchen has been covered with carpet, the rest of the room has remarkable integrity. The two-light two-panel wood door to the rear porch has period hardware, including a lockset. The kitchen cabinets supporting the sink, as well as the upper cabinets date to the period of construction. The countertop and sink are newer additions. The storage cabinet in the corner of the kitchen—with its tongue-and-groove bead-board construction and hardware—also date to the period. A built-in telephone niche lies next to the storage cabinet, which was typical of houses of this period. The wood base, wood door trim and four-panel doors resemble those of the front of the house and appear to date to the period. The exception is the door and door trim to the bathroom, which resemble the original but were added ca. 1955 with the rest of the bathroom addition. The stairs to the upper floor consist of varnished wood treads, a wood banister and railing, and a decorative wood newel post; all appear to date to circa 1900-1930. A varnished four-panel wood door with period hardware separates the landing from the upper run of stairs. It is unclear what the original finish of the woodwork was on the first floor; it could have been varnished like the stairs or painted like the rest of the woodwork on the first floor. The upper banister, railing, and newel post are not as decorative as those on the first floor, but also appear to date to the period. The wood floors, base, door trim, four-panel wood doors and windows resemble those on the first floor. The window trim is similar, but does not have the decorative bulls-eye corner blocks. These details, as well as the cabinets, closets, and hardware of the upper floor all appear to date to the 1900s to 1930s. The basement of the Gorden home is accessed by a set of stairs off the rear kitchen porch. According to family lore, house originally lacked a basement and had a concrete foundation with a crawl space; the rear kitchen addition was later excavated with dynamite and hand tools to accommodate an oil burner and brick chimney. This may explain why some of the older wood joists and wood floor members have circular saw cuts while other joists and floor members appear to be of newer construction. The basement walls are of cinderblock construction. The door to the oil burner appears to be of older construction; its tongue-and-groove bead-board sheathing resembles that of the storage cabinet in the kitchen. The door to the basement stairs has one light, three horizontal wood panels, and period hardware, which indicates it is of older construction as well. 3 HISTORIC ASSESSMENT: Main House (A) The first report by Preservation Designs LTD in April 2021 concluded that the main house has was eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as a contributing element of the overall farmstead, which was eligible under Criteria A and C as an excellent example of a farmstead from the early twentieth century. However, based on the information gathered during the June 15th site visit, the house has a high level of integrity and is individually eligible for the National Register under Criterion C (Design/Construction) as an excellent example of an early twentieth-century farmhouse. Besides retaining an excellent level of integrity of location, design, setting, feeling, and association, the home has a high level of integrity of materials and workmanship. Although the exterior of the home has undergone some alterations, many of these, such as the aluminum storm windows and vinyl siding, are reversible. And while the front porch has been modified, this change is typical for buildings over time and represents the layers of history. The interior of the home appears much as it would have in the early twentieth century. The overall layout of the house, as well as the wood floors, base, door trim, doors, windows, window trim, door and window hardware, and kitchen cabinets all date to the early twentieth century and are an excellent example of this type of home. The house has been in the same family for over a hundred years with few fundamental changes besides those needed for modern conveniences, such as an oil burner and indoor bathroom. Or, these changes are a part of the life of the building and typical of a working farm (enclosed rear porch). As such, the Gorden house maintains excellent integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Simply put, we believe that a member of the Gorden family from the past would feel right at home after all these years. Figure 1. Layout of the farmstead. A. Farmhouse B. Barn C. Milking Parlor D. Cow Shed E. Milk House F. Tool Shed G. Steer Shed H. Granary I. Cellar. J. Outhouse, demolished ~1962 K. Chicken House, demolished ~2010. L. Tool Shed, demolished ~2010 ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT: Main Barn (B) The April 2021 report concluded that the barn is eligible for the National Register under Criterion A (Event) as part of the Gorden farm complex as well as individually eligible under Criterion C (Design/Construction) as an excellent example of an early 20th Century barn. The main barn has heavy 4 timber mortise and tenon construction with saw cut patterns on the wood as well as a cast-in-place concrete foundation with field stones, both of which are typical of early twentieth century farms. These farms were largely self-sufficient with enough crops or animal products to sell as needed. However, when need arose, such as barn raising or harvesting, neighbors would band together (HCA, 25; interview with Roger Gorden on 4/16/2021). The main barn retains period vertical wood siding planks and beadboard, sliding barn doors and Dutch doors, a gambrel roof with flared eaves, half-round gutters with round downspouts, three bays with lofts in the west and east bays, and various farm-related equipment and tools. All of these elements are character-defining features typical of a vernacular, central Ohio barn based on the three-bay barn type from the early 20th Century. However, it is important to address the condition of the main barn. The heavy timber frame appears solid, but the exterior envelope is compromised and the adjacent milking parlor, which is attached to the structure, has some structural issues. Various areas along the exterior perimeter of the barn show deterioration, including some dry rot at ground level, a few broken planks, peeling paint, broken windowpanes, damaged or missing gutters and downspouts, and a damaged lightning rod. Unwanted animals have occupied the building, including a vulture, an opossum, and groundhogs who have burrowed tunnels immediately under paved and unpaved areas—thereby creating stability and safety issues. Vegetation, including poison ivy, has grown on and into the building. If the barn and its attached structure were to continue to degrade without any intervention, they would eventually become unfeasible to save. C. Milking Parlor Attached to the main barn, the milking parlor appears to be a slightly later addition and is considered eligible for the National Register under Criterion A (Event) as part of the Gorden farm complex. Its roof trusses penetrate the barn’s east wall siding at multiple points to directly rest on the heavy timbers or on additional horizontal members between the main posts. The foundation wall consists of concrete mortar with round field stones, painted-wood stud framing with vertical planks, skip-sheathing with wood sheathing and asphalt shingles (as opposed to traditional wood shakes). The gutters and downspouts from the main barn tie into those of the milking parlor. And like the main barn, the building has suffered from general deterioration due to age, weather, vegetation, and groundhogs. A large hole in the roof (possibly from a former ventilator) and an opening in the north wall have caused further issues. Since the structure is attached to that of the main barn, it either must be stabilized or removed before its structural issues impact the main barn. If removal is chosen, great care must be made to remove the structure without impacting the barn. Carpenters with heavy-timber experience, perhaps from local Amish or Mennonite communities, would be best utilized to plan and complete the work, as well as patch and repair the barn’s exterior at former penetrations, reattach and direct the original gutters and downspouts, and regrade as needed. Historic materials should be salvaged and stored for use in repair and maintenance of any structures designated to remain. D. Cow Shed The cow shed lies immediately to the east of the milking parlor and is considered eligible for the National Register under Criterion A (Event) as part of the Gorden farm complex. Its structure appears independent of that of the milking parlor with its own columns, beams, and rafters. However, there are some concerns regarding its structure; the north and east foundation walls, wood framing and exterior envelope will continue to decay due to weathering, vegetation, and animal activity without intervention. If removal is 5 chosen, care must also be taken to not damage any adjacent or nearby structures, and historic finishes must be salvaged and stored where they can repair or maintain structures that remain. E. Milk House Located near the milking parlor, the milk house was used to store milk before collection by a local dairy. According to the HCA, legislation in the early twentieth century required that the milking process and milk storage be separate, which lead to the development of the milk house. These separate storage buildings usually had masonry walls, a concrete floor, and a cooling feature to satisfy these new equipment requirements (HCA, 27-30). The Gorden milk house is of solid cinder block masonry construction and has minor to moderate deterioration, mostly due to weathering. It is considered eligible for the National Register under Criterion A (Event) as part of the Gorden farm complex. As such, if the City of Dublin chooses to retain the majority of the buildings, this building is recommended for inclusion. F. Tool Shed The relatively recent tool shed (located immediately east of the steer shed) is of a modern, prefab construction dating to approximately 1980, when Warren W. Gorden began to retire from farming. The April 2021 report did not list the tool shed as a contributing structure to the Gorden farm complex. As a late addition to the farm complex, the tool shed does not contribute to the historic context and is not considered eligible for the National Register. If anything, the shed detracts from the other historic outbuildings. As such, removal or demolition is a suitable option. G. Steer Shed The steer shed lies south of the main barn and milk house and sheltered steers during inclement weather. It is considered eligible for the National Register under Criterion A (Event) as part of the Gorden farm complex. However, its low-sloped gable with vertical plank siding, wood windows, sliding barn doors, and partial concrete foundation suffer similar deterioration to other structures. And like the other outbuildings, if the steer shed is not stabilized, it will fall into disrepair. If this building is to be demolished, experienced carpenters should salvage and store materials that can be used in repairs and maintenance of remaining structures. H. Granary The granary is also considered eligible for the National Register under Criterion A (Event) as part of the Gorden farm complex. This structure lies on axis with the main barn’s south-facing large sliding doors, which allowed farm equipment to pass through the barns from the fields to the north and distribute grain to bins in the granary. And like the main barn, circular saw cuts can be seen in the joists and rafters of the building. However, it suffers moderate deterioration due to its age, weather, vegetation, and groundhogs. Unless steps are taken to stabilize the building, the groundhog tunneling and exterior envelope penetrations will continue to damage the structure to the point that it can longer be preserved. If removal is chosen, skilled carpenters could carefully dismantle the building and save the historic building material for repairs to other historic structures. I. Cellar Located directly behind the main house, the cellar is a half-submerged basement where canning and storing of goods took place. It probably dates to the 1930s when the rear addition with the kitchen and back porch were built, providing easy access from the kitchen to the food items stored in the cellar. While not of distinctive construction, this building is considered eligible for the National Register as a 6 contributing element of the Gorden farmstead. And its structure is relatively stable, with only minor repairs such as replacing deteriorated wood members, paint, and new gutters and downspouts. And any openings that could permit animal infestation should be sealed. If the City of Dublin chooses to retain the majority of the buildings, this building is recommended for inclusion. It could be preserved in conjunction with the main house to help tell the story of farm life in the early twentieth century. RECOMMENDATIONS Since we consider the Gorden farmstead and its contributing structures (farmhouse, barn, milking parlor, cow shed, milk house, steer shed, granary, and cellar) eligible for the National Register, it is desirable to preserve the whole farmstead since removing some of the structures will impact the integrity of the whole site. By removing some of the structures, you are diminishing the value of the remaining structures and the farmstead will lose integrity, or its ability to display its significance to the history of the area as a typical farmstead from the early twentieth century. Area examples of preserved farmsteads include Gallant Farm (part of Preservation Parks of Delaware County), which is representative of a Depression-era farm with a farmhouse, barn, granary, and several outbuildings. Slate Run Living Historical Farm (part of Metro Parks) is another example with a nineteenth-century farmhouse, barn, granary, and a variety of outbuildings that could provide some guidance. Or, if interpretation is not a goal, the main house, barn, and granary could be preserved and serve as maintenance areas or storage such as the barn at Dragonfly Day Camp at Highbanks (part of Metro Parks). However, we realize that preservation is not always a viable option. Nonetheless, we have determined that both the main house and the barn are eligible for the National Register on their own as excellent examples of buildings of this period and should be preserved. If the budget allows, other structures such as the granary and cellar could also be preserved to help tell the story of farm life at the turn of the century. A preservation plan which identifies, evaluates, and recommends treatments for buildings would be a good device to adopt to determine the future of these buildings at the Gorden farmstead. If the buildings will be used for interpretive purposes such as those at Gallant Farm, it is important to identify what narrative or story is being told. More in-depth research into historic documents, photographs, maps, and oral histories of Dublin, the local area, the Gorden family, and the farmstead could inform this and future preservation efforts. For example, the milking parlor, cow shed, and milk house could all be preserved to inform visitors about dairy operations in Dublin in the early twentieth century. The granary could be preserved in conjunction with the main barn and used to discuss farming operations and how grain was stored over the years. And the cellar could be preserved in conjunction with the main house to educate visitors about farm life in the early twentieth century. However, before any buildings are demolished (intentionally or through natural disasters or neglect), they should be recorded through measured drawings, photographs and historic studies for future historians. This information should be deposited with the State Historic Preservations Office (SHPO) as well as at various libraries and historical societies. In addition, any historic building material should be retained and used to help maintain and preserve the remaining historic structures on the farmstead. This material could be stored on-site in one of the barns. Addendum Supplement Submitted June 30, 2021 with 7298 Post Road / 7298 Hyland-Croy Road MEMO SKETCH and PHOTOGRAPHS of Barn/Milking Parlor Connection 1. Isometric Sketch explaining Milking Parlor connection to Main Barn. The view is looking Northeast, at the Barn’s East Bay near the pass through with sliding door. The heavy timber post below the loft is the second heavy timber post from the right. The sliding door and the roofing are not shown for clarity. NOTE: this sketch is provided for informational purposes only and is not to scale. No work should be based on this sketch without field verification of the details. 2 2. Barn: Looking east across top of loft. The heavy timber post immediately left of the foreground ladder is the post in the illustration. 3. Barn: Looking east underneath loft. The heavy timber post in the center is the post in the illustration. The base of the heavy timber post in the loft is visible, just above the angled brace on the right. 3 4. Milking Parlor: Looking North at the truss at the top center. The Cow Shed is to the right. 4 5. Milking Parlor: looking northwest at penetrations into the Main Barn. 6. Milking Parlor: looking southwest at passthrough to Barn. Note the sliding door and truss penetration. STRUCTURAL ERECTORS 3610 smiley rd. Hilliard Oh. 43026 Phone: 614.679.4355 Fax: 614.487.3707 10/25/21 This budget is based on site visit with Tim Elmer and report by Preservation Designs, LTD. Re: 7298 Post Road/ 7298 Hyland Croy Road A. Farmhouse Existing Foundation has major water problems that need addressed. Roof system has structural problems that need addressed. The roof needs replaced and the house needs painting. There are many items that need repaired on the house inside and out. Remodel farm house cost $250.000.00 budget. Remove structure $19,800.00 B. Barn The barn is in really good shape. It needs wood repair and wood siding painted. Barn wood repair and paint $19,600.00 C. Milking Parlor The Milking Parlor needs extensive repair to roof and structure. Replace roof and rotten structure. $19,400.00 Remove structure and patch barn $8,700.00 D. Cow Shed The Cow Shed needs extensive repair to roof and structure. Replace roof and rotten structure. $28,400.00 Remove structure $9,200.00 E. Milk House Needs paint and roofing Replacement. $4,800.00 Remove structure $3,800 F. Tool Shed G. Steer Shed Needs wood repair, paint and roofing Replacement. $21,800.00 Remove structure $5,800.00 H. Granary Needs wood repair, paint and roofing Replacement. $28,300.00 This building sits on a wood foundation that needs repaired. This is difficult to put a budget number together for. Remove structure $5,800.00 I. Cellar Needs wood repair, paint and roofing Replacement. $12,300.00 Remove structure $3,800.00 PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov RECORD OF ACTION Planning & Zoning Commission Thursday, September 16, 2021 | 6:30 pm The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 2. Hyland Glen at 7270 Hyland-Croy Road 21-116Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Proposal: Development of a residential neighborhood consisting of 102 single-family residential lots, at a density of 2.4 dwelling units per acre, with 12.4-acres open space and associated site improvements on a 42.5-acre site. Location: Northeast of the intersection of Hyland-Croy Road with Post Road and zoned Rural District. Request: Review and approval of a Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code §153.050. Applicant: The Paragon Building Group DBA Virginia Homes Planning Contact: Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner Contact Information: 614.410.4635, nmartin@dublin.oh.us Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/21-116 MOTION: Mr. Supelak moved, Mr. Grimes seconded, to approve Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan with six conditions: 1) That the applicant work with the City’s landscape Zoning Inspector to ensure the tree survey, tree preservation plan, tree removal/replacement plan, and landscape plan are updated as detailed in the Staff Report with the Final Development Plan submittal; 2) That the applicant submit a proforma detailing anticipated open space maintenance costs for the City and HOA, prior to submitting the rezoning for consideration by City Council; 3) That the applicant continue to work with the City of Dublin and Union County to complete the traffic impact study to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Union County Engineer, prior to submitting the rezoning for consideration by City Council; 4) That the applicant work with the City of Dublin and Union County to develop an Infrastructure Agreement for consideration by City Council to be submitted in conjunction with the Rezoning application to City Council; 5) That the applicant continue to work with Engineering, prior to submittal of the Final Development Plan, to ensure compliance with the City of Dublin Chapter 53 Stormwater Management and Stream Protection Code; 6) That the applicant work with the City of Dublin to finalize phasing of public streets to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to submission to City Council; 7) That the applicant revise the development text to eliminate thin brick as a permitted building material; Page 1 of 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: D367496D-ECA8-40F0-A692-09F59742BFEC PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov 2. Hyland Glen at 7270 Hyland-Croy Road 21-116Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 8) That the applicant revise the development text to clarify “foam” trim is not permitted at ground level; 9) That the applicant revise the development text to prohibit patio encroachments into any setback; and 10) That the applicant revise the development text to require a minimum distance between structures (MDBS) of 12 feet. VOTE: 5 – 1. RESULT: The Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan was approved. RECORDED VOTES: Jane Fox No Warren Fishman Yes Mark Supelak Yes Rebecca Call Yes Leo Grimes Yes Lance Schneier Absent Kim Way Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION _____________________________________ Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner Page 2 of 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: D367496D-ECA8-40F0-A692-09F59742BFEC Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 16, 2021 Page 4 of 23 Mr. Hyatt responded that this track will be placed on a five-foot wide asphalt track, which potentially could be used as a scooter path. Ms. Call stated that if it were converted to a scooter track when the pump track is removed, the signage should be appropriate. The City’s skatepark is located near the police station, should there be a need for emergency assistance. Because there is also potential risk here, is there any concern with having this type of amenity in this location? Mr. Hyatt responded that staff would be considering the risk elements and emergency access. Mr. Krawetzki responded that the skatepark contains deep bowls. The risk of injury is much less with this small track, which has a minimal height differentiation. Ms. Fox stated that she would discourage the implementation of age restrictions with this track. Public Comment No public comments were received. Ms. Fox moved, Mr. Supelak seconded approval of the Amended Final Development Plan with two conditions: 1) The applicant work with Planning to finalize the bike rack detail, subject to staff approval; 2) The applicant work with Engineering to demonstrate compliance with stormwater management requirements as defined in Chapter 53 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Vote: Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Way, yes. [Motion approved 6-0.] Ms. Call stated that Cases 2 and 3 are related to the same project and would be heard together. CASES 2. Hyland Glen at 7270 Hyland-Croy Road, 21-116Z/PDP, Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan A request for development of a residential neighborhood consisting of 102 single-family residential lots, at a density of 2.4 dwelling units per acre, with 12.4-acres open space and associated site improvements. The 42.5-acre site is zoned Rural District and is northeast of the intersection of Hyland-Croy Road with Post Road. 3. Hyland Glen at 7270 Hyland-Croy Road, 21-117PP, Preliminary Plat A request for the subdivision of a 42.5-acre site to establish 102 single-family residential lots, nine public rights-of-way, and 12.4-acres of public open space. The site is zoned Rural District and is northeast of the intersection of Hyland-Croy Road with Post Road. Staff Presentation Ms. Martin stated that this is a request for review of a proposed rezoning with a Preliminary Development Plan and a Preliminary Plat and a recommendation to City Council. An Informal Review of the proposal was heard by the Commission on May 20, 2021, and the Commission was generally Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 16, 2021 Page 5 of 23 supportive of the concept. Subsequent to Council’s review and approval, A Final Development Plan of this proposal would be return to the Commission. The FDP contains the final details, including landscape design, tree preservation and removal, sign design and implementation of all other regulatory standards. Site: The site is located northeast of the intersection of Post Road and Hyland Croy Road. The site is approximately 42.5 acres with approximately 3,000 feet of frontage of Hyland Croy and 500 feet of frontage along Post Road. The site is surrounded by existing single-family neighborhood and is adjacent to Jerome Township. The site is in close proximity to US33/SR 161 where there are anticipated construction of interchange improvements in 2022. Hyland-Croy Road is within the jurisdiction of Union County, and the proposed traffic improvements have been discussed with the Union County Engineer’s office. History: This site was annexed from Jerome Township to the City of Dublin in 2018 (Ord. 87-17). A number of development configurations were reviewed by PZC in 2015, 2019, and 2020. On December 7, 2020, City Council disapproved a different proposal for a Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan for this site. On May 20, 2021, the current development proposal for Hyland Glen was heard informally by the Planning and Zoning Commission. This proposal attempts to address the concerns expressed previously by the Commission and the community. The proposal is consistent with the Community Plan, the Thoroughfare Plan and the Special Area Plan. The site has two Future Land Use recommendations, which results in a total development capacity of up to 113 lots; 102 lots are proposed by this plan with a density of 2.4 dwelling units/acre. This density is sensitive to the surrounding development character. The Special Area Plan for the Hyland-Croy Road corridor provides for a rural character with generous setbacks ranging from 100 – 200 feet. The proposal also encourages the preservation of historic structures. It provides a setback of 100 feet along Hyland-Croy Road and preserves two structures of the historic Gorden Farms homestead. Consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan, a future right-of-way of 100 feet for Hyland-Croy Road is provided. Proposal: The proposal is for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) neighborhood consisting of 102 residential lots on a 42.5-acre site, which will be developed in three sections. Section 1 contains 40 lots in the middle of the site between Springview Lane and the South Fork of Indian Run. Section 2 contains 33 lots south of Springview Lane and north of the community park. Section 3 contains 29 lots north of the South Fork of Indian Run and south of Park Place. In addition to the residential development, the proposal also contains 12.4 acres of open space extending from the Red Trabue Preserve through the Post Preserve neighborhood out to Hyland-Croy Road. This neighborhood also completes the bicycle and pedestrian connectivity network from Post Road along Hyland-Croy Road to the northern boundary of the City of Dublin at Glacier Ridge Metropark. It also provides the opportunity for a two-acre public park located at the intersection of Post Road and Hyland-Croy Road, which is shown as Reserve A on the plan. The proposal, which was reviewed by a Historic Preservation consultant, provides for the preservation of a large historic barn and granary. The development text establishes a framework for the anticipated development, which will contain interior and perimeter lots. The perimeter lots are intended to be sensitive to the surrounding, established single-family neighborhood. The lot widths are consistent with the lot widths to which they back up. The interior lots provide a transition from north to south and east to west, as the site transitions toward the US33/Post Road interchange. The lots are smaller with reduced setbacks and Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 16, 2021 Page 6 of 23 additional lot coverage. These development standards are consistent with previously approved surrounding development in Dublin, particularly when considering a mix of housing types and products, as recommended by the Community Plan. When the earlier development proposal was discussed, the Commission noted the desire for conceptual architectural character to be provided. This applicant has provided a conceptual architectural character, but it is not part of the approval of the Preliminary Development Plan. The Open Space and Connectivity Plan are included in this proposal, which identifies the open space ownership and maintenance responsibilities. All of the open spaces will be owned by the City, removing the tax liability from the neighborhood. The maintenance responsibility is distributed based on the primary user. Reserve A will be owned and maintained by the City. At the Final Development Plan (FDP) stage, the park will be fully designed as a CIP project. The final design details are not under consideration tonight. Reserves B, C, D, E and F are largely maintained by the HOA, as they provide the neighborhood frontage along Hyland- Croy Road, as well as entry features. The City will be responsible for maintaining the stormwater management basins. The proposed open space exceeds the minimum requirement of the Subdivision Regulations, which is approximately three acres. The developer will provide street trees and a rural roadway character along Hyland-Croy Road and additional plantings, buffering and gateway elements at the intersection of Hyland-Croy and Post roads. The applicant has provided a tree survey; tree preservation and tree removal and replacement plans are finalized with the FDP. The applicant is proposing a total of three signs across the development. A comprehensive sign plan is required to be submitted with the FDP for the Commission’s review and approval. Each entry sign is permitted to be 20 square feet in size at a maximum of 6 feet in height. A single entry sign may be located at the neighborhood entrances along Hyland-Croy Road. Previously, an entry sign for Post Preserve was contemplated, given the 2006 Interchange Modification Study. In the intervening years, the interchange improvement design has continue to evolve, negating the need for the Post Preserve sign along Hyland-Croy Road as the existing Post Preserve sign can be retained. The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) as required for a rezoning application. The traffic study is currently under review by the City of Dublin and the Union County Engineer’s Office. The study provides analysis of the anticipated traffic generated by the proposed development and estimates the projected traffic on the existing roadways. The study recommends certain improvements to mitigate the anticipated development traffic impacts. An Infrastructure Agreement, which is not subject to the Commission’s review, will commit the developer to the transportation improvements and contributions that are recommended as a part of the accepted study. Preliminary Plat The second case is a proposal for approval of the Preliminary Plat for the subdivision of the 42.5- acres of land, the creation of the 102 single-family lots, six open space reserves, and nine public streets Staff has reviewed the proposals against the applicable criteria and recommends the Commission forward a recommendation of approval to City Council of the Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan with six conditions, as listed in the staff report, and of the Preliminary Pat with two conditions. Commission Questions Ms. Fox stated that two developments were missing from the background materials provided to the Commission for their review. She located the one, but the Arysh ire Farms information is still needed. Ms. Call requested that staff identify the review materials to which Ms. Fox is referring. Ms. Martin responded that prior tonight’s meeting, a Commission member requested a list of previously approved communities for comparison of density, building materials, lot coverage and Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 16, 2021 Page 7 of 23 open space percentage. She pointed out that Aryshire Farms is located near the end of the materials provided. Mr. Fishman stated that the proposed setback from Hyland-Croy does not appear to be consistent with the adjacent neighborhood. Ms. Martin responded that the Community Plan recommends a variable 100-200-foot setback throughout the corridor. Traditionally, that has been applied in a manner to encourage a variability in rural character, allowing the subdivision setbacks to ebb and flow. This subdivision will have a 100-foot setback while that to the north has a 200-foot setback; the one further to the north has a 150-foot setback. Mr. Fishman inquired if there is also guidance concerning the lot coverage within this corridor. Ms. Martin responded that, per Code, 45% is the maximum lot coverage for traditional, single- family neighborhoods. Transitioning to the west, toward Jerome Township and the US33/Post Road interchange, the Community Plan recommends more density in the housing development; therefore, the lot coverage increases. Mr. Way inquired if there a reason the multi-use path swings back from the intersection into the development. Is that consistent with City standards? Ms. Martin responded that the shared-use path provides connectivity and recreation; therefore, direct routes are not always implemented. Along Hyland-Croy Road, the path is pulled inward to provide more comfort and protection from the high-speed traffic. It also serves a dual purpose along the west side of the public streets, as a pedestrian and bicycle facility. Mr. Way stated that Lot 68 in the proposed development appears to be one of the smallest lots. It is a transitional lot from the existing development to the south. If a house were placed on that lot, it would need to be of a smaller footprint than the other houses. For transitioning purposes, it would seem more appropriate to have lots that are more similar to the existing lots to the south. Has that been considered? Ms. Martin stated that has been considered. The building line along the street is identical to the existing development, and the sideyard setback for that lot will be 10 feet, which is consistent with Post Preserve requirements. The only difference is the lot depth. Although it is not as deep, due to the public open space in that area, the perception will be that of continuance of a year yard. Mr. Way responded that the other lots along that street are wider. He wants to ensure that it will not be necessary for special accommodations to enable a house to fit on this lot, as it will look out of place. Ms. Call inquired about the development text’s provisions in regard to encroachment into setbacks for patios. The rear setbacks of the interior lots are 10 feet, and according to the development text, a 5-foot encroachment into the setback will be permitted. What has been the standard used in previous developments? Ms. Martin responded that this is a Citywide standard, whether written into a development text or implied. Encroachment of five feet at grade is permitted everywhere, although encroachment of an elevated structure is not permitted. Ms. Call stated that the City has received a large number of applications for patio or deck encroachment. Is there any indication of this being a widespread issue? Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 16, 2021 Page 8 of 23 Ms. Call responded that she does not believe it is a widespread issue. Per the Board of Zoning Appeals process, if an issue is determined to be recurring, it would be identified as a need for a Code amendment. Either the Code can be addressed or the City wo uld work with the HOA to amend the zoning standards for Hyland Glen. Ms. Call stated that, looking at the front setbacks for both the interior and the exterior lots, she did not see a development text provision concerning the width of the park strip and the width of the sidewalk. That can create a totally different feel between adjacent neighborhoods. Ms. Martin stated that the development text does not call that out. However, per City standards, a minimum of a 4-foot wide sidewalk with an 8-foot tree lawn is required. There will be sufficient area for the trees. Ms. Call invited the applicant to present. Applicant Presentation Charles Ruma, Jr., president, Virginia Homes, 485 Metro Place S., Dublin, provided background on the development of their proposal. They have spent a significant am ount of time researching the history and issues of this challenging site and have submitted a proposal that they believe addresses both the City’s and the residents’ concerns. The context of this site is essentially predetermined by the surrounding area. This site transitions from residential to commercial to highway. They have submitted a proposal for only a single-family development with a wide variety of housing product within the $600,000-$700,000 range. They have significantly reduced the density of the previous development proposal, and no lots are less than 60 feet wide. The 12.5 acres of open space will be active, providing the desired connectivity and will maintain the rural character along Hyland- Croy Road. After extensive review and discussion with City staff, it was determined that the barn and granary of the Gorden Farms homestead should be preserved. To retain the granary, they have reworked the stormwater retention facility. This is an important gateway site to Dublin, and they will continue to work City staff accordingly. They will be providing a landscape plan that will enhance the entire site. Questions for the Applicant Ms. Fox inquired the average square footage of the homes. Mr. Ruma responded that it would be within a 2,500-3,000-square foot range, less on the smaller lots -- beginning with 1,800 square feet. Ms. Fox noted that the development text does not indicate that smaller houses would be placed on the smaller lots, so would a home buyer be able to place a larger home on a smaller lot? Mr. Ruma responded that they are continuing to work on the housing product mix. He believes it would be possible to put a 3,000-square foot home on a 60-foot lot. Ms. Fox stated that with the proposed sideyard setbacks could result in a crowding issue. Ms. Call inquired if it would be possible to provide with the FDP the building envelope on every lot within the subdivision. Ms. Martin responded affirmatively. Ms. Fox stated that she would assume any restrictions for house size for certain lot widths would be reflected in the development text. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 16, 2021 Page 9 of 23 Ms. Call responded affirmatively. Any numeric restriction the Commission would like to recommend could be put forth in the development text. The development text establishes the framework for the development. The graphic depictions are provided with the FDP. Mr. Fishman inquired if that could be accomplished by making the sideyard setbacks wider. Ms. Martin responded that the development text is structured in a way that contemplates different lots having different characteristics, as appropriate. While it would not be appropriate to increase sideyard setbacks on interior lots, a slight increase could be possible on perimeter lots. What is proposed, however, is consistent with the surrounding development and what has recently been approved in other neighborhoods. In order to maintain the transition and single-family density, it is important to permit reduced setbacks. Otherwise, developers could be encouraged to change their product type. Mr. Ruma responded it is important to be cautious regarding the width of side yards on the larger lots. With larger homes, 3-car garages will be desired. Their intent is to provide a cohesive product and look throughout a neighborhood of 60-80 foot lots. Mr. Fishman responded most buyers of the larger homes will want 3-car garages. The concern is having two large houses crammed close together. The only way to ensure the developer has control of that is by adjusting the setbacks to ensure a certain space between houses. Mr. Ruma responded that altering the sideyard requirements would make it difficult to create the size homes and aesthetic appearance desired. Ms. Fox inquired if 4-sided architecture would be provided. Mr. Ruma responded affirmatively; their intent is to adhere to the Dublin Appearance Code. Linda Menery, EMH&T, 5500 New Albany Road W., New Albany, 43054 stated that she is the landscape architect and planner working with Charles and Charlie Ruma on this project. She will respond to Mr. Way’s question about lot sizes. She pointed out several lots on p. 4 of the plat. The utility easements on those lots impact the size of the building pad. The building pad on Lot 68 is actually 55 feet, only a foot less than some of the other lots. The building pads on all the lots is essentially the same. Mr. Way thanked her for the clarification. He noted that at the Informal Review discussion, there was some indication that the smaller lots would have a smaller, unique housing product. Does this plan provide for that? Mr. Ruma responded that there is no difference in the housing product, other than size. The product will be cohesive throughout the development. Mr. Way inquired if the array of housing products provided in this plan could fit on any of the lots. Mr. Ruma responded that smaller ranches and larger, two-stories will be provided, all of which will look similar. The larger houses would not fit on the smaller lots, nor would a smaller product be placed on a larger 80-foot lot. Public Comment No public comments were provided on this case. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 16, 2021 Page 10 of 23 Commission Discussion Mr. Grimes stated that he likes the Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Development Plat. It fits the site very well as a gateway project. It is a great use of the property. He appreciates the retention of the historic granary structure. He appreciates the hard work of the applicant and staff. Mr. Way expressed agreement. The project fits well into the exi sting neighborhood. The open space will be a great asset to the City. Mr. Supelak concurred with the previous comments. This plan is an improvement over what was previously proposed. He will continue to advocate for ensuring sensitivity regarding the development of Reserve A. He appreciates the potential orchard quality developing. Ms. Fox agreed that this is a much better layout than previously proposed. She appreciates that the applicant has addressed many of the concerns that were expressed. However, she would suggest the Commission further consider of the setback issue. The only other development on which the Commission has allowed 70% lot coverage is Hamlin on Jerome, and since it was approved there has been discussion concerning the closeness of the houses; service access between the homes is difficult. She agrees with there being greater density on this site, but it is important to be consistent. She has compared this with the Oak Park and The Overlook at Tartan developments. If we continue to reduce setbacks, even with architectural diversity, the appearance of the development will be negatively impacted. She would be more comfortable if the development text specified a certain home width on a certain lot width. Another item of concern is the front- loaded garages, 50% street-facing. It should be possible to have some side-loaded or courtyard- loaded garages to break up the pattern. Another concern is the three monument signs at all three entrances. In view of the rural character, that seems to be too much signage along the roadway. The patio lots also are a concern. Many homeowners are interested in encroaching their patios, and the Board of Zoning Appeals has requested Council to address this issue. With the proposed 10- foot rear yard setback and the existing drainage easement, a fi ve-foot encroachment would extend into the drainage easement A deeper rear-yard setback is needed. Another issue is exterior materials. This is the first time she has seen foam and engineered wood proposed as trim materials. Those materials have not been permitted in other City developments. Only asphalt has been proposed as a roofing material; many other developments have offered more materials. The use of thin brick is also a concern. She would like the exterior materials to be consistent with other developments of this price point. Mr. Fishman expressed agreement with the concerns raised by Ms. Fox. Additionally, he believes too many lots are proposed on the site. He is concerned about Lot 68. If that lot were to be eliminated, Stillhouse Lane would have access to the water, which would be a nice amenity for the neighborhood. He is particularly concerned about the setbacks, the patio encroachments, and the use of foam and aluminum trim. Ms. Martin clarified that the aluminum trim was a typo in the staff report. Although foam trim is contemplated in the development text, the developer is not compelled to use it. This type of extruded foam recently was approved by the Commission for the T owns on the Parkway. The intent with use of this material is to minimize maintenance costs over time and allow for additional architectural detail. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 16, 2021 Page 11 of 23 Ms. Call stated that with the earlier project to which she referred, the material was permitted only for the upper stories. These are single-family homes, and on the lower story, there would be interaction with people, balls, lawnmowers, etc. Mr. Boggs stated that he would comment in regard to the concern regarding backyard patio encroachment into the setback. Referring to the plat depiction of the drainage easements and the building line setback -- a patio or deck would not be permitted to encroach into a drainage easement. Ms. Call stated that she is also concerned about the use of thin brick, foam trim and the sideyard setbacks. She would request staff to clarify in staff reports the reason for any exceptions that were previously made. Five-foot sideyard setbacks are very narrow. While a 5-foot setback may be envisioned for every home, there will be some variability with the flexibility of the proposed plan. She would prefer a clarification be made that a 5-foot setback is permitted only with the requirement that the distance between two homes not be less than 12 feet. If one lot has a 5-foot sideyard setback, the side setback on the adjacent lot would be an additional 2 feet (7 feet). She is not comfortable with a 5-foot setback on every lot. She would like to have a building envelope, so that there is a vision of how this development would look. There is the danger that a different builder of a future phase would not understand the vision and attempt to take advantage of the variability in the development text. The proposed 10-foot rear yard setback with ability for a five-foot encroachment is also a concern. She would prefer to include in the development text the necessary restrictions that would provide assurance that the variability of setbacks between houses ensures a total 12-foot setback between homes. She is not opposed to asphalt shingles but having more than one option would provide more flexibility. With the landscape architect’s explanation, she is less concerned about the size of Lot 68, although a smaller housing product will be necessary. Having 70% lot coverage on every lot is a concern. Perhaps 30% of the lots could have up to a 70% coverage. This would ensure a variety, ensuring that every lot would not have the maximum lot coverage. A little more work is needed on this proposal to ensure it achieves what is desired. Charles Ruma, Sr., 3675 Paragon Drive, Columbus, OH 43228, stated that, although he no longer serves in the role, previously, he was the president of Virginia Homes. He would like to address the smaller lots. This discussion is similar to that which occurred with the Riviera development, where 60-foot lots were proposed; that development turned out beautifully. The intent was to meet the empty nester and young professional market, and that is what this product achieves. The variation in the housing product will provide the desired sideyard setback widths. The 70-foot lots will need to provide a larger home the flexibility for a 3-car garage without encroaching into the sideyard. Lot 68 is a 70-foot wide lot, but it abuts Post Preserve. There is a tree line there, which they have committed to protecting. There will be no encroachment into the 10-foot sideyard setback. They need the necessary flexibility to ensure the most suitable product that fits this neighborhood. The adjacent community has indicated a desire to have single-family housing development here, not assisted living, attached condominiums or 3-story buildings. They have solved the major challenges of this site at the intersection of Post Road and Hyland-Croy Road. Initially, a traffic circle at that intersection was contemplated. The road has now been moved, and the intersection will have an off ramp directly to Hyland-Croy Road. That road has become significantly different. They have succeeded in enhancing the entire site, achieving a great transition into Dublin. They request the Commission for the flexibility to achieve this great project. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 16, 2021 Page 12 of 23 Charles Ruma, Jr., stated that he would address the exterior materials. They would be installing the same roof that they have installed on every product they have built within the City. They are looking at a dimensional shingle, combined with metal roofing, in some cases. Wood or slate shingles would not be feasible at this price point. The foam trim would be used primarily above windows and for headers. It would not be used for fascia and other trim. It would be a decorative product. Aluminum trim will not be used; they are using hardi siding and trim, a natural product. Thin brick is a great product; it is applied similar to stucco stone. Using real brick is more costly. They use thin brick primarily as an accent material. They will be using natural materials and remain consistent with the City’s Appearance Code. Ms. Call stated that per the images, it appears very little thin brick would be used; it is primarily 3 feet high on the columns. However, there has been an earlier issue with a hotel on which thin brick was used, and later began to fall off. The Commission wants to ensure good products are used on homes at this price point. Mr. Supelak stated that he has no objection to the use of the foam product. It has a solid shell and an attractive appearance. Typically, it is used only in appropriate locations, not on the lower story of a building. However, he is concerned about the proposal for thin brick, which does not appear as thick, solid or rich as real brick. Thin brick is noticeable. He would be supportive of eliminating that material. Typically, the Commission does not approve the use of thin brick. It has been used only in certain circumstances. Ms. Call noted that, currently, the development text does not call out that the foam product can be used only in appropriate areas. It is identified only as an approved trim material. Providing that distinction would add more comfort. Mr. Ruma stated the foam product is a fiberglass injected mold; it is a solid material. She is not comfortable using it as trim on a column near a garage, where it would be susceptible to vehicle impact. Mr. Ruma stated that the columns would be wood. The foam product would be used only as a window header or an accent in the gable. Ms. Call stated that she would have no objection to its use in those elevated areas. Ms. Call inquired if trim is identified in the Code. Mr. Boggs responded that it is identified in the Zoning Code Definitions, 153.002. Trim is identified as “the finished woodwork or similar architectural element used to enhance border or protect the edges of openings or surfaces, such as windows or doors.” Ms. Call inquired if there were continuing concerns regarding the foam trim product. Commission members indicated no concern, if used at an elevated position. Mr. Ruma indicated that it would be used only as trim in the window headers and gables. Ms. Call inquired if the applicant would have any objection to clarification being made to the development text that the foam product would not be used at ground level. Mr. Ruma responded that he would have no objection. Members indicated they had no objection to the use of aluminum per staff’s clarification. Ms. Call inquired if there were any concerns about the drainage easement. Ms. Fox stated that she believes the primary issue is lot coverage. Is a patio design provided with the homes, or is an item added later? Mr. Ruma responded the patio typically is added later. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 16, 2021 Page 13 of 23 Ms. Fox stated that this has been an issue. There are large homes with narrow setbacks and no room for a patio. Homebuyers often are not aware of the patio limitations when purchasing their home. When attempting to add a patio later, there is a need for them to request a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. If the variance is granted, a precedent is established for other homes. She believes the standard 60% lot coverage for the same size lots and larger setbacks should be required here. Mr. Supelak inquired if the issue is lot coverage or also the rear yard setback. Ms. Fox responded that reducing the lot coverage would provide more space for the year yard setback and more space for patios. Ms. Call stated that this product is in a transition area. There are single-family homes on smaller lots, with a 2.4 unit per acre density; the proposed development has a smaller section of clustered homes with a massive open space in the middle. She believes 70% lot coverage is appropriate in the smaller section; the issue is setbacks. Mr. Boggs clarified that the definition of lot coverage would include impervious surfaces and semi- pervious surfaces. If the concern is encroachment of patios, reducing lot coverage would not necessarily address that because the space would be reduced for both the house and the patio. Ms. Martin stated that patios are permitted to be built only within the buildable area of the lot. The buildable area is within the setbacks and not located on any building line, no-build zone or utility easement. All of the lots with 25-foot utility or drainage easements between them would have a minimum of 20 feet between the patios. No patio is permitted to encroach there. Ms. Fox inquired if a homeowner would have sufficient space to build a patio on one of the interior lots. Mr. Ruma (Jr.) responded that there could be three or four types of homes within the smaller section, 36-foot to 44-foot wide homes. In some instances, there would be more room than in others. The builder cannot ensure all home buyers are aware of the opportunity for smaller homes to have larger patios. There will be a variety of products, but it is a transitional site at the intersection of a major highway. The variability in width and depth of the single-family product will work itself out, as it did in the Riviera development. Ms. Call stated that she would be comfortable with a setback percent that ensures a certain distance between homes. The Commission is not comfortable with zero lot lines. Mr. Ruma (Jr.) noted that there are other flexibilities. Mr. Ruma (Sr.) stated that, discounting the front and year setbacks, a depth of 80 feet is available in which to build a home. None of their homes are 80 feet in depth, unless it is a courtyard type with a 3-car garage in front; in almost all cases, there will be room for a patio. Ms. Call stated that, currently, the development text does not reflect that variety. Mr. Ruma (Jr.) stated that there will be varying home widths, so varying side yards and rear yards. He does not believe that every home will be the maximum lot coverage permitted. Ms. Call stated that while she appreciates that perspective, there have been situations in which most lots in a development contained the largest homes permitted. The result is requests for variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals. She would suggest that the de velopment text be revised to match the vision. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 16, 2021 Page 14 of 23 Mr. Supelak stated that the development standards address architectural diversity. Could they also be revised to solve this issue? He requested clarification of the 5-foot encroachment into a setback. Ms. Martin responded that an at-grade patio only, not a deck or shed, would be able to encroach five feet at grade into the required rear yard setback. However, if the rear yard contains a drainage easement, no-build line, or a build line, that cannot be modified, not even by variance. Mr. Supelak inquired if a 5-foot encroachment should be permitted. Ms. Fox stated that the only lots where that could occur are those on the north side. All the interior lots have a drainage easement, on which encroachment is not permitted. Ms. Martin stated that it could be memorialized that the 5-foot encroachment would be permitted only for the larger, perimeter lots. Mr. Ruma stated that they would not need any encroachments. He is satisfied with the building setbacks depicted on the drawings. Ms. Fox stated that it would appear the encroachment opportunity could be eliminated. Ms. Call referred to the side yard setback. She inquired if the developer would like be comfortable with inclusion of some requirement to address the Commission’s concern. Mr. Ruma stated that it would be an issue only with 60-foot lots, not the larger lots. Perhaps a required percentage would be the best solution. Ms. Fox stated that she would prefer a 12-foot requirement between homes. Ms. Call stated that she would be comfortable with that in this transition area. Ms. Martin discouraged designating a percentage of lots with minimum distance requirements between structures and not all of the lots. Such areas are difficult to regulate in the future when homeowners wish to modify their homes. It is challenging to identify which lots had that requirement. It is better to impose a regulation, if desired, to a certain geography, perhaps by sections or subareas. Rather than specifying a percentage, she would suggest including regulations by categorizing the lots. For example, requirements could apply only to Lots A or perhaps only to interior lots. It is necessary to have clear regulations for a future Planning Commission or BZA to administer. In response to Ms. Fox’s request for a recommendation, she would recommend a 12- foot separation between structures, which would allow variability. Ms. Call stated that could be accomplished with a five-foot minimum setback, but no two homes could be closer than 12 feet. Discussion continued regarding the distance between homes, lot and house sizes, and the impact on the appearance of the neighborhood. Ms. Martin suggested that the developer could work with staff to establish a setback diversity program before the rezoning comes to Council for consideration. Mr. Ruma indicated that he would agree to a 12-foot minimum distance between houses. Ms. Call indicated that she would be satisfied with that. Mr. Fishman stated that requirement would need to be included in the development text, as other builders would be involved in this development. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 16, 2021 Page 15 of 23 Ms. Call requested staff clarification of the history regarding signage for this site. Ms. Martin stated that the 2006 Interchange Plan contemplated provision of access to the Post Preserve neighborhood through this site. At that time, there was no anticipation this site would be developed in the near term. Therefore, with the anticipated closure of Post Preserve, Council expressed the need to preserve Post Preserve identity on Hyland-Croy Road. With the recent decision of ODOT to accommodate the retention of the existing Post Preserve entrance on Post Road, there is no need to relocate the sign. Therefore, the development text provides one sign per entrance on Hyland-Croy Road, size and height per Code. Ms. Fox inquired if 20-square-foot signs were permitted for the other developments along Hyland- Croy Road. Ms. Martin responded that it is the size permitted, but she does not believe that is what occurred in all cases. All sign details are finalized with the FDP. Many developers choose smaller signs that are integrated into the landscape entry feature. The Commission will get to review those details with the FDP. Mr. Fox stated that she recommend the developer identify a sign that better matches the rural nature. Ms. Martin clarified that the Preliminary Development Plan text preserves the opportunity to have three signs; it does not require the developer to do so. The text does require the developer to provide a sign plan, which the Commission would consider. Ms. Call requested that the Commission members review the 10 recommended conditions and indicate any remaining concerns. Ms. Fox stated, for the record, she would like to make a comment regarding the historic elements on this site. As requested, the historic consultant provided an opinion, which was that the elements be preserved. They could be included on the National Register of Historic Properties. Per the Architectural Review Board’s (ARB) practice, demolition of historic structures is not permitted without provision of data, evidence and analysis justifying that decision. The only explanation provided here has been that some structures should be demolished because the development would not be affordable. As the photos indicate, the milking barns are well preserved. Both the consultant and the City’s Community Plan state the historic structures should be preserved. She does not understand the reason that is not occurring. In summary, if we have obtained a consultant’s opinion, she would like to have data provided justifying the demolition of a group of five well-maintained historic properties that would deserve designation on the National Register of Historic Properties, for the purposes of having a larger stormwater retention pond. Ms. Call clarified that if the City was interested in preserving all five buildings as a package, it could work with the applicant to acquire the land and jointly or otherwise, submit an Amended Final Development Plan to the Commission for consideration. Ms. Martin responded that the Preliminary Development Plan preserves the flexibility for the City to design the public park as a City project to the extent deemed fit. There are some constraints. Portions of historic buildings that interfere with stormwater management would not be retained, should the Commission recommend Council approval of the Preliminary Development Plan and the Commission approve the Final Development Plan. Ms. Call stated that because Council will have final review and approval of the proposed plan, she is comfortable moving forward. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 16, 2021 Page 16 of 23 Mr. Supelak moved, Mr. Grimes seconded to recommend City Council approval of the Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan with the following 10 conditions: 1) The applicant work with the City’s Landscape Zoning Inspector to ensure the tree survey, tree preservation plan, tree removal/replacement plan, and landscape plan are updated as detailed in this staff report with the Final Development Plan submittal; 2) The applicant submit a proforma detailing anticipated open space maintenance costs for the City and HOA prior to submitting the rezoning for consideration by City Council; 3) The applicant continue to work with the City of Dublin and Union County to complete the traffic impact study to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Union County Engineer, prior to submitting the rezoning for consideration by City Council; 4) That the applicant work with the City of Dublin and Union County to develop an Infrastructure Agreement for consideration by City Council to be submitted in conjunction with the Rezoning application to City Council; 5) The applicant continue to work with Engineering, prior to submittal of the Final Development Plan, to ensure compliance with the City of Dublin Chapter 53 Stormwater Management and Stream Protection Code; 6) The applicant work with the City of Dublin to finalize phasing of public streets prior to submission to City Council to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 7) The applicant revise the development text to eliminate thin brick as a permitted building material; 8) The applicant revise the development text to clarify ’‘foam” trim is not permitted at ground level; 9) The applicant revise the development text to prohibit patio encroachments into any setback; and 10) The applicant revise the development text to require a minimum distance between structures (MDBS) of 12 feet. Vote: Ms. Fox, no; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes. [Ms. Fox clarified that the reason for her no vote is ref lected in her stated concerns regarding the historical structures component of the proposal.] [Motion approved 5-1.] Mr. Supelak moved, Mr. Grimes seconded to recommend City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat with one condition: 1) The applicant ensure that any minor technical adjustments to the plat are made prior to City Council submittal. Vote: Mr. Way, yes; Ms. Fox, no; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes. [Motion approved 5-1.] 4. Bridge Park, Block F – The Bailey at 4351 Mooney Street, 21-034CP Concept Plan A request for the construction of a six-story, age restricted, hybrid podium residential building, consisting of 87 units and associated site improvements. The 1.77-acre site is zoned Bridge Street Planning and Zoning Commission September 16, 2021 PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov 21-116Z/PDP & 21-117PP – HYLAND GLEN (GORDEN DEVELOPMENT) Summary Zoning Map Request for review and recommendation of approval to City Council of a Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan (Z/PDP) and Preliminary Plat (PP) for the Hyland Glen subdivision, which includes 102 single-family residential lots, 12.4 acres of open space and nine public streets. Site Location The site is located northeast of the intersection of Hyland-Croy Road and Post Road. Zoning R: Rural District Property Owner Roger & Denise Gorden Applicant/Representative The Paragon Building Group DBA Virginia Homes Applicable Land Use Regulations Zoning Code Section 153.050 Case Managers Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner (614) 410-4635 nmartin@dublin.oh.us Next Steps Upon review and a recommendation of approval of the Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat by the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC), the applicant will be eligible to move forward with the request to City Council. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 21-116Z/PDP & Case 21-117PP – Hyland Glen Thursday, September 16, 2021 | Page 2 of 18 1. Context Map City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 21-116Z/PDP & Case 21-117PP – Hyland Glen Thursday, September 16, 2021 | Page 3 of 18 2. Overview Summary Development of a new, single-family neighborhood located northeast of the intersection of Hyland-Croy and Post Roads. The proposal includes 102 single-family lots, at a density of 2.4 dwelling units per acre, 12.4-acres open space (Reserves A-F), preservation of two historic structures (Barn and Granary), the extension of three public streets (Springview Lane, Stillhouse Lane, and Holbein Drive), and the creation of six new public streets. Background The site is comprised of two parcels totaling 42.5 acres. The site is generally rectangular with 3,300 feet of frontage along Hyland-Croy Road and 500 feet of frontage along Post Road with an average width of approximately 550 feet. As exists today, this is a farm site with a farmhouse and outbuildings located along Post Road and two houses in the center of the site with access along Hyland-Croy Road. The site currently has two driveways from Hyland-Croy Road for the existing homes and one driveway from Post Road for the existing farmstead. The site is surrounded by established single-family neighborhoods to the north and east, Park Place and Post Preserve, respectively. Recently, a new multi-family development, Jerome Grand, has been constructed on the west side of Hyland-Croy Road within Jerome Township. Additional commercial development is anticipated within the township in coming years. Process Rezoning to a Planned Unit Development District (PUD) is the second step in establishing a PUD. PUDs are created to address unique conditions, which cannot easily be addressed by a standard zoning district. The PUD zoning approval includes a development text, which serves as the zoning regulation, and a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP), which serves to define the site layout and development parameters. The current application was preceded by an Informal Review in May 2021. A Preliminary Plat is also being considered in conjunction with this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan. A Final Development Plan and Final Plat approving the final details associated with the development, including landscaping and signs, follows the approval of a Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan. Neighborhood Engagement The applicant has worked to engage the surrounding neighbors by sharing the proposed plan with a representative of the Post Preserve HOA, which was subsequently distributed by the representative. Similarly, City of Dublin Staff has been in regular contact with surrounding neighbors to ensure the latest information regarding the US 33/SR 161/Post Road interchange and Hyland Glen subdivision are made available. Generally, there is support for a new single- family neighborhood in lieu of the ACLF. Single-family lots of comparable sizes to the existing neighborhoods are particularly appreciated along the north and east bounds of the site. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 21-116Z/PDP & Case 21-117PP – Hyland Glen Thursday, September 16, 2021 | Page 4 of 18 Case History 2021 This development proposal for Hyland Glen was heard informally by the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) on May 20, 2021. At the time, the Commission expressed appreciation for incorporating previous feedback from the neighborhood regarding a desire for all single-family lots. The Commission also acknowledged the street layout remains largely the same as the previous proposal (Dublin Gateway) and that the traffic study will need to be finalized with a formal application. Members of the Commission identified that the Community Plan recommends the farmstead be preserved. Members discussed they would look to Staff for a recommendation regarding which structures should be preserved. The Commission expressed a desire for usable open spaces as an amenity to complement the single-family development. Today, the site layout remains largely consistent with the information presented in May. The applicant has further refined the layout by prioritizing preservation of historic structures and establishing a usable community park at the southern end of the site. 2015-2020 The site was annexed from Jerome Township to the City of Dublin in 2018 (Ord. 87-17). Previously, a number of development configurations were reviewed by PZC in 2015, 2019, and 2020. On December 7, 2020, City Council disapproved a Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan request for development of 90 single-family lots and 150 Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) units with 12.4 acres of open space having identified the proposal was inconsistent with the Community Plan and not conforming to the criteria of approval set forth in the Zoning Code. Site Characteristics Natural Features The site is bisected by a tributary stream to the South Fork of Indian Run flowing east into ML “Red” Trabue Nature Reserve. The stream is overlaid with a Stream Corridor Protection Zone (SCPZ). Tree rows line both sides of the stream, while the majority of the site remains open and free of vegetation. Several mature trees, in good and fair condition, are located around the farmstead and if possible should be preserved. Tree preservation and replacement will be finalized with the Final Development Plan. Historic and Cultural Resources The site contains a historic farmstead located at the intersection of Hyland-Croy and Post Roads. The Gorden Farmstead dates to 1859 and reflects the agricultural history of Dublin. Today, the farmstead is comprised of a farmhouse, a barn with milking parlor and cow shed, a milk house, a tool shed, a steer shed, a granary, and a cellar. The City’s Historic and Cultural Assessment, adopted by Council in 2017, identified the farmstead, as a unit, is ‘Recommended Eligible’ for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Although notable that a number of the structures have been modified overtime and/or have fallen into disrepair. The property has been visited and reviewed by Preservation Designs, the City’s historic preservation consultant as well as numerous City Staff from a variety of departments. The consultant has performed a detailed review of the existing structures summarized in a report provided in the Commission’s packet. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 21-116Z/PDP & Case 21-117PP – Hyland Glen Thursday, September 16, 2021 | Page 5 of 18 Staff is recommending preservation of two historic structures with this development to ensure that, in this key gateway location, the proposal preserves Dublin’s past while also planning for Dublin’s future. The Preliminary Development Plans calls for the creation of a 2-acre community park preserving the large historic Barn/Milking Parlor and the smaller historic Granary. The final details of the landscape design including programming, plant selections, and other amenities will be detailed with the Final Development Plan. Staff is recommending preservation of two historic structures as the relationship between outbuildings is one of the most unique attributes of a farmstead. Staff is recommending demolition of all other structures including the home as these structures are either in poor condition or located too close to the interchange. Staff is exploring options to virtually preserve the structures to ensure their story is able to be told and experienced for future generations after they are gone. Surrounding Land Use and Development Character North: PLR: Planned Low Density Residential District (Residential) East: PLR: Planned Low Density Residential District (Residential) South: TF: Technology Flex District (Commercial) West: Jerome Township (Undeveloped) Existing Road, Pedestrian and Bike Network The site has frontage along Hyland-Croy Road and Post Road. Currently three street connections from Post Preserve stub into the undeveloped site: Springview Lane, Stillhouse Lane, and Holbein Drive. Two shared-use paths, not associated with a public street, also stub into the undeveloped site from adjacent open spaces: one from Park Place (Reserve F), and one from Post Preserve (Reserve E). Utilities The site is not currently served by public utilities. The extension of public utilities is required with a future development proposal. A full stormwater report has been submitted as part of the Preliminary Development Plan application. Compliance with all provisions set forth within Chapter 53 of the Dublin Code of Ordinances is required. Final sizing and design will be determined with the Final Development Plan. 3. Plans & Policies Future Land Use The Future Land Use Map in the Community Plan has two land use classifications for the site. The northern third is Suburban Residential Low Density (1-2 dwelling units per acre), while the remaining two thirds are Mixed Residential Low Density (up to 3 dwelling units per acre). City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 21-116Z/PDP & Case 21-117PP – Hyland Glen Thursday, September 16, 2021 | Page 6 of 18 The Suburban Residential Low Density is described as “Modern suburban residential pattern that characterizes most development in Dublin. Residences are primarily composed of single-family dwellings on lot sizes that commonly average 0.25-acre. Public services are necessary, and larger projects may include a mix of densities that together do not exceed the average density.” The “Mixed” category for residential character is intended for neighborhoods that incorporate a variety of single and multiple family dwelling styles, generally in larger projects. The integration of a broad range of housing within neighborhoods is intended to allow for greater housing choices particularly for younger and older age groups, and provide market flexibility to allow for a wider range of housing choices, consistent with Dublin’s Land Use Residential Principles. Larger sites are expected to incorporate a mix of housing types and to be designed to look, feel and function as a cohesive neighborhood. Smaller sites may include a single housing type, appropriately scaled to the surrounding development context, and consistent with Special Area Plan recommendations where applicable. Relevant to this particular proposal, the classification is further defined by the following statement for the Mixed Residential Low Density category: “areas are intended to provide a mix of housing options and transition from existing single-family neighborhoods.” to commercial development within Jerome Township. Northwest Glacier Ridge Special Area Plan The Hyland-Croy Road Corridor Character Study was completed in 2011 as a refinement to the Northwest/Glacier Ridge Area plan, which was then incorporated into the most recent update to the Community Plan. The Area Plan concepts are general guides to indicate potential development options. Plans are schematic only, and the actual mix of land uses, locations and configurations of buildings, parking areas, streets and access points are to be determined through the public review process for individual development proposals. The Area Plan for the subject site includes a mix of single family and attached multiple family homes. The Plan states “single-family detached homes should be developed adjacent to the existing lots in the Post Preserve neighborhood, transitioning to a mixture of single-family attached and low-density multiple-family units toward Hyland-Croy Road. The Plan also recommends “preservation of farmstead structures for integration with open space setbacks” at the intersection of Hyland-Croy and Post Roads. Thoroughfare Plan The Thoroughfare Plan indicates “Rural Character” as the designation for Hyland-Croy Road. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 21-116Z/PDP & Case 21-117PP – Hyland Glen Thursday, September 16, 2021 | Page 7 of 18 This character results from the cultural and historic use of the region for agricultural purposes. The roadways are typical of unincorporated areas or old township roads and are informal, evoking a sense of the past prior to development. Specifically, the Plan recommends generous setbacks ranging from 100 to 200 feet, integration of open views and vistas into adjacent development, landscaping that focuses on native plant species and naturalized forms, meandering bike paths and sidewalks that are informally designed, and preservation of historic farmsteads, barns or outbuildings that emphasize the agrarian history of the area. The Thoroughfare Plan also includes planned right-of-way widths for Hyland-Croy Road and Post Road. Additionally, the Plan contemplates the US 33/Post Road interchange improvements. Coordination between the City of Dublin, Union County, and Ohio Department of Transportation is ongoing to ensure seamless alignment of planned improvements in area. The City of Dublin and Union County Engineer have coordinated closely with the developer regarding all planned improvements and off-site contributions to mitigate any development impacts on the surrounding street network. Interchange Modification Study In 1999, the Post Road/US 33 Interchange Study was initiated and subsequently concluded in 2001. In 2002, City Council adopted a preferred alignment for the improvements to the limited access right-of-way that aligned with a study approved by ODOT. In 2005, the City elected to pursue an improvement that required further study in the form of an Interchange Modification Study (IMS). As a result of the study, the ramp terminal location became fixed. ODOT regulations define any area within 600 feet of a ramp terminal is within the limited access right- of-way. The Post Preserve Boulevard intersection with Post Road was identified within this area, which dictated the need for future modifications. Overtime there have been numerous discussion between the City, ODOT, and surrounding neighborhoods on the closure and/or retention of Post Preserve Boulevard. In 2006, the City identified two alternatives to provide access additional connectivity to Post Preserve with Alternative 1B being preferred (shown below). As part of the planned interchange improvement and reflected in the plan, a new street connection was planned to provide access to the Post Preserve neighborhood from Hyland- Croy Road. This general street layout was approved by City Council after considerable neighborhood involvement in 2006. At the time, the Hyland-Croy connection was planned as a formal entryway to the Post Preserve neighborhood including an entry feature and sign for Post Preserve. Staff is no longer recommending an entry feature for Post Preserve along Hyland-Croy given the changes that have occurred since 2006 as a result of the final interchange design. 4. Preliminary Development Plan Site Layout The proposal is for development of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) neighborhood consisting of 102 residential lots with 12.4 acres of open space on a 42.5 acre site. The proposed density is 2.4 dwelling units to the acre, which aligns with the Community Plan recommendations. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 21-116Z/PDP & Case 21-117PP – Hyland Glen Thursday, September 16, 2021 | Page 8 of 18 The main access into the site is from Hyland-Croy Road onto Moorland Drive, which is the centrally located along the frontage of the site. There are two secondary access points along Hyland-Croy Road: a restricted access point at Springview Lane and full access point at Holbein Drive. A connection is provided through Stillhouse Lane to the Post Preserve subdivision. The plan includes a variable 100-foot setback along Hyland-Croy Road, preservation of two historic structures along Post Road, and the extension of the ML “Red” Trabue Nature Reserve along the South Fork of Indian Run. Three stormwater management basins are proposed. One along Post Road, in the vicinity of the existing farmstead, and two adjacent to the South Fork of Indian Run. A 2-acre community park is located at the intersection of Hyland-Croy Road and Post Roads. Development Standards Three sections of development are proposed. Section 1 contains 40 lots in the ‘middle’ of the site between Springview Lane and the South Fork of the Indian Run. Section 2 contains 33 lots south of Springview Lane and north of the community park. Section 3 contains 29 lots north of the South Fork of Indian Run and south of Park Place. The applicant has indicated that the development is intended to be sensitive to the established character of the surrounding single- family neighborhoods. In order the ensure sensitivity, the development standards differentiate between Perimeter Lots, those adjacent to existing neighborhoods, and Interior Lots, those adjacent to Jerome Township. Generally, lot sizes are proposed to transition from larger in the north and east portions of the site to smaller in the south and west portions of the site. The mix of lot sizes aligns with the Community Plan recommendations. The minimum lot requirements and additional development details for Perimeter and Interior Lots are identified below. Minimum Lot Requirements Requirement Interior Lots Perimeter Lots Area 6,600 sq. ft. Width North of stream: 70 ft. South of stream: 60 ft. For corner lots, as shown on the PDP/PP North of stream: 80 ft. South of stream: 70 ft. For corner lots, as shown on the PDP/PP Depth All lots 110 ft.; For corner lots, not less than 100 ft. Front Yard 20 ft. Side Yard 5 ft. 5 ft. Side yard adjacent to Post Preserve: 10 ft. Rear Yard 10 ft. North boundary: 25 ft. East boundary: 30 ft. Lot Coverage 70% 60% City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 21-116Z/PDP & Case 21-117PP – Hyland Glen Thursday, September 16, 2021 | Page 9 of 18 Open Space Hyland-Croy Road Frontage The building and pavement setback along Hyland-Croy Road is a variable 100 feet. At the southern end of site, adjacent to the interchange the setback is less than 100 feet, specifically as dimensioned on the Preliminary Development Plan. While pavement is not permitted to encroach into the 100 foot setback, right-of-way for public streets is permitted to encroach. This is consistent with the minimum recommendation of the Community Plan – Rural Roadway Character as previously detailed. Homes visible from Hyland-Croy Road will have decorative garage doors, appropriate architectural elements in accordance with the Appearance Code Standards, and use high-quality materials as detailed in the development text. The character of the open spaces along Hyland-Cory will be consistent with established developments along the corridor. Post Road Frontage The building and pavement setback along Post Road is required to be a minimum of 50 feet. Existing structures, shared-use paths, and stormwater management basins are permitted to encroach within the required setback. The development text requires the final landscape design of the community park is coordinated with the US 33/SR 161/Post Road interchange landscape design. The conceptual design is intended to recognize Dublin’s agricultural heritage. Reserves, Ownership, and Maintenance The applicant is proposing ample open space for this development, which exceeds the amount of open space required by the Subdivision Regulations. The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council have, for several years, discussed the appropriate maintenance responsibilities for open space by a HOA or the City, especially stormwater management basins. The applicant shall provide a proforma of anticipated maintenance cost of all open spaces, attributed to the City and HOA, prior to City Council’s review. The development text requires the neighborhood have a forced and funded HOA to allow for the maintenance of reserves. The proposal includes six reserves of open space (Reserves A-F). The applicant is proposing open spaces as follows including reserve ownership and maintenance. Additional Development Details Parking 2 garage spaces and 2 driveway spaces per home Garage Doors May be up to 50% of the façade of the home Patios Permitted; At-grade patios may encroach 5 ft. into a required rear yard setback Sheds Prohibited Fences/Pools Code Solar Panels /Skylights Only permitted on portions of roof that are not visible from a public street and park/open space. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 21-116Z/PDP & Case 21-117PP – Hyland Glen Thursday, September 16, 2021 | Page 10 of 18 Open Space Reserve Ownership and Maintenance Reserve Description Ownership Maintenance A 2.0-acres Community Park located at intersection of Post and Hyland-Glen Roads including two historic structures, stormwater basis, shared-use paths, and agricultural landscaping City City B 0.7-acre Hyland-Croy Road setback south of Springview Lane. The reserve includes entry features and a shared-use path. City HOA C 1.0-acre Hyland-Croy Road setback between Springview Lane and Moorland Drive. The reserve includes entry features and a shared-use path. City HOA D Each 3.8-acres open space reserves north of Moorland Drive and south of Holbein Drive. The South Fork of the Indian Run divides the two reserves. The area includes two stormwater management basins, entry features, and shared-use paths and will also provide for a continuation of the open space and wildlife corridor from Indian Run Meadows west through Red Trabue along the South Fork of the Indian Run. City City/HOA* E City City/HOA* F 1.1-acre in size and is the Hyland-Croy Road setback north of Holbein Drive. The reserve includes entry features and a shared-use path. City HOA *The City shall maintain functionality storm water management basins and appurtenances thereto which serve storm water functionality Tree Survey The applicant has provided a tree survey indicating the size and health of existing trees. The final details of the tree survey will be confirmed with the Final Development Plan. With the Final Development Plan, the developer is required to submit a Tree Preservation, Tree Replacement, and Tree Protection Plan for Staff’s review and the Commission’s approval. Removals and replacements are more easily mitigated through the Final Development Plan process versus when the trees are damaged in the field by construction. Tree removals and preservation practices need to be accurately reflected during the public review process to minimize alterations during construction. City inspections and approval of tree protection fencing are required prior to issuance of construction permits. Details are as follows: There are 137 trees on site and another 27 trees immediately adjacent off-site. Of the 164 trees surveyed, there are eight dead trees identified. The applicant should updated the plan to ensure that all trees in poor condition are removed. Additionally, the tree survey will need to be updated to include any trees proposed to be removed as part of the Stillhouse Lane extension. These trees are required to be replace in accordance with Code. Additionally, Staff has identified several hazardous trees along Post Road that should be removed. Staff recommends that the applicant preserve tree #85 given that it is a 25-inch Red Oak in good condition. The applicant should ensure the stormwater management basis does not impact the critical root zone. The landscape plans and tree City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 21-116Z/PDP & Case 21-117PP – Hyland Glen Thursday, September 16, 2021 | Page 11 of 18 preservation/removal/replacement plans will need to be fully coordinated with the Final Development Plan. The final landscape design of the community park is required to be coordinated with the US 33/SR 161/Post Road interchange landscape improvements prior to submittal of the Final Development Plan. In addition to any required trees identified in the development text, the Final Development Plan will need to provide additional landscaping along the Hyland-Croy Road frontage. The applicant should work with Staff to implement the Rural Roadway Character. Architecture & Building Materials The applicant is proposing four base single-family homes, which includes a variety of architectural styles (Craftsman, Euro, and Traditional) to meet architectural diversity requirements defined in the development text. The color palette is proposed to consist of natural earth tones in a warm and cool hues consistent with recently approved development in Dublin. Homes fronting Hyland- Croy Road are required to have additional architectural elements including, but not limited to a stone/synthetic stone watertable, shutters with operable hardware, or masonry entry piers. The development text permits 1-2-story homes with a maximum height of 35 feet, which is consistent with the Code allowances in residential zoning districts. The applicant is proposing to permit a variety of primary cladding materials including: brick, thin brick, stone, manufactured stone, wood, engineered wood, fiber cement siding, stucco or any combination thereof. The text also defines trim materials permitted for trim that include: wood, aluminum, PVC, foam, and fiber cement products. Permitted roof materials are dimensional asphalt shingles (240lbs/sq weight) and metal standing seam. Windows are permitted to be vinyl. Front loaded garages are permitted, and decorative doors with stamped pattern and hardware are required. The applicant is proposing garages be permitted to be up to 50 percent to be consistent with other neighborhoods previously approved in Dublin. Storage sheds are prohibited within the subdivision while fences and pools are permitted per Code. Signs The applicant is proposing a total of three signs across the development. A comprehensive sign plan is required to be submitted with the Final Development Plan for the Commission’s review and approval. Each entry sign is permitted to be 20 square feet in size at a maximum of 6 feet in height. A single entry sign may be located at the neighborhood entrances along Hyland-Croy Road. Previously, an entry sign for Post Preserve was contemplated given the 2006 Interchange Modification Study. In the intervening years, the interchange improvement design has continue to evolve, negating the need for the Post Preserve sign along Hyland-Croy Road as the existing Post Preserve sign will be able to be retained. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 21-116Z/PDP & Case 21-117PP – Hyland Glen Thursday, September 16, 2021 | Page 12 of 18 Traffic & Access All proposed streets are public. The main access point, Moorland Drive is proposed to provide access from Hyland-Croy Road along with two other access points: Springview Lane, which is restricted to right-in/right-out only access, and Holbein Drive. The proposal includes the extension of Springview Lane, Stillhouse Lane, and Holbein Drive. Five internal public streets are also proposed (south to north): Barksdale Drive, Banshee Drive, Gorden Drive, Wilde Drive, and Wooley Drive. The applicant work with the City of Dublin to finalize phasing of public streets prior to submission to City Council to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The plans include all required pedestrian connections including sidewalks and shared-use paths to provide connectivity to the regional parks/open space network. Sidewalks or a sidewalk and a shared-use path is provided on both sides of all public streets. Traffic Impact Study The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) as required for a rezoning application. The traffic study is currently under review by the City of Dublin and the Union County Engineer’s Office. As Hyland-Croy Road is within Union County’s right-of-way, they are partners in the review of the traffic impact study and also control access to this roadway. The study provides analysis of the anticipated traffic generated by the proposed development and estimates the projected traffic on the existing roadways. Currently, a study that recommends certain improvements to mitigate the anticipated development traffic impacts has been submitted, but comments provided by the City of Dublin and the Union County Engineer’s Office still need to be addressed. Moving forward, the developer should continue to refine the study to address the comments to ensure the study can be accepted by the City of Dublin and the Union County Engineer’s Offices. Once this is completed, the developer will need to work with the City of Dublin and Union County to create an Infrastructure Agreement that will commit the developer to the transportation improvements and contributions to offsite intersections that are recommended as a part of the accepted study. Anticipated transportation improvements include: Traffic control improvement (such as a traffic signal) at the main entrance Southbound left and northbound right turn lanes at both full access points Northbound right turn lane at the restricted right-in/right-out only access point Contribution to future improvements along Hyland-Croy Road The applicant should continue to work with the City and Union County to complete the traffic impact study to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Union County Engineer, prior to submitting the rezoning for consideration by City Council. Once this is complete, the applicant should work with the City of Dublin and Union County to develop an Infrastructure Agreement for consideration by City Council. This should be submitted in conjunction with the submission of the Rezoning to City Council. Stormwater Management & Utilities Stormwater Management and Stream Protection The proposal will meet the requirements of the City of Dublin Chapter 53 Stormwater Management and Stream Protection Code by constructing multiple stormwater management City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 21-116Z/PDP & Case 21-117PP – Hyland Glen Thursday, September 16, 2021 | Page 13 of 18 retention basins, storm sewer pipes, and associated structures. The applicant has located and sized these facilities based on a stormwater management report that analyzed the existing and anticipated drainage for the area and have provided calculations for the sizing of the retention basins. The applicant will need to continue to work with Engineering to demonstrate compliance in accordance with Chapter 53 of the Dublin Code of Ordinances. A stream corridor protection zone is located near the northern third of the proposed site. This area has been delineated and has been kept free of proposed buildings, stormwater management facilities and other prohibited uses in this zone. Water Access to public water for domestic and fire protection use will be available by the construction of new public water main from the south along Hyland-Croy Road. Additionally, this proposal provides for the construction of new public water main within the development, including new fire hydrants. Sanitary Sewer New public sanitary sewer is proposed with this development to provide access for the proposed lots. This will connect to existing sanitary sewer located to the east of this development. 5. Preliminary Plat Summary This is a proposal for a Preliminary Plat for the subdivision of 42.5-acres of land and includes the creation of 102 single-family lots, six open space reserves, and nine public streets. The Preliminary Plat shows existing conditions, proposed development sections, setback requirements, lot depths and widths, and easements. The plat includes the open space acreages, ownership and maintenance responsibilities. The single-family lots range in size with the smallest lot at 6,600 square feet and the largest lot at 18,997 square feet. The minimum lot depth is 110 feet and the largest lots depth are 130 feet deep. Single-family residential setbacks are not platted, but rather are defined by the development text. The plat establishes a 20-foot front building line for each lot along the public right-of-way. Additionally, a 30-foot and 10-foot building setback line is platted along the eastern and northern property lines, respectively. Associated utility easements are also denoted on the plat. The plat also includes building and pavement setbacks along the Hyland-Croy Road and Post Road frontages, 100 feet and 50 feet, respectively. All proposed streets are public. Moorland Drive is proposed to provide access from Hyland-Croy Road along with two other access points: Springview Lane, which is restricted to right-in/right- out only access, and Holbein Drive. The proposal includes the extension of Springview Lane, Stillhouse Lane, and Holbein Drive. Five internal public streets are also proposed (south to north): Barksdale Drive, Banshee Drive, Gorden Drive, Wilde Drive, and Wooley Drive. The proposed public streets will provide 50 feet of right-of-way with 28 feet of pavement and be classified as a minor thoroughfare. Pedestrian connections, including 4-foot sidewalks and 8-foot City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 21-116Z/PDP & Case 21-117PP – Hyland Glen Thursday, September 16, 2021 | Page 14 of 18 shared-use path, are included throughout the development to provide connectivity to the regional parks/open space network. The minimum tree lawn width is proposed to be 8 feet. Finally, the Subdivision Regulations require land dedication for open space and for recreational facilities. The applicant is required to provide a minimum of 6.46-acres for open space for the site based on the area and number of single-family lots. The proposal is for 12.4-acres of open space of which all is to be dedicated to the City. 6. Criteria Analysis Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan 1) The proposed development is consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable standards of the Zoning Code; Criterion met. This proposal is generally consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable development standards of the Zoning Code requirements. Establishment of a Planned Unit Development successfully addresses the unique conditions and location of the site. 2) The proposed development is in conformity with Community Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, Bikeway Plan, and other adopted plans or portions thereof as they may apply and will not unreasonably burden the existing street network; Criterion met. The proposed development meets the goals and objectives defined in the Community Plan including the Future Land Use designation for the site and the Thoroughfare Plan recommendations. The development preserves historic and cultural assets while also providing a successful transition westward to Jerome Township. 3) The proposed development advances the general welfare of the city and immediate vicinity and will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding areas; Criterion met. The proposed neighborhood promotes orderly development that is respectful to the surrounding development character while also providing an appropriate transition to Jerome Township. The community park promotes the general welfare of the City and surrounding area. 4) The proposed uses are appropriately located in the city so that the use and value of property within and adjacent to the area will be safeguarded; Criterion met. The proposed development meets the Future Land Use designation for the site. The development plan safeguards surrounding established neighborhoods and preserves the Rural Roadway character along the east side of Hyland-Croy Road. 5) Proposed residential development will have sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives of the Community Plan; Criterion met with Condition. The proposed open space provision meets and exceeds the requirements. The applicant should provide City Council a proforma detailing the HOA and City maintenance costs associated with the proposed open spaces. The applicant should work with the City’s landscape Zoning Inspector to ensure the tree survey, tree City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 21-116Z/PDP & Case 21-117PP – Hyland Glen Thursday, September 16, 2021 | Page 15 of 18 preservation plan, tree removal/replacement plan, and landscape plan are updated as detailed in this Staff Report with the Final Development Plan submittal. 6) The proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and protects the natural resources of the site; Criterion met. The proposal will have to adhere to Code for any removal and replacement of the vegetation on site. The Stream Corridor Protection Zone located near the northern third of the proposed site has been kept free of proposed buildings, stormwater management facilities and other prohibited uses in this zone. 7) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided; Criterion met with Condition. The proposal will meet the requirements of the City of Dublin Chapter 53 Stormwater Management and Stream Protection Code by constructing multiple stormwater management retention basins, storm sewer pipes, and associated structures. The extension of public utilities is included with this development proposal. The applicant should continue to work with Engineering, prior to submittal of the Final Development Plan, to ensure compliance with the City of Dublin Chapter 53 Stormwater Management and Stream Protection Code. 8) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on the surrounding public streets and to maximize public safety and to accommodate adequate pedestrian and bike circulation systems so that the proposed development provides for a safe, convenient and non-conflicting circulation system for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians; Criterion met with Conditions. The applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Study that recommends certain improvements to mitigate the anticipated development traffic impacts. The developer should continue to work with the City and the Union County Engineer’s Office to finalize the TIS prior to City Council. The applicant should continue to work with the City of Dublin and Union County to develop an Infrastructure Agreement for consideration by City Council. This should be submitted in conjunction with the submission of the rezoning to City Council. 9) The relationship of buildings and structures to each other and to such other facilities provides for the coordination and integration of this development within the PUD and the larger community and maintains the image of Dublin as a quality community; Criterion met. The applicant’s development proposal addresses Staff, Commission, and residents requests over the last several years. The creation of a community park and preservation of historic structures at a key gateway location maintains the image of Dublin as a quality community. 10) The density, building gross floor area, building heights, setbacks, distances between buildings and structures, yard space, design and layout of open space systems and parking areas, traffic accessibility and other elements having a bearing on the overall City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 21-116Z/PDP & Case 21-117PP – Hyland Glen Thursday, September 16, 2021 | Page 16 of 18 acceptability of the development plans contribute to the orderly development of land within the city; Criterion met. The proposed density is compatible with surrounding development, as are the lot and building development standards. 11) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site so as to maintain, as far as practicable, usual and normal swales, water courses and drainage areas; Criterion met with Condition. The proposal will meet the requirements of the City of Dublin Chapter 53 Stormwater Management and Stream Protection Code by constructing multiple stormwater management retention basins, storm sewer pipes, and associated structures. The applicant continue to work with Engineering, prior to submittal of the Final Development Plan, to ensure compliance with the City of Dublin Chapter 53 Stormwater Management and Stream Protection Code. 12) The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed development justify any deviation from the standard development regulations included in the Zoning Code or Subdivision Regulation, and that any such deviations are consistent with the intent of the Planned Development District regulations; Criterion met. The proposed site layout is responsive to surrounding context and in accordance with the Community Plan. The flexibility provided by the Planned Unit Development process is necessary in this case to address the unique site location along the western boundary of Dublin. 13) The proposed building design meets or exceeds the quality of the building designs in the surrounding area and all applicable appearance standards of the city; Criterion met. The development text includes material and designs standards. The proposed building materials meet or exceed Appearance Code standards and the quality is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. Conceptual architectural elevations have been provided for the Commission’s consideration with the Preliminary Development Plan. 14) The proposed phasing of development is appropriate for the existing and proposed infrastructure and is sufficiently coordinated among the various phases to ultimately yield the intended overall development; Criterion met. The development will be completed in multiple phases. The applicant should work with the City to finalize phasing of public streets prior to submission to City Council specifically to allow for the opportunity for Holbein Drive to be extended with Section 1. 15) The proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing or planned public improvements and not impair the existing public service system for the area; Criterion met with Condition. The Traffic Impact Study has been submitted and presently under review. The applicant should continue to work with the City and Union County to complete the traffic impact study to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 21-116Z/PDP & Case 21-117PP – Hyland Glen Thursday, September 16, 2021 | Page 17 of 18 the Union County Engineer, prior to submitting the rezoning for consideration by City Council. 16) The applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service the new development. Criterion met with Condition. The acceptance of the Traffic Impact Study allows for the creation of the Infrastructure Agreement that would accompany the rezoning/preliminary development plan to City Council for final determination. The applicant should work with the City of Dublin and Union County to develop an Infrastructure Agreement for consideration by City Council. This should be submitted in conjunction with the submission of the rezoning to City Council. Preliminary Plat The Zoning Code does not contain specific criteria to guide the review of plats. Planning evaluates the conformance of the plat on the requirements set forth in Chapter 152: Subdivision Regulations of the Code: 1) Plat Information and Construction Requirements Criteria Met with Condition. The proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. The applicant should make any minor technical adjustments prior to City Council review. 2) Lots, Street, Sidewalk, and Bike Path Standards Criteria Met. This proposal is consistent with the lot, street, sidewalk, and bikepath standards of the Subdivision Regulations. The proposal connects to all existing street, sidewalk, and bike path infrastructure from Post Preserve to the east and Park Place to the north. 3) Utilities Criteria Met. Proposed and existing utilities are shown on the preliminary plat. 4) Open Space Requirements Criteria Met. The proposed open space provision meets the requirements. Open space is required to be dedicated to the City. The plat accurately shows the ownership and maintenance of open spaces. 7. Recommendations Staff recommends approval of the Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan with conditions finding that the proposal meets the review criteria as outlined above: 1) The applicant work with the City’s landscape Zoning Inspector to ensure the tree survey, tree preservation plan, tree removal/replacement plan, and landscape plan are updated as detailed in this Staff Report with the Final Development Plan submittal. 2) The applicant submit a proforma detailing anticipated open space maintenance costs for the City and HOA prior to submitting the rezoning for consideration by City Council. City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 21-116Z/PDP & Case 21-117PP – Hyland Glen Thursday, September 16, 2021 | Page 18 of 18 3) The applicant continue to work with the City of Dublin and Union County to complete the traffic impact study to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Union County Engineer, prior to submitting the rezoning for consideration by City Council. 4) That the applicant work with the City of Dublin and Union County to develop an Infrastructure Agreement for consideration by City Council to be submitted in conjunction with the Rezoning application to City Council. 5) The applicant continue to work with Engineering, prior to submittal of the Final Development Plan, to ensure compliance with the City of Dublin Chapter 53 Stormwater Management and Stream Protection Code. 6) The applicant work with the City of Dublin to finalize phasing of public streets prior to submission to City Council to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat with one condition: 1) The applicant ensures that any minor technical adjustments to the plat are made prior to City Council submittal. PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov RECORD OF DISCUSSION Planning & Zoning Commission Thursday, May 20, 2021 | 6:30 pm The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Hyland Glen at 7270 Hyland-Croy Road 21-058INF Informal Review Proposal: Development of a residential Planned Unit Development neighborhood consisting of 102 single-family lots with 12.8 acres of open space on a 42.2-acre site. Location: Northeast of the intersection of Hyland-Croy Road with Post Road and zoned Rural District. Request: Informal review and non-binding feedback for a future development application under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.050 – 153.056. Applicant: The Paragon Building Group DBA Virginia Homes Planning Contact: Nichole Martin, AICP, Senior Planner Contact Information: 614.410.4635, nmartin@dublin.oh.us Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/21-058 RESULT: The Commission conducted an informal review and provided non-binding feedback on a proposal to develop a new single -family neighborhood. The Commission expressed appreciation to the applicant for incorporating previous feedback from the neighbo rhood regarding a desire for all single-family lots. The Commission acknowledged the street layout remains largely the same and the traffic study will need to be finalized with a formal application. The Commission discussed preservation of the historic farmstead site along Post Road. Members of the Commission identified that the Community Plan recommends the farmstead be preserved. Members discussed they would look to Staff for a recommendation regarding which structures should be preserved. The Commission expressed a desire for usable open spaces as an amenity to complement the single -family development. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jane Fox Yes Warren Fishman Yes Mark Supelak Yes Rebecca Call Yes Leo Grimes Yes Lance Schneier Yes Kim Way Yes STAFF CERTIFICATION _____________________________________ Nichole Martin, AICP, Senior Planner DocuSign Envelope ID: A56B9F50-FBE5-42E4-869E-EF7D06F256E5 CITY OF DUBLIN HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL ASSESSMENT – INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY SHEETS Map Grid 96 - 1 Parcel 1700290130010 Address 7298 Post Rd OHI UNI-471-14 Year Built: Ca.1900 Map No: 96 Photo No: 384-390 (6/15/16) Theme: Agriculture Historic Use: Agricultural/Single family house Present Use: Agricultural/Single family house Style: Vernacular/Gabled ell Foundation: Not visible Wall Type: Frame Roof Type: Cross gable/asphalt shingle Exterior Wall: Aluminum Symmetry: None Stories: 2 Front Bays: 3 Side Bays: 1 Porch: Hipped-roof porch on façade, supported by square wood posts Chimney: None visible Windows: Replacement 1-over-1 Description: The farmstead complex includes a house, large barn, storage barn, machine shed, shed, and two smaller outbuildings. The house is a one-and-one-half-story Gabled-ell building. The cross-gable roof is sheathed in asphalt shingles and pierced by a front-gable wall dormer on the façade. The exterior of the house is clad in aluminum siding. An open front porch with a half-hipped roof spans the width of the façade. It has a concrete deck and wood posts and railing. The front door is centered within the porch. Windows are one-over-one vinyl sashes, some sheltered by metal awnings. Setting: The property is located on the east side of Hyland Croy Rd, and is oriented south to Post Rd. Agricultural fields surround the immediate vicinity of the complex, however a modern housing complex is in view to the east. Condition: Good Integrity: Location: Y Design: Y Setting: Y Materials: N Workmanship: N Feeling: Y Association: Y Integrity Notes: The extant farmstead complex has good integrity, with some diminished integrity from replacement materials. Historical Significance: The farmstead complex is a distinctive local example of agriculture in the Dublin area and is recommended eligible for the NRHP. District: No Contributing Status: N/A National Register: Recommended eligible Property Name: N/A 7298 Post Rd, looking northeast 7298 Post Rd, outbuildings, looking northwest MEETING MINUTES Planning & Zoning Commission Thursday, May 20, 2021 CALL TO ORDER Ms. Call, Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and noted that due to the pandemic, the City of Dublin is currently holding public meetings online and live streaming to YouTube. The meeting live- stream can be accessed at the City’s website. Public comments on the cases are welcome. To submit any questions or comments during the meeting, please use the form under the streaming video on the City’s website. Questions and comments will be relayed to the Commission by the meeting moderator. The City desires to accommodate public participation to the greatest extent possible. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Ms. Call led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Commission members present: Warren Fishman, Lance Schneier, Rebecca Call, Lee Grimes, Kim Way, Mark Supelak, Jane Fox Staff members present: Jennifer Rauch, Nichole Martin, Thaddeus Boggs, Megan O’Callaghan, Michael Hendershot, Colleen Gilger, Rachel Ray ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Fishman seconded acceptance of the documents into the record and approval of the April 15, 2021 meeting minutes. Vote: Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Schneier, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Ms. Fox, yes. [Motion approved 7-0.] Ms. Call stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission is an advisory board to City Council when rezoning and platting of property are under consideration. In such cases, City Council will receive recommendations from the Commission. In other cases, the Commission has the final decision-making responsibility. Anyone who intends to address the Commission on administrative cases must be sworn in. Ms. Call swore in individuals intending to address the Commission on tonight’s cases. Ms. Call stated that there are no cases eligible for the Consent Agenda this evening. INFORMAL REVIEW CASES 1. Hyland Glen at 7270 Hyland-Croy Road, 21-058INF, Informal Review A request for the development of a residential Planned Unit Development neighborhood consisting of 102 single-family lots with 12.8 acres of open space. The 42.2-acre site is zoned Rural District and is northeast of the intersection of Hyland-Croy Road with Post Road. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2021 Page 2 of 28 Staff Presentation Ms. Martin stated that this is a request for an Informal Review, an optional step in the Planned Unit Development process. This site currently is zoned Rural. The anticipated request will be for a rezoning of the site to a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The site is located northeast of the intersection of Post Road and Hyland-Croy Road and is approximately 42 acres in size. The site has 3,000 feet of frontage along Hyland-Croy Road and presently contains two residences with access from Hyland-Croy Road, and a historic farmstead located along Post Road. The remainder of the site is farmed. The Community Plan is a guiding document that is referred to when rezoning of property is being considered. The Future Land Use for this site has two designations – one is Suburban Residential, Low Density; the other is Mixed Residential, Low Density. The Mixed Residential Low Density recommends up to 3 dwelling units (du)/per acre; Suburban Residential recommends 1 – 2 du/acre. The Community Plan also includes Special Area Plan, where special attention is given to unique site characteristics, as well as corridors. The Northwest Glacier Ridge Special Area Plan has both general and specific recommendations. Single-family, detached residential lots are contemplated adjacent to existing single-family residential. Additionally, there are clustered homes along the Hyland-Croy Road frontage adjacent to Post Road and the US33 Interchange. That Special Area Plan also included a rural roadway character recommendation. That character is already implemented in a number of neighborhoods along Hyland-Croy Road, having generous setbacks from 100-200 feet. Additionally, the Community Plan recommends preservation of the historic farmstead or a portion thereof. The farmstead on this site enhances the rural roadway character and contributes to the overall history of Dublin. Proposal The proposal is for development of a PUD neighborhood on the 42.2-acre site that would consist of 102 single-family residential lots, 12.8 acres of open space and 6 new public rights-of-way. The site access aligns with previously established access plans as well as previous proposals reviewed by the Commission. The Conceptual Plan includes the extension of the ML “Red” Trabue Nature Reserve along the South Fork of Indian Run, and the preservation of one historic barn at the intersection of Post Road and Hyland Croy Road, as well as a detention basin and gateway landscape feature. The proposed density is 2.4 du/per acre, which aligns with the Community Plan recommendations. Generally, lot sizes are proposed to transition from larger in the north and east boundaries of the site to smaller in the south and west portions of the site. Lots along the margins of the site will be similar in size to adjacent lots in Post Preserve and Park Place. Smaller lots will be along the Post Road and Hyland-Croy Road interchange. This is consistent with the Community Plan’s recommendations. All lots are a minimum of 110 feet in depth, with those adjacent to Post Preserve being 130 feet in depth. Lot widths will vary, with those next to single-family neighborhoods being 75-80 feet in width. The smaller lots in the center of site will be 60 feet in width. Staff recommends the Commission consider the following discussion questions in their review: 1) Is the Commission supportive of the single-family land use and overall density? 2) Does the Commission support the conceptual site layout including streets and lots? 3) Is the Commission supportive of the conceptual open spaces including preservation of natural feature and cultural resources? 4) Other considerations by the Commission. Applicant Presentation Charles Ruma, Jr., president, Virginia Homes, 485 Metro Place S., Dublin, OH stated that they were approached with the owners of the Gorden property after the Schottenstein Real Estate Group’s previous unsuccessful attempts to develop the property. Before getting involved, they spent time reviewing the previous rezoning proposal to determine how they could create a successful project that would solve the issues that were raised. This is a challenging site to develop creatively, as there is development on all Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2021 Page 3 of 28 four sides; essentially this would be an infill development. The Autumn Rose residential development is to the north; plans for retail and commercial in Jerome Township exists to the west; commercial exists to the south; and a substantial SR161 highway ramp exits to Post Road. In addition, Post Preserve is immediately adjacent to the east with three predetermined stubstreets that will connect through this infill property to Hyland-Croy Road. With all those factors, the layout of this site is fairly constrictive. They have focused on lowering the density and creating a consistent product throughout this transitional site. They have been working with staff, who is familiar with the site’s issues. They also have been communicating with the residents in the area, sharing their plans with the Post Preserve HOA to ensure they address all their concerns. Looking at the previous issues raised, they believe they have succeeded in creating a vastly improved Concept Plan. They have attempted to address the following concerns: 1) Land use. This is a single-family subdivision with homes averaging from $600,000- $700,000. 2) Density. The density in this development has been reduced to 102 units, which lowers the density by almost 140 units from the previous application. No lots will be less than 60 feet wide. Lot lines will be retained with the Post Preserve neighborhood. 3) Open space. They will have 12.8 acres of open space spread throughout the community. The open spaces will be usable, complement the site, and preserve the rural character along Hyland-Croy Road. 4) Preservation of the historic barn. They have reworked the storm basin to be able to retain the historic barn with this project. 5) Hyland-Croy Road setbacks. There will be a 100-foot setback along the roadway. There will be extensive landscaping and mounding along the roadway, preserving the rural character. The homes will front onto a secondary street that will connect with Hyland-Croy Road. 6) Community engagement. That has occurred. They believe they are proposing a plan that meets the desired goals for this site. Charles Ruma, Sr., Virginia Homes, 485 Metro Place S., Dublin, OH, stated that the only additional item he would point out is that the interchange that is being built will end up at the intersection of Hyland- Croy and Post roads. That will necessitate the closing of Post Preserve Blvd., which will eliminate the neighborhood’s Post Road access. The neighborhood’s access will be through this proposed development to Hyland-Croy Road. The location of the ingress and egress through their site has been determined by the City’s Engineering Department Commission Questions Ms. Fox stated that the northernmost 1/3 of the site that has larger lots will have a lower density than the remainder of the site. What would be the density of that northern section? Ms. Martin responded that the Community Plan recommends 1 – 2 du/acre in the upper, northern portion and up to 3 du/acre in the lower portion. She has not calculated the density separately. However, as a 45-acre site, prior to the right-of-way take, she had calculated the distribution as 121 single-family units. Mr. Grimes requested Engineering’s overview of the intersection with Hyland-Croy Road and the flow of traffic on that road and the adjacent neighborhoods. Michael Hendershot, City Engineer, stated that with any proposed development, there are concerns with the traffic that will be generated. There are requirements in place in order to handle those concerns properly. Those details will be part of the Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan stage. That will include a Traffic Impact Study, conducted by professional engineers, which models the traffic on the existing roadways, evaluates the impact of the anticipated additional traffic on the surrounding roadway network, and recommends mitigation measures for that impact. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2021 Page 4 of 28 Mr. Grimes stated that as he understands it, that evaluation has yet to occur. Mr. Hendershot responded affirmatively. Discussions regarding projected traffic flows and any recommended mitigation measures would be part of a rezoning application. However, there are current CIP projects scheduled to handle the Post Preserve neighborhood access prior to the completion of the interchange construction. Part of the necessary modification will be the extension of Springview Lane and Stillhouse Lane to a single street creating a new access point onto Hyland-Croy Road. This project is required by ODOT to eliminate the Post Preserve Blvd. intersection with Post Road, due to the change and limited access right-of-way created by the US33/SR161/Post Road interchange. The current CIP also contains an intersection improvement project for that newly created entry onto Hyland-Croy Road. The CIP and the anticipated development will accommodate the necessary improvements. Mr. Supelak inquired if the new on/off ramp construction has a timeframe. Mr. Hendershot responded that the US33/SR161/Post Road interchange project is expected to be bid in early 2022. The tentative construction completion date is June 2025. Mr. Schneier requested clarification of the preservation consultant’s and staff’s recommendations regarding the historic buildings. Ms. Martin responded that the property located along Post Road is included in the City’s Historic and Cultural Assessment, which was adopted in 2017. A specific review prepared by the City’s consultant was based on a site visit, including a review of the barn and other structures. The consultant’s recommendation based on the seven integrity markers of the National Parks Service was that, ideally, the entire farmstead would be preserved intact. However, if only one structure were to be preserved, the largest barn alone meets all the eligibility criteria to be considered historic. Staff is supportive of the recommendations and acknowledges that the applicant has selected the latter of the two. That item has been suggested as a discussion question for the Commission. Mr. Schneier inquired if it was staff’s position that retaining only the barn would be sufficient. Ms. Martin responded that staff has no position at this time. After tonight’s discussion, they would be able to solidify a direction. Mr. Way inquired if the intersections with Hyland-Croy Road were predetermined and fixed, or if flexibility existed concerning the intersections. Ms. Martin stated that for the most part, they are predetermined and consistent with the City’s Access Management Plan that was adopted by City Council in 2006. Mr. Ruma, Sr. noted that Jerome Township retains some jurisdiction along Hyland-Croy Road, so was involved in determining the access points for this site to Hyland-Croy Road. Ms. Martin stated that, as part of the previous development proposal, there was significant coordination between City of Dublin Engineering and Union County Engineering to reach agreement on the access points. Mr. Way stated that the reason he asked was that it would appear if the Hyland Glen Drive were moved further north, it would create more equal spacing between the intersections, potentially creating a safer circulation. Did the developer give any consideration to locating the large vs. small lots differently? Mr. Ruma, Sr. responded that the intent is for the 60-foot wide lots to be one, empty-nester project, much like the Riviera home products. They would prefer those homes to be located back to back. Mr. Ruma, Jr. stated that part of that intent also was to locate the larger lots adjacent to the Post Preserve neighborhood. Mr. Fishman requested clarification of the preservation intent. Would the home also be preserved or perhaps the entire farmstead? If so, who will be responsible for restoring it? What are the plans? Ms. Martin responded that based on the information currently available, there are no specific plans. In other neighborhoods that have been developed that contained historic structures, if the structures are Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2021 Page 5 of 28 preserved, they are dedicated to the City in a reserve of open space. The City would become the owner and be responsible for maintaining that historic and cultural resource. Which or how many structures will be preserved is part of the Commission’s discussion tonight. The location of the stormwater basin will be generally in the location shown; however, as the site layout is refined with the Preliminary Development Plan and further engineering studies are done regarding the necessary volume, re- configuration of the stormwater basin could occur. Mr. Fishman inquired if the decision regarding the historical properties would be the City’s. Ms. Martin responded that it would be the decision of PZC and City Council with the rezoning. However, historically, responsibility of the preservation of historic properties retained has been the City’s. Mr. Ruma, Sr. pointed out that the lowest portion of the property, where the house and barn are located, is adjacent to Post Road. Originally, their plan did not include preservation of any of those buildings due to their state of disrepair, the barn being in better shape than the other structures. After reviewing the previous proposal’s discussion regarding preservation of the historic barn, they decided to re-shape the pond along Post Road to provide adequate space to retain the barn. Ms. Call requested clarification of the process and timing when a historic preservation resource is dedicated to the City. Ms. Martin responded that the City has not had a case like this in recent history, and some processes have changed over time. The process would need to be coordinated with the Directors of Development and Facilities. The framework is established with the Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat, but the actual dedication of open space occurs when the Final Plat is recorded with Union County. Mr. Ruma, Sr. stated that they were involved with the preservation of a historic barn in a similar situation – the Conine Farm, Wedgewood Glen, off Smoky Row in Dublin. They were able to proceed by protecting the barn structure during development. After it was completed, the City rehabilitated the structure for preservation purposes over the next few years. They have done this previously and are confident with that process. Mr. Supelak stated that the City would be placing the property owner in a double jeopardy position in asking for the land to be dedicated to the City but also penalizing them for giving up the open space. Ms. Martin responded that the land would still count toward the required open space. Mr. Supelak inquired, whatever the preservation ultimately consists of, who would design the site. Would a decision be made to preserve the site without knowing its intended design? Ms. Martin responded that a conceptual open space would be prov ided with the Preliminary Development Plan, but open space is not fully designed until the Final Development Plan. The developer and staff are experienced in defining those details. The Commission is asked for feedback regarding the land use and the site layout. It appears the Commission is indicating there should be some preservation of the historic structures. Ms. Rauch stated that Commission feedback is requested whether the proposal meets the criteria of the Code and the Community Plan, and if the Commission desires preservation of one or all of the historic structures. Mr. Fishman inquired if whatever decision is made regarding the historical structures would affect the size of the retention pond. Ms. Martin responded that all of those items would require further study. The development team has engaged a civil engineer. With a formal application, more details would be provided; however, all stormwater on the site would be managed per the City of Dublin Stormwater Regulations. Mr. Fishman inquired if the pond would be a detention, not retention pond. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2021 Page 6 of 28 Mr. Hendershot clarified that retention ponds are the wet basins; detention ponds are the dry basins. There are other stormwater measures that could be proposed. Permeable pavers and underground storage facilities are options that could be considered with a design engineer, as the project moves forward. Commission Discussion Ms. Call asked the Commission members to provide input on the following discussion questions. 1) Is the Commission supportive of the single-family land use and overall density? 2) Does the Commission support the conceptual site layout including streets and lots? 3) Is the Commission supportive of the conceptual open spaces including preservation of natural feature and cultural resources? 4) Other considerations by the Commission. Ms. Fox thanked the applicants for engaging the Post Preserve residents. That is one of the first items the Commission looks for and appreciates. It is reassuring that the layout was initiated with the intent to address the concerns previously raised. While she is happy to see that the proposal includes single- family homes, she is also supportive of cluster homes. She would not be opposed to a little more density in the southern portion of the site. Although there is not much opportunity for a different layout in the northern portion, is there any opportunity for cluster housing in the lower portion of the site, breaking up the linear layout of the typical suburban development? Although the site is constricted by its long and narrow dimensions, there are two great amenities on this property: 1) The historic farmstead is a gateway entrance to Hyland-Croy Road, and provides the neighborhood a buffer between the nearby commercial site and the roadway. She would prefer the entire homestead be preserved, excluding the toolshed. What opportunities could exist with preservation of the farmstead for future social connection purposes? The City is looking for infill developments to offer walkable amenities, places around which a sense of community can be created. 2) The greenway leading to the Red Trabue Preserve. With the contemplation of the 2035 Framework Plan, Council is considering formation of a major east-west greenway across the City. The Preserve could be an entrance to that greenway. Would it be possible to incorporate a layout that would take advantage of an opportunity to view this amenity? Ms. Fox invited the applicant to comment on the potential of the above opportunities. Mr. Ruma, Sr. responded that Post Preserve is adamant about having adjacent single-family that is similar in nature to the existing homes in Post Preserve, and they have attempted to ensure that occurs. On the east boundary adjacent to Post Preserve, the lots have a 130-foot depth. This will preserve the existing tree line, but it will also preserve the ability to build homes similar to those adjacent in Post Preserve. In regard to the other point, there are three points of access predetermined by the City, which dictate how traffic must flow through this subdivision. Not only must that roadway be maintained, but due to their concern about traffic, Post Preserve residents are opposed to a roadway directly to Hyland-Croy Road. Currently, the neighborhood is comprised of stub streets. Altering that to a more direct route is a matter of concern to those residents. Finally, as was pointed out, this site is very narrow. Taking into consideration the required streets, size of the lots, the 100-foot setback off Hyland-Croy Road, and the need to preserve consistency of the lots adjacent to the existing neighborhood, there is not much room. Adjusting it differently would require marginalizing the product. Incorporating high-density cluster housing will require multi-family development, which is strongly objected to by Post Preserve. Ms. Fox stated that Post Preserve residents may be concerned about the construction of an apartment complex. With cottage cluster units, it might be possible to have more attached, 1.0 or 1.5 story units. They could then focus on providing the homestead within the cottage community. Mr. Ruma responded that might be possible, if they did not retain the 11 lots that are adjacent to Post Preserve, which are the larger lots. Because there must be a roadway to service those lots, not much Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2021 Page 7 of 28 latitude remains to include cluster housing. However, in reality, 60-foot lots are essentially cluster housing. Ms. Fox responded that she is not opposed to that density. What she is looking for are more usable, walkable, socially connected spaces that will encourage the residents to walk down the street and talk to their neighbors. In some 55+ communities with smaller homes, the residents appreciate being able to take a walk to a community center, pool or a garden. With the farmstead amenity and the greenway to Red Trabue Preserve, it would be nice to orient the lots to be more amenity-focused than street focused. She understands the constrictions of the site and is just putting forth the challenge. She would like to see the entire farmstead preserved, as it is a great opportunity for the City, a gateway to Hyland-Croy Road and an amenity for the neighborhood by fostering social connectivity. Mr. Ruma stated that the report calls for the farmstead to be preserved; is she calling for something more? Ms. Fox clarified that it would include the house and the barn. Mr. Ruma responded that he has a different position regarding t he house, because it is in serious disrepair to the point of being dangerous. It would require significant work to enable utilization of that structure. Mr. Grimes stated that, in general, he likes the number of lots and the layout, which would be good for the adjacent Post Preserve neighborhood. His concern is what effect would preservation of the barn or additional structures have on the City’s long-term plans for the farmstead. That would impact how the lots on that end of the property would be laid out. If only the barn is retained, how would it be utilized? It would need to be a “walk to” only feature, as parking in tha t area is not desired. He is concerned about long-term plans with the preservation of that or more structures. He is also concerned about traffic. Hyland-Croy Road is becoming increasingly busy, particularly with the very busy Post Road-Hyland-Croy intersection. Currently, the streets that will empty into Hyland-Croy Road are very quiet, narrow, stub streets. There now will be three access points to Hyland-Croy Road. He is in support of the single-family land use and overall density; however, he would like to see the details of the Traffic Impact Study. In regard to retention of the cultural resources, he might be supportive of retaining the barn only, if there were a long-term City plan for that resource. Mr. Ruma clarified that the most southern point of ingress/egress is a right-turn in and right-turn out. Mr. Schneier stated that he is supportive of the proposed plan, although he could also be supportive of increased density, if it could be accomplished in a creative manner. With respect to preservation, the applicant is willing to preserve the barn. The question is if the City wants to accept that offer. If the applicant does not want to preserve anything else, he would not be supportive of requiring it. Without the City’s acceptance of the barn and the terms and conditions therewith, he would not be interested in seeing even the barn preserved. Mr. Way stated that he is supportive of the proposed plan and density. This is a very tight site, and the linear plan is dictated by that. Having followed this site for a number of years, he believes this is the solution ultimately necessary to enable development of this site. He believes the existing homestead and pond could be a design opportunity. He would not preclude what should be saved without first considering the open space design opportunities with the potential preservation of the structures. It could be an exciting amenity. It is a valuable piece of land that should have some specific design considerations. Such consideration would clarify what structures could be restored, and if restored, how they would be a positive component of the design and plan. Mr. Fishman expressed agreement with Mr. Way’s comments. This is a narrow site. He would not be in favor of any greater density due to Post Preserve’s concerns ab out traffic. This site is very close to US33. He viewed the historic homestead and read the consultant’s review. The house was added to as late as 1970. The existing structure is no longer a true historic structure. We should look at the opportunities of preservation of the buildings, which would require the input of some design experts. Open space can Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2021 Page 8 of 28 be very important in this neighborhood. He would be supportive of elimination of the lot next to the pond, as it would provide a better open space. He is supportive of the single-family use and the lot layout. Mr. Supelak expressed support of the single-family development, density and layout. He complimented the applicants on the proposal. This is not an easy lot to develop, as there are many prescribed moves. They have arrived at a nice treatment of the site with the dens ity adjusting as it converges with the main thoroughfares. He is not yet willing to express support of preserving only the barn. He would prefer to understand what could be done with the site. He agrees that the design of that must be parallel with the proposed development for the Commission to be supportive of the overall proposal. Perhaps this would require involvement of the City’s Parks and Recreation Department. When it is designed, he could be amenable to reducing the number of structures preserved. Although at this point the plan is only conceptual, he is supportive of the stonewall, a buffering element by the interchange exit ramp. There is a great opportunity for a gateway element at that arrival point into Dublin. It is more of an opportunity for Dublin than for this particular community, and we need to be mindful of that in considering the potential design of the homestead. Ms. Call stated that her thoughts were very similar to Mr. Way’s, so she would not re-state them. Summarizing the Commission’s responses to the four discussion questions: the Commission is generally supportive of the single-family land use, density, layout, conceptual open spaces and preservation of the natural spaces. As the conceptual design progresses, the Commission and the applicant will work together to achieve a plan that the developer is proud to build and the City is proud to showcase. It is apparent that the record of the discussion from the previous proposal for this site was studied, because the applicant addressed many of the concerns accurately. Engagement of the community was very important and appreciated. Does the applicant request additional clarity on any of the items? The applicants thanked the Commission for their helpful feedback. They will attempt to make any necessary adjustments to the plan to ensure it is the product they want to present and the City desires. Ms. Call reiterated that the Informal Review provides a concept; the traffic details will be addressed in the next step of the review process. Mr. Way noted that in response to the previous suggestion to eliminate the one lot next to the retention basin – if that were to occur, the road could be pulled to the north, away from the homestead. Mr. Ruma reminded the Commission that the previous application had 250 units, 150 of which were an assisted living facility. The remainder of the units were crowded into the remaining portion of the site. They have attempted to meet the concerns and objectives of Post Preserve, and giving up another lot would be difficult. Ms. Fox stated that it would be important to engage either Council or Parks and Recreation staff to answer some of the questions raised. She would prefer to preserve the entire homestead, if possible, as it would be consistent with the direction of the Community Plan. Mr. Ruma stated that retaining all the buildings, some of which have no merit, would not work with the site drainage facilities and the intersection. Preserving the homestead would require moving the retention pond further north, which would result in a loss of more lots. Mr. Supelak inquired what would happen with the land resulting from the vacation of Post Preserve Blvd. Would that land be available, if more area were needed for the pond? Ms. Martin responded that staff had already explored that idea. However, Post Preserve Blvd. contains a number of utilities within its right-of-way. Even though that access point will be closed, the City will Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2021 Page 9 of 28 retain the right-of-way for utilities. There is also a waterline on the north side of that roadway. It would not be possible to locate a retention basin over a waterline. Mr. Ruma thanked Commissioners for their time and very helpful feedback Public Comment No public comments were received on the case. 2. Flex/Industrial Building at 6777 Crosby Court, 21-061INF, Informal Review A request for the construction of an approximately 140,000-square-foot flex/industrial building located within the West Innovation District. The 9.3-acre site is zoned ID-3 Research Assembly District and is southwest of the intersection of Crosby Court with Dublin Plain City Road. Staff Presentation Ms. Rauch stated that this is a request for an Informal Review of an application for construction of an approximately 140,000-square-foot flex/industrial building located on a 9.34-acre site within the West Innovation District. 6777 Crosby Court is located on the western boundary of the City of Dublin within the West Innovation District (WID). The site is north of VA Data, which is developed with fo ur data center buildings, and west of Command Alkon an office/warehouse building. The West Innovation District (WID) is similar to the Bridge Street District in that it was implemented to allow for flexibility in design and to expedite review procedures within a specific area of the City. Applications within the WID that meet the requirements listed in Zoning Code Sections 153.036 – 153.042 are eligible for review and approval by the Administrative Review Team (ART). The ART has the ability to approve Administrative Departures, which are procedures that allow the flexibility necessary to permit minor deviation from the Zoning Code to address unusual conditions, both known and unforeseen, under circumstances that do not alter the permitted uses. In the event that an application varies from the requirements of the Code or is denied approval of an Administrative Departure, applications would be reviewed and determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC). The site is owned by the City of Dublin and is currently vacant. This is a joint application between the City of Dublin and VanTrust Real Estate, who would develop the site in partnership with the City. Proposal This is a request for non-binding feedback on the site layout, particularly the number of parking spaces and the parking locations. The proposal is for a 140,000-square-foot multi-tenant flex/industrial building. The building will be comprised of warehouse and office uses, with the significant majority of it being warehouse use. The proposed building is centrally located on the site, with two vehicular access points located along Crosby Court. Vehicular access to the site is only permitted along Crosby Court, as access is prohibited along Houchard Road and Dublin Plain City Road/SR 161 by the recorded plat. The site plan depicts parking along the north, west, and east sides of the building, with several loading docks to the south of the building. The WID Code requires all parking, except for visitor parking, to be located along the side or rear of the structure. The site has three street frontages. The multiple street frontages create a challenge in locating parking on the site that meets zoning requirements. Based on the uses and the WID parking requirements, 56 parking spaces would be required; the proposal is for 163 parking spaces. The intent of that number is to provide maximum flexibility and marketability for a future tenant. At this point, the tenant is unknown. This proposal meets the pavement setbacks, acreage and lot coverage requirements, with the exception of the parking setbacks. Based on Code, the parking requirement must be 30 feet; the proposal encroaches within 15 feet of pavement. One linear retention basin is provided along the southern property line of the site. The orientation of the pond is conceptual and will need to be modified to meet the needs of the site and the requirements of the City Stormwater regulations. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of------------"'D'-'u"'""b"""li""-'n--'C"-'i""""'ty'-C-"-"-o=un'-'-c"""i"'-I ___________ Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS· DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 Held D e cem b er 7, 2020 Page 6 of 25 Mr. Stiffler stated there is no addition al in formation to report. Staff recommends approva l. Ms. Burness and the Clerk reported that no public comments have been received regarding this matter. Vote o n the Ordinance: Mr. Keeler, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Mayor Amorose ·Groomes, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Ordinaince 48-20 Determining to Proceed with the Acquisition, Construction, and Improvement of Certain Public Improvements in the City of Dublin, Ohio in Cooperation with The Columbus Regional Energy Special Improvement District. (600 Metro Place North, Dublin , Ohio Project) Ms. O'Malley stated that the applicant representing the property at 600 Metro Place North has requested that the three Ordinances before Council tonight be tabled. Ms. Alutto move to table Ordinance 48-20. Mr. KeE:ller seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes. Ordinance 49-20 Levying Special Assessments for the Purpose of Acquiring, Constructing, and Improving Certain Public Improvements in the City of Dublin, Ohio in Cooperation with The Columbus Regional Energy Special Improvement District. (600 Metro Place North, Dublin, Ohio Project) Mayor Amorose Groomes moved to table Ordinance 49-20. Ms. Alutto seconded the motion. Vote o n the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes. Ordinance 50-20 Authorizing and Approving an Energy Project Cooperative Agreement by and between the City of Dublin, Ohio, The Columbus Regional Energy Special Improvement District Inc., Dublin Witness, LLC and Twain Community Partners Ill LLC, A Special Assessment Agreement by and between The City of Dublin, Ohio, The County Treasurer of Franklin County, Ohio, The Columbus Regional Energy Special Improvement District, Inc., Dublin Witness, LLC, and Twain Community Partners Ill LLC, and Related Agreements, All of Which Provide for the Financing of Special Energy Improvements Projects. (600 Metro Place North, Dublin, Ohio Project) Mayor Amorose Groomes moved to table Ordinance 50-20. Ms. Fox seconded the motion. Vote on the motion : Ms. Fox, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Peterson , yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes. Mayor Amorose Groomes stated it is Coun cil's understanding that the applicant simply needs additional time to work on some of the procedural requirements and they anticipate returning to Council for a final vote on these. Ms. O'Malley stated that is correct. Ordinance 51-20 Rezoniing 45.4 Acres, More or Less, from R, Rural District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District to Facilitate the Future Development of 90 Single-family Homes and up to 150 Living Units at a Maximum Density of 14,500 Square-Feet per-Acr-e for Seniors with Varying Levels of Care in One or More Buildings with 12.5 Acres, More or Less, of Open Space. (Dublin Gateway) (CASE #17-061Z/PDP) Ms. Martin stated this is the second reading of a rezoning for a 45.5-acre site northeast of the intersection of Post and Hyland-Croy. An update memo was provided in the packet that addressed questions raised by Council at the November 16 meeting and issues identified by the applicant. 1.The items in the memo related to the review process, the Community Plan recommendations, a summary of the modifications to the project over time, housing type, age targeted versus age restricted, neighborhood engagement that has taken place over the last five years and traffic analysis. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council BARRETT BROTHERS· DAYTON, OHIO Held December 7, 2020 Mayor Amorose Groomes moved to approve Ordinance 51-20. Ms. Fox seconded the motion. Page 17 of 25 Mr. Peterson asked if the motion includes the density on which the applicant has conceded. Mayor Amorose Groomes responded it would include the agreements made by the applicant during the discussion tonight, including materials, density, etc. She asked Ms. Martin to read the conditions into the record. Based on the discussion, Ms. Martin listed the following conditions: 1.The applicant coordinate with Engineering to establish final approved street names and the applicant update the plans and development text accordingly. 2.The applicant update the development text to include all City Council conditions. 3.The development text be revised to require, in Subareas A and B, primary materials cover a minimum of 80 percent of the building. 4.The permitted primary materials be revised to only permit brick, stone, manufactured stone, cementitious siding/panel, and stucco. 5.The development text eliminate the following secondary, trim, and window materials: composite trim, metal trim, aluminum trim, PVC trim, urethane foam trim, and vinyl windows. These materials may be approved by the PZC on a conditional basis, subject to the appropriate application of materials. 6.The development text be revised to require A/C be located to the rear of the unit, mounted above grade. 7.The development text be modified to require architecture meet or exceed the Residential Appearance Standards. 8.The ACLF and six base building types be subject to PZC approval with the final development plan. 9.The applicant revise the plans and development text to eliminate four lots, a density not to exceed 2.42 units per acre, for 35.5 acres. 10.The total number of ACLF units be reduced to 125 units. Ms. Fox rescinded her second to the Mayor's motion. She wants to vote on the original recommendations from PZC. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keeler, no; Mr. Reiner, no; Ms. Fox, no; Ms. Alutto, no; Mr. Peterson, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, no; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes. Ordimmce 52-20 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Infrastructure Agreement with Schottenstein Real Estate Group, LLC and Union County, Ohio for the Dublin Gateway Development. Ms. Readier stated this legislation was dependent upon the rezoning in order to move forward. Staff therefore recommends disapproval in order to have it disposed of on the agenda, since it was introduced at the last meeting. Ms. Burness and the Clerk reported no public comments have been received on this matter. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Reiner, no; Mr. Keeler, no; Mr. Peterson, no; Vice Mayor De Rosa, no; Mayor Amorose Groomes, no; Ms. Alutto, no; Ms. Fox, no. Ordinance 53-20 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into a Real Estate Purchase Agreement to Convey 0.002 Acres of Land Located Between North High Street and Darby Street and Authorizing the Execution of Various Related Documents. Ms. Readier stated there are no revisions since the first reading, and staff recommends approval. Ms. Burness and the Clerk reported no comments have been received regarding this matter. Meeting Form 6101 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of __________ D_u _b _l in_C_it_y_C_o_u_n_c _il ___________ Meeting BARRETT BROTHERS· DAYTON, OHIO Form 6101 Novem ber 16, 2020 Page 6 of 22 Held _______________________________ _ Ohio, The County Treasurer of Franklin County, Ohio, The Columbus Regional Energy Special Improvement District, Inc., Dublin Witness, LLC, and Twain Community Partners Ill LLC, and Related Agreements, All of Which Provide for the Financing of Special Energy Improvements Projects (600 Metro Place North, Dublin, Ohio Project) Ms. Alutto introduced the Ordinance. There will be a second reading/p u blic hearing at the December 7 Council meeting. Ordinance 51-20 Rezoning 45.4 Acres, More or Less, from R, Rural District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District to Facilitate the Future Development of 90 Single-family Homes and up to 150 Living Units at a Maximum Density of 14,500 Square-Feet per-Acre for Seniors with Varying Levels of Care in One or More Buildings with 12.5 Acres, More or Less, of Open Space. (Dublin Gateway) (CASE #17- 061Z/PDP) Ms. Alutto introduced the Ordinance. Ms. Martin stated the following: •The site is 45.5 acres in size and is northeast of the intersection of Hyland-Croy Road and Post Road. The site is comprised of two parcels and has approximately 3,300 feet of frontage along Hyland-Croy Road and 500 feet of frontage along Post Road. Each parcel currently contains a residence with access to Hyland-Croy Road. The site is surrounded by established single family neighborhoods with Park Place to the north and Post Preserve to the east. Additionally, the Jerome Grand, located within Jerome Township, Union County is to the west. •Hyland-Croy Road is not located within the City of Dublin jurisdiction; it is located within Union County and under the purview of the Union County Engineer.•As shown on the regional context map, the property is adjacent to the US 33/State Route 161 /Post Road interchange. There are future planned improvements for this interchange in conjunction with MORPC, the Ohio Department of Transportation and the City of Dublin that will realign the interchange. This is a separate matter from tonight's rezoning consideration.•This rezoning request is for 45.5 +/-acres from Rural District to a Planned Unit Development District. The proposal includes 90 single-family lots and up to 150 Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) units. Also provided are 12.4 acres of open space and six public streets, including the extension of three existing streets.•She provided the case history from the time of the concept plan in May of 2015. The concept plan was reviewed by PZC and the applicant was encouraged to meet with surrounding residents to address their concerns with a three-story independent living facility as well as proposed road connections to the site.•In January of 2018, Council approved the annexation of the subject property from Jerome Township, Union County to the City of Dublin. •In December of 2019, PZC tabled the Preliminary Development Plan and the Zoning and Preliminary Plan per the applicant's request based on the need for additional time to coordinate with surrounding residents.•In January of 2020, PZC reviewed a PDP/ZIPP for the rezoning and platting of 45.4 acres for future development of 90 single-family homes and up to 200 living units for ACLF. Both cases were tabled at the applicant's request.•On March 5, 2020, PZC again tabled both cases at the applicant's request without discussion.•On April 30, 2020, PZC reviewed a revised Preliminary Development Plan/Zoning and Preliminary Plat for future development of 90 single-family homes and up to 150 living units for ACLF. PZC recommended disapproval to City Council with the finding that the review criteria were not met.•In regard to neighborhood engagement, the applicant has hosted several neighborhood meetings -two in 2015 and one at the end of 2019. Additionally, there was substantive neighborhood engagement at the January 2020 PZC meeting where public comments were provided. At the time, the comments reflected concerns with the height of the ACLF facility and requested it be RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of BARRETT BROTHERS· DAYTON, OHIO =======:::::;:;::=== Held Dublin City Council November 16, 2020 Page 17 of 22 Ms. Burness and the Clerk reported there have been no additional comments submitted tonight on this matter. Ordinance 52-20 Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into an Infrastructure Agreement with Schottenstein Real Estate Group, LLC and Union County, for the Dublin Gateway (Gorden Development). Ms. Alutto introduced the Ordinance. Mr. McDaniel stated this is companion legislation to the rezoning ordinance 51-20. As Council is aware and per tonight's discussion, the upcoming reconstruction of US 33/SR161/Post Road interchange has long influenced the future of the Post Preserve Boulevard entrance and the need to provide ingress and egress to Post Preserve from Hyland-Croy. Regardless of the proposed rezoning before Council or one in the future, the City will still need to facilitate connectivity to Hyland-Croy. This is contemplated as part of the interchange design process. The rezoning before Council, if approved, provides an opportunity to address this. Staff is therefore proposing this infrastructure agreement. In the slide deck provided, there was a reference to what was originally looked at in terms of connectivity from Hyland-Croy over to Post Preserve. It is not too far removed from what is proposed here in this development. Unlike other situations where a developer would be responsible for funding all roads, utilities, appurtenances and such associated with their own development, staff proposes that the City have some responsibility for cost sharing due to the influence of the upcoming interchange project. He highlighted some portions of the agreement: 1.The developer has agreed to contribute to off-site improvements. The dollar amount in the proposed agreement is based upon a similar formula and contribution made by the Autumn Rose Woods development to the north of this one. That was per the request of the developer. 2.As staff reviewed the shift in existing and projected traffic as a result of the eventual closing of Post Preserve Boulevard entrance, we determined that the associated traffic counts on certain new roads connecting to Hyland-Croy would be two-thirds traffic from the existing development and one-third from the new development as contemplated in the rezoning being considered. Therefore, the proposed agreement apportions the cost of certain roads or sections of roads, intersections and new gateways accordingly. This is reflected in the staff report, the agreement and the slide shared. He noted that the details contained in the agreement reference all the associated improvements with the new roads, intersections, and gateway entrances. 3.There is also donation of right-of-way and easements in the agreement; management of the contract process and the project construction itself; reimbursements by the City; and prevailing wage requirements, etc. 4.There is also reference to a boundary adjustment from Jerome Township to Washington Township. It is the City's policy to align the service boundaries for fire and EMS for annexations from Jerome Township. There would be associated reparations to Jerome Towns hip and staff is proposing that be done by the developer. 5.The agreement also references the concept of a non-school TIF on the proposed project for the purpose of securing some level of future revenues that could be used toward infrastructure improvements in the immediate area. Staff raises this for Council's consideration and direction. Council would have several options: applying no TIF; applying a commercial TIF to the ACLF only, assuming it would be a for profit facility; if a not-for-profit facility, no TIF dollars would be generated. The developer approval is not needed to apply the commercial TIF, however if Council wanted TIF dollars to be paid by a not-for profit equal to what would have been paid by a for profit facility, the developer's approval would be needed. The developer has indicated to staff they would not be agreeable to that arrangement. 6.A TIF could be applied to the new residential to be built or some combination of the items listed could be done. 7.As shown in the redlined version provided, there are several items where agreement has not been obtained with the developer. Primarily, this relates to the developer's desire to cap certain costs for intersection improvements on Meeting Form 6101 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2020 Page 12 of 28 Mr. Woodings responded that it would not; it would be a cut-through to Emerald Parkway. Currently, their plan proposes a 100-ft. right-of-way onto Bright Road. He assumes that would be two lanes of traffic separated by an island, then another two lanes of traffic from Sawmill Road to the roundabout. Mr. Fishman stated that could destroy part of the wood. Mr. Woodings responded that it would destroy it by a distance of 26 feet wide. Mr. Fishman advised looking at that idea with caution. It is not consistent with the Community Plan, and the neighbors highly value that property. Mr. Supelak stated that it becomes a value judgment of routing some of the traffic out to Emerald Parkway versus the roundabout below. Such a consideration would have to be done carefully, and it would not work with the proposed layout. Ms. Newell stated that Cases 1 and 2 would be heard together. 1. Dublin Gateway (Gorden Development), 7270 & 7150 Hyland-Croy Road 17-061, Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Ms. Newell stated that this is a request for a recommendation of approval to City Council of a rezoning with a Preliminary Development Plan of ±45.4 acres from Rural District to Planned Unit Development District to permit the future development of 90 single-family homes and up to 200 living units for seniors with varying levels of care in one or more buildings and approximately 12 acres of open space. The site is northeast of the intersection of Hyland-Croy Road and Post Road. 2. Dublin Gateway (Gorden Development), 7270 & 7150 Hyland-Croy Road 17-061, Preliminary Plat Ms. Newell stated that this application for the same site is a request for recommendation of approval to City Council of a Preliminary Plat subdividing the site. Ms. Newell swore in staff and members of the public who intended to address the Commission on this case. Staff Presentation Ms. Martin stated that this is a request for review and recommendation to City Council of a Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) and Preliminary Plat for a residential development of 90 single-family lots and a 200-unit Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) with 12.4 acres of open space and six public streets. The 45.5-acre site is located on the east side of Hyland-Croy Road at the intersection with Post Road. The site is surrounded by existing developments, including Post Preserve, Park Place and Jerome Grand. The site is comprised of two parcels totaling approximately 45.5 acres in size. The site is rectangular with 3,300 feet of frontage along Hyland-Croy Road and 500 feet of frontage along Post Road. As it exists today, a farmhouse and outbuildings are located on the south side of the property near Post Road and two houses are in the center of the site with access off Hyland-Croy Road. The site currently has two driveways from Hyland-Croy Road for the existing homes and one driveway from Post Road to the south. History Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2020 Page 13 of 28 This application was previously scheduled on the Commission’s December 12, 2019 meeting agenda, but was tabled at the applicant’s request. On January 9, 2018, City Council passed Ordinance 87-17, accepting the annexation of the property from Jerome Township, Union County to the City of Dublin. On May 21, 2015, the Commission reviewed a Concept Plan for 32, four- unit residential buildings totaling 128 units, and an independent and assisted living facility containing 125 units. At the time, the Commission encouraged the applicant to meet with residents to address their concerns with the three-story height of the independent living facility as well as the proposed road connections through the site. The applicant met with the neighbors in 2015 and again in December 2019. Community Plan The Future Land Use Map in the Community Plan has two land use classifications for the site. The northern third is Suburban Residential Low Density (1-2 dwelling units per acre), while the remaining two thirds are Mixed Residential Low Density (up to 3 dwelling units per acre). When calculated, the Community Plan’s recommendation would be 121 residential units, either single family or single-family attached or low-density multifamily units on the 45.5 acres. Proposal The proposal includes a residential development with an Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) with a maximum of 200 units and a maximum of 90 single-family homes with associated site improvements on a 45.5-acre site. An ACLF-type facility is considered a commercial use in the Zoning Code, which would have a Future Land Use classification of General Institutional. It can also be residential in nature. Ms. Fox inquired how many acres are in Subarea B. Ms. Martin responded that Subarea B is comprised of 35.5 acres. Subarea A is 9.9 acres. Ms. Call inquired how many units are permitted in General Institutional. Ms. Martin responded that the General Institutional classification does not designate a density. The reviewing body would review and make a determination on a case-by-case basis. The proposal is for 200 units. Ms. Martin stated that the Northwest/Glacier Ridge Special Area Plan recommends detached single-family homes adjacent to the existing, established neighborhoods. It also recommends the rural roadway character, which has been observed by the majority of the neighborhoods that have been developed along Hyland-Croy Road. This proposal complies with the rural roadway character. The Thoroughfare Plan designates Hyland-Croy Road as a Minor Arterial Road. Hyland- Croy Road is located within the Union County jurisdiction. That plan does make recommendations for future rights-of-way. The City and Union County coordinate in the review of applications adjacent to both jurisdictions. Therefore, the applicant is dedicating an additional 50 feet of right- of-way. In 2016, the City, Union County, Jerome Township, and the City of Marysville undertook a multijurisdictional planning effort, the Crossroads Area Plan, to evaluate existing conditions and propose common land uses, infrastructure, and economic development strategies for the area located at the crossroads of U.S.33/S.R. 161/Post Road, and Hyland-Croy Road. The Crossroads Area Plan Land Use recommendations for this site align with Dublin’s Community Plan recommendations. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2020 Page 14 of 28 Site Plan Size: The site is 45.5 acres in size; Subarea A is approximately 10 acres and is where the Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) is proposed to be located, which will have up to 200 residential units. Subarea B is approximately 35 acres and will have 90 single-family lots. Subarea B will be developed in two sections. The delineation between those sections is the North Fork of Indian Run. The southern portion of the site will have 54 lots; the northern portion will have 36 lots. Access: Three new access points on Hyland-Croy Road are proposed. The southern-most point is in Subarea A, and is a right in/right out, intended to provide access to ACLF. There are two access points in Subarea B, one north of the stream and one south. These will be full access points. This proposal depicts future public rights-of-way that will be dedicated with the plat. It also shows the extension of the existing street stubs from Post Preserve through the Dublin Gateway Development to Hyland-Croy Road. The alignment shown is consistent with the City’s 2006 approval of additional connectivity in the area due to anticipated improvements at SR161/Post Road interchange. Subareas: The Preliminary Development Plan establishes uses and development standards for each subarea. Subarea A is the ACLF with supporting uses, including open space and parking spaces. Subarea B is the single-family detached homes, including open space, parking space, model home and home occupation. Specific development standards, including setbacks, lot coverages and parking requirements are provided in the development text. Staff has recommended that all encroachments be eliminated from the residential sideyard setback. Varying residential lot standards are provided for perimeter versus interior lots. Perimeter lots, adjacent to Post Preserve and Park Place, will be larger, have greater setbacks and a lot coverage of up to 60%. The interior, new lots will be significantly smaller, have reduced setbacks and an increased lot coverage of up to 70%. Code permits up to 45% for PUDs unless otherwise approved by the Commission. Architecture: The applicant has also provided proposed architectural and building standards for the two subareas. In Subarea A, it is anticipated the ACLF will be a three-story structure with 200 units. The proposed maximum height is up to 45 feet. Staff is recommending the maximum height be reduced to 35 feet, and that there be a maximum height of 25 feet for accessory structures, which may be located closer to property lines than the primary structure. In regard to the building standards for Subarea B, the maximum height is 35 feet. Primary and secondary materials are designated; dimensional shingles are required; metal standing seam roofs are permitted. Garages are limited to 47.5% of the front façade of the home. Staff recommends that number be rounded to 50%, as it is more easily administered. Open Space/Signage: An open space and connectivity plan has been provided. There is a total of 12.4 acres of open space, a portion in each Subarea and a continuous section along Hyland-Croy Road. Per the rural roadway corridor recommendation, a 100-ft. setback will provide a green buffer. There are two reserves in Subarea A, which will be owned and maintained by the ACLF, which is typical for commercial facilities. There are six reserves in Subarea B, which the applicant has proposed to Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2020 Page 15 of 28 be owned and maintained by the HOA. Staff has recommended that these reserves be owned by the City and maintained by the HOA, with the exception that the City will maintain the stormwater retention basins and the shared use paths. The shared use path along Hyland-Croy will connect to the regional network and to Glacier Ridge Metro Park. Sidewalks will provide connectivity within the neighborhood. The development text provides sign allowances for each Subarea; four signs are proposed. The applicant has the opportunity to submit a comprehensive sign package requesting additional signage with the Final Development Plan. Traffic Impact Study: A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) is being conducted, as required for proposed rezonings. The applicant is working with the Union County and City of Dublin engineers to finalize the study. The TIS will make recommendations to mitigate the traffic impacts of this neighborhood on the larger road network. Those mitigations will be included in an infrastructure agreement for Council’s approval. The TIS is looking at eight intersections along the Hyland-Croy corridor; three are new intersections provided by this development, and five are existing intersections. The TIS looks at daily trips generated. Included are some of the preliminary improvements that may occur as a result of the TIS findings. The TIS must be finalized prior to City Council’s review. The outcome of that study will result in the final recommendations for mitigation. Preliminary Plat Ms. Martin stated that the Preliminary Plat for the 45.5 acres depicts Subarea A with 9.9 acres and creates a developable area for the ACLF. Subarea B depicts 90 lots for the residential single- family homes, six public streets and six reserves of open space. The required parkland dedication is 5+ acres; however, approximately 10 acres are provided. Staff recommends the acreage be dedicated to the City and maintained by the HOA. It also recommended that the applicant work with the City Engineer regarding the street names. This application has been reviewed against the Code review criteria, and staff recommends a recommendation of approval of the Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan with 11 conditions to City Council, and a recommendation of approval of the Preliminary Plat with four conditions to City Council. Commission Questions Ms. Fox stated that the development text indicated that the responsibility for maintenance of the open space would be provided by more than one HOA. She requested clarification. Staff indicated the applicant would provide clarification with their presentation. Ms. Fox stated that the Thoroughfare Plan talks about the continuity of the visual elements along Hyland-Croy Road. The developer was requested to use a masonry and open metal fencing. How does that create a continuous, unified look up Hyland-Croy Road? What was requested of the other developments along the road in regard to fencing? Ms. Martin responded that the condition referred to fences within Subarea A that were over six feet in height. She would expect those to be behind the building. With assisted care facilities, the City has granted requests for fences that are taller than Code. In those cases, the fences were required to be open fences that periodically were broken up with piers. They would be Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2020 Page 16 of 28 consistent with what currently exists – a split rail fence with stone piers. The preliminary landscape plan will be further developed in the Final Development Plan. Ms. Kennedy inquired if this becomes its own neighborhood, effectively, or is it part of the adjacent neighborhood. Ms. Martin responded that it would become its own neighborhood, called Dublin Gateway. Mr. Fishman inquired if, per Conservation Design Guidelines, 50% open space was being provided. Ms. Martin responded that it is not. Mr. Fishman inquired if 75% of the lots would be adjacent to open spaces. Ms. Martin responded that they would not. Mr. Fishman inquired if 100-200 ft. setbacks are provided. Ms. Martin responded affirmatively. Mr. Fishman inquired if curvilinear streets would be provided. Ms. Martin responded affirmatively. Mr. Fishman stated that Lots 1-37 have nothing but road frontage along the backyards of those lots. Essentially, the Conservation Design requirements are not being met at all. Ms. Martin responded that it is correct that they are not met here fully. Typically, compliance with Conservation Design Guidelines has been required with larger-scale neighborhoods, where there is more opportunity to vary the site layout. Ms. Husak noted that because this is a field, there is nothing to conserve. The Conservation Design resolution refers to heavily wooded areas on the outskirts of town in the northern portion of the City, i.e. Tartan Ridge, Oak Park and Tartan West to some extent. This site is not a prime site for applying those requirements. Mr. Fishman inquired if those guidelines were applied here whatsoever. Ms. Husak responded that they were not. Ms. Call stated that one of the benefits of a PUD is that it provides more flexibility in how the requirements are met. There is a reduction in the number of ERUs from the 121 they are entitled to on this size property to 90 single-family homes and 200 additional units. That is a huge give. The zoning classifications of the adjacent neighborhoods are very similar to the R2 and R3 to which this parcel is entitled. Most of the Union County lots hover around 10,000 sq. feet. A few are 9,300 sq. feet in the lowlands; some are 14,000 sq. feet. In this plan, there are five lots exceeding 10,000 sq. feet; the remainder are 5,800 sq. feet, which is a significant reduction in lot size. If this area is being addressed as an R4 or R5, we need to be clear about what we are trying to accomplish. As it appears, the developer is getting the benefit in the residential area and also getting 200 ACLF units. We need to be clear as to what is being granted here. Currently, she is not supportive of this rezoning and preliminary plat. This will have a significant impact on the neighbors immediately adjacent. Three entrances are being introduced on an already congested road. Although the spirit of a PUD permits flexibility, all that is being provided here is increased density. Ms. Newell inquired if Engineering anticipates turn lanes based on the preliminary TIS report that would ultimately affect this proposed plan. Ms. Martin responded that turn lane improvements are anticipated, but the number and length has yet to be finalized. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2020 Page 17 of 28 Ms. Newell stated that factor could change the plan significantly, depending upon how much space they would take from this site. In regard to the lot width of 53 feet, there are a number of projects around the City where senior living type residences have been permitted on small lots. Are these comparable in size? Ms. Martin responded that the most comparable development is The Hamlet, which was recently approved. Those lots are nearly identical in size with similar setbacks and lot coverages. However, that neighborhood is much smaller. Ms. Newell stated that with that particular development, very detailed architecture was provided to illustrate how well-designed buildings on very small lots would be accomplished. Applicant Presentation Don Hunter, 4936 Pesaro Way, Dublin requested that the Commission consider this application in context with the City’s roadway system and goals. They have been working diligently with staff this past year on this plan. The first staff report for the Commission contained 37 conditions, which they accepted. The report for this meeting has 11 conditions, and they have accepted those, as well. The roundabout at Hyland-Croy Road is immediately southwest of this site. He described the anticipated roadway changes in the area, including the US33 interchange modification, which will result in the closing of the Post Preserve access from Post Road, per ODOT regulations. As part of the planned interchange, a new residential street will provide access to the Post Preserve neighborhood from Hyland-Croy Road, as approved by City Council in 2006. This proposed development must be designed to integrate with the Post Preserve neighborhood, and the City has required that the proposed roadway system will separate the site into three sections. That is the non-negotiable difficulty of this site. This development plan is based upon the City’s roadway plans. The single-family homes in the plan are targeted toward empty nesters. With a density of 2.5 du/acre, it is consistent with the Community Plan. Although Subarea A would be a logical location for retail, that use would not be responsive to the community’s needs. They do not believe that single-family homes would be appropriate in Subarea A. He asks the Commission to consider the fixed points for this site – the roundabout, the closing of the Post Preserve Boulevard access and the connections with the three existing stub roads in Post Preserve. The facility in Subarea A will provide memory care and independent senior living. They are confident that this development on this site will provide the appropriate transition that will protect the property values of the single-family homeowners; have a low impact on the school system; and provide the transportation system required by the City. Commission Questions for the Applicant Ms. Fox stated that the development text indicates there will be more than one HOA. Mr. Hunter responded that there will be a master HOA and a separate HOA for each of the subareas. Ms. Fox inquired if there are any private streets within this development. Mr. Hunter responded that within the residential area in Subarea B, the streets are all public. In Subarea A, there would be one private street. Ms. Husak clarified that it is not considered a street; it is a private access drive to Subarea A. Ms. Fox stated that there appear to be only four architectural styles for 90 homes. What is the possibility of increasing the number of architectural design styles? Mr. Hunter responded that he does not believe they have submitted architectural styles with this application. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2020 Page 18 of 28 Ms. Fox stated that the text indicates there will be a variety of four different house styles. Mr. Hunter indicated that he agrees with her concern. Those styles will be submitted for the Final Development Plan, and they would work with staff to add clarifying language. Ms. Fox requested clarification of the “0” setbacks. If Subarea A were to develop into assisted living utilizing more than one building, the setbacks would have to change. The development text is very vague about what could happen in Subarea A. Mr. Hunter stated that he does not believe her concern is with the perimeter setback. It is with the setbacks between buildings. Ms. Fox stated that in Subarea A, it is indicated that interior setbacks would be “0.” She assumes that is between buildings, not side setbacks. More specificity is needed in the text regarding Subarea A. Mr. Hunter stated that he would refer to the Catholic Diocese development across the street as a reference. They are developing a 75-unit independent living facility and a 45-unit assisted living facility. There are two separate buildings on two separate lots, yet they are physically connected. They may be financing the independent living under one HUD loan, and the assisted living structure under a second HUD loan. Because the two structures are physically connected, there is a “0” setback. With this case, he is not the developer of this project. They will be purchasing the 10-acre site and selling lots off to potential developers. Mr. Fishman stated that there is a long materials list, including vinyl and artificial stucco. Mr. Hunter responded that those materials are in Subarea A only. Mr. Fishman stated that he would like to see the materials list tightened up. Mr. Hunter stated that they are willing to do so, but requested that he specify the materials of concern. Mr. Fishman stated that some of the following materials should be clarified or eliminated -- synthetic millwork, synthetic stone, synthetic stucco, and vinyl. He would like that list to be tightened so the materials are only those expected to be used. He wants to ensure that this community will still be a quality community 20 years from now. Mr. Hunter agreed that the list would be tightened up. Ms. Newell stated that she has concerns about some of the building materials. She has no problem with brick, stone, synthetic stone, stucco, wood siding or fibrous cement. Synthetic stucco, however, could be panels -- with this product, you do not know what you are getting. She has the same issue with decorative, synthetic millwork for exterior applications, composite trim and vinyl trim. It is possible to have both good and poor versions of the materials. The text indicates the windows can be vinyl or alternatives, which essentially allows anything and everything. In previous applications, the Commission has required that those materials be removed from the list unless the applicant can provide a sample of the specific product that is requested. Once the Commission approves the development text, the architecture proposed with the Final Development Plan will be judged against the text. She supports rezoning the property and the proposed use for Subarea A. She understands the proposed drive configurations. What she is concerned with are the 53-foot interior lots. When the Commission has approved buildings on smaller footprints such as these in the past, the Commission was certain what it would be getting architecturally. They knew how the buildings would fit on the site and where the landscaping would go. The applicant addressed the small parcels in a very sensitive manner. Ultimately, she may be able to approve this rezoning, but at this point, there is insufficient information. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2020 Page 19 of 28 Mr. Hunter stated that none of those items is approved prior to the Final Development Plan approval. Ms. Husak clarified that Subarea A is a commercial development, which will require Commission review and approval of the Final Development Plan. The Final Development Plan for a commercial development includes every architectural elevation with design drawings and material specifications. Subarea B is different. With a Final Development Plan for a residential development, the architectural details for the homes do not require Commission approval. Ms. Newell stated that, previously, if the development had very small lots, such as these, there was some control of the architecture in the PUD. The Commission saw and reviewed those details. Ms. Husak stated that The Hamlet provided character drawings of the front elevation, as did Romanelli and Hughes for their recent development. Ms. Newell stated that those visual character elevations defined the architecture against which the architecture could be judged. Ms. Husak stated that the Commission could request that character detail with the Preliminary Development Plan or with the Final Development Plan, but it would not have the level of detail provided for a commercial development. Ms. Newell stated that, as an architect looking at the text, it appears that anything “under the sun” could end up here, which has not been typical for other small-lot developments. Mr. Hunter stated that they are willing to commit to all natural materials for the residential development component. Mr. Fishman stated that the materials list is too lengthy. His experience is that when a lengthy list of building materials is provided, the developer chooses to use the less expensive or synthetic materials because they were included in the list. The list needs to be tightened. Ms. Call requested that the Future Land Use Plan be provided. She inquired where the Catholic Diocese development, which is a comparable use, is located on that plan. Ms. Martin indicated its location. Ms. Call stated it is indicated within the Premium Office/Institutional area, which is a more intensive use. Ms. Martin stated that the City designates future land uses outside its jurisdiction, but cannot require they be followed. The Crossroads Area Plan provides the most up-to-date land uses for the west side of Hyland-Croy Road. Ms. Call stated that in regard to the parcels in question, per the City’s Future Land Use designations, this area is designated Low Density/Residential. The proposed plan is requesting a Medium Density Residential subarea and a High Density Institutional use subarea. The property owner is entitled to Low Density/Residential. If it makes sense for the Commission to entertain a different type of project, that can occur. However, the Commission’s role is to consider the text, maps and legislation that designates the Future Land Use for this particular area as Residential/Low Density. As a Commission member, she is tasked with enforcing what City Council has designated for the City; it is not within her purview to decide to rezone the area differently. The request is for a density of 200 units on the outparcel. She encourages the applicant to approach City Council with that request. She is not supportive of the project. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2020 Page 20 of 28 Public Comment Bill Razor, 6857 Holbein Drive, Dublin stated that the residents are concerned that the proposed plans lack specificity. Too much is left to chance. The lot sizes also are a concern. He would prefer to see larger lots and architecture with more character. Where he lives on Holbein Drive, there is a substantial tree line with a five to ten-foot setback. With only a ten-foot setback, some of the trees will be damaged. His home was built with a five-foot setback from the treeline, and many of the trees were damaged during the construction process. How will they protect the root systems of those trees? Mr. Supelak stated that there is a robust tree line. With the ten-foot setback on the lots in the new development, there is concern that the trees are in danger. Ms. Newell stated that there is nothing in the proposed text that would preserve those trees if they were actually located on the property that is being rezoned. Ms. Martin stated that within Subarea A, the setback from the east property line is 30 feet. Within Subarea B, the rear yard setbacks along that east property line are also 30 feet. The intent was to match the rear yard setbacks in the adjacent neighborhood. The only time there is a 10-foot setback adjacent to Post Preserve is between the sideyards of two homes. Mr. Razor stated that one of those lots is heavily wooded. That would not be an appropriate setback there. Would it be evaluated before proceeding? Ms. Newell responded that once the setbacks are established in the text, no changes could be made. Mr. Razor stated that the sideyard setbacks there should be increased slightly. There is a very nice tree line there, and it is likely some of the trees would not survive. Ms. Martin responded that it could be easily resolved by the applicant’s agreement that the sideyard setback along the east property line for those two lots be increased to 15 feet, which is generous setback for a sideyard. Mr. Razor inquired if fences would be permitted in this neighborhood. Ms. Martin responded that fences would be permitted in Subarea B; however, they would need to meet Code requirements for an open fence, a maximum of four feet in height. Mr. Razor stated that it not consistent with what is in Post Preserve. Ms. Martin stated that it can vary between neighborhoods. Mr. Razor stated that he would assume they would want to make the fences consistent. He does not think the fences look good, particularly not along Hyland-Croy Road. Another issue is the size of the homes – 2,000-2,500 sq. feet. Homes of that size are obviously intended to be at a very low price point. This is concerning to the residents of his neighborhood. He believes the Commission’s emphasis on higher-end, all natural materials is important. The other issues are the proposed level of density and the lack of character in the lots. Jodie Bahnub, 6849 Holbein Drive, Dublin, stated that her concern is the same as Ms. Call’s. How can Subarea A be approved with such little information? How can the residents provide any feedback on a 200-unit proposal with parking spaces? She is concerned about the appearance of that parking area behind these homes. Equally concerning is the level of traffic. When is construction of the roundabout scheduled? Will that coincide with the construction of this development? Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2020 Page 21 of 28 Tina Wawszkiewicz, Traffic Engineer responded that the roundabout is a joint effort of ODOT, MORPC, Union County and the City of Dublin. Their most recent funding award filled the final funding gap for construction, and construction is scheduled to begin 2022. Ms. Bahnub stated that it is likely the roundabout construction would begin after this proposed project. That intersection is very dangerous. The City has placed a traffic signal there, which is appreciated, but the intersection remains difficult. The residents are unable to exit Post Preserve due to the traffic backup. Adding all these new homes and the units in Subarea A will increase the existing congestion, particularly since the roundabout construction is not intended to begin for a couple of years. Although they have indicated the new homes will target empty nesters, it would be better to make it a 55+ community. Otherwise, empty nesters will not be the only buyers of these homes. They could be considered starter homes, and there would be children – the same as in any other development. If the intent of the small lots is to fit the empty nester profile, then it should be made a 55+ community with corresponding requirements. Otherwise, it is not consistent with the Low Density zoning in their neighborhood. Keith Hammond, 6965 Post Preserve Boulevard, Dublin, stated that his property abuts the proposed Subarea A. When the Post Preserve Boulevard entrance/exit is sealed off, their neighborhood will become completely isolated. Their access will be through the proposed development, so these small lots and homes will impact the character and property values in their neighborhood. As proposed, Subarea A is vague – will there be a three-story retirement home in their backyards? They are concerned that from their backyards, there will be a parking lot view. Nowhere else in Dublin has a retirement home been placed in the middle of a neighborhood. The one across the street is fine. Nan Li, 6864 Royal Plume Drive, Dublin, stated that her home is in the adjacent neighborhood. She is concerned about the increase in traffic on Hyland-Croy Road. Did the traffic study look at the ingress/egress traffic from this community only? There is a significant level of development occurring to the north, which will put more traffic on Hyland-Croy Road. How much backup can be expected at the roundabout? During peak hours, it is difficult to exit Post Preserve Boulevard. Will residents be able to turn left out of the community? Will there be a traffic signal, or four-way stops to facilitate their access? In addition, a new middle school to the north would additionally impact the traffic. Mr. Razor requested clarification about the review process. Is a separate rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan necessary or could all be done with the Final Development Plan? Ms. Newell stated that they can be scheduled for review at the same meeting, but the Commission would vote on each separately. Two of the review items were scheduled for this meeting. Mr. Razor stated that it would be easier if the details provided with the Final Development Plan were known, as well. Otherwise, there is distrust. It seems that the Commission has to approve something without knowing what they will get, and later, they could discover they will get something that was not anticipated. Presently, the plan is too vague. It would be helpful if the Preliminary and Final Development steps could be combined. Mr. Boggs stated that with the PUD process provided by the City’s Code, applicants could choose to bring both together and provide as much detail as possible. However, this is the rezoning Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2020 Page 22 of 28 stage. The Commission’s vote is to make a recommendation to City Council, then Council will conduct a separate public meeting review and vote on the rezoning. After that, a Final Development Plan containing more detailed drawings is brought to the Commission. That plan must be consistent with the rezoning. This process is not atypical. Mr. Razor stated that, regardless, it would be easier to know what you will be getting. He inquired if the requested rezoning is not approved, would it remain zoned as it is? Ms. Newell responded affirmatively. Mr. Razor inquired what the current zoning is. Ms. Martin responded that it is currently zoned Rural. Ms. Newell stated that when any land is annexed into the City, it is initially zoned Rural. Typically, the property owner will request a rezoning in the future. At that time, the Community Plan analysis for future development within the City is considered. The Community Plan designates this area as either Suburban Residential/Low Density or Mixed Residential/Low Density, which provides up to 3 du/acre. The proposed plan would increase it above that density. Ms. Li inquired about the possible expansion of Hyland-Croy Road. Ms. Newell stated that consideration is not before the Commission tonight. Ms. Li inquired if this is being considered independent of any possible expansion of Hyland-Croy Road. Ms. Newell responded affirmatively. Ms. Li inquired if the City is also working with Dublin City Schools to apprise them of potentially additional students. Although redistricting recently occurred, if this community is not limited to 55+, there is a potential that the increased students would result in Karrer Middle School being over capacity. If that is the case, redistricting may be needed again. Ms. Kennedy stated that the Commission has had that question for previous cases. These developments are not part of the redistricting plans. Ms. Husak clarified that the Dublin Schools’ redistricting considerations factor in the maximum density permitted by the Community Plan’s Future Land Use map. Ms. Call stated that per the Community Plan, this area is designated as R1, R2, or R3. Dublin Schools do stay cognizant of what development applications are coming before the City, and if anything should be approved that is inconsistent with the existing Land Use map, staff would reach out to the Schools to make them aware. Therefore, it could be expected that Dublin Schools would not have forecasted for more than 3 du/acre on this parcel. Mr. Hunter stated that this land is projected for growth by Dublin Schools, and it is consistent with the Community Plan, which allows multifamily here. On 35 acres, there are 90 homes. In recent years, Council has discussed the need for empty nester housing; that is what will be provided here, and no students would be generated from a retirement community in Subarea A. Ms. Fox inquired about the size and price points of the homes on those smaller lots. Mr. Hunter stated that the homes would range from 2,000 to 2,500 sq. feet. They have not yet priced the homes. Currently, they are in discussions with several homebuilders. Ms. Newell stated that the development text does not indicate the homes would be designated for empty nesters. The introduction states, “this community will provide for the development of Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2020 Page 23 of 28 single-family homes, varying lot sizes, as well as an Adult Congregate Living Facility. The ACLF will provide senior residential opportunities, as detailed in the zoning text being filed with this application.” There is no limitation provided for senior housing, only an opportunity for it. There is nothing limiting this development to an age classification in Subarea A. It would appear that adults of any age could live in that building. Ms. Martin responded that, based on the definition for ACLF, she does not foresee anyone else living there. It indicates that there would be “one or more levels of care, including, but not limited to, nursing care, onsite dispensary facilities for medications prescribed by a physician, providing care only to resident onsite dining facilities and assistance with other activities of daily living…” Ms. Newell stated that description satisfies her concern. Mr. Fishman stated that in Subarea B, the single-family homes, there is no guarantee that families with children will not move there, regardless of the lot size. This site is in the Jerome High School district, and many people are looking for homes to have their children in that school district. Would he be willing to dedicate that subdivision to be a 55+ community? Mr. Hunter responded that he was not willing to do so. Mr. Fishman stated that he is acknowledging that there will be children there. Previously, he indicated that this development would have no impact on the school system. Mr. Hunter stated that it would have a low impact. He lives in Cortona, which is an age-targeted community, not an age-limited community. That has worked; there are no children in that community. Mr. Fishman noted that the price ranges of the homes in Cortona are different than will exist here. Mr. Hunter stated that the primary factors are not the cost, but the home size, lot size and desire for a maintenance-free lifestyle. Ms. Call inquired about the definition of an ACLF in the Code. Ms. Fox stated that the development text identifies an ACLF use. Once the PUD is approved, the development follows the text. She understands the concern, because the term ACLF is defined as “shall include but not necessarily be limited to…independent living, and assisted living facilities, field nursing, memory care, license care, and/or age-restricted congregate living apartments, nursing homes, medical rehabilitation facilities, either individually or in some combination thereof.” That is an important paragraph, and its potential interpretation is a concern, as well as the 70 percent lot coverage. Does the 17,000 sq. feet indicated apply only to the building or is it across the subarea? Ms. Martin responded that it is across the subarea, but that amount has been revised to 15,000 sq. feet per acre within that subarea. If they want to have 17,000 sq. feet, they would be required to submit a request for a Conditional Use to the Commission to ask for the additional density. Ms. Fox stated that she is clarifying that a subarea can develop in a variety of ways with an assisted living use there. Ms. Martin responded that density for a care facility is consistent with what currently exists in other areas of Dublin. Mr. Hunter stated that they are willing to limit Subarea A to age 55+ and to a two-story building. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2020 Page 24 of 28 Commission Discussion Ms. Kennedy stated that the Community Plan permits a total of 120 single-family residences on the parcel. This proposal places 90 single-family residences in one subarea and an additional 200 units for senior living in a second subarea. Traffic is a concern. This intersection and area is very congested during peak hours. In general, she is supportive of rezoning Rural to Residential; however, the proposed density is high, when assessed against the Community Plan. Mr. Supelak stated that this plan leaves a lot to chance. Generally, the Commission has some sense of what is proposed, and we do not have that with this proposal. He is concerned that this body will be deceived, and when the site is developed, it will not match the expectations. In addition to the 11 conditions staff recommended for the rezoning, another three have been suggested during this discussion. The number of conditions give him pause. He agrees that there are certain communities where a certain buyer is targeted, and the homes are designed accordingly, but that does not necessarily restrict buyers. However, the City has a couple of communities with small lots and quality, high price-point homes. If that can be achieved here, as well, he has no objection. Ms. Fox stated that the use of single-family homes here is good. However, she has concerns about Subarea A. Determining the density based on the entire acreage can be misleading. There are two separate parcels involved. In Subarea B, per the Low Density requirements, the density should be 2.0 du/acre, not 2.5, which would reduce the number of lots by 18. With past residential developments, the City has required varying lot widths. With this proposal, each lot is 53 feet along the roadway. There is the same lot width and same rear year setback, which creates a homogenous, “cookie cutter” look down the roadway. She appreciates that the applicant indicates a willingness to offer more than four architectural designs. With The Hamlet application, the applicant provided well-articulated architectural styles, which provided assurance of the particular product that would be provided. The Commission does not see that here. She does not understand the reason Post Preserve’s access must be changed to be through another neighborhood. That concerns her, but she understands that is a Council issue, not a Commission issue. She believes the developer would have to agree to that access. She is concerned about the level of density in Subarea A and the vagueness of what can develop there. Approving 70% lot coverage immediately next to a residential neighborhood is concerning. She would reduce the size of that lot coverage and tighten up the language on the expectations. It is currently zoned R1, which is the most open, least dense residential zoning. The proposal is to change that to the greatest lot coverage and density. She does not believe that is fair to the neighboring residents. They have no understanding of what will be provided in regard to lighting and buffering along their perimeter. Those are her primary concerns, but she also has concerns about the landscape layout. As stormwater ponds are developed, they should be attractively designed landscape features. Often, a stormwater pond can be just a dry pond. Stormwater ponds should not be recognizable as such. Next to this site will be one of the largest roundabouts and busiest intersections in the area, flowing into a rural corridor. The manner in which that area is planned is very important. In summary, her main concerns are the amount of density, the vagueness of Subarea A, and the proposed access points. Ms. Call inquired fellow Commissioners’ thoughts about the proposed 5,300 sq. ft. minimum lot size within the single-family subarea. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2020 Page 25 of 28 Mr. Supelak responded that he could be agreeable to it, but previously, applicants have demonstrated the high quality architecture of the proposed homes. Without having that assurance here, it is difficult to be comfortable with it. Mr. Hunter stated that the road system has been imposed by the City and ODOT. An interstate off ramp dumps onto this property. Would the Commission be supportive of a 120-unit empty- nester product without an age restriction here? If so, they could attempt to come up with such a plan. Without an understanding of the seven-year history of this property, Commissioners may be unaware of the hurdles they have attempted to jump through to develop it. At this point, they need specific direction to be able to continue that effort. They cannot spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on architectural plans without direction. The proposed plan is the result of direction they were given previously.They have satisfied all of staff’s previous conditions. They are attempting to meet the needs of the community, yet be fair to the property owner, with whom they have been in contract since 2012. The difficulty is due to the different interests that need to be satisfied. He requests that the Commission tell them if they will support an assisted-living type of development here, where the interstate ramp empties, and if not, if they would be supportive of 121 single-family homes here. It is important to point out that the development cost includes extending the road extension through the site. The proposed plan has been vetted thoroughly, and it is a good plan, but if the Commission does not support it, he requests clear direction on what can be pursued here. Ms. Call stated that the Commission is looking at a land development plan against what has been envisioned here. Low Density and Mid-density Residential were envisioned, which would be 121 units. His question is if the Commission would support 121 high-quality single-family units here. That is what the Future Land Use map indicates should be entertained, and if the Commission were viewing an application with 121 units that met Code requirements for open space, setbacks, roadway buffer, etc. – the discussion would be quite different. Conditions are typically placed on an application because either the text requires additional clarity, or the first choice was not the optimal choice for some reason. Mr. Hunter stated that they could put 31 of the same type of units that are in Subarea B in Subarea A. Would that be an acceptable plan to bring back to the Commission? He needs clear direction. He noted that Community Plans are established to provide guidance, and there are significant mitigating circumstances here, including the road system that cuts through the site. They need to have a development that works; otherwise, the property owner is being deprived of his land value. Mr. Hunter requested the Commission to table the application. They will return with a revised plan. Mr. Fishman stated that he likes the assisted living concept, although perhaps not 200 units. He also likes the single-family units, but there is a need to be much more creative there. Previously, these types of applications were not stacked lots; they were more creative with courtyards and common space. It may be necessary to eliminate a few lots to achieve more creativity within the residential component and make the homes a more expensive product. The concept makes sense, but it is important to achieve the best plan for the residents and the City. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2020 Page 26 of 28 Mr. Newell stated that the purpose of a PUD is to give better control over the architecture within a project. Sometimes tighter lot lines are permitted in a PUD because, in return, the City will be getting some back. However, the proposed development text does not indicate that approving the rezoning would result in anything better than leaving the zoning as is. That said, she is supportive of rezoning this property, and ultimately, perhaps the smaller lot sizes, but only if we can be assured of the product. Currently, the text is too open. She is supportive of the proposed assisted living facility. She could be supportive of the plan, but at this time, the text has not been developed sufficiently. Laura Comek, Comek Law LLC, 5693 Strathmore Lane, Dublin, stated that she is representing the Schottenstein Real Estate Group. She requested clarity of the Commission’s guidance. Ms. Newell provided clarity on the building materials, specifically the vinyl trim. In the past, where there was no assurance of the actual product that would be used, the Commission requested the product be eliminated from the text. The applicant can provide a sample of the actual product later and request that the text be amended to include the material. The issue is that, currently, the materials portion of this text limits nothing. Ms. Comek responded that they would add the additional clarity to the text. Mr. Boggs stated that the Chair has suggested that the vinyl material be removed from the Preliminary Development Plan phase. Later, if the applicant discovers an excellent grade of vinyl that they would like to use, they can bring back a sample and request that the text be amended, and include it in the Final Development Plan. The applicant has the ability to provide a sample of the material later. Mr. Fishman stated that Mr. Hunter has requested that the application be tabled. Several Commission members are in favor of the proposed plan, but believe the residential lots need to be more creative. Ms. Comek stated the Community Plan provides opportunity for Residential Low Density or for Residential Medium Density, which can be multifamily. The Community Plan recognized that this is not only the last piece of property in this corridor, it is a transition piece between the residents and the interstate highway. Typically, that last piece is different as it tries to accommodate that transition. Ms. Newell stated that she is a proponent of Concept Plans, and the Commission has not seen a Concept Plan for this particular plan. Ms. Comek stated that the Commission reviewed earlier plans for the site in 2012 and 2015. This application was re-filed and reviewed by the Commission in 2017. Perhaps if there is no clear policy stated, it is a policy issue for City Council. Mr. Fishman stated that this is a PUD application, and the Commission has a good amount of flexibility with a PUD. He likes the concept, but much more creativity with the lots is necessary. He would suggest that they discuss the plan with the residents in the neighborhood and address their concerns. Ms. Comek indicated that they would do so. Ms. Fox stated that this site will be developed, and the Commissioners believe that a good use here is single family. Putting 200 units in Subarea A is a different land use, which creates a need for other items, such as lighting and parking. The existing residential community would be Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2020 Page 27 of 28 bumping up against a different land use. There will be higher density here because of that land use. Mr. Hunter has inquired about the possibility of placing 121 units across the entire site. She would be in favor of allowing more density here if the development was something more consistent with the existing residential environment. She also understands the difficulty in selling units close to that roundabout and highway. Perhaps the lots in Subarea A could be the smaller, 55+ lots, and make the lots in Subarea A larger, single-family lots – as that subarea is the front door to the Post Preserve neighborhood. That could be a better option for Subarea A. It would be much more difficult for the neighbors to live next to a 2-story building with parking lot, lights and staff coming and going all hours of the day and night. That would be a different use in this area. Ms. Comek stated the Community Plan acknowledges that this is a transition property and permits mixed uses. A senior-living facility would be a good neighbor to the residential community. Perhaps this application should be kicked up to Council and let them decide if there is a tolerance for a buffering use with low traffic impact here. Ms. Call requested that for this application, and any future applications, if there are items, such as the ACLF, that are not defined in the Code, could there be an accompanying request to amend Code to include that definition. This would mediate the vagueness upfront. Ms. Boggs stated that in the Development Text that he viewed, there was a definition for an ACLF. It is not codified Citywide, but it would be the codified definition of that use for Subarea A. Ms. Call inquired if it would be location-specific or zone-specific. Mr. Boggs stated that it would be PUD-specific. For Subarea A of the Gateway PUD, ACLF is defined to mean, “one or more buildings providing assisted living accommodations for senior citizens and the elderly with one or more levels of care….” Ms. Call stated that in an application it is possible to define things differently. For instance, they can define a hospital as senior care facility. She would like to have the parallel in the Code. Mr. Supelak stated that this would apply to multiple cases. There were multiple building types in the Bright Road development. In both cases, we were asking for density comparables. With this plan, the 200-unit building and 70% lot coverage is a concern. That does not mean there is no appreciation for the project. At this point, perhaps the need is to fine-tune the plan and eliminate the vagueness of what will be on Subarea A and the vagueness of the architecture in Subarea B. There is a need for additional references to be provided for the architecture and for comparable uses. Mr. Boggs stated that the Zoning Code generally does not define an analogous use. It does mention the type of use without defining it in the context of parking requirements. If this definition were to be codified for the entire City, it might not work in another PUD. Ms. Call stated that what she is looking for is definitions in the Land Development Code. She sees a definition for a townhouse. If an applicant comes forward with an application for a townhouse, we have a definition that applies. If they were proposing a six-unit townhouse, but a townhouse is defined in Code as a two-unit building, staff could indicate the application does not meet Code. In the Code, that number of units would be a multi-family dwelling. Mr. Boggs stated that in the context of a PUD, a flexibility in the definition might be desirable for those items that are not the basic building blocks -- for those items that are not analogous. 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 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission May 21, 2015 – Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 23 2. Hyland-Croy Gateway District 7150 and 7270 Hyland-Croy Road 15-029CP Concept Plan The Chair, Ms. Newell, said the following application is a request for review and non-binding feedback for a residential development including empty-nester, four-unit buildings, and a retirement facility that includes independent and assisted living units on approximately 4 5 acres along Hyland-Croy Road. Claudia Husak said this case is in a similar location, also on the east side of Hyland-Croy Road. She said it is slightly different than the previous one in terms of it being a Concept Plan application, which is the first step in the rezoning process. She said this site is also not annexed into the City of Dublin so the current jurisdiction is within Jerome Township. Ms. Husak presented the site, which is 45 acres in two parcels. She noted Park Place subdivision to the north and Post Preserve to the east; both are zoned PLR, Planned Low-density Residential District. She said the site is very narrow with 3,300 feet of frontage along Hyland -Croy Road and the depth of the site is only about 500 feet. She said there is a stream tributary that has a Stream Corridor Prot ection Zone associated with it, which the applicant will be required to study to determine the width of that zone . She said there are tree rows along the stream . She indicated for the most part the site is farmland; there are some single-family homes on it with farm outbuildings. Ms. Husak reported the applicant had a couple of meetings with adjacent neighborhoods, specifically with the HOA of Post Preserve and Park Place. She said in Jan uary there was a meeting where a few residents attended as well as members of the Catholic Diocese as part of the proposal has a senior living component. She said most recently, a meeting was held where about 15 – 20 people from the adjacent neighborhoods attended. Ms. Husak said the Community Plan has two future land use designations for the site: north of the stream is the Suburban Residential Low Density District (1 – 2 dwelling units per acre) with the remainder as mixed-Residential Low Density (up to 3 dwelling units per acre). She explained that both of those are very similar to residential development patterns within the City of Dublin where the mixed category talks a little bit more about providing buffers to allow more leeway for the type of units provided in that district. She said there have been proposals for more commercial big box type of developm ent on the land in Jerome Township on the west side of Hyland-Croy Road. Ms. Husak said Hyland-Croy Road has a rural character designation. She said there are major changes proposed by ODOT in conjunction with the City of Dublin to the interchange of SR 1 61/US 33. She said the limited access area extends towards Post Road from Hyland -Croy Road, which really is dictated by ODOT and access for Post Preserve Boulevard will be required to be eliminated. She said in 2005 – 2007, that project for the interchange was a lot more imminent than it is currently. She said there were numerous neighborhood meetings at that time on how the access would be handled in the future. Ms. Husak presented what Council approved as the method for access management going into the future, which takes part on this particular property under consideration this evening. She said Springview Lane and Stillhouse Lane within Post Preserve are intended to be extended to current stub streets, through this property and out to Hyland-Croy Road to provide full access into the neighborhood. Upon urging of Staff, she said the applicant has incorporated this public street into their proposal. She reported the extensive update to the Community Plan also occurred in 2007 that included one of the stree t extensions but not both. She said the Northwest Area Plan is the same , which shows single-family development to the north of the stream at a 1 – 2 units to the acre for density with an extension of a street called Holbein Drive to provide access and distribution of traffic. She said a row of single -family houses adjacent to Post Preserve and multiple housing types to buffer the residential area to the west from whatever might happen west of Hyland-Croy Road. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission May 21, 2015 – Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 23 Ms. Husak said there were also considerations for protecting the stream providing entry to the neighborhood and making sure to be sensitive to the existing trees on the site. Ms. Husak said the Concept Plan proposed is divided into two subareas. She explained there are 50 assisted living (AL) units and 75 independent living (IL) units at the south end of the site . She said both facilities are connected at the entry porte-cochere but serve different residents. She said the southernmost building is the AL facility designed as a single-story building with four quadrants of care and the IL facility is a three-story building with an open courtyard in the center including parking areas to the north and east and detached garages along the east border with Post Preserve. She said the balance of the site has four-unit residential buildings, which, according to the applicant, are targeted for empty- nesters. She said there are 17 buildings consisting of 68 units shown in the center of the site, south of the stream. She said there is an additional 15 four-unit buildings consisting of 60 units north of the stream. Ms. Husak said stormwater management is shown throughout the site with retention ponds. She stated the plan includes an eight-foot asphalt multi-use path along Hyland-Croy Road with connections from the site to the path. Ms. Husak read the discussion questions: 1. Is the proposed land use appropriate? 2. Is the proposed greater density warranted relative to the quality of the proposal? Bob Miller asked what has been proposed in the past on the west side of Hyland-Croy Road all the way up to Post Road. Ms. Husak indicated she knew of two proposals for retail development south of Weldon Road . She said the most recent proposal, which Jerome Township requested the City to weigh in on, had larger store- type of development without parcels on Hyland-Croy Road with a potential hotel or some sort of multi- family units north of Weldon for the future. Steve Langworthy said there has only been one major proposal that the township had approved . He said it was originally called Hall’s Corner that had a pretty intense retail development, a couple of big box retail developments along with restaurants and the other outlots. He said there were some concerns expressed by the City to the Township about the relative density and intensity of that product at the time. He said there were discussions about sewer systems, traffic, road improvements, and the like. He said that proposal has since gone away and a new company has come in from Indianapolis that has proposed an application that has not been submitted for anything by that company but the concept plans we have seen recently are much less intense than the original plan. Mr. Miller asked if an auto dealership had been proposed. Ms. Husak said there is a site approved for an auto dealership in the township as a conditional use and Costco has received a lot of press. Mr. Miller asked what has been proposed on this existing Gordon Farm site. Ms. Husak answered no applications have come forward. Amy Salay asked if the roundabout at Hyland-Croy Road and Post Road is the anticipated solution. Tina Wawszkiewicz said Ms. Salay was seeing the long -term picture idea. She said if this were to become annexed and became the City’s intersection the City could evaluate stepping to this le vel and could be a discussion with City Council during the CIP process. She noted the ultimate build with the ramp. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission May 21, 2015 – Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 23 Ms. Husak clarified that at this point, this area of Hyland -Croy Road is not under the jurisdiction of the City. Don Hunter, Schottenstein Real Estate Group, said he resides in Dublin. He thanked the Commission for the opportunity to share information and receive feedback. He explained there are two applicants today: the Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus; and the Diocesan Retirement Communi ty Corporation and mentioned all the team members in attendance to answer questions. Mr. Hunter said he has a great respect for the process. He explained he reached a land purchase agreement in August 2012. He said they met with Marsha Grigsby in October 2012. He said they met with Land Use and Long Range Planning in February and started meeting with HOA leadership of Park Place/Post Preserve in May 2013 and have continued that dialogue. He said this particular plan is a result of three to four reiterations in receiving feedback from the leadership of the HOA group. He said the first neighborhood meeting took place in January and most recently, this week. He presented the plan with the senior retirement community to the south that the Diocese will own and the northern two-thirds of the site is the empty-nester community. Mike Cuddy said they have been in the senior housing business since 1977 . He said they have 16 facilities in 10 counties. He said they are open to residents of all faiths and they are rep licating their Villas of St. Therese concept. He said this is a high-quality architecturally compatible with the neighborhood. He said this is a mission-based goal of serving seniors providing safe well-appointed housing for seniors in a continuum of care that runs from independent living to assisted living and building a retirement community where people have the ability to move from one level to the next. He said they have done this very successfully out on the east side of Columbus at the Villas at St. T herese and the goal is to do the same thing here in Dublin, Ohio. Mr. Cuddy said they have done a study to ensure that there is market demand for this type of facility and had a great deal of interest as expressed by Dublin residents. He said prior to the Villas of St. Therese facility, there were people on the east side of Columbus who were really looking to maintain residence in their own community. He said part of the mission is to provide a facility where they could retire, have independent living as long as that was possible for them, and transition in the same community to a higher level of care to assisted living. He reported they are a non-for-profit corporation and able to deliver a higher quality product at a lower price. He presented the 75 unit s of IL facility and 50 units of AL in the lower portion of the graphic. James Michael Milligan, JMM Architects, 4685 Larwell Drive, Columbus, Ohio, 43220, said his firm is a senior living design specialty firm and have designed over 1000 retirement communities around the nation. He said this is not subsidized housing. He said the Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus provide a niche that is compatible with the highest quality facility but in a much lower cost . He said these facilities will be 1 or 2 bedroom apartments with washers/dryers in the IL areas and garages for their cars, brick/stone cement fiber siding and use residential style materials with pitched roofs . He said between the AL and IL, there will be a main street facility/common area where folks can have dining opportunities, library, etc. an indoor/outdoor space with a lot of light . He said the AL is all private rooms and operated by the diocese. He said the Villas at St. Therese are 15 years old and have held up quite well. He said the apartments are a three-floor concept and on the site plan, garages are a buffer with four -sided design. He said there is a wet pond on the south side for stormwater management and site amenities and controlled parking. Brian Schottenstein, Schottenstein Real Estate Group, 600 W. Goodale, Columbus, Ohio said Dublin has the highest standards of any community around. He said they believe their attached homes will be the nicest in the state of Ohio. He said they have been voted the BIA Developer of the year three times . Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission May 21, 2015 – Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 23 Mr. Schottenstein presented images on the screen and on boards. He said there are four units in each building and each unit has 2-car garages, a screened in porch, and two first floor bedrooms geared towards empty-nesters. He said there will not be a clubhouse, bar, or trash cans outside. He said trash pick-up service will be provided to go into a central compactor including a mail center in that building as well. He said there are 128 units and density is 3.9 units per acre. He indicated the average ag e of someone moving into AL facility is 84 years old. He said they want to capture the market of people in their 50s, 60s, and 70s before they would go into the community right next to us. He said we would even provide opportunities for them to get into the community sooner if they live in ours first because they believe there will be a waiting list. He pointed out that on two -thirds of the plan, on the north side is their four-unit empty-nester homes. He noted the nice buffering of trees. He said they plan to respect the Stream Corridor Protection Zone. Mr. Hunter summarized there are two fundamental but related uses: senior retirement community and empty-nesters. He said 30 years ago, the average age of entry into IL was 65 years of age. He reiterated that now the age is 83, more and more services have to be provided (meals, transportation). He recited statistics about population growth in Ohio to demonstrate the need for this type of housing. He said there is a “silver tsunami” coming. He presented 17 objectives from the Community Plan and stated how his plan addresses some of these. After spending a lot of time in this community analyzing economic development issues, he suggested we are at a crossroads and asked if Dublin was a generational community. He indicated they are going to enhance the Park Place/Post Preserve neighborhoods with the transitional use. He said Hyland Croy Road will become five lanes. He said his plan will insulate the community from that noise as a quiet, compatible neighbor. He not ed the 360 degree architecture they will provide and how this site is a challenging property and not appropriate for single-family homes. He concluded they are proposing high-quality, low-density development. Bob Miller asked what the square footage is for the empty-nester units. Mr. Schottenstein responded there are four different floor plans, going up to 1,900 square feet. Mr. Miller asked what the rent range is. Mr. Schottenstein answered high teens would be the amount for rent. Ms. Salay asked if the empty-nester products were all for rent. Mr. Schottenstein said they could be for sale; it is market driven. Mr. Hunter said they are trying to meet the needs of the community by offering flexibility. Ms. Salay asked if some of the units were two-stories. Mr. Schottenstein said all have two bedrooms on the first floor and some have loft above, which make those a story and a half. The Chair invited public comment. Jeffrey Smith, 7226 Springview Lane, said the concept of putting the empty -nester community along that track of land makes a lot of sense and would be supportive with some exceptions. He said it meets the demand within the City and provides a nice buffer to whatever goes in on the west side. However, he said it does not appear to be any mechanisms in place to enforce the stated objectives of empty-nester housing. In his research, he said there is federal legislation known as the Housing for Older Persons Act in 1995, that would allow the developer to designate a community as housing for re sidents that are 55 years and older. He said that stipulation requires 80% of the units are occupied by at least one person who is 55 years old. He asked if that was considered and if it was, why that designation is not going to be in place. The Chair said she would entertain those Commission questions as they proceed. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission May 21, 2015 – Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 23 Mr. Smith said 3.9 units per acre for density is higher than what is shown in the Community Plan. To make that exception on the density he said, for supposed improvement in quality to add ress an unforeseen demographic shift back when the Community Plan was completed, is unjust. He indicated there are no assurances that given the higher density space that those needs are going to be met. He said without some designation through the Bylaws o r in the deed restriction, potentially, those units are occupied by non-empty-nesters, which would bring in over-crowding of schools. He said then there is the issue of rent vs own. He asked if the City is going to be responsible for maintaining the landscaping of that Post Preserve entrance once it is closed off. As a founding board member of the HOA , he said it is costly to maintain that entrance. He said once it is closed off, it is no longer the enjoyment specific to just the HOA but rather open to the public. The Chair announced over 13 people have signed up to speak and asked that the comments be brief and not repetitive. Bill Razor, 6857 Holbein Drive, said he has lived in this Post Preserve neighborhood since it was built . He indicated the applicant is proposing an apartment complex and trying to put an empty -nester label on it. He said the developer is not willing to put any stipulations on who may live there. He said if $1,700 a month is the rent, they will attract families that want to get into Jerome High School. He said the key thing the Schottenstein folks said was this was a Concept Plan and a lot of these issues are going to be market driven. He indicated he suspects that if the market is not going to be there for the empty -nesters then the market will be filled with whoever will pay the rent and we will not end up with a quiet community. He said that is further complicated as City Council had previously ruled that our entrance will go through this neighborhood. Currently, according to the plan he said, it appears we will drive past the trash compactor on the way to our house. He said when Council originally ruled on the entrance closing, they specified that the intention of the new entrance would be along the same lines as our existing entrance and would have the same character. He said he believes the City made a mistake with the planning in that area and feels strongly that the community is owed more than just having our neighborhood go through an apartment complex. Mr. Razor said he did not receive any notice that any meetings were taking place until the one that occurred last Tuesday and at that meeting, he was told that the purpose was not for the developer to hear the thoughts of the residents but to answer questions about what they pl anned to build on this site. He asked if these people are going to manage an apartment complex next to my house, how cooperative of a neighbor are they going to be. He concluded maybe they are not the right developer for that land. Alycia Cassini, 7545 Marston Lane, said she appreciated the Commission’s comments earlier about getting the HOA more involved in these meetings with the notifications. She said the applicant said they met with HOA leadership from May 2013 – May 2015. She said meeting with one individual who did not share any information with the community does not constitute neighborhood feedback. She said once we were made aware of this situation this past Tuesday, the neighborhood has responded with how they feel about this development. She said this is really two separate concepts: the retirement home and 128 rentals that will be in our backyard. She said there are no restrictions on who can rent these units regardless of age and family size. She said the rentals will be designated as Suburban Residential low density, outside the design concept and the Post Preserve entrance will be closed . She said this is unacceptable for Post Preserve and for the rental agency or renters because there will be a high volume of traffic coming through their neighborhood. She said the Conservation Design Principals and support of the rural feel of this neighborhood has not been applied to this concept. She indicated it is interesting that Schottenstein is taking these two very separate concepts and bundle into on e proposal; these should be two separate independent plans. She said Schottenstein is trying to say what the market is through charts, quotes, and the emotional heartstrings to get approval for their highly profitable business of rentals. She encouraged the Commission to do their own independent research and not rely on the carefully crafted information presented by Schottenstein. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission May 21, 2015 – Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 23 Eileen Corson, 6717 Monticello Lane, reiterated the stress that could be put upon the school district if we have this many rentals this close to our homes; there is no elementary in our area but good access to Jerome and Karrer. She said if the apartments are not age restricted, there will the potential for a lot of school bus traffic. She said HOA representation had no communication with them. She indicated there were three members: one is leaving, the other said during the meeting with the developer yesterday that she has been shopping for these homes. She said there are two new members on the board and has serious ethical issues with their board. She requested additional time for review of this proposal for the residents. Kumar Vemuri, 7021 Post Preserve Blvd, said he has been a resident of Post Preserve since February 2006 and was never told there was an entry issue by the builder. He said as soon as he entered his new home, he started getting letters about this proposed entry closure and he attended meetings that were well organized in those days (2006 & 2007). He said they were given five or six options and finally narrowed it down to one or two. He said during that time they were promised there would be a layer of single-family homes just to their backyards of Post Preserve and that there would be a similar entrance on the other side. He said with this proposal, we do not see any of that happening. He asked what will be the size of the entry roads if there will be any coming into Post Preserve. He asked what would happen to backyard fences or if there would be any fences between these two properties. Marian Vordermark, 6834 Stilhouse Lane, said she is the president of Park Place/Post Preserve HOA . She referenced the timeline presented by Mr. Hunter. She confirmed the three previous board members did have a couple of meetings in 2013 and they were told they had contingency con tract with Mr. Gordon, which was going to expire in November 2013, which it did. She indicated they were told it was not going to be extended so the HOA members did not publicize their meeting . She said she was not given any further information until much later on. She said we do not correspond with our community on a regular basis because it costs our HOA a lot of money and they have not seen an extreme amount of interest from their residents. She said apparently there are interested people in the community. She presented several pictures: the Post Preserve entry, the ponds, the street that will be closed off, and Post Perimeter Road. She said she is concerned about the replacement entrances surrounding their community. She said the quality of the Gateway project significantly impacts their neighborhood and the valuation of 145 residences of Post Preserve and potentially, Park Place because they are viewed by realtors as a joint M/I neighborhood. She said the residents are requesting an engineering study be completed to determine if a right in/right out entry into Post Preserve could be allowed by ODOT. She said other exceptions to that rule within the state have been made. She said there are a total of 292 home sites in the Park Place/Post Preserve are affected by this decision. She said there will be a high interest in getting to Costco and OU development that will contribute to additional traffic. Keith Hammond, 6965 Post Preserve Blvd, said his biggest concern is his master bedroom and back windows face west so immediately out his backyard he will see a three-story apartment complex. He said he agrees the retirement facility at one story is a good idea but the third -story building will be right in their faces and the garages will back up to their property line. Parminder Rooprai, 7035 Blakemore Lane, said that he strongly opposes this plan. He said the builders already indicated this is going to be offered at a low cost around 1,900 square feet as the biggest unit. He said the average home in Post Preserve is 3,000 square feet. He asked why they are trying to integrate a low cost product with high cost homes. He indicated the builder has probably already figured the appreciation they would gain as well as the depreciation the current homeowners are going to see. He asked who would compensate the current homeowners for that depreciation. He said Hyland -Croy Road already has high traffic congestion and asked what the plan is to address that. Carmine Spada, 7012 Post Preserve Blvd., said he has resided there since 2006. He said the word “rentals” was not presented by the developers at the meeting. He said 20 - 25 residents took a vote on Tuesday and all but one stated they did not want rentals in their community. He said they were told they Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission May 21, 2015 – Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 23 were rentals because it is not feasible otherwise but this evening they said they could be for sale at some time. Lora Boukheir, 6957 Post Preserve Blvd., said they moved there to raise their children and are looking to the Commission to represent them. She said she lives in the fourth house and when she walks out her front door to sit on her porch, she already looks at a parking lot and a church that is at least three stories high and an apartment complex. She said less than a mile away is a healthcare facility and now she is to expect another three-story building in her backyard. She said she is looking to the Commission to protect her home so it does not depreciate in value. She said the moment she received the letter she asked why she should stay in this community and asked how she could sell it with no backyard. She said this proposal does not represent family or the Dublin she committed to for her children. She pleaded with the Commission to put themselves in her position as this is not good planning and zoning. Jerry Merrell, 8742 Craigston, said he is a member of St. Brigid of Kildare and wanted to share the view from the seniors of that church. He said there are over 100 members and they are all looking for a “St. Therese of the north”. He said he is very familiar with the Villas of St. Therese on the east side and to duplicate that in Dublin would be a plus for the community. He said he is not certain about the Schottenstein part of this proposal. He said a lot of people in his age group who are not ready to commit to moving into an assisted living or independent living facility and need something that they can step into short-term and then eventually move over to the St. Therese north area. He said he has been in the Columbus area since 1970 and has watched this cit y grow as well as the population of seniors increase. He said the age of people speaking against this appear to be younger than those with gray hair. He said he may be the only person speaking for the gray -haired group. He said they would like to stay in Dublin and the only way they can do that is if they have these kinds of facilities. Eileen Martin, 5509 Villas Drive, Dublin, 43017, said she wanted to speak on behalf of the seniors in the community. She said she believes she is the oldest person in atte ndance but having a retirement community in Dublin is definitely needed. She said she moved here five years ago because she had to downsize and had children who lived here . She said most people her age, when widowed or with a spouse but is up in years, that is where you go, particularly if there are grandkids. She said you want to be close to them so they can visit you. She said she had considered Erikson when it was time for her to move but they were in Hilliard, and then the recession hit . She said she took a condominium because there was nothing else available. She asked that this proposal be considered . She said to the young folks, this may be someplace they will want to go in 30 years so they do not have to leave the community. Jeffrey Smith, who spoke earlier, said he did not get a sense from anyone from the Post Preserve/Park Place that they do not want a retirement community there. However, he said they are looking for restrictions on the development to ensure that the older people have access to th at community. He clarified that this land is not owned by Dublin but rather Jerome Township to ask Dublin to annex this land. He said if that does not happen, because we are not pragmatic about this, we could end up with something far worse. He said there are certain issues that need to be addressed like the three -story building, density, and rent vs owned. The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting. Amy Salay said the presentation by the developer was compelling in terms of the need for empty-nester housing as well as the apartments and assisted living. She said there is a lot of work to be done between the developers and the neighbors. She stated there is no way she could support this application in its present form. She indicated she assumed this was a 55 and older community and asked why that is not a part of it by placing restrictions on it. She said character based planning is important – creating a sense of place. She said the seniors and the current single-family neighbors will need to be well integrated so they can feel like this will be an enhancement to their community and not a detriment. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission May 21, 2015 – Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 23 Ms. Salay said she was looking at the entryways and improvements need to be made. She said this neighborhood is losing their very attractive front door, essentially, because of the ODOT restrictions. She said the City made concrete expectations for the entrance. She said traffic calming is also important. Ms. Salay asked if there is a way to reduce the height of the St. Therese portion, possibly spr eading it out and taking away some from the apartment portion as this is very jarring for the neighbors that back up to it. She indicated she is generally ok with the architecture with the primary materials being brick and stone. She said she likes the idea of the connection with the atrium. Ms. Salay said the apartments are not conducive to people living together as the way they are structured, turning their backs on each other. She said she would prefer to see where folks can be interactive and front porches are important. She said there is a lot of time between 55 and 80. She said there is no central park and asked where people are supposed to gather. She suggested moving this across the street and adding a mixed-use environment as opposed to big-box retail that is offensive. Bob Miller said he is in agreement with Ms. Salay as the analytics are solid. He said this is really good land use. He indicated he was uncertain that single-family homes on a five-lane road would be appropriate. He looks at this as a buffer and could be an enhancement for the existing subdivisions. He suggested that the Schottenstein folks go the condominium route to solve the big problem with the neighbors or the 55-year old designation is worthwhile. He said he struggled with the height proposed as he views this as a gateway project. He indicated from the Hyland -Croy side, a lot could be done to make this property pop for people entering from the SR161/US 33 interchange . On the other hand, he said he is sympathetic or empathetic with the residents. He said he does not have a northern elevation so he is not certain what he is looking at. He said he appreciates the protection of the stream but would like to see a little more diversity in terms of how the empty -nester housing is aligned to create that connectivity. He understands this is not easy to do on this very thin piece of land but would like to see more connectivity, which would be appreciated by the neighborhood as well. He said he would like to see pictures of the existing properties at the Villas at St. Therese as they are 15 years old. Cathy De Rosa said she agreed with her two colleagues that if it is going to be a retirement community, it should be designated as such. She said she does not see evidence that a person that starts in one end would actually move to the other end, speaking from her personal experience and the resident that stated they would want to stay near their children/grandchildren. She said the Villas at St. Therese appear to be one or two-stories on the website but the applicant confirmed they are three stories. She asked if consideration could be made for the height. She said she is concerned that if it is going to be a 55-year old designation if there would be some mobility. She said there is a need for this but for active seniors. She said this is an opportunity for families to be next to seniors and this needs to be figured out as a community but there is a lot of work to be done for this one to fit that bill. She said this works on this piece of property but there is a ways to go with the application. Chris Brown said he is supportive of the retirement community overall. He said three separate neighborhoods should be designed: the Villas; the new entry to Post Preserve/Park Place ; and then the northern section. He said it is crucial that the new entry to Post Preserve respects the community nature of Post Preserve as a whole . He said he agrees with Ms. Salay’s comment that the units tend to turn their backs to each other; he likes a front porch presen ce if appealing to empty-nesters. He said he looked at Friendship Village, Villas at St. Therese, and First Community Village, which are all very low impact on the areas with very little traffic and few people walking about. However, he said there should b e the opportunity to walk about as Ms. De Rosa just said; there is still a lot of vitality in these seniors. He noted there is no interconnectivity other than that bike path along Hyland -Croy Road and the community within needs to be engaged. He said the stream green space was respected but it disconnects the central portion to the north section. He said he understands we do not control Hyland -Croy Road but by living in a community east of Dublin Road, taking a left in the morning is brutal . He asked if there may be a roundabout opportunity, how to get people actually turning south on Hyland -Croy Road with 292 homes Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission May 21, 2015 – Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 23 in that community plus this particular community. He said the height on the north, west, and south portions do not terribly bother him but the part that engages Post Preserve are really looming over those properties and needs to be addressed. He said the eastern wing has the most impact. He stated anything this high of density has to be designated as 55 plus and could not support something that di d not have that definition. He said everything we have learned through current market trends through what we are doing with the Bridge Street District and everything else, it does not bother him tremendously if they are rentals vs condominiums; he said there is incentive to keep standards up if there is one singular owner as opposed to elderly people that are wearing down and might not maintain the property as well. Steve Stidhem said he agrees with almost everything that was said here. He said he appreci ates the neighbors coming in and voicing their opinions. He indicated he is frustrated with the lack of leadership it seems in this neighborhood but that is another topic. He said it is way too dense, there is no community space, and the entrance to the neighborhood was not accommodated given the upcoming closure of Post Preserve. He said he visited the St. Therese AL website, which looked like a two-story building so he needs to physically visit the Villas. He said he hopes the community is maintained better than the website. Victoria Newell said many of her comments mirror Mr. Brown’s comments. She said she is not in favor of the three-story assisted living area next to the residents and suggested stair -stepping those elevations. She stated the overall land use is appropriate. She indicated the residents could end up with something substantially far worse so she hopes for willingness within this community to work with applicants that are considering developing this property. She said if it is developed wi thin Jerome Township and outside Dublin’s borders, the residents will have no control. She said with the closures, the residents are going to feel like they are driving through an apartment complex per the current layout. She said this really needs to be addressed better. She said the site is broken into three parts and maybe there could be a variety in the units for the center section to make this feel more like a community. She said the entry structure described, which houses the trash compactor kind of l ooks like a gatehouse and reminded the applicants this will be the first thing seen when arriving to this site and better served someplace else. She would like to see the SPCZ expanded upon. She noted a presentation was made very compassionately for senior citizen housing and yet there does not seem to be a limitation to restrict it to that . She asked the applicant is they were or were not going to place that age targeted restriction on this. Mr. Hunter said the short answer is they had not contemplated do ing that and it is not their intention to do that. He said they could go back and study it. He said sometimes you get unintended consequences when doing that such as restricting highly educated people in the age bracket of 45 – 53. Mr. Schottenstein added the example of a person having a child in their 30’s when the spouse passes away, in between creating a life for themselves, they have to come back and live with their 55 – 60 year old parent, they would not have the opportunity to be in here even for a short period of time. Ms. Newell said there have been recent proposals in front of the Commission that were for elderly housing and could approach the limitations tonight’s developer is looking at. She encouraged the applicant to research this further. Mr. Hunter asked for clarity. Ms. Newell said recent applicants were willing to put those restrictions upon those age limitations . She indicated there have been some conversations about a child that moves back home with you for a period of time so she thinks there are entities that are able to address that. She suggested there is something the applicant tonight could do in that instance. Mr. Hunter said he would explore that before returning. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission May 21, 2015 – Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 23 Mr. Stidhem inquired about a barrier or fencing between this and the housing on the behalf of the residents. Mr. Hunter responded there are no plans for a fence. Mr. Schottenstein said the entry feature has not been designed yet and promised to work with the neighbors. He said they are considering a community garden, also where the residents can plant their own vegetables on individual plots. For another resident, Mr. Stidhem asked what stage is this designed because it appears to have been presented to the residents as a final design and it is clearly not the case. Mr. Hunter confirmed this is a Concept Plan. Mr. Brown said the Commission is representing the residents but at the same time, it is an opportunity to create a nice buffer between you and what Hyland -Croy Road is going to be. He encouraged the residents to keep an open mind and work with the developers. He encouraged the developers to work with the residents particularly on the entrance and what it means to their neighborhood; it is not just their backyard, this is the entry because of the situation with ODOT. Ms. Salay encouraged the developers to be sensitive to the neighbors considering your own home and what you would want to live next to. The Chair called for a five minute recess. 3. Ballantrae Woods Cosgray Road 15-004Z/PDP/PP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan/Preliminary Plat The Chair, Ms. Newell, said the following application is a request for review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a rezoning to a Planned Unit Development District for a single-family residential development on a 49-acre site, east of Cosgray Road and north of the Conrail railroad tracks. She said this is also a request for review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a Preliminary Plat for the lots, reserves, and rights-of-way. Devayani Puranik presented the site and said this development has been reviewed several times. She noted a Cosgray Rings Road connector is proposed along eastern property line - Churchman Road. She said east of Churchman Road is the Links at Ballantrae, a multi-family development and further east is the Woodlands at Ballantrae. She said parcels along southwest corner of the property are within Washington Township in the Village of Amlin, which is outside of the Dublin corporate boundary. She described the character of this area as village residential with limited commercial activity along Rings Road where a pizza shop is located. She said the existing tree cover is present within the northern section and mature tree rows are present along the railroad tracks. Ms. Puranik stated this case was presented informally to the PZC on September 18, 2014. She said the Concept Plan was presented on April 2, 2015. She said today’s stage is the first formal stage to establish a Planned Unit Development. She said depending on the Commission action this evening, it could move forward to City Council for final approval. Ms. Puranik explained there are two zoning classifications for this site. She said t he northern portion of the property is zoned PLR-Planned Low Density Residential and the southern portion of the site is zoned R-Rural. Ms. Puranik presented the Future Land Use/Southwest Area Plan maps. She said the Community Plan recommends “Mixed residential- Medium Density” for this site, which is meant for walkable, pedestrian