Resolution 73-21
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Dana L. McDaniel, City Manager
Date: November 30, 2021
Initiated By: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Director of Planning
Nichole M. Martin, AICP, Senior Planner
Re: Resolution 73-21 – Preliminary Plat (Hyland Glen) for the subdivision a 42.5-acres
to establish 102 single-family lots, nine public rights-of-way, and 12.4-acres of
public open space. The site is located northeast of the intersection of Hyland-Croy
Road with Post Road (21-117PP).
Summary
This is a request, as recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission, to accept
a Preliminary Plat for the Hyland Glen Subdivision to establish 102 single-family lots, nine public
rights-of-way, and 12.4-acres of public open space in alignment with a separate request to
establish a Planned Unit Development. Ordinance 82-21, which accompanies this resolution, was
introduced at the November 8, 2021 City Council meeting.
The site is comprised of two existing parcels located northeast of the intersection of Hyland-Croy
Road with Post Road. The site has a rectangular geometry 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.
Process
The platting process is solely for the subdivision of the properties to identify property lines,
establish easements, provide open space dedication, and create public rights-of-way. The site
layout, architectural character, and open space design for any future development are approved
separately by the required reviewing bodies.
Details
The Preliminary Plat establishes 102 single-family lots, six open space reserves, and nine public
streets. The Preliminary Plat depicts 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 as part of the
zoning. 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.
Office of the City Manager
5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017-1090
Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 Memo
Memo re: Resolution 73-21 Hyland Glen PP
Monday, November 9, 2021
Page 2 of 2
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 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.
Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission
On September 16, 2021, the Commission reviewed and recommended approval (5-1) to City
Council of the Preliminary Plat with the following condition:
1) That the applicant make any minor technical adjustments to the plat, prior to submission for
acceptance to City Council.
The applicant has met the condition of approval for the plat.
City Council Recommendation
Staff recommends acceptance of the Resolution for the Preliminary Plat.
SURVEYOR, CIVIL ENGINEER &LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTINDEX OF DRAWINGSJ:\20210326\Dwg\04Sheets\PP\1 Cover.dwg Last Saved By: sohara, 8/27/2021 1:27 PM
1. COVER2. VICINITY MAP3 & 4. SITE PLAN5. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN6. TREE PRESERVATION DATA TABLEHYLAND GLENPRELIMINARY PLATDUBLIN, OHIOVicinity MapScale: 1" = 2000'US-33Hyland-Croy RdPost Rd.SiteREVISED :OCTOBER 20, 2021PREPARED FOR:THE PARAGON BUILDING GROUP, LTD.DBA VIRGINIA HOMES485 METRO PLACE SOUTHSUITE 350DUBLIN, OHIO 43017
PARK MILL DRIVEHYLAND-CROY ROAD
POS
T
P
R
E
S
E
R
V
E
B
L
V
DPOST R
OAD
POST
PRESERVE
SECTION 3
POST
PRESERVE
SECTION 1
POST
PRESERVE
SECTION 2
PARK PLACE
SECTION 1
HOLBEIN DRIVESTILLHOUSE LANESPRINGVIEW LANEBLAKEMORE LANE
ZONED:RR
REGIONAL RETAIL
DISTRICT
(JEROME TWP)
ROYAL PLUME DRIVEWELDON ROADZONED:R
RURAL
(DUBLIN)
ZONED:PD
PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT
(JEROME TWP)
ZONED:PD
PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT
(JEROME TWP)
ZONED:TF
TECHNOLOGY
FLEX DISTRICT
(DUBLIN)
EXISTING
ZONED:R
RURAL DISTRICT
ZONED:PLR
PLANNED
LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
(DUBLIN)
ZONED:PLR
PLANNED
LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
(DUBLIN)
ZONED:PLR
PLANNED
LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
(DUBLIN)
ZONED:PLR
PLANNED
LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
(DUBLIN)
ZONED:PD
PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT
(JEROME TWP)
ZONED:PD
PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT
(JEROME TWP)
EXISTING
ZONED:R
RURAL DISTRICT
⅊⅊⅊
Ex Basin
Ex Basin
⅊⅊⅊
JEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTY
CITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTY
JEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTY
CITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTYJEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTYJ:\20210326\Dwg\04Sheets\PP\2 Vicinity Map.dwg, Last Saved By: sohara, 8/27/2021 1:27 PM Last Printed By: Brown, Patricia, 10/19/2021 3:37 PM4 Xrefs: 20170464-PDVP-TB, 20170464-CS-REFR-E, 20170464-CS-REFR-PDP-BLDG-N, 20170464-CS-REFR-PDP-NPRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HYLAND GLEN
DESCRIPTIONDATE
REVISIONS CITY OF DUBLIN, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO
HYLAND GLEN
PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR
20210326OCTOBER 20, 2021
Scale
Date
Sheet
Job No.THE PARAGON BUILDING
GROUP LTD.
DBA VIRGINIA HOMES
485 METRO PLACE SOUTH
SUITE 350
DUBLIN, OHIO 43017
LOCATED IN:
VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NUMBER 3452
STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF UNION, TOWNSHIP OF JEROME
FIRST SUBMITTAL7/26/21
VICINITY MAP
GRAPHIC SCALE
0
1 inch = feet
75'150'300'
150'
1"=150'2/6
POST PRESERVE BLVDHYLAND-CROY ROADEX. R/WRESERVE "B"±0.7 AC.1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646520' BUILDING SETBACK20' BUILDING SETBACK20' BLDG STBK20' BUILDING SETBACK50' BUILDING & PAVEMENT SETBACK
30' BUILDING SETBACK30' BUILDING SETBACK20' BLDG SETBACK 20' BUILDING SETBACK20' BUILDING SETBACK8052 SF8052 SF8052 SF8052 SF8052 SF8052 SF7700 SF7700 SF10648 SF10738 SF9533 SF9533 SF9533 SF9533 SF9533 SF9533 SF9533 SF9533 SF8250 SF7700 SF7700 SF8250 SF7700 SF7700 SF7700 SF7700 SF7700 SF12244 SF12116 SF7150 SF7150 SF6600 SF6600 SF10636 SF7150 SF6600 SF6600 SF6600 SF7150 SF6600 SF6600 SF7150 SF6600 SF10098 SF9560 SF6600 SF6600 SF6600 SF10738 SF9100 SF9100 SF9100 SF9100 SF9100 SF9100 SF9100 SF9100 SF9100 SF9100 SF9730 SFRESERVE "A"±2.0 AC.RESERVE "C"±1.0 AC.POST ROAD
50'
28'60'36'50'
28'
50'
28'
50'
28'50'28'50'
28'60'B/B B/BB/BB/BB/B
B/B
20' BUILDING SETBACKEX. 10' EASEMENTEX. EASEMENT470'37'44'35'473'35'43'
3
5
'
105'85'130'70'130'70'130'70'130'70'121'70'112'70'122'70'130'70'120'70'130'70'130'75'123'8'
68'
3
4
'622'320'70'70'70'70'70'70'70'70'70'70'60'35'130'73'130'73'130'73'130'73'130'73'130'73'130'73'122'85'105'35'60'73'73'73'73'73'73'73'260'35'43'35'73'110'73'110'73'110'73'110'73'110'73'110'70'110'70'110'58'37'85'15'137'70'70'73'73'73'73'73'73'75'75'70'110'70'70'110'70'75'110'75'70'110'70'70'110'70'70'110'70'70'110'70'70'110'70'121'110'59'84'36'3
2
'71'45'3
3
'116'60'140'65'110'65'65'110'65'60'110'60'60'110'60'65'110'65'60'110'60'60'110'60'65'110'65'60'110'60'103'110'28'106'35'35'106'23'60'60'60'60'60'60'60'65'55'37'76'27'140'110'65'110'60'110'60'110'60'110'60'110'
110'60'110'60'110'98'60'R=100'R=110'R=100'R=100'68'6600 SF20' BLDG SETBACK CONCEPTUALSTORMWATERMANAGEMENTAREASPRINGVIEW LANE
MOORLAND DRIVEBLAKEMORE LANESPRINGVIEW LANEBANSHEE DRIVEBARKSDALE DRIVEPOST PRESERVESECTION 2POST PRESERVESECTION 1STILLHOUSE LANEGORDEN DRIVE100' BLDG & PAVEMENT SETBACKBLDG & PAVEMENT SETBACK (VARIES)END 100'SETBACK20' UtilityEasement 20' DrainageEasement20' UtilityEasementEx 20' DrainageEasementEx UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement30' DrainageEasement20'UtilityEasement20' DrainageEasementProp DrainageEasement20' UtilityEasement15'Berm20' UtilityEasement2' UtilityEasement2' UtilityEasement20' DrainageEasement2' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement15' UtilityEasement2' UtilityEasement20'UtilityEasement20'UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement3' UtilityEasement2' SWEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement2' UtilityEasement30' DrainageEasementEx 18" StEx 18" St Ex 21" StEx 21" StEx 24" St18" St
Ex 12" St
Ex 30" St
Ex 8" WM
Ex 8" Sa
Ex 12" St
Ex 24" StEx 24" St
Ex 12" StTC=929.90INV=925.29TC=929.10INV=926.03TC=930.17INV=924.64TC=926.82INV=918.77TC=920.50INV=917.59TC=929.40INV=925.50TC=930.90INV=926.42TC=931.00INV=926.97TC=931.90INV=927.50Ex 8" SaTC=933.26INV=918.26TC=931.73INV=919.88211"=60'J:\20210326\Dwg\04Sheets\PP\3 Site Plan.dwg Last Saved By: pbrown, 10/19/2021 3:40 PM
SITE PLANPRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HYLAND GLENDESCRIPTIONDATEREVISIONS CITY OF DUBLIN, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIOHYLAND GLENPRELIMINARY PLATFOR20210326OCTOBER 20, 2021ScaleDateSheetJob No.THE PARAGON BUILDINGGROUP LTD.DBA VIRGINIA HOMES485 METRO PLACE SOUTHSUITE 350DUBLIN, OHIO 43017LOCATED IN:VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NUMBER 3452STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF UNION, TOWNSHIP OF JEROMEFIRST SUBMITTAL7/26/213/6GRAPHIC SCALE01 inch = 60 feet1203060MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 4/642.5 ACRESTOTAL ACREAGE:SITE STATISTICS: (OVERALL)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 ACRESPUDPROPOSED ZONING:REXISTING ZONING:NOTES: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.Proposed Moorland Drive, Stillhouse Lane, Springview Lane, Holbein Drive, and neighborhood entrancefeatures shall be provided for, constructed, and open to traffic per the Infrastructure Agreement.123Proposed CBU Locations. Locations to be Finalized with USPS at Time of Final Development Plan*4*The City Shall Maintain Functionality ofStorm Water Management Basins andAppurtenances thereto which ServeStorm Water FunctionalityRESERVE OWNERSHIP/MAINTENANCE PLANSAcresOwnershipMaintained ByReserve "A"± 2.0 AcCITYCITYReserve "B"± 0.7 AcCITYHOAReserve "C"±1.0 AcCITYHOAReserve "D"± 3.8 AcCITYCity/HOA*Reserve "E"± 3.8 AcCITYCity/HOA*Reserve "F"± 1.1 AcCITYHOA3*5555
RESERVE "E"±3.8 AC.303132333435656667686970717273747576777879808182838485868788899091929394959697989910010110220' BLDG STBK
20' BUILDING SETBACK
25' BUILDING SETBACK30' BLDG STBK20
'
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
20' BUILDING SETBACK20' BUILDING SETBACK20' BLDG STBK
20' BLDG STBK 20' BLDG STBK20' BUILDING STBK
20' BUILDING SETBACK2
0
'
B
L
D
G
S
T
B
K10138 SF8052 SF8052 SF9533 SF9533 SF9534 SF10738 SF7700 SF8800 SF8800 SF7810 SF8240 SF11358 SF10478 SF7700 SF8250 SF9000 SF10064 SF8460 SF9891 SF13312 SF8800 SF8800 SF8800 SF9722 SF9722 SF8800 SF8800 SF8800 SF8800 SF12775 SF11388 SF10400 SF10400 SF10400 SF10400 SF10400 SF10400 SF18997 SF12205 SF10077 SF10059 SF10041 SFRESERVE "D"±3.8 AC.RESERVE "F"±1.1 AC.10' BLDG STBK10' BLDG STBKHYLAND-CROY ROADEx 60' R/W50'
28'
50'
28'50'28'50'28'50'28'28'
B/B
B/BB/BB/BB/BB/B
100' BLDG & PAVEMENT SETBACKEX. 10' EASEMENTSTREAM CROSSING(TO BE STRUCTURALLYEVALUATED AND DETAILED ATFINAL ENGINEERING)215'35'105'85'130'73'130'73'130'73'74'60'46'260'1272'35'26'
49'83'80'35'106'24'110'80'110'80'110'80'110'80'110'
110'
110'
110'
35'99'80'80'80'163'110'118'31'38'
64
'
1
1
1
'45'59'80'80'80'24'106'8'424'35'16'27'35'548'100'
72'80'80'80'125'80'126'80'126'80'126'121'136'81'170'130'80'130'80'130'80'130'80'80'80'80'80'43'80'130'80'80'130'80'105'
3
5
'65'130'90'75'
1
7
3
'
63
'
71
'
3
9
'144'28'
9
5
'
71
'
2
0
'
75'120'494'110'70'110'80'110'80'110'70'1'110'73'128'71'71'80'80'70'443'71'128'112'215'85'35'70'110'73'110'73'110'73'73'95'15'141'10'115'70'110'70'75'110'75'R=150'R=100'R
=
1
0
0
'
R=15
0
'R=125' 120'120'120' 55'
48'
45'
70'120'20' 54'70'120'70'11350 SF8400 SFEX. R/WEX. R/W50' R/WDEDICATED50' R/WDEDICATED50' R/WDEDICATEDBLAKEMORE LANESTILLHOUSE LANE STILLHOUSE LANE
HOLBEIN DRIVE
H
O
L
B
E
I
N
D
R
I
V
E
WOOLEY DRIVEWILDE DRIVEPARK MILL DRIVEPOST PRESERVESECTION 3HYLAND CROY ROADPropDrainageEasement20' UtilityEasement30' DrainageEasement30' DrainageEasement20' DrainageEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement25' DrainageEasement20' DrainageEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement25' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement15' Berm15' Berm25' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement30' DrainageEasement20' UtilityEasement20' DrainageEasement25' DrainageEasement25' Drainage Easement2' UtilityEasement2' UtilityEasement2' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement3' UtilityEasement3' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasement2' UtilityEasementDrainageEasement2' SWEasement2' UtilityEasement20' UtilityEasementEx 12" StEx 8" WM
Ex 12" StEx 12" St
Ex 15" StEx 15" StEx 18" St
Ex 12" StTC=928.35INV=926.55TC=927.81INV=925.83TC=928.15INV=925.07TC=928.35INV=926.00TC=928.39INV=924.53TC=930.39INV=924.53TC=930.55INV=920.02TC=928.80INV=921.22TC=927.90INV=918.16TC=930.94INV=921.33TC=930.30INV=927.49TC=928.82INV=918.99TC=925.22INV=919.22TC=929.80INV=919.67TC=929.78INV=919.94TC=929.39INV=920.77TC=930.90INV=921.51Ex 8" SaEx 8" SaEx 8" SaEx 8" SaEx 8" SaEx 8" SaEx 8" Sa
1"=60'J:\20210326\Dwg\04Sheets\PP\3 Site Plan.dwg Last Saved By: pbrown, 10/19/2021 3:42 PM
SITE PLANPRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HYLAND GLENDESCRIPTIONDATEREVISIONS CITY OF DUBLIN, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIOHYLAND GLENPRELIMINARY PLATFOR20210326OCTOBER 20, 2021ScaleDateSheetJob No.THE PARAGON BUILDINGGROUP LTD.DBA VIRGINIA HOMES485 METRO PLACE SOUTHSUITE 350DUBLIN, OHIO 43017LOCATED IN:VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NUMBER 3452STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF UNION, TOWNSHIP OF JEROMEFIRST SUBMITTAL7/26/214/6GRAPHIC SCALE01 inch = 60 feet1203060MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 3/6
*1555
⅊⅊⅊Ex BasinEx Basin⅊⅊⅊JEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTYJEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTYJEROME TWNSHP / UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLIN/ UNION COUNTY
SPRINGVIEW LANE
MOORLAND DRIVEBLAKEMORE LANESTILLHOUSE LANE STILLHOUSE LANE
HOLBEIN DRIVE
H
O
L
B
E
I
N
D
R
I
V
E
WOOLEY DRIVEWILDE DRIVEPARK MILL DRIVE SPRINGVIEW LANEBANSHEE DRIVEBARKSDALE DRIVEPOST PRESERVESECTION 2POST PRESERVESECTION 1POST PRESERVESECTION 3STILLHOUSE LANEGORDEN DRIVEHYLAND CROY ROAD1"=150'J:\20210326\Dwg\04Sheets\PP\5 Tree Preservation Plan.dwg Last Saved By: mnerici, 8/27/2021 4:14 PM
TREE PRESERVATION PLAN5/6GRAPHIC SCALE01 inch = feet75'150'300' 150'PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HYLAND GLENDESCRIPTIONDATEREVISIONS CITY OF DUBLIN, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIOHYLAND GLENPRELIMINARY PLATFOR20210326OCTOBER 20, 2021ScaleDateSheetJob No.THE PARAGON BUILDINGGROUP LTD.DBA VIRGINIA HOMES485 METRO PLACE SOUTHSUITE 350DUBLIN, OHIO 43017LOCATED IN:VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NUMBER 3452STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF UNION, TOWNSHIP OF JEROMEFIRST SUBMITTAL7/26/21ANTICIPATED TREES TO BE REMOVED1NOTES: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
NONEJ:\20210326\Dwg\04Sheets\PP\6 Tree Preservation Data Table.dwg Last Saved By: mnerici, 8/27/2021 4:14 PM
TREE PRESERVATION DATA TABLEPRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HYLAND GLENDESCRIPTIONDATEREVISIONS CITY OF DUBLIN, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIOHYLAND GLENPRELIMINARY PLATFOR20210326OCTOBER 20, 2021ScaleDateSheetJob No.THE PARAGON BUILDINGGROUP LTD.DBA VIRGINIA HOMES485 METRO PLACE SOUTHSUITE 350DUBLIN, OHIO 43017LOCATED IN:VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NUMBER 3452STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF UNION, TOWNSHIP OF JEROMEFIRST SUBMITTAL7/26/216/6LEGENDDeadDead TreesOffsite Trees164 TREES/ 2871 CAL. INTOTAL TREESTREE CHARTTREES REMOVED- POOR / DEAD- GOOD/FAIR23 TREES/ 475 CAL. IN43 TREES/ 672 CAL IN263 TREES / 657 CAL INTREES TO BE REPLACED66 TREES/ 1147 CAL. IN*NOTE: ALL TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT TO BE CONFIRMED WITH FINALDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND FINAL ENGINEERING*ASSUMES MINREPLACEMENT SIZE 2.5"
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:
3. Hyland Glen at 7270 Hyland-Croy Road
21-117PP Preliminary Plat
Proposal: 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.
Location: Northeast of the intersection of Hyland-Croy Road with Post Road and
zoned Rural District.
Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a Preliminary
Plat 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/21-117
MOTION: Mr. Supelak moved, Mr. Grimes seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for the
Preliminary Plat with the following condition:
1) That the applicant ensures that any minor technical adjustments to the plat are made prior to City
Council submittal.
VOTE: 5 – 1.
RESULT: The Preliminary Plat was recommended for approval to City Council.
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
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
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