Resolution 07-23
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Megan O’Callaghan, City Manager
Date: January 24, 2022
Initiated By: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planning Director
Zachary C. Hounshell, Planner II
Re: Resolution 07-23 – Acceptance of a Final Plat for the Resubdivision of Reserve “A”
and Reserve “D” of the Oak Park Subdivision (Case #20-193FP)
Summary
This is a request for acceptance of a Final Plat to subdivide ±3.47 acres into 12 single-family lots
and to dedicate right-of-way for two sections of public streets.
Process
As provided by the Law Director’s Office, when City Council approves preliminary and final plats,
the platting process is solely for the subdivision of the properties to identify property lines,
establish easements, provide open space dedication, and create public rights-of-way. The site
layout, architectural character, and open space designs for the development are part of a
separate application process, approved by the required reviewing bodies.
Description
The Final Plat includes 12 new single-family lots ranging in size from 0.17-acre to 0.37-acre. The
Final Plat includes open space ownership and maintenance, property lines, and easements. The
Oak Park PUD development text for this Subarea requires a minimum lot width of 55 feet and a
minimum lot depth of 130 feet. The smallest proposed lot is 7,260 square feet and the largest lot
is 16,245 square feet. All proposed lots meet the requirements of the development text.
Access to the proposed lots are provided from existing public streets and private drives. Oak Park
Boulevard is an east-west road directly adjacent to the proposed lots. Portions of Oaktree Drive
North and Oaktree Drive South are to be dedicated to the City following approval of the Final Plat
via a separate warranty deed to be recorded after the Final Plat. The remaining drives are private.
The private drives are characterized by their inverted crown and lack of curb and gutter and
sidewalks. The proposal utilizes the existing infrastructure and does not make any significant
changes to the public streets and private drives.
A series of retention basins were constructed as part of the original Oak Park development to
accommodate both water quantity and water quality per the requirements as defined in Chapter
53. The proposal is encompassed within the East Subarea as defined in the original Oak Park
stormwater management report, which drains to the existing east basins along Hyland-Croy Road.
The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed 12 single-family lots will add less impervious
area than originally anticipated as part of the original Oak Park development. Existing sanitary and
water mainline has been constructed as part of the original Oak Park development. The proposed
improvements include abandoning existing water and sanitary services that are no longer needed
Office of the City Manager
5555 Perimeter Drive • Dublin, OH 43017-1090
Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490 Memo
Memo re: Resolution 07-23 - Final Plat – Oak Park
Tuesday, January 24, 2023
Page 2 of 2
in addition to new services that were not originally constructed in order to provide water and
sanitary service for all 12 proposed single-family lots.
Background
In 2020 the site was rezoned from Oak Park, Subarea E, which allowed for commercial
development including small-scale retail and restaurant uses, among others, up to 39,700 square
feet to a new Subarea F to permit single-family residential. During Council review of the
rezoning/preliminary development plan, a number of concerns were raised by the existing
residents of the neighborhood, which included the costs associated with maintaining private drives,
the layout of the proposed green spaces, layout and access for the overall development, and
development standards, specifically side yard setbacks and lot coverage requirements. Significant
collaboration took place between City Council, city staff and the resident to resolve the concerns
raised, which resulted in a series of conditions that were agreed upon and approved with the
rezoning/preliminary development plan ordinance on June 22, 2022. Adherence to the conditions
of approval has been demonstrated or will be demonstrated when the Final Plat is recorded and
the final lots turned over.
Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission
The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Final Development Plan and made a
recommendation of approval to City Council of the Final Plat at the December 8, 2021 meeting
with one condition:
1) That the applicant ensures that any minor technical adjustments to the plat are made
prior to City Council submittal.
The applicant has met the condition for the Final Plat prior to City Council Review.
Recommendation
Acceptance of Resolution 07-23 for the Final Plat for the Resubdivision of Reserve ”A” and Reserve
“D” of the Oak Park Subdivision at the January 30, 2023 City Council meeting.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-192FDP/20-193FP – Oak Park
Wednesday, December 8, 2021 | Page 2 of 9
1. Context Map
21RESUBDIVISION OF RESERVE "A"In Witness Whereof, JEREMY HALPERN, Managing Member of OAK PARKDUBLIN, LLC, has hereunto set his hand this day of , 20__. Signed and Acknowledged OAK PARK DUBLIN, LLC In the presence of:______________________________ By _____________________________ JEREMY HALPERN, Managing Member______________________________STATE OF NEW JERSEYCOUNTY OF ________________ ss:Before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared JEREMYHALPERN, Managing Member of OAK PARK DUBLIN, LLC, who acknowledged thesigning of the foregoing instrument to be his voluntary act and deed and the voluntary actand deed of said OAK PARK DUBLIN, LLC, for the uses and purposes expressedherein.In Witness Thereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal this_____ day of ___________, 20___.My commission expires _______ ____________________________________ Notary Public, State of OhioSituated in the State of Ohio, County of Union, Township of Washington (FranklinCounty), City of Dublin, and in Virginia Military Survey Number 6595, containing 3.468acres of land, more or less, said 3.468 acres being a resubdivision of Reserve "A" andReserve "D" of the subdivision entitled "Oak Park", of record in Plat Book 5, Page 260A -D, said Reserves being conveyed to OAK PARK DUBLIN, LLC by deed of record inInstrument Number 201906040004051, Recorder's Office, Union County, Ohio.The undersigned, OAK PARK DUBLIN, LLC, a New Jersey limited liabilitycompany, by JEREMY HALPERN, Managing Member, owner of the lands plattedherein, duly authorized in the premises, does hereby certify that this plat correctlyrepresents its "RESUBDIVISION OF RESERVE "A" AND RESERVE "D" OF OAKPARK", a subdivision containing Lots 129 to 140, both inclusive, does hereby accept thisplat of same and dedicates to public use, as such, all of Oaktree Drive North, OaktreeDrive South, and the easements shown hereon and not heretofore dedicated..The undersigned further agrees that any use or improvements on this land shall be inconformity with all existing valid zoning, platting, health or other lawful rules andregulations, including applicable off-street parking and loading requirements of the City ofDublin, Ohio, for the benefit of itself and all other subsequent owners or assigns taking titlefrom, under or through the undersigned.Easements are hereby reserved in, over and under areas designated on this plat as"Utility Easement", "Drainage Easement" or "Sidewalk Easement." Each of theaforementioned designated easements permit the construction, operation, and maintenanceof all public and quasi public utilities above, beneath, and on the surface of the groundand, where necessary, are for the construction, operation, and maintenance of serviceconnections to all adjacent lots and lands and for storm water drainage. Within thoseareas designated "Drainage Easement" on this plat, an additional easement is herebyreserved for the purpose of constructing, operating and maintaining major storm waterdrainage swales and/or other above ground storm water drainage facilities. No abovegrade structures, dams or other obstructions to the flow of storm water runoff arepermitted within Drainage Easement areas as delineated on this plat unless approved bythe Dublin City Engineer. Within those areas designated "Sidewalk Easement" on thisplat, an additional easement is hereby reserved for the construction, operation andmaintenance of a sidewalk for use by the public along with pedestrian ingress/egress.Approved this _____ Day of _______ ___________________________________20___ Director of Planning, Dublin, OhioApproved this _____ Day of _______ __________________________________20___ Director of Engineering/City Engineer, Dublin, OhioApproved this ______ day of ______________, 20___,by resolution __________, by voteof Council, wherein all of Oaktree Drive North, Oaktree Drive South, and the easementsdedicated hereon are accepted as such by the Council of the City of Dublin, Ohio.In Witness Thereof I have hereunto ___________________________________set my hand and affixed my seal this Clerk of Council, Dublin, Ohio_____ day of __________, 20___.Transferred this ____ day of ________, __________________________________20___. Auditor, Union County, OhioFiled for record this ___day of _______, __________________________________20___at __________M. Fee $_________ Recorder, Union County, OhioFile No. _________________________Plat Book _______, Pages ___________SURVEY DATA:BASIS OF BEARINGS: The bearings shown hereon weretransferred from a field traverse originating from and tying toFranklin County Geodetic Survey control monument 6648 andMcNeal, having a bearing of South 15° 07' 53" East betweensaid monuments, and are based on the Ohio State PlaneCoordinate System, South Zone, NAD83 (1986 Adjustment).SOURCE OF DATA: The sources of recorded survey datareferenced in the plan and text of this plat are the records of theRecorder' Office, Union County, Ohio.IRON PINS: Iron pins, where indicated hereon, unlessotherwise noted, are to be set and are iron pipes, thirteensixteenths inch inside diameter, thirty inches long with aplastic plug placed in the top end bearing the initials EMHTINC.PERMANENT MARKERS: Permanent markers, whereindicated hereon, are to be one-inch diameter, thirty-inch long,solid iron pins. Pins are to be set to monument the pointsindicated, and set with the top end flush with the surface ofthe ground and then capped with an aluminum cap stampedEMHT INC. Once installed, the top of the cap shall be marked(punched) to record the actual location of the point.AND RESERVE "D" OF OAK PARK
OAKTREE DRIVE NORTHOAKTREE DRIVE SOUTH22NOTE "A": The purpose of this plat is to show certainproperty, rights of way, and easement boundaries as of the timeof platting. At the request of zoning and planning authorities atthe time of platting, this plat shows some of the limitations andrequirements of the zoning code in effect on the date of filingthis plat for reference only. The limitations and requirementsmay change from time to time and should be reviewed todetermine the then current applicable use and developmentlimitations of the zoning code as adopted by the governmentauthority having jurisdiction. The then applicable zoning codeshall have control over conflicting limitations and requirementsthat may be shown as on this plat. This note should not beconstrued as creating plat or subdivision restrictions, private userestrictions, covenants running with the land or titleencumbrances of any nature, except to the extent specificallyidentified as such.NOTE "B" : At the time of platting, all of the land herebybeing platted as Resubdivision of Reserve "A" and Reserve "D"of Oak Park is in Zone X (Areas determined to be outside of the0.2% annual chance flood plain) as designated and delineatedon the FEMA Flood Insurance Map for Union County, Ohio,and Incorporated Areas, map number 39159C0395D witheffective date of December 16, 2008.NOTE "C" - ACREAGE BREAKDOWN: Resubdivision ofReserve "A" and Reserve "D" of Oak Park is comprised of thefollowing Union County Parcel Numbers and Map Numbers: Existing Parcel Number Map Number Acreage Lot No.3900280140400 1361602030000 1.733 Ac. Res. A3900280140950 1460404008000 1.735 Ac. Res. DNOTE "I": At the time of platting, electric, cable, andtelephone service providers have not issued information requiredso that easement areas, in addition to those shown on this plat asdeemed necessary by these providers for the installation andmaintenance of all of their main line facilities, couldconveniently be shown on this plat. Existing recorded easementinformation about Resubdivision of Reserve "A" and Reserve"D" of Oak Park or any part thereof can be acquired by acompetent examination of the then current public records,including those in the Union County Recorder's Office.NOTE "J": The owners of the fee simple titles to Lots 129 to140, both inclusive, shall have and are hereby granted anon-exclusive right-of-way and easement for access to and frompublic streets, in and over Reserve "I" and Reserve "J" of thesubdivision entitled "Oak Park", of record in Plat Book 5, Pages260A-D), to be shared with the owners of the fee simple titles toeach other of said Lots 129 to 140, both inclusive.NOTE "K" - VEHICULAR ACCESS - OAK PARKBOULEVARD, OAKTREE DRIVE NORTH ANDOAKTREE DRIVE SOUTH: Within the limits shown andspecified hereon, Oak Park Dublin, LLC, or their successorsand/or assigns, hereby waives and releases all right or rights ofdirect vehicular driveway access or claims thereof to the presentroad improvements within public right of way as constructed, orto the ultimate road improvement within public right of way.The execution of this plat shall act as a waiver to the City ofDublin, Ohio, in the elimination of any direct vehicular drivewayaccess to said Drives or Boulevard within public right of way.NOTE "D" - FENCES: Fences, where permitted in the OakPark subdivision, are subject to the requirements of theapproved zoning development text and the City of Dublin, Ohiozoning code.NOTE "E" - UTILITY PROVIDERS: Buyers of the lots inthe Resubdivision of Reserve "A" and Reserve "D" of Oak Parksubdivision are hereby notified that, at the time of platting,utility service for electric power is provided by AEP and OhioEdison and telephone service is provided by AT&T andFrontier North.NOTE "F": As per City of Dublin Zoning Code, all lotswithin Resubdivision of Reserve "A" and Reserve "D" of OakPark are subject to the terms, conditions, restrictions (includinglighting and house sizes) and special assessment districts asoutlined in the preliminary plat entitled “Oak Park” and thedevelopment text.NOTE "G" - SCHOOL DISTRICT: At the time of platting,all of Resubdivision of Reserve "A" and Reserve "D" of OakPark is in the Dublin City School District.NOTE "H" - ACREAGE BREAKDOWN:Total acreage 3.468 Ac.Acreage in lots 2.842 Ac.Acreage in public rights-of-way 0.626 Ac.INDEX OF RESERVES IN OAK PARK (P.B. 5, P. 260A - D) TO BE RESUBDIVIDEDRESUBDIVISION OF RESERVE "A"AND RESERVE "D" OF OAK PARK
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
RECORD OF ACTION
Planning & Zoning Commission
Tuesday, December 8, 2021 | 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
5. Oak Park, Subarea F at 7050 & 7055 Oak Park Boulevard
20-192FPD Final Development Plan
Proposal: Development of 12 single-family lots on a 3.47-acre site zoned Planned
Unit Development District, Oak Park Subarea F.
Location: West of Hyland-Croy Road, ±700 feet southwest of the intersection with
Brand Road.
Request: Review and approval of a Final Development Plan under the provisions of
Zoning Code §153.050 – §153.056.
Applicant: Christopher Cline, Attorney – Haynes, Kessler, Myers and Postalakis
Planning Contact: Chase J. Ridge, AICP Candidate, Planner II
Contact Information: 614.410.4656, cridge@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/20-192
MOTION: Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Way seconded, to approve the Final Development Plan with two
conditions:
1) That the applicant continue to work with Staff to ensure the Combined Mail Unit box is
appropriately located; and
2) That the applicant continue to work with Engineering to demonstrate compliance with stormwater
management requirements as defined in Chapter 53.
VOTE: 6 – 0.
RESULT: The Final Development Plan was approved.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jane Fox Yes
Warren Fishman Absent
Mark Supelak Yes
Rebecca Call Yes
Leo Grimes Yes
Lance Schneier Yes
Kim Way Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
_____________________________________
Chase J. Ridge, AICP Candidate, Planner II
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
RECORD OF ACTION
Planning & Zoning Commission
Tuesday, December 8, 2021 | 6:30 pm
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
6. Oak Park, Subarea F at 7050 & 7055 Oak Park Boulevard
20-193FP Final Plat
Proposal: Subdivision of a 3.47-acre parcel to establish 12 single-family lots. The
site is zoned Planned Unit Development District, Oak Park Subarea F .
Location: West of Hyland-Croy Road, ±700 feet southwest of the intersection with
Brand Road.
Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a Final Plat
under the provisions of Zoning Code §153.050 – §153.056.
Applicant: Christopher Cline, Attorney – Haynes, Kessler, Myers and Postalakis
Planning Contact: Chase J. Ridge, AICP Candidate, Planner II
Contact Information: 614.410.4656, cridge@dublin.oh.us
Case Information: www.dublinohiousa.gov/pzc/20-193
MOTION: Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Way seconded, a recommendation of approval to City Council for a
Final Plat with the following condition:
1) That any minor technical modifications be made prior to submittal to City Council for fina l
approval.
VOTE: 6 – 0.
RESULT: The Final Plat was forwarded to City Council with a recommendation of approval.
RECORDED VOTES:
Jane Fox Yes
Warren Fishman Absent
Mark Supelak Yes
Rebecca Call Yes
Leo Grimes Yes
Lance Schneier Yes
Kim Way Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
_____________________________________
Chase J. Ridge, AICP Candidate, Planner II
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes December 8, 2021
Page 17 of 23
Mr. Underhill stated they are disappointed not to have more support; however, it does appear there
is some support for density, if done correctly, and a different product type. He is unsure of the
type of product that would be acceptable. Would the Commission be supportive of apartments?
Ms. Call responded that she would not support 100 acres of apartments. However, an apartment
building within surrounding lower density and mixed-use might be an option.
Ms. Fox responded that there is a benefit to mixed housing styles. What concerns her, however, is
that this area of Dublin is all beginning to look the same. There is no energy within these
developments. They are simply housing units stacked upon houses and more houses. A village
concept provides an opportunity to incorporate a lifestyle on 100 acres. If they can devise a plan
that mixes housing styles but also creates a place that is enjoyable to walk through or around to
reach Amlin – that could be a village concept. However, we are weary of seeing the same product
everywhere without any sense of uniqueness or timelessness.
Mr. Underhill responded that might be possible on the northern section; on the southern section,
however, that would be a struggle.
Ms. Fox stated that it is not so much that an apartment building is unattractive; it is the context in
which it sits – what is offered around it. There must be a partnership between the building,
landscaping and streetscape.
Mr. Underhill responded that they would look into the possibilities.
Mr. Supelak inquired about the bifurcation of City services here between Dublin and Columbus.
Mr. Boggs responded that all of the land in this application is within the City of Dublin jurisdiction.
Dublin obtains its water and sewer infrastructure through an ag reement with the City of Columbus.
Those issues lie within the purview of that agreement, which is ultimately a City Council question.
Fire services are provided by Washington Township. Police services would continue to be provided
by the City of Dublin. There are mutual agreements that provide ability for municipalities to provide
support to one another along the abutting edges of the communities; for instance, whichever
agency is closest to a fire addresses the need.
Mr. Underhill stated that due to the sheer size of the road extension, some relief on the required
setbacks would be appreciated.
Ms. Call requested Commission support for moving Cases 5 and 6 ahead of Case 4, to accommodate
the residents present.
Commission members indicated support.
5. Oak Park, Subarea F at 7050 & 7055 Oak Park Boulevard, 20-192FPD, Final
Development Plan
A request for development of 12 single-family lots on a 3.47-acre site zoned Planned Unit
Development District, Oak Park Subarea F. The site is located west of Hyland-Croy Road, ±700
feet southwest of the intersection with Brand Road.
6. Oak Park, Subarea F at 7050 & 7055 Oak Park Boulevard, 20-193FP, Final
Plat
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes December 8, 2021
Page 18 of 23
A request for the subdivision of a 3.47-acre parcel to establish 12 single-family lots. The site is
zoned Planned Unit Development District, Oak Park Subarea F and is located west of Hyland-Croy
Road, ±700 feet southwest of the intersection with Brand Road.
Staff Presentation
Mr. Ridge stated that this is a request for review and approval of a Final Development Plan and a
recommendation of approval to City Council of a Final Plat for a ±3.5-acre site within the Oak Park
neighborhood. The site is located on the west side of Hyland-Croy Road, approximately 650 feet
southwest of the intersection of Hyland-Croy Road and Mitchell-Dewitt Road. It is currently
undeveloped and contains no significant natural features. On November 20, 2006, this area was
rezoned from R-Rural District to PUD by Ordinance 74-06. On March 15, 2007, a Final Development
Plan for the single-family residential components was approved, and on August 7, 2008, an
Amended Final Development Plan was approved. City Council approved Ordinance 52-17 for the
Rezoning with a Preliminary Development Plan to convert an area previously approved for 36
townhome units to single-family lots within Subarea D on September 11, 2017 based on a
recommendation of approval by the Commission on July 13, 2017. On August 22, 2019, the
Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and provided informal, non-binding feedback on a
Concept Plan for a portion of Subarea E in Oak Park for the potential development of 12, single-
family homes where commercial development is currently permitted, and in June, 2020, City Council
approved the PDP/Rezoning and Preliminary Plat with seven conditions. Those conditions primarily
addressed the maintenance schedule for the private drives, updating the HOA Declarations to
reflect the rezoning conditions, and deeding Oak Tree Drive North and South to the City. Oak Tree
North and South, including the bulbs, will become public streets. The Law Director has reviewed
the conditions and determined that those that could be satisfied at this point have been satisfied
by the applicant. Staff has reviewed the application against all applicable criteria and recommends
approval with the conditions as indicated.
Mr. Boggs stated that one of the conditions of the rezoning was inclusion of certain items in their
Declarations associated with the subdivision as well as creation of additional operating assessments
and a segregated fund for the future maintenance of the remaining private drives. The applicant
has complied with those conditions. The remaining considerations for the Commission are typical
with the Final Development Plan review.
Applicant Presentation
Christopher Cline, Haynes, Kessler, Myers and Postalakis, 300 W Wilson Bridge Rd, Suite 100,
Worthington, OH 43085, Worthington, representing the applicant, Oak Park Dublin, LLC, stated
that also present with him is Linda Menerey from EMH&T. The layout of this plan has approved by
City Council. The Final Development Plan and Final Plat provide approval for the implementation of
the rezoning/PDP as approved by City Council. As approved and agreed, the applicant will be
depositing the $25,000 into an I&J pavement fund to be established for future pavement
maintenance, repair and replacement of the private drives. In a ddition to the rezoning/plat changes,
all of the 7 conditions approved by Council have been incorporated into the Amended Covenants
for Oak Park, which will be recorded when the Final Plat is recorded. The conditions have been
satisfied and the applicant requests the Commission’s approval of the Final Development Plan and
Final Plat.
Public Comments
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes December 8, 2021
Page 19 of 23
There were no public comments.
Commission Discussion
Mr. Supelak requested confirmation that everything has been satisfied as agreed upon.
Mr. Boggs responded affirmatively.
Ms. Fox stated that the residents brought forth their concerns, and the developer worked very hard
to address those concerns and reduce the costs of maintaining the roadways in this development.
It has been a long process, which has now been completed.
Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Way seconded approval of the Final Development Plan with two (2)
conditions:
1) The applicant continue to work with staff to ensure the Combined Mail Unit box is
appropriately located.
2) The applicant continue to work with Engineering to demonstrate compliance with
stormwater management requirements as defined in Chapter 53.
Vote: Mr. Schneier, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Grimes,
yes.
[Motion carried 6-0]
Mr. Grimes moved, Mr. Way seconded a recommendation for Council approval of the Final Plat with
one (1) condition:
1) Any minor technical modifications be made prior to submittal to City Council for final
approval.
Vote: Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Grimes, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Way, yes; Mr. Schneier,
yes.
[Motion carried 6-0]
4. Mobility Hub, Dublin Recreation Center at 5600 Post Road, 21-181INF,
Informal Review
A request for an informal review and non-binding feedback for the construction of a Mobility Hub
located at the Dublin Community Recreation Center. The 56.81-acre site is zoned Planned Unit
Development District, Coffman Park and is located north of the intersection of Coffman Park Drive
with Post Road.
Staff Presentation
Ms. Mullinax stated that this is a request for an Informal Review of a proposed mobility hub to be
located at the Dublin Community Recreation Center. Mr. Rayburn will be presenting an overview
of the mobility hub implementation within the City.
Mr. Rayburn stated that this is a multi-year, multi-phase effort that began in 2017 with a public
workshop that gathered public feedback from residents regarding where they would like the City
to focus on expanding mobility and support the community’s evolving mobility needs. In the first
phase, priority areas were carved out. Those priorities included:
PLANNING 5200 Emerald Parkway Dublin, Ohio 43017 phone 614.410.4600 dublinohiousa.gov
Planning and Zoning Commission
December 8, 2021
20-192FDP/20-193FP–OAK PARK, SUBAREA F
Summary Zoning Map
This is a request for review and approval
of a Final Development Plan and a
recommendation of approval to City
Council of a Final Plat for a ±3.5-acre site
within the Oak Park neighborhood.
Site Location
The site is located on the west side of
Hyland-Croy Road, approximately 650
feet southwest of the intersection of
Hyland-Croy Road and Mitchell-Dewitt
Road.
Property Owners
Oak Park Dublin, LLC
Applicant
Christopher Cline, Attorney – Haynes, Kessler, Myers and Postalakis
Applicable Land Use Regulations
Zoning Code Section 153.050-153.056
Case Manager
Chase J. Ridge, AICP Candidate, Planner II
(614) 410-4656
cridge@dublin.oh.us
Next Steps
The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final reviewing body for the Final Development
Plan. City Council is the final reviewing body for the Final Plat, pending a recommendation of
approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-192FDP/20-193FP – Oak Park
Wednesday, December 8, 2021 | Page 3 of 9
2. Overview
Case History
The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Preliminary Development Plan/Rezoning
and Preliminary Plat at the December 12, 2019 meeting. City Council approved the
PDP/Rezoning and Preliminary Plat in June, 2020 with seven conditions. All conditions of
approval that can be satisfied up until this point have been satisfied by the applicant team.
Several of the conditions cannot be fully satisfied until recording of the final plat and turnover of
the final lot. The applicant has submitted a narrative outlining the steps taken to satisfy these
conditions for the Commission’s review.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and provided informal, non-binding feedback on
a concept plan for a portion of Subarea E in Oak Park, on August 22, 2019 for the potential
development of 12, single-family homes where commercial development is currently permitted.
The Commission was generally in support of the request to rezone the area to allow for a
change in use. The Commissioners expressed concerns regarding existing private streets,
including maintenance and current conditions. The Commissioners discussed the potential
future cost burden to the HOA and the residents, and the extent to which the HOA would be
responsible for maintenance and upkeep of the private drives. The Commission discussed the
proposed layout of the site, as well as their desire to see increased connectivity to the proposed
open spaces. The Commission suggested that the applicant work with neighborhood residents
to find a plan that worked for both the applicant and the residents.
A representative of Oak Park gave a presentation outlining the issues the neighborhood had
with the proposal at the time, including the future costs to the HOA of maintaining the private
drives and the general layout of the site. Any additional costs to maintain the private drives has
been addressed in the Declarations, and the City has agreed to take over Oak Tree Drive North
and Oak Tree Drive South.
City Council approved Ordinance 52-17 for the Rezoning with a Preliminary Development Plan
to convert an area previously approved for 36 townhome units to single-family lots within
Subarea D on September 11, 2017 based on a recommendation of approval by the Planning
and Zoning Commission on July 13, 2017. Prior these approvals, the Planning and Zoning
Commission reviewed and provided informal feedback for three options to convert the 36
approved townhome units to single-family lots within Subareas D on November 10, 2016. The
Commission supported the conversion to single-family homes and encouraged the applicant to
pursue developing this and the commercial properties together. With the subareas under
different ownership, it was determined that this was not feasible to do so at the time.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and approved an Amended Final Development
plan to modify the development text that allows a one-foot front yard setback for the
townhome units located in Subarea D on August 7, 2008.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and approved a Final Development Plan and
Final Plat for the subdivision and development of 108 residential units on a 61-acre site on
March 15, 2007.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-192FDP/20-193FP – Oak Park
Wednesday, December 8, 2021 | Page 4 of 9
City Council reviewed and approved Ordinance 74-06 to rezone 61 acres from R, Rural District
to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Oak Park) for the development of 108 residential
units, approximately 40,000 square feet of mixed-use space, and 31 acres of open space on
November 20, 2006.
Site Characteristics
Natural Features
The site is currently undeveloped and contains no significant natural features.
Historic and Cultural Facilities
The site is not located within the Historic District and does not contain any known historically
contributing structures or artifacts.
Surrounding Land Use and Development Character
North: PUD: Oak Park (Single- Family Residential)
East: PLR: Planned Low Density Residential District (Single-Family Residential)
South: PUD: Oak Park (Single-Family Residential)
West: PUD: Oak Park (Single-Family Residential)
Road, Pedestrian and Bike Network
The site consists of two reserves, located between four private drives and divided by Oak Park
Boulevard, which is a public street. A shared use path exists along the eastern portion of the
site and runs north and south along Hyland-Croy Road.
Utilities
The site is served by public utilities, including sanitary and water. Electrical and gas are also
provided on site.
Proposal
This is a proposal for a Final Development Plan and Final Plat facilitating the development of 12
single-family lots and associated site improvements. Prior to rezoning in 2019, the site was
zoned PUD – Oak Park, Subarea E which allowed for commercial development including small-
scale retail and restaurant uses, among others, up to 39,700 square feet.
Neighborhood Contact
Since the City Council approval of the PDP/Rezoning and Preliminary Plat in June, 2020, Staff,
the applicants representatives, and the neighbors have worked on the conditions approved by
City Council. This includes modifying the declarations, which has been a primary task of the
applicant and neighborhood representatives.
Prior to City Council approval of the PDP/Rezoning and Preliminary Plat, Staff had been in
contact with the residents of Oak Park throughout the process including meeting with residents
at the proposed site in October of 2019. The residents made Staff aware of several concerns
with the proposal including the financial burden of maintaining private drives, the general site
layout and the proposed side yard setbacks. Staff has encouraged the residents to attend any
public meetings to express these concerns.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-192FDP/20-193FP – Oak Park
Wednesday, December 8, 2021 | Page 5 of 9
Final Development Plan Details
Layout
The proposed site is rectangular in shape and consists of two vacant parcels with no significant
vegetation or natural features. The parcels are separated by the existing Oak Park Boulevard.
The site is located west of Hyland-Croy Road and is bound by Acorn Lane and Bur Oak Lane on
the north and south sides, respectively.
The proposal is for 12 single-family lots on 3.47 acres. Eight of the lots will front Oak Tree Drive
North and Oak Tree Drive South which includes portions of road that will be dedicated to the
City of Dublin. The remaining four homes will face Oak Park Boulevard which is a public road,
but have access from the private drives. The lots range in size from 0.17-acre to 0.37-acre in
size with widths ranging from 55 feet to approximately 67 feet. Lot depths range from 132 feet
to 243 feet. Sidewalk connections are proposed along Oak Park Boulevard and Oak Tree Drive
North and South.
Traffic/Access
The main access to the site is from Hyland-Croy Road along Oak Park Boulevard, which
provides access to the homes through the various private drives and streets adjacent to the
site. A portion of the homes have driveway access on a private drive in the development.
The applicant provided a Trip Generation Analysis that shows the proposed 12 detached, single-
family homes significantly reduce the trip generation compared to the original projections of the
rezoning application. Therefore, the change is not expected to impact the public infrastructure.
Stormwater Management/Utilities
A series of detention basins were constructed as part of the original Oak Park development to
accommodate both water quantity and water quality per the requirements as defined in Chapter
53. The proposal is encompassed within the East Subarea as defined in the original Oak Park
stormwater management report, which drains to the existing east basins along Hyland-Croy
Road. The applicant has demonstrated the proposed 12 single-family lots will add less
impervious area than originally anticipated as part of the original Oak Park development. The
applicant will need to continue to work with Engineering to demonstrate compliance with
stormwater management requirements as defined in Chapter 53.
Existing sanitary and water mainline has been constructed as part of the original Oak Park
development. The proposed improvements include abandoning existing water and sanitary
services that are no longer needed in addition to new services that were not originally
constructed in order to provide water and sanitary service for all 12 proposed single-family lots.
Development Text
The development text, approved by City Council as part of the rezoning of this subarea, is the
regulating document that outlines the development standards for the site including uses, lot
requirements, architecture details, and materials.
Uses
Detached single-family homes and open space reserves are the only permitted uses in the
proposed development text. Unless otherwise specified in the submitted drawings or in the
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-192FDP/20-193FP – Oak Park
Wednesday, December 8, 2021 | Page 6 of 9
written development text, the development standards of Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin
Code shall apply to this area.
Development Standards
Twelve single-family lots are proposed with a minimum lot depth of 130 feet. The lots will
have a minimum width of at least 55 feet. Lot sizes range from 0.17-acre to 0.37-acre. These
requirements are largely consistent with the rest of Oak Park; however, these lots are deeper
than those in Subarea D.
Lot coverage is limited to 60% of the total lot area for lots 129-132 and lots 137-140. This is
the same lot coverage permitted for all single-family lots within Oak Park. Lots 133-136 are
allowed a maximum lot coverage of 45% given their larger sizes.
Front yard setbacks are a minimum of 20 feet, rear yard setbacks are a minimum of 15 feet,
and side yard setbacks are a minimum of 6 feet.
Window wells may encroach into the required side yard setback with a maximum of 3.5 feet,
provided that the side yard is at least six feet and there is a minimum of eight feet of
separation between these permitted encroachments on adjoining lots, as measured from the
nearest corners of the window wells. Air conditioners and other HVAC or service structure units
may encroach into side yard setback a maximum of 2.5 feet, provided the side yard is at least 6
feet and the structure is screened to meet the requirements of the City of Dublin Zoning Code.
Landscaping
Four trees are proposed to be removed from the site. A Tree Replacement Plan was provided
with the submission of the FDP, which shows the replacement inches being installed in the
existing open spaces near the clubhouse and outlying open spaces.
Fencing and landscape hedge requirements are unchanged from the original Oak Park
development text for consistency.
Architecture
The Oak Park development is unique in its detailed architectural requirements and the
neighborhood theme, which is inspired by English and Irish garden cities with a park-like
ambience and sense of quality.
The newly created lots shall conform to the same architectural standards as the remaining
portions of Oak Park. Exterior materials in this area will remain consistent with the existing
community and four-sided architecture shall be required. The architecture of these twelve
homes will be indistinguishable from the existing homes in the neighborhood.
The proposed text includes language that would permit mirror image versions of the same
model of home if located at Oak Park Boulevard and either Oak Tree Drive North or South. This
is proposed to create an entry feature into the neighborhood when entering from Hyland-Croy
Road.
The applicant has indicated a potential location for the combined mail unit box, which is a
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-192FDP/20-193FP – Oak Park
Wednesday, December 8, 2021 | Page 7 of 9
requirement of the United States Postal Service (USPS). Staff recommends that the applicant
continue to work with Staff to ensure the combined mail box is appropriately located and
subjected subject to Staff approval.
Final Plat Details
Summary
The proposed final plat includes 12 new single-family lots ranging in size from 0.17-acre to
0.37-acre. The Final Plat includes open space ownership and maintenance, setback
requirements, easements, and shows the existing infrastructure including public streets and
private drives.
Lot Details
The Oak Park PUD development text for this Subarea requires a minimum lot width of 55 feet
and a minimum lot depth of 130 feet. The smallest proposed lot is 7,260 square feet and the
largest lot is 16,245 square feet. The required setbacks are included on the plat.
Streets/Sidewalks
Access to the proposed lots will be provided from existing public streets and private drives. Oak
Park Boulevard is an east-west road directly adjacent to the proposed lots. Portions of Oak Tree
Drive North and Oak Tree Drive South are to be dedicated to the City following approval of the
Final Development Plan. The remaining drives are private. The private drives are characterized
by their inverted crown and lack of curb and gutter and sidewalks. The proposal utilizes the
existing infrastructure and does not make any significant changes to the public streets and
private drives.
Stormwater Management and Utilities
A series of detention basins were constructed as part of the original Oak Park development to
accommodate both water quantity and water quality per the requirements as defined in Chapter
53. The proposal is encompassed within the East Subarea as defined in the original Oak Park
stormwater management report, which drains to the existing east basins along Hyland-Croy
Road. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed 12 single-family lots will add less
impervious area than originally anticipated as part of the original Oak Park development. The
applicant will need to continue to work with Engineering to demonstrate compliance with
stormwater management requirements as defined in Chapter 53.
Existing sanitary and water mainline has been constructed as part of the original Oak Park
development. The proposed improvements include abandoning existing water and sanitary
services that are no longer needed in addition to new services that were not originally
constructed in order to provide water and sanitary service for all 12 proposed single-family lots.
3. Criteria Analysis
Subdivision Regulations
1) Plat Information and Construction Requirements.
Criteria met with Condition. The proposal is consistent with the requirements of the
Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Code. The applicant will be required to revise
the plat to make any minor technical adjustments prior to Council review.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-192FDP/20-193FP – Oak Park
Wednesday, December 8, 2021 | Page 8 of 9
2) Street, Sidewalk, and Bikepath Standards.
Criteria Met. The modification does not affect the street, sidewalk, or bike path
standards for the subdivision. The applicant is proposing new sidewalk connections
around the entirety of the site.
3) Provision of utilities are in accordance with approved standards.
Criteria Met. The final plat establishes or identifies necessary easements for the
construction or maintenance of utilities.
4) Open Space Requirements.
Criteria Met. All previously met standards are maintained with this request.
Final Development Plan Analysis [§153.055]
1) The plan conforms in all pertinent respects to the approved preliminary development
plan provided, however, that the Planning and Zoning Commission may authorize
plans as specified in §153.053(E)(4);
Criteria Met. The Final Development Plan is consistent with the approved Preliminary
Development Plan.
2) Adequate provision is made for safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular circulation
within the site and to adjacent property;
Criteria Met. The proposal maintains existing roadways and sidewalks and expands
sidewalks through Subarea F.
3) The development has adequate public services and open spaces;
Criteria Met with Condition. The proposal does not significantly impact public
services and provides more open space than is required. However, Staff
recommends that the applicant continue to work with Staff to ensure the CMU box is
appropriately sited, subject to Staff approval.
4) The development preserves and is sensitive to the natural characteristics of the site
in a manner that complies with the applicable regulations set forth in this Code;
Criteria Met. The development is to be located on a site originally slated for
commercial construction. The proposed development is less intense and is
compatible with the existing land uses.
5) The development provides adequate lighting for safe and convenient use of the
streets, walkways, driveways, and parking areas without unnecessarily spilling or
emitting light onto adjacent properties or the general vicinity;
Criteria Met. Lighting will be consistent with the existing conditions of the
neighborhood.
6) The proposed signs, as indicated on the submitted sign plan, will be coordinated
within the Planned Unit Development and with adjacent development; are of an
appropriate size, scale, and design in relationship with the principal building, site,
and surroundings; and are located so as to maintain safe and orderly pedestrian and
vehicular circulation;
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 20-192FDP/20-193FP – Oak Park
Wednesday, December 8, 2021 | Page 9 of 9
Not Applicable. No signs are proposed with this application.
7) The landscape plan will adequately enhance the principal building and site; maintain
existing trees to the extent possible; buffer adjacent incompatible uses; break up
large expanses of pavement with natural material; and provide appropriate plant
materials for the buildings, site, and climate;
Criteria Met. Four trees are being removed for the development of this site. The
inches are being replaced on site which complies with the regulations of the City of
Dublin Zoning Code.
8) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site which
complies with the applicable regulations in this Code and any other design criteria
established by the City or any other governmental entity which may have jurisdiction
over such matters;
Criteria Met with Condition. A series of detention basins were constructed as part of
the original Oak Park development to accommodate stormwater management. The
applicant will need to continue to work with Engineering to demonstrate compliance
with stormwater management requirements as defined in Chapter 53.
9) If the project is to be carried out in progressive stages, each stage shall be so
planned that the foregoing conditions are complied with at the completion of each
stage; and
Not Applicable. The proposal is not to be carried out in phases based on the limited
development proposed with this application
10) The Commission believes the project to be in compliance with all other local, state,
and federal laws and regulations
Criteria Met. The proposal is believed to be in compliance with all laws and
regulations.
5. Recommendations
The Final Plat is consistent with all of the applicable review criteria and Approval is
recommended with the following conditions:
1) Any minor technical modifications be made prior to submittal to City Council for final
approval.
The Final Development Plan is consistent with all of the applicable review criteria contained
in the Zoning Code and Approval is recommended with the following conditions:
1) The applicant continue to work with Staff to ensure the Combined Mail Unit box is
appropriately located.
2) The applicant continue to work with Engineering to demonstrate compliance with
stormwater management requirements as defined in Chapter 53.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
June 22, 2020 Page 2 of 14
Concerts to the community. These 15 -minute concerts are being performed
from the bed of a pick-up truck for senior living facilities, business patios, etc.
Mr. Guion thanked Council for their continued support. Dublin Arts Council engages
the community, cultivates creativity and fosters life-long learning through the arts.
Mayor Amorose Groomes thanked Mr. Guion for his efforts and commented on the joy
that comes from seeing artwork in the community during these times.
Ms. Alutto inquired about the value of the in-kind donations and whether or not they
are being tracked. Mr. Guion stated that they were indeed tracking them. Ms. Alutto
encouraged Mr. Guion to continue telling the story of the substantial in-kind donations
that have been received as it is a great story to tell.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Mayor Amorose Groomes acknowledged that comments have been received for items
that are on the agenda; therefore, those comments will be addressed at that time.
The Director of Communications and Public Information reported that no other
comments have been received.
CONSENT AGENDA
Minutes of the June 8, 2020 Regular Council Meeting
Hearing no request to remove an item, Mayor Amorose Groomes moved to approve
the item on the Consent Agenda.
Ms. Alutto seconded the motion.
The Director of Communications and Public Information reported there were no citizen
comments submitted for the consent agenda for tonight's meeting.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Keeler, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes;
Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes.
TABLED/ POSTPONED ITEMS
Ordinance 06-20 Amended
Rezoning Approximately 3.47 Acres East of Hyland -Croy Road, South of
Mitchell -Dewitt Road from PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Oak
Park, Subarea E) to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Oak Park,
Subarea F) for the Future Development of up to 12 Single -Family homes.
Case 19-100Z/PDP)
Mr. Ridge reviewed the initial proposal and concerns that accompanied it. Several
meetings have been held between the neighbors, applicant and staff members. All
concerns have been addressed. The updated site plan was shared to illustrate the
changes from the initial proposal. The City will now own and maintain the portions of
Oaktree Drive that were previously proposed as private streets. Mr. Ridge reviewed
the development text updates.
Ms. Fox asked if a pool is considered part of the lot coverage. Mr. Ridge stated that it
was part of the lot coverage. She stated that another question that was raised by
residents is who maintains the street lawn in front of properties. Is that the
homeowners' responsibility? Mr. Ridge stated that it was the homeowners'
responsibility.
Ms. Fox asked if any other concerns were raised in meeting with the residents. Mr.
Ridge stated that there were some requests for clarification, not really concerns, and
all have been addressed.
Ms. Alutto inquired about the assessment and whether or not the amount is projected
to be enough to cover costs over time. Mr. Ridge stated that it is.
Ms. Alutto further clarified that the homeowners didn't feel that was an undue burden.
Mr. Ridge stated that was correct.
Mr. Peterson inquired as to the cost to the City to maintain a public street. Mr.
McDaniel stated that the City taking on the street maintenance will help balance the
HOA burden. These streets will be incorporated into the Street Maintenance Program.
Mr. Hammersmith stated that the streets would be brought to the public street
standards when they are in need of maintenance. Mr. McDaniel stated that the history
of this neighborhood would have incorporated commercial development that would
Minutes
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
June 22, 2020 Page 3 of 14
have shouldered the cost of the roadway maintenance, but that plan did not come to
fruition. The City will lessen the burden on the homeowners by taking on the street
maintenance.
Mr. Peterson stated he felt it was important to recognize that the City did step in to
resolve the situation.
Worthington, represented the applicant in this rezoning. He thanked the Planning
Department staff, Mr. McDaniel, Mr. Hammersmith for the exceptional amount of work
that went into this application. He noted that his client did not create the problem that
this rezoning addresses; they were trying to fix it. He hoped this met with Council's
approval.
Ms. Melvis Houseman, 7134 Snowdrop Courtstated that she was present representing
the majority of Oak Park residents. She stated after all the meetings and
conversations, the residents are ready to support the rezoning and the development of
the single-family homes, subject to the conditions stated before in the presentation.
She noted that this process has brought forward a few issues she wanted to highlight:
How to ensure that when a mixed-use development is approved, it should be
constructed simultaneously;
Consider what the minimum side setback standard should be in Dublin going
forward;
What will the policy be regarding private roads? If they are allowed, they need
to be built with the specifications of a public road so that if the City does have
to take over maintenance, it isn't an issue; and
Consider what the the composition of walking paths in the City should be.
Ms. Houseman thanked staff for educating them and working with them throughout
this process. She also thanked Council for listening and understanding the concerns.
Mayor Amorose Groomes stated that she raised good points for consideration. There
have been many lessons learned. She agreed that side setbacks have been
problematic and private roads have not been encouraged.
There have been no comments or questions from the public.
Vice Mayor De Rosa thanked Ms. Houseman for representing the residents of Oak Park
and the many hours she put Into resolving these issues. She thanked everyone for all
the work and showing that there is a good outcome here. It will be a lovely future
development.
Ms. Fox reiterated Ms. Houseman's statements regarding the phasing of projects on
parcels, side setbacks and expenses placed upon the HOA's regarding private roads,
ponds, etc.
Vote on the Ordinance: Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Ms.
Fox, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes.
Mayor Amorose Groomes moved to waive the Council Rules to consider Resolution 36-
20 at this time
Ms. Alutto seconded.
Vote on the motion: Ms. Fox, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa,
yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes.
Resolution 36-20
Approving and Accepting the Plat for Oak Park, Subarea F Subdivision.
Ms. Alutto introduced the Resolution.
Mr. Ridge had no further information to add.
No questions or comments were received regarding this Resolution from the public.
Vote on the Resolution: Mr. Peterson, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Vice Mayor
De Rosa, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes.
SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING — ORDINANCES
Ordinance 15-20
Amending the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending December
31, 2020.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council I Meeting
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO
Held
June 8, 2020 Page 3 of 13
Ms. Fox stated that she understands this is difficult for children who want pools. She
referenced communication she had received from a pediatrician before this topic came
up, asking Council to enhance the regulations on in -ground pools due to the accidental
drownings. This is just another opportunity to have an accident and she is concerned
about the risk.
Mayor Amorose Groomes reaffirmed that Council is not in favor of allowing these
temporary pools for the reasons stated.
Mayor Amorose Groomes reiterated that the other topic of racial equality will be
addressed at the roundtable portion of the meeting. This is the first time Council has
been together in a public meeting to discuss these matters. The City's Charter and the
Open Meetings Act requires that Council have these discussions in a public setting.
CONSENT AGENDA
Hearing no request to remove an item, Mayor Amorose Groomes moved to approve
the item on the Consent Agenda.
Ms. Alutto seconded the motion.
The Director of Communications and Public Information reported there were no citizen
comments submitted for the consent agenda for tonight's meeting.
Vote on the motion: Ms. Alutto, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Vice Mayor De
Rosa, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes.
Minutes of the May 26, 2020 Regular Council Meeting
TABLED/POSTPONED ITEMS
Motion to Remove Ordinance 06-20 from the table and schedule for
public hearing on June 22, 2020
Ordinance 06-20
Rezoning Approximately 3.47 Acres East of Hyland -Croy Road, South of
Mitchell -Dewitt Road from PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Oak Park,
Subarea E) to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Oak Park, Subarea F)
for the Future Development of up to 12 Single -Family homes and 0.66 Acre of
Open Space. (Case 19-100Z/PDP) (Tabled on April 27, 2020)
Mayor Amorose Groomes moved to remove Ordinance 06-20 from the table and
schedule for public hearing on June 22, 2020.
Ms. Alutto seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mayor Amorose
Groomes, yes; Mr. Keeler, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes.SECOND
READING/PUBLIC HEARING — ORDINANCES
Ordinance 14-20
Adopting the Proposed Tax Budget for Fiscal Year 2021.
Mr. Stiffler noted there is no additional information to report since the first reading.
The Director of CPI reported no public comments had been received regarding this
matter.
Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Keeler, yes; Mayor Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Fox, yes;
Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Vice Mayor De Rosa, yes.
INTRODUCTION /FIRST READING — ORDINANCES
Ordinance 15-20
Amending the Annual Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending December
31, 2020.
Ms. Alutto _introduced the Ordinance.
Mr. Stiffler stated that this Ordinance contains the appropriation for the Dublin
Convention and Visitors Bureau and Dublin Arts Council. He added that it also contains
the appropriation previously discussed for the North Pool.
Vice Mayor De Rosa asked Mr. Stiffler to provide background regarding the funding
authorization related to Bridge Park Block Z.
Mr. Stiffler stated that Bridge Park TIFs, outside of Blocks B and C, service payment
revenues are remitted to the Bridge Park NCA. At this point, these TIFs are young and
Form 6101
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019
Page 3 of 32
while the existing private drive network binds the greenspaces on the other two sides. The
proposed lots range in size from 0.16 acres to 0.22 acres with a minimum width of 55 feet.
Sideyard setbacks will be six feet, consistent with the remaining development. The proposed
front-yard setbacks are 20 feet. In comparison, in Subareas A and B the setback ranges from a
minimum of 13 feet to a maximum of 20 feet. Rear-yard setbacks will be 15 feet; they are 25
feet in Subareas A and B. Subarea D differs due to its smaller lot size; sideyard setbacks are a
minimum of six feet, whereas rear and front yard setbacks are smaller – 9 and 10 feet. The
proposal also calls for on-street parking on Oak Tree Drive north and south. The parking spaces
are within the geographic boundary of this rezoning. The applicant is proposing sidewalk
improvements outside of the geographic boundary of this rezoning. Staff recommends that the
applicant continue to work with staff to ensure that all improvements are made within those
boundaries. Staff also asks that the applicant update the development text and plans to indicate
the creation of a new subarea. A graphic has been provided that indicates the ownership and
maintenance of the entire PUD.
Ownership and Maintenance
Public streets are owned and maintained by the City. Approximately 50% of the space is open
space. Reserves E, F and H account for 24 of the 61 acres of the site. A small ROW island is
maintained by the HOA. The reserves are located in the middle of the site. Reserves G, M, H and
L are HOA owned and maintained. Reserves J and I are the private drives owned and maintained
by the HOA. Reserves A and D are the areas in question for this review.
Oak Tree North and South
Portions of Oak Tree Drive N. and S. (private drives) are within the proposed rezoning area.
Criteria 7 require that there are adequate utilities, access roads, and drainage, retention and/or
necessary facilities. The street width of Oak Tree Drive N. and S. was designed to accommodate
emergency and fire vehicles, and it has existing straight curb. The pavement buildup for Oak Tree
Drive N. and S. is identical to public street standards and provides adequate pavement strength
and durability for vehicular and fire apparatus routing. The proposed development includes 4-ft.
sidewalks on both sides of Oak Tree Drive N. & S. with an 8-ft. tree lawn width on the west side
and 9-ft. tree lawn width on the east side. Oak Tree Drive N. & S. has an inverted crown with
drainage facilities along the centerline of the drives to accommodate stormwater conveyance.
The applicant has provided a trip generation analysis that shows the proposed 12 detached,
single-family homes will reduce the daily trip generation by approximately 74% compared to the
original commercial zoning.
Architecture
The architecture of Oak Pak is unique in requirements and neighborhood theme. Previously
approved elevations will continue to be used in this portion of the development. Any of those
homes that will fit on the proposed lots is permitted. Most sites allow for court- loaded or side-
loaded garages. The sites will continue the use of the hedgerow feature, which is a unique
character element in this development. Overall, the architecture will be indistinguishable from
what currently exists.
3. Oak Park, 7050 & 7055 Oak Park Boulevard, 19-101, Preliminary Plat
The same information for the preceding rezoning and preliminary development plan for
this site applies to this case, which is the preliminary plat for the same development.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019
Page 4 of 32
The rezoning and development plan have been reviewed against all applicable criteria,
and staff recommends approval with five conditions. The preliminary plat has been
reviewed against all applicant criteria, and staff recommends approval with three
conditions.
Commission Questions for Staff
Ms. Fox inquired if the sidewalks will be outside of the rezoning and in the right-of-way.
Mr. Ridge responded that there are portions that are outside of the boundaries of this
rezoning. That issue is addressed by Condition #4: “That the applicant work with staff to
ensure that all improvements are within the boundary of the rezoning area prior to the
Final Development Plan.”
Ms. Fox stated that it appears the reason it was designed that way was due to insufficient
space. How would staff address that? It seems some of the sidewalks have tree lawn;
some do not.
Ms. Husak responded that information is provided on page 3 in the Preliminary Plat
drawings.
Mr. Ridge stated that there is sidewalk adjacent to the curb, and one of the conditions is
that it be pushed further to the east, so that there will be tree lawn. That area begins with
Lot #134 and extends along Reserve P.
Ms. Fox inquired if there is anywhere else in the development where there is a
sidewalk/curb combination and no tree lawn. Looking at the satellite view of the site, it
appears that almost all of the sidewalks have tree lawn. Is this the only area in which the
curb and sidewalk meet, and that there would be no tree lawn?
Ms. Husak responded that this is the only situation in Oak Park where a sidewalk is in an
alley. All the other sidewalks are with public streets, where a tree lawn is required by
Code. In this case, because of the location along private drives, there is no requirement
for a sidewalk nor a tree lawn.
Mr. Ridge pointed out the areas where sidewalk is proposed outside the rezoning area.
Those are areas where there are private drives.
Applicant Presentation
Christopher Cline, Haynes, Kessler, Myers and Postalakis, 300 W Wilson Bridge Rd, Suite 100,
Worthington, OH 43085, Worthington, representing the applicant, Oak Park Dublin, LLC, stated
that also present with him is Linda Menerey, EMH&T. They are proud to be able to present a high
quality plan, which is called the “New Village Homes.” There are already two subareas that are
known as the “Park Homes,” and the “Village Homes;” therefore, this new development will be
known as the “New Village Homes.” In terms of development standards, this development will be
midline between the other two.
History
A detailed history was provided with the earlier Concept Plan review. The original subarea
rezoning plan for Oak Park referred to the “Park Homes” in Subarea A and the “Village Homes”
in Subareas B1 and B2. The proposed rezoning and development will replace the existing
commercial retail zoning in Subarea E. The original landowner, HC Associates, required the
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019
Page 5 of 32
commercial area. There were actually three developers, HC Associates, the applicant in the
original rezoning; JSDI Dublin LLC, the developer of the commercial development, if it had been
developed; and Oak Park Dublin, LLC. The commercial area dictated multiple aspects of this plan.
It created a requirement for private access roads to service the commercial parking lots. It also
presented a requirement for a barrier to protect the single-family homes to be built by Oak Park
Dublin, LLC. That barrier consisted of the townhomes in Subarea D. They were three stories high;
the concept was that the vertical element would provide a barrier. When it became obvious that
the commercial development was not going to move forward, they presented a proposal to the
Planning Commission to replace the plan for 36 townhomes with a plan for 20 villa lots. These
are 55-ft. lots, which are typical, but they have access from the private drives, rather than having
frontloaded or side loaded access, which is more typical of the homes in Oak Park. That plan and
plat have been approved. The commercial area has been a drain on Oak Park and presented a
risk for the Oak Park Dublin developer and the residents who were concerned that if the
commercial element were developed, it would negatively impact the residents’ quality of life and
their property values. That risk impacted the desirability of the lots and the marketability of the
subdivision. In June 2019, Oak Park Dublin was able to attain control of the commercial area.
That acquisition was a longstanding goal of Oak Park and the residents, and achieving this goal
was strongly encouraged by the Planning Commission when the villa rezoning occurred.
Unfortunately, they were not successful in gaining control until earlier this year. That acquisition
was quite costly to Oak Park in regard to money, debt forgiveness and contractual commitments,
which have placed constraints on Oak Park in moving forward with this rezoning. All of the site
limitations and challenges are the result of a commercial area being converted to a residential
use. The applicant is attempting to fix a problem it did not create. There are standards in this
subarea that do not exist in the other subareas.
Subareas A and B
Subarea A surrounds on the outside perimeter and backs up to the public open space. Subarea B
consists of two sections, which are interior lots. In Subarea A, there are 33 Park Home lots with
front lot widths of 60, 70 or 80 feet, one-third of the lots for each width. The zoning requires a
minimum lot depth of 125 feet; as platted, it is 130 feet. Their side yard setback is six feet, which
is consistent in all the subareas. The rear yard setback is 25 feet, which is larger than in the other
subareas. The 39 interior lots in Subareas B1 and B2 have the Village Homes. They have a
minimum front yard width of 55 feet, although 15 lots must be 60 feet or greater. The minimum
lot depth is 125 feet, but as platted, is 130 feet; the side yard setback is six feet; the rear yard
setback is 15 feet. The front yard setback in Subarea A and B is a minimum of 13 feet and
maximum of 20 feet. This has resulted in some issues with front easements for sanitary sewers.
On multiple occasions, there has been a conflict between the platted building area and the utility
easement. They want to avoid a similar problem here.
Subarea E
In this new subarea, there are 12 lots with a minimum lot width of 55 feet, which is identical to
the existing Village Home lots. Of the 12 lots, only four lots are 55 feet; two lots are 59 feet, 8
inches; two lots are 63 feet; and four lots are 69 feet. The size of the home that can be built is
dictated by the lot width, so a 69-ft. lot has a broad building envelope. The minimum lot depth is
130 feet; the rear yard setback is 15 feet; and the front yard setback is 20 feet. Although the
binder accompanying the original zoning provided five renderings each for the Park and the Village
Homes, any of the model homes could be built on any of the lots provided it fit and met the
development standards. There is no difference in quality between the homes. Any of the 20+
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019
Page 6 of 32
model homes can be built in this new subarea, as well. The concept of this conservation
subdivision is that the homes will be concentrated within a limited area, surrounded by extensive
open space. Sidewalks have been included in the alley reserve areas. The private streets within
those reserve areas are significantly wider than traditional alleys, and are available for any access,
including vehicular. Because the Commission has no authority over area outside the area to be
rezoned, they have agreed to Condition 4. However, it is unusual for a development to include
alleys within the development. Of note, these private streets are 20-22 feet wide; alleys are
typically 15 feet wide. The sidewalks to the east and along Oak Park Boulevard are within the lot
area, and that is atypical; typically, sidewalks are provided within the right-of-way. This change
has been requested by Engineering, and they have agreed to it.
Existing Private Streets
There are existing private streets that are not part of this Subarea, which are the homeowner
association’s responsibility. This was part of the original zoning. The new rezoning will create new
reserves. Approximately 500 feet of new pavement will be added, and two new greenspaces will
be added. At the Concept Plan discussion, the private streets were a significant issue for the
homeowners. They asked if the private streets could be converted to public streets. That is not
possible, as it would require destruction of the existing streets, curbs and utilities infrastructure
and construction of completely new streets. Although the private streets have the same road beds
as public streets, their drainage is different. They are inverted crown streets. The cost of removing
and replacing the existing private streets with public streets would be $365,000. All of the streets
would need to be the same to provide consistent drainage within the development. That is
assuming the City would allow the cul de sac traffic circles to remain; if not, the cost would exceed
$440,000. That is not a reasonable cost for 12 additional home lots. Typically, a new addition to
a developed subdivision follows similar development standards with similar architecture as the
existing development. The new lots will be the same or better than the existing lots. Developers
are very interested in providing a dominant front door with defining characteristics for a housing
development. This subdivision has been missing an attractive, inviting front door, but the
proposed development will provide that. Oak Park’s attractiveness, marketability and home values
will increase if this rezoning proposal is approved.
Questions for Applicant
Ms. Fox stated that at the previous meeting regarding this proposed development, the applicant
was asked to meet with homeowners. Did that occur?
Mr. Cline responded that he did so. He met with some of the residents for approximately two
hours and explained the reason his client was not able to give on most of the issues. He believes
that meeting achieved a glimpse into the economics of this issue. No one will gain a significant
investment. He explained that if the applicant was not able to develop these subareas within the
Oak Park development, he would have to develop it separately, not as part of Oak Park. He does
not believe the residents preferred that option, as it would be beneficial to include it in the Oak
Park HOA declarations.
Ms. Fox requested clarification regarding the front-loading versus side-loading garages.
Mr. Cline responded that the Concept Plan text no longer exists. The development will follow the
City’s residential development standards. They will continue what has already been a success in
Oak Park. All of the garage doors are carriage type.
Mr. Fishman inquired the anticipated price for the new homes.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019
Page 7 of 32
Mr. Cline responded that, currently, they have been experiencing sales above $500,000. Similar
sales are anticipated, particularly if the commercial development threat is removed.
Mr. Supelak inquired who is currently responsible for the landscape maintenance. Are these lots
already mowed by the HOA?
Mr. Cline responded the commercial landowner of Subarea D did nothing. To date, the home
developer has handled all of the maintenance without reimbursement.
Public Comment
Melvis Houseman, 7134 Snowdrop Court, Dublin, OH, stated that she is representing the Oak
Park homeowners’ concerns with this development. She is a member of the community. When
she spoke on behalf of the residents at the August 22 Commission meeting, several concerns
were raised concerning the developer’s proposal for rezoning of the commercial lots, including
the burden on the HOA for maintenance of the private roads and the closeness of the proposed
homes. The residents requested that the developer bring back previous Option A, which was a
comprehensive development plan. It would have included the redevelopment of the townhomes
and the commercial lots and conversion of all the private roads to public roads. The Commission
indicated that Option A could not be considered, as it was no longer being proposed. The
Commission also encouraged the developer to work with the homeowners to gain support for the
rezoning. The Commission also raised concerns about the safety of the private roads, including
the lack of sidewalks. Although the developer never reached out to the residents, a group of
residents did reach out to the developer’s representative. At that meeting, the homeowners asked
that their concerns be shared with the developer and that a meeting be facilitated between the
residents and the developer. Although they were provided his name, they were given no specific
contact information. The developer’s representative indicated that the developer would make no
changes in the proposed plan and that it was a “take or leave it” proposal. The burden on the
HOA for the maintenance of the existing private roads and those in this new subarea continue to
be a concern, although the lack of sidewalks appears to have been addressed. The lot width of
the proposed lots, the number of driveways leading to the main boulevard, the lack of tree lawn
space between sidewalks and the curbs are also a concern. She believes the private alleys
surrounding the commercial lots are a rezoning matter for the following reasons:
1. The developer is proposing improvements with the alleys, thereby making the alleys part
of this proposal.
2. The alleys were intended to support the commercial use, so should now be converted to
support for the residential use.
3. As proposed, they would not be connected to the existing sidewalks in the community.
Staff’s condition does not appear to look beyond the immediate parcel.
4. The two additional sidewalks and tree lawn maintenance would become the responsibility
of the HOA.
Although the additional greenspace in the new development is desirable, they are willing to give
it up for the purpose of widening the alleys and the home lots. The latter is also beneficial to the
developer, as it will make those lots more marketable. Why is the tree lawn space proposed to
be an HOA responsibility? Currently, each Oak Park resident is responsible for maintaining the
tree lawn space in front of their homes. Because the residents have been unable to discuss their
concerns with the developer, they have a signed petition to submit to the Commission. The
residents request the Commission not approve the rezoning and preliminary plat at this time.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019
Page 8 of 32
Mr. Supelak moved, Ms. Kennedy seconded to accept the document into the records.
Vote: Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms.
Call, yes.
[Motion approved 6-0.]
Ms. Houseman stated that 94% of the residents do not support this rezoning due to the burden
on the HOA for maintenance of the additional private roads and greenspace, as well as the
proposed configuration of the development, including the lack of tree lawn space, the lot widths
and the driveways off the main boulevard. The residents understand that if this application is not
approved, the lots would remain as commercial lots with the possibility of being developed as
such. The residents suggest that the Commission table the application on the condition that the
developer work with the residents to address the issues. They thank City staff members who took
the time to come to the community and speak with the residents.
Commission Discussion
Mr. Fishman expressed appreciation to the residents who attended this meeting to express their
views. Public involvement is what makes Dublin a great City. As Mr. Cline is aware, Dublin’s
mantra has been that if a developer is economically unable to build a development the right way,
then it should not be built. For many years, the City has discouraged building private streets, as
they inevitably become an undue burden for the homeowner associations when some years later,
they require extensive maintenance. At that point, HOAs petition the City for assistance. The
burden then becomes the City’s. Mr. Cline has indicated that the cost would $300,000 to convert
the private roads to public roads. That is approximately $30,000 for each of the proposed homes.
Perhaps a special assessment could be used. Also, in Dublin, many HOAs have sub associations
to address particular issues within the development. Perhaps if the residents feel strongly about
the private road issue, they could form a sub association to handle the private road
responsibilities.
Mr. Supelak inquired what the amount of the current HOA fee.
Ms. Houseman responded that it is $95/month, or $1,152/year.
Mr. Supelak stated that there appear to be two options regarding the private roads -- either
Engineering agrees to accept them as private roads, or they would be rebuilt as public roads.
Mr. Boggs clarified the process for converting a private street to a public street. While there are
Engineering standards that the City Engineer would require be met before recommending
acceptance of a private street as a public street, ultimately, it is a City Council decision. Per City
Code, the Commission acts as a recommending body on the rezoning and preliminary
development plan that is being discussed. The Commission does not make the final decision on
either; City Council has the final determination. City Council has tasked staff and the Commission
with evaluating proposals against City Code requirements before providing a recommendation to
Council.
Ms. Husak stated that there is Code that defines what a public street is required to have. It is not
as simple as making a recommendation that the street be made public.
Mr. Boggs stated that Engineering staff members are present and able to explain the distinction
between the private streets in this development and the Code specifications for public streets.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019
Page 9 of 32
Mr. Supelak stated that the Commission does not have the purview to address the existing private
streets. In the other matter related to the anticipated cost to the HOA, currently, the maintenance
of the greenspace is being handed by the developer. To avoid the responsibility for the
maintenance for two additional parks, the residents suggest the proposed additional greenspace
be used to widen the lots. That potential negotiation also may not be within the purview of this
Commission.
Mr. Boggs stated that the Commission has been presented with two applications -- a rezoning
with a preliminary development plan, and a preliminary plat. The City’s Code sets forth the criteria
under which the Commission is charged to make its recommendation. There are 16 criteria that
address the configuration of buildings, use, and development standards for the site. Per the Code,
the discussion should address how those factors influence the Commission’s recommendation. All
other matters are not a question before this Commission.
Mr. Cline stated that, although the maintenance issue is not a matter before the Commission
today, it is an issue for the residents. It is very unlikely that the City Engineer would recommend
to City Council that these roads be accepted as public roads. However, there is an alternative.
City Council can accept maintenance responsibility for the roads. They took such an action with
Caplestone Lane – a street on which former Council Member Kranstuber resides. He has shared
that information with the residents as an option for them to consider. He reached out to the
Council ward representative, but has not received a return call at this time. The ward
representative would have to take the lead on such an action.
Mr. Fishman stated that he was present when the decision was made regarding Caplestone, and
that decision was made very reluctantly. That previous action was taken only because of a
hardship situation. The residents were financially unable to repair the street, which was seriously
deteriorating. At that time, Council indicated that they would not be setting a precedent for any
similar action in the future. Mr. Kranstuber stated that Caplestone Lane should never have been
constructed as a private road. Therefore, Mr. Fishman indicated he would not be in favor of
setting up a similar unfavorable situation.
Mr. Cline stated the Caplestone situation and this one are similar. In both cases, the developer
who initiated the projects no longer existed when the private road issues arose. The main
difference between the two is that Caplestone Lane did not meet municipal road specifications;
this roadbed does meet municipal specs. He understands that City engineers do not support
inverted crown streets, but the City is already maintaining pavement, curbs and gutters and
snowplowing. Nothing different would be necessary in this case.
Paul Hammersmith, City Engineer, stated that the information about Caplestone Lane is not
factual. It is likely a meaningless debate as it is not germane to the rezoning discussion. If the
residents want to submit a request to City Council, it would need to occur separate from this
discussion.
Ms. Newell inquired if it would be possible to make the portion of the roadway that lies within the
rezoning area a public road. Is there a way to “marry” City specs for a portion of the roadway to
an adjoining private street?
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019
Page 10 of 32
Mr. Hammersmith responded that if she is referring to Oak Tree Drive N. and S., staff has
discussed that. Although the pavement composition would be similar, the drainage is different.
With inverted crowns, water runs to the middle of the roadway. With a conventional street with
curb and gutter, the subgrade under the pavement is graded to drain to the outside edge. There
is no way to modify the existing private street to adapt it to public street standards, and the City
would not want to accept some inferior adaptation, which ultimately would become a public
burden. It is actually the developer’s responsibility to convert the street to City standards, and to
make the private street a public street, it would have to be reconstructed. The City requires the
same of everyone.
Ms. Call stated that she appreciates the residents coming before the Commission. A year ago,
she was before the Commission herself regarding her secondary property, which although of
much less value than their properties, had an HOA fee five times higher. The Planning Commission
has a narrow scope. It is tasked with reviewing an application and determining if it meets Code.
Staff reports outline the request; list the pertinent criteria that must be met; and indicate if the
application meets the criteria, or if it would meet if a condition were to be added to the approval.
Planning staff accurately identifies when an application does not adhere to Code. The Commission
considers ambiguous items or items approved by previous Commissions or Councils that are
inconsistent with the existing direction in which the City wants to proceed. We prefer not to have
phased-in developments. Some developers want to construct and sell homes first and add
amenities later; unfortunately, “later” amenities never occur. Either the residents or the City are
left “holding the bag.” City Council does have more purview than the Commission. The Planning
Commission’s scope is very narrow. She requested that staff highlight the criteria for which
conditions must be met for them to meet Code.
Ms. Newell requested that staff list the review criteria and the condition to meet it.
Mr. Ridge stated the following five conditions for approval of the preliminary development:
1) That the applicant update the text and plans to create a new subarea -- Subarea E,
to clarify the boundaries of this rezoning from the remainder of the neighborhood;
2) That the applicant provide a topography map and associated materials as outlined
in Code Section 153.054(B)(5)(f);
3) That the applicant provide a tree replacement plan with the submission of the Final
Development Plan;
4) That the applicant work with staff to ensure that all improvements are within the
boundary of the rezoning area prior to the Final Development Plan; and
5) That the applicant continue to work with staff to ensure that all proposed driveways
are able to be constructed consistent with Code standards prior to the Final
Development Plan.
Ms. Husak noted that the home footprints are illustrative only. The house that a buyer selects for
a lot may require the garage to be located in a different location. Staff would need to see that
detail later.
Mr. Ridge noted that the three conditions for the Preliminary Plat include the following:
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019
Page 11 of 32
1) That the applicant ensure that any minor technical adjustments and updates to
the plat are made in accordance with the accompanying Preliminary Development
Plan prior to City Council submittal;
2) That the applicant continue to work with staff to ensure that all improvements are
made within the geographical boundaries of this plat prior to review and
recommendation of the Preliminary Plat by City Council; and
3) That the applicant revise the drawings to reflect the correct on-street parking
dimensions prior to review and determination of the Preliminary Plat by City
Council.
Mr. Ridge noted that the on-street parking, as shown, is one foot too short.
Ms. Kennedy, referring to an earlier citizen comment, inquired if the maintenance of the sidewalks
on this property would be the HOA’s responsibility.
Mr. Cline stated that he looked into that matter. City Building Code requires City-maintained
sidewalks, unless a property owner has been abusive and caused damage to it. Most sidewalks
are in the right-of-way or an easement. The Code appears to indicate that it is the City’s
responsibility to maintain the sidewalks, but because these sidewalks are within a private area,
the City attorney would need to provide clarification.
Mr. Boggs stated that the Code would apply to public sidewalks in public right-of-way owned by
the City or in areas where there is a right-of-way easement held by the City. It would not apply
to privately owned sidewalks.
Mr. Fishman stated that as Ms. Call has stated, the Commission can only apply the Code. Could
the Commission, however, add a condition recommending to Council that they consider making
the private streets public streets?
Mr. Boggs responded that the Commission can either recommend Council approval, approval with
conditions, or disapproval of the request. The Commission also could convey to Council what they
believe to be an important consideration. That would be a separate motion; it would not be a
recommendation to approve with that condition. When Council has this item before them for
consideration, they will also have the benefit of draft or adopted minutes of this meeting to learn
the tenor of discussion. Ms. Fox, as Council’s liaison, would also convey additional insight on the
discussion.
Ms. Kennedy referred to the residents’ petition requesting denial of the application. The reason
stated in the petition is the undue burden on the HOA with respect to maintenance of private
roads and additional greenspace. Does the HOA currently have the responsibility of maintaining
other greenspace within the community?
Ms. Houseman stated that she recently spoke with the management company, and they indicated
that the HOA currently bears 50% of the burden. It is not accurate that the developer is
maintaining everything. She presumes maintenance of the commercial lots is not being handled
by the HOA; however, in regard to the remainder of the community, the management company
indicated that the HOA is paying for 50% of the landscaping maintenance.
Ms. Husak stated that a graphic was provided in the packet information (page 8), which depicts
the maintenance responsibility for the various areas. The City is responsible for the 24 acres of
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019
Page 12 of 32
greenspace on the perimeter of the entire development [Reserves E, F, H and K]. The HOA is
maintaining 8 acres [Reserves G, L, M, N and O].
Ms. Kennedy inquired if the HOA fee covers maintenance for those 8 acres.
Ms. Husak responded that their fees cover the land, clubhouse and the stormwater pond in
Reserve M. They also contribute to a reserve fund that is being built up for when the residents
take over the maintenance that is currently being handled by the owner.
Ms. Kennedy noted that the additional greenspace that would be added to the HOA’s responsibility
in Reserves P and Q is minimal -- .66 acres.
Mr. Cline stated that, currently, the money being paid in HOA fees is being banked, and there is
$300,000 - $350,000 built up in the HOA account. The developer continues to handle all of the
HOA maintenance responsibility without taking any of the HOA’s funds. The only item that the
HOA is handling is the additional landscaping the HOA desired that was over and above what the
developer was willing to provide. The developer included the additional landscaping in the
contract, but the cost of that additional landscaping is taken from the HOA dues. The HOA
financial statements are open and available for the residents to understand what their HOA is
spending, which is not very much.
Ms. Newell stated that this situation is not unique. There are other developments within the City
with private streets for which the HOA has the maintenance responsibility.
Ms. Rauch stated that is correct.
Ms. Kennedy stated that the second reason stated in the HOA petition is the configuration of the
proposed redevelopment. She requested confirmation that the configuration of the proposed
development meets the Code and is consistent with the surrounding development.
Mr. Ridge confirmed that is correct.
Ms. Newell requested that staff display the Code review criteria, upon which the Commission must
base its approval.
[Slide shown]
Ms. Fox stated that if this is not rezoned, the development will proceed no further. Planning
Commission can consider the criteria in Code Sections 153.053 through 153.056. It can also look
at history, staff reports, comments and request expert opinions and request additional information
or revisions with a rezoning. Many of the elements in this plan are similar to the existing
development text for Oak Park. The issue is that when the development was created, it was a
mixed use. There was a particular reason for having these properties close together. The original
text calls for a variety of things, including a traditional village, diverse housing, preservation of
natural features and highway connections with pedestrian friendliness. The commercial element
gives a completely different feel to the front door of a development. The residential element had
a mixture of townhomes, Village Homes and Park Homes. There was also 31 acres of parkland.
Applied superficially, this application meets the criteria. However, the commercial element has
been unable to develop in the holistic and cohesive manner in which it was intended. There are
some lots with six-foot differences between them with a lot depth of 125 feet. The roadways are
a Council issue. They should not be a burden to the HOA. This is a half-finished development,
and the Commission is attempting to work with the developer to finish this development. Earlier,
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019
Page 13 of 32
the Commission had requested that the developer work with the residents on a preferred Option
A, but that did not happen. Therefore, the Commission approved an alternative plan. Now,
however, the residential developer owns both pieces. At the Concept Plan review, the Commission
requested that the developer work with the residents to resolve some of the issues. It seems that
some modifications could be made to this plan without too much difficulty. Perhaps it is not
possible to fix the private streets issue, but it is possible to address how the plat is laid out to
make it conform better with the existing development and to achieve an attractive front door to
this development. She does not believe the developer spent sufficient time on working through
this design with the homeowners or made an effort to bring any other options before this
Commission. This is the same design as shared in August. The Commission needs to be shown
some options, more information from Council on its position of private versus public streets, and
information from experts on the actual cost of maintenance. At this point, we do not know if the
costs would be practical or reasonable. She believes some of the criteria, although close, are not
met. We are not dealing with the same development as in the beginning. Because this
development has occurred in a piecemeal fashion, the design needs more refinement to become
a front door to Oak Park. The ingresses/egresses on Oak Park Boulevard are not well defined.
Finally, nearly 100% of the residents in the neighborhood do not support the proposed
development. Without achieving more clarity on some of the issues, she is not supportive of
approval.
Ms. Newell inquired what review criteria she does not believe has been met.
Ms. Fox stated, per Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the application and
determine if it complies with the approval criteria set forth in 153.055(a). However, the
Commission also can take into consideration any submitted staff reports, comments and expert
opinions when reviewing the application. She believes the Commission does not have all that
information and should request it.
Ms. Newell stated that the residents’ representative requested that this application be tabled, The
Commission cannot do so without the applicant’s request.
Mr. Cline responded that he does not wish the case to be tabled. They have a certain palette to
work with, and they have a good design. They would not have obtained staff’s recommendation
for approval if they had not produced a good plan. The issue of private streets is not before this
Commission tonight. The only issues before this Commission tonight are the two new private
streets and Subareas R and S. They do agree to all the conditions for both the Preliminary
Development Plan and the Preliminary Plat.
Ms. Fox stated that there were other issues identified, including the sidewalks and greenspace.
She does not believe some of the Code requirements have been met.
Ms. Call requested that she list the items she does not believe have been addressed in the
conditions.
Ms. Fox stated that the relationship of the buildings, which is mentioned in 153.055(A) 9. The
sidewalks will look dissimilar. The issue is that commercial alleys are being turned into residential
byways.
Ms. Newell inquired if she is referring to the fact that there are sidewalks without tree lawn space.
Ms. Fox responded affirmatively.
Ms. Newell inquired if one of the conditions required that the sidewalks be moved.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019
Page 14 of 32
Mr. Cline responded affirmatively. The sidewalks will not be immediately adjacent to the curbs;
they will be set back outside of the reserves, which will provide a small amount of grass there.
The request was to move the sidewalks out of Reserves I and J, and they agreed to place them
within the boundaries of the rezoning area.
Ms. Call requested confirmation that this item is addressed by Condition #4.
Mr. Ridge confirmed that is correct.
Ms. Fox stated that Criterion #14 has not been adequately addressed. It states: “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.” The Commission is looking at this in a piecemeal fashion. The residents are
unhappy with the proposed plan, and she believes the developer should spend some time meeting
with the residents to resolve some issues, as was requested at the previous review.
Ms. Husak responded that staff had determined that this criterion is not applicable, because the
applicant is not phasing in this development; it will be completed in one phase. For a larger mass
of land, that criterion would be applicable, as phasing would be required. For a 3.5-acre
development, phasing is unnecessary.
Mr. Fishman inquired if private roads would be added at the entrance.
Ms. Rauch responded that if he is referring to the two traffic circle sections – those are existing
private drives.
Mr. Fishman stated that 94% of the residents object to the rezoning and development, due to
the fact that the developer did not work with them to address any of their concerns. Does that
not violate a Code requirement?
Mr. Boggs responded that the Code does not establish a threshold regarding public support or
opposition. There is no criterion for this Commission to require a pre-meeting between the
developer and the surrounding property owners. Staff always encourages collaboration between
the prospective property developer and the surrounding property owners, because experience
shows that leads to a better product. It is not, however, a Code requirement.
Ms. Newell stated that the criterion that comes closest to the private road versus public road issue
is Criterion #7, which states, “Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and/or
necessary facilities have been or are being provided.” Staff indicates that the applicant has worked
with staff to ensure adequate provision of infrastructure is available.
Ms. Fox referred to the criteria for the Preliminary Plat, which looks at the plan holistically,
requiring consistent treatment and development criteria to ensure standards in a comprehensive
manner. This plan is such an anomaly. A rezoning should not do anything that would be a
detriment to the existing development. We asked the developer to look at potential options on
how this development could be laid out to make it more attractive. None were offered. Some of
the things this Commission suggested in terms of density and setbacks could have been
accomplished.
Mr. Cline stated that they could have proposed multi-family or apartments is this area; however,
they believed single-family lots would be consistent with Oak Park. The lot sizes are dictated by
the development standards that are already in place for the rest of Oak Park. These lots must be
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019
Page 15 of 32
of a certain size with certain development characteristics consistent with the development
standards. The number of those lots that would fit on this land is then determined. There is
nothing else they can do in terms of configuration.
Ms. Fox inquired the lot width for these 12 lots.
Mr. Cline stated that the minimum lot width is 55 feet. In actuality, only four are that width; the
other eight lots are much larger. Everything remains consistent with the existing development
standards in Oak Park.
Ms. Fox stated that the residents have asked that all the homes not look exactly the same at the
entry to the community. Driveway access onto the boulevard is not addressed in the conditions.
Mr. Cline stated that the access is addressed in the development text. The access from the
boulevard was designed for 40,000 sq. ft. of retail and with on-street parking. This application
proposes a much smaller impact on the infrastructure than the commercial development would
have imposed on the neighborhood.
Mr. Ridge stated that there is a diversity matrix for this proposal, with the only exception being
that those two bookend homes on the end could be the identical model.
Mr. Cline stated that appears to work well; this occurred with the villa lots, as well. The diversity
matrix for this development was reviewed and approved by staff and included in the packet
information. For 12 lots, there are 20 – 40 design options for the homes.
Ms. Fox stated that the villa lot development provided fencing as a screening/buffer to the
anticipated commercial lots. Are those fences required?
Ms. Husak responded that the fencing served a two-fold purpose: these houses are alley-loaded,
so they have their open space, patio areas to the rear of the homes, potentially facing an alley.
Fencing was suggested to give those lots some privacy. Fencing was also suggested along Hyland
Croy Road at the entrance into the neighborhood. However, the fences are not required. If a
homeowner wished to install that fence, there are fence standards in the text that identify where
they can be located and material requirements.
Ms. Fox inquired if the HOA would have responsibility for the fence maintenance.
Ms. Husak responded that it would be the homeowner’s responsibility.
Mr. Cline commented in regard to the fences at the back of the lot. There was concern that there
would be varying diligence in staining the fences every 3-4 years. Therefore, it was determined
that the HOA would be responsible for the painting of those fences. Because those fences are in
Subarea D, they are not an issue to address tonight. The development text for that earlier
rezoning provided that fences would be dealt with in the Final Development Plan. This was done
purposely to leave a door open, should the commercial element be eliminated in the future, and
fences at the back of the lots was an item no longer desired. In that case, the requirement could
be removed at the Final Development Plan phase.
Ms. Fox stated that fences, which may be no longer be needed, would be another cost to the
homeowners, if not eliminated. She would request more information about the cost, possible
options for this Plat, and the ability of the residents to have some input with the developer on
what those options might be. She would not be in favor of approving the rezoning this evening.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019
Page 16 of 32
Ms. Call pointed out that sidewalks have been added around the parcels, as was suggested at the
previous discussion; she appreciates that addition. In regard to the private streets versus public
streets, the Code states that for, “Streets built and all or nearly all abutting parcels developed for
acceptance as a public street, it is required that public streets generally meet these standards…
At a minimum, for acceptance as a public street, the following standards shall be met: street
width, curb and gutter, pavement thickness, sidewalk installation.”
Ms. Kennedy moved, Ms. Call seconded to recommend approval of the rezoning with Preliminary
Development Plan to City Council with the following five conditions:
1) That the applicant update the text and plans to create a new subarea, to clarify the
boundaries of this rezoning from the remainder of the neighborhood;
2) That the applicant provide a topography map and associated materials as outlined
in Code Section 153.054(B)(5)(f);
3) That the applicant provide a tree replacement plan with the submission of the Final
Development Plan;
4) That the applicant work with staff to ensure that all improvements are within the
boundary of the rezoning area prior to the Final Development Plan; and
5) That the applicant continue to work with staff to ensure that all proposed driveways
are able to be constructed consistent with Code standards prior to the Final
Development Plan.
Vote: Mr. Supelak, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Fishman, no; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Ms. Newell, yes.
Ms. Fox, no.
Ms. Fox indicated that she believes the following review criteria have not been met: “relationships
of buildings;” cohesiveness of the overall acceptability to the development plan; and opportunity
for the Commission to take into consideration previous comments and history.
Mr. Fishman indicated his “no” vote was for similar reasons.
[Motion passed 4-2]
Ms. Kennedy moved, Ms. Call seconded to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat to City
Council with the following three conditions:
1) That the applicant ensure that any minor technical adjustments and updates to the plat
are made in accordance with the accompanying Preliminary Development Plan prior to
City Council submittal;
2) That the applicant continue to work with staff to ensure that all improvements are made
within the geographical boundaries of this plat prior to review and recommendation of the
Preliminary Plat by City Council; and
3) That the applicant revise the drawings to reflect the correct on-street parking dimensions
prior to review and determination of the Preliminary Plat by City Council.
Vote: Mr. Supelak, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Fishman, no; Ms. Kennedy, yes; Ms. Newell, yes.
Ms. Fox, no.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2019
Page 17 of 32
[Motion passed 4-2]
[5-minute recess]
Ms. Newell stated that Cases 4 and 5 would be heard together.
4. The Overlook at Tartan Ridge, McKitrick and Jerome Road, 19-094, Rezoning
with Preliminary Development Plan
5. The Overlook at Tartan Ridge, McKitrick and Jerome Road, 19-085
Preliminary Plat
Ms. Newell stated that Case 4 is a request for a recommendation of approval to City Council for
a rezoning with preliminary development plan of approximately 24 acres for the future
construction of up to 56 single-family homes and approximately 7.9 acres of open space. The site
is within the Tartan Ridge Planned Unit Development District, northeast of the intersection of
Hyland-Croy Road and McKitrick Road. Case 5 is for the same site and the request is for a
recommendation of approval to City Council for preliminary plat to subdivide the site. The
Commission will hear the cases together.
Staff Presentation
Mr. Ridge stated that the site is currently zoned PUD, Tartan Ridge, and contains all or portions
of Subareas D1, E and F, which permit a mix of uses including townhomes and commercial uses.
The site is located northeast of the intersection of Hyland-Croy Road and McKitrick Road and is
currently undeveloped. There is an existing stormwater pond in the northwest portion of the site
and a solitary tree stand in the southwest portion of the site. The proposed plan for approximately
24 acres includes 56 lots with an average density of 2.33 dwelling units per acre and eight acres
of open space. Lot sizes are proposed in two different sizes. There are 34 patio lots that are a
minimum of 52 feet wide at the building line with a minimum lot depth of 125 feet. The remaining
22 courtyard lots are located on the perimeter of the site and are a minimum of 60 feet wide at
the building line and a minimum of 125 feet deep. Lots range in size from 6,500 square feet to
10,800 square feet. Lot coverage is limited to 60 percent, including structure and driveway.
Sideyard setbacks are a consistent six feet minimum across the site. Rear yard setbacks are 25
feet throughout site. Front yard setbacks are a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 25 feet
from the right-of-way, or as otherwise shown on the preliminary plat. For patio homes, the front
yard setbacks are also a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 25 feet. Front-loaded garages
must be located at the maximum setback of 25 feet while non-garage portions of the front façade
may be permitted to extend up to the minimum 15-foot setback. The rear yard setback for both
lot types is 25 feet from the rear property line. The minimum required side yard setback is 6 feet.
The development text also requires that a minimum of 22 lots in the development have court-
oriented garages. On the southeast corner of the site is Lot 1. Due to the separation/isolation and
odd lot shape, staff is recommending that the applicant remove Lot 1 from the plan. The applicant
has put an emphasis on walkability throughout the site with sidewalks along all frontages, as well
as connection and expansion to the shared-use paths along McKitrick and Hyland-Croy Roads. An
existing connection to the school site to the north is to remain. There is significant landscaping
around the perimeter of the site. The applicant is proposing mounding at a height of 3 - 5 feet
with trees on top and behind in a naturalized manner. The proposed pond amenity will be a part
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2019
Page 2 of 28
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Hawk's Nest, Lot 102, 7635 Quetzal Drive, 19-064FP, Final Plat
Ms. Newell stated that this is a proposal for a re-plat of lot 102 located in the Hawk's Nest Subdivision,
Section 2, Phase 1. The 0.45-acre site is zoned R-1, Suburban Residential District, and is located
southwest of the intersection of Quetzal Drive and Touraco Drive, east of Avery Road.
Ms. Kennedy moved, Ms. Call seconded to approve the Final Plat with the following condition:
1) That the applicant ensure that any minor technical adjustments to the plat
are made prior to City Council submittal.
Vote: Mr. Supelak, yes; Mr. Wilson, yes; Ms. Call, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Fox, yes; Ms.
Newell, yes; Ms. Kennedy, yes.
(Motion passed 7-0)
CASES
2. Oak Park, Subarea E, 7050 & 7055 Oak Park Boulevard, 19-060CP, Concept Plan
This is a request for the construction of 12, single-family lots and associated site improvements.
The 3.47-acre site is west of Hyland-Croy Road, approximately 700 feet southwest of the
intersection with Brand Road and Mitchell-Dewitt Road. The site is currently zoned Planned Unit
Development.
Case Presentation
Mr. Ridge stated that this is a request for review of a Concept Plan for a rezoning in the Oak Park
neighborhood to allow for the construction of single-family homes where commercial
development is currently permitted. The Concept Plan is the first step of the PUD process, by
which the Commission provides informal and non-binding feedback. This site is currently zoned
PUD, Oak Park, Subarea E. It is located on the west side of Hyland-Croy Road, approximately 700
feet southwest of the intersection with Brand Road. The site is currently undeveloped and contains
no significant natural features.
History
On October 20, 2006, City Council reviewed and approved Ordinance 74-06 to rezone
approximately 61 acres from R, Rural District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Oak
Park) for the development of 108 residential units, 40,000 square feet of mixed-use space, and
31 acres of open space. In 2007, PZC approved a final development plan and final plat for the
subdivision and development of 108 residential units. On November 10, 2016, PZC reviewed and
provided informal feedback for three options to convert 36 townhome units into single-family lots
within Subareas D and E. It was determined, due to differences in ownership between Subareas
D and E at the time, the option for a rezoning of Subarea D and Subarea E together was not
possible. On July 13, 2017, PZC formally approved the rezoning and final development plan to
convert 36 townhomes in Subarea D to 20 single-family lots, and on September 11, 2017, Council
approved Ordinance 52-17 for the rezoning and final plat.
Proposal
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2019
Page 3 of 28
This proposal is for 12 single-family lots on 3.47 acres and two open spaces, accounting for 0.52
acres of the site. The lots surround the green spaces on two sides, while the existing street
network binds the two other sides of the greenspaces. Two lot sizes are proposed. Eight of the
lots will be approximately 0.16-acre in size while the remaining four lots will be 0.19-acre in size.
The larger lots front Oak Park Boulevard, while the smaller lots will front Oak Tree Drive. The
smaller lots are 55 feet in width and 130 feet in depth. The larger lots are 65 feet in width with
the same depth of 130 feet. All of the proposed home sites can accommodate either court-loaded
or side-loaded garages. Oak Park is unique in its architectural requirements and neighborhood
theme. The applicant has indicated that previously approved elevations will continue to be used.
Most sites allow for court-loaded or side-loaded garages. The sites will continue the use of the
hedgerow feature, which is a unique character element.
Staff has proposed the following questions to guide the discussion:
1) Does the Commission support the request to pursue the conversion of the
commercial area to single-family lots?
2) Does the Commission find the proposed site layout and design harmonious with
the existing Oak Park neighborhood?
3) Does the Commission support staff’s preference that there be additional
connectivity throughout, including along the alleyways that lead to the proposed
greenspaces?
4) Other considerations by the Commission.
Commission Questions
Ms. Fox stated that the proposal would use two of the house styles included in the original
development – the Park Home, which is 2,500 - 3,800 square feet, and the Village Home, which
is smaller. Would the Park Home be placed on the larger lots and the Village Home placed on the
smaller lots in this proposal?
Mr. Ridge responded that the smaller home style would be used.
Ms. Fox inquired if all 12 homes would be the smaller home style.
Mr. Ridge responded affirmatively.
Ms. Kennedy inquired about the connectivity of the site.
Mr. Ridge displayed a graphic showing the connectivity throughout the site, including bikepaths
and sidewalks.
Ms. Fox stated that in Subarea D, she was unable to determine the architecture style or home
sizes. Is the Village Home reflected in Subarea D, as well, or does it contain homes of an entirely
different architecture?
Mr. Ridge responded that it is the same – the Village Home.
Ms. Fox inquired if both Subareas D and E would contain the Village Home style.
Mr. Ridge responded affirmatively.
Applicant Presentation
Christopher Cline, Haynes, Kessler, Myers and Postalakis, 300 W. Wilson Bridge Rd, Suite 100,
Worthington, OH 43085, Worthington, representing the applicant, Oak Park Dublin, LLC, stated
that also present is Linda Menerey, EMH&T. Ms. Menerey will address the technical aspects of
the plan. He will address the history and land use.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2019
Page 4 of 28
The lengthy history on this case is very important and is the reason the case is before the
Commission tonight. This is a revision of the PUD rezoning, which occurred in 2006. In 2005, the
partnership, chiefly composed of Solove family members, owners of the land, became interested
in selling it. This Oak Park development originally was planned in another location. However, the
City determined that that they desired to change the zoning in that area and requested that the
applicant withdraw their application and locate the project elsewhere.
His client is New Jersey centered, Atlantic Realty Hallmark Homes, and Oak Park is a joint venture
of that organization. Due to family relationships in the area, they desired to develop a project in
central Ohio. They identified this property on the west side of Hyland-Croy Road, approximately
650 feet southwest of the intersection of Hyland-Croy Road and Mitchell-Dewitt Road, adjacent to
Dublin Jerome High School, which they wished to purchase. Unfortunately, the proposed purchase
would carry a condition that the seller, HC Associates, retain a certain amount of the land for
commercial development of a retail center within the proposed single-family residential
development. HC Associates and two different developers were involved in this matter. The
commercial part of the site was owned by Jerry Solove.
The PUD design was based on the City’s Conservation Design preference. That design concentrated
the residential uses more closely together with a large amount of surrounding open space. The plan
had approximately 50% open space with the larger homes located on small lots. Although two
home styles were offered, buyers wanted the larger homes and so the distinction between the two
homes was eliminated. Homes in the development being sold today are in the $550,000 range. The
architecture is distinctive, and the homes have four-sided architecture and four-sided materials.
The four-sided materials made the homes more expensive and made it more difficult for the
developer to compete with the same size house being built by other developers. All of the land
between the currently zoned retail site and Hyland-Croy Road was dedicated to the City as parkland.
The 50% open space that surrounds the residential area is owned and maintained by the City as
parkland. The space the HOA maintains is smaller.
The commercial reserves presented a significant problem. Per the current zoning, Subarea E is
Neighborhood Commercial, but the Permitted Uses allowed anything in Neighborhood Commercial
and in Community Commercial, with the exception of 12 uses. Permitted as Conditional Uses in the
middle of this neighborhood were auto-oriented commercial facilities. A lengthy list of retail uses
were permitted on this commercially zoned land that are not Neighborhood Commercial. This made
it difficult to market the residential subdivision during the next 10 years. Although the commercial
plan was beautiful, it made the site so expensive that the developer was never able to develop it.
The commercial landowner was obligated to pay a portion of the infrastructure costs, such as
sewers and roads, if the commercial development occurred. He was required to sign a mortgage
note for $1.8 million for that share (slightly less than 50%) of the project. When the detailed land
purchase agreement was entered into in 2005, there was little other development on the area. A
significant level of development exists today in the Glacier Ridge area that has a character not
anticipated when this commercial use was envisioned. As the greater area evolved, it developed as
primarily single-family and empty nester uses. Empty nesters prefer single-level homes, not 3-story
townhouses. Because the currently zoned 3-story condos were envisioned as a buffer for the
residential development, Planning staff was not supportive of their efforts to develop single-family
homes here. As zoned, the commercial area had a 200-ft. setback from the roadway, and the
signage was very limited. Commercial uses need visibility. In addition, the commercial area of
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2019
Page 5 of 28
40,000 square feet was too small to support a retail center. The Community Plan stated that these
retail centers should be a minimum of 60,000 square feet. Consequently, the retail never developed.
They were unable to develop the 3-story townhouses, and there were only eight lots remaining in
the residential area. If Council did not rezone the area to permit another home style, the subdivision
would “go dark,” which would not benefit the City or the residents. Planning staff agreed to work
with their team, and Ms. Menerey identified the concept of villa lots. The villa lots that surround
the commercial area only had 104 feet of depth, because the roads were all in. There are no new
roads to be built in Oak Park. However, they decided that they could achieve a meld of traditional,
single-family and patio homes. The patio homes have full backyards and are alley-accessed, but
they are large homes. They may well turn out to be the same price point as the single-family homes.
The lots are 55 feet wide and only 104 feet deep, but there is room for a garden or a patio. They
had been hopeful to get assistance from the City in the form of a “nudge” to the commercial
developer, but they were not able to secure that.
The Informal Review proposal reviewed by the Commission in 2016 contained three proposals.
Option A, if they had been able to get control of all of the land -- both the townhome lots and the
commercial area -- would have permitted a development of 32 single-family lots with no alleys,
which would have been consistent with the rest of Oak Park. Option B was the villa lots, and Option
C was what is being proposed tonight. Although they made many attempts, they were unable to
gain control of the commercial portion, so they proceeded with Option B, the villa lots. They are
pleased with the villa lots, which will appeal to empty nester buyers. The commercial area continued
to present a problem, however, because the villas would back up to the commercial area. To provide
a buffer from any potential commercial uses, the Final Development Plan provided six-foot fences
along the alleys. Because they are not part of the zoning, the fences could be removed with a minor
amendment to the Final Development Plan. The zoning text for the villa development enshrines
staff’s ability to modify the home plans if a buyer requests it.
They have continued to attempt to work with the commercial developer, and in 2018, Jerry Halprin,
the Oak Park residential developer and Jerry Solove, the commercial developer, met and crafted a
settlement that would transfer the commercial property to Oak Park. That agreement was not
signed until May 2019 and came at a significant cost, as the interests of three parties were involved.
The global deal involved the cancellation of the $1.8 million mortgage and a $700,000 mortgage
with some exchange of money to satisfy the different obligations. At that point, the residential
developer owned the commercial land, as well, but as part of that global agreement, they were
required to file and complete a rezoning for the 12 single-family lots within 270 days. Additionally,
the villa lots are enshrined in the agreement. There has been extensive effort to get to this point.
While they would have preferred to have developed Option A, they did not have that option. They
have worked with the land they could control. The proposed development will create an attractive
front door to Oak Park, which has been missing. Since 2007, this commercial area could have been
developed, but it was not. That is an indication the commercial land use did not make sense here
in this residential area. Approval of the proposed rezoning would require an amendment to the
Future Land Use, which shows these two reserves as being mixed residential neighborhood center.
He is hopeful that the Commission will see the value of rezoning the retail as single-family
residential. If that occurs, any of the 15-20 home models currently available in Oak Park would be
available here. The density of the entire subarea would be 1.44 du/acre, which will decrease the
overall Oak Park density to 1.77 du/acre.
Ms. Menerey, Associate, EMH&T, Inc., 5500 New Albany Rd., Columbus, Ohio, 43054, stated that
all of the roads, alleys and utilities are in place. The two reserves on either side will be totally
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2019
Page 6 of 28
encompassed by already constructed roads. The 12 proposed lots will be comparable to the
perimeter lots. There will be a lower density with less units and an additional 0.5-acre of open
space. They were asked to complete a traffic impact study, which showed a significant traffic
reduction by replacing 40,000 square feet of commercial with 12 single-family homes of the
existing palette. The entry here will be a replication of that approved previously for the villa
development, creating a consistent look along the boulevard.
Commission Questions for the Applicant
Ms. Fox inquired if there would be a 60% lot coverage with the proposed development.
Mr. Cline stated that these 135-foot depth lots are actually five feet deeper than the 125-foot
depth that is standard in Oak Park.
Ms. Fox stated that it is essential to look at the entire development holistically.
Mr. Cline responded that, essentially, the conditions in the rest of the subdivision would be the
same here. Because the lots are a little deeper, there may be less lot coverage. Homeowners in
this subdivision tend to put the larger homes on the smaller lots, so most of the homes built here
are on the setback lines. That is the style of this subdivision.
Ms. Call stated that there is a 6-foot sideyard setback, a 15-foot rear setback and a 20-foot front
setback. Is that consistent with what is expected in this area?
Mr. Ridge responded that setbacks have not been set necessarily, but the intent is to keep it
consistent throughout.
Mr. Cline stated that the setbacks for the rest of Oak Park are not less than 13 feet or greater
than 20 feet. That caused a problem, because the utility setbacks were 20 feet. They will probably
specify the setback, which is likely to be 20 feet.
Ms. Menerey stated that with 55-foot x 130-foot lots, the buildable area, excluding the setbacks,
would be 59%. However, the entire buildable area would not be built. There would be some
additional greenspace, making it comparable to the existing development.
Ms. Fox inquired if the villa development is the same.
Mr. Cline responded that he believes the lot coverage was a little higher. The villas have detached
garages; whereas, most of these homes will have a garage incorporated into the structure.
Ms. Call inquired about connectivity. There is no sidewalk along the upper and lower edges of the
12 lots. She does not like the shared-use roadway, especially in a neighborhood immediately off
a main road. She would encourage them to add connectivity throughout the development.
Mr. Cline responded that they would work on that issue; however, they do not have a right-of-
way. Typically, sidewalks are in the right-of-way. These are private streets, so there is no public
right-of-way.
Ms. Menerey responded that there is a sidewalk extending from Hyland-Croy Road within an
easement with a handicapped crossing. The entire perimeter block is very consistent with all the
other perimeter blocks throughout the development. Where there are alleys, it is difficult to add
sidewalks. The assumption was that people could walk a few feet along the alley past a couple
of lots and access the greenspace.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2019
Page 7 of 28
Ms. Call stated that in the remainder of the development, it is possible to access the greenspace
from an adjacent sidewalk. Along the perimeter of all the homes, there is a sidewalk. Open space
is usable space for the residents, but if they do not live in the five homes that abut the areas,
they must walk in the street to access it.
Ms. Menerey responded that the alleys are already in place. It would be necessary to walk only
130 feet to access the greenspace; however, they will look at that situation again.
Mr. Wilson requested clarification regarding the difficulty in adding sidewalks when they own the
property.
Ms. Menerey responded that the lots extend to the end of the alleys and the alleys are in reserves.
Adding a sidewalk in there would shrink the lot space. The sidewalk ends up being in the side
yard setback or the building pad is reduced.
Mr. Wilson stated that, typically, alleys are for vehicles, particularly in larger cities. While they can
be used by pedestrians, having separate spaces for each is preferable for safety reasons.
Therefore, that will be necessary in this project.
Ms. Fox stated that she understands that the original intent was that the commercial developer
would be using and paying for the private streets. However, that situation has changed, and
maintenance of the private streets will become a burden for the residents. Normally, it would be
necessary to provide residential streets with sidewalks and ability for vehicle parking, but due to
the previously anticipated use as alleys, these are now narrow streets. She is not opposed to a
rezoning to residential, but has an issue with the difficulties of squeezing residential into what
was a commercial space with alleys and expenses that will become a burden for the homeowners.
Mr. Cline stated that there are issues when the developer does not build alleys to the appropriate
specifications. In this case, all of the public and private streets in Oak Park have the same roadway
specifications. They have been in place since 2007 and were built to municipal street standards.
The only difference between the private and public street is the inverted crown streets – the
drainage runs to the center rather than the curb, but they have the same drainage underneath
the streets. The existing alleys are already part of Oak Park and are the HOA’s responsibility.
Currently, the developer has been paying for all the expenses of Oak Park. The HOA currently
has $260,000 in their account because they have not yet been asked to contribute to the general
maintenance and upkeep of Oak Park. When the project for the villas came before Council for
consideration, Council asked them to review the future maintenance costs. They provided a cost
breakdown for future Oak Park that indicated a monthly HOA fee of $70/month. Although the
residents are paying $98/month in HOA fees, there are many communities in Dublin that have an
HOA fee of $250-$300/month. Due to the quality of these streets, following the same 10-year
street maintenance schedule as the municipality should be sufficient. Although interest has been
expressed in having the City assume the maintenance of these private streets, in the past, the
City has not done so because, typically, private streets have not been built to municipal standards.
Ms. Menerey stated that Oak Tree Drive North and South was planned to accommodate head-in
parking, so there is an additional 20 feet. They are suggesting taking 10 feet of that and providing
parking on one side of the street. The fire hydrants, water lines, sanitary and storm sewers are
already there. There is an opportunity to provide parking, and sidewalks could be installed in the
easements, not public right-of-way.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2019
Page 8 of 28
Mr. Cline clarified that because this particular land is currently zoned for commercial, it is not part
of the HOA. It is not subject to the deed restrictions and covenants of Oak Park, which was
established by the residential developer. If approved, the proposed 12 homes will be incorporated
into the HOA. The deed restrictions and covenants will be amended accordingly, and the HOA will
have the HOA fees from these 12 homes.
Ms. Call stated that it appears that sidewalks were installed as the development took place within
the existing neighborhood. In this case, the alleys are existing, so sidewalks would need to be
added. However, that is what, typically, has occurred.
Mr. Cline responded that, due to the heavy construction equipment, one of the last tasks to be
completed is the sidewalk installation.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Melvis Houseman, 7134 Snowdrop Court, Dublin, OH, stated that she is representing the Oak
Park homeowners’ concerns with this development. She is a member of the community, and the
proposed redevelopment of the townhome and commercial lots is directly in front of her home.
Unfortunately, she and the homeowners received communication that the action of the
homeowners would be an intentional interference with the contractual obligations and rights of
the developer as well as other parties. That communication was clearly meant to discourage the
homeowners from exercising their rights as residents of the City of Dublin to come before the
Commission, and it undermines the very purpose of this public hearing.
Ms. Houseman provided a slide presentation. There are two main issues with this redevelopment:
(1) the development inconsistencies, and (2) the undue burden that will be placed on the HOA
for maintenance of the private roads. The homeowners would like to propose that the developer’s
Option A be brought back with the Commission’s indication of support and that all private roads
be converted to public roads.
Background:
Oak Park originated in 2006 as a mixed-use development. In 2017, the developer requested the
rezoning of the townhomes. In the PZC minutes of 11-10-16, Commissioners indicated a need to
do something to prevent the residential development from going dark and their recognition that
the commercial development would not occur. At that time, there was no ability to put pressure
on the absentee landowner (of the commercial area). Today the facts are different. Both Subarea
D, the townhomes, and Subarea E -- the commercial lots, are owned by the same developer. As
of today, there has been no construction activity in either subarea, and no plans have been
submitted by the developer for construction of homes in Subarea D. Because one developer now
owns both areas, the homeowners ask the Commission and Council to discontinue the piecemeal
approach to rezoning in Oak Park and ensure that the redevelopment of Subarea D and E is
consistent with the existing development. This would address the cluster problem and guarantee
that the HOA is not overburdened with the maintenance of the private roads. The Developer’s
statement regarding Option A, submitted to the Commission in 2016, indicated that including
both the commercial and townhome lots (Option A) was the best alternative. “It yields 32 single-
family lots of a 125-foot depth and similar lot frontage to existing Oak Park lots. This option would
continue Oak Park in a fashion similar to the initial phase in terms of unit size, architecture and
quality of materials….” He also stated that because the residential developer did not control the
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2019
Page 9 of 28
commercial land, that option was aspirational. A different statement in that same document was
that a separate development of Option B and Option C yields the same number of residential
units as Option A; however, the resulting value is less if Options B and C are developed separately.
Option A would address all the inconsistencies. All of the lot depth would be consistent; the lot
width would vary but be consistent with what exists in Oak Park. It would eliminate the cluster
problem, because the 55-foot width lots would be spread out. The front and rear yard setbacks
would be consistent with those of the current homes in Oak Park. The lot coverage for new homes
would not exceed 60%, and the garage location would be consistent with existing Oak Park
homes -- most on the front of homes with a variation for the corner lots. No fence would be
needed, four alleys would be eliminated, and there would be an interior park open space that is
consistent with existing Oak Park. When Option A was presented to PZC in 2016-2107, the
Commissioners expressed support for Option A. Option A offers both the developer and the HOA
positive results. The larger lots will make the homes easier to sell. As a mother, she would not
want a villa home with a street immediately in front and an alley immediately behind. When she
purchased her home in Oak Park, she was told that the developer expected empty nesters to be
drawn to the community. Today, Oak Park is filled with families with young children. The villa
homes will not be attractive to families. Option A would not reduce the number of homes the
developer wants to build – 32 homes. It would eliminate the undue burden on the HOA. When
the Oak Park plan was approved, it was anticipated that the Subarea D (townhomes) and Subarea
E (commercial) would use the two adjacent reserves for ingress and egress. It was also
anticipated that the HOA would own and maintain those reserves, and the HOA and the owner
of the commercial lots would enter into a cost-sharing agreement to maintain those private drives.
In the homeowners’ declaration, there are two references to a cost-sharing agreement for the
costs of maintaining the private drives. When she purchased her home, she anticipated that 108
lots would be contributing to the HOA; that there would be a cost-sharing agreement between
the HOA and the owner of the commercial lots; and that the owner of the commercial lots would
maintain the two roads that are parallel to Hyland-Croy Road. After the rezoning of Subarea D
(townhomes) and with the proposed rezoning, there will only be 104 members contributing to
the HOA, and the HOA would be wholly responsible for those reserves and alleys and for two
additional private roads. As a result of the 2017 rezoning and the current, proposed rezoning,
there would be no cost-sharing agreement to offset the cost of maintenance of the alleys, only
increased costs for the HOA. The maintenance of private roads is a recurring topic. With the
original rezoning ordinance for Oak Park, Ordinance 74-06, there is a memo from the City
Manager that states, “At the November 6, 2006 City Council meeting, the issue of costs for private
street maintenance becoming a burden for homeowners in the Oak Park development was raised.
The applicant has supplied information addressing this issue.” In the minutes from the first
Council hearing on August 14, 2017, the following statements are reflected:
- Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that it had been the City’s practice to discourage private
streets. By standardizing the streets, it would make it easier for larger trucks to come into
the neighborhood. These streets (the alleys) are much narrower than the balance of the
streets.
- The Vice Mayor stated that maintaining roads is expensive for HOAs, and he does not
want the taxpayers to have to pay this expense in the future.
- Mr. Lecklider stated that he assumed the expense of maintaining private roads would be
shared with the commercial property owners.
At the September 11, 2017 meeting, it was noted that there had been an Oak Park alleys condition
evaluation, which indicated the following: Crack sealing and patching would be needed in the
next one-two years for an estimated cost of $10,000, and pavement mill and fill would be
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2019
Page 10 of 28
necessary in the next 8-10 years for a cost of $120,000. The question was raised regarding who
would be responsible for paying that cost. Unfortunately, there was no cost-sharing agreement
in place between the commercial property owners and the residential property owners, even
though that was included in their declaration. At the same Council meeting, Ms. Salay stated that
the City “has tried to prevent rezoning or redevelopment like this, because it would create an
undue burden for the residents. This has occurred a number of times, and the neighborhoods
then come to Council for request relief. For that reason, the City now avoids having private streets
in developments.”
The issue of private roads is significant. As a homeowner, hearing that there will be a cost of
$120,000 in the next few years is very concerning. It does not matter that there is some money
in the reserve fund, because that fund will not last indefinitely.
They conducted a HOA fee survey of some of the other communities in Dublin. She has provided
a handout to the Commission that provides a comprehensive list of the HOA fees. For instance,
the Westbury annual HOA fee is $125, and they maintain 5 acres of land, fence and an entrance
sign and landscaping. The Tartan Ridge fee is $800/year, and they maintain 46 acres of land and
ponds. A $500,000 home in Muirfield is $1,100/year. In Oak Park, the homeowners pay $1,152 a
year for 4 acres of common area, a clubhouse and pond. The rezoning of Subarea D, the
commercial area, as proposed by the developer, will increase the burden on the HOA. For this
reason, they ask that all their private roads be converted to public roads. They have obtained
signatures from 96% of the homeowners (65 of the 68 built homes) on a petition in support of
the developer’s Plan A. [copies provided to the Commission.] In view of the minutes excerpts
provided, if the developer had presented the currently proposed rezoning to the Commission and
Council in 2006, it is certain it would not have been approved.
In summary, these are the HOA’s requests:
1. Bring back the developer’s option A. That plan is no longer aspirational, because the
developer owns both areas. Option A would solve all the development inconsistencies,
and it would eliminate the four alleys and the fences, which ultimately would reduce costs
for the HOA.
2. Affirm that the Commission is supportive of such a plan.
3. Convert the private roads to public roads to prevent an undue burden on the residents.
The City, developer and the homeowners have a tremendous opportunity to make the
community of Oak Park a better place. The best possible outcome will be achieved by
evaluating development opportunities at Oak Park in a comprehensive, holistic manner
that will ensure consistency with the existing homes and eliminate an undue burden on
the HOA.
Commission Questions to the Applicant
Ms. Kennedy inquired if the Commission is to assume that the developer is not in agreement with
Option A.
Mr. Cline responded that the matter before the Commission is the rezoning of the two commercial
reserves. That is the only matter which the Commission has the power to address with this
application. If the rezoning is not approved, the commercial reserves will remain. Originally,
Option A was their preference, but despite their efforts, they were not able to get control of that
land, nor were they able to get the City to put pressure on that commercial developer. They
proceeded with what they could do and developed the villas. Because the originally planned
townhomes would have had no setback, the villas were an improvement. The Village homes all
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2019
Page 11 of 28
have 5.0-foot setbacks on the sides, which is the minimum amount for Fire Department access.
The Park homes did have a 6.0-foot access. At this point, there is no opportunity to return to
Option A. The money has been paid, and there is now a contract that will address all the issues.
The only issue that is unresolved is if the Commission will approve the elimination of the retail
and replacement thereof with the proposed 12 single-family homes. Everything else is zoned and
approved.
Ms. Newell stated that the existing Oak Tree Drive South extends through both of the subareas
proposed for rezoning, and inquired if the Commission had the authority to require the streets
included in the proposed rezoning area to be made public streets.
Mr. Boggs responded that he does not know from the depiction in the Concept Plan proposal that
any or the entirety of those private streets are within the reserves under consideration at this
time. He does not have the materials to evaluate that independently.
Ms. Newell inquired if staff is able to answer that question. They appear to be within the proposed
rezoning area.
Ms. Husak responded that it is not as simple as requesting that these streets be made public.
They are existing, built streets and are not built to public street standards. There is a Code in
place that regulates how a private street can be converted into a public street, and as they exist
today, these streets do not qualify for such conversion.
Ms. Newell responded that she understands the City’s standards for public streets vs. private
streets. There are other condominium communities with private streets, which the HOAs must
maintain. However, because the streets here are in a proposed rezoning, it is valid to consider
what impact that would make on the HOA fees in this community. Private streets can be
reconstructed to public street standards, and with this rezoning, that seems an appropriate
measure. She understands that unless the applicant submits a request to rezone the surrounding
properties, the Commission cannot rezone it. What the Commission can control is what occurs
with the parcels within the proposed rezoning.
Mr. Cline stated that Ms. Menerey has pointed out that there is no access to a public street from
the two private streets. They connect to the entrance boulevard but not to Snowdrop Court. The
land within existing Reserve J lies between the two. The question posed is if the Commission
could approve the rezoning with the condition that the private streets be reconstructed to public
street standards. The next question would be if his client would accept that, and he does not
believe he would. If that is the case, unfortunately, the commercial site will remain in the middle
of the subdivision.
Ms. Newell stated that it is equally odd to have Snowdrop Court, a public street, extend into a
private street, and from the private street, connect back into Oak Park Boulevard.
Mr. Cline responded that the bulb is actually part of the reserve; it is not a public street. The
boulevard is a public street, but the two circular bulb sections are not. In his opinion, the one 24-
foot wide street that is constructed to the same roadbed standards as a public street could
become a public street, if that were Council’s direction. There is little difference between dual
gutter streets and inverted crown streets, although there is a preference for the latter in Dublin.
It is doubtful that the City Engineering Department would find that Oak Tree Drive North and
South would impose a greater maintenance burden on the City.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2019
Page 12 of 28
Mr. Hammersmith responded that he does not believe that street was built to a public street
standard.
Mr. Cline responded that he has those plans with him. All the streets in Oak Park were built to
the same roadbed standards as public streets. His point is that these streets are not going to fall
apart as have many of the streets in private developments in Dublin.
Ms. Newell stated that does not address the maintenance cost concerns for her. It is evident that
there was to have been a shared maintenance agreement for those private drives.
Mr. Boggs stated that he is not aware of anything other than what has been presented by the
two parties. However, the question before the Commission tonight is the Concept Plan. While,
historically, there has been a concern regarding the wisdom of private streets and accepting
public dominion over formerly private streets, he is unable to discern whether the private streets
are within these subareas and within the scope of the rezoning request before the Commission
at this time. If they are, in fact, all in the previously rezoned Subarea D, that would not be part
of the application before the Commission. At this Concept Plan stage, it is the initial opportunity
for applicants, the public and the Commission to review the Concept Plan. Detailed drawings and
development text would come with a Preliminary Development Plan review, which is the next
step. At this time, nothing the Commission or applicant says binds their action with the Preliminary
Development Plan stage.
Mr. Fishman stated that hearing the citizen representative’s presentation made him proud to be
a resident of this City. This type of citizen involvement is what makes Dublin what it is. In Dublin,
traditionally, a certain percentage of the residents and the developer are in agreement before a
rezoning occurs. In this case, 96% of the residents are in opposition to the proposed rezoning.
He would suggest the Commission table the case to allow the residents and the developer an
opportunity to meet. When the applicant returns with a Preliminary Development Plan proposal,
they will have achieved some agreement. He is not supportive of private streets. A developer
should not be permitted to install private streets and, ultimately, the City end up becoming
responsible for them. In such cases, the City has had to rebuild private streets to public street
standards. The developer has not considered reducing the number of units in order to change
the street configurations.
Ms. Newell clarified that only the applicant can request their case be tabled.
Mr. Boggs reminded the Commission that a Concept Plan review provides an opportunity for the
Commission to provide early feedback on a plan. The applicant takes the feedback and determines
whether or not to submit a Preliminary Development Plan.
Ms. Call stated that, ultimately, she is in favor of rezoning the commercial area to residential.
However, the proposed plan is not yet what it should be. She would encourage the developer to
work with the Oak Park community, as they will be living next to the proposed development.
Ms. Fox stated that the rezoning proposal criteria asks whether the rezoning would negatively
impact those adjacent to the rezoning site. In this case, the residents have voiced their concerns
clearly. Eliminating the commercial is a good idea; residential would be appropriate in this area,
but she is concerned about the negative impact of the proposed rezoning. The Commission needs
to consider how to convert private streets to public streets. They are too burdensome for HOAs
to handle; it is not in their purview. As for the site itself, she has some suggestions:
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2019
Page 13 of 28
1) Address the inconsistencies in the setbacks and rights-of-way.
2) On Oak Park Boulevard, there a landscape buffer and four of the driveways on that street
empty into the buffer. There is very little space for ingress and egress.
3) She agrees with the concern regarding connectivity. There are some lovely greenspaces
here, and it is necessary to provide ability for children to get off the roadways, regardless
of whether they are alleys. The site is overwhelmed with children on skates and bicycles.
We do not want children going to a park via a road that has driveways emptying into it.
She would encourage the developer to look at opportunities for making this a safer
environment for the residents.
4) In her review of the past minutes, it was clear that the intent was that Oak Park Boulevard
provide a long-distance view to the Community Center, which is a lovely structure. The
proposed landscape plan obstructs that view. Because the roadway is narrower in some
parts than others, her suggestion would be to have landscaping on the perimeters of Oak
Park Boulevard that has a focal point. Upon entering the Oak Park community, the long
distance view to the community center needs to be enhanced.
5) In reference to the greenspace, the Oak Park development text refers to the appearance
of an English-Irish cottage setting. Because of the lack of connectivity, these greenspaces
seem to separate. When those spaces are developed, it would be nice to have a feature
similar to what exists behind the Community Center, something to draw the
neighborhood to it, such as a path or a fountain.
6) Finally, she cannot support a rezoning proposal that does not have the support of the
residents in that neighborhood.
Mr. Fishman noted that he did not hear the residents’ objection to the “right kind” of commercial
development. The developer stated that what was originally proposed was an obtrusive type of
commercial, such as auto repair and fuel services. Now that one developer owns all the property,
perhaps a type of light commercial could be identified that would be acceptable to the residents.
Mr. Cline stated that if the proposed rezoning does not go forward, the commercial lots could be
sold to another developer.
Ms. Newell pointed out that anything that is permitted to be developed on that property today as
it is currently zoned would continue to be permitted on that property, unless an applicant brought
a different proposal before the Commission. That is one of the issues the Commission considers
with a rezoning.
Mr. Cline stated that would not be a positive result. This entire process has been confronted with
having to making choices that were not the preferred choices.
Mr. Fishman responded that he understands that. At this time, however, he is not supportive of
the closeness of the houses, the private streets, and the HOA having the burden of the private
street maintenance.
Mr. Wilson stated that he concurs with the statement that it is important for the developer to
have conversations with the residents and ensure that the result is a plan on which everyone
agrees. He is supportive of rezoning the commercial area to residential. Due to its distance from
the street, it would seem more appropriate for it to be a residential community. He is not
supportive of the proposed layout, but because one developer controls the area, he is hopeful
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2019
Page 14 of 28
they can identify a more suitable layout. It is important to ensure better walkability and
accessibility within the community.
Mr. Fishman stated that although fences are not on the property proposed for rezoning, he
reminded the Commission of its intent never to create a situation where fences are needed. It
has been previously stated that trees improve when they age; fences get worse. They require
maintenance that creates a burden for an HOA.
Mr. Supelak inquired in what stage is the development in Subarea D.
Ms. Husak stated that the Concept Plan is the first step in a rezoning request. If the developer
were to develop it commercially, as it is already zoned, it would be in the final step – the Final
Development Plan.
Mr. Supelak responded that would be the case with Subarea E. Subarea D is the villa development,
which has been approved.
Ms. Husak responded that the development in Subarea D is in the Building Permits stage.
Mr. Supelak stated that he concurs with fellow Commissioners regarding rezoning the commercial
subarea to residential. In the past, we have been ambitious regarding commercial pockets;
ultimately, they have proven to be hard to market. The right commercial entity has to be
identified. Private streets are very unfortunate, and the developers had many opportunities to
avoid creating the problem in the first place. That is a burden that is now falling on the
homeowners, which is very problematic. In Subarea E, sidewalks will be important. It will also be
important to have a development that will maintain the character of the lot size, architecture and
aesthetics of the greater community. It will also be important not to add any extra expense to
the HOA, but rather to reduce it.
Ms. Kennedy thanked Ms. Houseman for her presentation. It is meaningful to the Commission to
hear from the people who live in that area, and is important for the Commission to keep those
comments in mind as the process moves forward. The residents requested that the Commission
bring back Option A, but according to the developer, that is no longer an opportunity. In regard
to private roads, the Commission will not be able to identify a resolution at this time, but the
Commission has attempted to make its desires known on the residents’ behalf. Unfortunately, the
Commission does not have the ability to impact the areas of change that the residents request.
In regard to other areas, such as sidewalks and connectivity, the Commission does have the
ability to influence the process.
Ms. Newell stated that there are ways to create the desired connectivity along all of the private
streets. In terms of the area along Oak Drive, there was testimony that within the subarea, at a
minimum, the road needs to be designed and constructed as a public street. It is extremely odd
to have a public street tying into a private street that will tie back into a public street. She
understands how it occurred, but it needs to be addressed differently in this rezoning.
Mr. Cline stated that it may have made sense at the time because the road provided access to
the commercial area, which that developer owned.
Ms. Newell stated that she is supportive of rezoning this area to residential property as it is in the
best interest of this community. Her experience as a Dublin resident and a Commission member
has made her aware that most of the areas with commercial development within residential
Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 22, 2019
Page 15 of 28
neighborhoods have not done well in the long run and have become problematic for the
neighborhoods.
Mr. Cline thanked the Commission for their input.
Ms. Newell thanked the residents for their interest and involvement.
[A five-minute recess was taken.]
3. OSU Medical Campus, 19-055CP , Concept Plan
Ms. Newell stated that this application is a request for review of a Concept Plan, which is the first
step for the potential rezoning of a 34-acre site from ID-1, Research Office District to Planned
Unit Development District for the potential development of a medical office building and an
ambulatory care center (Phase I) and a potential future hospital (Phase II). The site is on the
north side of Shier Rings Road, east of Eiterman Road, west of Avery Road, and south of US 33.
Staff Presentation
Background
Ms. Husak stated this a Concept Plan review for The Ohio State University (OSU) Wexner Medical
Campus to be located in Dublin. The Concept Plan will provide informal feedback from the
Commission. The applicant has filed an application for a rezoning to a PUD. The 34-acre site,
currently owned by the City of Dublin, was acquired for economic development purposes. The
site, located within the eastern portion of the West Innovation District and on the south side of
US33, is currently comprised of three parcels. Eventually, there will be a preliminary development
plat and final plat application, which will result in a parcel of the size and shape shown [image
shown], and will provide access through public right-of-way. On the south side is Shier Rings
Road, where the Dublin Service Center and the Dublin School Transportation site are located. The
Ballantrae neighborhood is also located to the south. On the west is the Washington Township
Administration Building, a church and the Sutphen Corporation. Cosgray Ditch runs through the
site, and the City of Dublin has committed to working with the Army Corps of Engineers in
relocating that ditch. Public notices of the project were sent out recently. The Community Plan
shows the future land use for this site as RD-Research and Development. In 2017, City Council
approved Ordinance 69-17 for an amendment to the West Innovation District (WID) Special Area
Plan as part of the City of Dublin Community Plan. The updated plan is more inclusive in regard
to land uses. It provides different amenities and opportunities for development, particularly driven
by the OSU Heritage College, which is located in the northern portion of this district. To date,
little development has occurred in the district. The site was zoned ID as part of the original
Innovation Plan, adopted in 2011, so its current zoning is ID-1, which is a research and office
zoning district. All of the uses that will be included in the PUD zoning are permitted currently in
the ID-1 District. However, a PUD will provide more flexibility for the applicant and the City.
Proposed Site Plan
The plan for a medical campus will be developed in two phases. Phase I will include medical office
space as well as an ambulatory care facility. Phase I will include approximately 250,000 square
feet with parking provided in three distinct areas. The western portion of the site will remain
vacant in Phase I, but will accommodate a future Phase II. The plan is to provide access to the
site along the southern boundary from existing Shier Rings Road extending west toward Eiterman
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc.
Ordinance No.
52-17
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Form No. 30043
Passed . 20
AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 2.9 ACRES FROM PUD,
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (OAK PARK, SUBAREA D)
TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (OAK PARK,
SUBAREA D) FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT
TEXT TO PERMIT THE CONVERSION OF 36 TOWNHOME UNITS IN
SIX BUILDINGS TO 20 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS WITHIN AN EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (CASE 17-0282/PDP/PP/FDP/FP).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, of
its elected members concurring, that:
Section 1. The following described real estate, (see attached legal description, Exhibit
A), situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned PUD, Planned Unit
Development District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in
Ordinance No. 21-70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning
Code and amendments thereto.
Section 2. The application, including the list of contiguous and affected property
owners, and the recommendations of -the Planning and Zoning Commission, are all
incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and said real estate shall
be developed and used in accordance the.1re within.
Section 3. This Ordipance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest
peAod allowed by la>4/"
d this i! da
djof
2017.
ayor - Pfesidir4 officer
ATTESIT:
Clerk of Council
PASSED SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 [VOTE 7-01 WITH ADDITIONALCONDITION
THAT BY MAY 1, 2018 THE APPLICANT HAVE THE DIRT PILE LOCATED ON
RESERVE F HAULED AWAY AND RESERVE F GRADED AND SEEDED
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO
Held
September 11, 2017 Page 4 of 30
Meeting
Form 6101
Mayor Peterson expressed Council's appreciation to Mr. Moloney and his staff for their
efforts and commitment to our community. Council looks forward to continuing to
partner with them on this project.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Peterson asked if any Council member requests removal of an item proposed for
the Consent Agenda.
Ms. Amorose Groomes stated she has one small correction for the August 28 meeting
minutes. On page 13, in her comments regarding the stonewall adjacent to the turf at
the Golf Club of Dublin, she would like it clarified that the inspectors "would have
required a railing to be in place." There is no railing in place there, because the grade
was lowered so that a railing would not be required.
Mayor Peterson moved approval of the two items on the Consent Agenda with the
August 28 meeting minutes amended as indicated.
Vice Mayor Reiner seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Reiner, yes; Mr.
Keenan, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Ms. Arnorose Groomes, yes.
Approval of Minutes of Council meeting of August 28, 2017
Resolution 65-17 (Introduction/ public hearing /vote)
Accepting the Lowest and Best Bid for the Bridge Maintenance - Dublin Recreation
Center and Bridge Improvements - Muirfield Drive at Dublinshire Drive Project.
Project No. 17-023.0-CIP and 17-026.0-CIP)
POSTPONED ITEMS
Ordinance 52-17
RezorA ng Approximately 2.9 acres from PUD, Planned Unit Development
District (Oak Park, Subarea D) to PUD, Panned Unit Development District
Oak Park, Subarea D) for Amendments to the Approved Development Text to
Permit the Conversion of 36 Townhome Units in Sic Buildings to 20 Single -
fa m fly _ots within an Existing Residential Development. (Case 1Y-
028Z/PDP/PP/FDP/FP)
Mr. Stang presented an overview. The ordinance was introduced at the August 14
Council meeting. At that time, Council requested supplemental information regarding the
following:
1) the expiration of the zoning approval;
2) verification of the private alley construction standards;
3) estimated HOA maintenance costs;
4) details regarding the future commercial development.
In response, a staff report was provided in Council's packet with:
1) Zoning expiration - a detailed overview of the Code procedures for the zoning
expiration for a planned development district, along with analysis as to how this
development addresses the outcomes that are outlined for a City -initiated
rezoning. Based on the zoning provision, it is staff's interpretation that this
development would not qualify for any of the three outcomes that are outlined
in Dublin's Zoning Code.
2) Private alley construction - Exhibit A provides the approved construction details
for all public and private streets and alleys within Oak Park. The document
confirms that the construction build-up of the private alleys is identical to that
of the public streets. There are two alley types within oak Park that have a 24 -
foot and a 20 -foot width, respectively.
3) Estimated HOA maintenance costs
a) An estimate was provided based on the open space and the private alley
maintenance for which the HOA is responsible. inuring the original rezoning,
the developer used the conservation design principles to provide over 50%
of open space within the development. The City owns and maintains the
majority of that open space, which amounts to approximately 28 acres.
The remaining four +/- acres are maintained by the master HOA and
include the community center, some interior open spaces and the
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO
Dublin City Council Meeting
Held
September 11, 2017 Page 5 of 30
Form 6101
landscape features that are a part of Subarea D and part of this rezoning
application. The estimated annual costs for open space maintenance are
based on the City's contracted standards. This cost would be distributed
across the 92 residential units at full build -out with this new rezoning.
b) Exhibits B and C provide both the monthly report for Oak Park with
itemized expenses and an evaluation completed by staff on the condition,
timing and estimated costs for repairs for the private alleys.
4) Exhibit D consists of six documents that depict the layout and architectural style
of the commercial subarea. [PowerPoint slides of conceptual layouts of the
commercial subarea were shown.]
At their July 13 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) voted to
recommend approval of the rezoning and preliminary development plan, as well as the
preliminary and final plat.
Council discussion:
Mr. Lecklider:
Stated that, with Council's concurrence, he would like to request that staff
review Code Section 153.053(D)(4) and provide a draft amendment that would
eliminate potential repetition of this situation. As the history reflects, and as the
Council members serving at the time would attest to, the proposal for this
commercial parcel does not meet the intent of what Council was trying to
accomplish at that time. The City has experienced previous conflicts between
commercial development and adjacent residential, and this proposal is not what
was intended. He would like staff and Legal to draft a Code amendment that
would avoid a future occurrence where the construction activity within the
residential development saves the commercial developer from having to begin
construction activity for the commercial portion.
Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired if the request for amendment would delay this project, or
if it would be applicable only to future projects.
Ms. Readier responded that such a Code amendment would apply only to future
applications.
Mr. Lecklider continued:
Requested clarification of the estimated alley maintenance costs, which appear
daunting. Under the Oak Park Alleys Condition Evaluation, the costs estimated
are crack sealing and patching - $10,000; and pavement mill and fill to occur
within 8-10 years - $120,000. What is the start date and who is responsible for
paying the $120,000?
Mr. Stang responded that the evaluation is made on current conditions, and therefore the
crack sealing and patching would take place one to two years from today, and pavement
mill and fill would occur 8 to 10 years from today. That is based upon the fact that those
alleys have experienced minimal use because the adjacent development has not yet
occurred. The alleys are owned and maintained by the master homeowners association,
so the HOA would be responsible for the cost at that time.
Mr. Lecklider stated that at the last meeting, discussion occurred regarding whether
those expenses potentially could be shared with the owner of the commercial parcel.
Was there a response to that question?
Mr. Stang responded that per the plats, the reserves for the private alleys are owned by
the master HOA. There is no indication detailed in the plat documents that the
commercial parcel owner should provide some funding for the maintenance of those.
There are portions of other alleys that are solely the responsibility of the commercial
property owner. At this time, they do not have a definitive answer regarding whether
the commercial subarea would share responsibility for these alleys, as well. That will
need to be worked out between the commercial property owner and the HOA.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if the commercial property owner would need to utilize these alleys
for access.
Mr. Mogan responded affirmatively.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO
affrN
Dublin Citv Council
September 11, 2017 Page 6 of 30
Meeting
Form 6101
Mr. Lecklider stated that, typically, during a rezoning process the City would evaluate the
burden on the HOA in proportion to the number of homes. Is there another
neighborhood of this size that bears a similar potential financial burden for roadway
maintenance?
Mr. Stang responded that he is not aware of such an example, but he can research that
question.
Ms. Salay stated that the City has tried to prevent rezoning or development like this
because it would create an undue burden for the residents. This has occurred a number
of times, and the neighborhoods then come to Council to request relief. For that reason,
the City now avoids having private streets in developments.
Ms. Alutto stated that she reviewed the total maintenance costs for open space, streets,
fencing, etc. for this neighborhood and attempted to calculate the annual cost for each of
the 92 homes. It is approximately $1,000. Those costs will increase over time. Will the
HOA routinely increase the HOA fee to meet the rising costs? At some point, the
maintenance costs will likely exceed what the homeowners are able to pay, and some of
the maintenance may not be done. Has there been any planning for future maintenance
costs?
Mr. Stang responded that the applicant could best respond to that. Over the last ten
years, the developer has been placing funds into a reserve for later transfer to the HOA.
Ms. Alutto inquired what amount is currently in the reserve fund.
Mr. Stang responded that it is approximately $150,000, based on the expense report that
was provided.
Vice Mayor Reiner inquired if there is any community involvement with the developer at
the present time. Often, there is a transitory board, which monitors the expenses and
planning. When it is later turned over to the HOA, the HOA is able to work efficiently
due to the experience the board has already had.
Mr. Stang responded that he does not know if a board has been formed at this time.
Currently, the developer maintains the sole ownership. He does not believe the residents
are actively involved with the HOA.
Mayor Peterson invited the applicant's representative, Chris Cline to comment on this
issue as well as those Ms. Houseman raised earlier.
Chris Cline, attorney, Blaugrund Kessler Myers & Postalakis, noted that Linda Menery,
EMH&T and Brent Cantrell, Oak Park construction superintendent, are also present to
respond to questions.
In terms of HOA finances, sometimes developers will take the HOA fees and use
them to maintain the subdivision while they still have ownership of the reserve
areas. His clients have not done so. All of the monies that the residents have
been paying in since the first homes were built in 2008 has been deposited in an
HOA account, which has not been used. In the meantime, the developer has
continued to pay all of what Otherwise would have been the HOA's costs. If the
subdivision were turned over to the HOA today, they would begin with a reserve
fund of $152,000.
Regarding maintenance costs, a cost breakdown has been prepared and shared
with staff, which is based on the actual costs that the developer is incurring. The
developer is presently paying for the mowing of the commercial area. Their
breakdown indicates annual costs of approximately $650-$-/F)O per home to
maintain all of the items — fences and snow plowing of the private streets. Their
forecast cost of maintaining the private streets is $32,000 every ten years. For
houses costing in the range of $500,000, the monthly $96 HOA fee is small. The
HOA can also raise that fee in the future, if needed. At this time, the HOA
consists of solely his client. Typically, the developer does not relinquish control
of the subdivision until the last home is sold.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if the HOA fee is adequate to cover the maintenance of the private
alleys.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO
Held_
Dublin City Council
September 11, 2017 Page V of 30
Meeting
Form 6101
Mr. Cline responded affirmatively. At this time, there has been no maintenance of either
the private or the public streets. The private streets are already the responsibility of the
HOA. Nothing new is proposed. If the rezoning is not approved, the remaining 72
existing lots will have the maintenance responsibility for those private streets, per the
existing zoning. Such is also the case with the commercial area. The only way in which
that would change is if the additional 20 proposed lots are approved. If there are 92
homes instead of 72 homes, more would share that financial responsibility. The
proposed project would not change any of the zoning that is in place; all of the streets
are already installed.
Mr. Keenan inquired if the commercial development would participate in the HOA.
Mr. Cline responded that because the commercial area is located adjacent to the
residential development, it should participate; unfortunately, no agreement was worked
out in advance. The developer could refuse to allow the commercial development to use
the private alleys unless there is some maintenance cost-sharing agreement. That would
be an incentive for them to agree to do so. The alleys will be used primarily by the
commercial development, not the residential.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if the HOA is solely responsible for maintaining the alleys, could the
HOA restrict access to them?
Ms. Readier responded that they could not do so. However, the commercial
development will need a final development plan review and approval at a future date.
That will provide an opportunity to consider how it is laid out and the anticipated traffic
that will be generated.
Mr. Cline stated that they considered the possibility of the private alleys in the proposed
residential development, but determined it would not succeed. The approved plan and
existing rezoning is what they must deal with.
Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that Ms. Houseman asked Council to consider three issues.
It appears there would be a greater density with this portion than for the remainder of
the subdivision.
Mr. Cline responded that the standards remain consistent throughout — a minimum
standard of 55 feet wide lots. However, most lots are wider than that. All of the lots in
the surrounding village homes are 55 feet wide. It was suggested that the applicant
eliminate two lots. His client has responded that he has already reduced the plan from
36 to 20 lots, which was very significant; there is no ability to give up any additional.
The Planning Commission noted that there were two reserves on either side that could
provide some opportunity. The application was tabled, re -worked and it resulted in a
very nice plan that reduced the originally wider lots to 55 feet, created a new reserve
and used setbacks creatively, and eliminated four parking spaces that the commercial
development did not need to provide, resulting in another nine feet. The changes
provided the opportunity for a landscape entry feature. The Planning Commission
believed the goal was met and recommended approval of the project.
Ms. Salay stated that these are 55 -foot wide single-family lots. In the past, townhomes
were considered in that area, correct?
Mr. Cline responded affirmatively.
Ms. Salay stated that, in her view, the neighbors are now receiving a significant upgrade
with the new single-family lots, which will essentially mimic what already exists versus
the townhomes that would have surrounded non-existent commercial development.
Mr. Cline expressed concurrence. The current application better serves the residents'
interests. The townhomes would have been on 22 -foot wide lots, had no setback and
were three stories in height. They were intended to serve as a buffer/screen for the
commercial development. Because that concept did not materialize and there were no
more residential lots, the limited depth (x.04 feet) townhome lots were re -worked. The
villas, or patio homes will have a small space for outdoor living and will be similar in price
to the existing homes. PZC required the same quality and value of homes. Because the
architectural standards are included in the existing zoning, no changes were possible —
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO
Held.
Dublin City Council
September 11, 2017 Page 8 of 30
Heeting
Form 6101
they were required to meet those standards. PZC approved six architectural models,
although the text allows them to create more, if there should be a diversity issue.
vis. Salay stated that is the reason she prefers pattern books for a neighborhood. The
detailed architectural standards resulted in excellent architecture, building materials and
quality that are not found elsewhere.
Mr. Cline stated that he does not understand the earlier comment about the look and feel
of the subdivision. The residents have referred to the neighboring Dominion
development, which has large lots. This subdivision was designed under the
conservation design standards, which resulted in 50% open space and smaller lots with
larger houses. They must remain consistent to that design. Originally, the townhome
design had no setback. The applicant's plan for single-family homes had a six-foot
setback. The residents wanted a 20 -foot setback, but 20 feet was not available as the lot
depth was only 104 feet. The same quality and price home is required for these lots,
consistent with the existing neighborhood. They did increase the setback to nine feet,
but at a cost to the homes' design.
Mayor Peterson inquired whose responsibility is the pile of dirt referenced by Ms.
Houseman.
Mr. Cline responded that is the construction dirt that is on the City -owned reserve. One
issue that has not yet come before Council is the intent for an active outdoor space for
children in this neighborhood, per earlier planning work with Parks Director Mr. Hahn.
That City -owned lot is the most likely place for it to be located. The dirt will be moved.
Ms. Salay inquired the location of this lot in the subdivision.
Mr. Cline responded that it is at the rear corner.
Mayor Peterson noted that the applicant has indicated this situation would eventually be
rectified.
Mr. Cline concurred. As a side note, the homeowners adjacent to that lot do not want
that space to be an active play area. However, that it is the only space sufficiently sized
for an active play area. The City has programmed it in a future Parks budget.
Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that the lot is the City's, but who owns the dirt dumped on
the lot?
Mr. Cline responded that it is the responsibility of the developer.
Vice Mayor Reiner stated that Metro Parks needs dirt for a mountain bicycle track, which
will be constructed in the next phase of the Metro Park renovation. Perhaps that is a
possible solution for moving this dirt.
Mr. Cline requested that the contact information be forwarded to him, and he would
make that contact with Metro Parks.
ice Mayor Reiner inquired if this project is nearing its end.
Mr. Cline responded that they are nearly out of single-family lots. Of the 72 lots, eight
remain uncommitted. The completion of this development is nearing, and his client needs
to do something with the commercial area.
Vice Mayor Reiner stated that this commercial space is attractive and would be a lovely
amenity for the neighborhood, but it is also architecturally extravagant. If the applicant
finishes the resident portion, what guarantee is there that the commercial portion will
ever be developed for the residents?
Mr. Cline responded that the applicant has no ownership in the commercial portion. Part
of the original land purchase agreement was that the partnership would retain three
acres for commercial development. His client, Oak Park Dublin, has a mortgage for $1.8
million on that land. Because of some of the issues, the City suggested that they
attempt to acquire that commercial land. They were interested in doing so, as it would
have helped them produce a better project. However, they were unsuccessful in
obtaining control of that land.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO
Held_
September 11, 2017 Page 9 of 30
Form 6101
Vice Mayor Reiner stated that, even though concepts of a commercial development were
provided in the packet, there is no assurance that any of it will be built in the future.
That is a concern.
Mr. Cline stated that if the final development plan did not comply with the images, the
Planning Commission would not approve it. Final development plan approval is essential.
Vice Mayor Reiner stated that in view of the complexity of the architecture and materials,
he finds it hard to believe that it would be possible to build these shops and generate
sufficient cash flow.
Mr. Cline responded that they have heard from developers that the cost of doing that
plan makes it cost prohibitive. When this was envisioned in 2005, the environment in the
northwest area of Dublin was very different. Currently, a lot of retail is being developed.
The cost will be prohibitive for a commercial area set back 200 feet from the road with
limited signage. Even with the 40,000 square feet of allowable uses, from a business
standpoint, they do not believe it will ever be a reality.
Viae Mayor Reiner inquired about the potential for this site.
Mr. Cline responded that they presented three plans to the Planning Commission: the
first was the best -case scenario with the 55'x 130' lots; the second plan is the one
presented tonight; and the third was a plan for how the commercial subarea could
develop with the same type of product as shown tonight on these 12 lots.
Mr. Cline noted that a number of small park areas in the subdivision are aggregated to
meet the open space requirements. They will be placing two mirror images of the
Ashborn home model on either side of the landscaped park area in the middle. This
provision will now be included in the text.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if a condition could, be added to require the relocation of
the soil that is on the City -owned parcel.
Discussion followed regarding an appropriate timeframe for the condition to be satisfied.
Mr. Cline noted that he would like to explore the Metro Parks suggestion.
Ms. Salay noted that whatever is objectionable about the dirt pile would be less so during
the winter. She is intrigued by the idea of moving the dirt to the Metro Parks area.
Vice Mayor Reiner stated that Metro Parks has not completed their plans, so they will
need time to put the plan together.
Mr. Peterson suggested April 1 as the timeframe for the dirt removal.
Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired whose responsibility it is to grade and seed the area.
Mr. Cline indicated that it is the developer's responsibility.
Ms. Amorose Groomes noted that seeding season would end approximately May 1.
Mayor Peterson moved to approve the rezoning with the additional condition that by May
11 2018, the applicant have the dirt pile located on Reserve F hauled away and Reserve F
graded and seeded.
Ms. Alutto seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor
Peterson, yes; Vice Mayor Reiner, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes.
Mayor Peterson moved to approve the preliminary and final plats.
Ms. Alutto seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Reiner, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes,
yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes.
SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING — ORDINANCES
Ordinance 50-17
Adopting the Five -Year Capital Improvements Plan (2018-2022).
Mr. McDaniel stated that a follow-up to the CIP meeting was provided at the August 28,
2017 Council meeting. There have been no subsequent changes.
Vote on the Ordinance: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Ar-norose Groomes, yes;
Vice Mayor Reiner, yes; Mayor Peterson, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Alutto, yes.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO
LHeld-
Dublin City Council
August 14, 2017 Page 7 of 15
Ms. Readier stated that this is an update to Dublin's Code in order to be consistent
with Ohio law. She gave a brief history of the changes that have taken place with
these regulations. Breed specific prohibitions are frequently being eliminated from
these regulations.
Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that she pulled this from the consent agenda because
she felt it is important for the public to know Council was considering this and
planning to vote on it. Dogs are a part of many families in Dublin, and she felt it
was important enough to warrant a few moments of conversation.
Ms. Salay stated she sees this legislation as a smart update -- not calling out specific
breeds, but rather the behavior of some dogs. She asked whether dogs who attack
other dogs are considered vicious and where the City stands on that issue.
Ms. Readier responded that the Ordinance which mirrors Ohio law mainly speaks to
injuries to persons; however, in the definition of dangerous dog, it includes a dog
that has killed another dog. Otherwise, injuries to dogs from other dogs could be
handled as a civil matter. There may be other violations if, for example, a leash was
required and not used.
Ms. Salay commented on the safety issues that result from using retractable leashes
for large dogs.
Mayor Peterson stated that this is interesting. If a dog kills another dog, the
financial burden ends, but if a clog severely injures another dog, it may require
costly medical care.
Ms. Readier stated that the remedy would be a civil action against the dog owner.
Mr. Keenan stated that approximately 50% of every general liability dollar of
homeowners insurance relates to a dog bite.
Mayor Peterson stated many people don't have the financial resources to hire an
attorney to recover costs of medical care.
Mr. Keenan stated that for some dog breeds, many insurance companies will not
underwrite a homeowners policy due to the risk.
Ms. Readier stated that in light of recent court cases and as Ohio law is today, the
City is constrained to follow this.
Mr. Lecklider added that unleashed dogs continue to be a problem.
There will be a second reading /public hearing at the August 28 council meeting.
Meeting
Ora"Hnance 52 -17
Rezohing Approximately 2.9 Acres from PUD, Planned Unit Development
District (Oak Park, Subarea D) to PUD, PDanned Unit Development District
Oak Park, Subarea D) for Amendments to the Approved Development Text to
Permit the Conversion of 36 Townhome Units in Six B0dings to 20 Single-
family Lots witGA n an Existing Residential Development. (Case 17-
028Z/PDP/PP/FDP/FP)
Preliminary and Final Plats
Mr. Lecklider introduced the Ordinance.
Mr. Stang stated that this development is on the west side of Hyland Croy Road at the
intersection of Oak Meadow Drive and Oak Park Boulevard. The proposal is to rezone
subarea D of the Oak Park Planned Unit Development to allow for detached single - family
homes. The Community Plan has two future land use designations that this site
overlaps: the first is the Mixed Residential Low Density, which is intended to provide a
mix of housing options; the second is for the Mixed Use Neighborhood Center providing
retail uses and personal services. This proposal complies with the recommended land
uses by providing a smaller size residential lot within the existing development and
allowing for the commercial portion to develop under the original zoning approval.
Mr. Stang provided an illustration showing that the site is located within a Special Area
Plan. The Northwest /Glacier Ridge Special Area Plan provides a conceptual layout for
future development that is consistent with the layout for the Oak Park development and
addresses all recommendations. No improvements will be needed in infrastructure as
this is a decrease in density.
Form 6101
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON, OHIO
Held
August 14, 2017 Page 8 of 15
Meeting
Form 6101
Mr. Stang described the proposal as the rezoning and development of six townhome
building sites to 20 single - family residential lots and two open space reserves. The site
encompasses the vacant lots platted during the original approval, amounting to 2. 9 acres
in total. The site is serviced by an existing roadway network provided on a series of
public streets and private alleys with public utility connections. The residential homes will
contain rear - loaded garages using the private alleys for access with frontage on public
streets and will utilize similar architecture to the existing development. The development
was designed and developed under the Conservation Design Principles and was able to
achieve over 50% open space with the majority of homes directly adjacent to open
space.
Mr. Stang stated that included with this resubdivision of the site is the approval of a
preliminary and final plat.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning and the
preliminary development plan at their July 13 meeting with one condition. They are
recommending approval at Council's second reading /public hearing.
Additionally, the Planning and Zoning Commission also recommended approval of a
Preliminary and Final Plat with two conditions.
Staff also recommended approval.
Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired about the fencing portion of the development standards -
specifically referring to the section that addresses privacy fences, stating,
the rear of any lot shall be six feet in height and connect to a
four -foot high fence on the side of an adjoining private street.
Fences may span open space or side yard set back between
adjoining buildings including within easements..."
Are fences allowed to be built on the property line?
Mr. Stang responded affirmatively. It will be a requirement that all property owners
install a six -foot fence between the garages and against the private alley.
In response to Ms. Amorose Groomes' question regarding two different fence heights
being joined together, Mr. Stang stated that the last two feet between a four -foot and
six -foot fence will be of a lattice design where it meets at the corner.
Ms. Amorose Groomes clarified that the four -foot fence and the six -foot fence are solid
material.
Mr. Stang stated that the material is solid only up to four feet. From four to six feet it is
a lattice design.
Ms. Amorose Groomes expressed her concern that it appeared from the site layout that
there were many points where a four -foot fence would meet a six -foot fence.
In response to Ms. Amorose Groomes' question regarding which of the streets are
private, Mr. Stang listed the private versus the public streets.
Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that it has been the City's practice to discourage private
streets.
Mr. Stang stated this largely related to working with the existing infrastructure that was
already in place.
Vice Mayor Reiner stated that he understands a reason for fences from an architectural
standpoint, but inquired whether there are maintenance requirements stipulated.
Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that it is the homeowners association responsibility for
maintenance.
Mr. Stang stated that the fences will be on private property, but the intent for
consistency is that the HOA will help to maintain the fences.
Vice Mayor Reiner asked if the HOA was funded adequately to carry out this
maintenance.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON. OHIO
Held
Dublin City Council
August 14, 2017 Page 9 of 15
Meeting
Form 6101
Mr. Stang stated it is adequate. In response to Vice Mayor Reiner's question regarding
the HOA fees per unit, Mr. Stang was uncertain of the amount that will be charged, but
offered to check and report back.
Vice Mayor Reiner stated that this was a concern of Council because quite often the
burden falls on an underfunded HOA.
Mr. Lecklider asked for confirmation that the four -foot fence meeting the six -foot fence
is in a perpendicular fashion.
Mr. Stang stated that was correct.
Mr. Lecklider stated that he has had a number of conversations with staff with respect
to another parcel that was formerly the Shoppes at Athenry and is now the Shoppes at
Muirfield. Council was adamant about the mixed -use portion being developed
simultaneously with the residential portion so that these problems will not occur in the
future. He expressed concern that this proposal is guaranteeing future complaints. He
recalls that it was a requirement when this rezoning was approved that building
commence within two years. It has been staff's interpretation that because the
residential builder commenced in two years that the condition was satisfied. He believes
this to be problematic and, at the very least, requires a Code change. If construction
does not occur within two years, the approval should lapse, because the conditions
change. Putting a mixed -use development in this now does not work. There was a
different intention of Council at the time of approval, based on the problems that
occurred with the Shoppes at Athenry.
Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed and stated that the private streets are another concern.
Mr. Lecklider stated that if there wasn't different ownership, perhaps there would be
public streets. However, the private streets won't have City plowing and other services.
He could envision future complaints.
Ms. Amorose Groomes inquired whether staff has information about the standards to
which the streets were built.
Mr. McDaniel stated that he would have to check on that, but he assumes if they are
private drives, they are not built to City standards. He shares the same concern with
the commercial use.
Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested it may be less costly to address the issue now and
require the streets be brought up to City standards versus waiting and having to fix it
later.
Mr. McDaniel will check on that and report back to Council.
Mr. Keenan stated that it seems reasonable to go from 36 townhomes to 20 single -
family lots, but the residents will likely have more concern with the commercial
development. Is there a way to formalize the buyers' understanding about future
commercial development that will take place?
Mr. McDaniel stated it could be included in the records, but enforcement could be an
issue.
Vice Mayor Reiner recalled complaints about noise from trash trucks picking up in the
early morning hours at the Shoppes at Athenry.
Ms. Amorose Groomes stated that by standardizing the streets, it would be easier for
larger trucks to come into the neighborhood. The drawing indicates these are much
narrower than the balance of the streets.
Mayor Peterson invited the applicant to present.
Chris Cline, representative for the applicant, stated that the two open areas in the
middle are owned by another party. His client is Oak Park and the seller preserved
those areas for commercial development. The three -story townhomes were meant to
buffer the residents from the commercial development. However, an empty nester is not
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
BARRETT BROTHERS - DAYTON. (OHIO
Held
Dublin City Council
August 14, 2017 Page 10 of 15
Meeting
Form 6101
interested in a three -story townhome. All the streets are installed and, to his
knowledge, built to City standards for that area. City staff took the initiative and asked
to review their marketing materials to be certain that appropriate disclosure was
provided that commercial development would occur in the future. It became clear that
they could not market these lots unless there is a clear delineation between the rest of
the lots and the commercial use. Regarding the fences and cost to maintain, he stated
that the HOA can assess that expense within the fee structure. He pointed out that they
did attempt to obtain control of the commercial portion, but were unable to do so.
In response to Mayor Peterson, Mr. Cline stated that the unit cost is pushing $500,000,
but they anticipate them to be closer to the range of $430,000 - $470,000.
Mayor Peterson asked whether they are still trying to control that land.
Mr. Cline stated that they are committed to this development and have eight or nine lots
that remain vacant.
Mr. Lecklider stated that he believes the previous zoning has lapsed for the other
parcels.
In response to Mayor Peterson, Ms. Readler stated the approval under the Planned
Development District Code is for three years. She asked Mr. Stang whether there was
any specific condition on the original zoning that required anything in addition to the
planned district time limits.
Mr. Stang responded there was not any such condition; however, with the final
development plan, one of the conditions that was added in regard to the commercial
component was to file an application for a final development plan. It did not require
that the final development plan be approved, but only to be filed. The application was
filed, but has remained dormant.
Ms. Readler stated that there is an independent section of the Planned Development
District Code that states if an applicant does not proceed with approval on a final
development plan within three years, then the City can rezone the property. She
believes the criteria had been met, and therefore she would not recommend that the
City rezone the property.
Mr. Cline stated that most cities have a sunset provision in their Cody that states if the
property has not been built upon within a certain amount of time, thin it reverts to its
previous zoning.
Ms. Amorose Groomes requested a memo from Ms. Readler about why she believes the
criteria has been met and therefore not subject to rezoning.
Mr. Lecklider reiterated that he does not believe the condition being met ultimately was
Council's intent.
Mr. Cline stated that the applicant is doing what they can with what they have to work
with.
There will be a second reading /public hearing of the ordinance at the August 28 Council
meeting.
Vice Mayor Reiner stated he would like to have information on the HOA funding so that
Council can be assured it will be maintained.
Mr. McDaniel stated staff will review the maintenance costs and make some projections.
Mr. Keenan requested that the private road maintenance issues be reviewed as well.
In response to Mayor Peterson regarding renderings of the commercial area shown
during the rezoning in 2006, Mr. Cline stated that they are beautiful, but now would be
difficult to execute and compete on a commercial basis.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
BARRETT RROTHFRS - DAYTON. OHIO
Held
Dublin City Council
August 14, 2017 Page 11 of 15
Meeting
Form 6101
Mayor Peterson stated that expectations are critically important and he would like to
make future residents aware of what to expect.
Vice Mayor Reiner stated that maintaining roads is expensive for HOAs. He doesn't want
the taxpayers to have to pay for this in the future.
Mr. Lecklider stated that he assumes the expense of maintaining private roads would be
shared with the commercial and other property owners.
INTRODUCTION /PUBLIC HEARING /VOTE — RESOLUTIONS
Resolution 60 -17
Approving the Petition for Special Assessments for Special Energy
Improvement Projects Under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1710 (5500 Frantz
Road Project).
Mr. Lecklider introduced the Resolution.
Ms. Gilger stated that for the past 18 months, the City has been sponsoring energy
audits for this area for an office competitiveness program. Staff hoped that by
sponsoring these audits, building owners would learn of some improvements that could
be made to their buildings and make them. This program is new for the City, but not for
the State. PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) is a financing mechanism that
enables low cost, long -term funding for energy efficiency, renewable energy and water
conservation projects. Within central Ohio, the Columbus /Franklin County Finance
Authority established the Columbus Regional Special Improvement District that allows for
additional properties within the City of Columbus, Ohio and within any municipal
corporation or township that is adjacent to any other corporation or township to opt in to
the District. Projects between $200,000- $6,000,000 can be financed through the Finance
Authority's bond fund. The City has no financial obligations related to these
improvement projects.
Jean Carter -Ryan with the Columbus /Franklin County Finance Authority provided a short
presentation for Council. The specific project before Council is for 5500 Frantz Road, and
includes $500,000 worth of improvement to that facility. There were two Resolutions
before Council at this meeting and three Ordinances at the August 28 meeting, which are
necessary to establish the Special Improvement District.
Ms. Carter -Ryan stated that the Finance Authority is excited to be involved in this
program. There is a gap in the market and these improvements are hard to finance.
This law that was created in 2009 allows building owners to petition the City for this
assessment. This is a great opportunity for building owners to make energy efficiency
improvements.
In response to Mr. Keenan, Ms. Carter -Ryan stated that the money is advanced from the
treasury and the amounts are anywhere from $200,000 to $5,000,000.
Mr. Keenan stated that the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority does similar work for
efficiency projects.
Ms. Carter -Ryan stated that the main difference is the Ohio Air Quality Development
Authority has to partner with a bank as a conduit for funding. The Finance Authority
obtains their funding from Franklin County through the Smart Energy Program.
Mr. Keenan inquired whether energy consumption is monitored.
Ms. Carter -Ryan confirmed that it is, and that they require an American Society of
Heating, Refrigeration, Air Conditioning Engineers Society audit, which is the national
society that has established national standards.
In response to Mr. Keenan's question regarding who pays the cost of services for the
energy audit, staff indicated that the City of Dublin sponsored a million square feet of
energy audit.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
July 13, 2017 –Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 21
The Chair briefly explained the rules and procedures of the Planning and Zoning Commission. She stated
the following cases are eligible for the Consent Agenda this evening: TownPlace Suites by Marriott;
Bridge Park, Block H; McKitrick, Subarea 1A; and Downtown Parking Garage Plat. She said there would
be a slight deviation from the normal procedures this evening to hear the cases in the following order: 4,
5, followed by any cases left on the Consent Agenda and lastly would be Oak Park. She stated that she
and Amy Salay have a conflict of interest with the McKitrick case so they will recuse themselves for that
portion of the meeting. She said Deborah Mitchell has a family emergency and can only attend the
McKitrick case. She said the cases will be recorded in the order they were presented on the Agenda.
1. PUD – Oak Park Subarea D - Townhomes Oak Meadow Drive
17-028Z/PDP/FDP/PP/FP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan
Final Development Plan
Preliminary Plat/Final Plat
The Chair, Victoria Newell, said the following application is for a Rezoning of 2.94 acres to permit 20
detached, single-family homes and all associated site improvements where previously three-story
townhomes where permitted. She said the site is on the west side of Hyland-Croy Road, approximately
700 feet southwest of the intersection with Brand Road. She said this is a request for a recommendation
of approval to City Council for Rezoning with a Preliminary Development Plan under the provisions of
Zoning Code Section 153.050 and a review and recommendation of approval to City Council of a
Preliminary and Final Plat under the provisions of the Subdivision Regulations. She stated there is also a
request for a review and approval of a Final Development Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code
Section 153.050. She noted anyone intending on addressing the Commission for the Final Development
Plan portion of this application will need to be sworn in.
The Chair swore in anyone intending on addressing the Commission with regard to this case.
Logan Stang reported this case was reviewed and tabled at the June 8th Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting. During that meeting, he said, the Commission expressed concern regarding the
main entrance for the community with the loss of the open space reserves along with the fence
appearance and landscape details for the private alleys. He reported the applicant has since revised the
proposal addressing both the comments as well as meeting a number of conditions from the previous
report.
Mr. Stang presented the Planned Unit Development Process Overview and noted this application consists
of all formal stages of a PUD review including the rezoning that establishes the development standards
through the Final Development Plan.
Mr. Stang presented an aerial view of the site and said the proposal is for the conversion of six
townhome buildings to 20 single-family lots within the existing Oak Park subdivision. He presented the
proposed site plan and indicated the proposal is fairly consistent with what was previously reviewed
comprising of 20 single-family lots using rear-loaded garages on the current private alley system. The
applicant has addressed previous conditions, he reported, requiring a 9-foot, front yard setback as
opposed to 6 feet that was previously proposed as well as additional landscaping for all fences abutting
the alleys.
Mr. Stang said the biggest change is at the intersection of Oak Park Boulevard and Oak Meadow Drive
and pointed that out on the slide. He explained the applicant has reduced the four lots on the north and
south sides of Oak Park Boulevard to 55 feet in width in order to provide two smaller reserves at that
intersection. He said the reserves allow for additional open space with a landscape treatment that creates
an entry feature and accents the community center. The reserves still result in a loss of private open
space but well exceeds the required open space for the community as a whole. He reported the applicant
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
July 13, 2017 –Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 21
has also determined that both Lot 118 & 119, located at the intersection, will use the same architectural
model to further enhance the entrance to the community and this requirement will be added to the
development text prior to City Council’s review.
Mr. Stang presented a rendering of the proposed Reserve Landscape Plan that showed a mixture of plant
materials to provide openness and symmetry outside the community center. He said the proposal
includes four benches and a landscape hedge with masonry columns to define the private realm from the
public realm. He indicated that Staff is requesting that the applicant use a more complimentary bench to
what exists near the community center and that the landscape details be refined prior to City Council
review.
Mr. Stang presented a rendering of the reserve landscaping to show the perspective from the end of the
private drives as one enters the neighborhood approaching the community center in the center. This
provides a conceptual idea, he said, of the proposed plantings with the mirrored architectural model.
Mr. Stang said the other main concern was the inconsistent fence design and treatment along the private
alleys. He presented the applicant’s revised proposal of the fence details that allow only the lattice-style
fence at a height of six feet in the locations noted. For the properties with additional frontage on public
streets, he explained, a four-foot solid fence is permitted that is also noted on the slide, which only
pertains to a couple of lots in this development.
Mr. Stang added, this, in addition to the landscaping requirements, will provide a cohesive treatment for
the rear of these lots while providing a screening and safety measure for when the commercial properties
develop. He indicated that Staff is requiring that Lots 109 & 128 orient their outdoor amenity areas to the
west to prevent backyard space from having visibility from Hyland-Croy Road.
Mr. Stang presented a rendering showing the appearance of the homes from the entrance at Hyland-Croy
Road. He noted the rendering showed the vacant commercial property and the proposed fence detail s
with landscaping beside the private drives.
In addition, the Plat has also been updated he said that shows the dedication of reserves to the HOA for
ownership and maintenance.
Mr. Stang concluded there would be three motions required by the Commission this evening. He said
approval is recommended for the Rezoning with the Preliminary Development Plan with one condition to
be forwarded to City Council:
1) That the applicant revise the development text to require Lots 118 and 119 to use the same
architectural model mirrored across Oak Park Boulevard, prior to City Council Review.
Mr. Stang said approval is recommended for the Final Development Plan with four conditions:
1) That Lots 109 and 128 orient their outdoor amenity areas toward the western property line,
subject to verification at building permitting;
2) That the non-operational street light at the southwest corner of the Mitchell-Dewitt Road/Oak
Meadow Drive intersection is made operational at no cost to the City, prior to the submittal of
building permits;
3) That the applicant choose a bench that coordinates with the existing benches near the
community center, prior to building permitting; and
4) That the applicant revise the landscape plan (sheet 6/11) defining the location of proposed
plantings, bed edges, and diversified landscape materials, subject to Staff approval, prior to City
Council review.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
July 13, 2017 –Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 21
Mr. Stang said approval is recommended to City Council for the Preliminary and Final Plats with two
conditions:
1) That the applicant ensures that any minor technical adjustments to the Plat are made prior to
City Council submittal; and
2) That the applicant add a note to the Final Plat outlining ownership and maintenance
responsibilities for the two reserves, prior to City Council submittal.
Chris Cline, attorney with Blaugrund, Kessler, Myers & Postalakis Law Firm in Worthington, representing
the applicant, said Linda Menerey, EMH&T, was also present to answer questions. He asked that the
aerial view be shown again to show the context of the site to the surrounding areas and he noted the
measured distances to provide the Commission with a better perspective on what would actually be
visible. He remarked on the amount of work involved in changing the six-foot setback to the nine-foot,
front yard setback. He said they previously proposed the six-foot setback because it was written in the
development text but somewhere along the line, that was changed to zero. He emphasized those
townhomes have a zero setback now so they are actually going from zero to nine instead of six to nine
feet.
Mr. Cline clarified that fences are now required; this is not an option for the buyers.
Linda Menerey added that the four-foot fence is really the bottom half of the six-foot fence as it does not
include the lattice portion on top.
Mr. Brown asked if the four-foot fence is being required, to which Mr. Cline answered affirmatively. He
said the four-foot and six-foot fences will all be consistent and the color white was originally considered
but finally decided on light beige.
Mr. Cline said he thought they resolved the issue of the condition in the Final Development Plan, to which
Mr. Stang agreed.
With regard to outdoor living spaces, Mr. Cline noted the chamfered corner, which moves the house
towards that eastern building line where there is no setback because there is a significant reserve.
Ms. Menerey explained how they revised the landscape plans and the green space.
Mr. Cline indicated they plan to have one or two spec homes built for potential buyers to see at the initial
entry and they would incorporate landscaping as well.
Mr. Brown asked for Staff’s perspective on Lots 109 and 128. He indicated that if the open side of those
homes is not put towards the street then one is looking at a bigger, blanker wall upon entering the
community. Mr. Stang said that was true and indicated Staff thought the six-foot fence would be required
but part of Staff’s concern was the clarity of whether the four -foot fence was optional or if it was a
requirement. He said the concern was outdoor items that might be stored in the area that directly faces
Hyland-Croy Road, which has high visibility for a heavily traveled thoroughfare and Staff thought that
would be a detriment from the aesthetic perspective. With the additional landscaping, he concluded that
Staff would be comfortable with what is proposed as the landscape will soften that viewpoint.
Steve Stidhem indicated he thought swing sets might be what staff is referring to when talking about
outdoor items. He said he did not share this concern with staff but figured that was the intent of the
condition.
The Chair called for public comment.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
July 13, 2017 –Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 21
Prasad Vempati, 7031 Greenland Place, thanked the applicant for their effort based on the number of
conditions the Commission raised last time. Walking on those same streets every day, he said, the
unevenness that the proposal creates, concerns his family. He explained that on one side of the street,
there is a seven-foot tree lawn space from the curb to the walkway and on the other side the tree lawn
space is four feet from the curb to the walkway. He said this prompts an uneven visual aspect on the
same street. He added on one side of the street there is a 14-18-foot setback and on the other side there
is a 9-foot setback. As he imagines himself every day, living in that place, walking through the streets, he
said those conditions create a very uneven view. He concluded he is concerned about resale value. He
said this is a unique situation but does not want to see a situation where the City is trying to put a square
peg into a round hole.
Since there was no one else from the public that wanted to speak about this case, the Chair closed the
public portion.
Cathy De Rosa requested clarification on the comments just heard from the resident about the sidewalk
and tree lawns. Mr. Cline responded he had a hard time understanding what that issue is. He stated none
of the public streets in the subdivision are being changed; the only things they are changing are the
setbacks from those public streets. Right now, he restated, the setbacks are zero feet and they are
proposing to change the setbacks to nine feet. Ms. De Rosa asked if the setbacks are consistent. Mr.
Cline emphasized that everything they are doing in Subarea D is the same at nine feet. He explained the
setback in the rest of Oak Park is a minimum of 13 feet or maximum of ±21 feet. He added there is a
four-foot difference between their development standard of nine feet and a minimum setback of 13 feet
for the Village and Park homes in Oak Park. He said some of the homes had to be set back further based
on conflicts with the current infrastructure, which could impact the perspective.
Mr. Stang explained the reason for different tree lawn spaces is they are associated with on-street
parking and this is one of those existing conditions the applicant has to work with.
Mr. Stidhem inquired about the deterioration of fences over time and then fixed, replaced, or repainted
as part of maintenance. He asked if there is an active HOA in this area and if they would enforce any
reconstruction and repainting. Mr. Cline said there will be a very strong and active HOA, it just has not
been turned over yet. He indicated the HOA would be the appropriate body responsible for maintaining
the fence.
Mr. Stidhem clarified he was more concerned with the enforcement of paint color and style. Mr. Cline said
that would be part of the Final Development Plan. Mr. Stang added the fence appearance would be a
Code Enforcement issue as well.
Victoria Newell thanked the applicant for addressing the Commission’s comments from the last meeting
as well as the public’s. She said that what the applicant presented for open space this evening is very
nice. She said she is very comfortable with the position of units for Lots 109 and 128, especially with the
additional amenities such as the fence and landscaping. She recommended removing that condition from
the final development plan.
Ms. De Rosa wanted the fencing requirement to be clearer. Mr. Stang indicated there is a provision in the
text that addresses that issue but staff will review it with the applicant.
Ms. De Rosa said it makes sense to not use a bright white color for the fencing; a creamy white will make
a real difference. She emphasized the exact color name and number should be included in the text. Mr.
Cline said a better place to put that information is in the Final Development Plan and will ensure that
information is included. The Chair asked Staff if that was acceptable. Mr. Stang said Staff can work with
the applicant to ensure those details are provided.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
July 13, 2017 –Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 21
Motion and Vote
Mr. Brown moved, Mr. Miller seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for the Rezoning with a
Preliminary Development Plan with one condition:
1) That the applicant revise the development text to require Lots 118 and 119 to use the same
architectural model mirrored across Oak Park Boulevard, prior to City Council Review.
The vote was as follows: Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mr. Stidhem, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Miller,
yes; and Mr. Brown, yes. (Recommended for Approval 6 – 0)
The Chair requested to see again the four conditions of approval for the Final Development Plan:
1) That Lots 109 and 128 orient their outdoor amenity areas toward the western property line,
subject to verification at building permitting;
2) That the non-operational street light at the southwest corner of the Mitchell-Dewitt Road/Oak
Meadow Drive intersection is made operational at no cost to the City, prior to the submittal of
building permits;
3) That the applicant choose a bench that coordinates with the existing benches near the
community center, prior to building permitting; and
4) That the applicant revise the landscape plan (sheet 6/11) defining the location of proposed
plantings, bed edges, and diversified landscape materials, subject to Staff approval, prior to City
Council review.
Based on the discussion, Mr. Stang suggested that condition #1 be removed and a new condition be
added as follows:
1) That the non-operational street light at the southwest corner of the Mitchell-Dewitt Road/Oak
Meadow Drive intersection is made operational at no cost to the City, prior to the submittal of
building permits;
2) That the applicant choose a bench that coordinates with the existing benches near the
community center, prior to building permitting;
3) That the applicant revise the landscape plan (sheet 6/11) defining the location of proposed
plantings, bed edges, and diversified landscape materials, subject to Staff approval, prior to City
Council review; and
4) That the applicant continue to work with Staff to outline installation requirements for the fence
details, prior to building permitting.
Motion and Vote
Mr. Brown moved, Mr. Miller seconded, to approve the Final Development Plan with the amended four
conditions. The vote was as follows: Mr. Stidhem, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes;
Mr. Miller, yes; and Mr. Brown, yes. (Approved 6 – 0)
Motion and Vote
Mr. Brown moved, Mr. Miller seconded, to recommend approval to City Council for the Preliminary and
Final Plats with two conditions:
1) That the applicant ensures that any minor technical adjustments to the plat are made prior to
City Council submittal; and
2) That the applicant add a note to the Final Plat outlining ownership and maintenance
responsibilities for the two reserves, prior to City Council submittal.
The vote was as follows: Ms. Salay, yes; Ms. De Rosa, yes; Mr. Stidhem, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Mr. Miller,
yes; and Mr. Brown, yes. (Recommended for Approval 6 – 0)
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
November 10, 2016 – Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 10
The Chair briefly explained the rules and procedures of the Planning and Zoning Commission. She said
the following cases are eligible for the Consent Agenda: Case 4 – Craughwell Village and Case 5 – BSD,
Building C3. At the request of one of the Commission members, she pulled Case 4 from the Consent
Agenda. She said the cases would be heard in the following order: 5, 1, 4, 2, and 3 but would be
recorded in the minutes in the order they were listed on the agenda.
1. Oak Park PUD, Subarea D – Oak Park Townhomes Oak Meadow Drive
16-090INF Informal Review
The Chair, Victoria Newell, said the following application is a proposal for single-family townhomes on
four acres previously approved for townhouse condominiums on the west side of Hyland-Croy Road at
the intersection with Oak Park Boulevard. She said this is a request for an informal review and non-
binding feedback of a proposal prior to a formal application for rezoning.
Jennifer Rauch presented an aerial view of the site and noted the Final Development Plan was approved
in 2007 for the 72 single-family and 36 townhouse units. She said the review tonight relates to converting
36 attached townhouse units to detached single-family units. She said the applicant has provided three
options for discussion (Options A, B, and C).
Ms. Rauch presented Option A - the proposed conversion of the townhome and commercial area
comprehensively to single-family. She said this option would provide 32 single-family lots with similar lot
dimensions and would allow the same architecture, unit size and materials as the existing single-family
development. She noted the challenge with this option, is the applicant does not control the commercial
portion of the site, nor is the owner of the commercial portion an applicant for this application.
Ms. Rauch presented Option B - the conversion of the townhome area only, which the applicant controls,
and would provide 20 single-family lots with smaller lots and lot depth; therefore, the product and
elevations would need to be changed due to the reduced lot size. She reported the applicant has
provided a revised architectural design and site layout for discussion. She said the site layout for these
units would be rear loaded with the front elevation facing the existing single-family lots.
Ms. Rauch presented Option C – the conversion outlined in Option B for the townhome area, and then
allow for future conversion of the commercial area and continue with the development pattern outlined in
Option B at a later time. This option she said would provide 12 additional smaller, single-family lots and
the dimensions, architecture and rear-loaded design would apply to these additional lots. Similar to
Option A, she noted the ability to redevelop the commercial area would rely on the cooperation of the
property owner.
Ms. Rauch stated the discussion questions:
1. Does the PZC support the request to pursue the conversion of the townhomes to single-family units?
And the potential future conversion of the commercial area to single-family units?
2. Does the PZC support the proposed site layout and design?
3. Does the PZC support the proposed architectural style for Options B and C?
4. Are there other considerations by the Commission?
Bob Miller asked about the lot size for Option A as compared to the existing lot sizes. Ms. Rauch
answered the lot sizes are similar.
Chris Cline, 300 W. Wilson Bridge Road, Ste. 100, Worthington, Ohio, mentioned his team members that
were present. He explained they are requesting an amendment to a planned district as it lacks flexibility.
He said Oak Park started in 2005 and one of the key aspects is the seller retained a certain amount of
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
November 10, 2016 – Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 10
land for commercial development. In 2006, he said two uses were approved and in 2007, a filing was
made for the commercial portion but nothing has ever happened with that property.
Mr. Cline presented the plat and explained the types of residential uses differed from what they had
originally intended. He presented the original rendering from the Edge Group that was required for that
application and have since realized there is not a demand for that product and it would be too costly. He
indicated that over the years, Planning has not been receptive to altering the townhome lots because
they were viewed as a transition to and a buffer from the commercial areas. He emphasized that the
problem is the commercial piece has not been developed and the Final Development Plan was never filed.
He presented the rendering for the commercial component from the Edge Group. He said he does not
believe the commercial piece will ever develop for several reasons.
Mr. Cline presented the elevations for the two-story villa lots as well as the floor plans. He said these are
plainer than the existing homes as the applicant would like to economize a bit. He presented what could
be done instead of commercial development. He asked the Commission to provide guidance as to how
the applicant should proceed.
Mr. Miller inquired about the chances of obtaining the commercial property. Mr. Cline said they have had
discussions but believes the City could have done more over the years and could do more to encourage
the rezoning under the Sunset Provisions. He said no pressure has been put on this developer through all
this time.
Mr. Miller asked if Option A is what the residents want. Mr. Cline said that is what everybody wants.
The Chair called for public comment.
Melvis Houseman, 7134 Snowdrop Court, said she is one of the homeowners in Oak Park. She said the
residents have met to discuss these plans proposed by the applicant. She said when they bought their
home, they were told there would be a commercial area and townhomes would be built in between to act
as a barrier. She stated there are many young families and the neighbors would like to see the whole
area rezoned for single-family lots. She said they are concerned about the architectural integrity of the
development as a whole along with safety and traffic if commercial would be allowed to develop. She
said the consensus amongst the residents is that they like Option A but do not want to see it too
compacted.
Tom Deshler, 7023 Greenland Place, said he had seen Options A & B but not C before this evening.
The Chair opened the Commissioner’s discussion.
Cathy De Rosa asked about the timeframe for this PUD and if the commercial activity does not happen at
some point in time, then what happens.
Ms. Rauch said the Code states, once a PUD has started construction they have a three-year window,
whereas if it lays dormant for those three years, then the City can initiate a rezoning. She said in this
instance, this PUD has been under construction since 2008. She said the PUD was placed on the whole
development, and the commercial can be separated.
Phil Hartmann confirmed the Code speaks to an entire planned development.
Mr. Cline said he disagrees because under the Sunset Provision, it cannot be said that because the
residential went forward, the commercial has no timeline requirements. He said another problem with the
Code is there are three provisions in there and if you get approved and you do not build there is nothing
to address that.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
November 10, 2016 – Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 10
Mr. Hartmann said we agree to disagree on that point.
The Chair reminded everyone that this is an Informal Review.
Mr. Miller asked what latitude we have in rezoning the commercial piece that is not controlled by the
applicant if it becomes a formal application. Mr. Hartmann said we would have no latitude and
encouraged the applicant to contact the commercial developer.
Mr. Cline said the Commission could influence City Council and the Planning staff to rezone.
Ms. De Rosa said this is a lovely development so far with quality materials and the layout is very nice.
She said she can appreciate that the residents want that to continue. She said the proposals felt fairly
condensed and much tighter than the property as it exists today. She indicated the architectural designs
of the townhomes as proposed are lovely. She said the architectural character being proposed this
evening do not share the same character and the windows seem out of scale; it feels disconnected and
heard the applicant say they would like to value engineer. She encouraged the applicant to make the
proposed changes feel like the rest of the development that exists today; the density would only
exacerbate the look of this.
Chris Brown said the residents would prefer Options A or C but the applicant is asking the Commission to
leverage that other developer to modify what they want to do with that land and he is not sure that is
the Commission’s position. He indicated it is possible to value engineer the townhomes while keepi ng the
basic character. He said the proposal for Option C is not to the level of detail that it should be.
Steve Stidhem said it is obvious the commercial development is not going to occur and if there is
something the City can do, we should do it. He said the homes that exist are amazing homes and has
heavily considered buying one for himself. He agreed the applicant should go forward with the same
types of homes and quality that exist.
Amy Salay said she would like to see the City take a position as Mr. Stidhem suggested. She said we
need to do something because she agrees that commercial is not going to happen. She said the town
homes are probably not a good idea unless the commercial were to develop. She said she likes Option A
because that gets us closer to maintaining the existing character. She said there is no reason to value
engineer when there is a successful neighborhood that is beautiful and developing nicely. She indicated
that Council will feel like something has to be done but does not know how to put pressure on an
absentee landowner that does not appear to be concerned.
Deb Mitchell agreed action needs to happen and Option A is her preference.
Mr. Miller said he would like to see the City provide guidance to the residents for a path forward. He
indicated he likes Option A and could see it playing out in Option B.
Victoria Newell said she would support the conversion from townhomes to the single-family homes
because it is better for the residential feel of this particular neighborhood and believes that is what the
residents would like to see. She said then the commercial would not fit but does not see it getting
developed as commercial, anyway. In Option C she said, if you leave the commercial as future lots could
get developed but does remain commercial, the open space that is there provides a buffer. She said the
architecture presented does not have the same detail and is not fair to the residents as it does not follow
the same detail of the existing homes.
Mr. Cline said the architectural drawing was conceptual to see if they had a product that would fit on
there. He said if they do go forward the product would not be indistinguishable to anything existing. He
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
November 10, 2016 – Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 10
said they are not trying to do anything cheap but they are trying to compete and there is a lot of expense
to this. He restated something has to happen quickly.
Mr. Brown concluded that the Commission is concerned for the existing residents. He encouraged the
applicant to propose a layout and product that is equal to that, and talk to the other developer into
permitting the applicant to develop some of that land, then the Commission would probably support
Options A or C and if not then Option B is probably viable.
Ms. Newell indicated the Commission would not support any other architecture than what was approved.
Mr. Miller asked if it is possible for staff to provide this group with a path forward and how to approach
Council regarding the commercial piece. He said he would like to provide a course of action to pursue.
Ms. Rauch said the informal this evening was the first step. She said there is an option for the applicant
to go before Council requesting an Informal Review.
2.Ohio University Dublin Framework Plan
16-093ADM Administrative Request
The Chair, Victoria Newell, said the following application is a vision plan intended to offer a
comprehensive view for how the Ohio University Dublin campus may evolve over time intended to guide
future development for the campus located on the south side of Post Road, west of Eiterman Road. She
said this is a request for a review and recommendation of approval to City Council for the proposed Ohio
University Master Plan under the provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.232.
Tammy Noble said this plan was presented to the Commission in September. She explained this has been
a year-long process working with the university on how to expand in the West Innovation District. She
noted at this point we will answer any questions the Commission may have and request the Commission
make a recommendation to City Council.
Cathy De Rosa said she read the plan again and wanted to compliment the university and staff for all the
work that has been done as it is a phenomenal plan and exciting to read. She said one of the previous
comments from the Commission was encouraging the university to be architecturally bold and she sees
some of that in the design. She said this is very well done, she loves the Main Street flow and she is
excited to support this plan.
Bob Miller said the plan is awesome and exciting; he cannot wait to see it truly come to life. Steve
Stidhem indicated he is quite excited about this plan for Dublin. He said kudos to all involved. Victoria
Newell said the plan was fabulous, extremely well-written and very clear about the intention of the
development. Chris Brown said the plan is fantastic. Amy Salay indicated City Council had discussed how
to make a complete community and that included how important the university presence would be to our
community long term from an economic development standpoint and a quality of life standpoint. She said
it will be very impactful.
Motion and Vote
Mr. Brown motioned, Ms. Mitchell seconded, to recommend approval of the framework plan to City
Council. The vote was as follows: Mr. Stidhem, yes; Mr. Miller, yes; Ms. Newell, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Ms.
De Rosa, yes; Ms. Mitchell, yes; and Mr. Brown, yes. (Approved 7 – 0)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of _ _ _- Dublin City CoA; rein
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC.. FORM NO. 10148
He
November 20, 2006
20
Page 3
Il
1
Ordinance 73-06 (Amended)
Adopting a New Compensation Plan for the City of Dublin and Repealing
Ordinance 98-96 ("Compensation Plan") and All Amendments Thereto
Ordinances 11-97, 43-97, 86-97, 100-97,134-97, 08-98, 20-99, 41-00, 77-00, 118-00,
128-00, 26-01, 01-02, 11-03, 43-03, 83-03, 01-04, 38-04, 78-04, 06-05, and 31-05).
Ms. Brautigam stated that the project team working on the Class and Compensation Study
has reviewed one of the positions proposed in the 2007 operating budget, determined
where it would fit in the structure, and created a job title for this position. This amendment
has been included in the ordinance before Council tonight.
Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road pointed out Sections 6, 7 and 8 on page 9 of the
ordinance. Specifically, Section 6, the special provision regarding minimum pay increase;
Section 7, Mayor/Vice Mayor/Council Member compensation; and Section 8, the instant
bonus program. He noted that Section 6 makes reference to "2006 employees" and
Section 8 makes reference to "all employees." He asked if the Mayor, Vice Mayor and
Council Members are regarded as City employees.
Ms. Brautigam responded they are not. They are viewed as the officers of the City, which
is distinguished from employees of the City.
Mr. Maurer asked who decides the compensation of the officers of the City.
Ms. Brautigam responded these are set by ordinance and reviewed only by the members
of Council.
Mr. Maurer noted that Section 8 includes the language, "demonstrates innovative or
creativity in government." It is applicable only to employees, not to elected officials, as he
now understands.
Mrs. Boring noted that Council had agreed upon an additional review for some aspects of
the Plan at future dates. Is this reflected in the text of the ordinance?
Ms. Brautigam responded that will be done as part of the City Manager's evaluation each
year.
Mr. Keenan asked about the length of the contract for services provided by the
compensation consultant.
Ms. Brautigam responded that the consultant will perform some additional services this
year, including training for supervisors. She is not certain whether that will continue beyond
2006.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher recalled that during the budget hearings, it was stated that this
consultant would assist with implementation of the Plan for a period of time.
Vote on the Ordinance: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes;
Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes.
Ordinance 74-06
Rezoning Approximately 61.35 Acres, Located on the Southwest Corner of Mitchell-
Dewitt Road and Hyland-Croy Road From R, Rural District, To PUD, Planned Unit
Development District (Oak Park Mixed-Use -Mitchell-Dewitt Road and Hyland-Croy
Road -Case No. 06-064Z).
Ms. Adkins stated this rezoning was approved by Planning & Zoning Commission at their
meeting of September 21, 2006. The site is currently zoned Rural District, and the
surrounding zonings are PUD and PLR. The proposal contains 108 housing units and
39,700 square feet of mixed use retail development. The site plan includes five
subareas: subarea A is for single-family lots on the periphery of the site, adjacent to the
Metro Park; subarea B includes smaller single-family lots clustered along the western
edge of the site; subarea C is the neighborhood center, which will include a clubhouse
and amenities; subarea D are townhouse units that flank the retail area; and subarea E
is the retail area in frontage along Hyland-Croy Road. There are several kinds of
residential lots proposed within subareas A and B, and the townhomes in subarea D are
alley-loaded. The proposed neighborhood commercial area consists of two L-shaped
areas totaling 39,700 square feet maximum. She shared the proposed residential
architecture, noting the Planning Commission added a condition at the meeting requiring
a comparable amount of brick and stone on all four sides of the building, unless
otherwise approved. A theme for the development has been approved with the text.
She shared the proposed architecture for the neighborhood center, for the townhomes
and for the commercial area along Hyland-Croy Road. Staff is recommending approval
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of -_ _ _ - ~3ublin~ity-C~uncil-
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK, INC., FORM NO. 10148
H
November 20, 2006
Meeting
20
Page 4
of the rezoning. She offered to respond to any questions.
Mrs. Boring asked how many households are needed to support the 39,700 square feet
of retail? Is there a study which can be cited?
Ms. Adkins responded that she does not know, but can check on this and report back.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher invited public testimony.
Ralph Feasel, 8100 Hyland-Cron Road stated that as previously noted in public
meetings, he and his wife they have no issues with the housing development, as they
are surrounded by similar developments. They do have concerns, however, about the
shopping center portion of the proposal. He was in the Muirfield area today and viewed
a Center which included stores, restaurants and basic services for the area ten years
ago. Today, the buildings are empty. In this development, a shopping center is
proposed which will be located 2.4 miles from the Perimeter area. The Perimeter area
has over 15 restaurants and many retail stores. He wonders if the proposed shopping
center will eventually have empty buildings as well, similar to the Muirfield Center.
Council needs to consider the direction they want to take in this regard.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that she will ask the developer's representatives to
I ~
address this matter at the conclusion of the public testimony.
Fred Blythe, 7765 Mitchell Dewitt noted his family owns the property adjacent to the west
of the development. They had several issues within the greenspace along their property
line, primarily at the road. He has talked with the developers and is confident that the
minor details can be worked out. Overall, they believe it is a nice development.
Ben Hale, Jr., 37 W. Broad Street, representing the applicant stated they have attended
many meetings about this proposal and listened closely to input from the City officials.
This is a neighborhood center of 39,700 square feet. It does not include big box retail.
All of the architecture is highly integrated and of high quality. They have been working
with Mr. Solove, who is going to be one of the developers of the shopping center, and
also with Metropolitan - a compan which has done man innovative retail centers inYY
other parts of the country. Metropolitan has built a similar center in New Jersey. They
are very confident there is a appropriate place in town for a number of these small
sho in centers. The Cit s consultants have a reed that th m II r tppesaecen ers are9Y9
beneficial from a traffic point of view, as they service people where they live. This is a
growing area of Dublin, and the retailers believe there is sufficient demand to support the
center. In terms of integrating the retail and the residential architecturally, this is a good
chance for Dublin to do something innovative.
Jeremy Halprin, Atlantic Realty Development Corporation of New Jersey stated that he
represents the third generation of their family in this 50-year old business. They are very
excited about working in Dublin. They have been flexible in identifying a new site for this
concept, after their previous site was designated as part of the future tech center area in
Dublin. Their company wants to become involved and become part of the Dublin family.
Their high quality units are focused on the empty nester, as most have first floor master
bedrooms. They have incorporated all suggestions they have received from the City and
the Planning Commission. They are very flexible and willing to work with the City. He
thanked the City for taking the time to review their project tonight.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that there has been discussion previously about the
necessary critical mass within a certain distance to have a viable commercial
neighborhood center such as this. She asked him to comment.
Mr. Hale responded that the retailers do consider their customer base and demographics
required within a certain distance of the center. There are a large number of houses in
the area and a lot of traffic along Hyland-Croy. There has been good response from
retailers, and the rents are set fairly high. They have also committed in the text that the
first building built will be a main one at the entry. The plan is to file the final development
plan for the residential portion at the first of the month, and the retail will lag by a month
or two. There will be retail tenants committed at the tim e of the final develo ment Ian
filing.
p p
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of _ _- _ ~..~.~:.. amity C~,.:~
November 20, 2006
Held 20
Meeting
Page 5
1
1
1
Mr. Reiner asked when this development will be concluded. He knows that there has
been emphasis on the Franklin model in terms of quality. Council is expecting to see
that. He was hopeful that this portion would be completed before embarking on some of
the other portions of the plan.
Mr. Hale responded a meeting took place today regarding the timeframe. Their engineer
was present and the plan is to file the final development plan as quickly as possible.
Atlantic believes that it is important to see the entire site. So they plan to develop the
whole site in one phase, not separately. All of the residential will be built and all of the
landscaping will be installed, all the ponds will be installed, and then they will build at
least two townhouse buildings -- ten units in total -and the clubhouse. They believe it is
important that enough of the plan be built so they can demonstrate to the public what
this development will be. The entrances to Hyland-Croy and Brand Road will be built at
the same time.
Mr. Reiner asked if there is an actual timeline in months.
Mr. Halprin responded that if they are able to start in June, it will take 4-6 months for the
infrastructure, and they would then begin immediately with two townhouse buildings and
five to ten of each type of single-family homes. He estimates this is a three to five-year
type of project, depending upon the pace of sales in the market. Hopefully, the majority
of what will be seen from the street will be built in 24 months.
Mr. Hale added that part of this relates to the timing of the process. They have to file a
final development plan and then hope to be on the Commission's February agenda with
the final development plan for the entire residential site and some of the roads in the
commercial site. Then the final plat will have to be processed, including final
engineering. Construction would likely begin in June.
Mr. Reiner asked if the elevations shown are what will be seen on the site.
Mr. Hale responded that the same architect who designed the conceptuals is now doing
the final drawings and they have promised to file architectural drawings for the Planning
Commission, showing all sides of the buildings, with equal quality and materials.
Mr. Keenan asked about the scale of the setback along Hyland-Croy.
Mr. Hale responded the setback is 200 feet from the property line, and additional right of
way is being provided on Hyland-Croy.
Mrs. Boring stated she has heard Mr. Feasel's comments about the retail center. For
future developments, she requested that staff provide figures on the population support
needed for retail development. This would be useful in consideration of future
rezonings.
Vice Mayor Lecklider welcomed the development to the community. He is positively
impressed by what he has seen. In some respects, this is a new concept. He is hopeful
and confident it will meet Dublin's expectations. He asked if staff envisions any issue
regarding patios with this development, and if so, how will this be addressed in the text.
Mr. Smith stated that a meeting took place regarding patios and future issues. He does
not have a response this evening and does not know if patios are planned for this
development.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that this proposal can continue to move forward with
the proviso that Council would want that aspect reviewed and the text changed
accordingly - if determined to be necessary.
Mr. Gunderman responded that staff has spoken to the developer about this and they
believe the setbacks for the project are somewhat different than some previously
reviewed. The applicant has expressed interest at the Commission meeting in having
outdoor patio space.
Mr. Hale responded that with the size of the houses being built and the size of the lots,
they are confident that the patios can be accommodated within all setbacks.
Vice Mayor Lecklider clarified that he would not want to foreclose that opportunity, as he
believes patios would be appealing in terms of what they are trying to accomplish. He
wants to make certain that they can be accommodated within the setbacks.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded to Mr. Feasel's comments about the Muirfield
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of __
DAYTON LEGAL BLANK. INC.. FORM NO. 10148
Hel
Oub{irfi£ity£oanei~ __
Meeting __
November 20, 2006
20
Page 6
Center. Council has discussed the issues about the Muirfield Center previously and why
it has not succeeded. Council has learned that the residents prefer having retail centers
nearby where they can walk or ride bicycles to access the services. It will be important
to have the bikepath completed in this area to enhance the capacity of residents from all
directions to access the area safely. The architecture does lend itself to conversion if
needed at some future point.
Mr. McCash asked about the financial partners involved in this development. The
application indicates HC & Associates and Atlantic Realty, and Jerome Solove has been
mentioned. There have been other names mentioned tonight.
I! Mr. Hale responded that a company associated with Jerry Solove owns the land today.
That company is in contract with Atlantic to purchase the residential portion. Jerome
Solove, with a company named Metropolitan Partners, specifically Tim Rollins -who
worked on the Easton project - is involved in this development.
Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mayor Chinnici-
Zuercher, yes; Mr. McCash, abstain; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes.
Ordinance 75-06 (Amended)
Authorizing the Provision of Economic Development Incentives to Butler Animal
Health Supply to Induce the Expansion of the Butler Animal Health Supply
Workforce within the City of Dublin; Authorizing the Execution of an Economic
Development Agreement.
Ms. Gilger noted that Butler Animal Health Supply, located on Blazer Parkway is
expanding and the City is offering them an incentive of five years, $27,155 - a
performance incentive tied to Butler achieving pre-determined payroll growth associated
with new job creation. This also serves as the local component for the Job Creation Tax
Credit. Ms. Gilger pointed out that the ordinance has been amended subsequent to the
first reading, with some recalculations to the withholdings. This has changed the
numbers by $11,000.
She introduced Eric Bosserman, Tax Manager, Butler Animal Health.
Eric Bosserman, Butler Animal Health Supply thanked Ms. Gilger for her efforts in
working on this agreement as well as the incentive with the State of Ohio. They are a
distributor and have been looking at constant opportunities for growth. To that end, they
have acquired a software subsidiary in Kentucky a number of years ago and have not
been able to fully integrate their business. In order to do so, they need some assistance
tfromtheCitandtheStatetoinduceeoletorelocateandtoexandtheCurrenYpPp
facilities to accommodate growth. He thanked the City for their willingness to consider
these incentives.
Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road noted that it strikes him that Butler Animal Health
Supply is very generous in pointing out its interrelations with other companies. It is
obviously a conglomerate. He doesn't know to what extent there is potential for "whistle
blowing" of one company over another. He is not implying that is the case here. Is it
safe and fair for Council to say that what transpires between the various companies in
the conglomerate is not the City's business - as long as Butler Animal Health Supply
makes its pa ments to the Cit ?Y Y
Mr. Smith responded that there are laws in place that have to be followed. The City
does not investigate the people doing business to ensure they are in conformity.
Mr. Maurer stated he is not concerned with impropriety. He is concerned with decision-
makin and the impacts on the company bein assisted b the Cit with the incentive.9 9 Y Y
Should he assume this is none of the City's business?
Mr. Smith responded that is an accurate statement.
Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes; Mr. McCash, yes;
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes.
Ordinance 76-06
Authorizing the Provision of Economic Development Incentives to Saber
Corporation to Induce the Location of the Saber Workforce within the City of
Dublin; Authorizing the Execution of an Economic Development Agreement.
Ms. Gilger stated that Saber is looking to locate at 5555 Glendon Court and the City is
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Blank, Inc.
74-06
Ordinance No.Passed 20
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 61.35 ACRES,
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MITCHELL-
DEWITT ROAD AND HYLAND-CROY ROAD FROM R, RURAL
DISTRICT, TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT (OAK PARK MIXED-USE -MITCHELL-DEWITT
ROAD AND HYLAND-CROY ROAD -CASE NO. 06-064Z).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin,
State of Ohio, ~_ of the elected members concurring:
Section 1. That the following described real estate (see attached map marked Exhibit
A") situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned PUD, Planned
Unit Development District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures
contained in Ordinance No. 21-70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances) the City
of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto.
Section 2. That application, Exhibit "B", including the list of contiguous and affected
property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
Exhibit "C", are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and
said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance therewith.
Section 3. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the
earliest period allowed by law.
Passed this ~~ day of ~DU~j~~, 2006.
Mayor -Presiding Officer
Attest:
Clerk of Council
Sponsor: Land Use and Long Range Planning
I hereby certify that copies of this
Ordinance/Resolution were posted in the
City of Dublin in accordance with Section
731.25 of the Ohio Revised Code.
De~ti y Clerk of Council, Dublin, Ohio
Jacqueline N. BaumannChristopher T. ClineS. Scott Haynes*t+Eric B. HershbergerDavid S. Kessler*OSBA Board Certified Family Law SpecialisttFellow, American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers+Certified Mediator, American Academy of Matrimonial LawyersHaynes Kessler Myers & PostalakisAttorneys and Counselors atLaw300 West Wilson Bridge Road, Suite 100, Worthington, Ohio 43085Phone: (614) 764-0681 Facsimile: (614)764-0774ctc@bhmlaw.com direct dial 614-923-3132Fazeel S. KhanNicole S. Maxwell*+Marc E. MyersStephen P. PostalakisTara R. Price*Of Counsel: Thomas Law Group II Co., LPADecember 1,202IChase RidgeDublin Planning Department5200 Emerald ParkwayDublin, Ohio 43017re: Oak Park SubareaF ; 20-|92FDP, 20-193FPDear Chase:I have been asked to comment on how our Amended Declaration of Covenants, Easements,Conditions and Restrictions for Oak Park (hereafter "deed restrictions") responds to the sevenDublin City Council Conditions of Approval for the Oak Park Rezoning Ord 06-20 heard onJune 10, 2020 for the twelve new single family lots which replaced the previous two commercialreserves that allowed about 40,000 square feet of retail zoning.The dominant issue with the rezoning was the removal of the retail commercial zoningat theentrance of the subdivision which had served as a negative factor for both value of the Oak Parkhomes and also constrained future residential development. Oak Park Dublin,LLC,had takenthe initiative to purchase this land and remove the retail zoning. The existing residents saw anadditional issue in future maintenance of the existing private drives and this issue consumedmuch discourse and significant time of public officials over many months. Ultimately the issuewas resolved by the City of Dublin agreeing to bring the bulk of the private drives under themantle of being public roads.All of the residential private drives in Oak Park were within subareas I&J, plus pavement areaswere located in the commercial subareas A&D. The private drives being taken over by the Cityare commonly known as Oak Tree Drives North and South, the main north/south roadways at theentrance to the subdivision; this includes the two round-about bulbs at the north and south endsof the roadways. Although private drives, these prospective new City roadways alreadyappeared to be, and functioned the same as, other public roads in oak Park.
The remaining private drives are essentially alleys with about 18' pavement width. With thecommercial area gone they essentially provide access to the 20 rearentry patio homes (called"Villa Homes") which front on existing public roads. Six of the 12 new single family homes willalso have driveways on these remaining private drives. Pavement area which will remain asprivate drives after the conversion of the balance to City roads will be about 1,000 square yards.The agreement by the City to take over responsibility for Oak Tree Drives North and South plusthe round-about bulbs had three components: 1) the assumption by the City of responsibility forsome of the private drives, 2) the developer agreeing to pay $25,000 into a pavementmaintenance fund to assist in future maintenance costs of the remaining private drives, and 3) theagreement by the developer to amend the deed restrictions for Oak Park to add an additionalmonthly assessment on the new 32 lots (20 patio homes and 12 single family homes) that wouldprovide funds for future maintenance of the remaining private drives. This agreement wasreflected in seven conditions Dublin City Council included in its June 10,2020 approval of therezoning for the twelve new single family lots.It is unusual for a governmental entity to involve itself in private deed restrictions. Normallydeed restrictions and zoning are kept as strictly separate processes: one civil and the othergovernmental. In this case the developer agreed to the City's involvement in the deedrestrictions as the solution to the existing problem intertwined governmental and civil interests.The developer has made many other amendments to the deed restrictions also since the overallmakeup of the subdivision has changed due to elimination of two subareas (townhomes andcommercial) and creation of two subareas (Villa Lots and New Village single family homes).Those other changes to the deed restrictions are not subject to review by the City.With this preface, I will discuss how the amended deed restrictions respond to the seven citycouncil conditions of approval (attached as Exhibit I hereto) of the rezoning.1. The first item provides a requirement for a process that determines how much money needsto be set aside from each new lot owner (32) as additional monthly assessments "to provide afund to pay for the expected pavement maintenance, repair and replacement of the PrivateDrives." Basically, there are two maintenance issues for roadways. At recurring intervals,generally about five years, the roadways are crack filled and sealed. At longer intervals,between 15 and 25 years, the roadways are subjected to "mill and replace" that involvesgrinding down the surface of the roadway and replacing with new pavement. The developerhad already been looking into a program for maintaining the private drives and beencollecting bid information based on inspection of the roadways. I also had data another clienthad submitted to the city for a condominium project. So, this was not a new issue for us, andwe had already collected data as required in the City Council Condition #1. I submitted ourdata and analysis to Paul Hammersmith, the City Engineer, who had been intensely involvedin the negotiations with the residents on the issue. Paul agreed with our methodology butraised our assessment to $12.25 per month, a sum that I recall was about $2.00 more than ourrecommendation. Since the Dublin City Engineer was the final arbiter of the issue the matterwas settled and Article VI(CX3) on page 16 of the amended deed restrictions sets the amountof the additional pavement assessment at$I2.25.
20212. The second condition provides that the developer will contribute $25,000 to fund a pavementrepair fund for Reserves | &J and to segregate both that sum and future pavementassessments received from owners of the 32 new lots, lots 1 09 to 140, in a separate accountto be used only for pavement repairs. Article VI(CX6) atpage 16 of the amended deedrestrictions requires that the HOA Board create a separate fund, the I&J Pavement Fund, tobe kept "separate and apart" and not commingled with other assessments. The pavementassessments will be used by the HOA oosolely for pavement maintenance, repair andreplacement of the private drives in Reserves I & J.3. The third condition basically summarizes the requirements of the first two, and theamendments to the deed restrictions are cited above. Article VI(CX3) page 16 furtherprovides for the required $12.25 per month additional pavement assessment for the 32 newlots "subject to increase or decrease by the Board to ensure the funds are being appropriatelyreserved for actual or projected cost of maintenance, repair and replacement of the PrivateDrives as herein described". Article VI(C)(3) also includes the required provisions about thedeveloper (Declarant) being able to adjust the monthly additional amount upward so long asit controls the HOA Board, and that the pavement assessments be kept separately and usedonly used for pavement repair as well as additional provisions to deal with the possibility thatthe pavement fund might fall short necessitating the HOA Board needing to collect adeficiency from the 32 lots by increasing the assessment.4. The fourth condition provides that the Law Director approve the amendments to the deedrestrictions prior to filing with the Union County Recorder, to be done 60 days followingapproval of the rezoning. The Law Director has advised me that the requirements areappropriately included in the amended deed restrictions. I assume he will give you that reportdirectly. Submission to the Union County Recorder may be delayed past the 60 daysfollowing final approval of this Final Development Plan due to the fact that the amendeddeed restrictions cannot be filed with the Recorder until after the Final Plat is filed. TheFinal Plat cannot be filed until approved by PZC,by City Council, and signed off by allrequired city officials. Typically, these signoffs are not made until after the City approvesengineering for the improvements contemplated in the Final Plat. These improvements areminor, but require coordination with the City of Columbus since utilities are involved and theprocess is slow.5. The fifth condition provides details for maintenance of the Private Drives by the Developeruntil turnover to the HOA and condition at tumover. Article IV(AX3) and (a) page 30 titled"Dublin City Council Requirements for Maintenance of Pavement Areas in Reserves I and J"includes all requirements of this condition. Developer is required to maintain the PrivateDrives until turnover at sale of the last lot. At turnover the pavement must meet a PavementCondition Rating of at least 80 as determined by the city engineer and if not met repairs tobring the pavement up to the standard must be done by the Developer.6. The sixth condition deals with the Developer deeding to the City of Dublin the portions ofReserves I &J comprising the Private Drives that will become City streets. Developer hassubmitted these deed descriptions as part of the Final Development Plan and Final Platmaterials, and I believe they were approved by the City Engineer some time ago. Again, the
Ci60 day requirement may be delayed; Developer is ready to deed these lands to the City butassumes the City does not want to receive them until the Final Plat is filed with the UnionCounty Recorder since that is when part of the new City roadways will be dedicated.Simply, part of the new City roads will be deeded and part dedicated by plat and the Cityprobably wants both portions to be done at once.7. The seventh condition required that the above conditions be included in the DevelopmentText. The seven conditions in fact were included in the staff recommendation and adoptedby Council at the time of approval of the rezoning for Ord 06-20 on June 10,2020.I hope that this letter includes information that assists you in verifuing that the June 10, 2020 CityCouncil Conditions have been adequately included in the Amended Declaration of Covenants,Easements, Conditions and Restrictions for Oak Park. I will be glad to answer any furtherquestions at the hearing next week on December 8,2021.Truly Yours,1VervaHChristopher T. ClineCTC:pqEncl-l City Council Conditions Ord 06-20
APPBNDIX IDublin City CouncilJune 10, 2020Ordinance 06-20Conditions of Rezoning Approval for Oak Park Subarea FSubject to the approval of the City Engineer, Applicant will prepare datashowing projected cost of repairing and replacing the pavement areas ofSubareas I and J of Oak Park that will remain as private drives (PrivateDrives) within Oak Park after dedication to the City of Dublin for OakTree Drives North and South. This projection will state intervals of workexpected to be done, cost of work at each interval, and the additionalPavement Repair Assessment (Pavement Assessment) necessary, abovethe standard Oak Park Community Association, Inc (OPCA) lotassessments to be paid each month by each of the Villa Lots 109-128 andNew Village Lots 129-140 (collectively "Lots 109 to 140") to provide toprovide a fund to pay for the expected pavement maintenance, repair andreplacement of the Private Drives.2. Applicant will donate the amount of $25,000.00 to OPCA to establish theReserve I & J Pavement Repairs Reserve (I&J Pavement Fund) for thefuture pavement maintenance, repair and replacement of the PrivateDrives. OPCA will segregate this amount and the Pavement AssessmentAmounts received from the owners of Lots 109 through 140. . OPCAwill credit the Pavement Assessment amounts to the I&J Pavement Fundno less than quarterly. Disbursements from the I&J Pavement Fund willbe made by OPCA for no reason other than the maintenance, repair andreplacement of the Private Drives.3. To irnplement the above responsibilities and obligations, Applicant willamend the Declaration of Covenants, Easements, Conditions andRestrictions for Oak Park (Declaration) to include Lots 109 to 140. Theamendment of the Declaration will include revisions to Article VIAssessments, to delete all references to Townhouse assessments and toadd requirements that assessments for Lots 109 to 140 will include theadditional Pavement Assessment for repairing and replacing the PrivateDrives. The Pavement Assessment will initially be $12.25 per monthsubject to increase or decrease by the OPCSA Board of Directors (Board)to ensure that funds are being appropriately reserved for actual orprojected cost of maintenance, repair and replacement of the PrivateDrives in accord with the methodology of #1(a) above. However, so longas Applicant controls the Board, the Pavement Assessment may beadjusted upward at its discretion. The Pavement Assessment will beconsidered part of the Operating Assessments in the Declaration withrespect to the Lots 109 to 140. Applicant will further amend the43
Declaration to provide for the segregation and use of the of the I&JPavement Fund by OPCA as provided in #1(b) above.4. The amendments in #l(c) above are subject to the approval of the LawDirector prior to filing with the Union County, Ohio, Recorder and will beso submitted for approval within 60 days following final approval of thewithin rezoning.5. The Private Drives will be maintained by the Applicant, without usingOPCA funds, until turnover to OPCA. Unless agreed to in writing by amajority of the Oak Park residents, turnover of the Private Drives will nottake place until the last lot of Lots 109 to 140 is sold. After the final lot ofLots 109 to 140 is sold and prior to turnover of maintenance of the PrivateDrives to OPCA, the Applicant shall request a pavement evaluation of thePrivate Drives from the City Engineer. Under the direction of the CityEngineer, the City of Dublin will evaluate the pavement condition andestablish a pavement condition rating (PCR) for the private drives. A PCRof 80 or higher will be required before turnover of maintenance of thePrivate Drives to the OPCA. If the PCR is evaluated to be lower than 80,the Applicant shall perform maintenance necessary to bring the PCR to 80or higher at the Applicants sole cost and expense. Ideally, the pavementwork will be performed, and turnover made, after heavy constructionoperations are completed on the home on the last lot. To this end, prior toissuing a final Certificate of Occupancy for the home on the last lot sold,or six months after sale of the last lot if construction has not beencommenced thereon, the Applicant will perform the required work. TheCity Engineer may also permit the Applicant to make security assurancesfor performance of the work in the future prior to the pavement tumover tothe OPCA. This condition does not limit the Applicant's right under theDeclaration to turn over property other than the Private Drives or thefunctions of the OPCA atany time, at its discretion.6. The Applicant will deed to the City portions of Reserves I and J, prior tothe approval of any building permits for Lots 109 to 1490, and no laterthan 60 days after the approval by Dublin Planning andZoningCommission of the Final Development Plan for this section. This area isgenerally Oaktree Drive North, north of Acorn Lane to the nofthemterminus, including the bulb. It will include the area of Oaktree DriveSouth, south of Bur Oak Lane to southern terminus, including the bulb.The description and exhibit of this area to be deeded to the City is requiredto be submitted with the Final Development Plan for this Section.The above conditions, upon approval, are required to be included in theDevelopment Text.744
Final Development Plan - Oak Park Dublin
SW Corner Hyland Croy and Mitchell DeWitt Roads
Applicant: Oak Park Dublin, LLC
November 2020
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN STATEMENT
SUBAREA F
(RESERVES A AND D - OAK PARK)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING CHARACTER, LAND USE AND ARCHITECTURE
This Final Development Plan contains Reserves A and D of Subarea E of the Oak Park Subdivision.
As approved in the rezoning/preliminary development plan this area converted the originally zoned
commercial use to a residential use with twelve single family homes, six in each reserve.
The twelve single family lots are consistent in character and land use to the existing Oak Park
Development as follows:
Lot size for the eight lots fronting Oaktree Drive N and S is similar to the range of lot sizes in
the Oak Park single family subareas
o Lot minimum width of 55’ up to 69’
o Lot depths minimum of 130’ (existing Oak Park residential lot depth is 125’)
Lot size for the four lots fronting Oak Park Boulevard will be deeper and therefore larger than
any lots in Oak Park. These lots will permit detached garages in addition to attached garages.
Development standards will mimic the developed Oak Park single family subareas
Architecture will use existing approved Oak Park elevations or modifications approvable
administratively, similar to the process for the Villa lots
o e.g., existing elevations modified for garage on adjacent non-frontage street and
detached garages
Result will be homes indistinguishable from existing homes in Oak Park
No new streets will be constructed; existing streets will service the new homes
o Eight homes will have access and frontage on existing Private Street, Oaktree Drive
North and South, which will be platted as a public street to the City of Dublin.
o Four Homes will front on Oak Park Boulevard but will not have driveway access to it.
Driveways will have driveway access to private streets: Bur Oak Lane, Acorn Lane,
Shumard Oak Lane and Chinkapin Oak Lane.
Utility facilities are already in place but will need to be modified and extended.
On street parallel parking will be permitted along Oaktree Drive North and South
Particular attention will be paid to the presentation of homes facing Hyland Croy Road to ensure
an attractive gateway to the Oak Park subdivision
In addition to the above summary regarding architecture, there are currently about 25 approved
models for both the single family lots and the Villa lots. This “stable” of elevations for the twelve new lots
will use any of these plans and the Development Text will so state. Additionally, the Development Text will
also empower planning staff to make changes to these approved models and to approve designs for
detached garages and other permitted accessory uses. This will enable any modifications necessary to
adapt an existing model to a particular lot in this new part of Oak Park. Such an adaption might be
changing the access orientation for a garage, decreasing (or expanding) the width of a building, or
reorienting a particular elevation to face a different street on a corner lot. Totally new models could also
be approved by planning staff.
RELATIONSHIP TO COMMUNITY PLAN
The Northwest Glacier Ridge Area Plan and the Hyland Croy Corridor Character Study both
emphasize the objective of preserving the rural, open feel of Hyland Croy Road with low intensity clustered
residential land uses with large setbacks from the roadway and significant open space. Oak Park effectively
follows this lead with the rezoning change from commercial reserves to the single family residential use. Once
constructed, these homes will improve the Oak Park window to the roadway. The Glacier Ridge subarea
plan of the Community Plan notes that this neighborhood retail center would affect the visual character of
Hyland Croy Road; by removing the visibility needs of this retail center the visual impact along the corridor
will be improved and the overall landscape theme improved
Oak Park falls within the Mixed Residential Rural Transition district which contemplates about 1.5
dwelling units per acre. Existing Oak Park, with 92 residential units, currently matches this target. Adding
the twelve new single family lots will raise the total to 104 units, still shy of the original Oak Park total of
108 units. This new overall residential density is about 1.69 units per acre, still less than Oak Park’s original
residential density of 1.76 units per acre.
The removal of the 40,000 square feet of commercial retail space that was previously included in
Oak Park’s total impact results in a major decrease in the overall intensity of the site, reduces traffic by the
conversion of the commercial areas to single family homes. And eliminates the visual clutter from commercial
signage and lighting, noise from commercial trash pickup, and nighttime retail hours that would have
conflicted with residential quiet times.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
This Final Development Plan is consistent with the approved Preliminary Development plan and
provides for twelve single family lots and the conversion of Oaktree Drive North and South from a private
street to a platted public right of way through the Final Plat process.
MEETS THE REVIEW CRITERIA PER 153.055(B)
(1) The proposed development is consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable standards of the Zoning
Code;
The proposed Final Development Plan is consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable standards
of the Zoning Code;
(2) The proposed development is in conformity with Community Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, Bikeway Plan, and
other adopted plans or portions thereof as they may apply and will not unreasonably burden the existing
street network;
The proposed development is in Conformity with the Community Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, Bikeway
Plan, and other adopted plans. The development will not unreasonably burden the existing street
network and as indicated above, the overall traffic impact is decreased with the conversion from
commercial use to single family homes.
(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;
The proposed development advances the general welfare of the city, the immediate vicinity of the
Oak Park neighborhood and adjacent developments by providing a consistent land use and reduced
traffic impact. The twelve homes will not impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of the surrounding areas
(4) The proposed uses are appropriately located in the city so that the use and value of property within and
adjacent to the area will be safeguarded;
The proposed uses are appropriately located in the City and will only enhance values of the
property within and adjacent to the area through consistent land use, architecture and lot size.
(5) Proposed residential development will have sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives of the
Community Plan;
As part of the overall Oak Park development, over 50% of the development is contained within
open space.
(6) The proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and protects the
natural resources of the site;
The conversion of the proposed single family lots from commercial uses will help maintain the unique
character of the natural features and protects the natural resources of the site through reduced lot
coverage, reduced noise, traffic etc.
(7) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and/or necessary facilities have been or are being
provided;
All infrastructure is in place and the applicant has worked with the City for the conversion of Oaktree
Drive North and South to a public right of way.
(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;
With the conversion from commercial to single family, traffic will be minimized. All streets and
infrastructure are in place including pedestrian paths. With construction of the lots, sidewalk
connections will be completed to enhance pedestrian connectivity through the site and to the adjacent
pedestrian network.
(9) The relationship of buildings and structures to each other and to such other facilities provides for the
coordination and integration of this development within the PD and the larger community and maintains
the image of Dublin as a quality community;
As described in the Project Description above the relationship of buildings and structures to each
other and to such other facilities provides for the coordination and integration of this development
within the PD and the larger community and maintains the image of Dublin as a quality community;
(10) The density, building gross floor area, building heights, setbacks, distances between buildings and
structures, yard space, design and layout of open space systems and parking areas, traffic accessibility
and other elements having a bearing on the overall acceptability of the development plans contribute to
the orderly development of land within the city;
As described in the Project Description above, the proposed single family lots result in less density
than originally approved for Oak Park, setbacks, building heights, architectural standards, etc are
all consistent with the existing single family homes and contribute to the orderly development of not
only the overall Oak Park development but land within the city.
(11) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site so as to maintain, as far as
practicable, usual and normal swales, water courses and drainage areas;
Adequate provisions were made for storm drainage with the construction of the original Oak Park
development. The proposed single family lots do not have any impact on existing storm water
management or storm drainage systems.
(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;
The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed development justify any
deviation from the standard development regulations included in the Zoning Code or Subdivision
Regulation, and that any such deviations are consistent with the intent of the Planned Development
District regulations.
(13) The proposed building design meets or exceeds the quality of the building designs in the surrounding area
and all applicable appearance standards of the city;
Building design will utilize the existing approved Oak Park elevations. New elevations for homes,
detached garages and other permitted accessory uses or modifications to existing home elevations
will be approvable administratively by planning staff.
(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;
The proposed single family lots will not require phasing for infrastructure (roads or utilities) since
these are already in place. Lots will be built upon as they are sold with improvements for
sidewalks and curb ramps constructed with the construction of each home.
(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;
The proposed development will be serviced by existing streets and utilities. Some minor
modifications are required for water and sewer service lines to the lots.
(16) The applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and
are sufficient to service the new development.
Oak Park already contributed land and funding to Hyland Croy Road, McKitrick Road and Mitchell
DeWitt Road improvements, in both City of Dublin and Union County. These contributions were based
on the higher intensity previously planned for the 40,000 square feet of commercial use. Similarly,
utility infrastructure is now more than adequate for the lesser intensity generated by the proposed
downzoning to single family residential use.
J:\20190713\Correspondence\Submittals\FDP\working docs\FDP Statement - Nov 2020.docx
PREPARED FOR:
OAK PARK DUBLIN, LLC
90 Woodbridge Center Drive
Woodbridge, NJ 07095
P: 732.750.1111
F: 732.596.8461
CIVIL ENGINEER &
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
INDEX OF DRAWINGS
\\cmhdata01\project01\20160307\Dwg\04Sheets\oak park pud fdp\Oak Park PUD FDP Cover.dwg Last Saved By: mnerici, 3/4/2021 5:17 PMOAK PARK PUD
PUD REZONING - SUBAREA F
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
DUBLIN, OHIO
(RESERVES A AND D)
Vicinity Map
Scale: 1" = 2000'US
-33Hyland-Croy RdM
i
t
c
h
e
l
l
-
D
e
w
i
t
t
R
d
.
Site
LEGAL COUNSEL
Christopher T. Cline c/o Haynes, Kessler, Myers & Postalakis
300 West Wilson Bridge Rd. #100 Worthington, OH 43085
Phone: 614-764-0681
Email: ctc@BHMLaw.com
1. VICINITY MAP
2. EXISTING CONDITIONS
3. SUBAREA MAP
4. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
5. LANDSCAPE PLAN (STREET TREE)
6. TREE SURVEY AND TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN
7. TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN
8. LANDSCAPE DETAILS
8. STAKING PLAN
9. UTILITY PLAN
10. GRADING PLAN
12. NOTES
PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL:
NOVEMBER 24, 2020
CITY OF COLUMBUS:
ZONED:PRL
PLANNED LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
(URB)
(DUBLIN)UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLINUNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLINJEROME TWP/UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLINJEROME TWP/UNION COUNTY
CITY OF DUBLIN
UNION COUNTY
CITY OF DUBLIN
ZONED:PRL
PLANNED LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
(URB)
(DUBLIN)
EXISTING
ZONED:RU
RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
(AG)
(JEROME TWP)
EXISTING
ZONED:RU
RURAL RESIDENTIAL
(AG)
(JEROME TWP)
EXISTING
ZONED:RU
RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
(AG)
(JEROME TWP)
EXISTING
ZONED:RU
RURAL RESIDENTIAL
(AG)
(JEROME TWP)
EXISTING
ZONED:RU
RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
(AG)
(JEROME TWP)
SUBAREA A
SUBAREA B-1
SUBAREA C
SUBAREA D
SUBAREA E
SUBAREA A
SUBAREA B-2
ZONED:PUD
PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT
(DUBLIN)Mitchell-Dewitt RoadHyland-Croy Road
Oak Park BoulevardOaktree Drive North
Acorn LaneBur Oak LanePrimrose CourtSnowdrop CourtOak Meadow
Drive
Oak View Avenue NorthOak View Avenue SouthGreenland PlacePleasant Drive
Dublin Jerome High School
Glacier Ridge Metro Park
Bishops Crossing
± 1.735Ac.± 1.733 Ac.
Oaktree Drive South
Glacier Ridge Metro Park
JEROME TWP/UNION COUNTY
CITY OF DUBLIN JEROME TWP/UNION COUNTYCITY OF DUBLINRESERVE A RESERVE D
SUBAREA F
(SITE)
SUBAREA F
(SITE)
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 50 100 200
1 inch = 100 feet VICINITY MAP1 /10
20190713
November 24, 2020OAK PARK DUBLIN, LLCDATEREVISIONSDATE DESCRIPTIONMARKSCALE
JOB NO.
SHEETDUBLIN, OHIOFINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANFOROAK PARK PUD - RESERVES A AND DSINGLE FAMILY HOMES1" = 100'
Acorn Lane (Private Street)Snowdrop Court (Public Street)±0.91 Ac.
Chinkapin Oak Lane (Private Street)Shumard Oak Lane (Private Street)
±0.56 Ac.±0.56 Ac.
±0.91 Ac.±0.91 Ac.±0.91 Ac.
SUBAREA
D
SUBAREA
F
SUBAREA
F
/10
20190713
November 24, 2020OAK PARK DUBLIN, LLCDATEREVISIONSDATE DESCRIPTIONMARKSCALE
JOB NO.
SHEETDUBLIN, OHIOFINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANFOROAK PARK PUD - RESERVES A AND DSINGLE FAMILY HOMESEXISTING CONDITIONS2
1" = 100'
1 inch = 30 feet
GRAPHIC SCALE
600 15 30
LEGEND 03/05 SCALE REVISION
RESERVE D
BISHOP'S RUN SECTION 2
P. B. 5, P. 122 & 123
O.R. 595, P. 821
SUZANNE B. FEASEL, TRUSTEE SUZANNE B. FEASEL, TRUSTEE
O.R. 595, P. 821
RESERVE D
BISHOP'S RUN SECTION 2
P. B. 5, PP. 122 & 123 SUZANNE B. FEASEL, TRUSTEE
O.R. 595, P. 821
DUBLIN JEROME HIGH SCHOOL
GLACIER RIDGE METRO PARKAcorn Lane (Private Street)Snowdrop Court (Public Street)Chinkapin Oak Lane (Private Street)Shumard Oak Lane (Private Street)
GLACIER RIDGE METRO PARK
BISHOPS CROSSING
ZONED:PRL
PLANNED LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
(URB)
(DUBLIN)
ZONED:PUD
PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT
(DUBLIN)
ZONED:PRL
PLANNED LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT
(URB)
(DUBLIN)
EXISTING
ZONED:RU
RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
(AG)
(JEROME TWP)
EXISTING
ZONED:RU
RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
(AG)
(JEROME TWP)
EXISTING
ZONED:RU
RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
(AG)
(JEROME TWP)
EXISTING
ZONED:RU
RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
(AG)
(JEROME TWP)
EXISTING
ZONED:RU
RURAL
RESIDENTIAL
(AG)
(JEROME TWP)
SUBAREA A
SUBAREA B-1
SUBAREA C
SUBAREA D
SUBAREA A
SUBAREA B-2
SUBAREA E
SUBAREA F SUBAREA F
/10
20190713
November 24, 2020OAK PARK DUBLIN, LLCDATEREVISIONSDATE DESCRIPTIONMARKSCALE
JOB NO.
SHEETDUBLIN, OHIOFINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANFOROAK PARK PUD - RESERVES A AND DSINGLE FAMILY HOMESSUBAREA MAP2A
1" = 50'03/05 ADDITIONAL SUBAREA MAP SHEET
128
127
126
125
124
123
122 121 120 119 118 117 116 115
114
113
112
111
110
109
25'25'
12'
12'
25'25'
12'12'
50'
R/W
24'
B-B
24'B-B20'B-B4' Walk4' Walk4' Walk
OAKTREE DRIVE NORTH (PROPOSED PUBLIC STREET)OAKTREE DRIVE SOUTH (PROPOSED PUBLIC STREET)RESERVE "R"RESERVE "J"RESERVE "J"
R/W Ends
RESERVE "J"
10' Esmt4.5' Sidewalk Esmt4' Walk4' Walk4' WalkRESERVE "N"
0.034 Ac.0.034 Ac.
RESERVE "O"S84°41'01"W20'B-B24'B-BRESERVE "I"RESERVE "SRESERVE "R"RESERVE "S"
129 130 131 132
135
136
137 138 139 140
24'
25'25'
12'12'
50'
R/W
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
±0.18 Ac.
7923 SF
±0.17 Ac.
7260 SF
±0.17 Ac.
7260 SF
±0.21 Ac.
9108 SF
±0.17 Ac.
7260 SF
±0.17 Ac.
7260 SF
±0.21 Ac.
9108 SF
±0.18 Ac.
8008 SF
±0.35 Ac.4' Walk4' Walk6'
6'6'
6'
6'
6'6'6'6'6'6'6'
6'6'6'
6'
6'
6'
S05°18'59"E 150.81'
S03°11'43"E
54.04'
S05°18'59"E
76.52'
S05°18'59"E 150.81'
S07°26'15"E
54.04'
S05°18'59"E
76.52'N82°33'45"E54.04'N84°41'01"E103.07'N84°41'01"E292.93'N84°41'01"E292.93'N86°48'17"E54.04'N84°41'01"E103.07'±0.32 Ac.±0.32 Ac.4.5' Sidewalk EsmtOAK PARK BOULEVARD(PUBLIC STREET)BURR OAK LANE (PRIVATE STREET)ACORN LANE (PRIVATE LANE)SNOWDROP COURT(PUBLIC STREET)PRIMROSE COURT(PUBLIC STREET)EXISTING OAK PARK
PUD
SUBAREA "D"
SHUMARD OAK LANE
(PRIVATE STREET)CHINKAPIN OAK LANE (PRIVATE STREET)
15' Rear Yard Setback (TYP)20' Rear Yard Setback (TYP)20' Rear Yard Setback (TYP)20' Front Yard Setback (TYP)20' Front Yard Setback (TYP)
15' Rear Yard Setback (TYP)
134
±0.37 Ac.
16245 SF
133
±0.33 Ac.
14539 SF
RESERVE "I"
±0.37 Ac.
16245 SF
14570 SF
20' Front Yard Setback (TYP)20' Front Yard Setback (TYP)Portion Of Reserve J to be
Transferred by Deed to City of
Dublin as Public ROW
No Driveway Access
2' Sidewalk Esmt
8' Tree
Lawn(Back
of Curb to
Sidewalk)
4' Walk
10' Side Yard Setback (TYP)10' Side Yard Setback (TYP)10' Setback (TYP)10' Setback (TYP)14'55' ROW Dedication30'2' Sidewalk Esmt 16'12'8' TreeLawn
(Back of Curb to
Sidewalk)25'24'4' Walk
4' Walk
4' Walk
Sidewalk Esmt From ROW to 1'
Behind Walk
(Dimension Varies)
R/WR/W 28' B/C to B/CPortion Of Reserve I to be
Transferred by Deed to City of
Dublin as Public ROW
EXISTING OAK PARK
PUD
SUBAREA "D"
EXISTING OAK PARK
PUD
SUBAREA "D"
EXISTING OAK PARK
PUD
SUBAREA "D"
26'26'
10'
8'
6'
10'
8'
6'
Sidewalk Esmt From ROW to 1'
Behind Walk
(Dimension Varies)21'16'21'16'Proposed ROW Proposed ROW
Proposed ROW
Proposed ROW
Reserve JReserve IExisting ROWReserve I
Reserve J
58'58'
4' x 4' Pad
for 16 Unit
CBU
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 15 30 60
1 inch = 30 feet
SITE DATA:
Zoning PUD
Site Area ± 3.46 ac
Lots:±2.82 ac / 12 Lots
-Min Lot Frontage 55'
-Min Lot Depth 130'
-Parking Min 2 Spaces in Garage
-Max Lot Coverage Lots 129-132, 137-140 - 60%
Lots 133-136 - 45%
Proposed Public ROW Dedication ± 0.64 ac
-Reserve R ± 0.32 ac
-Reserve S ± 0.32 ac
Open Space
No Additional Dedicated Open Space Required. Already Provided with
Original Oak Park Zoning./10
20190713
November 24, 2020OAK PARK DUBLIN, LLCDATEREVISIONSDATE DESCRIPTIONMARKSCALE
JOB NO.
SHEETDUBLIN, OHIOFINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANFOROAK PARK PUD - RESERVES A AND DSINGLE FAMILY HOMESFINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN3
KEY .
No Drive Access
Proposed Sidewalks
and Curb Ramps
As Noted03/05 BASE CHANGES09/22/21 CBU LOCATION
128
127
126
125
124
123
122 121 120 119 118 117 116 115
114
113
112
111
110
109
4' Walk4' Walk4' Walk
OAKTREE DRIVE NORTH (PROPOSED PUBLIC STREET)OAKTREE DRIVE SOUTH (PROPOSED PUBLIC STREET)
RESERVE "J"
R/W Ends
RESERVE "J"4' Walk4' Walk4' WalkRESERVE "N"
0.034 Ac.0.034 Ac.
RESERVE "O"
RESERVE "R"RESERVE "S"
129 130 131 132
135
136
137 138 139 140
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
±0.18 Ac.
7923 SF
±0.17 Ac.
7260 SF
±0.17 Ac.
7260 SF
±0.21 Ac.
9108 SF
±0.17 Ac.
7260 SF
±0.17 Ac.
7260 SF
±0.21 Ac.
9108 SF
±0.18 Ac.
8008 SF
±0.35 Ac.4' Walk4' Walk±0.32 Ac.±0.32 Ac.OAK PARK BOULEVARD(PUBLIC STREET)BURR OAK LANE (PRIVATE STREET)ACORN LANE (PRIVATE LANE)SNOWDROP COURT(PUBLIC STREET)PRIMROSE COURT(PUBLIC STREET)EXISTING OAK PARK
PUD
SUBAREA "D"
SHUMARD OAK LANE
(PRIVATE STREET)CHINKAPIN OAK LANE (PRIVATE STREET)
134
±0.37 Ac.
16245 SF
133
±0.33 Ac.
14539 SF
RESERVE "I"
±0.37 Ac.
16245 SF
14570 SF
EXISTING OAK PARK
PUD
SUBAREA "D"
EXISTING OAK PARK
PUD
SUBAREA "D"
EXISTING OAK PARK
PUD
SUBAREA "D"
4' x 4' Pad
for 16 Unit
CBU
1 inch = 30 feet
GRAPHIC SCALE
6001530Typical Intersection Sight Triangle Enlargement
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 15 30 60
1 inch = 30 feet /10
20190713
November 24, 2020OAK PARK DUBLIN, LLCDATEREVISIONSDATE DESCRIPTIONMARKSCALE
JOB NO.
SHEETDUBLIN, OHIOFINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANFOROAK PARK PUD - RESERVES A AND DSINGLE FAMILY HOMESLANDSCAPE PLAN (STREET TREE)4
PLANT SCHEDULE
As Noted
Individual Lot - Typical Hedge / Fence 03/05 ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE NOTES09/22/21 CBU LOCATION
OAKTREE DRIVE NORTH (PROPOSED PUBLIC STREET)OAKTREE DRIVE SOUTH (PROPOSED PUBLIC STREET)OAK PARK BOULEVARD(PUBLIC STREET)BURR OAK LANE (PRIVATE STREET)ACORN LANE (PRIVATE LANE)(PUBLIC STREET)PRIMROSE COURT(PUBLIC STREET)EXISTING OAK PARKPUDSUBAREA "D"
SHUMARD OAK LANE
(PRIVATE STREET)CHINKAPIN OAK LANE (PRIVATE STREET)
No Driveway Access
EXISTING OAK PARKPUDSUBAREA "D"
EXISTING OAK PARKPUDSUBAREA "D"
EXISTING OAK PARKPUDSUBAREA "D"
26'26'
4
1 2
3
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 15 30 60
1 inch = 30 feet /10
20190713
November 24, 2020OAK PARK DUBLIN, LLCDATEREVISIONSDATE DESCRIPTIONMARKSCALE
JOB NO.
SHEETDUBLIN, OHIOFINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANFOROAK PARK PUD - RESERVES A AND DSINGLE FAMILY HOMESTREE SURVEY AND TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN5
1" = 30'03/05 ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE NOTES
OAK VIEW AVENUE N(PUBLIC STREET)OAK VIEW AVENUE S(PUBLIC STREET)EXISTING OAK PARKPUDSUBAREA "B-1"EXISTING OAK PARKPUDSUBAREA "C"
OAK MEADOW DRIVE
(PUBLIC STREET)
EXISTING OAK PARKPUDSUBAREA "D"
EXISTING OAK PARKPUDSUBAREA "D"
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 20 40 80.000059
1 inch = 40 feet /10
20190713
November 24, 2020OAK PARK DUBLIN, LLCDATEREVISIONSDATE DESCRIPTIONMARKSCALE
JOB NO.
SHEETDUBLIN, OHIOFINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANFOROAK PARK PUD - RESERVES A AND DSINGLE FAMILY HOMESTREE REPLACEMENT PLAN5A
1" = 50'
Location Map 03/05 ADDITIONAL SHEET W/ TREE REPLACEMENT LOCATIONS
6/10
20190713
November 24, 2020OAK PARK DUBLIN, LLCAs Noted
DATEREVISIONSDATE DESCRIPTIONMARKSCALE
JOB NO.
SHEET
Rootball Preparation
Deciduous Tree Planting
Planting Bed Edge
Rootball Setting
Shrub Planting
Perennial & Groundcover Planting
DUBLIN, OHIOFINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANFOROAK PARK PUD - RESERVES A AND DSINGLE FAMILY HOMESLANDSCAPE DETAILS
R/W Ends
RESERVE "I"128
127
126
125
124
123
122 121 120 119 118 117 116 115
114
113
112
111
110
109
25'25'
12'12'
25'25'
12'12'
50'
R/W
24'
B-B
24'B-B20'B-B4' Walk4' WalkRESERVE "J"RESERVE "R"RESERVE "J"RESERVE "J"
R/W Ends
RESERVE "J"
Ex. 10' Esmt4.5' Sidewalk Esmt4' WalkRESERVE "N"
0.034 Ac.0.034 Ac.
RESERVE "O"S84°41'01"W667.09'20'B-B24'B-BRESERVE "I"RESERVE "SRESERVE "R"RESERVE "S"
129 130 131 132
135
136
137 138 139 140
24'
25'25'
12'12'
50'
R/W
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
OAK PARK DUBLIN
LLC
±0.18 Ac.
7923 SF
±0.17 Ac.
7260 SF
±0.17 Ac.
7260 SF
±0.21 Ac.
9108 SF
±0.17 Ac.
7260 SF
±0.17 Ac.
7260 SF
±0.21 Ac.
9108 SF
±0.18 Ac.
8008 SF
±0.35 Ac.4' Walk4' Walk6'
6'6'
6'
6'
6'6'6'6'6'6'6'
6'6'6'
6'
6'
6'
S05°18'59"E
150.81'
S03°11'43"E
54.04'
S05°18'59"E
76.52'
S05°18'59"E
150.81'
S07°26'15"E
54.04'
S05°18'59"E
76.52'N82°33'45"E54.04'N84°41'01"E103.07'N84°41'01"E292.93'N84°41'01"E292.93'N86°48'17"E54.04'N84°41'01"E103.07'±0.32 Ac.±0.32 Ac.4.5' Sidewalk EsmtOAK PARK BOULEVARD(PUBLIC STREET)BURR OAK LANE(PRIVATE STREET)ACORN LANE(PRIVATE LANE)SNOWDROP COURT(PUBLIC STREET)PRIMROSE COURT(PUBLIC STREET)EXISTING OAK PARK
PUD
SUBAREA "D"
SHUMARD OAK LANE
(PRIVATE STREET)
CHINKAPIN OAK LANE
(PRIVATE STREET)
15' Rear Yard Setback (TYP)20' Rear Yard Setback (TYP)20' Rear Yard Setback (TYP)20' Front Yard Setback (TYP)20' Front Yard Setback (TYP)
15' Rear Yard Setback (TYP)
134
±0.37 Ac.
16245 SF
133
±0.33 Ac.
14539 SF
RESERVE "I"
±0.37 Ac.
16245 SF
14570 SF
20' Front Yard Setback (TYP)20' Front Yard Setback (TYP)Portion Of Reserve J to be
Transferred by Deed to City of
Dublin as Public ROW
2' Sidewalk Esmt
8' Tree
Lawn(Back
of Curb to
Sidewalk)
4' Walk
10' Side Yard Setback (TYP)10' Side Yard Setback (TYP)10' Setback (TYP)10' Setback (TYP)14'55' ROW Dedication30'2' Sidewalk Esmt16'12'8' Tree
Lawn
(Back of
Curb to
Sidewalk)25'24'4' Walk
4' Walk
4' Walk
Sidewalk Esmt From ROW to 1'
Behind Walk
(Dimension Varies)
R/WR/W28' B/C to B/CPortion Of Reserve I to be
Transferred by Deed to City of
Dublin as Public ROW
EXISTING OAK PARK
PUD
SUBAREA "D"
EXISTING OAK PARK
PUD
SUBAREA "D"
EXISTING OAK PARK
PUD
SUBAREA "D"
10'
17'
13'
10'
17'
13'
Sidewalk Esmt From ROW to 1'
Behind Walk
(Dimension Varies)21'16'21'16'Proposed ROW Proposed ROW
Proposed ROW
Proposed ROW
OAKTREE DRIVE SOUTH
(PROPOSED PUBLIC STREET)
OAKTREE DRIVE NORTH
(PROPOSED PUBLIC STREET)
20'
8'
8'
Ex. Curb Ramp
4' x 4'
PADfor 16
Unit CBU
/10
20190713
November 24, 2020OAK PARK DUBLIN, LLCDATEREVISIONSDATE DESCRIPTIONMARKSCALE
JOB NO.
SHEETDUBLIN, OHIOFINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANFOROAK PARK PUD - RESERVES A AND DSINGLE FAMILY HOMESGRAPHIC SCALE
0 15 30 60
1 inch = 30 feet STAKING PLAN7TYPICAL INTERSECTION AND SIGNAGE
RAMP NOTES
A
A
SECTION "A-A"
PLAN VIEW
TYPICAL CURB RAMP
As Noted09/22/21 CBU LOCATION
128
127
126
125
124
123
122 121 120 119 118 117 116 115
114
113
112
111
110
109
25'25'
12'
12'
25'25'
12'12'
50'
R/W
24'
B-B
24'B-B20'B-B4' Walk4' Walk4' Walk
OAKTREE DRIVE NORTH (PROPOSED PUBLIC STREET)OAKTREE DRIVE SOUTH (PROPOSED PUBLIC STREET)RESERVE "R"RESERVE "J"RESERVE "J"
R/W Ends
RESERVE "J"
10' Esmt4.5' Sidewalk Esmt4' Walk4' Walk4' WalkRESERVE "N"RESERVE "O"S84°41'01"W20'B-B24'B-BRESERVE "I"RESERVE "SRESERVE "R"RESERVE "S"
129 130 131 132
135
136
137 138 139 140
24'
25'25'
12'12'
50'
R/W4' Walk4' Walk6'
6'6'
6'
6'
6'6'6'6'6'6'6'
6'6'6'
6'
6'
6'
S05°18'59"E 150.81'
S03°11'43"E
54.04'
S05°18'59"E
76.52'
S05°18'59"E 150.81'
S07°26'15"E
54.04'
S05°18'59"E
76.52'N82°33'45"E54.04'N84°41'01"E103.07'N84°41'01"E292.93'N84°41'01"E292.93'N86°48'17"E54.04'N84°41'01"E103.07'4.5' Sidewalk EsmtOAK PARK BOULEVARD(PUBLIC STREET)BURR OAK LANE (PRIVATE STREET)ACORN LANE (PRIVATE LANE)SNOWDROP COURT(PUBLIC STREET)PRIMROSE COURT(PUBLIC STREET)EXISTING OAK PARK
PUD
SUBAREA "D"
SHUMARD OAK LANE
(PRIVATE STREET)CHINKAPIN OAK LANE (PRIVATE STREET)
15' Rear Yard Setback (TYP)20' Rear Yard Setback (TYP)20' Rear Yard Setback (TYP)20' Front Yard Setback (TYP)20' Front Yard Setback (TYP)
15' Rear Yard Setback (TYP)
134
133
RESERVE "I"20' Front Yard Setback (TYP)20' Front Yard Setback (TYP)Portion Of Reserve J to be
Transferred by Deed to City of
Dublin as Public ROW
2' Sidewalk Esmt
8' Tree
Lawn(Back
of Curb to
Sidewalk)
4' Walk
10' Side Yard Setback (TYP)10' Side Yard Setback (TYP)10' Setback (TYP)10' Setback (TYP)14'55' ROW Dedication30'2' Sidewalk Esmt 16'12'8' TreeLawn
(Back of Curb to
Sidewalk)25'24'4' Walk
4' Walk
4' Walk
Sidewalk Esmt From ROW to 1'
Behind Walk
(Dimension Varies)
R/WR/W 28' B/C to B/CPortion Of Reserve I to be
Transferred by Deed to City of
Dublin as Public ROW
EXISTING OAK PARK
PUD
SUBAREA "D"
EXISTING OAK PARK
PUD
SUBAREA "D"
EXISTING OAK PARK
PUD
SUBAREA "D"
10'
8'
6'
10'
8'
6'
Sidewalk Esmt From ROW to 1'
Behind Walk
(Dimension Varies)21'16'21'16'Proposed ROW Proposed ROW
Proposed ROW
Proposed ROW
Reserve JReserve IExisting ROWReserve I
Reserve J
58'58'
4' x 4' Pad
for 16 Unit
CBU
LEGEND
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 15 30 60
1 inch = 30 feet /10
20190713
November 24, 2020OAK PARK DUBLIN, LLCDATEREVISIONSDATE DESCRIPTIONMARKSCALE
JOB NO.
SHEETDUBLIN, OHIOFINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANFOROAK PARK PUD - RESERVES A AND DSINGLE FAMILY HOMESUTILITY PLAN8
1" = 30'09/22/21 CBU LOCATION
RESERVE "O"129 130 131 132
135
136
137 138 139 140
OAK PARK BOULEVARD(PUBLIC STREET)BURR OAK LANE (PRIVATE STREET)ACORN LANE (PRIVATE LANE)EXISTING OAK PARK PUD
SUBAREA "D"
SHUMARD OAK LANE (PRIVATE STREET)CHINKAPIN OAK LANE (PRIVATE STREET)
134
133
EXISTING OAK
PARK PUD
SUBAREA "D"
EXISTING OAK PARK PUD
SUBAREA "D"
EXISTING OAK
PARK PUD
SUBAREA "D"
109
110
111
112
113
115116117118119120121122
124
125
126
127
128
RESERVE "I"RESERVE "S"RESERVE "R"RESERVE "N"RESERVE "J"
RESERVE "I"RESERVE "J"
123
OAKTREE DRIVE SOUTH (PROPOSED PUBLIC STREET)OAKTREE DRIVE NORTH (PROPOSED PUBLIC STREET)
4' x 4' Pad
for 16 Unit
CBU
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 15 30 60
1 inch = 30 feet
/10
20190713
November 24, 2020OAK PARK DUBLIN, LLCDATEREVISIONSDATE DESCRIPTIONMARKSCALE
JOB NO.
SHEETDUBLIN, OHIOFINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANFOROAK PARK PUD - RESERVES A AND DSINGLE FAMILY HOMESGRADING PLAN9
Horiz: 1" = 30'
Vert: 1" = 5'09/22/21 CBU LOCATION
/10
20190713
November 24, 2020OAK PARK DUBLIN, LLCDATEREVISIONSDATE DESCRIPTIONMARKSCALE
JOB NO.
SHEETDUBLIN, OHIOFINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANFOROAK PARK PUD - RESERVES A AND DSINGLE FAMILY HOMESNOTES10
–
’
“”
None
1
OAK PARK DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TEXT
Approved by City Council 6/22/2020
Subarea F: New Village Home
+ 3.46 Acres
I. Description:
Subarea F, here proposed for rezoning, currently exists in the Oak Park subdivision in the east-
central portion of the site as Reserves A and D. This proposal will amend the development standards
formerly in place for Subarea E to create this new Subarea F with the only permitted uses now
being specified residential uses.
Within Subarea F, the development of twelve (12) single family lots for detached single family
homes, will be permitted. Six (6) lots will be in Reserve A and six (6) in Reserve D. These lots will
replace the currently allowed retail commercial uses. These single family lots will have typical Oak
Park homes on lots with a depth of approximately ± 130’ with frontage and street access on either
existing private streets or a public street, Oak Park Boulevard.
Oaktree Drive North and South, contained within Reserves A and D, shall be dedicated by plat to
the City of Dublin. The City shall maintain these streets and may convert them to a public street
section at a time determined by the City Engineer.
Portions of Reserves I and J, although not formally part of this rezoning application shall be directly
dedicated by the applicant by deed to the City of Dublin to facilitate the continuation of p ublic
rights of way from Oaktree Drive North through the cul de sac bulb to Snowdrop Court and Oaktree
Drive South through the cul de sac bulb to Primrose Court.
The two reserves in new Subarea F proposed for rezoning total about 3.46 acres, with Reserve A
being 1.733 acres and Reserve D being 1.735 acres.
II. Permitted Uses and Development Standards:
A. Permitted Uses
Permitted uses in Subarea F shall include detached single-family homes with attached and
detached garages, in ground pools, hot tubs and pool houses. Pool houses shall not exceed two
hundred and fifty (250) square feet. Detached garages may not exceed a footprint of one
thousand (1000) square feet but may include second floor recreational spaces or storage as
long as the structure does not exceed the maximum height contained within this text. It is not
intended that a second residential unit may be permitted in a detached garage. Unless
otherwise specified in the submitted drawings or in this written text, the development standards
of Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin Code shall apply to this subarea. Basic development
standards are compiled regarding proposed density, site issues, traffic, circulation,
landscaping, and architectural standards. These component standards ensure consistency and
quality throughout the development by mirroring the standards for existing homes in Subareas
A, B and D.
2
B. Residential Swimming Pools
(i) Permitted types.
(a) Permanent swimming pools. Only below-grade permanent swimming pools
are permitted.
(b) Temporary pools. Inflatable or other temporary pools are permitted
provided they have a maximum depth of 18 inches and are placed to the
side or rear of the primary structure.
(c) Hot tubs. Hot tubs are permitted accessory structures, and may be either
below or above grade, provided that they do not exceed 100 square feet
in total water surface area, or 4.5 feet in depth or height as measured from
finished grade. Hot tubs, which exceed these size and height requirements,
shall be considered swimming pools and must be placed below the
established grade. Hot tubs shall be secured with a lockable cover or shall
be entirely enclosed by a permitted barrier with a self-latching and lockable
gate.
(ii) Location and setback. There shall be a minimum separation of ten feet between a
swimming pool and the principal structure. Swimming pools shall not be located
within the front building setback, forward of any part of the house, or within a
required side yard, rear yard, or other restricted area of the lot (e.g., a no-build
zone). No swimming pool shall be located, designed, operated, or maintained as
to interfere unduly with the enjoyment of the property rights of surrounding
property owners. Nuisances shall be pursued according to all applicable city
ordinances.
(iii) Swimming pool barriers.
(a) Swimming pools shall be surrounded by open ornamental swimming pool
barriers or a solid swimming pool barrier, provided the solid barrier is no
higher than four feet and otherwise complies with the regulations herein and
this section. Any solid swimming pool barrier shall be of the type and design
as was approved for fences for Subarea D as part of the final development
plan. Open ornamental swimming pool barriers shall be black, wrought-iron
style.
(b) All openings, doorways and entrances into the pool area shall be equipped
with gates of equal height and material with the fence, and shall be
provided with latches and permanent locks.
(iv) Accessory equipment. No swimming pool accessory equipment, including but not
limited to pumping equipment, filtering equipment, diving boards, or slides shall
be located in any required yard and shall be screened per the same code
requirements as other utility structures.
III. Density, Height, Lot and Setback Commitments:
A. Lots
(i) Twelve (12) single family lots are permitted and will have a minimum lot depth of
at least ± 130’.
3
(ii) Eight homes will have primary frontage on Oaktree Drives North and South,
currently a private and a proposed public road and four homes will have primary
frontage on Oak Park Boulevard, a public road.
B. Setbacks and Building Lines
(i) Each permitted lot shall have a minimum width at the front building line of fifty -
five (55) feet. The eight easternmost lots will have the front building line, and lot
width, measured from either Oaktree Drive North (Reserve R) or Oaktree Drive
South (Reserve S).
(ii) Building Setbacks:
a. The minimum front yard setback shall be twenty (20) feet from either the
existing or proposed public right-of-way of the street the lot fronts on.
b. There shall be a minimum rear yard setback of fifteen (15) feet from the rear
property line for Lots 129-132 and Lots 137-140. The minimum rear yard
setback for Lots 133 through 136 shall be twenty (20) feet from the rear
property line located along the reserve boundary abutting Reserves I and J,
Acorn Lane and Burr Oak Lane.
c. The minimum side yard setback for Lots 129-132 and Lots 137-140 shall be
six (6) feet from the internal lot boundary and a ten (10) foot setback for Lots
129 and 140 from the edge of Reserves I and J which are the boundary line
of Acorn Lane and Burr Oak Lane. The minimum side yard setback for Lots
133 - 137 shall be six (6) feet from the internal lot boundary of an adjacent
lot. The minimum side yard setback for Lots 134 and 135 shall be ten (10)
feet from the edge of Reserves I and J which are the boundary line of
Chinkapin Oak Lane and Shumard Oak Lane.
C. Encroachments
(i) Window wells may encroach into side yards a maximum of three and one half
feet, provided that the side yard is at least six (6) feet and provided that there is
a minimum of eight (8) feet of separation between these permitted encroachments
on adjoining lots, as measured from the nearest corners of the window wells.
Where practicable window wells visible from the public right-of-way shall be
constructed of materials that complement the architecture of each unit and shall be
screened using an evergreen plant material or an alternative decorative screening
mechanism.
(ii) Air conditioners, compressors or other HVAC or service structure units are
encouraged to be located in the rear of the home. If they are located in side yards
they must meet the following conditions:
a. They may be located within insets in the side building elevation.
b. They may be located to encroach into side yard a maximum of two and one-
half (2 ½) feet, provided the side yard is at least six (6) feet and they shall
not be located directly across from a unit on an adjacent home and shall be
separated a minimum of eight (8) feet from the unit on the adjoining lot.
4
c. All service structure units in the side yard must be screened per code
All other encroachments into side yards shall be permitted in accordance with
the City of Dublin Code unless otherwise set forth in this text.
D. Maximum building heights:
(i) The maximum building height for residential structures and attached garages may
not exceed thirty-five (35) feet as measured per the City of Dublin Code.
(ii) The maximum building height for detached garages located on lots 133-136 may
not exceed twenty two (22) feet as measured per the City of Dublin Code.
E. Permitted Lot Coverage
(i) The maximum lot coverage for the structure and impervious hardscape of each
home and its garage for lots 129-132 and Lots 137-140 shall not exceed sixty
percent (60%) of the total lot area. This is the same lot coverage provision as for
all other Oak Park single family lots in Subareas A and B.
(ii) The maximum lot coverage for the structure and impervious hardscape of each
home and its garage for lots 133 - 136 shall not exceed forty five percent (45%)
of the total lot area.
IV. Access, Parking and other Traffic-Related Commitments:
A. Garages must adhere to the minimum side yard and rear yard setbacks, as included in the
development standards of this subarea, along all public and private streets.
B. Detached, rear or side loaded alley garages are permitted on lots 133-136 and are limited
to a maximum four (4) car garage with a maximum square footage of one thousand square
feet. These detached garages are in addition to attached garages.
C. Driveways for Lots 133-136 shall meet the requirements of Code Section 153.210 with the
following exceptions:
(i) Detached four car garages shall permitted to have maximum driveway width of
twenty feet between the private street reserve line and the setback and may be
increased to a maximum of forty feet in width beyond the setback line.. The curb
cut and driveway area between the reserve line and the private street pavement
shall be a maximum of twenty (20) feet.
(ii) Spacing between driveway curb cuts for attached and detached garages is
subject to approval by the Planning Director.
D. All housing units shall be required to have a minimum of two (2) off-street parking spaces in a
garage, which is required. Three car attached garages are permitted.
E. Dwelling units in Subarea F shall front on a public street or private street currently proposed
to be a public street as provided herein.
F. Sidewalks: A final system of sidewalks, will be provided as approved in the Final Development
Plan for Oak Park Subarea F. Public sidewalks, which may be in designated public easement
5
areas, shall be constructed of concrete and shall be a minimum of four (4) feet in width and
will be constructed at the time each lot is developed. Sidewalks along Oaktree Boulevard
and Oak Tree Drives North and South shall be contained within a public sidewalk easement.
These sidewalks shall be maintained by the City of Dublin after acceptance of construction.
Handicap accessible ramps, which are already constructed, may be modified and additional
ramps shall be provided per current appropriate accessibility standards.
G. Access:
(i) Access to the residential lots in Subarea F shall be from the proposed public streets
or private streets connecting to Hyland-Croy Road on the east and to Mitchell-
Dewitt Road on the north.
(ii) The plat of Oak Park provides for reciprocal access to the private streets in
Reserves I and J and for Reserves A and D, which will include the twelve residential
lots subject to this text.
(iii) The Plat accompanying the rezoning of Subarea F will contain Oaktree Drive North
and South, which shall be transferred by deed to the City of Dublin.
(iv) Lots 133 through 136 shall not have front driveway access on Oak Park Boulevard
and shall have driveway access through the private streets. Lots 132 and 137 shall
not have driveway access on Oak Park Boulevard and shall have access from
Oaktree Drive North or South and shall be located on the far side from the
intersection with Oak Park Boulevard.
(v) Lots 129 and 140 shall not have front driveway access on Oaktree Drive North
and South and shall have driveway access through the private streets.
V. Architectural Standards:
A. All structures shall meet the City of Dublin Zoning Code Residential Appearance Standards
unless otherwise set forth herein. Home plans/architectural facades that are already approved
for any Oak Park subarea are acceptable for these two reserves. Further plans or facades,
including detached garages and other approved accessory structures, can also be approved
either as part of the Final Development Plan for Subarea F, or at a later date by Planning
Staff utilizing the guidelines set forth both in this section and the approved Final Development
Plan. This Section V and the existing developed homes in the Oak Park residential subareas,
approved as part of the standards for Oak Park, shall serve as a guide for architectural
approvals under both the Final Development Plan and any approvals by Planning Staff.
(i) This section acknowledges that changing market conditions or other unanticipated
factors may make it desirable to create new home models or facades subsequent
to approval of the Final Development Plan. Planning Staff has the authority to
approve these new models or facades when in keeping with the spirit and theme
described in this Section V.
(ii) This section further acknowledges that modifications to approved facades may be
necessary or desirable, such as might be required because of the need to adapt
approved facades or garage access of existing approved models or to modify
an existing approved façade to create a new façade to allow compliance with
diversity requirements and internal changes made to the footprint, floorplan or
interior layout that require revised exterior façade changes. Planning Staff has
the authority to approve those changes when in keeping with the spirit and theme
6
described in this Section V. Changes to side or rear facades with a low degree of
visibility from public streets require a less demanding review prior to staff
approval.
B. Architectural Theme: Building designs, including detached garages, will be inspired by English
and Irish garden cities distinguished by a park-like ambience, rich architectural detail, and a
sense of quality and permanence.
C. Exterior Materials:
(i) Cladding materials: The exterior of all structures in this subarea shall be
constructed of all natural materials such as brick, wood or stone, or, manufactured
stone, stucco, cementitious fiberboard (e.g. Hardi products), and other comparable
materials, or any combination thereof.
(ii) Trim materials: Permitted exterior trim materials shall include wood, aluminum (for
gutters and downspouts only), EIFS, copper, or fiber-cement products.
(iii) Roofing materials: All homes shall use dimensional asphalt shingles, wood, slate,
copper, standing seam metal, and/or tile. For homes with asphalt shingles, at least
50% shall be the red asphalt shingle color as used elsewhere in Oak Park.
D. Four-sided architecture shall be required so that similar architectural design elements and
details will be consistent throughout all elevations of the structure. Rear and side elevations of
dwellings, except garage facades facing private streets at the rear of the structure, shall
include quantities of brick and/or stone that are comparable to the quantity of brick and stone
found on the front elevation of the same structure, unless approved otherwise by the Planning
Commission as part of the Final Development Plan or by Planning Staff; provided however that
reductions of brick and/or stone on other than the front elevation shall not exceed 30% and
shall be in locations with reduced visibility from public or private streets.
E. Chimneys: All exterior portions of chimneys shall be finished masonry consisting of brick, stone,
or manufactured stone.
F. Garages: Decorative garage doors with a “Carriage Look” shall be provided on all units,
including detached garages
G. Lighting: Each unit shall have a minimum of one (1) approved yard post light near the sidewalk
at the front entry and one (1) wall-mounted porch light at the front door. Lamp locations shall
be consistent from unit to unit.
H. Architectural Diversity Within Subarea F
(i) No home two lots to the left or right of the subject lot shall have the same front
façade as the subject lot.
(ii) No home directly across the street and one lot to the left or right of that lot shall
have the same front façade as the subject lot. However, this requirement may be
adjusted depending on specific site conditions. An example would be a home
across the street facing on a different street.
7
a. The above requirements do not apply between homes in Subarea F and
Subareas A and D where the home concerned is an approved model unique
to Subarea F.
b. If mirror image lots are located at the intersection of Oak Park Boulevard and
either Oaktree Drive North or Oaktree Drive South, the homes on those lots
may be mirror image versions of the same model, despite that they are
adjoining lots separated by Oak Park Boulevard.
VI. Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space and Screening Commitments:
A. All residential landscaping shall meet the requirements of Sections 153.130 through 153.148
of the City of Dublin Zoning Code.
B. Tree Preservation:
There are four “volunteer” existing trees that have grown up in Reserve D. These will conflict
with development of lots and construction of homes. Replacement or payment, if necessary,
will be determined in consultation with the City Forester.
C. Street Trees:
(i) Street trees shall be required along all public and proposed public streets. If
feasible these trees shall be located in the tree lawn. Trees shall be generally
spaced a minimum of twenty (20) feet and a maximum of forty (40) feet on center.
Spacing shall be determined at the time of Final Development Plan in order to
ensure the proper streetscape for each portion of this subarea.
(ii) Street Trees shall be provided along lots abutting the private streets (Lots 129,
133, 134, 135, 136 and 140) at a ratio of one (1) tree per 50 feet with no
rounding up required. Trees along the alleys may be located in the side or rear
yard setback and shall be maintained by the lot owner.
(iii) All street trees shall be a minimum of two and one-half (2 1/2) inches in caliper at
installation and approved through the Final Development Plan review. Trees may
be grouped as indicated on the Final Development Plan, provided that the quality
is in accordance with applicable City of Dublin landscaping standards. Trees shall
not obstruct sight distance, signage or utilities, subject to staff approval. Street
(iv) Trees and sidewalks will be installed on lots with the construction of each structure.
D. Temporary Fences:
Fences used as temporary barriers during construction around vegetation must be sturdy and
at least four (4) feet tall and shall be an orange or opaque snow-type fencing. All temporary
fences must be removed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
E. Permanent Fences:
Permanent fencing or a landscape hedge as a part of a consistent streetscape design shall be
permitted to encroach into the minimum front yard setback and to run parallel to the property
line on the front of each lot, and, may also continue along the side yard property line if the
home abuts a public right of way on that side yard. A six (6) foot high privacy fence shall be
permitted to enclose a deck or patio in the rear yard of each lot provided that it is located
8
within three (3) feet of the patio or deck. Such fencing shall be constructed of masonry or other
materials that are approved as a part of the final development plan for this subarea.
Additional permanent fencing standards and details may be approved as a part of the final
development plan.
VII. Graphics and Signage Commitments:
At the time of the submission of a Final Development Plan for any portion of Subarea F to the
Planning Commission, the developer shall present the Planning Commission with a graphics and
signage plan for review if any signage is proposed for the areas to be developed. This plan shall
be consistent with the uniform graphics and signage plan for all residential development within the
Oak Park PUD. This graphics and signage plan shall be consistent with the approved Final
Development Plan for Oak Park, and its terms shall apply to all residential gra phics and signage
within this subarea. In the event that the graphics and signage plan is silent on any matter addressed
by the City of Dublin Sign Code, Sections 153.150 through 153.164, then the terms of those Code
sections shall apply.
VIII Model Homes:
Homes may be used as model homes for the purpose of marketing and sales. A manufactured
modular building or model home, may be used as a sales office during the development of this
Subarea and the construction of homes therein, subject to City of Dublin Zoning Code 153.098. The
current Oak Park sales office use in the Oak Park Community Center may also be continued.
IX. Phasing:
Subarea F may be developed in a single phase or in separate phases.
X. Miscellaneous:
A. Oak Park Homeowners Association:
(i) All residential property owners located within Subarea F of the Oak Park PUD
shall be required to join and maintain membership in the currently existing Oak
Park forced and funded homeowners association, the Oak Park Community
Association, Inc., which details the Homeowners responsibilities as detailed in the
Declaration of Covenants, Easements, Conditions and Restrictions of Oak Park
(Union County, Ohio, Recorder OR 857 page 618) which shall run with the land
and shall include, without limitation, the requirements imposed upon the
homeowners association this text.
B. Maintenance of Private Streets in Reserves I and J:
(i) Maintenance cost of remaining private streets (alleys) in Subareas I and J maybe
the subject of additional homeowners’ association assessments on the lots created
in Subarea F.
(ii) The developer will work with the City Engineer to determine a quality
condition of private streets (alleys) at post construction. Any remedy
required shall be at the developer cost (not using HOA funds), subject to
Engineering approval.
City Council approved this Ordinance (06-20 AMENDED) with the following conditions on
6/22/2020:
1) Subject to the approval of the City Engineer, Applicant will prepare data showing
projected cost of repairing and replacing the pavement areas of Subareas I and J of Oak
Park that will remain as private drives (“Private Drives”) within Oak Park after
dedication to the City of Dublin for Oak Tree Drives North and South. This projection will
state intervals of work expected to be done, cost of work at each interval, and the
additional Pavement Repair Assessment (“Pavement Assessment”) necessary, above
the standard Oak Park Community Association, Inc. (“OPCA”) lot assessments, to be
paid each month by each of the Villa Lots 109-128 and Village Lots 129 to 140
(collectively “Lots 109 through 140”) to provide a fund to pay for the expected
pavement maintenance, repair and replacement of the Private Drives.
2) Applicant will donate the amount of $25,000.00 to OPCA to establish the Reserve I&J
Pavement Repairs Reserve (I&J Pavement Fund) for the future pavement
maintenance, repair and replacement of the Private Drives. OPCA will segregate this
amount and the Pavement Assessment amounts received from the owners of Lots 109
through 140. OPCA will credit the Pavement Assessment amounts to the I&J Pavement
Fund no less than quarterly. Disbursements from the I&J Pavement Fund will be made
by OPCA for no reason other than the maintenance, repair and replacement of the
Private Drives.
3) To implement the above responsibilities and obligations, Applicant will amend the
Declaration of Covenants, Easements, Conditions and Restrictions for Oak Park
(“Declaration”) to include Lots 109 through 140. The amendment of the Declaration
will include revisions to Article VI, Assessments, to delete all references to Townhouse
assessments and to add requirements that assessments for Lots 109 through 140 will
include the additional Pavement Assessment for repairing and replacing the Private
Drives. The Pavement Assessment will initially be $12.25 per month subject to increase
or decrease by the OPCA Board of Directors (“Board”) to ensure that funds are being
appropriately reserved for actual or projected cost of maintenance, repair and
replacement of the Private Drives in accord with the methodology of #1 above. However,
so long as Applicant controls the Board, the Pavement Assessment may be adjusted
upward at any time at its discretion. The Pavement Assessment will be considered part of
the Operating Assessments in the Declaration with respect to the Lots
109 through 140. Applicant will further amend the Declaration to provide for the
segregation and use of the I&J Pavement Fund by OPCA as provided in #2 above.
4) The amendments in #3 above are subject to the approval of the Law Director prior to
filing with the Union County, Ohio, Recorder and will be so submitted for approval within
60 days following final approval of the within rezoning.
5) The Private Drives will be maintained by the Applicant, without using OPCA funds, until
turnover to OPCA. Unless agreed to in writing by a majority of the Oak Park residents,
turnover of the Private Drives will not take place until the last lot of Lots 109 through
140 is sold. After the final lot of Lots 109 through 140 is sold and prior to turnover of
maintenance of the Private Drives to the OPCA, the Applicant shall request a pavement
evaluation of the Private Drives from the City Engineer. Under the direction of the City
Engineer, the City of Dublin will evaluate the pavement condition and establish a
pavement condition rating (PCR) for the private drives. A PCR of 80 or higher will be
required before turnover of maintenance of the Private Drives to the OPCA. If the PCR is
evaluated to be lower than 80, the Applicant shall perform maintenance necessary to
bring the PCR to 80 or higher at the Applicants sole cost and expense. Ideally, the
pavement work will be performed, and turnover made, after heavy construction
operations are completed on the home on the last lot. To this end, prior to issuing a
final Certificate of Occupancy for the home on the last lot sold, or six months after sale
of the last lot if construction has not been commenced thereon, the Applicant will
perform the required work. The City Engineer may also permit the applicant to make
security assurances for performance of the work in the future prior to the pavement
turnover to the OPCA. This condition does not limit the Applicant’s right under the
Declaration to turn over property other than the Private Drives or functions of the OPCA
at any time, in its discretion.
6) The Applicant will deed to the City portions of Reserves I and J, prior to the approval of
any building permits for Lots 109-140, and no later than 60 days after the approval by
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission of the Final Development Plan for this section.
This area is generally Oaktree Drive North, north of Acorn Lane to the northern
terminus, including the bulb. Also, it will include the area of Oaktree Drive South, south
of Bur Oak Lane to the southern terminus, including the bulb.
The description and exhibit of this area to be deeded to the City is required to be
submitted with the Final Development Plan for this section.
7) The above conditions, upon approval, are required to be included in the Development
Text.
21RESUBDIVISION OF RESERVE "A"In Witness Whereof, JEREMY HALPERN, Managing Member of OAK PARKDUBLIN, LLC, has hereunto set his hand this day of , 20__. Signed and Acknowledged OAK PARK DUBLIN, LLC In the presence of:______________________________ By _____________________________ JEREMY HALPERN, Managing Member______________________________STATE OF NEW JERSEYCOUNTY OF ________________ ss:Before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared JEREMYHALPERN, Managing Member of OAK PARK DUBLIN, LLC, who acknowledged thesigning of the foregoing instrument to be his voluntary act and deed and the voluntary actand deed of said OAK PARK DUBLIN, LLC, for the uses and purposes expressedherein.In Witness Thereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal this_____ day of ___________, 20___.My commission expires _______ ____________________________________ Notary Public, State of OhioSituated in the State of Ohio, County of Union, Township of Washington (FranklinCounty), City of Dublin, and in Virginia Military Survey Number 6595, containing 3.468acres of land, more or less, said 3.468 acres being a resubdivision of Reserve "A" andReserve "D" of the subdivision entitled "Oak Park", of record in Plat Book 5, Page 260A -D, said Reserves being conveyed to OAK PARK DUBLIN, LLC by deed of record inInstrument Number 201906040004051, Recorder's Office, Union County, Ohio.The undersigned, OAK PARK DUBLIN, LLC, a New Jersey limited liabilitycompany, by JEREMY HALPERN, Managing Member, owner of the lands plattedherein, duly authorized in the premises, does hereby certify that this plat correctlyrepresents its "RESUBDIVISION OF RESERVE "A" AND RESERVE "D" OF OAKPARK", a subdivision containing Lots 129 to 140, both inclusive, does hereby accept thisplat of same and dedicates to public use, as such, all of Oaktree Drive North and OaktreeDrive South shown hereon and not heretofore dedicated..The undersigned further agrees that any use or improvements on this land shall be inconformity with all existing valid zoning, platting, health or other lawful rules andregulations, including applicable off-street parking and loading requirements of the City ofDublin, Ohio, for the benefit of itself and all other subsequent owners or assigns taking titlefrom, under or through the undersigned.Easements are hereby reserved in, over and under areas designated on this plat as"Easement", "Drainage Easement" or "Sidewalk Easement." Each of the aforementioneddesignated easements permit the construction, operation, and maintenance of all publicand quasi public utilities above, beneath, and on the surface of the ground and, wherenecessary, are for the construction, operation, and maintenance of service connections toall adjacent lots and lands and for storm water drainage. Within those areas designated"Drainage Easement" on this plat, an additional easement is hereby reserved for thepurpose of constructing, operating and maintaining major storm water drainage swalesand/or other above ground storm water drainage facilities. No above grade structures,dams or other obstructions to the flow of storm water runoff are permitted withinDrainage Easement areas as delineated on this plat unless approved by the Dublin CityEngineer. Within those areas designated "Sidewalk Easement" on this plat, an additionaleasement is hereby reserved for the construction and maintenance of a sidewalk for use bythe public.Approved this _____ Day of _______ ___________________________________20___ Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning, Dublin, OhioApproved this _____ Day of _______ __________________________________20___ City Engineer, Dublin, OhioApproved this ______ day of ______________, 20___,by resolution __________, by voteof Council, wherein all of Oaktree Drive North and Oaktree Drive South dedicated hereonare accepted as such by the Council of the City of Dublin, Ohio.In Witness Thereof I have hereunto ___________________________________set my hand and affixed my seal this Clerk of Council, Dublin, Ohio_____ day of __________, 20___.Transferred this ____ day of ________, __________________________________20___. Auditor, Union County, OhioFiled for record this ___day of _______, __________________________________20___at __________M. Fee $_________ Recorder, Union County, OhioFile No. _________________________Plat Book _______, Pages ___________SURVEY DATA:BASIS OF BEARINGS: The bearings shown hereon weretransferred from a field traverse originating from and tying toFranklin County Geodetic Survey control monument 6648 andMcNeal, having a bearing of South 15° 07' 53" East betweensaid monuments, and are based on the Ohio State PlaneCoordinate System, South Zone, NAD83 (1986 Adjustment).SOURCE OF DATA: The sources of recorded survey datareferenced in the plan and text of this plat are the records of theRecorder' Office, Union County, Ohio.IRON PINS: Iron pins, where indicated hereon, unlessotherwise noted, are to be set and are iron pipes, thirteensixteenths inch inside diameter, thirty inches long with aplastic plug placed in the top end bearing the initials EMHTINC.PERMANENT MARKERS: Permanent markers, whereindicated hereon, are to be one-inch diameter, thirty-inch long,solid iron pins. Pins are to be set to monument the pointsindicated, and set with the top end flush with the surface ofthe ground and then capped with an aluminum cap stampedEMHT INC. Once installed, the top of the cap shall be marked(punched) to record the actual location of the point.AND RESERVE "D" OF OAK PARK
OAKTREE DRIVE NORTHOAKTREE DRIVE SOUTH22NOTE "A": The purpose of this plat is to show certainproperty, rights of way, and easement boundaries as of the timeof platting. At the request of zoning and planning authorities atthe time of platting, this plat shows some of the limitations andrequirements of the zoning code in effect on the date of filingthis plat for reference only. The limitations and requirementsmay change from time to time and should be reviewed todetermine the then current applicable use and developmentlimitations of the zoning code as adopted by the governmentauthority having jurisdiction. The then applicable zoning codeshall have control over conflicting limitations and requirementsthat may be shown as on this plat. This note should not beconstrued as creating plat or subdivision restrictions, private userestrictions, covenants running with the land or titleencumbrances of any nature, except to the extent specificallyidentified as such.NOTE "B" : At the time of platting, all of the land herebybeing platted as Resubdivision of Reserve "A" and Reserve "D"of Oak Park is in Zone X (Areas determined to be outside of the0.2% annual chance flood plain) as designated and delineatedon the FEMA Flood Insurance Map for Franklin County, Ohio,and Incorporated Areas, map number 39049C0018K witheffective date of June 17, 2008.NOTE "C" - ACREAGE BREAKDOWN: Resubdivision ofReserve "A" and Reserve "D" of Oak Park is comprised of thefollowing Union County Parcel Numbers and Map Numbers: Existing Parcel Number Map Number Acreage Lot No.3900280140400 1361602030000 1.733 Ac. Res. A3900280140950 1460404008000 1.735 Ac. Res. DNOTE "I": At the time of platting, electric, cable, andtelephone service providers have not issued information requiredso that easement areas, in addition to those shown on this plat asdeemed necessary by these providers for the installation andmaintenance of all of their main line facilities, couldconveniently be shown on this plat. Existing recorded easementinformation about Resubdivision of Reserve "A" and Reserve"D" of Oak Park or any part thereof can be acquired by acompetent examination of the then current public records,including those in the Union County Recorder's Office.NOTE "J": The owners of the fee simple titles to Lots 129 to140, both inclusive, shall have and are hereby granted anon-exclusive right-of-way and easement for access to and frompublic streets, in and over Reserve "I" and Reserve "J" of thesubdivision entitled "Oak Park", of record in Plat Book 5, Pages260A-D), to be shared with the owners of the fee simple titles toeach other of said Lots 129 to 140, both inclusive.NOTE "K" - VEHICULAR ACCESS - OAK PARKBOULEVARD, OAKTREE DRIVE NORTH ANDOAKTREE DRIVE SOUTH: Within the limits shown andspecified hereon, Oak Park Dublin, LLC hereby waives andreleases all right or rights of direct vehicular driveway access orclaims thereof to the present road improvements within publicright of way as constructed, or to the ultimate road improvementwithin public right of way. The execution of this plat shall act asa waiver to the City of Dublin, Ohio, in the elimination of anydirect vehicular driveway access to said Drives or Boulevardwithin public right of way.NOTE "D" - FENCES: Fences, where permitted in the OakPark subdivision, are subject to the requirements of theapproved zoning development text and the City of Dublin, Ohiozoning code.NOTE "E" - UTILITY PROVIDERS: Buyers of the lots inthe Resubdivision of Reserve "A" and Reserve "D" of Oak Parksubdivision are hereby notified that, at the time of platting,utility service for electric power is provided by AEP and OhioEdison and telephone service is provided by AT&T andFrontier North.NOTE "F": As per City of Dublin Zoning Code, all lotswithin Resubdivision of Reserve "A" and Reserve "D" of OakPark are subject to the terms, conditions, restrictions (includinglighting and house sizes) and special assessment districts asoutlined in the preliminary plat entitled “Oak Park” and thedevelopment text.NOTE "G" - SCHOOL DISTRICT: At the time of platting,all of Resubdivision of Reserve "A" and Reserve "D" of OakPark is in the Dublin City School District.NOTE "H" - ACREAGE BREAKDOWN:Total acreage 3.468 Ac.Acreage in lots 2.842 Ac.Acreage in public rights-of-way 0.626 Ac.INDEX OF RESERVES IN OAK PARK (P.B. 5, P. 260A - D) TO BE RESUBDIVIDEDRESUBDIVISION OF RESERVE "A"AND RESERVE "D" OF OAK PARKNOTE "L" - MINIMUM SETBACKS: Zoning regulations forResubdivision of Reserve "A" and Reserve "D" of Oak Park ineffect at the time of platting specify the following dimensions forthe minimum front, side and rear yard setbacks for each lot asfollows:Front:20 feet from public right-of-waySide: 6 feet where adjacent toresidential lot, 10 feet where adjacent to Reserves "I" and "J"Rear: Lots 129-132 & 137-140 15 feet Lots 133-136 20 feetSaid zoning regulations and any amendments thereto passedsubsequent to acceptance of this plat, should be reviewed todetermine the then current requirements. This notice is solely forthe purpose of notifying the public of the existence, at the time ofplatting, of certain zoning regulations applicable to this property.This notice shall not be interpreted as creating plat or subdivisionrestrictions, private use restrictions covenants running with the landor title encumbrances of any nature, and is for informationalpurposes only.
April 22, 2020
Michael Hendershot, P.E.
City of Dublin, Engineering
5800 Shier Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016
Subject: Oak Park Reserves A and D
Stormwater Management Plan Update
Dear Michael,
On April 17, 2017, EMH&T provided a letter to the City regarding a change from 36 townhomes to 20
single family homes in the Oak Park development. The conclusion was that there would be reduced runoff
volume with the change and no changes to the stormwater basin would be required.
This letter summarizes another change to the approved Oak Park Development Plan in reserves A and D.
The current proposed change includes the conversion of the commercial land totaling approximately 3.46
acres to 12 single family lots. This area is tributary to the regional basin and will result in further reduction
of impervious area. The commercial as originally approved with commercial buildings and surface parking
lots is anticipated to be 90% impervious area. The proposed 12 single family lots are anticipated
to reduce that impervious area to less than 60% for this area.
No changes to the regional basin or its tributary area are required or are being proposed at this time. With
the further reduction in runoff volume, the performance of the regional detention system will not be adversely
affected by the land use and zoning change.
If you have any questions please feel free to give me a call at 614-775-4213.
Sincerely,
Douglas C. Turney
Green Infrastructure Practice Leader
Engineers, Surveyors, Planners, Scientists
5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054 • Phone 614.775.4500 • Fax 614.775.4800
Columbus • Charlotte
emht.com
July 24, 2019
Tina Wawszkiewicz, P.E.
Civil Engineer II
City of Dublin
6555 Shier Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016
Subject: Oak Park Rezoning-Trip Generation Analysis
Dear Ms. Wawszkiewicz,
This letter serves to document analysis of proposed zoning modifications for Oak Park, a residential
development site located in the southwest quadrant of the Hyland-Croy Road/Mitchell-Dewitt Road
intersection. Dublin first zoned the site over 10 years ago (referred to herein as the initial zoning). Dublin
approved a zoning modification in 2017 and is currently considering another change. This submission
documents the difference in vehicle trips generated by the two previously approved plans and the pending
plan, and shows that the requested change generates less traffic than prior plans.
Site Description
The two previously approved development plans and the currently pending rezoning request permit the
following land uses:
Dublin approved the initial zoning with the following:
72 Single-family detached lots
36 Townhome lots
Maximum of 39,700 sf of retail and/or office uses (see attached text)
A 2017 rezoning removed the townhome lots resulting in the following development plan:
92 Single-family detached lots
Maximum of 39,700 sf of retail and/or office uses (see attached text)
The current rezoning request eliminates the commercial uses resulting in the following development plan:
104 Single-family detached lots
Volume Development
This submission includes detailed trip generation calculations for the development program represented in
each of the three plans. Vehicular trips were determined using the data and methodology contained in the
Trip Generation Manual 10th edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017). Development plans with a
commercial component generate pass-by trips and potentially share trips with residential portions of Oak
Park. Attached calculations detail those components and trip generation results summarized in Table 1 below
show total trips, internal and pass-by trips, and net new trips for each scenario.
City of Dublin July 24, 2019
Oak Park Rezoning-Trip Generation Analysis
emht.com | Page 2 of 2
Table 1-Trip Generation Comparison
On a daily basis, the currently proposed zoning reduces trip generation about 74% compared to the initial
zoning. Attachments to this submission provide detailed calculations supporting the values summarized above.
Based on the foregoing, the currently pending request to rezone Oak Park (the 2019 zoning) significantly
reduces vehicle trips generated by the site compared to previously approved zonings.
Should questions or comments arise during your review of this analysis or if I may be of further assistance in
this matter, please feel free to contact me at (614) 775-4640.
Sincerely,
Lawrence C. Creed, Esq., PE
Principal
Director of Traffic Engineering Services
Enclosures: Trip Generation Calculations, Zoning Text
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Initial 2104 2104 4208 0 0 0 0 0 0 2104 2104 4208 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
2017 Zoning 2085 2085 4170 0 0 0 0 0 0 2085 2085 4170 -19 -19 -38 -19 -19 -38
2019 Zoning 539 539 1078 0 0 0 0 0 0 539 539 1078 -1565 -1565 -3130 -1565 -1565 -3130
Initial 124 121 245 3 4 7 0 0 0 121 117 238
2017 Zoning 124 118 242 6 6 12 0 0 0 118 112 230 0 -3 -3 -3 -5 -8
2019 Zoning 20 59 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 59 79 -104 -62 -166 -101 -58 -159
Initial 194 179 373 22 22 44 42 44 86 130 113 243
2017 Zoning 191 178 369 40 40 80 40 39 79 111 99 210 -3 -1 -4 -19 -14 -33
2019 Zoning 66 39 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 39 105 -128 -140 -268 -64 -74 -138
AM Peak
PM Peak
Total Internal Trips Pass-By TripsPeriodLand Use
Scenario
New Trips
Total Trips New Trips
Change from Initial Land Use
Daily
EMH5:37 PM Oak Park- 2019 zoning 7/24/2019 5:37 PM
Project Name:Type of Project:
Project No:City:
Country:Built-up Area(Sq.ft):
Analyst Name:Clients Name:
Date:ZIP/Postal Code:
State/Province:No. of Scenarios:
Analysis Region:
Entry Exit Total
Scenario - 1 Daily 1 1 2018 539 539 1078
Scenario - 2 AM Peak 1 1 2019 20 59 79
Scenario - 3 PM Peak 1 1 2019 66 39 105
PROJECT DETAILS
SCENARIO SUMMARY
Oak Park- 2019 zoning
20190713
Charles Wu
7/22/2019
3
User Group Estimated New Vehicle TripsScenariosNameNo. of Land Uses Phases of
Development Horizon Year
Generated By OTISS Pro v2.1 1
EMH5:37 PM Oak Park- 2019 zoning 7/24/2019 5:37 PM
Scenario - 1
Scenario Name:User Group:
Dev. phase:Horizon Year:
Analyst Note:
Warning:
Method Entry Exit
Rate/Equation Split%Split%
Best Fit (LOG)539 539
Ln(T) =0.92Ln(X) + 2.71 50%50%
Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)
100 100 1 1 50 50
Entry Exit Entry Exit Entry Exit
539 539 0 0 539 539
Entry Exit Total
0 0 0
0 0 0
100%100%-
1.00 1.00 -
0 0 0
539 539 1078
0%0%0%
Daily
1 2018
Land Use & Data Source Location IV Size Time Period
VEHICLE TRIPS BEFORE REDUCTION
Total
Weekday 1078
VEHICLE TO PERSON TRIP CONVERSION
BASELINE SITE VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS:
Land Use Baseline Site Vehicle Mode Share Baseline Site Vehicle Occupancy Baseline Site Vehicle Directional Split
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
Data Source: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed
General
Urban/Suburban Dwelling Units 104
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
ESTIMATED BASELINE SITE PERSON TRIPS:
Land Use Person Trips by Vehicle Person Trips by Other Modes Total Baseline Site Person Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing 1078 0 1078
INTERNAL VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
LAND USE GROUP ASSIGNMENT:
Land Use Land Use Group
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing Residential
BALANCED PERSON TRIPS:
INTERNAL PERSON TRIPS:
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
Internal Person Trips From
Total Internal Person Trips
INTERNAL VEHICLE TRIPS AND CAPTURE:
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
Total Internal Person Trips
Vehicle Mode Share
Vehicle Occupancy
Total Vehicle Internal Trips
Total External Vehicle Trips
Internal Vehicle Trip Capture
Generated By OTISS Pro v2.1 2
EMH5:37 PM Oak Park- 2019 zoning 7/24/2019 5:37 PM
Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit
539 539 0.00%0.00%0 0
Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit
539 539 0.00%0.00%0 0
Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit
539 539 0.00%0.00%0 0
Entry Exit Total
539 539 1078
Entry Exit Total
539 539 1078
0 0 0
539 539 1078
0%0%0%
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
539 539 1078
PASS-BY VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
Land Use External Vehicle Trips Pass-by Vehicle Trip %Pass-by Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
DIVERTED VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
Land Use External Vehicle Trips Diverted Vehicle Trip %Diverted Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
EXTRA VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
Land Use (External - (Pass-by + Diverted)) Vehicle Trips Extra Vehicle Trip Reduction %Extra Reduced Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
NEW VEHICLE TRIPS
Land Use New Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
RESULTS
Site Totals
Vehicle Trips Before Reduction
Internal Vehicle Trips
External Vehicle Trips
Internal Vehicle Trip Capture
Pass-by Vehicle Trips
Diverted Vehicle Trips
Extra Reduced Vehicle Trips
New Vehicle Trips
Generated By OTISS Pro v2.1 3
EMH5:37 PM Oak Park- 2019 zoning 7/24/2019 5:37 PM
Scenario - 2
Scenario Name:User Group:
Dev. phase:Horizon Year:
Analyst Note:
Warning:
Method Entry Exit
Rate/Equation Split%Split%
Best Fit (LIN)20 59
T = 0.71(X) + 4.80 25%75%
Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)
100 100 1 1 25 75
Entry Exit Entry Exit Entry Exit
20 59 0 0 20 59
Entry Exit Total
0 0 0
0 0 0
100%100%-
1.00 1.00 -
0 0 0
20 59 79
0%0%0%
AM Peak
1 2019
Land Use & Data Source Location IV Size Time Period
VEHICLE TRIPS BEFORE REDUCTION
Total
Weekday, Peak Hour of
Adjacent Street Traffic, 79
VEHICLE TO PERSON TRIP CONVERSION
BASELINE SITE VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS:
Land Use Baseline Site Vehicle Mode Share Baseline Site Vehicle Occupancy Baseline Site Vehicle Directional Split
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
Data Source: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed
General
Urban/Suburban Dwelling Units 104
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
ESTIMATED BASELINE SITE PERSON TRIPS:
Land Use Person Trips by Vehicle Person Trips by Other Modes Total Baseline Site Person Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing 79 0 79
INTERNAL VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
LAND USE GROUP ASSIGNMENT:
Land Use Land Use Group
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing Residential
BALANCED PERSON TRIPS:
INTERNAL PERSON TRIPS:
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
Internal Person Trips From
Total Internal Person Trips
INTERNAL VEHICLE TRIPS AND CAPTURE:
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
Total Internal Person Trips
Vehicle Mode Share
Vehicle Occupancy
Total Vehicle Internal Trips
Total External Vehicle Trips
Internal Vehicle Trip Capture
Generated By OTISS Pro v2.1 4
EMH5:37 PM Oak Park- 2019 zoning 7/24/2019 5:37 PM
Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit
20 59 0.00%0.00%0 0
Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit
20 59 0.00%0.00%0 0
Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit
20 59 0.00%0.00%0 0
Entry Exit Total
20 59 79
Entry Exit Total
20 59 79
0 0 0
20 59 79
0%0%0%
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
20 59 79
PASS-BY VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
Land Use External Vehicle Trips Pass-by Vehicle Trip %Pass-by Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
DIVERTED VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
Land Use External Vehicle Trips Diverted Vehicle Trip %Diverted Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
EXTRA VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
Land Use (External - (Pass-by + Diverted)) Vehicle Trips Extra Vehicle Trip Reduction %Extra Reduced Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
NEW VEHICLE TRIPS
Land Use New Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
RESULTS
Site Totals
Vehicle Trips Before Reduction
Internal Vehicle Trips
External Vehicle Trips
Internal Vehicle Trip Capture
Pass-by Vehicle Trips
Diverted Vehicle Trips
Extra Reduced Vehicle Trips
New Vehicle Trips
Generated By OTISS Pro v2.1 5
EMH5:37 PM Oak Park- 2019 zoning 7/24/2019 5:37 PM
Scenario - 3
Scenario Name:User Group:
Dev. phase:Horizon Year:
Analyst Note:
Warning:
Method Entry Exit
Rate/Equation Split%Split%
Best Fit (LOG)66 39
Ln(T) =0.96Ln(X) + 0.20 63%37%
Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)
100 100 1 1 63 37
Entry Exit Entry Exit Entry Exit
66 39 0 0 66 39
Entry Exit Total
0 0 0
0 0 0
100%100%-
1.00 1.00 -
0 0 0
66 39 105
0%0%0%
PM Peak
1 2019
Land Use & Data Source Location IV Size Time Period
VEHICLE TRIPS BEFORE REDUCTION
Total
Weekday, Peak Hour of
Adjacent Street Traffic, 105
VEHICLE TO PERSON TRIP CONVERSION
BASELINE SITE VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS:
Land Use Baseline Site Vehicle Mode Share Baseline Site Vehicle Occupancy Baseline Site Vehicle Directional Split
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
Data Source: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed
General
Urban/Suburban Dwelling Units 104
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
ESTIMATED BASELINE SITE PERSON TRIPS:
Land Use Person Trips by Vehicle Person Trips by Other Modes Total Baseline Site Person Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing 105 0 105
INTERNAL VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
LAND USE GROUP ASSIGNMENT:
Land Use Land Use Group
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing Residential
BALANCED PERSON TRIPS:
INTERNAL PERSON TRIPS:
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
Internal Person Trips From
Total Internal Person Trips
INTERNAL VEHICLE TRIPS AND CAPTURE:
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
Total Internal Person Trips
Vehicle Mode Share
Vehicle Occupancy
Total Vehicle Internal Trips
Total External Vehicle Trips
Internal Vehicle Trip Capture
Generated By OTISS Pro v2.1 6
EMH5:37 PM Oak Park- 2019 zoning 7/24/2019 5:37 PM
Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit
66 39 0.00%0.00%0 0
Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit
66 39 0.00%0.00%0 0
Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit
66 39 0.00%0.00%0 0
Entry Exit Total
66 39 105
Entry Exit Total
66 39 105
0 0 0
66 39 105
0%0%0%
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
66 39 105
PASS-BY VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
Land Use External Vehicle Trips Pass-by Vehicle Trip %Pass-by Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
DIVERTED VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
Land Use External Vehicle Trips Diverted Vehicle Trip %Diverted Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
EXTRA VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
Land Use (External - (Pass-by + Diverted)) Vehicle Trips Extra Vehicle Trip Reduction %Extra Reduced Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
NEW VEHICLE TRIPS
Land Use New Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
RESULTS
Site Totals
Vehicle Trips Before Reduction
Internal Vehicle Trips
External Vehicle Trips
Internal Vehicle Trip Capture
Pass-by Vehicle Trips
Diverted Vehicle Trips
Extra Reduced Vehicle Trips
New Vehicle Trips
Generated By OTISS Pro v2.1 7
EMH5:34 PM Oak Park- 2017 zoning 7/24/2019 5:34 PM
Project Name:Type of Project:
Project No:City:
Country:Built-up Area(Sq.ft):
Analyst Name:Clients Name:
Date:ZIP/Postal Code:
State/Province:No. of Scenarios:
Analysis Region:
Entry Exit Total
Scenario - 1 Daily 2 1 2018 2085 2085 4170
Scenario - 2 AM Peak 2 1 2019 118 112 230
Scenario - 3 PM Peak 2 1 2019 111 99 210
PROJECT DETAILS
SCENARIO SUMMARY
Oak Park- 2017 zoning
20190713
Charles Wu
7/21/2019
3
User Group Estimated New Vehicle TripsScenariosNameNo. of Land Uses Phases of
Development Horizon Year
Generated By OTISS Pro v2.1 1
EMH5:34 PM Oak Park- 2017 zoning 7/24/2019 5:34 PM
Scenario - 1
Scenario Name:User Group:
Dev. phase:Horizon Year:
Analyst Note:
Warning:
Method Entry Exit
Rate/Equation Split%Split%
Best Fit (LOG)481 481
Ln(T) =0.92Ln(X) + 2.71 50%50%
Best Fit (LOG)1604 1604
Ln(T) =0.68Ln(X) + 5.57 50%50%
Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)
100 100 1 1 50 50
100 100 1 1 50 50
Entry Exit Entry Exit Entry Exit
481 481 0 0 481 481
1604 1604 0 0 1604 1604
Persons Exit PAF UIPTC Unconstrained Demand Unconstrained Demand UIPTC PAF Persons Entry
482 1 0 0 0 0 1 1604
Persons Entry PAF UIPTC Unconstrained Demand Unconstrained Demand UIPTC PAF Persons Exit
482 1 0 0 0 0 1 1604
Daily
1 2018
Land Use & Data Source Location IV Size Time Period
VEHICLE TRIPS BEFORE REDUCTION
Total
VEHICLE TO PERSON TRIP CONVERSION
BASELINE SITE VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS:
Land Use Baseline Site Vehicle Mode Share Baseline Site Vehicle Occupancy Baseline Site Vehicle Directional Split
Weekday 962
820 - Shopping Center
Data Source: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed
General
Urban/Suburban 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA 39.7 Weekday 3208
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
Data Source: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed
General
Urban/Suburban Dwelling Units 92
Person Trips by Other Modes Total Baseline Site Person Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing 962 0 962
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
820 - Shopping Center
ESTIMATED BASELINE SITE PERSON TRIPS:
Land Use Person Trips by Vehicle
LAND USE GROUP ASSIGNMENT:
Land Use Land Use Group
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing Residential
820 - Shopping Center 3208 0 3208
INTERNAL VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
==>>> BALANCED ==>>>
0
<<<== BALANCED <<<==
0
INTERNAL PERSON TRIPS:
820 - Shopping Center Retail
BALANCED PERSON TRIPS:
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing 820 - Shopping Center
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
Generated By OTISS Pro v2.1 2
EMH5:34 PM Oak Park- 2017 zoning 7/24/2019 5:34 PM
Entry Exit Total
0 0 0
0 0 0
Entry Exit Total
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
100%100%-
1.00 1.00 -
0 0 0
481 481 962
0%0%0%
0 0 0
100%100%-
1.00 1.00 -
0 0 0
1604 1604 3208
0%0%0%
Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit
481 481 0.00%0.00%0 0
1604 1604 0.00%0.00%0 0
Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit
481 481 0.00%0.00%0 0
1604 1604 0.00%0.00%0 0
Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit
481 481 0.00%0.00%0 0
1604 1604 0.00%0.00%0 0
Entry Exit Total
481 481 962
Internal Person Trips From
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
Total Internal Person Trips
INTERNAL VEHICLE TRIPS AND CAPTURE:
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
Internal Person Trips From
820 - Shopping Center
Total Internal Person Trips
820 - Shopping Center
Internal Vehicle Trip Capture
820 - Shopping Center
Total Internal Person Trips
Vehicle Mode Share
Vehicle Occupancy
Total Internal Person Trips
Vehicle Mode Share
Vehicle Occupancy
Total Vehicle Internal Trips
Total External Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
820 - Shopping Center
DIVERTED VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
Land Use External Vehicle Trips Diverted Vehicle Trip %Diverted Vehicle Trips
Total Vehicle Internal Trips
Total External Vehicle Trips
Internal Vehicle Trip Capture
PASS-BY VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
Land Use External Vehicle Trips Pass-by Vehicle Trip %Pass-by Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
820 - Shopping Center
NEW VEHICLE TRIPS
Land Use New Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
820 - Shopping Center
EXTRA VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
Land Use (External - (Pass-by + Diverted)) Vehicle Trips Extra Vehicle Trip Reduction %Extra Reduced Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
Generated By OTISS Pro v2.1 3
EMH5:34 PM Oak Park- 2017 zoning 7/24/2019 5:34 PM
1604 1604 3208
Entry Exit Total
2085 2085 4170
0 0 0
2085 2085 4170
0%0%0%
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
2085 2085 4170
Extra Reduced Vehicle Trips
New Vehicle Trips
Internal Vehicle Trips
External Vehicle Trips
Internal Vehicle Trip Capture
Pass-by Vehicle Trips
Diverted Vehicle Trips
820 - Shopping Center
RESULTS
Site Totals
Vehicle Trips Before Reduction
Generated By OTISS Pro v2.1 4
EMH5:34 PM Oak Park- 2017 zoning 7/24/2019 5:34 PM
Scenario - 2
Scenario Name:User Group:
Dev. phase:Horizon Year:
Analyst Note:
Warning:
Method Entry Exit
Rate/Equation Split%Split%
Best Fit (LIN)18 53
T = 0.71(X) + 4.80 25%75%
Best Fit (LIN)106 65
T = 0.50(X) + 151.78 62%38%
Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)
100 100 1 1 25 75
100 100 1 1 62 38
Entry Exit Entry Exit Entry Exit
18 53 0 0 18 53
106 65 0 0 106 65
Persons Exit PAF UIPTC Unconstrained Demand Unconstrained Demand UIPTC PAF Persons Entry
53 1 12 6 18 17 1 106
Persons Entry PAF UIPTC Unconstrained Demand Unconstrained Demand UIPTC PAF Persons Exit
18 1 2 0 9 14 1 65
AM Peak
1 2019
Land Use & Data Source Location IV Size Time Period
VEHICLE TRIPS BEFORE REDUCTION
Total
VEHICLE TO PERSON TRIP CONVERSION
BASELINE SITE VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS:
Land Use Baseline Site Vehicle Mode Share Baseline Site Vehicle Occupancy Baseline Site Vehicle Directional Split
Weekday, Peak Hour of
Adjacent Street Traffic, 71
820 - Shopping Center
Data Source: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed
General
Urban/Suburban 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA 39.7 Weekday, Peak Hour of
Adjacent Street Traffic, 171
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
Data Source: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed
General
Urban/Suburban Dwelling Units 92
Person Trips by Other Modes Total Baseline Site Person Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing 71 0 71
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
820 - Shopping Center
ESTIMATED BASELINE SITE PERSON TRIPS:
Land Use Person Trips by Vehicle
LAND USE GROUP ASSIGNMENT:
Land Use Land Use Group
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing Residential
820 - Shopping Center 171 0 171
INTERNAL VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
==>>> BALANCED ==>>>
6
<<<== BALANCED <<<==
0
INTERNAL PERSON TRIPS:
820 - Shopping Center Retail
BALANCED PERSON TRIPS:
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing 820 - Shopping Center
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
Generated By OTISS Pro v2.1 5
EMH5:34 PM Oak Park- 2017 zoning 7/24/2019 5:34 PM
Entry Exit Total
0 6 7
0 6 6
Entry Exit Total
6 0 7
6 0 6
0 6 6
100%100%-
1.00 1.00 -
0 6 6
18 47 65
0%11%0%
6 0 6
100%100%-
1.00 1.00 -
6 0 6
100 65 165
6%0%0%
Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit
18 47 0.00%0.00%0 0
100 65 0.00%0.00%0 0
Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit
18 47 0.00%0.00%0 0
100 65 0.00%0.00%0 0
Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit
18 47 0.00%0.00%0 0
100 65 0.00%0.00%0 0
Entry Exit Total
18 47 65
Internal Person Trips From
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
Total Internal Person Trips
INTERNAL VEHICLE TRIPS AND CAPTURE:
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
Internal Person Trips From
820 - Shopping Center
Total Internal Person Trips
820 - Shopping Center
Internal Vehicle Trip Capture
820 - Shopping Center
Total Internal Person Trips
Vehicle Mode Share
Vehicle Occupancy
Total Internal Person Trips
Vehicle Mode Share
Vehicle Occupancy
Total Vehicle Internal Trips
Total External Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
820 - Shopping Center
DIVERTED VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
Land Use External Vehicle Trips Diverted Vehicle Trip %Diverted Vehicle Trips
Total Vehicle Internal Trips
Total External Vehicle Trips
Internal Vehicle Trip Capture
PASS-BY VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
Land Use External Vehicle Trips Pass-by Vehicle Trip %Pass-by Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
820 - Shopping Center
NEW VEHICLE TRIPS
Land Use New Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
820 - Shopping Center
EXTRA VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
Land Use (External - (Pass-by + Diverted)) Vehicle Trips Extra Vehicle Trip Reduction %Extra Reduced Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
Generated By OTISS Pro v2.1 6
EMH5:34 PM Oak Park- 2017 zoning 7/24/2019 5:34 PM
100 65 165
Entry Exit Total
124 118 242
6 6 12
118 112 230
5%5%5%
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
118 112 230
Extra Reduced Vehicle Trips
New Vehicle Trips
Internal Vehicle Trips
External Vehicle Trips
Internal Vehicle Trip Capture
Pass-by Vehicle Trips
Diverted Vehicle Trips
820 - Shopping Center
RESULTS
Site Totals
Vehicle Trips Before Reduction
Generated By OTISS Pro v2.1 7
EMH5:34 PM Oak Park- 2017 zoning 7/24/2019 5:34 PM
Scenario - 3
Scenario Name:User Group:
Dev. phase:Horizon Year:
Analyst Note:
Warning:
Method Entry Exit
Rate/Equation Split%Split%
Best Fit (LOG)59 35
Ln(T) =0.96Ln(X) + 0.20 63%37%
Best Fit (LOG)132 143
Ln(T) =0.74Ln(X) + 2.89 48%52%
Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)
100 100 1 1 63 37
100 100 1 1 48 52
Entry Exit Entry Exit Entry Exit
59 35 0 0 59 35
132 143 0 0 132 143
Persons Exit PAF UIPTC Unconstrained Demand Unconstrained Demand UIPTC PAF Persons Entry
35 1 42 15 13 10 1 132
Persons Entry PAF UIPTC Unconstrained Demand Unconstrained Demand UIPTC PAF Persons Exit
59 1 46 27 37 26 1 143
PM Peak
1 2019
Land Use & Data Source Location IV Size Time Period
VEHICLE TRIPS BEFORE REDUCTION
Total
VEHICLE TO PERSON TRIP CONVERSION
BASELINE SITE VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS:
Land Use Baseline Site Vehicle Mode Share Baseline Site Vehicle Occupancy Baseline Site Vehicle Directional Split
Weekday, Peak Hour of
Adjacent Street Traffic, 94
820 - Shopping Center
Data Source: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed
General
Urban/Suburban 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA 39.7 Weekday, Peak Hour of
Adjacent Street Traffic, 275
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
Data Source: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed
General
Urban/Suburban Dwelling Units 92
Person Trips by Other Modes Total Baseline Site Person Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing 94 0 94
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
820 - Shopping Center
ESTIMATED BASELINE SITE PERSON TRIPS:
Land Use Person Trips by Vehicle
LAND USE GROUP ASSIGNMENT:
Land Use Land Use Group
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing Residential
820 - Shopping Center 275 0 275
INTERNAL VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
==>>> BALANCED ==>>>
13
<<<== BALANCED <<<==
27
INTERNAL PERSON TRIPS:
820 - Shopping Center Retail
BALANCED PERSON TRIPS:
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing 820 - Shopping Center
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
Generated By OTISS Pro v2.1 8
EMH5:34 PM Oak Park- 2017 zoning 7/24/2019 5:34 PM
Entry Exit Total
27 13 40
27 13 40
Entry Exit Total
13 27 40
13 27 40
27 13 40
100%100%-
1.00 1.00 -
27 13 40
32 22 54
46%37%0%
13 27 40
100%100%-
1.00 1.00 -
13 27 40
119 116 235
10%19%0%
Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit
32 22 0.00%0.00%0 0
119 116 34.00%34.00%40 39
Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit
32 22 0.00%0.00%0 0
119 116 0.00%0.00%0 0
Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit
32 22 0.00%0.00%0 0
79 77 0.00%0.00%0 0
Entry Exit Total
32 22 54
Internal Person Trips From
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
Total Internal Person Trips
INTERNAL VEHICLE TRIPS AND CAPTURE:
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
Internal Person Trips From
820 - Shopping Center
Total Internal Person Trips
820 - Shopping Center
Internal Vehicle Trip Capture
820 - Shopping Center
Total Internal Person Trips
Vehicle Mode Share
Vehicle Occupancy
Total Internal Person Trips
Vehicle Mode Share
Vehicle Occupancy
Total Vehicle Internal Trips
Total External Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
820 - Shopping Center
DIVERTED VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
Land Use External Vehicle Trips Diverted Vehicle Trip %Diverted Vehicle Trips
Total Vehicle Internal Trips
Total External Vehicle Trips
Internal Vehicle Trip Capture
PASS-BY VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
Land Use External Vehicle Trips Pass-by Vehicle Trip %Pass-by Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
820 - Shopping Center
NEW VEHICLE TRIPS
Land Use New Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
820 - Shopping Center
EXTRA VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
Land Use (External - (Pass-by + Diverted)) Vehicle Trips Extra Vehicle Trip Reduction %Extra Reduced Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
Generated By OTISS Pro v2.1 9
EMH5:34 PM Oak Park- 2017 zoning 7/24/2019 5:34 PM
79 77 156
Entry Exit Total
191 178 369
40 40 80
151 138 289
21%22%22%
40 39 79
0 0 0
0 0 0
111 99 210
Extra Reduced Vehicle Trips
New Vehicle Trips
Internal Vehicle Trips
External Vehicle Trips
Internal Vehicle Trip Capture
Pass-by Vehicle Trips
Diverted Vehicle Trips
820 - Shopping Center
RESULTS
Site Totals
Vehicle Trips Before Reduction
Generated By OTISS Pro v2.1 10
EMH5:33 PM Oak Park- Initial zoning 7/24/2019 5:33 PM
Project Name:Type of Project:
Project No:City:
Country:Built-up Area(Sq.ft):
Analyst Name:Clients Name:
Date:ZIP/Postal Code:
State/Province:No. of Scenarios:
Analysis Region:
Entry Exit Total
Scenario - 1 Daily 3 1 2018 2104 2104 4208
Scenario - 2 AM Peak 3 1 2019 121 117 238
Scenario - 3 PM Peak 3 1 2019 130 113 243
User Group Estimated New Vehicle TripsScenariosNameNo. of Land Uses Phases of
Development Horizon Year
PROJECT DETAILS
SCENARIO SUMMARY
Oak Park- Initial zoning
20190713
Charles Wu
7/20/2019
3
Generated By OTISS Pro v2.1 1
EMH5:33 PM Oak Park- Initial zoning 7/24/2019 5:33 PM
Scenario - 1
Scenario Name:User Group:
Dev. phase:Horizon Year:
Analyst Note:
Warning:
Method Entry Exit
Rate/Equation Split%Split%
Best Fit (LOG)384 384
Ln(T) =0.92Ln(X) + 2.71 50%50%
Best Fit (LIN)116 116
T = 7.56(X) + -40.86 50%50%
Best Fit (LOG)1604 1604
Ln(T) =0.68Ln(X) + 5.57 50%50%
Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)
100 100 1 1 50 50
100 100 1 1 50 50
100 100 1 1 50 50
Entry Exit Entry Exit Entry Exit
384 384 0 0 384 384
116 116 0 0 116 116
1604 1604 0 0 1604 1604
Persons Exit PAF UIPTC Unconstrained Demand Unconstrained Demand UIPTC PAF Persons Entry
384 1 0 0 0 0 1 116
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
==>>> BALANCED ==>>>
0
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)Residential
820 - Shopping Center Retail
BALANCED PERSON TRIPS:
INTERNAL VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
LAND USE GROUP ASSIGNMENT:
Land Use Land Use Group
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing Residential
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)232 0 232
820 - Shopping Center 3208 0 3208
Person Trips by Vehicle Person Trips by Other Modes Total Baseline Site Person Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing 768 0 768
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
820 - Shopping Center
ESTIMATED BASELINE SITE PERSON TRIPS:
Land Use
Weekday 3208
VEHICLE TO PERSON TRIP CONVERSION
BASELINE SITE VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS:
Land Use Baseline Site Vehicle Mode Share Baseline Site Vehicle Occupancy Baseline Site Vehicle Directional Split
820 - Shopping Center
Data Source: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed
General
Urban/Suburban 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA 39.7
Weekday 768
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Data Source: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed
General
Urban/Suburban Dwelling Units 36 Weekday 232
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
Data Source: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed
General
Urban/Suburban Dwelling Units 72
Daily
1 2018
Land Use & Data Source Location IV Size Time Period
VEHICLE TRIPS BEFORE REDUCTION
Total
Generated By OTISS Pro v2.1 2
EMH5:33 PM Oak Park- Initial zoning 7/24/2019 5:33 PM
Persons Entry PAF UIPTC Unconstrained Demand Unconstrained Demand UIPTC PAF Persons Exit
384 1 0 0 0 0 1 116
Persons Exit PAF UIPTC Unconstrained Demand Unconstrained Demand UIPTC PAF Persons Entry
384 1 0 0 0 0 1 1604
Persons Entry PAF UIPTC Unconstrained Demand Unconstrained Demand UIPTC PAF Persons Exit
384 1 0 0 0 0 1 1604
Persons Exit PAF UIPTC Unconstrained Demand Unconstrained Demand UIPTC PAF Persons Entry
116 1 0 0 0 0 1 1604
Persons Entry PAF UIPTC Unconstrained Demand Unconstrained Demand UIPTC PAF Persons Exit
116 1 0 0 0 0 1 1604
Entry Exit Total
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Entry Exit Total
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Entry Exit Total
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
100%100%-
1.00 1.00 -
0 0 0
384 384 768
0%0%0%
0 0 0
100%100%-
1.00 1.00 -Vehicle Occupancy
Total External Vehicle Trips
Internal Vehicle Trip Capture
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Total Internal Person Trips
Vehicle Mode Share
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
Total Internal Person Trips
Vehicle Mode Share
Vehicle Occupancy
Total Vehicle Internal Trips
Internal Person Trips From
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Total Internal Person Trips
INTERNAL VEHICLE TRIPS AND CAPTURE:
Internal Person Trips From
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
820 - Shopping Center
Total Internal Person Trips
820 - Shopping Center
Internal Person Trips From
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
820 - Shopping Center
Total Internal Person Trips
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
0
<<<== BALANCED <<<==
0
INTERNAL PERSON TRIPS:
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
<<<== BALANCED <<<==
0
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)820 - Shopping Center
==>>> BALANCED ==>>>
0
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing 820 - Shopping Center
==>>> BALANCED ==>>>
0
<<<== BALANCED <<<==
Generated By OTISS Pro v2.1 3
EMH5:33 PM Oak Park- Initial zoning 7/24/2019 5:33 PM
0 0 0
116 116 232
0%0%0%
0 0 0
100%100%-
1.00 1.00 -
0 0 0
1604 1604 3208
0%0%0%
Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit
384 384 0.00%0.00%0 0
116 116 0.00%0.00%0 0
1604 1604 0.00%0.00%0 0
Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit
384 384 0.00%0.00%0 0
116 116 0.00%0.00%0 0
1604 1604 0.00%0.00%0 0
Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit
384 384 0.00%0.00%0 0
116 116 0.00%0.00%0 0
1604 1604 0.00%0.00%0 0
Entry Exit Total
384 384 768
116 116 232
1604 1604 3208
Entry Exit Total
2104 2104 4208
0 0 0
2104 2104 4208
0%0%0%
0 0 0
0 0 0Diverted Vehicle Trips
Vehicle Trips Before Reduction
Internal Vehicle Trips
External Vehicle Trips
Internal Vehicle Trip Capture
Pass-by Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
820 - Shopping Center
RESULTS
Site Totals
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
820 - Shopping Center
NEW VEHICLE TRIPS
Land Use New Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
820 - Shopping Center
EXTRA VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
Land Use (External - (Pass-by + Diverted)) Vehicle Trips Extra Vehicle Trip Reduction %Extra Reduced Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
820 - Shopping Center
DIVERTED VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
Land Use External Vehicle Trips Diverted Vehicle Trip %Diverted Vehicle Trips
Internal Vehicle Trip Capture
PASS-BY VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
Land Use External Vehicle Trips Pass-by Vehicle Trip %Pass-by Vehicle Trips
Total Internal Person Trips
Vehicle Mode Share
Vehicle Occupancy
Total Vehicle Internal Trips
Total External Vehicle Trips
Total Vehicle Internal Trips
Total External Vehicle Trips
Internal Vehicle Trip Capture
820 - Shopping Center
Generated By OTISS Pro v2.1 4
EMH5:33 PM Oak Park- Initial zoning 7/24/2019 5:33 PM
0 0 0
2104 2104 4208
Extra Reduced Vehicle Trips
New Vehicle Trips
Generated By OTISS Pro v2.1 5
EMH5:33 PM Oak Park- Initial zoning 7/24/2019 5:33 PM
Scenario - 2
Scenario Name:User Group:
Dev. phase:Horizon Year:
Analyst Note:
Warning:
Method Entry Exit
Rate/Equation Split%Split%
Best Fit (LIN)14 42
T = 0.71(X) + 4.80 25%75%
Best Fit (LOG)4 14
Ln(T) =0.95Ln(X) + -0.51 23%77%
Best Fit (LIN)106 65
T = 0.50(X) + 151.78 62%38%
Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)
100 100 1 1 25 75
100 100 1 1 23 77
100 100 1 1 62 38
Entry Exit Entry Exit Entry Exit
14 42 0 0 14 42
4 14 0 0 4 14
106 65 0 0 106 65
Persons Exit PAF UIPTC Unconstrained Demand Unconstrained Demand UIPTC PAF Persons Entry
42 1 0 0 0 0 1 4
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
==>>> BALANCED ==>>>
0
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)Residential
820 - Shopping Center Retail
BALANCED PERSON TRIPS:
INTERNAL VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
LAND USE GROUP ASSIGNMENT:
Land Use Land Use Group
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing Residential
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)18 0 18
820 - Shopping Center 171 0 171
Person Trips by Vehicle Person Trips by Other Modes Total Baseline Site Person Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing 56 0 56
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
820 - Shopping Center
ESTIMATED BASELINE SITE PERSON TRIPS:
Land Use
Weekday, Peak Hour of
Adjacent Street Traffic, 171
VEHICLE TO PERSON TRIP CONVERSION
BASELINE SITE VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS:
Land Use Baseline Site Vehicle Mode Share Baseline Site Vehicle Occupancy Baseline Site Vehicle Directional Split
820 - Shopping Center
Data Source: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed
General
Urban/Suburban 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA 39.7
Weekday, Peak Hour of
Adjacent Street Traffic, 56
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Data Source: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed
General
Urban/Suburban Dwelling Units 36 Weekday, Peak Hour of
Adjacent Street Traffic, 18
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
Data Source: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed
General
Urban/Suburban Dwelling Units 72
AM Peak
1 2019
Land Use & Data Source Location IV Size Time Period
VEHICLE TRIPS BEFORE REDUCTION
Total
Generated By OTISS Pro v2.1 6
EMH5:33 PM Oak Park- Initial zoning 7/24/2019 5:33 PM
Persons Entry PAF UIPTC Unconstrained Demand Unconstrained Demand UIPTC PAF Persons Exit
14 1 0 0 0 0 1 14
Persons Exit PAF UIPTC Unconstrained Demand Unconstrained Demand UIPTC PAF Persons Entry
42 1 6 3 9 8.5 1 106
Persons Entry PAF UIPTC Unconstrained Demand Unconstrained Demand UIPTC PAF Persons Exit
14 1 1 0 5 7 1 65
Persons Exit PAF UIPTC Unconstrained Demand Unconstrained Demand UIPTC PAF Persons Entry
14 1 6 1 9 8.5 1 106
Persons Entry PAF UIPTC Unconstrained Demand Unconstrained Demand UIPTC PAF Persons Exit
4 1 1 0 5 7 1 65
Entry Exit Total
0 0 0
0 3 3
0 3 3
Entry Exit Total
0 0 0
0 1 1
0 1 1
Entry Exit Total
3 0 3
1 0 1
4 0 4
0 3 3
100%100%-
1.00 1.00 -
0 3 3
14 39 53
0%7%0%
0 1 1
100%100%-
1.00 1.00 -Vehicle Occupancy
Total External Vehicle Trips
Internal Vehicle Trip Capture
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Total Internal Person Trips
Vehicle Mode Share
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
Total Internal Person Trips
Vehicle Mode Share
Vehicle Occupancy
Total Vehicle Internal Trips
Internal Person Trips From
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Total Internal Person Trips
INTERNAL VEHICLE TRIPS AND CAPTURE:
Internal Person Trips From
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
820 - Shopping Center
Total Internal Person Trips
820 - Shopping Center
Internal Person Trips From
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
820 - Shopping Center
Total Internal Person Trips
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
1
<<<== BALANCED <<<==
0
INTERNAL PERSON TRIPS:
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
<<<== BALANCED <<<==
0
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)820 - Shopping Center
==>>> BALANCED ==>>>
0
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing 820 - Shopping Center
==>>> BALANCED ==>>>
3
<<<== BALANCED <<<==
Generated By OTISS Pro v2.1 7
EMH5:33 PM Oak Park- Initial zoning 7/24/2019 5:33 PM
0 1 1
4 13 17
0%7%0%
4 0 4
100%100%-
1.00 1.00 -
3 0 3
103 65 168
3%0%0%
Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit
14 39 0.00%0.00%0 0
4 13 0.00%0.00%0 0
103 65 0.00%0.00%0 0
Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit
14 39 0.00%0.00%0 0
4 13 0.00%0.00%0 0
103 65 0.00%0.00%0 0
Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit
14 39 0.00%0.00%0 0
4 13 0.00%0.00%0 0
103 65 0.00%0.00%0 0
Entry Exit Total
14 39 53
4 13 17
103 65 168
Entry Exit Total
124 121 245
3 4 7
121 117 238
2%3%3%
0 0 0
0 0 0Diverted Vehicle Trips
Vehicle Trips Before Reduction
Internal Vehicle Trips
External Vehicle Trips
Internal Vehicle Trip Capture
Pass-by Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
820 - Shopping Center
RESULTS
Site Totals
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
820 - Shopping Center
NEW VEHICLE TRIPS
Land Use New Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
820 - Shopping Center
EXTRA VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
Land Use (External - (Pass-by + Diverted)) Vehicle Trips Extra Vehicle Trip Reduction %Extra Reduced Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
820 - Shopping Center
DIVERTED VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
Land Use External Vehicle Trips Diverted Vehicle Trip %Diverted Vehicle Trips
Internal Vehicle Trip Capture
PASS-BY VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
Land Use External Vehicle Trips Pass-by Vehicle Trip %Pass-by Vehicle Trips
Total Internal Person Trips
Vehicle Mode Share
Vehicle Occupancy
Total Vehicle Internal Trips
Total External Vehicle Trips
Total Vehicle Internal Trips
Total External Vehicle Trips
Internal Vehicle Trip Capture
820 - Shopping Center
Generated By OTISS Pro v2.1 8
EMH5:33 PM Oak Park- Initial zoning 7/24/2019 5:33 PM
0 0 0
121 117 238
Extra Reduced Vehicle Trips
New Vehicle Trips
Generated By OTISS Pro v2.1 9
EMH5:33 PM Oak Park- Initial zoning 7/24/2019 5:33 PM
Scenario - 3
Scenario Name:User Group:
Dev. phase:Horizon Year:
Analyst Note:
Warning:
Method Entry Exit
Rate/Equation Split%Split%
Best Fit (LOG)47 27
Ln(T) =0.96Ln(X) + 0.20 63%37%
Best Fit (LOG)15 9
Ln(T) =0.89Ln(X) + -0.02 63%37%
Best Fit (LOG)132 143
Ln(T) =0.74Ln(X) + 2.89 48%52%
Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)
100 100 1 1 63 37
100 100 1 1 63 37
100 100 1 1 48 52
Entry Exit Entry Exit Entry Exit
47 27 0 0 47 27
15 9 0 0 15 9
132 143 0 0 132 143
Persons Exit PAF UIPTC Unconstrained Demand Unconstrained Demand UIPTC PAF Persons Entry
27 1 0 0 0 0 1 15
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing 220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
==>>> BALANCED ==>>>
0
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)Residential
820 - Shopping Center Retail
BALANCED PERSON TRIPS:
INTERNAL VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
LAND USE GROUP ASSIGNMENT:
Land Use Land Use Group
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing Residential
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)24 0 24
820 - Shopping Center 275 0 275
Person Trips by Vehicle Person Trips by Other Modes Total Baseline Site Person Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing 74 0 74
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
820 - Shopping Center
ESTIMATED BASELINE SITE PERSON TRIPS:
Land Use
Weekday, Peak Hour of
Adjacent Street Traffic, 275
VEHICLE TO PERSON TRIP CONVERSION
BASELINE SITE VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS:
Land Use Baseline Site Vehicle Mode Share Baseline Site Vehicle Occupancy Baseline Site Vehicle Directional Split
820 - Shopping Center
Data Source: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed
General
Urban/Suburban 1000 Sq. Ft. GLA 39.7
Weekday, Peak Hour of
Adjacent Street Traffic, 74
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Data Source: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed
General
Urban/Suburban Dwelling Units 36 Weekday, Peak Hour of
Adjacent Street Traffic, 24
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
Data Source: Trip Generation Manual, 10th Ed
General
Urban/Suburban Dwelling Units 72
PM Peak
1 2019
Land Use & Data Source Location IV Size Time Period
VEHICLE TRIPS BEFORE REDUCTION
Total
Generated By OTISS Pro v2.1 10
EMH5:33 PM Oak Park- Initial zoning 7/24/2019 5:33 PM
Persons Entry PAF UIPTC Unconstrained Demand Unconstrained Demand UIPTC PAF Persons Exit
47 1 0 0 0 0 1 9
Persons Exit PAF UIPTC Unconstrained Demand Unconstrained Demand UIPTC PAF Persons Entry
27 1 21 6 7 5 1 132
Persons Entry PAF UIPTC Unconstrained Demand Unconstrained Demand UIPTC PAF Persons Exit
47 1 23 11 19 13 1 143
Persons Exit PAF UIPTC Unconstrained Demand Unconstrained Demand UIPTC PAF Persons Entry
9 1 21 2 7 5 1 132
Persons Entry PAF UIPTC Unconstrained Demand Unconstrained Demand UIPTC PAF Persons Exit
15 1 23 3 19 13 1 143
Entry Exit Total
0 0 0
11 6 17
11 6 17
Entry Exit Total
0 0 0
3 2 5
3 2 5
Entry Exit Total
6 11 17
2 3 5
8 14 22
11 6 17
100%100%-
1.00 1.00 -
11 6 17
36 21 57
24%22%0%
3 2 5
100%100%-
1.00 1.00 -Vehicle Occupancy
Total External Vehicle Trips
Internal Vehicle Trip Capture
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Total Internal Person Trips
Vehicle Mode Share
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
Total Internal Person Trips
Vehicle Mode Share
Vehicle Occupancy
Total Vehicle Internal Trips
Internal Person Trips From
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Total Internal Person Trips
INTERNAL VEHICLE TRIPS AND CAPTURE:
Internal Person Trips From
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
820 - Shopping Center
Total Internal Person Trips
820 - Shopping Center
Internal Person Trips From
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
820 - Shopping Center
Total Internal Person Trips
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
2
<<<== BALANCED <<<==
3
INTERNAL PERSON TRIPS:
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
<<<== BALANCED <<<==
11
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)820 - Shopping Center
==>>> BALANCED ==>>>
0
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing 820 - Shopping Center
==>>> BALANCED ==>>>
6
<<<== BALANCED <<<==
Generated By OTISS Pro v2.1 11
EMH5:33 PM Oak Park- Initial zoning 7/24/2019 5:33 PM
3 2 5
12 7 19
20%23%0%
8 14 22
100%100%-
1.00 1.00 -
8 14 22
124 129 253
6%10%0%
Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit
36 21 0.00%0.00%0 0
12 7 0.00%0.00%0 0
124 129 34.00%34.00%42 44
Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit
36 21 0.00%0.00%0 0
12 7 0.00%0.00%0 0
124 129 0.00%0.00%0 0
Entry Exit Entry (%)Exit (%)Entry Exit
36 21 0.00%0.00%0 0
12 7 0.00%0.00%0 0
82 85 0.00%0.00%0 0
Entry Exit Total
36 21 57
12 7 19
82 85 167
Entry Exit Total
194 179 373
22 22 44
172 157 329
11%12%12%
42 44 86
0 0 0Diverted Vehicle Trips
Vehicle Trips Before Reduction
Internal Vehicle Trips
External Vehicle Trips
Internal Vehicle Trip Capture
Pass-by Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
820 - Shopping Center
RESULTS
Site Totals
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
820 - Shopping Center
NEW VEHICLE TRIPS
Land Use New Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
820 - Shopping Center
EXTRA VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
Land Use (External - (Pass-by + Diverted)) Vehicle Trips Extra Vehicle Trip Reduction %Extra Reduced Vehicle Trips
210 - Single-Family Detached Housing
220 - Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
820 - Shopping Center
DIVERTED VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
Land Use External Vehicle Trips Diverted Vehicle Trip %Diverted Vehicle Trips
Internal Vehicle Trip Capture
PASS-BY VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION
Land Use External Vehicle Trips Pass-by Vehicle Trip %Pass-by Vehicle Trips
Total Internal Person Trips
Vehicle Mode Share
Vehicle Occupancy
Total Vehicle Internal Trips
Total External Vehicle Trips
Total Vehicle Internal Trips
Total External Vehicle Trips
Internal Vehicle Trip Capture
820 - Shopping Center
Generated By OTISS Pro v2.1 12
EMH5:33 PM Oak Park- Initial zoning 7/24/2019 5:33 PM
0 0 0
130 113 243
Extra Reduced Vehicle Trips
New Vehicle Trips
Generated By OTISS Pro v2.1 13
0.447 ACRE
Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Union, City of Dublin, in Virginia Military
Survey Number 6595, being part of Reserve “I” of the subdivision entitled “Oak Park”, of
record in Plat Book 5, Pages 260A-D, said Reserve “I” being conveyed to Oak Park Dublin, LLC
by deed of record in Official Record 769, Page 638, (all references refer to the records of the
Recorder’s Office, Union County, Ohio) and more particularly bounded and described as
follows:
Beginning at the southeasterly terminus of the right-of-way line of Primrose Court, in the
northerly line of Lot 1 of said Oak Park;
Thence North 05° 18' 59" West, with the easterly terminus of the right of way line of said
Primrose Court, a distance of 56.00 feet to an iron pint set at the northeasterly terminus of the
right-of-way line of said Primrose Court, in the southerly line of Lot 109 of the subdivision
entitled “Resubdivision of Lots 73 thru 108, Reserve “B” and Reserve “C” of Oak Park”, of
record in Plat Book 5, Pages 47A-47B;
Thence with the boundary of said Lot 109 the following courses and distances:
North 84° 41' 01" East, a distance of 4.14 feet to an iron pin set at a point of curvature to
the left;
With the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 52° 32' 50", a radius of 14.00 feet, an
arc length of 12.84 feet, a chord bearing of North 58° 24' 36" East and chord distance of 12.39
feet to an iron pin set at a point of reverse curvature; and
With the arc of a curve to the right, having a central angle of 09° 22' 58", a radius of
60.00 feet, an arc length of 9.83 feet, a chord bearing of North 36° 49' 40" East and chord
distance of 9.81 feet to an iron pin set;
Thence North 05° 18' 59" West, partly with the easterly line of said Lot 109 and partly
crossing said Reserve “I”, a distance of 122.90 feet to an iron pin set in the southerly line of
Reserve “D” of said Oak Park ;
Thence North 84° 41' 01" East, with said southerly line, a distance of 71.05 feet to an iron
pin set in the westerly line of Reserve “F” of the subdivision entitled “Amended and Corrected
Plat of Oak Park Lots 9 and 10 and Reserve ‘F’”, of record in Plat Book 5, Page 266;
Thence South 05° 18' 59" East, with the boundary of said Reserve “F”, a distance of
114.70 feet to an iron pin set;
Thence with the boundary of said Reserve “F” and with the arc of a curve to the right,
having a central angle of 208° 11' 43", a radius of 60.00 feet, an arc length of 218.02 feet, a
chord bearing of South 38° 46' 53" West and chord distance of 116.39 feet to an iron pin set at a
point of reverse curvature;
Thence partly with the boundary of said Reserve “F”, partly with the northerly line of
said Lot 1, and with the arc of a curve to the left, having a central angle of 58° 11' 43", a radius
of 14.00 feet, an arc length of 14.22 feet, a chord bearing of North 66° 13' 07" West and chord
distance of 13.62 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 0.447 acre of land, more or
less.
Subject, however, to all legal rights-of-way and/or easements, if any, of previous record.
Iron pins set, where indicated, are iron pipes, thirteen sixteenths (13/16) inch inside
diameter, thirty (30) inches long with a plastic plug placed in the top bearing the initials EMHT
INC.
The bearings shown herein were transferred from a field traverse originating from and
tying to Franklin County Geodetic Survey control monument 6648 and McNeal, having a
bearing of South 15° 07' 53" East between said monuments, and are based on the Ohio State
Plane Coordinate System, South Zone, NAD83 (1986 Adjustment).
This description was prepared using documents of record, prior plats of survey, and
observed evidence located by an actual field survey.
EVANS, MECHWART, HAMBLETON & TILTON, INC.
Matthew A. Kirk Date
Professional Surveyor No. 7865
MAK:jrm
0_447 ac 20190715-VS-BNDY-02.doc
PRIMROSE COU
R
T
P.B.5, P. 260A - D
SURVEY OF ACREAGE PARCEL
VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NO. 6595
CITY OF DUBLIN, COUNTY OF UNION, STATE OF OHIO
By ________________________________ ____________
Date
Professional Surveyor No.
Matthew A. Kirk
7865
mkirk@emht.com
BASIS OF BEARINGS:
The bearings shown hereon were transferred from
a field traverse originating from and tying to
Franklin County Geodetic Survey control
monument 6648 and McNeal, having a bearing of
South 15° 07' 53" East between said monuments,
and are based on the Ohio State Plane Coordinate
System, South Zone, NAD83 (1986 Adjustment).
SURVEY NOTE:
This survey was prepared using documents of
record, prior plats of survey, and observed
evidence located by an actual field survey.
0.447 ACRE
Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Union, City of Dublin, in Virginia Military
Survey Number 6595, being part of Reserve “J” of the subdivision entitled “Oak Park”, of
record in Plat Book 5, Pages 260A-D, said Reserve “J” being conveyed to Oak Park Dublin,
LLC by deed of record in Official Record 769, Page 638, (all references refer to the records of
the Recorder’s Office, Union County, Ohio) and more particularly bounded and described as
follows:
Beginning at an iron pin set at the southeasterly terminus of the right-of-way line of
Snowdrop Court, in the northerly line of Lot 128 of the subdivision entitled “Resubdivision of
Lots 73 thru 108, Reserve “B” and Reserve “C” of Oak Park”, of record in Plat Book 5, Pages
47A-47B;
Thence North 05° 18' 59" West, with the easterly terminus of the right of way of said
Snowdrop Court, a distance of 56.00 feet to an iron pin set at the northeasterly terminus of the
right-of-way of said Snowdrop Court, in the southerly line of Reserve “E” of said Oak Park;
Thence with the boundary of said Reserve “E” the following courses and distance:
With the arc of a curve to the left, having a central angle of 58° 11' 43", a radius of 14.00
feet, an arc length of 14.22 feet, a chord bearing of North 55° 35' 10" East and chord distance of
13.62 feet to an iron pin set at a point of reverse curvature;
With the arc of a curve to the right, having a central angle of 208° 11' 43", a radius of
60.00 feet, an arc length of 218.02 feet, a chord bearing of South 49° 24' 50" East and chord
distance of 116.39 feet to an iron pin set; and
South 05° 18' 59" East, a distance of 114.70 feet to an iron pin set at a northeasterly
corner of Reserve “A” of said Oak Park;
Thence South 84° 41' 01" West, with a northerly line of said Reserve “A”, a distance of
71.05 feet to an iron pin set;
Thence North 05° 18' 59" West, crossing said Reserve “J” and with the easterly line of
said Lot 128, a distance of 122.90 feet to an iron pin set at a point of curvature to the right;
Thence with the boundary of said Lot 128 the following courses and distances:
With the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 09° 22' 58", a radius of 60.00 feet, an
arc length of 9.83 feet, a chord bearing of North 47° 27' 38" West and chord distance of 9.81 feet
to an iron pin set at a point of reverse curvature;
With the arc of a curve to the left, having a central angle of 52° 32' 50", a radius of 14.00
feet, an arc length of 12.84 feet, a chord bearing of North 69° 02' 34" West and chord distance of
12.39 feet to an iron pin set; and
South 84° 41' 01" West, a distance of 4.14 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING,
containing 0.447 acre of land, more or less.
Subject, however, to all legal rights-of-way and/or easements, if any, of previous record.
Iron pins set, where indicated, are iron pipes, thirteen sixteenths (13/16) inch inside
diameter, thirty (30) inches long with a plastic plug placed in the top bearing the initials EMHT
INC.
The bearings shown herein were transferred from a field traverse originating from and
tying to Franklin County Geodetic Survey control monument 6648 and McNeal, having a
bearing of South 15° 07' 53" East between said monuments, and are based on the Ohio State
Plane Coordinate System, South Zone, NAD83 (1986 Adjustment).
This description was prepared using documents of record, prior plats of survey, and
observed evidence located by an actual field survey.
EVANS, MECHWART, HAMBLETON & TILTON, INC.
Matthew A. Kirk Date
Professional Surveyor No. 7865
MAK:jrm
0_447 ac 20190715-VS-BNDY-01.doc
SNOWDROP COU
R
T
P.B. 5, P. 260A - D
SURVEY OF ACREAGE PARCEL
VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NO. 6595
CITY OF DUBLIN, COUNTY OF UNION, STATE OF OHIO
By ________________________________ ____________
Date
Professional Surveyor No.
Matthew A. Kirk
7865
mkirk@emht.com
BASIS OF BEARINGS:
The bearings shown hereon were transferred from
a field traverse originating from and tying to
Franklin County Geodetic Survey control
monument 6648 and McNeal, having a bearing of
South 15° 07' 53" East between said monuments,
and are based on the Ohio State Plane Coordinate
System, South Zone, NAD83 (1986 Adjustment).
SURVEY NOTE:
This survey was prepared using documents of
record, prior plats of survey, and observed
evidence located by an actual field survey.
AMENDEID AT{D RESTATtsD IIECLARATION OF COVENAITITS, EASEMENTS,CoNDITTONS, AND RESTRTCTTONS FoROAK PARKCROSS REFERENCETI:Plat Book 5, pages 260 A-Dand rs amendcd in Plat book 5, poges 266.-26ff,Aand as amendcd in Plat Book 6 pagcs 47 A-Band as amcndod ln Plat Book_ pages_
INDEXITEMBackground.....PAGECOVENANTS, EAS EM ENTS, CON D ITIONS AN D RESTRICTION SARTICLE I - DEFINITIONS.ARTICLE II - PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THIS DECLARATION.......ARTICLE ilt - COALS...........ARTTCLE tV - THE ASSOCIAT|ON.........A. PurposesB. Mernbership........C. Powers; Authority; Duties.....D. Rules..E. lmplied Rights.F. Managing Agent.......G. lnsurance...Fire and Extended Coverage.Liability Coverage...Other.Use of Pnrceeds...H. Condernnation.l. Books; Records.ARTICLE V _ THE COMMON ELEMENTSA. Propefiy To Be Subject..... llB. Vestingoflntercsts ....... 12C. Disposition or Mortgaging of Common Elements... lzD. Architectural Reviewt2ARTICLE VI _ ASSESSMENTSA. Types of Assessments...B. Operating Assessments.........l. Establishment.2. Apportionment4. lnitial Reserve2277I234888899999t0t0ilililllt3r3r3t5r5t5l5l55. Duc Dates.
C. Pavcment Repair Operating Assessmenls for New Village and Villa Lots(Lots l09to 140)l. lnitial Period .......2. lnitial Reserve3. Determination of Pavement Assessment Amount4. Subsequent Calendar Year ........5. Due Dates6. Use and Accounting7. Obligation for Pavement Repairs Not DirectD. Villa Lots (Lots 109 to 128) Landscape Asscssmenrsl. Determination of Landscape Services Assessment Amount for EachCalendar Year .. Subsequent Calendar Year . ... Due Dates. Use and Accounting ...Obligation for Landscape Services Not DirectObligation for Landscape Serviccs Not Established Unless Action isTakenE. SpecialAssessmentsF. lndividual Lot Assessments......C. Late ChargesH. Liability for Unpaid Assessmenls............l. Liens..J. Subordination of Lien..K. Contested Lien .L. Notice of Discharge . ... ....M. Suspension of Vote and Use of Common Elements ,.ARTICLE VII- EASEMENTS AND LICENSESA. Eascments of Enjoyment; Limitations.......B. Association Entry, Repair and Maintenance Easements.C. Easement to the City of Dublin.D. Easements ficr Encroachments. ...E. Easement for Support.F. Easement for ServicesC. Utility Easements and Building SetbacksH. PowerofAttomey....l. GeneralARTICLE VIII - PROTECTIVE COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONSA. Ceneral23456l5t5t6r6l6r6l6t7t7l7t7t7t7l8t8t8l9l9t9l9202020202t2t2t2t2t2t2t2t7)22B. Lot Uscs..))1''22
ITEMPAGEARTICLE Vlll- PROTECTIVE COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS (continued).... 22I . Residential Uses..2. Transient Uses3. Temporary Structure Use......4. Hobbies.5. Offensive Activities......(a) Waste(b) Odors(c) Lighting22))232323232323232324242424242525?<2525?{25262626262627272727282828282E282828282929(d) Sound..(e) Firrworks..... Service Screening, Storage Areas.. Machinery and Equipment. Vehicles. Animals.10. Open Fires.......C. Building, lmprovement and Other Limitations2. Split Lots.3. Mailboxes, Post Lighs.....4. Outbuildings, Temporary lmprovements5. Antennas...6. Utility Space.7. Improvement Location8. Sight Distance at lnterscctions......9. Storage TanksI 0. lmprovement Exteriors...I l. Exterior Materials and Colors.12. Signs13. Landscaping14. Maintenance..15. Drainage and Crading17. Fences..18. Swimming Pools; Hot Tubs.6789l. Plan Approval........16. Soil Removal..19. Solar Panels......20. Window Air Conditioning Units........21. Storage22. Requirement of Completion; Notice of Completion,....Non-completion or Non-compliance...,..D. Common Element Uses..l. Generaltv2. Businesses
ITEMPAGEARTICLE VIll - PROTECTIVE COVENANTS AND RESTRIC1'IONS (continued) .... 29Nuisance.Hazandous Actions or Materials....VehiclesSigns....Animals,Trash....ARTICLE IX - MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIESA. Maintenance by Associationl. Common Element Maintenance.A. Term.B. Enforcement.C. AmendmentsD. Declarant's Rights to Complete Development.....E. Mortgage Rights...3.4.5.6.7.8.2929292929293030302. Maintenance of Part Lots, Village Lots, Villa Lots and New Village Lots. 303. Dublin city council Requirements for Maintenance of Pavemcnt nreas inReserves I and J.......... 304. Maintenance of Private Drives in Reserves I & J Prior to Turnover.... 3 IB. Maintenance by Owner. 3lC. Right of Association to Repair LotD. Damage to Common Elements by Owner or Occupant. .. ... .. 32ARTICLE X _ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW32A. Architectural Review Committee........B. Jurisdiction....l. Initial lmprovements.......,2. Subsequent lmprovements.C. Adhcrence Standards......D. Requirement of Plan ApprovalE. ProcedurcsF. Failure to Approve or DisapproveC. VariancesH. Liability Relating to Approvals.......I. lmprovements by or Through Declarant..J. Construction of lmprovements by Others on Undevcloped LotsARTICLE XI _ MISCELLANEOUS.....323232333333333s353536363632363637373838F. lndemnification...v
ITEMPAGEARTICLE XI - MISCELLANEOUS (continued)l. Third Party Actions....2. Derivative Actions.....3. Other Determinations of Rights. . . . .4. lndemnification of Agents and Others......5. Advances of Expenses...........6. Nonexclusivsness; Hcirs......7. Purchase of lnsurance..........C. Mutuality............H. Sevenability....I. Enforcement; Waiver...J. Notices.....K. Amendment, Restatement, Superseding and Replacement of OriginatDcclaration38383939404040404t4t4r4tL. ConstructionM. Captions..............41,........ 4tEXECUTION BY DECLARANTAPPENDIX I DUBLIN CITY COI.'NCIL CONDITIONS JT.JNE IO.2O2O424243vi
AMENDED AND RESTATED DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, EASEMENTS,CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR OAK PARKThis Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenanls. Easements, Conditions andRestrictions for Oak Park ("Declaration") made this 3 day of Oeqarr.\e r ,2021, by OakPark Dublin. l-LC. a New Jersey limited liability company (hereinafter "Declarant").BACKGROUND'the following portion of the Declaration is provided to assist in undcrstanding theobjectivcs of this Declaration. Many of the terms used in this Declaration are defined in Articlel. the Definitions portion of this Declaration, and it is recommended that those definitions beconsulted in order to understand these provisions;A. Declarant is the Owner or former Owner in fee simple of the following real property:Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Union. and City of Dublinand describcd as follows:Being Lots Numbcrtd I through 72. inclusive, Lots 109 through l2E, inclusive, andLots 129 through 140. inclusive, and Reservcs "G", "l", "J", "L", r'M'ri *Nii and "O"of Oak Park. as said Lots and Rcserves are numbered. lettered and delineatcd uponthe plat recorded in Plat Book 5. Pages 260 A-D, as amcnded in Plat Book 5, pages266-266A, and Plat Book 6 pages 47 A-B and Plat Book Pages_Rccordcr's OfTice. Union County, Ohio and any futurc lots and r€serves subjected tothis Declaration in the future by a recorded instrument signed by Declarant.B. The abovedescribed propcrty (rcferred to in this Declaration as "Oak Park") is bcingdevelopcd and built as a subdivision of Lots with singlc family homes anticipated tobe built on some or all of them, with privatc and public drives and associatedimprovements scrving the overall community.C. Declarant desires hereby to provide for the preservation of the values of the Lots, forthe bcnefit of the present and future Owners and Occupants of those Lots and thesingle-farnily dwellings constructed and/or to be constructed on them by providing aplan for the maintenance of various improvements serving one or more of the l.ots orOak Park as a whole.D. Dcclarant deems it desirable for the accomplishment of these objectives lo create anagency to which is delegated and assigned the non-exclusive right and obligation toadministcr and enforce the provisions of this Declaration, and, if necessary, to collectand disburse the funds necessary to accomplish these objectives. Accordingly.Declarant has crtated an Ohio corporation not-for-prolit. named the Oak Park1
Comrnunity Association, lnc. (the "Associalion"). whose members are and will bc allof thc Owners of a Lot or Lots in Oak Park. and their rcspcctivc personalrepn:sentalives, heirs. successors and assigns.E. ln connection with the foregoing, Declarant previously entered into that certainDcclaration of Covenants, Easements, Conditions and Restrictions for Oak Park,dated January I 8, 2010, and recorded on February 12,2010 as Official Rccord E57page 618 in the Recorder's Office, Union County, Ohio (the "Original Declaration").Declarant now desires to amend, restate. supersede and replace the OriginalDeclaration in its entirety pursuant to this Declaration.COVENANTS. EASEMENTS^DITIONS AND RESTRICTIONSNOW THEREFORE, in pursuance of a general plan for the protection, benefit andmutual advantages of the property in Oak Park. as presently constituted (consisting of the rcalproperty identified in Paragraph A of the Background Section o[this Declaration) and as it mayhereafter be constituted Dcclarant, the sole or former Owner of the foregoing propcrty, ashereafter authorized hereby declares that all of the real property in Oak Park shall be held. sold.conveyed and occupicd, subject to the l'ollowing covenants, conditions, restrictions andeascmcnts, which arc for the purpose of pmtecting the valucs and desirability ol. and which shallrun with the title to each of the Lots, shall be binding on all parties having any right. title orinterest in this Declaration, and each part thereof,, and their respective pcrsonal rcprcsentatives,heirs, successors and assigns, and shall inure to the bcnetit of and be enlorceable by Declarant,each Owner of a Lol, thc Association and the respective personal representatives, hcirs,successors and assigns ofeach.ARTICLE I - DEFINITIONSThe following terms used in this Declaration shall have these meanings. unless thecontext requires otherwisc:l. "Architectural Review Committee" - the committee of the Association. appointcd as,and with the power and authority to establish and enforcc architectural standardsgoveming the construction, rcplacement and modification of improvements in OakPark and whosc consent, generally. must be obtained to make or changeimprovements in Oak Park.2. "Articles" and "Articles of lncorporation" - thc Articles filed with the Secretary ofState of Ohio, incorporating Oak Park Community Association, lnc. (the"Association") as a nonprofit corporation under the provisions ol'Chapter 1702 of theRevised Code of Ohio ("Chapter 1702").3. "Assessnrents" - charges of any natune lcvied by the Association on [.ots and theirOwncrs, consisting of Operating Assessments. Spccial Assessmcnts, and lndividualLot Assessments2
4. "Association" - means Oak Park Community Association, lnc., an Ohio corporationnot-for-profit formed as an association of all of the Owners of Lots, as delined in thisDeclaration, in Oak Park, at any time. except Owners of Excmpt Property andCommon Elements, with respect to that property.5. "Association Goveming Documents" - the Association's Articles of lncorporation,Code of Regulations, its lawful Rules, and allamendments thcrcto, applicable buildingand zoning laws, this Declaration and amendments made hereafter, and thc provisionsof subdivision and other plats of property in Oak Park, prescnt and future.6. "Board" and "Board of Directors" - those persons who. as a group, serve as the lloardof Directors of the Association.7. "Bona Fidc Purchaser" means a retail sale of a Lot, with or without a homeconstrucled thereon. to a person or persons who is not a builder and who will occupyor own for others to occupy a completed unit on the Lot in qucstion.8. "Code of Rcgulations" and "Code" - the code of regulations of the Association (oftenrefemed lo as "Bylaws") created under and pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 1702of the Ohio Revised Code, establishing certain administrative and opcratang rules andprocedures for the Association.9. "Common Element" and "Common Elements" - all real and personal property,including easements, now or hereafter acquired by the Association pursuant to theprovisions of this Declaration, or amendments to this Declaration. shown on arecorded plat of property subjected to this Declaration. or cneated by otherinstruments, for the common use and the cnjoyment of the Owners and Occupants inOak Park or for the operation of the Association. and some of which may be reservedlbr the use and enjoyment of the Owners and Occupants of certain Lots only. andincludes or will include all of Reserves G, I , J, L. M, N and O as created by therrcorded Oak Park Plat and recorded amendments thercto.10. "Common Expenses" -- c,osts and expenses incurred by the Association in fulfillingits functions.I l. "Declarant" - Oak Park Dublin, LLC, and any successor or assign to which itspecilically assigns any of its rights and which assumcs its obligations under thisDeclaration and any amendments thcreto by a written instrument.12. "Declaration" - means this instrumcnt by which Oak Park is hereby submincd tothc provisions hereofl and any amendments herrto.3
13. "Exempt Property" - the potion of the real property comprising Oak Park (a) now orhereafter dedicated to common public use or owned by the United States, the Stateof Ohio, Union County, City of Dublin, any school board, or similar governmentalbody, or any instrumentality or agency or any such entity. for so long as any suchentity or any such instrumentally or agency shall bc the owner thereofl or (b) ownedby the Association provided in any such case the same is not utilizcd as a residence.14. "lmprovements" - all dwellings, buildings, outbuildings, sheds, garagcs and otherstruclures, overhead, aboveground and underground installations, including withoutlimitation. utility facilities and systems (including both water and sanitary). lincs,pipes, wires, towers, cables, conduits, poles, antcnnac and satellite dishes. flagpoles.swimming pools, hot tubs, spas, and tennis courts and all other typcs of paths orwalkways. and recreational courts, fixtures and facilities. including tree houses.play houscs, children's rccreational equipment or structures. basketball hoops andplayground equipmenf pet houses, runs, cnclosures, decks and boat docks.changing of colors or materials, exterior lighting, slope and drainagc alterations,roads, driveways, uncovered parking areas and other such aneas, fences, mailboxes,trellises, walls, retaining walls, exterior stairs, decks. patios and porchcs, plantedtrees, hedges. shrubs and other forms of landscaping that are more than thirty (30)feet high when fully grown; and all other structures or improvements of evcry type,constructed or maintained in Oak Park and visible to public view.15. "lndividual Lot Assessment" - an assessment that the Board may levy upon a Lotand is Owners to reimburse the Association for cosls incurred solely on behalf ofthat Lot, or thc Owners or Occupants thereofi, including without limitation,administrative charges for Rules violations, late charges, and interest on delinquentAssessments. and costs of collection of delinquent obligations to the Association.including attomey's fees and court costs, and all other chargcs reasonablydetermined by the Board to be chargcablc solely to that Lot and its Owner orOwners.16. Landscape Assessment-an operating assessment that the Board may levy upon aVilla Lot for maintenance of landscaping, mowing. mulching. and tree or shrubpruning and replacement.17. "Lot" - a parcel of real property now or hereallcr numbercd and/or identified uponthe recorded Oak Park PlaL or recorded re-subdivision thereof. or any amendmentsthcreto, and any other discrete parcel of real property designated as a Lot byDeclarant and subjected to the provisions of this Declaration. excluding ExemptPropcrty, Common Elements, and any property dcdicatcd lbr public use.18. "Manager" - a pcrson rcmined by the Board to assist in the management of thc4
Association.19. "Member" - any Person who is an Owner of a Lot in Oak Park is a "Membef' of theAssociation during the period of time that Person is an Owner. as hercinafter defined,cxccpting in all cases. Owners of Exempt Prope(y or Common Elements withrespect to those Lots.20. "New Village Lot" - any of Lots One-Hundred-twenty-nine ( 129) through One-Hundred-forty ( 140), both inclusive, as numberrd, identified, and designated on therecorded Oak Park Plat or re-subdivisions or amendments thereto.21. "New Village Lot Assessments "- operating assessments that the Board may levyupon only the New Village Lots (Lots 129 to 140) for costs associated with repair.maintenance and replacement of pavement ar€as within the Private Drives inReserves I and J or for landscaping maintenance.22 "Oak Park" - all of the rtal property identified in Paragraph A of the BackgroundSection of this Declaration and for purposes of this Declaration includes all propertyshown on the recorded subdivision plat for Oak Park or any amendments or re-subdivisions thercto.23. "Oak Park Plat" - the recorded subdivision plat for Oak Park of record in Plat Book5, Page 260 A-D. as amended in Plat Book 5. pages 266-266A, as amended in PlatBook 6 pages 47 A-B and as amended in Plat Book_ pages _-all being of therecords of the Union County Recorder and any futurc amendmcnts thereto.24. "Occupanl" - an individual lawfully residing in a dwelling on a Lot. regardless ofwhether that individual is an Owner.25. "Operating Assessments" - asscssments that the Board may levy upon all Lots andtheir Owners, other than Exempt Property, and their Owncm, pursuant to the terms ofthis Declaration. to provide funds to pay Common Expenses as well as operatingexpcnses for pavement repairs or landscaping identified for discrctc subarcas such asVilla Homes or New Village Homes.26. "Owner" - lrcord Owner, whethcr one or more Persons, of fee simple title to a Lotexcluding vendors under recorded land installment contracts. but including thevendees, and excluding all others having an intcrest in a Lot merely as security forperformancc of an obligation.27. "Park Lot" - any of Lots One ( l) through 'fhirty-three (33), inclusive. as numbered.5
identified and designatcd on the recorded Oak Park Plat.28. "Pavement Assessment" - an operating assessment that the Board may levy onlyupon the Villa Lots (Lots 109 to 128) and the Ncw Village Lots (Lots 129 to 140),pursuant to the terms of this Dcclaration, for costs associated with the normallyanticipated repair, maintenance and/or replacement of pavcment within the PrivateDrives, but not to include pavement repairs necessitated by repair of stormwaterutilities within Subareas I and J, and to establish a ncserve fund for the same.29. "Pavement Assessments Fund" A fund which thc Association establishes wherePavement Assessments from thc Villa (Lots 109 to 128) and New Village Lots (Lots129 to 140) are segregated to be used only for rcpair and maintcnance of thepavemcnt in Rcserves I and J. The fund is specifically titled as the I & J PavemcntFund.30. "Person" - a natural individual, corporation, limited liability company. partnership.trustee. or other legal entity capable of holding title to real property.31. "Private Drives" The non-publicly maintained pavement areas within Reserves I andJ which rcmain aller transfer or dedication of pavement arcas within Oak Park to theCity of Dublin. "Private Drives" is the current nomenclature for these non-publiclymaintaincd pavcment arcas but terms formerly used in Oak Park documents, tcxts orplats are, for example and nonexclusively "privatc roads", "private ways", "privatealleys" and "private lanes", all of which terms denote lhe same type of privatclyowned pavement areas used for intemalaccess within Oak Park.32. "Rules" - the rules and rcgulations established by the Board from time to time.33. "Syxcial Assessment" - an asscssment that the Board may levy upon all Lots andtheir Owners, except Exempt Property and their owners, to pay for unanticipatedoperaling deficiencies (other than thosc to be subsidized by Declarant). or to pay forcapital cxpcnditures not regularly budgeted and not to be paid out of reserves. such ascosts for major capital improvement rcplacemcnts and lbr major new capitalimprovements.34. "Sub-Association"- an administrative entity created for Villa [,ots or New VillageLots that administers amenities or obligations related to Villa Lots or New Villagel.ots or both. Such a sub-association may be either a sepBrate entity from theAssociation or a division within the Association. Any sub-association may becreated only upon wriften agrecment bctween the Association and the sub.association as to authority and responsibility of each cnrity.35, "Tumover Date" - the date on which Declarant relinquishes its exclusive right toappoint all members of the Board, which date shall bc no later than the time when all5
Lots in Oak Park have been sold and convcyed to Bona Fide purchasers; providedDeclarant reserves the right, in its sole and unfettered discretion, to turn ovcr controlof the Association, or various functions thereof, at such earlicr time as it determines inits sole and unfettered discretion.36. "Villa Lot" - any of Lots One-Hundred-nine ( 109) to One-Hundred+wenty-cight( 128). both inclusive, as numbered. identified and designatcd on the recorded OakPark Plat or any re-subdivisions or amendments thereto.37. "Villa Lot Assessments "- operating assessments that the Board may levy upon onlythe Villa Lots (Lots 109 to 128) for costs associated with repair. maintenance andreplacement of pavemenl areas within the Private Drives in Reserves I and J or forlandscaping maintenance.38. "Villa Lot Landscape Fund" A fund which the Association establishes whereLandscape Assessments from the Villa Lots are segregated to bc uscd only for repairand maintenance ol'the landscape elements in the Villa Lots ([.ots 109 to 128).39. "Villagc Lot" - any of Lots Thirty-four (34) through Seventy-rwo (72), bothinclusive, as numbered, identified, and designated on the recorded Oak Park PlatARTICLE II - PROPERTY SIJTO THIS DECLARATIONThe property subject to the provisions of this Declaration shall consist of Oak Park, as itis now or hereafter constituted, as described in Paragraph A of the Background Scction ol'thisDeclaration.ARTICLE III - GOALSThe covenants. easemcnts, conditions and restrictions coniaincd in this Declaration aredeclarcd to bc in l'urtherance of the following purposes:A. Promotion of the health, safety, and welfare of all Owners and Occupants of propcrtyin Oak Park;B. Ownership. preservation, beautilication and maintenance of Oak Park's CommonElcments and all improvements thercon;C. Enficrcement of architecturalcontmls and restrictions applicable to property subject tothis Dcclaration:D. Compliancc with all zoning and similar govemmental regulations applicable toproperty subject to this Declaration; and7
E. Provision for mandatory membership of Lot Owners in Oak Park, other than owncrsof Excmpt Property, as it may be constitutcd, fnom time to time. in the Association,and the assessment for and collection of funds t'o fulfill its objectives.ARTICLE IV _ THE ASSOCIATIONA. Purnoses. The purposes of the Association ar€ to:llave easements with respect to, or own, and repair. maintain and rcgulate useof. various facilities and amenities in oak Park that bencfit allor portions ofOak Park and Owncrs and Occupants. eventually including. without limiting thcgcnerality of the foregoing, Reserves, G, I, J, l-,M. N, and O as shown on therecorded Oak Park Plat, and the lmprovements located and lo be locatedthcreon, including. but not limitcd to, a clubhouse. storm water drainagesystems, open space, Private Drives adjaccnt to the Villa and New Village Lots,but available for use by all users within oak Park as provided by the oak Pa*Plat, and such other improvements and amenities as serve oak Park, as definedin this Declaration, and as hereafter initially determincd by Declarant, and afterthe'l'urnover Date, by the Association's' Board;2. Administer and enforce the provisions of the Association GoverningDocuments; and3. Assess, collect and disburse funds necessary to fulfill these purposes.B. Membershio. The Association is an association of all l.ot Owners in Oak Park,except owners of Exempt Property, if any. lts only initial Membcr is the Declarant.All Lots shall be held, sold and conveyed subject to the rcquirement that theOwners thereof are Members during the time they are Owners. regardless ofwhether or not such requirement is set forth on a subdivision plat, or instrument oftransfer or conveyancei or by transfer is by operation of law, or amendmcnt hereto,or otherwise. Membership is and shall be appurtenant to and inseparable fromstatus as an Owner, and automatically arises at the time the fee simple intercst in aLot subject to the provisions of the Declaration is transferrrd of record, or by law,or in the casc of a recorded land installment contract, at the time the same isrtcordcd. Voting rights of Members arc set forth in the Codc of Regulations.C. Powers: Authoritv: Duties. The Association shall have all thc rights, powens andduties established, invested or imposed on it pursuant to the provisions of theAssociation Governing Documents, and the laws of the State of Ohio applicablewith respect to Ohio non-profit corporations. Among other things. lhe Association.through its Board, shall have the power to own and/or hold easements which respectto, and maintain the Common Elements. enforce and administer the restrictions andcovenanls applicable to all or any part of Oak Park. levy and collect Asscssmcnts,collcct and maintain reserves for rcplacements and anticipatcd cxpcnditures, enter8
into contracts, borncw money, pledge ass€ts and reccivablcs, and take such otheractions as its Board deems appropriatc to its purposes.D. Rules. The Assosiation through its Board may make and enlbrce Rules governingthe use of the Common Elements, the levying and collection of Assessments for theoperation of the Association, the levying and collection of administrativc chargcslbr the infraction of Rules, and lor other purposcs consistent with its goals. Allsuch Rules shall be consistent with the provisions of the Association GovcmingDocuments. The Association shall have thc power to impose sanctions on LotOwners. including without limitation: ( l) reasonable monetary administrativecharges which shall be considered individual Lot Assessments; (2) suspension ofthe right to vote as a Membcr of the Associatiou and. (3) suspension of thc rightother than access of the Owner and that Owncr's Occupants, licenses and invitees.to use the common Elements which that Owner is permitted to usc for a pcriod notexceeding sixty (60) days, for an infraction of Rules. In addition, the Board shallhave the power to seek relief in any court for violations of or to abatc violations ofRules or to file a lien in accordance with Article Vl of this Declaration. lf theBoard expends l'unds for attomeys' fees or litigation cxpenses in connection withenlbrcing any provision of the Rules, or otherwise, the amount so expended shall bedue and payable by the Owner or Owners of the [,ot whose Owncr, Occupant,licenscc or invitee violated that Rule. and the samc shall be an lndividual LotAssessment against such Owncr's or Owners' Lot and such Owner or Owncrs.E. Imolicd Riqhts, The Association may exercise any other right or privilege givcn toit expressly by the laws of the State of Ohio or any provision of the AssociarionGoveming Documents, and every other right or privilege reasonably implied fromthe existence of any right or privilege granted thereby. or reasonably nccessary toelfect any such right or privilege.F. Manaqins Aeent. Thc Board may retain and employ on behalf of the Associationa Manager, which may be Declarant. and may delcgate to the Manager such dutiesas the Board might otherwise bc authorized or obligated to perform. l'he term ofany managcment agreement shall not exceed one ycar and shall allow fortermination by either p8rty, without cause, and without penalty, upon no more thanninety (90) days prior written notice.C. Insurance.l. Fire snd Extended Coveraee. The Association shall. with respect to insurablcproperty or interests owned by it, obtain and maintain insurance for all insurablebuildings, structures, fixtures and cquipmcnt and sommon personal property.now or at any time hercaller constituting a part ol'the Common Elcments,against loss or damage by fire. lightning, and such other perils as ar€ ordinarilyinsured against by standard coverage endorsements. with such limits andcoverage as deemed appropriate by the Board. This insurance:9
(a) Shall provide that no asscssment may bc made against an institutionalmortgage lender, or its insurer or guarantor. and that any assessmentunder such policy made against othcrs may not becomc a lien on anyLot, and its appurtenant interest, superior to the lien of such mortgage(b) Shall be obtained from an insurance company authorized to write suchinsurance in the State of Ohio which has a current rating of ClassB/VI, or better, or, if such company has a financial rating of Class V,then such company must have a general policy holder's rating of atleast A, all as determined by the then latest edition of Best's lnsuranceReports, or its successor guide, or, if the insurer docs not satisly theserating requirements, that insurer is reinsured by a company that has aBA/l or better rating.(c) Shall be written in the name of the Association: and(d) Unless otherwise determined by the Board, shall contain a waiver ol'subrogation of rights by lhe carrier as to the Association. its officers.Directors. and Members.2. Liabilitv Coverrse. The Association shallobtain and maintain acomprehensive policy of general liability insurance covering all ol'the CommonElements. the Association, thc Directors, and its Members, with such limits asthe Boarid of Directors may determine, but no less than the gncatcr of (a) thcamounts generally required by private institutional mortgage investors forprcjects similar in construction, location and use, and (b) $1,000,000, for bodilyinjury, including deaths of peruons, and property damage, arising out of a singlcoccurrence. This insurance shallcontain a "scverability of interesf'cndorsement which shall preclude the insurer from denying the claim of anyMember because of negligent acts of the Association, the Board, or anyDirector. ofTicers or other Members, and shall include. without limitation,coverage for legal liability of the insureds for property damage, bodily injuriesand deaths of persons in connection with thc opcration, maintenance or use ofthe Common Elements, and other legal liability. including liability undercontractual indemnify clauses and liability arising out of lawsuits related to anyemployment contracts of the Association. Each such policy must provide that itmay not be canceled or substantially modified by any party, without at least tendays prior written notice to the Association.3. Other. '[he Association shall obtain and maintain officers' and Directors'liability insurance. The Association may, in the board's discretion, obtain andmaintain the following insurance: (a) fidelity bond coverage and workers'compensation insurance for all officers. Dircctors, and cmployces of theAssociation and all other persons handling or responsible for handling funds ofthe Association. (b) additional insurancc against such othcr hazards and10
casualties as is required by law, and (c) any othcr insurance the Board deemsnecessary.4. Use of Proceeds. ln the event of damage or destruction of any portion of theCommon Elements. the Association shall promptly repair or replace the same.to the extent that insurance pmceeds are available. Each Member hcrebyappointed the Association as its attomey-in-fact for such purpose. lf suchprocecds and reserves are insufficient to cover the cost of the repair orreplacement. then the Board may levy a Special Assessment pursuant to thcprovisions of this Declaration to cover the additional costs.l-1. Condemnalion. The Association. through its Board, shall rtpresent the Membersin any condemnation proceedings or in negotiations, settlements and agreementswith thc condemning authority for acquisition of the Common Elements owned bythe Association, or any portion thercol'. Each Member hereby irrevocably appointsthe Association as that Member's attomey-in-fact for such purpose. The awards orproceeds of any condemnation action shall be payable to the Association, to be heldand uscd for the benefit of the Members, as determined by the Board.l. Books: Records. Upon reasonable request of any Membcr, the Association shallbe required to make reasonably availablc for inspection and copy. all books. recordsand financial statcments of the Association, except for those itcms deemedprivileged. protected, or confidential in accordance with applicable law, rules orregulations, including, but not limited to: ( I ) information that pertains to personnelmatters; (2) communications with legal counsel or anorney work product pertainingto proposed or pending litigation; (3) information that pertains to contracts ortransactions currently under negotiation. or information that is contained in acontract or other agr€ement containing confidentiality requirements and that issubjcct to those requirements; (4) information that relatcs to the enlorcement of theAssociation Coveming Documcnts against Owners; and (5) information thedisclosure of which is prohibited by state or federal law. l'he Association maycharge a reasonable fee to cover the administrative costs of handling, copying,del ivering. etc. requested documents.ARTICLE V - THE COMMON ELEMENTSA. Prooertv To Be Subiect. The Common Elements shall consist of the following:a. those areas designatcd and identified as Reserves C. l. J, L. M. N and O,rcspcctively, on the recorded Oak Park Plat or any re-subdivisions or amendmentsthereto. provided however, that any portions of Reserves I and J conveyed to thcCity of Dublin lose the status of "Common Elemcnts"b. those parcels of real estate thal ar€ created by suMivision or othcr plat andspccificd thereon to be conveyed to the Associalion. or portions thereof:11
c. areas in Oak Park owned by City of Dublin but maintained by the Associationincluding but not limitcd to the area designated and idcntificd as Reserve K on therccorded Oak Park Plat;d. all property, real and personal, that Declarant determines to be a CommonElcmcnt. and so designates. and that benelits Oak Park and its Owners; and,c. such property, real and personal, and/or property rights that the Board deemsdesirable and acquires to fulfill the goals of the Association.B. Vestins of Interests. Easement rights to the Association sct forth in suMivision or otherplats shall become Common Elements and to be vested in the Association upon the earlier ofthe recording of those documcnts or the recording of this Dcclaration. Fee simple title to thereal property to be owned by the Association as Common Elements. including but not limitedto Reserves C, l. J, L, M, N and O. as described and lcttercd on the Oak Park Plat or any re-subdivisions or amendments thereto, shall be conveyed by Declarant to thc Association bylimited warranty deed, free and clear of all encumbranccs cxcept real estate taxes andassessments. if any. not presently duc and payable, zoning and building laws. ordinances andregulations, legal highways and restrictions, conditions and eascmenm of recond. includingthosc contained in this Declaration. Thc Association may also acquire, hold. manage,operate. maintain, improve, mongage and dispose of tangible and intangible perrcnalpropcrty and real property in addition to that property conveyed to it by Declarant inaccordance with the provisions of the Declaration. 'lhe Association shallaccept "as is" theconveyancc of such property without any rcpresentation or warranty, expr€ss or implicd. infact or by law, with respecl thereto, including. without limitation, reprcsentations orwarrantics of merchantnbility or fitness for the ordinary or any particular purpose, andwithout any r€presentations or warranties regarding future repairs or regarding thc condition,construction, accuracy, completeness, design. adequacy of thc size or capacity in relation tothe utilization, or the future economic performance or operations of. or the materials orl'urnishingswhichhasbecnorwillbeusedinsuchpropertyorrcpairs. Byacceptanceoftitleto any Common Elcment, the Association. and all Owners, release Declarant from any claimsand warranl that no claim shall be made by the Association or any Mcmbcr or Owner relatingto the condition, construction, design, capacity, opcration, use, accuracy, adequacy orcompleteness of such propcrty or repairs or for incidental or conscqucntial damages arisingtherefrom.C. Disoosition or Morteagins of Common Elements. No Common Element shall be disposedof cxcept as otherwise provided or permitted in the Association Coveming Documents,provided that, in any evcnt, no Common Element may bc morlgagcd or conveyed without theconscnt of Members exercising not less than a majority of the voting power of all Membcrs.D. Architectural Review. Subject to the other provisions of thc Association GoverningDocumcnts. improvemenls on the Common Elcments shall be subject to the samearchitectural review process and approval requircments as all other propcrty in Oak Park, asprovided in Articlc X of the Declaration.L2
ARTICLE VI _ ASSESSMENTSA. Tvoes of A$essments. Subject to the provisions of this Article, each LoL and its Owner orOwners. excluding Exempt Property, and ie owncrs, shall be sub.iect to the followingAssessments. and the Owner or Owners of each Lot by acceptance of a deed to the Lot(whether or not it shall be so expressed in such deed) covenant and agree to pay:Operating Assessments:Special Assessments;Individual Lot Asscssments, all of which ar€ to be assessed as hereinafter provided.The Owner or Owners of each Lot of a deed to the Lot (whether or not it shall beso expressed in such deed) covenant and agree to pay the foregoing Assessments as provided bythis Declaration. No Owncr may gain exemption from liability for any Assessment assessedagainst such Owner and that Owner's Lot by waiving or forcgoing thc use or enjoyment of anyof the Common Elcments, or by abandoning that Owner's Lot.ln addition, each Villa Lot (Lots 109 to 128) and New Village Lot (l,ots 128 to 140). andits Owncr or Owners. excluding Exempt Property, and is Owners, shall covcnant and agrce topay and be subject to certain Operating Assessments applying only to Villa and New VillageLots, each ol'which shall be assessed as provided in this Declaration, in order to provide formaintenance of the portions of the Privatc Drives in Reserves I and J that remain after dedicationof parts thcrcol'to the City of Dublin and to provide for Landscaping Services, if so providcd forin this Declaration,B. Ooerutins Assessmenb. For the purposes of providing l'unds to pay:(i) the cost of the maintenance, repair and replaccment of thosc Common Elementsto be maintained, repairtd and replaced forthe benefit of all Owners, including.but not limited to, the following: entrywsy features for Oak Park; Reserves G, l,J, 1.. M. N and O as shown on the Oak Park Plat and the improvements thereon,including, but not limited to. the clubhouse. fountain, and storm water drainagcfacilities located on Reserve M; and, such other items that arc required by theDcclaration to be maintained on behalf of all Owners. and for the cost of thelandscaping. mowing, planting, lighting, maintenance and show and ice removaland mitigation of Reserve K, which is owned by the City of Dublin but rcquircdby the Oak Park Plat to be maintained by thc Association. Maintenance of thercmaining pavement areas in the portions of Reserves I and J aftcr dedication ofportaons to lhe City of Dublin shall be the ultimate responsibility of thel3
Association as the Owner of these Reselves, but the mainlenance cost shall bcreimbursed to the Association by Opcrating Assessments on the Villa and NewVillage Lots as hereafter provided.;(ii) the costs for insurancc and bond premiums to be provided and paid for by theAssociation in connection with Reserves C, l, J, L. M, N and O, respectivcly. asshown on the Oak Park Plat and the re-subdivisions and amendments thereto. andthe lmprovements thereon.(iii) the cost for utility services, if any, charged to or otherwise properly payable bythe Association in connection with Reserves G, I, J, L, M, N and O. respectively,as shown on the Oak Park Plat, and the re-subdivisions and amendments thereto,the entry features for Oak Park, and any othcr arcas to bc owned or operated bythe Association on behalf of all Owners, except to the extent otherwise requiredby this Declaration;(iv) thc cstimated amount required to be collected to maintain a general operatingrcserve to assure availability of funds for normal operations ol'the Association,the costs for which arc rcquired by this Declaration to be shared by all Lots, in anamount deemed adequate by the Board;(v) an amount deemed adequate by the Board to maintain a rcserve for the cost ofunexpected repairs and replacements of capital lmprovements of the Associationthat are to be shared by all Owners and for the repair and replaccment of majorlmprovemcnts of the Association, including underground utilities on Reserves Iand J. that are to be shared by all Owners, or in addition by Pavcment orLandscape Assessments on Villa and./or New Village Lots as provided herearter,for which cash rescrves over a period of time in excess of one year ought to bemaintained; and(vi) the costs for the operation, management and administration of the Association,including, but not limited to, the following: fees for property management;landscaping, mowing, planting, lighting. maintenance and snow and ice removaland mitigation. if required by the Declaration ordesired by the Board inconnection with (i) Reserves G, l, J. L, M. N and O as shown on the Oak ParkPlat and re-subdivisions and amendments thercto, and the lmprovements thereon.and/or (ii) the entrance featurts; fecs for legaland accounting services: costs ofmailing, postage, supplies and materials for operating the Association; real estatelaxes for Reserves C. I, J, L. M, N and O, respectively; the salaries, wages.payroll charges and other costs to perform these services; and any other costs ol'operations of the Association intcndcd to benelit all Owners and not otherwisespccifically excluded by this Declaration.all of which shall constitute Common Expenses. the Board shall cstablish, levy, and collectOperating Assessments in accordance with thc fbllowing:74
l. Estrblishment. Prior to thc time any l-ot. and its Owner or Owners. is to bc charged anOperating Asscssments by the Association, the Board shalldetcrmine the rotal of thosecstimated funds needed for the balance of that calendar year, and on or belbrc the firstday of each calcndar year thereafter thc Board shall determinc thc total of those estimatcdl'unds needed for the cnsuing calendar year.2. Aooortionmenl. For such part year, and for each calendar year thcreafter, the Boardshall apportion an equal pro rata share of such estimated Common Expenses to each Lotreasonably anticipated to be subject to lhe same, and assess each Lot and its owner orOwncrs an equal pro-rata sharc.3. Assessment. Each Lot and its Owner or Owners shall, commencing the lirst day of thefirst month following the conveyance of that Lot to a Bona Fide Purchaser, be asscssedOperating Assessments for that calendar year! or part year. provided that the apportionedamounl per Lot determined as provided in ltem 2 above, for the remainder of thatcalendar year. shall be prorated in the proportion that the number of full calcndar monthsremaining in that calendar year from the time the Lot was so conveyed is to twelve.4. lnitial Reserve. ln order to assure the availability of funds for the normal opcration ofthe Association, at closing, an amount determined by the lJoard, but in no event less thantwo months; of the currently estimaled Operating Asscssments applicable to a Lot will becollected from the purchaser of a Lot at closing. This amount is in addition to, and not inadvance payment of,, the monthly Operating Assessmcnt, and further, this amount is notrefundable to an Owner upon the resale of such Lot.5. Due Dates. The Operating Assessments shall be due in monthly, quarterly, semi-annual.or annual installments, the dates those installmcnts ar€ due. shall bc given to the Ownerscharged to pay the same not less than ten (10) days prior to lhe date rhe OperatingAssessment. or first installment thereof. is due.C. Psvement Renair Ooeratins Assgsments for New Villnpe and Villa Lots (Lots 109 to140). For thc purposes of providing funds to pay the cost of the maintenance of thercmaining portions of thc Private Drives located in Reserves I and J. after dedication of thebalance lhcrcof to the City of Dublin, thc Board shall establish and collect PavemenrAssessments against each New Village and Villa Lot (Lots 109 to 140) and thcir Owners. foran equal pro rata share of such costs, but not to include any pavement or roadway repairsnccessitated by repair to stormwater utilities within Reserves I and J. in accordance with thelollowing:l. lnitial Period. Commencing the first full month after a New Villagc or Villa unithas becn constructed on a New Village or Villa l.ot and a New Village or Villa unithas been conveyed to a bona fide home purchaser, such New Village or Villa Lot inOak Park and its Owner or Owneru shall bc subject to and pay lo the Association aPavcment Assessment for the rcmainder of the calcndar year determined by thcBoard as aforesaid. This amounl may have becn prepaid by the Declarant and if so,15
o credit back to the Declarant will bc collectcd at thc closing on the New Village orVilla Lot: this crcdit does not apply to the $25.000 payment made under C(6)below.2. Initial Reserue. ln order to assure the availability ol'f'unds for the normal operationof thc Association, at closing, an amount determined by the Board, but in no cvcntless than two months of the curently cstimated Pavement Assessment applicable toa New Village or Villa Lot will be collected from the purchascr of a Ncw Village orVilla Lot at closing. 'fhis amount is in addition lo, and not an advance payment of.thc monthly Operating Assessments, and further, this amount is not refundablc to anOwner upon the resale of such New Village or Villa Lot.3. Determination of Pavement Assessment Amount. The Pavement Assessmentwill be determined by a projection which states intervals of work cxpected to bedone and cost of work at each interval. lntervals are industry projections for whenpavement will need to be crack filled and scalcd (eg 5 years) and milled andrtplaccd (cg l5 to 25 years). This initial determination, prepared by Declarant andcurrently approved with modification by the Dublin City Engineer. will be $12.25pcr month. This amount is subject to increase or decrease by the Board to ensurethat funds are being appropriately reservcd for actual or projected cost ofmaintcnance, re pair and replacement of the Private Drives as herein described. Solong as Declarant controls the lloard the Pavcmcnt nsscssmenl may be ad.iustedupward at any time at its discrction. The Pavement Assessment will be consideredpart of the Operating Assessments in this Declaration as prcviously set out lbr Lots109 to 140. lf at any time thc amounts so collected are insufficient to meet allobligations for which those funds are to be used. the necessary cxpcnditurc shall bcmade by the Association and the deficiency shall be assessed by the Board amongthe Ncw Villagc and Villa Lots and their Owners on an equitable prospective "catchup" basis along with the monthly assessment revised as hcrcin providcd.4. Subsequent Cslendsr Year. Prior to January I (or a reasonablc timc thcrcaftcr ol'each calendar year. the Board shall establish a budget for anticipated operatingexpenses for the next following Pavement Assessment period commcncing JanuaryI and ending the following December 31, and apportion the amount so determinedin equal shares amount for New Village or Villa Lots in Oak Park that havc becnconveyed to a Bona Fide Purchaser, and assess each such New Village or Villa Lotand its Owner or Owners for the apportioned amount.5. Due Dateis. The Pavement Assessment shall bc payable in advance and initially bedue monthly. provided however, that such Pavement Assessment may be due inquarterly. semi-annual or annual installments, if the Board may liom time to timedetermine.6. Use nnd Accountins. The Pavemenl Assessmenls shall be used by the Associationsolely for the pavement mainlcnancc. rcpair and replacement o[the Private Drivesin Rcscrves I and J. The board shall maintnin the Pavement Assessment in an16
account or accounts separate and apart from all other Assessments, lo be designatedas the l&J Pavcment Fund. to be so credited to said fund no less than quartcrly andshall not comingle the Pavement Assessment with any other Assessments. The I &J Pavemcnt Fund will be initially funded by a contribution by Declarant ol'thc sumof $25,000.00: this sum shall not be reimbursablc to Dcclarant7. Oblieation for Pavement Reorirs Not Direct. The obligation to projcct thc costslbr, plan. contracl for and pay for the repair and maintcnancc of'the Private Drivesin Reserves l&J rtsts directly with the Association as the owner of said reserves.Thc obligation of Lots 109 to 140 is to pay the Pavement Asscssmcnt as above setout. l,ots 109 to 140 have no dirtct contractual obligation or authority relative torepair and maintenance of the Private Drives in Reserves I & J.D. Villa Lots (Lots 109 to l28l Landscaoe Assessments. For the purpose of providing fundsto pay the cost of the maintenance of all yard arcas, mulch bcds, trees and shrubs located on aVilla Lot. the Board may levy a Landscape Services Assessment against each Villa Lot (LotsI 09 to 128) and their Owners, for an equal pro rata share of such costs, in accondance withthe following:Determination of Landscapc Services Assessment Amount for Each CalendarYear For the purpose of providing funds to pay the cost of the maintenance. repairand rcplaccment of the landscaping of Villa Lots. the lloard may csiablish, levyand collect Villa Landscape Services Asscssments against each Villa Lot and itsOwncrs subject to the same, an equal pro rata share of such costs by a revicw ofestimated costs for such landscape services as determincd by bids from providersof such landscape serviccs, by contract amounts if multiyear contracts are in place,or by historic data if deemed by the Board to be a reliable prcdictor ol'the cost ofall or some of the landscapc scrviccs.2. Subsequent Crlendar Year. Prior to January I (or a rcasonable time thereafterof each calendar year). the Board shall establish a budget for anticipated operatingcxpcnses for the next following Landscape Services Asscssmcnt periodcommencing January I and ending the lbllowing Dccember 3 l, using the processin D( I ) abovc, and apportion the amount so determined in equal sharcs amounlamong Villa Lots in Oak Park that have bcen convcycd to a Bona Fide Purchaser.and assess each sush Villa Lot and its Owner or Owners for the apportionedamount.3. Due Dates, The Landscape Services Assessmcnt shall be payable in advance andinitially be due monthly. provided however. that such Landscape Assessmcnt maybe due in quarterly. semi-annual or annual installments, if the Board may fromtimc to timc determine.4. Use snd Accountine. 'l'he Landscapc Scrvices Assessments shall be used solelylor landscape maintcnancc of thc Villa Los. The board shall maintain theLandscape Assessment in an account or accounls separatc and apart from all otherL7
Assessments. to be designated as the Villa Lots Landscapc Fund. to bc so crcditedto said fund no less than quarterly and shall not comingle the l,andscape ServicesAsscssmcnts with any othcr Asscssmcnts. Provided however that contractsentered into by the Board for landscaping services fior the Villa Lots and forlandscapc cxpcnses for Common Areas may be included in one contract, if theBoard finds that it is mutually beneficial to do so due to scale. lIone contract isused, the expense thercof shall be dividcd on a rcasonable basis belween the VillaLots and the Association based on the services rendered to each.5. Oblisation for Landscane Service Not Direct 'fhe obligation to project thecosts lbr. plan, conlract for and pay lbr the landscapc scrviccs lbr the Villa restsdirectly with the Association. 'lhe obligation of Villa l.ots 109 to 128 is to paythc Landscape Assessment as abovc set out. Lots 109 to 128 havc no directcontractual obligation relative to landscape services for said lots unless aseparate sub-association is crcatcd to dircctly scrvicc the obligations andamenities of the Villa Lots. ln the case of creation of such a sub-association anagreement must first be agreed to, made, and thcn cntcrcd into bctwecn theAssociation and the sub-association which delineates the responsibilities of theAssociation and thc sub-association. lf a sub-association is not set up oragreement between the sutsassociation the Association is not reachedrcsponsibility for implementing this Article Vl(D) will be by the Association.6. Oblisation for Landscaoe Servicg Not Established Unless Action is TrkcnNo obligation for a Landscape Services Assessments for Lots 109 to 128 will bcorcsent unless one of the following two steps are taken: l) Prior to convevanceto a thind party of an), Vills Lot the Declarant issues a determination that it isapplyine the Landscape Services Asscssment requircment to Lots 109 to 128and records the determination as an annex to this Declaration. lt is anticipatedthat such a dctermination would be made by Declarant if a developer agrees toourchase all 20 Villa Lots and desires that Landscaoins Scrviccs Assessmentsbe rcquired for those lots 2) After conveyance of one or more Villa Lots to oneor more owners. all such Lot owncrs unanimously rcquest Declarant to applythe Landscane Services Assessmentmenl l('t the 2O Villn l.ols- ln srrchcasc the Declaranl rnal,in its discretion issue a determination that it is applyingthe Landscape Services Assessment uoon rcqucst of allconveved Villa Lotowners and records the determination as an annex to this Declaration.E. Soecirl Assessments. The Board may allocatc Special Asscssments to pay for additionalCommon Expenses such as permitted capital expenditures. interesl expense on indebtednessincurred lbr the purpose o[making capitalexpenditures and not to bc paid out of rcserves,unanticipated operating deficiencies or any other purpose determined appropriate by theBoard in furtherance of is functions under the Association Governing Documcnts. ThoscSpecial Assessments shall be allocated among l.ots on the same basis as OperatingAssessments aru to be allocated, and shall be due and payablc on such basis and at such timesas the board directs. provided that no such Special Assessments shall be due and payablc onl'ewer than thirty (30) days written notice.18
F. Individual Lot Assessments. The board may levy an individual Lot Assessment against anyLot and thc Owners thereof (other than Dxempt Property and its owners) to re imbursc theAssociation for costs incurred on behalf of that Lot, or charged to a Lot as a consequence ofany act or omission by an Owner. Occupant, or invitee thereofl, including without limitation,administrativc and enforcement charges by the Association reasonably determined by theboard to be an lndividual Lot Asscssment. By way of illustration, thc board may levy anlndividual Lot Assessment in the nature of an administrative charge reasonably determincdby the Board against a Lot of any Owner or Owners who violate the Rulcs, or any provisionof the Association Goveming Documents. or who suffer or permit the Occupants. guests.invitees or tenBnts of that Owner's or Owners' Lot to violate the same. Upon itsdetermination to levy an lndividual Lot Assessments, other than for late charges. intcrest, orcollection costs including attomey's fees, the Board shall give the afTectcd Owner or Ownerswritten noticc and the right to be hard by the board or a duly appointed committee thcrcof inconnection with such assessment tcn ( I 0) days prior to the effectivc datc of thc lcvy of anysuch assessmcnt.G. Late Charges. lf any Assessment, any portion of any Assessment or any portion of anyinstallment of any Assessment remains unpaid for ten ( l0) days after all or any part thereofshall become due and payable. the board may charge interest on the entire unpaid balancefrom and after that date at the lesser of the rate of twclvc percent (lTo/oi) p€r annum or thehighest rate permitted by law, together with a reasonable administrative collection charge. asestablished by the Board.H. Lisbility for Unnaid Aseessments. Each Assessment or installment of an Assessment,togethcr with interest thereon and any and all costs of collection, including reasonablcattorney's fees. shall become the joint and several personal obligation of thc Owners of theLot chargcd thc same. beginning on the date the Assessment or installment thereof bccomcsduc and payable. The Board may authorizn the Association to institute and prosecute tocornpletion an action at law on behalf of the Association against the Owner or Owner'spersonally obligated to pay any delinqucnt Assessment and/or an action to forcclosc theAssociation's lien or licns against a Lot or Lots for unpaid Asscssmcnts owed by that l,ot andthe Owncr or Owners thereof. ln any such action. interests and costs of such action.including reasonable attomeys' fces, shall be added to the amounts owed by lhc Owner orOwners and the Lot to the extenr permitted by Ohio law.l. Liens. All unpaid Assessments, together with any interest and chargcs thcreol'or costs ofcollection, including rcasonable attorney fees, shall constitute a continuing charge in favorofthe Association and a lien on the Lot against which the Assessment was levied. If anyAssessmenl rtmains unpaid for ten ( l0) days after it is due. then the Board may authorizcany olTicer or appointed agent of the Association to file a certiticatc of lien fbr all or any partof the unpaid balancc of that Assessment, together with intcrest and collection costs.including attorney's fees, with the Recorder of Union County. Ohio. The ccrtificate shaltcontain a description of the Lot which the lien encumbers, the namc of the Owner or Ownersof that Lot. and the amount of the unpaid portion of the Assessment. The certificate may bc19
signcd by any authorized officer, or agent, or the Managcr of thc Association or it authorizedrepresentative. Upon the liling of thc ccrtificatc, the subject l.ot shall be encumbered by acontinuing lien in favor of the Association. The Assessmcnt licn shall rcmain valid for aperiod of five years t'rom the date such certificate is duly filed, unless the lien is releasedearlicr or satisfied in the same manner provided by the law of thc State of Ohio for therelease and satisfaction of mortgages on real property. or until the lien is discharged by thefinaljudgment or order of any court having jurisdiction through lbrcclosurc proceedings.J. Subordinstion of Lien. The lien of the Assessments provided for in this Declaration shallbe subject and subordinate to the lien of any duly executed first mortgage on the Lot recordcdprior to the date on which such lien of the Association arises, and any holdcr of such firstmortgage which comes into posscssion of a Lot pursuant to the remedies provided in themortgagc, forcclosure of the mortgage. or deed or assignment in lieu of forcclosurc, and anypurchaser at a foreclosure sale, shall take lhe property free of any claims for unpaidAssessments against the mortgaged Lot which become due and payable prior, in thc casc offoreclosure, to the date of thc sale, and, in all other cases, to the date legal title vested in thesucccssor Owner.K. Contested Lien. Any Owner or Owncrs who believe that an Assessment chargeable to thatOwncr or Owner's Lot (for which a certificate of lien has been filed) has bccn improperlycharged against that Lot. may bring an action in thc Court of Common Pleas of UnionCounty, Ohio. for the discharge of that lien and/or a declaratory judgment that suchAssessment was unlawful. l'he filing of such action shall not be grounds lor an offset or towithhold payment. ln any such action, if it is finally determined that allor a portion of thcAssessment has been properly charged to that Lot, the Court shall make such order as is just.which may provide for a discharge of record of all or a portion of that lien and a refund of theAsscssmcnt or portion thereof determined to be unlawful.L. Notice of Discharse. 'l'he board shall, upon demand, for a reasonable charge. furnish acertificatc signed by a designated representative of the Association, sening fbrth whcther theAssessments on a specified Lot have bcen paid. This certificate shall be conclusive evidenceof paymcnt ol'any Asscssment therein stated to have been paid.M. Susoension of Votc and Use of Common f,lements. lf any Asscssmcnt remains unpaid forthirty (30) days after it becomes due, then the delinquent Owner's voting rights uponAssociation mBtlers and privileges to use the Common Elcmcnts, other than those needed foraccess to the owner's lot. and to vote, as a Mcmberof the Association. shall be suspendeduntil such Assessment is paid. in any case. suspension of any such rights shall be subject tothe right of an Owner. Occupant, or their licensees or invitees. to necessary ingress andegrcss to and lrom that Owner's Lot.20
ARTICLE VII - EASEMENTS AND LICENSEESA. Ensemcnts of Eniovment: Limitations. Every Owner shall have an unrestrictcd right ofaccess to and frrom that Owner's Lot, subject to the right of the Board to make rules andrtgulations concerning the use and management of the Lots and Common Elemcnts.providcd that no such rule or regulation shall limit or pmhibit the right of ingress and egressof an Occupant or Owner to his. her, its or their Lot, or any pan thereof. Each Owncr shallbe deemcd to have delegated that Owner's right of enjoyment of ingress and egress to theOccupants of that Owner's LoLB. Associstion Entrv. Renair and Maintenance Easements. 'l'he Association. through theBoard, shall have a right of entry and access to, over. upon and through all of the propertysubject to this Declaration. including all of the Lots, to cnablc thc Association to pcrlbrm itsobligations, rights and duties pursuant to this Declaration with regard to enforcement of thecovenants. restrictions and other provisions of this Dcclaration. and thc maintcnancc, rcpairand replacement of any Common Element.C. Essemcnt to thc Citv of Dublin. l-he City of Dublin shall have a right of entry and accessto. over. upon and through allof the propcrty subject to this Dcclaration, including allof theLots, to enable the City of Dublin to perform its obligations, rights and duties pursuant to theOak Park Plat in rcgards to Rcservcs E, F, and H and the Public Streets that serve Oak Park.D. Essemenls for Encroachments. Each Lot and the Common Elements shall be subject loand benefitted by easements for encroachments on or by any other Lot or Common Elcmcntscreatcd or arising becausc of overhangs, or due to deviations in construction. reconstruction,repair, shifting. settlement, or other movement of any portion of the lmprovemens. Valideasements for these cncroachmcnts and for the maintenance of the same shall and do exist solong as the encroachments remain.E. Easement for Suooort. Every portion ol'a building or utility line or any lmprovement onany portion of Oak Park contributing to the support of another building, utility line orlmprovement on anothcr portion of Oak Park shall be burdencd with an essement of supportlbr the benefit of all other such buildings, utility lines, lmprovements and other portions ofOak Park.F. Easement for Seruices. Non-exclusivc eascments are hereby granted to all police, firemen,ambulancc operators, mailmen, delivery men, garbage and trash removal personnel, and allsimilar persons. and to the local government auihoritics and thc Association, but not to thepublic in general. to enter upon the Lots and the Common Elements in the performance oftheir duties. subjcct to Rules and rrgulations as the Board may establish, l'rom time to time.G. Utility Eascments and Buildins Setbacks. Each platted l,ot and r€serve is encumbered byutility easements and minimum building sctbacks as shown on thc rccorded Oak Park Plat.2L
H. Power of Attornev. Each Owner, by acccptance ol'a decd to a lot, appoints the Associationor its dcsignatcd rr:presentative, as his, her. its or their attorney-in-fact. to execute, deliver.acknowledge and record. for an in the name of such Owner. such deeds of easement.licenses, permits and othcr instrumcnts as may be necessary or desirable, in the solediscretion of the board. or its authorized representative, to further establish or clTcctuatc thcforegoing casemenls and rights. This power is for the benefit of each and every Owner, theAssociation, and the real estate to which it is applicable, runs with the land, is coupled withan interest, and is irrevocable.l. General. Unless specifically limited in this Dcclaration othcrwisc, the easements describedin this Declaration shall run with the land and pass with the title to the benefited properties,shall be appurtenant to the properties benetined thercby, shall bc enforceablc by thc Ownersof the properties benefitted thereby. and shall be perpetual. The easements and grantsprovided in this Dcclaration shall in no way affect any other rccorded grant or easement.Failure to refer specifically to any or all of the easements and/or rights described in thisDeclaration in any deed of conveyance or in any mortgage or other evidencc of obligationshall not defcat or fail lo reserve said rights or easements but the same shall be deemedconveyed or encumber€d. as the case may be, along with thc Lot.ARTICLE VIII _ PROTECTIVE COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONSA. Gcneral. All property in Oak Park, subject to the provisions of this Dcclaration. shall bcsubject to the provisions of the Development Plans and the provisions of the Oak ParkPlal, as the same may be amended or modified from time to timc. Except as otherwiscprovided in the Dcclaration, all Lots cxcept Exempt Property, shall be subject to theprovisions of the following sections of this Article Vlll.B. Lot Uses.l. Residential Uses. Except as otherwise specifically providcd in this Dcclaration, noLot shall be used for any purpose other than that of a residence for individuals livingtogether as a single housekeeping Unit. and uses customarily incidcntal thcreto.providcd. however, that no rcsidence may be used as a rooming house, group house,commercial loster home. fratemity or sorority house, or any similar type of lodging.care or treatment facility. Notwithstanding the foregoing, (a) an Occupantmaintaining a personal or professional library, keeping personal business orprofessional records or accounls. conducting pcrsonal busincss. making profcssionaltclephone calls or corresponding in or from a residence, is engaging in a use expresslydeclarcd customarily incidcntalto rcsidential use and is not in violation of thesertstrictions: and (b) during the construction and initial sales period. Lots andCommon Elemcnts. if any, may be used forconstruction and sales purposes and salesmodcls by builders and developers.2. Transienl Uses. No dwe lling on a Lot shall be rentcd or used for transient or hotelpurposes, which is defined as: (a) rental under which Occupants are providedcuslomary hotel services. such as room service lbr tbod and bcverages. maid scrvice.22
furnishing of laundry and linen, busboy scliccs, and similar services, or (b) rental toroomers or boarders, thal is, rental to one or more persons ol'a portion of a dwellingon a Lot where such persons are not related by blood or marriage to the owner.3. Temooran Structure Use. No incomplete structunc or structure of a temporarycharacter, trailer. lent. shack, garagc, barn or other outbuilding shall be used at anytime as a residence, either temporarily or permanently.4. Hobbies. Hobbies or other activities that tcnd to detract from the aesthetic characterof Oak Park. and improvcments used in connection with such hobbies or activities.shall not be permitted unless carricd out or conducted within a building and notviewable from either the strcet or adjoining properties. '[his restriction refersspecifically but not exclusively to such activities as automobile. bicycle. moped,motorboat and golf cart repair.5. Olfensive Activities. No activity noxious or oflbnsive in the reasonable judgment oflhe Board shall be carried on or permitted upon any part of Oak Park, nor shallanything be done thereon which may be or may bccome an annoyance or nuisance tothe neighborhood. Without limiting the generality of the forcgoing:(a) Waste. Except for the reasonably necessary aclivities or builders anddevelopers during the active development of Oak Park, no rubbish or debris ofany kind shall be placed or permitted to accumulate upon any property that issubject to the provisions of this Declaration:(b) Odors. No odors shall be permincd to arise or to be emitted from a Lot so asto render any portion of Oak Park unsanitary. unsightly, oflbnsivc, ordetrimental to any of the remainder of Oak Park or to any Occupants ofportions thereof.(c) Liqhtinp. No exterior lights, the principal bcam of which shines uponportions of Oak Park othcr than the Lot upon which they are located, orothenvisc cause unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of anyLot by the Occupants thereof, shall bc pcrmitted on any Lot, or any propertyin Oak Park, pmvidcd that lighting of model homes and lighting of Oak ParkCommon Elements shall not be prohibitcd nor constitute an unreasonableinterference with the use or enjoyment of any Lot;(d) Sound. No speakers, homs, whistles, bells or other sound devises. shall bclocated. used or placed on any Lot except security dcvices used cxclusivelyfor security purposes which are activatcd only in emeqgency situations, or fortesting thereof. Music, either live or by recording devise. that is so loud as todisturb onc's neighbors, is prohibited: and.(e) Fireworks. No fireworks of any kind shall bc permitted.23
6. Seruice Screenins. Storase Areas. Garbage and refuse shall be placed in containers.which shall be concealed and contained within buildings until thc timc scheduled forpick up and disposal. Except during thc active period of construction. no materials,supplies orequipment shall be stored in Oak Park exccpt insidc closed buildings.7. Machinerr snd Eouioment. No commercial machincry or equipment of any kindshall be placed. operated or maintaincd in Oak Park except such machinery orequipment reasonably necessary for use in connection with maintcnance, orconstruction of improvements approved by the Declarant or the Architectural ReviewCommittce.8. Vehicles. The board may promulgate Rules and rcgulations rcstricting or prohibitingthe parking of automobiles, vans, buses, inoperable vehicles, trucks. trailers. boatsand recreational vehicles on property a part of Oak Park outside of a building.including but not limited to on the Lots and the Common Elements. or parts thcrcofland may enforce such Rules by levying individual Lot Assessments. having suchvchicles towed away. or taking such other lawful actions as the Board, in its solcdiscretion, deems appropriate.9. Animals. Exccpt as hereinafter provided. no animals. livestock. Birds, poultry orother fowl, snakes, reptiles, or species of insects shall bc raised, bred. kept, ormaintained on or in any Lot, or any portion thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing,household domestic pets, not bred or maintained for commercial purposes. may bemaintained in a dwclling on a Lot provided that (a) no more than two of any type ofanimal, other than smallaquarium adaptable fish, may be maintained in any dwellingon a Lot (except when less than three months ol'agc); (b) the maintaining of animalsshall be subjcct to such Rules as the Board may from time to time promulgate,including, without limitation, the placing of limitations on the size and type of suchpets, and establishment of leash regulations, and the right to levy enforccment chargesagainst persons who do not conform with regulations or clean up after their pets: and(c) the right to maintain any particular animal or any particular breed or species ofanimal shall be subject to termination if thc Board. in its full and complete discretion,determines that maintenance of such animal, breed or species constitutes or couldsonstitute a nuisance or creates or could create a detrimental efl'cct on othcr Owncrsor Occupants. or Oak Park.10. Onen Fires. Open fires. buming, trash buming, or the like, are prohibited in OakPark, excepting only domestic use of indoor fireplaces and wood buming stovcs,commercially made barbccue grills, and natural gas lights. Open fires are alsopermittcd in approved fire pits constructed for such purposes.24
C. Buildinq. Imorovement. snd Other Limitations.Plan Aonrovrl. Excepting only the Declarant, no Owner or Person shall construct ormake any improvement to a Lot without first complying with thc plan approval andarchitcctural review requirements of this Declaration.2. Solit Lots. No Lot shall be split, divided or subdivided lor sale, resale, gift, transfer orotherwise. unless approved by the Board and all governmental authoritics havingjurisdiction, if rcquirrd by law. Provided however, that no approval by the Associationshall be required for a split of Lots 133, 134. 135 and 136 which crcates internal parkarcas for the bcnefit of Villa and Ncw Village Lots, il, the landscaping maintenance onthe park areas is paid for by Landscape Assessments on Villa and Ncw Villagc Lots andthc split is approved by the City of Dublin.3. Mailboxes: Post Lishb. All mailboxes and post lighs shallconlbrm in location,materials. design and finish, specified from time to time by the Architectural ReviewCommittee. Provided however, structures for centralized mail delivery required by theUnited States Postal Service (USPS) shall comply with USPS regulations.4. Outbuildines. Temoorara Imorovements. Except as approved by the ArchitecturalReview Committee, no outbuildings, storage sheds or temporary buildings or structuresshall be pcrmined on a Lot; provided, however, trailers, temporary buildings, barricadesand the like shall be permitted for construction purposes during the construction periodof a permanent building and for sales purposes during the sale o[a Lot. Any temporarystructuns shall be removed not later than fourteen ( l4) days after the date of cornpletionof construction of the building(s) for which the temporary structure was intcndcd.Tcmporary structures shall be permitted for no longer than a period of one year unlessvariance is granted by the Architectural Review Committec. Notwithstanding thclbrcgoing, one or more Lots may be used for model and sales purposes until all Lotshave had dwellings constructed on them and have bcen sold to Bona Fidc purchascrs.5. Antennas. No antenna or dish for transmission or reception of tclcvision signals, radiosignals. or any othcr lbrm of electromagnetic radiation shall be crected, used ormaintained on any Lot outside any building. whether attached to an improvement orotherwise, including. but not limited to satellite dishes, unless approved by theArchitectural Rcview Committec, or unlcss required to be pcrmitted by law, but subjectto such lawful rules and regulations as the Board may from time to time adopt. and thefurther limitation that satellite dishcs may not exceed one meler in diameter and must beerected or installed to minimize visibility from the street on which the Lot fronts.6.Utilitv Snace. No lines. wires or other deviccs providing utility scrvices, includingtelephone, television, data, and radio signals, or for transmission of electric currenl orenergy. shall be constructed. placed or maintained anywhere in Oak Park unless thesamc shall bc by cables constructed, place and maintained undergruund or concealed in,under or on buildings, or other approved lmprovements. Above ground electricaltransformers. pedcstals and other equipmcnt must be propcrly scrccned and such25
screening approved by the Architectural Review Committee. Nothing in thisDcclaration shall bc dcemcd to forbid thc ercction and usc of tcmporary powcr ortelephone services incident to the construction of apprcved lmprovements.7. Imnrovement Location. All lmprovements shall be placed so that the existingtopography and landscape shall be disturbed as little as possible. and so that themaximum number of desirable trees and other natural features will be preserved. unlessthe Architectural Review Committee approves in writing some other placement. Alldwcllings must be situated bctween thc front and rear sctback lincs. as shown on a platof property in Oak Park. For purposes of this Declarationr eves and steps shall not beconsidered part of a dwelling, provided this shall not bc construed to permit any portionof a dwelling to encroach on another Lot. a common Element or public property.8. Sieht Distance at Intersc.ctions. No fence. well, hedge or shrub planning whichobstructs sight lines at elevations bctwecn two and six fcet about the roadways shall beplaced or permitted to remain on any corner Lot within the triangular area lormed bythc strect property lines and a line connecting them at points twenty-tive (25) feet fromthe intersection of the street property lines, or in the casr: ol'a rounded property corncr,from the intersection of the street prop€rty lines extended. 'l'he same sight-linelimitations shallapply on any Lot within ten feet from the interscction of a strcctproperty line with the edge of a driveway. No trees shall be permitted to remainwithin such distances of intersections unless the foliagc line is maintained at suflicientheight to prevent obstruction of such sightlines.9. Storaqe Tanks. No storage tanks, including, but not limited to. those used forstorage ol'water, gasoline, oil, other liquid or any gas shall be permitted in Oak Parkoutside a building, except storage tanks having a capacity of thirty (30) pounds or less.lor use to power a gas grill.10. Imorovement Exterioru. All windows, porchcs. balconies, decks, patios and thcexteriors of buildings and other lmprovements shall at all times be maintained in a neat,clean and orderly condition. No clotheslines or other outside drying or airing facilitiesshall be permitted on the exterior of any dwelling, or on any Lot and no clothing or anyother household fabrics shall be hung in the open on any Lot.I l.Ertcrior Mrtcrirls snd Colors. Finish building materials shall be applied to allsides of the exterior of buildings. Colors and materials used shall be the ones approvedin the initial palate forconstruction of cach structure. No color or material may bechanged unless approved by the Architectural Review Committee and by the City ofDublin since such colors and materials are part of the zoning approval for individualhomes in Oak Park. No change to colors or materials may be made that would dcpartfrom the unique architectural consistency of the Oak Park visual presenlation.26
12. Sisns. No signs of any character shall bc crected, posted or displayed in Oak Parkexcept:(a) marketing signs installed during the period of the initialsalc ol'homes andLots by a building marketing available propcrty in Oak Park; (b) street and identificationsigns installed by, or at the direction of, the Association of any govcrnmcntal agency:and (c) one temporary professional real cstate sign on a Lot not to exceed six square f'cctin arca advertising that Lot for sale or lease. All signs, betbrc installation, are to beapproved in writing by Declarant or thc Architectural Review Committee.Notwithstanding any of the foregoing. Declarant shall have the right to place any vacantLot, signage, offering the Lot for salc, or build to suit, including signage that denotebanking or financing is available or for projects that havc becn financed or might befinanced by said bank or financial institution.13. Landscaoinq. Allproperty in Oak Parkshall be landscaped accordingto plansapprovedby the Architectural Review Committee, and by the appropriate governmentalauthorities. An Owner may make changes to the landscaped areas within thc Owner'sLot without the approval of the Architectural Revicw Board so long as such changes (i)do not violate the landscaping plan prcviously approved by the appropriateSovernmcntal authorities for that l-ot and (ii) do not havc an advcrse impact on any Lot.All shrubs. trees, grass and plantings of every kind shall be kept well maintained.propcrly cultivated and free of trash and other unsightly matcrial. Except as required byto be completed by the Association pursuant to this Declaration or otherwise performcdby the City of Dublin. each Owner shall rcmove dcad and diseascd trees and limbs lromthat Owner's Lot.14. Maintenance. Subject to limitations on usc and maintenance, Bs shown and set forth onan applicable plat, no Lot, building or other Improvement shall be permitted to bccomeovergrown. unsightly or to fall into disrepair, and all buildings and improvements shall atall times be kept in good condition and repair and adequately painted or otherwisclinishcd in accordance with specifications establishcd by the Architectural ReviewCommittee.15. Drainase and Gmdins. No drainage ditches, cuts, swales. impoundment. strcams, lloodways, ponds. knobs. dams or hills and no other physical lmprovements or elements of thelandscape or terrain which control or dctermine the location or flow of surface water anddrainagc pattem. may be destroyed, altered or moditied. intcrfcrcd with or blocked by orat the direction or with the consent of any Owncr without the prior consent of the City ofDublin and Declarant or the Architectural Review Committce. All Owners shall obtaincertification from a licensed engineer after completing any grade or drainage alteringimprovcment that the master grading plan has been obscrvcd. When a portion of a Lotrequires grading. such grading shall bc kcpt as close to existing grade as possible whiletypically not cxcccding a slope of four to one (4: I ). 'l'he Association and itnsprcsenlatives shall have the right to enter upon any lot and any portion of Oak Park andremedy or repair any such destruction, alteration, modification or lmprovement withoutbeing guilty ol'lrcspass and without liability to any Owner or Occupant with respect to the27
same or the consequences thereof16. Soil Removal. No soil shall be rcmoved from any Lot for commercial purposes.17. Fences. No fence. wall, or barrier of any kind may be erected on any Lot without thcprior written approval of the Architectural Review Committec; provided that fencinginstalled by or at the direction of the Declarant, or as required by any Development Planapproved by the City of Dublin, shall specifically be pcrmitted.18. Swimminq Pools: Hot Tubs. No swimming pools and/or hot tubs measuring more thanone hundred ( 100) square fect shall be constructed or maintained above the finishedgrade of a Lot.19. Solar Panels. No solar panels, attached or detached, shall be permitted.20. Window Air Conditionins Units. Exccpt as otherwise permitted by the ArchitecturalReview Committee, no window air conditioning unit shall bc permitted in any windowthat faces a Private Drive or a Public Street.21. Storaee. No open storage or any kind shall be permitted. Unless expressly approved inwriting by thc Architectural Review Committee, no accessory building or storage shcd,in addition to the actual dwelling itself. shall be permittcd on any Lot, for any purposewhatsoever.22. Requirement of Comoletion: Notice of Comnletion. Non-comnletion or Non-comoliance. A lol Owner shall cause any improvement to be diligcntly pursued tocompletion within cighteen ( l8) months after the date construction is commended. Uponthe completion of any lmprovement, the Owner may filc a noticc ol'completion andcompliance which shall give rise to a conclusive presumption in favor of the Owner thatthc lmprovement is completed and is in compliance with all provisions of this ArticleVlll unless. within thirty (30) days of thc filing, the Architectural Review Committeegive actual notice of non-compliance or non-completion. Notice of non-compliance ornon-completion will be considered to be delivercd when it is posted on or about theImprovement in qucstion or delivercd by certified mail or in person to the Owner. Allapproved landscape lmprovements and all paving shall be completed, weather permitting.prior to the occupying of each residence.D. Common Element Uses. The Common Elements may be uscd only in accordance with thefollowing provisions of this ltem D:Gcnersl. The Common Elements may be used only in accordance with the purposesintended and for any reasonable purposes incidental to the maintenance of Oak Parkas a high-quality residential community. All uscs of thc Common Elements shallbenefit or pnomotc the health, safety, welfare. convenience, comfort, recreation, and28
enjoyment of the Owners and Occupants, and shall comply with the provisions olthisDeclaration. the other Association Governing Documents. and the laws of thc Statc ol'Ohio, and no use shall be made of thc common Elements, or any part thereof exceptas authorized by the Board, from time to time. in its sole discrrtion.2. Businessss. No industry, business, trade, occupation or profession of any kind maybe conducted. operated or established on thc Common Elements, without the priorwritten approvalof the Board, and then only if the purpose of the business is toprovide a service or product deemed desirablc by thc board to promote or enhance theuse ol'the Common Elements or facilities a part thereof. or Oak Park as a whole,3. Nuisance. No noxious or offensivc activity shall be pcrmined on all or any part ofthe Common Elements.4. Hazardous Actions or Materials. Nothing shall be done or kept in any portion ofthe Common Elements that is unlawfulor hazardous. that might reasonably beexpected to increase the cost of casualty or public liability insurance covering theCommon Elements, or that might or that does unreasonably disturb the quietoccupancy of any Owner or Occupant. These provisions shall not be construed so asto prohibit Declarant or any other building in Oak Park from construction activitiesconsistent with reasonable residential construction practices.5. Vehicles. 'l'he board shall have the power and authority to create Rules concemingthe use and parking of any vehicles on the Common Elements and to prohibit thesame or any type thereof. ln addition to its authority to levy individual LotAsscssments as administrative charges for the violation of the Rules, the Board shallbe authorized to cause the removal of any vehiclc violating such Rules.6. Siqns. No signs of any character shall be erected, posted or displayed on theCommon Elements except: (a) temporary marketing signs approved by Declarant andinstalled by Declarant with r€spect to is property. or other buildings to whom itassigns such rights, while marketing available Lots in Oak Park, and (b) signs relativeto thc Common Elements installed by Declarant or the Association.7. Animals. No animal, livestock, reptile or poultry of any kind shall be permitted on.kc'pl. bred. boarded, raised, or maintained on any part of the (lommon E,lcments.unless exprtssly permitted by the Rulcs, and subject to such limitations as the Boardmay determine.8. Trash. Except for the reasonably necessary activities of Declarant or a buildingduring the development of Oak Park, no burning or storage of trash of any kind shallbc permitted on the Common Elements.29
ARTICLE IX - MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIESA. Maintenance bv Association.Common Element Maintenance. Except as otherwise specifically provided herein.and then subject only to budgetary limitations and the right of the Board to exercisereasonable business judgmenL the Association shall maintain. rrpair and replace allImprovements constituting a part of the Common Elements, including but not limitcdto the private drives (subject to rcimbursemenl from Pavement Assessments on NewVillage and Villa Lots as provided herein). the Reserves and any improvementthereon including the clubhouse and fountain, arcas rcquircd to be maintained by theAs-sociation by the Oak Park Plat but owned by the City of Dublin, the private stormsewcrs and cquipment and appurtenances lhereto serving more than one Lot. and theprivate water lines and any appurtenances lhereto serving more than one Lot and thatarc locatcd outside of a building, in good, clean, attractive. and sanitary condition.orderand repair. The Association shall maintain adequate reserve funds lor theperiodic maintenance, repair and replacement of the lmprovements to be maintainedby the Association as determined in the sole judgment of the Board.ln the event of damage or destruction of any portion of the Common Elcmcnts, thcAssociation shall promptly repair or replace the same, to the extent that insuranceproceeds are available. Each Member hereby appoints the Association as its attorncy-in-fact for such purpose. lf such proceeds are insullicient to cover the cost of therepair or replacemenl, then the Board may levy a Spccial Assessment pursuant to theprovisions hereof to cover the additional costs.2. Maintenance of Park Lots. Villase Lots. Villa Lots and Ncw Villrse Lots.Exccpt as otherwisc providcd for in this paragraph or in Article lX, Section C, theAssociation shall have no responsibility for the repair. maintenance, or replacementof any Improvcment or landscaping locatcd upon a Park Lot, Village Lot, Villa Lot orNew Village Lot.Providcd howcver. that thc Association will bc rrsponsible for maintaining therequired fences and landscaping at the rear of the Villa Lots. whether on theLots themselves or in Reserves I and J.3. Dublin City Council Reouirements for Maintenance of Pavement Areas inReserves I and J. After dedication to the City of Dublin of the Private Drivescurently existing in Reserves A and D (Oak Tree Drive Norrh and South) via thc platfor the twelve ( l2) New Village Lots. and, by conveyance by Declarant of ;rortions ofthe Private Drivcs in Rcscrves I and J (also comprising parts of Oak Trcc Drivc Northand South) to the City of Dublin as required in the rezoning for the New Village Lots.somc pavement ar€as will rcmain in Reserves I and J. 'l'hese remaining pavementareas will continue to be owned by the Association, which also owns thc subsurlbccutilities in Reserves I and J which serve Oak Park overall. The following paragraph(4) paragraph dctails rcquirements associatcd with thc maintcnancc of thesc30
remaining pavement areas in Reserves I and J, colloquially identified as Acorn Lane,Chinkapin Oak Lane. Shumard Oak Lane and Bur Oak Lane as approved and cnactedby Dublin City Council as part of the approval of the rezoning of the twelve (12) NewVillage Lots in Ordinance 06-20 (Amd). Appendix I to this Declaration contains thc 7Conditions of Approval imposed by Dublin City Council relative to maintenance ofthe Private Drives in Reserves I and J. These requircmenls are provided in AppendixI onlT,for re.ference, and do not dircctly oryrate us requirement.t of thi:s Declarution,but are implemented in applicahle sections of this Dcclaralion Nonetheless, the 7conditions have the force of law applied separately from this Declaration."Applicant" in Appendix I refers to Oak Pa* Dublin LLC. the "Declarant in thisDeclaration:4. Maintenance of Private Drives in Reserues I & J Prior to Turnover. Theremaining pavcment arras, after dedication of the balance thereof. to the City of Dublinof the Private Drives in Reserves l&J will be maintained by thc Declarant, without theuse of Association funds, untiltumover to the Association. Unless agreed to in writingby a majority of the Oak Park residents, turnover of the Privatc Drivcs will not takeplace until the last lot of Lots 109 to 140 is sold. After the final lot of Lots 109 to 140is sold and prior to turnover of maintenance of the Private Drives to thc Association(rcferred to as OPCA in Appendix l), the Declarant shall request a pavement evaluationof the Private Drives from the City Engineer. Undcr thc dircction of the City Engineer,the City of Dublin will evaluate the pavement condition and establish a pavementcondition rating (PCR) for the private drives. A PCR of 80 or higher will be requiredbefort turnover of maintenance of the Private Drives to the Association. lf the PCR iscvaluated to be lower than 80, the Declarant shall perform maintenance nccessary tobring the PCR to 80 or highcr at the Declarant's sole cost and expense. ldeally. thepavement work will be performed, and turnover made, after heavy constructionoperations are completed on the home on the last lot. To this end, prior to issuing afinal Certificate of Occupancy for the home on the last lot sold, or six months after saleof the last lot if construction has not been commenced thereon, the Applicant willpertbrm the rcquired work. The City Engineer may also permit the Applicant to makesecurity assurances for performance of the work in the l'uture prior to the pavemenlturnover to the Association. This condition does not limit the Declarant's right underthe Declaration to tum over property other than the Private Drives or the functions ofthe Association at any time, at its discrrtion.B. Maintenance by Owner. Unless othenryise provided in Scction A of this Article lX.each Owner shall repaiq replace and maintain in good order and condition, at thatOwner's sole cost and expense, all portions ol'that Owner's Lot. including alllmprovements and equipment located thereon. The Owner's maintenancc rcsponsibilityincludes, without limitation, promptly furnishing all necessary materials and performingor causing to be pcrformed, at that Owner's expense. all maintenance, repairs andreplacements of lmprovements on the Owner's Lol, and l'urther includes removing snowand ice from the driveways, sidewalks and porches localed on the Lot. An Owner'smaintcnance responsibility shallalso include mowing. fertilizing, and otherwiscmaintaining the turf grass on the Owner's Lot including watering or otherwise inigating31
the same. Each Owner shall maintain that Owner's Lot in accordance with therequirements set forth herein or in the Rules. l"urther. each Owner of a Lot shall rcpair,replace and maintain in good order and condition, at the Owner's sole cost and expensethe driveway approach for thc driveway located on that Owner's Lot and any sidewalkrunning along that Owner's Lot regardless of whcthcr that sidewalk or drivewayapproach is locatcd upon thc Lot or within a Reserve or Common Elcmcnt owncd by thcAssociation.C. Risht of Association to Renair Lot. lf any Owncr fails to maintain that Owner's Lotand the lmprovcmcnts located thereon. in the manner required herein, and that Lot orlmprovemenl remains in disrepair for a period of thirty (30) days after notification byDeclarant or the Association to said Owner, and if the Board or l)eclarant determines thatany maintenance of that [,ot or lmprovements thcrcon is ncccssary to ensure publicsafety, to permit rcasonable usc or enjoyment of the Common Elements by Owncrs, loprcvent damage to or destruction of any other part of thc Common Elements by Owners.to prevent damage to or destruction ol'any other part of the Common Elements. or tocomply with the Rules or the terms of this Declaration then the Board or Declarant mayauthorize its employecs or agcnts to enter the Lot at any reasonable time to completc thcnccessary maintenance and the Board may levy an lndividual Lot Assessment for allreasonable expenses incuncd, or if performed by Declarant. those expenses shall bereimbursed by the Owner to Declarant.D. Dsmase to Common Elements by Owner or Occuosnt. lf a Common Element isdamaged by any Owner or Occupant that Person's licensecs, or invitccs. then the Boardmay levy an individual Lot Assessment against such Owncr lbr thc cost of repairing orreplacing the damaged property. Thc Association shall be entitled to enter a Lot to repairor maintain any Common Elements adjacent to such Lot.ARTICLE X - ARCHCTURAL REVIEWA. Architectural Review Committee. The Architectural Review committee shall initiallyconsist of the Board of Directors appointed by Dcclarant, or such Persons as it designates.From and after the'l'urnover Date, thc Architectural Review committee shall consist ofsuch Persons (who may but need not be members of thc Board ol'Directors), in suchnumber. have such terms have such qualilications, and be subject to such restrictions andlimitations. as the Board of Directors may from time to timc determine, provided theBoard of Directors may determinc not to designate a separate Architectural ReviewCommittee, in which case the Board itself shall scrve that function.ll. Jurisdictionl. lnitirl lmorovements. Subject to applicablc restrictions and govemmentalprescriptions and limitations. Declarant shall have the sole right. power and authority32
to approvc plans lbr all improvements initially constructed in Oak Park, providcdDeclarant, at any time, shall have the right to assign this responsibility. or any partthereof. to thc Architectural Review Committee.2. Subseouenl Imnrovements. Subject to the foregoing. applicable restrictions, andgovemmental restrictions and limitations, the Arrhitectural Review Committee shallhave the sole right, power, and authority to receive and r€view all plans andspecifications for the addition, change, repair or rcplaccmcnt of any improvement,hereinafler dcfined, visible to the public, or which could affect the health, welfare,comfort or safety of any other property in Oak Park, and to approve or disapprove thesamc. Provided however, that Oak Park has been developed, and will continuc to bedeveloped. with architecture of cach home individually approved by the City ofDublin in accord with thc City's Planned Unit Development ordinancc. As a rcsult,each home as built represents an individual zoning approval which may be modifiedonly through thc City's proccsses.C. Adherence Standrrds. ln reviewing, evaluating and approving or disapproving anyapplication to makc an addition, change to or repair or rrplacement of any improvcmcntthc Architectural Review Committee shall determine adhsrencc to dcsign guidclinesestablished from time to time by it, including but not limited to the text. tables. photosand drawings included with the original Oak Park Preliminary Dcvclooment Plan asapproved bl'r the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission on Serrtember 21. 2006 and assubmincd to Dublin Citv Council October 27.2006. and made part hercof by thisreference.D. Requirement of Plan Aooroval. No Person shall construct, make addition to, make anychangc in, or repair or replace, any improvement in Oak Park. visible to thc public, orwhich could affect the health. welfarc, comforl or salbty of any other property or Personin Oak Park, without the prior written consent of the Architectural Review Committce.Each Owner covenants that no tree rtmoval, excavation, construction or other site workwhich would in any way alter the property from its present state shall be commenccd, nobuilding and/or structure shall be errcted, and no materials shall be stored upon anyproperty in Oak Park by an Owncr or his/her/their agents. heirs, successors or assignsuntil thc Architectural Review Committee shall have approved. in writing. the plans andspccifications pursuant to Section E of this Anicle. lf the Architectural ReviewComminee disapproves said plans and specifications. the Owner may revise and resubmitsaid plans and specifications until approval is received. Approval ol'plans andspecifications shall constitute the commitment of the Owner to make the approvedimprovement according to the approved plans and specilications within a reasonabletime. not to be longer than one year from the date of approval.l'1. Itrocedures.Prior to making any such Improvement the Owner or Owners olthe propcrty onwhich the improvement is to be madc shall submit two (2) sets of complete buildingand sitc plans with specifications of lhe buildings and structures intended to be33
erected to the Architectural Revicw Committee and to the City o[Dublin setting forththe following:(a) the general atrangemens of the interior and exterior of the building and/orstructure, including plans for all floors, cross scctions and elevations,including projections and wing-walls; the color and texture of the buildingmaterials and the manufacturers thereof, thc typc of charactcr of all windows,doors, exterior light fixtures. and appurtenant elements such as deconativewalls, chimneys, driveways, and walkways, and the location of the buildingand/or structure including front" side, and rcar setbacks, drivcway locations,garage openings, orientation of the building and/or structure to thetopography. and confornance of the improvements with thc master gradingand drainage plan;(b) mailboxes. address markers:(c) landscaping, fencing and screening;(d) patios. decks. gazebos. and porches;(e) signs and parking aneas;(f) exterior lighting plans:(g) swimming pools, swing sets, play arcas, baskctball boards, and similarimprovemcnts;(h) certification that the finished improvements will confirm to thc adhercncestandards set forth in ltem C of this Article X; and.(i) Such other information, data, and drawings as may be reasonably requested bythe Architectural Review Committec.2. Each Owner, by acceptance of a dced to a Loq further acknowledges that inconsidering plans and specifications submitted, the Architectural Review Committecwill take into consideration plans and spccilications already approved or in theprocess of being reviewed for approval of proposed lmprovcmenls on adjacent Lotsand the effect of said proposed improvements on the Owner's Lot with reference tothe effect upon neighboring Lots and the overall development of Oak Park.3. Submitted specifications shall otherwise be prepared according to the requirements ofthe Architectural Review Committee and the restrictions contained in thisDcclaration.4. lrrespectivc of approval by the Architectural Review Committee No improvementmay be allowed unless also approved by the City of Dublin as be ing in compliancc34
with the zoning approval requircments for Oak Park, or provides requiremcnts forsuch approval, or, if the City of Dublin providcs noticc in writing to the ArchitecturalReview Committee that it has no objection to the improvement as rcquested. If theCity of Dublin provides requirements that must be complied with in order for theimprovement to be acceptable, thc Architectural Review Committed may not approvethe improvement unless it modifies its approval to comply with the City of Dublin'sstated requirements.F. Fsilurc to Aonrove or Disroorove. Il'the Architectural Review Committee fails toeither approve or disapprove any such plans and specifications within thirty (30) daysafter all required plans and specifications and other information has bcen delivered to it.it shall bc conclusively presumed that the Architcctural Review Committee has approvedthe lmprovemenls. ln disapproving any lmprovement, the Architectural RcvicwCommittee shall specify the elements that are deemed objectionable. If the ArchitecturalReview Committee disapproves said plans and specifications, the Owner may revise andresubmit said plans and specifications until approval is rcceivcd. In addition, theArchitectural Review Committec reserves the right to charge for those costs and cxpcnsesincurred by the Architectural Review Committee in the utilization of its architect orplanned in the preparation, submission or resubmission of any Person's or Owner's plansand specifications for approval. Provided howevcr, that, as provided in Section X(EX4)above. no improvement may procecd unless the City of Dublin approves theimprovcmcnt or notifies the Architectural Review Committee that it has no objection tothc improvement. or that certain requiremcnts must be complied with in order for theimprovement to proceed.C. Vnriances. To avoid unnecessary hardship and/or to overcome practical difliculties inthe application of these provisions, the Architcctural Rcview Committee shall have theauthority to grant reasonable varianccs l'rom the provisions of the Declaration. providedthat the activity or condition is not prohibited by applicable law, including the zoningrequirements lor Oak Park as determincd by the City of Dublin: and provided furtherthat, in thc judgment of lhe Architectural Review Committee, lhe variance is in the bestinteresls of the community and is within the spirit of the standards of the ArchitecturalReview Committcc. No variance granted pursuant hereto shall constitute a waiver of anyprovision of the Declaration as supplied to any other person or any other part of OakPark. Should the Architectural Review Committee determine that a variance isappropriate, but the City of Dublin determines that the improvement may proceed onlyupon granting of a variance to any City of Dublin code provision, or to other City ol'Dublin regulatory requirement, the improvement may proceed only upon approvalthrough a City of Dublin variance or other approval proc€ss.ll. Liabilitv Relrtins to Aoorovals. Neither Declarant, the Association. the Board, theArchitectural Review Comminee, nor any member thereof. nor any of their respcctiveheirs. personal reprcsentalives, successor or assigns. shall bc liablc to anyone submittinga proposal lor approvalof an improvement by rcason of mistakes in judgment. negligenceor nonfeasance arising out of or in connection with the approval or disapproval or lbilureto apprcvc thc same. Every Person who submits a rcqucst for approval o[an35
improvement to the Architectural Review committec agnccs, by submission thereofl, thatPerson will not bring any action or suit against any of the foregoing to recovcr anyallegcd damages. Further, each Person further acknowledges that the ArchitecturalReview Committee shall not be rcsponsible or liable to any Person or to any other Ownerin Oak Park by reason of the exercise of its judgment in approving or disapproving planssubmitted nor shall it be liable for any expcnses entailed to a Person or Owner in thepreparation. submission and, if necessary, re-submission of proposed plans andspecifications.l. lmnrovements bv or Throuqh Dechrgnt. Notwithstanding the forrgoing or any othcrprovisions contained in the Declaration to the contrary, all lmprovements constructed byDeclarant, or its agcnts, or designated assignees. or constructed by builders approvcd byDeclarant, shall be deemed to comply in all rcspccts with the pmvisions of thisDeclaration. thc dcsign guidelines, and the requirements of the Architectural RcvicwCommittce, and shall not require approval of thc Association. the Board. the Owners ofthe Architectural Review Committee. Declarant may. however. bc rcquirrd to obtainappmval by the City of Dublin for such approvals.J. Construction of Imorovements bv Others on Undeveloped Lots. In thc case of anundeveloped Lot conveyed by Declarant to a purchaser, construction of the dwelling onthe Lot shall commcnce within 730 days of the conveyance by Dcclarant. Shouldconslruction of a dwelling on a Lot not commencc within 730 days of the conveyance byDeclarant, the Declarant shall havc the option to repurchase the l,ot at the original salcprice paid by thc purchaser to Declarant.ARTICLE XI - MISCELLANEOUSA. Term. The provisions of this Dcclaration shall bind and run with the land for a term offorty (40) ycars from and after the date that this Declaration is filcd lbr record with theRecorder of Union County, Ohio, and thcreafter the Declaration and amendments therttoshall automatically rtnew forever lor successive periods of ten years each unlcss carlicrtcrminated with the consent of Members exercising not lcss than onc hundred percent(100%) of the voting power of all Members.B. Enforcement, The provisions of this Declaration may be enforced by any proceeding atlaw or in equity by Declarant. any Owner. the Architectural Revicw Committee. nnd eachof their respective heirs, successors and assigns, against any Person(s) violating, orattcmpting to violate. any covenant, restriction, or rulc to rcstrain and/or enjoin violation.to obtain a decree for specific performance as to removal of any nonconforminglmprovemenl, and to recover all damages, costs of enforcement and any other costsincurrcd (including without limitation reasonablc attorncys' fecs) in connection with anyviolation. 'l'he failurc to forbearance to enforce any covenant or restriction in thisDeclaration contained shall in no event be deemcd a waivcr of thesc righs.35
C. AMENDMENTSl. Until the Turnover Date. Declarant may, in its solc and absolute discretion,unilaterally amend the provisions of this Declaration at any time and from timc totime, without the consent of any other Owners. Any such amendment may imposecovenants, conditions, restrictions and easements in addition to thosc set forth in thisDeclaration including. without limitation, rcstrictions on us€ and covenants to payadditional charges with respect to the acquisition. maintenancc and improvement ofany Common Element.2. After the Tumover Date, Declarant may unilaterally amcnd the provisions of thisDeclaration. without the consent of any other Owners, il'such amendment is: (a)necessary to bring any provision of this Declaration into compliancc with anyapplicable governmental statute. rule, rtgulation or.judicial order; (b) necessary toenable any reputable title insurance company to issue title insurance coverage on lheLots or the Common Elements or (c) nccessary to correct ernoru; provided. however.any such amcndment made by Declarant. either after'l'urnovcr Date pursuant to thisparagraph or prior to Turnover Date pursuant to D( l) above shall not materiallyadversely affect the titlc to any Lot unless the Owner or Owners thereof havcconsented to such amendment in writing.3. ln addition. this Declaration may be amended or modified after the'l'umover Datc bythc approval of Members holding not less than seventy-live pcrcent (75%) of thevoting power of Mcmbers of the Association, provided that the consent of allMembcrs shall be required for any amendment which effccts a change in the votingpower of any Member, the basis lbr allocating Common Expenses among Owners, orthc l'undamcntal purpose of which the Association is organizcd. Any amendment tothis Declaration adopted with the aforesaid consent shall be executed with the samcformalities as lo execution as observed in the Declaration by the prcsidcnt and thesecrelary of the Association, and shall contain their certifications that the amendmentwas duly adoptcd in accordance with the requirements of the Declaration. Anyamendment so adopted and executed shall be effcctive upon the filing of the sarnewith the Recorder of Union County, Ohio.4. No amcndment made pursuant to D(3). above. may rcmovc, rcvokc or modify anyright or privilege of Declarant without the written consent of Declarant or theassignee of such right or privilege, nor shall any such amendment increaseDeclarant's rights under this Declaration except to the cxlent all Owners rights areincrtased in the same measure, or relieve Declarant of any obligations undcr thisDeclaration. Provided also, that any authority of Declarant to amend the Declarationmay not be used to alter any provision required by Dublin City Council provisions inAppendix I without approval in writing of the City of Dublin Attomey.D. Declrrsnt's Rights to Comnlete Develonment. Declarant. its successors and assigns.with respect to its property, shall have the right to: (a) complete the dcvelopment.construction, promotion. marketing, sale, resalc and lcasing of properties in Oak Park: (b)construct or after lmprovemcnts on any property in Oak Park owned by it; (c) construct37
and maintain model homes, ofTices for construction, sales or leasing purposes. storageareas, construction yards or similar facilitics on any property owned by it; or (d) postsigns on is property incidental to the development, construction. promotion, marketing,sale and leasingof property within Oak Park. Further, Declarant shall have the right ofingress and egress through the strrets, paths and walkways located in the CommonElements for any purpose whatsoevcr, including, but not limited to, purposes related tothe construction, maintenance and operation of lmprovements. Nothing contained in theDeclaration shall limit the rights of Dcclarant or require Declarant with respect to itsproperty. to obtain approval to: (i) exsavate, cut, fill or grade any property owned by it toconstruct, alter, remodcl, demolish or replace any lmprovements on any CommonElement or any property owned by Declarant as a construction officc, model homc or rcalestatc sales or lcasing office in connection with the sale of any property; or (ii) require itto seek or obtain the approval of the Association or the Architectural Review (lommitteefor any such activity or lmprovement on any Common Element or any property owned byDeclarant. Nothing contained in this Declaration shall limit or impair the reserved rightsof Declarant or as elsewhere provided in this Dcclaration.E. Mortsaee Riehts. Any institutional holder or insurrr of a first mortgage upon any Lot,upon written request to the Association (which request shall state the name and address ofsuch holder or insurer and a description of thc Lot) shall be entitlcd to timely writtennoticc of:l. Any proposed amendment of this Declaration:2. Any proposed termination of the Association; and3. Any default under the provisions the Declaration which gives rises to a causeof action by the Association against the Owner of the Lot subject to themortgage of such holder or insurer. where the default has not been curcd insixty (60) days.Subjcct to the same limitations contained in this Declaration with respect tothe rights of Members to inspect the books and records of the Association.each institutional holder or insurer of a lirst mortgagc on any Lot shall beentitled, upon written request and at such mortgagee's expense. to inspect thebooks and records of the Association during normal business housc.,F. lndemnification.l. Third Partv Actions. The Association shall indemnify. defend and hold harmlessany Person who is or was a party or is threatened to be made a party to anythreatened, pending or complctcd civil, criminal, administrative or investigativeaction, suit, or proceeding, including all appcals, othcr than an action, suit orproceeding by or in the right of the Association, by rcason of thc fact that thc Pcrsonis or was a Director, officer, employee, or volunteer of thc Association. againstexp€nses (including attorney's fees), judgments. fines. penalties and amounts paid in38
settlement actually and rcasonably incuned by that person in conncction with suchaction. suit or proceeding. if that Person acted in good faith and in a manner thatperson reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the bcst intcrests of theAssociation and, with respect to any criminal action or procccding, if that Person hadno reasonable cause to belicvc that Person's conduct was unlawful. Thc terminationof any action. suit, or pmceeding by judgment. order, settlement or conviction orupon a plea of nolo contenderr or its equivalent, shall not create, of itscll, apresumption that the person did not act in good faith and in a manner which thatPerson reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interest of theAssociation and. with respect to any criminal action or proceeding, a presumption lhatthe Person had reasonable c.ausc to believe that the Person's conduct was unlawl'ul.?. Derivative Actions. The Association shall indcmnify. defend and hold harmless anyPerson who is or was a party, or threatened to bc made a party, to any threatened,pcnding or completed aclion or suit, including all appeals, by or in the right of theAssociation to procure a judgment in its favor, by reason of the fact that the Person isor was a Director. officer, employee, or volunteer of the Association. againstexpcnses (including attorneys' fees) actually and reasonably incurred by that Personin conncction with the defense or settlement of such action or suit if the Person actedin good faith, and in a manner that person rcasonably bclicved to be in or not opposedto the best interests of thc Association, except that no indemnilication shall be madein respect of (a) any claim, issue or matter as to which such Person is linally adjudgedto be liable for negligence or misconduct in the performance of that Pcrson's duty tolhe Association unless. and only to the extent that the court of common plcas or thecourt in which such action or suit was brought determines, upon application. that.dcspite the adjudication of liability but in view of all the circumstances of the casc,such Person is fairly and reasonably entitlcd to indemnity for such expenses as thecourt of common pleas or such other court considers proper. or (b) any action or suitin which a Director is found liable only pursuant to the provisions of Section 170?.55of thc Ohio Revised Code.3. Other Determinations of Rishts. Unless ordered by a court. any indemnificationunder paragraphs I and 2 of this Section F shall be made by the Association only asauthoriznd in the specific case, upon a determination that indemnification of theDirector. officer, employee or volunteer is proper under lhe circumslanccs becausethis person has met the applicablc standard of conduct set forth in paragraphs I and 2ol'this Section F. Such determination shall be made in any one of the tbllowingmanners: (a) by a majority vote of a quorum consisting of Directors of thcAssociation who were not and are not panics to or threatened with the action. suit orproceeding rcfcrred to in paragraph I and 2 of this Scction F. or (b) by the Mernbersby majority votc.39
4. lndemnification of Aeents and Others. The Association may. liom time to time,and in its sole discretion, indemnify, defend and hold harmless any Pcrson who is orwas an agent, or other authorized representative of the Association, other than thosedescribed under paragraphs I and2 of this Section F who may be indemnilicd, or isor was serving at the request of thc Association as a Director, ofTicer. or employce ofanother corporation, limited liability company, partnership, joint venture, trust orother enterprises, against any liability asserted against that Person or incurred by thatPerson in any such capacity or arising out of that Pcrson's status as such. in tlre samemanner and to the same extent as providcd in the Declaration for Directors. officers,employees and volunteers of thc Association.5. Advrnccs of Ernenses. Expenses of cach Person indemnified in this Declarationincurrtd in delending a civil. criminal. administrativc, or investigative action. suit orproceeding (including all appeals). or threat thereof, may be paid by the Associationin advancc of the finaldisposition of such action, suit or proceeding as authorizrd bythe Board, whether a disinterested quorum exists or not, upon receipt of anundcrtaking by or on behalf of such Person, to repay such amount if it is ultimatelydctcrmined that that Person is not entitled to bc indcmnified by the Association.6. Nonexclusive: Heirs. The foregoing rights of indemnification arc not exclusive. andshall be in addition to any other rights granted to those seeking indemnification as amatter of law, or under this Declaration, thc rcgulations, any agreement" vote ofmembers or disinterested Directors, or otherwise, both as to actions in their ofTicialcapacitics and as to actions in another capacity whilc holding their offices orpositions, shall continue as to a person who has ceascd to bc a Director, officer,employcc, member or manager, agent or volunteer, and shall inure to the benefit ofthe heirs, execulors, and administrators of such a Person.7. Purchase of lnsurance. The Association shall purchase and maintain insurance. orfurnish similar protection, including but not limited to l'unds, letters of credit. or self-insurance. for or on behalf of any Person who is or was a Dircctor, ofliccr, agenl,employee, or volunteer of the Association, or is or was serving at the requcst of theAssociation as a director. officer. employee, member, manager. agent or voluntccr ofanother corporation, limited liability company, partnership, joint venture. trust. orother enterprises. against any liability company, partnership, joint ventur€. trust. orother enterprises, against any liability asserted against that Person or incurred by thatpcrson in any such capacity, or arising out of that pcrson's status as such, whether ornot the Association would have the power to indcmnify that Perrcn against suchliability under the provisions of this ltem F or of thc Ohio Nonprofit Corporationl.aw. lnsurancc may be purchased from or maintained with a pcrson in which theAssociation has a financial interest.40
G. Mutualitv. Alleasemenls, restrictions. conditions and covenants contained in thisDcclaration are made for the direct. mutual and reciprocal benefit of Declarant, and thcAssociation, and thc prtscnt and future Owners of property in Oak Park, and such partthereol and their respectivc personal rcpresentatives, heirs. successors. and assigns; theprovisions of this Declaration shall crcatc mutual equitable servitudes upon the propertysubmitted to these restrictions and each part thcreof in lbvor ol'each other part thereof:and any property referred to in this Declaration as benefitted hereby; the provisions ofthis Declaration shall create reciprocal rights and obligations between the respectiveOwners of all such property and privity of contract and estate between all Ownersthereof; and the provisions of this Declaration shall. as to the Owner of any such propertyand the Owners thereof.H. Severabilitv. lf any Arlicle. section. paragraph, sentencc, clause or word in thisDeclaration is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to bc in conllict with any law, orunenforceable. then the rrquirements of such law shall prcvail and the conllictingprovision or language shall be deemed void in such circumstance; provided that theremaining provisions or language of the Declaration shall continuc in full lorce andefTect.Enforcemenl: Waiver. Failure to Declarant. the Association, or any Owner to enforccany provision of this Declaration or the Association Coveming Documents in any mattershall not constitutc of any right to enforce any violation of such provision. By acceptinga deed to a Lot, each Owner thereof is deemed to waive the defenses of laches and statusof limitations in connection with the cnforcement of the provisions of this Declaration, orother Association Governing Documents.J. Notices. Notices to an Owner shall be given in writing by personal delivery or at the Lol,if a residence has been constructed on such Lot, or by dcpositing such nolice in theUnited States Mail, first class, postage prrpaid, to thc address of the Owner of the Lot lastshown by the records of the Association, or as otherwise dcsignated in writing by theOwner.K. Amendment. Restatement. Suoersedins and Reolscement of Orisinsl Declaration.The Original Declaration (as de fined in Paragraph E of the Background Section of thisDeclaration) is hereby amended, rrstated, superseded and replaced in its entirety by thisDeclaration efTective on the date of its recording with the Union County. Ohio, Recorder.which recording shall occur only atler rccording of the Plat creating Lots 129 to I 40 ofOak Park has first been recorded with the said Recorder.L. Construction. ln interpreting words and phrases in this Dcclaration. unless the contextshall otherwise provide or require, the singular shall include thc plural. thc plural shallinclude the singular, and the use of any gender shall include all genderc.4L
M. Crotions. The caption of each Article, section and paragraph of this Declaration isinserted only as a matter of reference and does not define, limit or describe the scope orintent of the prcvisions of this Declaration.EXECUTION BY DECLARANTThe Declarant, the sole Ovmer or Former Owner of the propcrty subjected to this Declarationand sole Member of Association, has duly caused thc execution of this Amended and RestatedDeclaration of Covenants, Eascments, Conditions, and Restrictions for Oak Park on the da0e firsthereinabove wrinen.OAK PARK DUBLIN, LLCa New Jersey Limited Liability CompanySTATE OF K IcouNrYoT@{asManaging MemberThis instrument was executed and acknowledged before me by Jeremy Halpern the5ryfiiT;Sfr?il#j :#jin, LLc, a New Jersev rimited riabirirv companv, rhisNotary PublicDEBORAH A IACOVARAA Notary Public of New JerseyMy Commission Expircs 9/2512242
APPENDIX IDublin City CouncilJune 10,2020Ordinance 06-20Conditions ol'Rezoning Approval for Oak Park Subarea Fl. subject to the approval of thc city Engineer, Applicant will preparc datashowing projected cost of repairing and replacing the pavcment areas ofSubareas I and J of oak Park that will remain as privare drives (privateDrives) within oak Park after dedication to the city of Dublin for oakTree Drives North and South. This projection will state intervals of workexpected to be done. cost of work at each interval, and the additionalPavement Rcpair Assessment (Pavement Assessment) necessary. abovcthe standard Oak Park Community Association. Inc (OpCA) lotassessments lo be paid each month by each of the Villa Lots 109-128 andNew village Lots 129-140 (collectively "Lots 109 to r40") to provide toprovide a l'und to pay for the expected pavement maintenance, repair andreplacement of the Private Drives.2. Applicant will donate the amount of $25,000.00 to opcA to establish theReserve I & J Pavement Rcpairs Reserve (l&J Pavement Fund) for thefuture pavement maintenance, repair and replacement of the privateDrives. oPcA will segregate this amount and the pavement AssessmentAmounts received from the owners of Lots 109 through r40. opcA willcredit the Pavement Assessment amounts to the l&J pavement Fund noless than quarrerly. Disbursements from the l&J pavement Fund will bcmade by OrcA for no reason other than the maintenance, repair andreplacement of the Private Drivcs.3. To implement the above responsibilities and obligations. Applicant willamend the Declaration of Covenants, Easements, Conditions andRestrictions for oak Park (Declaration) to include Lors r09 to 140. Theamcndment of the Declaration will includc revisions to Articlc vrAssessments, to delete all references to Townhouse asscssmenK and toadd rcquiremenls that assessments for Lots 109 to 140 will include thcadditional Pavement Assessment for repairing and replacing the privateDrives. The Pavement Assessment will initially bc $12.25 per monthsubject to increase or decrease by the OPCSA Board of Dircctors (Board)to ensur€ that funds are being appropriately reservcd for actual orprojected cost of maintenance, repair and replacement of the privateDrives in accord with the methodology of #l(a) above. However. so longas Applicant controls the Board, the Pavemcnt Assessment may bcadjusted upward at its discretion. The Pavement Assessment will beconsidered part of the operating Assessments in the Declaration withrespect to the Lots 109 to 140. Applicant will furtheramencl the43
Declaration to provide for the segregation and use of the of the l&JPavement Fund by OPCA as provided in #l(b) above.4. The amendments in #l(c) above are subject to the approvalof the LawDirector prior to filing with the Union County. Ohio, Recorder and will beso submittcd for approval within 60 days following final approval of thcwithin rezoning.5. The Private Drives will be maintained by the Applicant, without usingOPCA funds, until turnover to OPCA. Unless agreed to in writing by amajority of the Oak Park residents. tumover of the Private Drives will nottake place until the last lot of Lots 109 to 140 is sold. After the final lot ofLots 109 to 140 is sold and prior to tumover of maintenance of the PrivateDrives to OPCA, the Applicant shall request a pavement evaluation of thePrivate Drives from the City Engineer. Under the direction of the CityEnginccr, the City of Dublin will evaluatc the pavcmcnt condition andestablish a pavement condition rating (PCR) for the private drives. A PCRof E0 or higher will bc rrquired bcforc turnovcr of maintcnance of thcPrivate Drives to the OPCA. lf the PCR is evaluated to be lower than 80,the Applicant shall perform maintenance necessary to bring the PCR to 80or higher at the Applicants sole cost and expense. Ideally, the pavementwork will be performed, and turnover madc, aller heavy constructionoperations are completed on the home on the last lot. To this end, prior toissuing a final Certificate of Occupancy for the home on the last lot sold,or six months after sale of the last lot if construction has not bcencommenced thereon. the Applicant will perform the required work. TheCity Engineer may also permit the Applicant to makc sccurity assurancesfor performance of the work in the future prior to the pavement turnover tothe OPCA. This condition does not limit the Applicant's right under theDeclaration to tum over property other than the Private Drives or thefunctions of the OPCA at any time, at its discretion.6. 1'he Applicant will deed to the City portions of Reserves I and J, prior tothe approval of any building permits for Lots 109 to 140. and no laterthan 60 days after the approval by Dublin Planning and ZoningCommission of the Final Development Plan for this section. This area isgenerally Oaktree Drive North. north of Acorn [,ane to the northernterminus, including the bulb. lt will include the area of Oaktrce DriveSouth, south of Bur Oak Lane to southern terminus. including the bulb.'l'he description and exhibit of this arca to be deeded to the City is requiredto bc submined with the Final Dcvelopment Plan for this Section.Thc above conditions. upon approval, are rcquired to be included in theDevelopment Text.744