Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
16-07 Ordinance
RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank, Inc. Form No. 300 Ordinance No. `I( -RYA Passed 1 1 r AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 189.57 ACRES LOCATED NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF HYLAND -CROY AND MCKITRICK ROADS, BORDERED TO THE EAST BY JEROME ROAD AND TO THE NORTH BY BROCK ROAD, FROM R, RURAL, TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (TARTAN RIDGE — 9756 HYLAND -CROY ROAD — CASE NO. 05- 183Z). 20 NOW, THEREFOR, 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 Zq:§n day of �OIY�' �-- , 2007. C� Mayor - Presiding Officer Attest: Clerk of Council 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 V, Clerk of Council, Dublin, Ohio Ordinance 16 -07 — Tartan Ridge rezoning CONDITIONS APPENDED BY COUNCIL ON 3/19/07 1. That the development text be revised to eliminate the language "shall be permitted" from the conditional use section in Subarea F; 2. That enhancement of the alleys with landscaping be addressed as part of the final development plan approval process; 3. That at the final development plan stage, further consideration be given to the layout of neighborhood commercial area, such as integrating buildings versus free - standing single -use buildings and creating a town center with a streetscape; and, 4. That the list of prohibited uses in Subarea F be revised to include car washes. CITY OF DUBLIN- Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway - Dublin, Ohio 43017 -1006 Phone: 614 - 410 -4400 - Fax: 614 - 410 -4490 Memo To: Members of City Council From: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager Date: March 13, 2007 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning Re: Ordinance 16 -07 — Rezoning — Tartan Ridge, 9756 Hyland -Croy Road (Case No. 05 -183Z) Summary: Ordinance 16 -07, a request for a rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District, of 189.57 acres located north of the intersection of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads, bordered to the east by Jerome Road and to the north by Brock Road, was introduced at the March 5, 2007 Council meeting. Members of City Council primarily discussed the neighborhood commercial area. Main issues included the importance of this area being pedestrian - friendly and accommodating to bicyclists, the proposed location of the gas station, and language requiring night sky preservation in lieu of the Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines within the development text. Council also discussed the potential viability of the neighborhood commercial area. The applicant has submitted a revised development text that addresses the issues summarized above. The text requires a minimum number of bicycle parking spaces based on the provision of parking spaces for vehicles. The text has been revised to include language stating that the gas station will be located in the area depicted on the preliminary development plan. In addition, language requiring adherence to the Lighting Guidelines has been eliminated from the text and has been replaced with a requirement to adhere to night sky preservation principles to be approved as part of the final development plan for the area. Planning will continue to work with the applicant to revise a lighting plan sensitive to the location of the neighborhood commercial area in close proximity to residences and the Glacier Ridge Metro Park. The applicant will be prepared to address the viability of the proposal with the assistance of a marketing consultant. Recommendation: Staff recommends that Ordinance 16 -07 be adopted at the second reading /public hearing on March 19. Xfl. SUB -AREA F DEVELOOME t STANDARDS 5. Bicycle Parking: Bicycle parking shall be provided in Subarea F at a rate that is determined by multiplying the required minimum number of automobile parking spaces in this subarea by five percent (5 %). The developer of Subarea F shall provide this parking using bikeracks but may be permitted to utilize other bicycle parking devices if approved by the Planning Commission at the time of Final Development Plan. G. Circulation: 1. Vehicular Access: The east -west road running from Hyland -Croy Road through this subarea and the north -south road running from McKitrick Road to this subarea shall be public roads. All other streets and vehicular use areas in this subarea shall be private. 2. Public Streets: Public streets in this subarea shall have a minimum right -of -way width of fifty (50) feet. Public streets that accommodate parking on two sides shall be permitted if they meet applicable engineering standards and are requested and approved at the time of final development plan. Pavement width shall be a minimum of twenty -eight (28) feet measured back of curb to back of curb. Boulevards shall have a minimum right -of -way of seventy (70) feet, with a minimum pavement width on each side of the median of sixteen (16) feet measured back of curb to back of curb. Public streets shall be constructed in accordance with the City of Dublin Code and the standards established by the City of Dublin Engineer. 3. Private Streets: Private streets and drive aisles with no parking shall have a minimum width of twenty (20) feet; private streets and drive aisles with parking shall have a minimum width of twenty -two (22) feet. One - way private streets and drive aisles (if any) with or without parking shall have a minimum width of thirteen (13) feet. 4. Sidewalks; bike path; leisure trails: A final system of sidewalks, bike paths, and leisure trails shall be provided as approved in the final development plan for this subarea. Sidewalks shall be constructed of concrete and shall be a minimum of four (4) feet in width. Bike paths shall be constructed of asphalt and shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet in width. Leisure trails shall be constructed of a pervious surface and • shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet in width. H. Setback Requirements: 1. Hyland -Croy Road: Along Hyland -Croy Road, the minimum parking setback shall be one hundred ten (110) feet and the minimum building setback shall be one hundred eighty (180) feet from the future proposed right -of -way, which extends sixty (60) feet from the centerline. 2. McKitrick Road: Along McKitrick Road, the minimum parking setback shall be one hundred ten (110) feet and the minimum building setback shall be two hundred (200) feet from the future proposed right -of -way, which extends forty (40) feet from the centerline. 3. Other Rights -of -Way: Along all other public rights -of -way, the minimum pavement setback shall be zero (0) feet from the right -of -way and the minimum building setback shall be eight (8) feet from the right -of -way. 4. Interior: Interior lot lines shall have a zero (0) setback for parking and buildings. I. Landscaping: A landscaping plan for this subarea shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as a part of the Final Development Plan for each phase of development. Landscaping shall be in conformance with that which is approved as a part of the Final Development Plan. Street trees along the scenic roadways in this Subarea are proposed be planted in a more informal setting to compliment the open space system. J. Lighting: 1. A lighting plan shall be provided for review by the Planning Commission at the time of Final Development Plan. Lighting shall be in conformance with the plan that is approved as a part of the Final Development Plan for each phase of development. Lighting in Subarea F shall be provided in a manner that employs 47 x4t ND AA D 16. Farm equipment sales and service 17. Sexually oriented business establishments 3. Conditional uses: The following conditional uses shall be allowed in Subarea F, provided that they are approved in accordance with City of Dublin Code Section 153.236: a. Drive -thru services in association with a permitted use in Subarea F. A drive thru in association with an eating or drinking establishment shall be prohibited, with the following exception: i. A drive thru may be allowed as a conditional use in association with a business whose primary concern is the sale of coffee or similar products with limited offerings of pastries and like food items. Nothing herein shall be read to permit a drive thru in association with an establishment in which the sale of donuts, pastries, or other food items constitutes a significant portion of its business. b. Outdoor service facilities, including outdoor dining patios c. Gasoline service station, provided that no more than eight (8) fueling positions (e.g., four (4) double pumps) shall be permitted. In the event that a gasoline service station use is allowed as a conditional use, it shall be placed in the general location shown on the preliminary development plan. 4. 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. D. Density: A maximum of sixty -eight thousand five hundred (68,500) square feet of retail and/or office space shall be permitted within Subarea F, to be distributed as set forth in the final development plan(s) for this subarea. Each • single retail user within Subarea F shall have less than twenty- thousand (20,000) square feet of floor space. Outdoor dining patios and pedestrian areas shall be encouraged throughout Subarea F and may be permitted in addition to the allowable aggregate building area in this subarea. E. Building Heights: The maximum height of all buildings in this subarea shall be forty (40) feet as measured per the City of Dublin Code. Towers and entry features that are part of primary buildings shall have a maximum height of fifty - eight (58) feet. F. Parking and Loading: 1. Unless otherwise stated herein or otherwise depicted on the preliminary development plan, all parking and loading shall be regulated by Dublin Code Section 153.200 et seq. 2. Parking spaces: Based on the nature of this commercial area and the formal arrangement of the buildings, the parking and service areas are to be shared between uses and separate buildings (through the use of cross - easements, if necessary). As such, strict compliance to the Dublin Zoning Code parking requirements by use is not required. Irrespective of use, off - street parking shall be provided at a minimum rate of four and a half (4.5) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet of development in this subarea. Interior lot lines shall not be required between each parking area. 3. In the event that the Planning Commission approves a conditional use request for a drive -thru, it may, but is not required to, approve a reduction in the stacking rates provided by the Dublin Zoning Code. Drive -thru stacking may be reduced to the following minimum rates per drive thru lane should the Planning Commission approve a drive -thru for these specified uses: Bank — 6; Pharmacy — 4; Dry Cleaner -2; ATM — 2; Other Uses —6. 4. Pedestrian walkways shall be provided as approved as a part of the Final Development Plan to provide access between buildings in Subarea F. 46 CITY OF DUBLIN,. Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road - Dublin, Ohio 43016 Phone: 614 - 410 -4600 - Fax: 614 - 410 -4747 Memo To: Members of City Council From: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager�� 5 a a Date: February 28, 2007 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning Re: Ordinance 16 -07 - Rezoning — Tartan Ridge Development (Case No. 05 -183Z - 9756 Hyland -Croy Road) Summary: Rezoning application 05 -183Z for the Tartan Ridge development, 189.57 acres located north of the intersection of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads, bordered to the east by Jerome Road and to the north by Brock Road, is being forwarded to City Council. This application requests a change in zoning from R, Rural District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District. The proposed PUD zoning allows for a development of 246 single- family lots, 24 townhouse units, approximately 68,500 square feet of commercial space and 69.14 acres of open space. On February 1, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend Council approval of this rezoning with 11 conditions, which can be found in the attached record of action. The applicant has addressed portions of conditions 5 and 11 by modifying the development text, and staff will ensure that those conditions are met completely by the final development plan stage. All other conditions will be addressed at the time of final development plan and final plat approval. The second reading /public hearing on the requested rezoning is scheduled for March 19, 2007. Additional information regarding this case is available for public viewing at 5800 Shier - Rings Road in the offices of Land Use and Long Range Planning. Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approval of Ordinance 16 -07 at its second reading /public hearing on March 19, 2007. PROPOSED LOT PLAN �1111� i � 111 ,•�� �► •�� � � � Ilillill ►� �� M MM A spy 111 / ►� _ �� CITY OF DUBLIN- Land Use and Long Range Planning 5890 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone / TDO: 614- 410 -4600 Fax: 614 -41 o -4747 Web Site:W .dublin.oh.us 1 1. EXHIBIT "B" REZONING APPLICATION (Code Section 153.234) TO EXPIRE ORDINANCE NUMBER CITY COUNCIL (FIRST READING) CITY COUNCIL (PUBLIC HEARING) CITY COUNCIL ACTION r - I � NOTE: Applicants are highly encouraged to contact Land Use and Long Range Planning for assistance and to discuss the Rezoning process prior to submitting a formal application. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Amount Received: Application No: P&Z Date(s): P&Z Action: p - p -183 - - 07 i 4 ro ✓�� Receipt No: MIS Fee No: Date Received: Received By: Type of Request: N, S, E) W (Circle) Side of: Distance from Nearest Intersection: FEET, �N S, (E) W (Circle) from Nearest Intersection Nearest Intersection: AND 6 t 1�1GI�Ct 12d PLEASE CHECK THE TYPE OF APPLICATION: v� PD Preliminary Development Plan (Section 153.053) Other (Please Describe) r / \I'1 \AATIl1 \I. .. I..1..11 Property Address: 9756 Hyland -Croy Road __- Tax ID /Parcel Number(s): Parcel Size. (Acres) TO COUNCIL 39001402002 et al. 189 SUBMITTED Existing Land Use Development: FOR MEETING ON undeveloped; agricultural Proposed Land Use Development: residential; retail Existing Zoning District: Requested Zoning District: Total Acres to be Rezoned: R, Rural :FLAD 189,57± 'J rage i of o n I+T�TC ►�C ►IT. ....L, w.1.A: {: w.. wl a.I.e.e{n i{ nernee�ni 1 1 State briefly how the proposed zoning and development relates to the existing and potential future land use character of the vicinity: The property is currently undeveloped. Applicant seeks to rezone the property fo residential uses and complimentary retail uses. Property to the north of the sit is largely undeveloped with sporadic residential uses throughout. To the east of the site is residential and undeveloped land and the Tartan Fields golf course. The Tartan West development is south of the site and Glacier Ridge Metro Park is directly west. The proposed development of the site fits in with the character a rc quality of other nearby recent residential development. It will also provide ret uses to an area that is currently underserved. State briefly how the proposed zoning and development relates to the Dublin Community Plan and, if applicable, how the proposed rezoning meets the criteria for Planned Districts [Section 153.052(8)]: The proposed rezoning and development will further Dublin's stated goal of promo high quality residential uses that contribute to and enhance the community's ima The retail uses on the site will considerably broaden the services available to residents in the general area. The development meets most, if not all, of the 10 Land Use Principals that have been adopted for use during the Community Plan upd process. The mix of uses and product types makes the use of a Planned District the most comprehensive way to address development standards for this new communi HAS A PREVIOUS APPLICATION TO REZONE THE PROPERTY BEEN DENIED BY CITY COUNCIL WITHIN THE LAST TWELVE MONTHS? ❑ YES XI NO If yes, list when and state the basis for reconsideration as noted by Section 153.234(A)(3): IF A PLANNED DISTRICT IS REQUESTED, IS A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ATTACHED? M YES ❑ NO IF A PLANNED DISTRICT IS REQUESTED, IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT ATTACHED? IN YES ❑ NO Ong Page 2 of 5 IV. PLEASE SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING FOR INITIAL STAFF REVIEW: Please submit large (24x36) and small (11x17) sets of plans. Staff may later request plans that incorporate review comments. Fourteen (14) additional copies of revised submittals are required for the Planning and !J ❑ 7 ❑ V. TWO (2) ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATIONS AND THIRTEEN (13) COPIES Please notarize agent authorization, if necessary. FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY FOURTEEN (14) TAX PARCEL ID MAPS indicating property owners and parcel numbers for all parcels within 500 feet of the site. TEN (10) SCALED, SITE /STAKING PLANS SHOWING: a. North arrow and bar scale. b. Location, size and dimensions of all existing and proposed conditions and structures (significant natural features, landscaping, structures, additions, decks, access ways, parking). c. Proposed Uses (Regional transportation system, densities, number of dwellings, building /unit types, square footages, parking, open space, etc.). d. Size of the site in acres /square feet. e. All property lines, setbacks, street centerlines, rights -of -way, easements, and other information related to the site. f. Existing and proposed zoning district boundaries. g. Use of land and location of structures on adjacent properties. IF APPLICABLE, TEN (10) COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING SCALED PLANS: a. Grading Plan. b. Landscaping Plan. c. Lighting Plan. d. Utility and/or Stormwater Plan. e. Tree Survey, Tree Preservation and Tree Replacement Plans. IF APPLICABLE, TEN (10) COPIES OF SCALED, ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS with proposed colors and materials noted. IF APPLICABLE, FOUR (4) COPIES OF SCALED DRAWINGS INDICATING: a. Location of signs and sign type (wall, ground, projecting, or window). b. Sign dimensions, including letter sizes and proposed distance from sign to grade. c. Copy layout and lettering styles (fonts) of signage. d. Materials and manufacturer to be used in fabrication. e. Total area of sign face (including frame). f. Type of illumination. MATERIAL/COLOR SAMPLES (swatches, photos, plans, or product specifications). Include manufacturer name and number. CONIT!GUOI IS PROPERTY OWNERS Plaasa attach additional sheets if necessary It is the policy of the City of Dublin to notify surrounding property owners of pending applications under public review. List all neighboring property owners within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property based on the County Auditor's current tax list. Electronic copies of lists are encouraged. PROPERTY OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY /STATE /ZIP CODE (not Mortgage Company or Tax Service) Please see attached list Page 3 of 5 Page 3 of 5 1 VI, AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROPERTY: Site visits to the property by City representatives are essential to process this application. The Owner /Applicant, as notarized below, hereby authorizes City representatives to visit, photograph and post a notice on the property described in this application. VII. UTILITY DISCLAIMER: The City of Dublin will make every effort to provide essential services to the property as needed. However, the rapid growth of the City of Dublin and surrounding vicinities has stretched the City's capacity to provide these services to the limit. As such, the City of Dublin may be unable to make all or part of said facilities available to the applicant until some further date. The Owner /Applicant acknowledges the approval of this request for rezoning by the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission and /or Dublin City Council does not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able to provide essential services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by the said Owner /Applicant. VIII no^n0Mry P1UflJ001A001 1!`ANT IN9:rIRMAT!0NM This section must he rmmnletArl Current Property Owner /Applicant: Owner: Suburban Improvement Applicant: The Edwards Land of Columbus, Inc. Mailing Address: 37 W. Broad St., Ste. 725 495 S. High St., S (Street, City, State, Zip Code) Columbus, OH 43215 Columbus OH 43215 Daytime Telephone: (614) 221 -4255 Fax: (614) 241 -2070 Fax 614 221 -4409 Email or Alternate Contact Information: o . 11 e 150 Page 4 of 5 IX. 1 X. X. 1 REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF OWNER: Please complete if applicable. Attach additional sheets for multiple representatives. Representative: (Te nant, Architect, Desig Con e tc.) B en W. _Hale, Jr and Aaro L Underhill, attorneys Mailing Address: Smith & Hale (Street, City, State, zip Code) 37 W. Broad St., Ste. 725, Columbus, Ohio 43215 Daytime Telephone: Fax: 614 221 -4255 1 2 991 - 440 9 Email or Alternate Contact Information: aunderhill @smithandhale.com Who is the PRIMARY CONTACT PERSON for this application? Ben W. Hale Jr. AUTHORIZATION FOR OWNER'S AGENT /REPRE SENTATIVE(S): Please complete if applicable. This section must be notarized. I Suburban Improvement of Columbus Inc , the owner, hereby authorize the attorneys with the law firm of Smith & Hale to act as my representative(s) in all matters pertaining to the processing and approval of this application, including modifying the project. I agree to be bound by all representations and agreements made by the designated representative. Signature of Current Property Owner: BY : ' / - _ .I Ben W. Hale, Jr. Vice Subscribed and sworn to before me t 4uburban ImprAV@ptent State of County i WAIALIE Ndotsry Pubpc, SUN of NO W Commission Expires 00 -04-10 President f Columbu Date: Inc. 20 V APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT: This section must be compietea a notanzeo. I Aaron Underhill attorney , the owner or authorized representative, have read and understand the contents of this application. The information contained in this application, attached exhibits and other information submitted is complete and in all respects true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature of Owner nt 7 / 4— ✓ v /' �I i /7/ 6 Authorized Representative: y , G Subscribed and swom to before me this day o `�I Y tV �� 20 VAS✓ State of County of EULLL Notary Publi fNATAIA C. MOP= W Nohry Pit * StMe of Oft My Commission txppss 09414 -10 NOTE: CONTACT PERSON WILL RECEIVE A FACSIMILE CONFIRMING RECEIPT OF THIS APPLICATION Page 5 of 5 SUBAREA A 94.87 ACRES Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Union, Jerome Township and City of Dublin, (City of Dublin is located in Washington Township of Franklin County by annexation per City of Dublin Ordinance Number 71 -02, of record in Official Record 371, Page 628, Ordinance Number 67 -05, of record in Official Record 657, Page 224 and ORC § 503.07), lying in Virginia Military Survey No. 2991, being all of the 57.325 acre tract conveyed as Tract Two and all of the 5.002 acre tract conveyed as Tract One, all of the 20.633 acre tract, all of the remainder of the original 27.218 acre tract, all of the 5.003, 4.031, 27.214, 33.575, 20.170, and 1.830 acre tracts conveyed to Suburban Improvement of Columbus, Inc. by deeds of record in Official Record 575, Page 125, Official Record 657, Page 375, Official Record 607, Page 816, Official Record 625, Page 979, Official Record 589, Page 56, Official Record 664, Page 281, Official Record 609, Page 606, Official Record 653, Page 114, and Official Record 604, Page 638, respectively (all references are to the records of the Recorder's Office, Union County, Ohio) and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING for reference, at the centerline intersection of Brock Road (60 feet) and Jerome Road (60 feet); Thence South 84° 01' 31" West, with the centerline of said Brock Road, a distance of 1105.94 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence South 03° 58' 52" East, a distance of 754.56 feet to a point; Thence North 83° 57' 16" East, a distance of 290.00 feet to a point; Thence North 75° 09' 10" East, a distance of 281.66 feet to a point; Thence North 01 11' 09" West, a distance of 130.96 feet to a point; Thence North 74° 09' 05" East, a distance of 181.52 feet to a point; Thence South 03° 17' 21" West, a distance of 60.55 feet to a point; Thence North 51 55' 38" East, a distance of 297.33 feet to a point; Thence North 73 27' 08" East, a distance of 135.94 feet to a point; Thence South 06 11' 37" East, a distance of 102.77 feet to a point; Thence South 83 47' 53" West, a distance of 29.49 feet to a point; Thence South 64° 47' 53" West, a distance of 110.00 feet to a point; Thence South 35° 47' 53" West, a distance of 130.00 feet to a point; Thence South 24° 11' 12" West, a distance of 185.82 feet to a point; Thence South 06° 12' 07" East, a distance of 217.80 feet to a point; Thence North 83° 47' 53" East, a distance of 115.00 feet to a point; Thence South 00° 54' 55" East, a distance of 219.45 feet to a point; Thence South 83° 46' 44" West, a distance of 768.25 feet to a point; Thence South 05 19' 34" East, a distance of 345.98 feet to a point; Thence South 06 43' 17" East, a distance of 309.97 feet to a point; Thence South 15 28' 26" West, a distance of 254.69 feet to a point; SUBAREA A 94.87 ACRES -2- Thence South 09° 23' 29" West, a distance of 71.82 feet to a point; Thence South 11 ° 11' 08" East, a distance of 71.54 feet to a point; Thence South 25° 34' 04" East, a distance of 81.00 feet to a point; Thence South 63 44' 50" East, a distance of 67.76 feet to a point; Thence North 83 52' 46" East, a distance of 71.63 feet to a point; Thence North 83° 47' 36" East, a distance of 701.77 feet to a point; Thence North 06° 12' 24" West, a distance of 489.09 feet to a point; Thence North 83 51' 48" East, a distance of 240.00 feet to a point on the centerline of said Jerome Road; Thence South 14° Thence South 06° 12' 24" East, with said centerline, a distance of 980.53 feet to a point; Thence South 83° 47' 36" West, a distance of 374.65 feet to a point; Thence South 23° 34' 01" West, a distance of 15.98 feet to a point; Thence South 06 12' 24" East, a distance of 106.13 feet to a point; Thence South 02° 57' 40" East, a distance of 16.89 feet to a point; Thence South 00° 26' 11" West, a distance of 11.00 feet to a point; Thence South 03° 23' 17" West, a distance of 12.67 feet to a point; Thence South 05 02' 44" West, a distance of 15.66 feet to a point; Thence South 14° 44' 02" West, a distance of 5.69 feet to a point; Thence North 79° 53' 42" West, a distance of 49.46 feet to a point; Thence South 86° 18' 38" West, a distance of 97.96 feet to a point; Thence South 70° 44' 33" West, a distance of 82.10 feet to a point; Thence South 55° 31' 23" West, a distance of 82.10 feet to a point; Thence South 40° 18' 13" West, a distance of 82.10 feet to a point; Thence South 29° 45' 24" West, a distance of 92.20 feet to a point; Thence South 28° 26' 24" West, a distance of 72.85 feet to a point; Thence South 83° 31' 29" West, a distance of 140.00 feet to a point; Thence South 67° 20' 04" West, a distance of 52.06 feet to a point; Thence South 83° 31' 29" West, a distance of 130.00 feet to a point; Thence South 51 ° 27' 54" West, a distance of 107.72 feet to a point; Thence South 62 26' 26" West, a distance of 162.62 feet to a point; Thence South 53 29' 06" West, a distance of 41.19 feet to a point; SUBAREA A 94.87 ACRES _3- Thence South 64° 25' 46" West, a distance of 82.39 feet to a point; Thence South 75 22' 29" West, a distance of 73.25 feet to a point; Thence South 83° 54' 01" West, a distance of 225.13 feet to a point; Thence North 06° 05' 59" West, a distance of 165.00 feet to a point; Thence North 83° 54' 01" East, a distance of 193.08 feet to a point of curvature to the left; Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 40° 39' 55 ", a radius of 265.00 feet, an arc length of 188.08 feet, a chord bearing and distance of North 63° 34' 03" East, 184.16 feet to a point of tangency; Thence North 43° 14' 06" East, a distance of 122.93 feet to a point; Thence North I l' 01' 49" West, a distance of 119.37 feet to a point of curvature to the right; Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 05° 02' 45 ", a radius of 175.00 feet, an arc length of 15.41 feet, a chord bearing and distance of North 08° 30' 26" West, 15.41 feet to a point of tangency; Thence North 05° 59' 04" West, a distance of 261.28 feet to a point of curvature to the right; Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 26° 19' 35 ", a radius of 355.00 feet, an arc length of 163.12 feet, a chord bearing and distance of North 07° 10' 43" East, 161.68 feet to a point of compound curvature; Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 14° 38' 21 ", a radius of 175.00 feet, an arc length of 44.71 feet, a chord bearing and distance of North 27° 39' 41" East, 44.59 feet to a point of tangency; Thence North 34 58' 52" East, a distance of 125.82 feet to a point; Thence North 24° 02' 34" West, a distance of 157.73 feet to a point of curvature to the right; Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 32° 50' 57 ", a radius of 380.00 feet, an are length of 217.86 feet, a chord bearing and distance of North 07° 37' 06" West, 214.89 feet to a point; Thence North 81' 11' 37" West, a distance of 45.96 feet to a point of curvature to the left; Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 14° 48' 59 ", a radius of 450.00 feet, an arc length of 116.37 feet, a chord bearing and distance of North 88° 36' 07" West, 116.04 feet to a point; Thence South 83° 59' 24" West, a distance of 213.06 feet to a point; Thence South 83° 59' 24" West, a distance of 219.18 feet to a point;' Thence South 05 50' 33" East, a distance of 29.02 feet to a point; Thence South 83 52' 39" West, a distance of 25.22 feet to a point of curvature to the left; Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 17° 05' 28 ", a radius of 470.00 feet, an arc length of 140.20 feet, a chord bearing and distance of South 75° 19' 55" West, 139.68 feet to a point; 3 -S- 67 Thence South 66 47' 11" West, a distance of 160.38 feet to a point of curvature to the right; SUBAREA A 94.87 ACRES -4- Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 17° 05' 27 ", a radius of 530.00 feet, an arc length of 158.10 feet, a chord bearing and distance of South 75° 19' 55" West, 157.51 feet to a point; Thence South 83 52' 39" West, a distance of 118.44 feet to a point of curvature to the right; Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 01' 45' 31 ", a radius of 3030.00 feet, an arc length of 93.00 feet, a chord bearing and distance of South 84° 45' 25" West, 93.00 feet to a point; Thence South 85° 38' 10" West, a distance of 159.99 feet to a point of curvature to the left; Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 01° 45' 31 ", a radius of 2970.00 feet, an arc length of 91.16 feet, a chord bearing and distance of South 84° 45' 25" West, 91.16 feet to a point; Thence South 83° 52' 39" West, a distance of 112.27 feet to a point on the centerline of Hyland -Croy Road; Thence North 06° 05' 59" West, with said centerline, a distance of 311.06 feet to a point; Thence North 83° 51' 48" East, a distance of 854.38 feet to a point; Thence North 06 18' 47" West, a distance of 1919.83 feet to a point; Thence North 83 59' 22" East, a distance of 958.83 feet to a point the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING and containing 94.87 acres of land, more or less. Bearings for this description are based on the Ohio State Plane Coordinate System as per NAD83. Control for bearings was from coordinates of monuments McNeal and FCGS 6648, with a bearing of North 15° 07' 53" West, as established by the Franklin County Engineering Department, using Global Positioning System procedures and equipment. EVANS, MECHWART, HAMBLETON AND TILTON, INC. EJM: and D --b-06 94_87 ac 62131 SUBAREA B 9.24 ACRES Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Union, Jerome Township and City of Dublin, (City of Dublin is located in Washington Township of Franklin County by annexation per City of Dublin Ordinance Number 71 -02, of record in Official Record 371, Page 628, Ordinance Number 67 -05, of record in Official Record 657, Page 224 and ORC § 503.07), lying in Virginia Military Survey No. 2991, being all of the 57.325 acre tract conveyed as Tract Two and all of the 5.002 acre tract conveyed as Tract One, all of the 20.633 acre tract, all of the remainder of the original 27.218 acre tract, all of the 5.003, 4.031, 27.214, 33.575, 20.170, and 1.830 acre tracts conveyed to Suburban Improvement of Columbus, Inc. by deeds of record in Official Record 575, Page 125, Official Record 657, Page 375, Official Record 607, Page 816, Official Record 625, Page 979, Official Record 589, Page 56, Official Record 664, Page 281, Official Record 609, Page 606, Official Record 653, Page 114, and Official Record 604, Page 638, respectively (all references are to the records of the Recorder's Office, Union County, Ohio) and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning for reference, at the centerline intersection of Jerome Road (60 feet) and McKitrick Road (40 feet); Thence North 06° 12' 24" West, with the centerline of Jerome Road, a distance of 2177.85 feet to a point; Thence South 83° 51' 48" West, a distance of 240.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence South 06° 12' 24" East, a distance of 489.09 feet to a point; Thence South 83 47' 36" West, a distance of 701.77 feet to a point; Thence South 83° 52' 46" West, a distance of 71.63 feet to a point; Thence North 63 44' 50" West, a distance of 67.76 feet to a point; Thence North 25 34' 04" West, a distance of 81.00 feet to a point; Thence North 11 ° 11' 08" West, a distance of 71.54 feet to a point; Thence North 09 23' 29" East, a distance of 71.82 feet to a point; Thence North 15° 28' 26" East, a distance of 254.69 feet to a point; Thence North 83 51' 48" East, a distance of 750.23 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING and containing 9.24 acres of land, more or less. Bearings for this description are based on the Ohio State Plane Coordinate System as per NAD83. Control for bearings was from coordinates of monuments McNeal and FCGS 6648, with a bearing of North 15° 07' 53" West, as established by the Franklin County Engineering Department, using Global Positioning System procedures and equipment. EVANS, MECHWART, IIAMBLETON AND TILTON, INC. EJM: mr/ December 06 9_N0 ac 62131 a 4- �� 3-s-0-1 SUBAREA C 42.18 ACRES Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Union, Jerome Township and City of Dublin, (City of Dublin is located in Washington Township of Franklin County by annexation per City of Dublin Ordinance Number 71 -02, of record in Official Record 371, Page 628, Ordinance Number 67 -05, of record in Official Record 657, Page 224 and ORC § 503.07), lying in Virginia Military Survey No. 2991, being all of the 57.325 acre tract conveyed as Tract Two and all of the 5.002 acre tract conveyed as Tract One, all of the 20.633 acre tract, all of the remainder of the original 27.218 acre tract, all of the 5.003, 4.031, 27.214, 33.575, 20.170, and 1.830 acre tracts conveyed to Suburban Improvement of Columbus, Inc. by deeds of record in Official Record 575, Page 125, Official Record 657, Page 375, Official Record 607, Page 816, Official Record 625, Page 979, Official Record 589, Page 56, Official Record 664, Page 281, Official Record 609, Page 606, Official Record 653, Page 114, and Official Record 604, Page 638, respectively (all references are to the records of the Recorder's Office, Union County, Ohio) and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning, at the centerline intersection of Jerome Road (60 feet) and McKitrick Road (40 feet); Thence South 83° 31' 29" West, with the centerline of said McKitrick Road, a distance of 1996.84 feet to a point; Thence North 07° 13' 31" West, a distance of 68.89 feet to a point of curvature to the left; Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 41° 41' 35 ", a radius of 250.00 feet, an arc length of 181.92 feet, a chord bearing and distance of North 28° 04' 19" West, 177.93 feet to a point; Thence North 48° 55' 06" West, a distance of 134.40 feet to a point of curvature to the right; Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 41 52' 26 ", a radius of 200.00 feet, an arc length of 146.17 feet, a chord bearing and distance of North 27° 58' 54" West, 142.94 feet to a point; Thence North 07° 02' 41" West, a distance of 58.04 feet to a point,of curvature to the left; Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 28 48' 25 ", a radius of 200.00 feet, an arc length of 100.55 feet, a chord bearing and distance of North 21° 26' 53" West, 99.50 feet to a point; Thence North 35° 51' 05" West, a distance of 125.58 feet to a point; Thence North 55° 00' 59" East, a distance of 53.54 feet to a point of curvature to the right; Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 28° 53' 02 ", a radius of 125.00 feet, an arc length of 63.01 feet, a chord bearing and distance of North 69 27' 30" East, 62.35 feet to a point; Thence North 83° 54' 14" East, a distance of 372.53 feet to a point; Thence South 06° 05' 59" East, a distance of 165.00 feet to a point; Thence North 83 54' 01" East, a distance of 225.13 feet to a point; Thence North 75° 22' 29" East, a distance of 73.25 feet to a point; Thence North 64° 25' 46" East, a distance of 82.39 feet to a point; d �7 3 -5-tsf Thence North 53° 29' 06" East, a distance of 41.19 feet to a point; Thence North 62° 26' 26" East, a distance of 162.62 feet to a point; SUBAREA C 42.18 ACRES -2- Thence North 51 ° 27' 54" East, a distance of 107.72 feet to a point; Thence North 83° 31' 29" East, a distance of 130.00 feet to a point; Thence North 67° 20' 04" East, a distance of 52.06 feet to a point; Thence North 83° 31' 29" East, a distance of 140.00 feet to a point; Thence North 28 26' 24" East, a distance of 72.85 feet to a point; Thence North 29 45' 24" East, a distance of 92.20 feet to a point; Thence North 40° 18' 13" East, a distance of 82.10 feet to a point; Thence North 55° 31' 23" East, a distance of 82.10 feet to a point; Thence North 70 44' 33" East, a distance of 82.10 feet to a point; Thence North 86 18' 38" East, a distance of 97.96 feet to a point; Thence South 79° 53' 42" East, a distance of 49.46 feet to a point; Thence North 14 44' 02" East, a distance of 5.69 feet to a point; Thence North 05° 02' 44" East, a distance of 15.66 feet to a point; Thence North 03 23' 17" East, a distance of 12.67 feet to a point; Thence North 00 26' 11" East, a distance of 11.00 feet to a point; Thence North 02 57' 40" West, a distance of 16.89 feet to a point; Thence North 06° 12' 24" West, a distance of 106.13 feet to a point; Thence North 23 34' 01" East, a distance of 15.98 feet to a point; Thence North 83° 47' 36" East, a distance of 374.65 feet to a point on the centerline of said Jerome Road; Thence South 06° 12' 24" East, with said centerline, a distance of 1197.32 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing 42.18 acres of land, more or less. Bearings for this description are based on the Ohio State Plane Coordinate System as per NAD83. Control for bearings was from coordinates of monuments McNeal and FCGS 6648, with a bearing of North 15° 07' 53" West, as established by the Franklin County Engineering Department, using Global Positioning System procedures and equipment. EVANS, MECHWART, HAMBLETON AND TILTON, INC. E1M: mr/ Decemba 06 42_185 ac 62131 SUBAREA Dl 16.74 ACRES Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Union, Jerome Township and City of Dublin, (City of Dublin is located in Washington Township of Franklin County by annexation per City of Dublin Ordinance Number 71 -02, of record in Official Record 371, Page 628, Ordinance Number 67 -05, of record in Official Record 657, Page 224 and ORC § 503.07), lying in Virginia Military Survey No. 2991, being all of the 57.325 acre tract conveyed as Tract Two and all of the 5.002 acre tract conveyed as Tract One, all of the 20.633 acre tract, all of the remainder of the original 27.218 acre tract, all of the 5.003, 4.031, 27.214, 33.575, 20.170, and 1.830 acre tracts conveyed to Suburban Improvement of Columbus, Inc. by deeds of record in Official Record 575, Page 125, Official Record 657, Page 375, Official Record 607, Page 816, Official Record 625, Page 979, Official Record 589, Page 56, Official Record 664, Page 281, Official Record 609, Page 606, Official Record 653, Page 114, and Official Record 604, Page 638, respectively (all references are to the records of the Recorder's Office, Union County, Ohio) and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning for reference, at the centerline intersection of Hyland -Croy Road (50 feet) and McKitrick Road (40 feet); Thence North 06° 05' 59" West, with the centerline of said Hyland -Croy Road, a distance of 1045.73 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; a point; Thence North 06° 05' 59" West, continuing with said centerline, a distance of 336.57 feet to Thence North 83° 52' 39" East, a distance of 1046.06 feet to a point; Thence North 05 59' 04" West, a distance of 585.30 feet to a point; Thence North 05° 50' 33" West, a distance of 29.02 feet to a point; Thence North 83° 59' 24" East, a distance of 219.18 feet to a point; Thence South 06° 00' 36" East, a distance of 227.30 feet to a point of curvature to the right; Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 16° 21' 27 ", a radius of 700.00 feet, an arc length of 199.85 feet, a chord bearing and distance of South 02° 10' 07" West, 199.17 feet to a point of reverse curvature; Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 16° 19' 55 ", a radius of 700.00 feet, an arc length of 199.53 feet, a chord bearing and distance of South 02° 10' 53" West, 198.86 feet to a point; Thence South 05° 59' 04" East, a distance of 214.67 feet to a point of curvature to the left; Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 07° 42' 05 ", a radius of 450.00 feet, an arc distance of 60.49 feet, a chord bearing and distance of North 87 50' 26" East, 60.44 feet to a point; Thence North 83° 59' 24" East, a distance of 279.69 feet to a point; Thence South 05° 59' 04" East, a distance of 102.29 feet to a point of curvature to the left; Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 05° 02' 45 ", a radius of 175.00 feet, an arc distance of 15.41 feet, a chord bearing and distance of South 08° 30' 26" East, 15.41 feet to a point; Thence South 11 ° 01' 49" East, a distance of 119.37 feet to a point; Thence South 43° 14' 06" West, a distance of 122.93 feet to a point of curvature to the right; a -� -e7 5 -07 SUBAREA Dl 16.74 ACRES -2- Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 40° 39' 55", a radius of 265.00 feet, an arc length of 188.08 feet, a chord bearing and distance of South 63° 34' 03" West, 184.16 feet to a point; Thence South 83° 54' 01" West, a distance of 193.08 feet to a point; Thence South 83° 54' 14" West, a distance of 372.53 feet to a point of curvature to the left; Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 08° 37' 42 ", a radius of 125.00 feet, an are length of 18.82 feet, a chord bearing and distance of South 79° 35' 10" West, 18.81 feet to a point; Thence North 06° 05' 59" West, a distance of 125.54 feet to a point; Thence North 06 05' 59" West, a distance of 305.81 feet to a point; Thence South 83° 31' 29" West, a distance of 322.90 feet to a point of curvature to the left; Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 89° 37' 31 ", a radius of 25.00 feet, an arc length of 39.11 feet, a chord bearing and distance of South 38° 42' 43" West, 35.24 feet to a point; Thence South 06° 05' 59" East, a distance of 132.66 feet to a point; Thence South 83 54' 01" West, a distance of 361.02 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING and containing 16.74 acres of land, more or less. Bearings for this description are based on the Ohio State Plane Coordinate System as per NAD83. Control for bearings was from coordinates of monuments McNeal and FCGS 6648, with a bearing of North 15 07' 53" West, as established by the Franklin County Engineering Department, using Global Positioning System procedures and equipment. EVANS, MECHWART, HAMBLETON AND TILTON, INC. FJM: mv/ December 06 16_748 w 62131 SUBAREA D2 7.14 ACRES Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Union, Jerome Township and City of Dublin, (City of Dublin is located in Washington Township of Franklin County by annexation per City of Dublin Ordinance Number 71 -02, of record in Official Record 371, Page 628, Ordinance Number 67 -05, of record in Official Record 657, Page 224 and ORC § 503.07), lying in Virginia Military Survey No. 2991, being all of the 57.325 acre tract conveyed as Tract Two and all of the 5.002 acre tract conveyed as Tract One, all of the 20.633 acre tract, all of the remainder of the original 27.218 acre tract, all of the 5.003, 4.031, 27.214, 33.575, 20.170, and 1.830 acre tracts conveyed to Suburban Improvement of Columbus, Inc. by deeds of record in Official Record 575, Page 125, Official Record 657, Page 375, Official Record 607, Page 816, Official Record 625, Page 979, Official Record 589, Page 56, Official Record 664, Page 281, Official Record 609, Page 606, Official Record 653, Page 114, and Official Record 604, Page 638, respectively (all references are to the records of the Recorder's Office, Union County, Ohio) and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning for reference, at the centerline intersection of McKitrick Road (40 feet) and Hyland -Croy Road (50 feet); Thence North 06° 05' 59" West, with the centerline of said Hyland -Croy Road, a distance of 1382.30 to a point; Thence North 83 52' 39" East, a distance of 1046.06 feet to a point; Thence North 05° 59' 04" West, a distance of 585.30 feet to a point; Thence North 05° 50' 33" West, a distance of 29.02 feet to a point; Thence South 83° 59' 24" West, a distance of 219.18 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence North 83° 59' 24" East, a distance of 213.06 feet to a point of curvature to the right; Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 14° 48' 59 ", a radius of 450.00 feet, an arc length of 116.37 feet, a chord bearing and distance of South 88 36' 07" East, 116.04 feet to a point; Thence South 81° 11' 37" East, a distance of 45.96 feet to a point of curvature to the left; Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 32° 50' 57 ", a radius of 380.00 feet, an arc length of 217.86 feet, a chord bearing and distance of South 07 37' 06" East, 214.89 feet to a point; Thence South 24 02' 34" East, a distance of 157.73 feet to a point; Thence South 34° 58' 52" West, a distance of 125.82 feet to a point of curvature to the left; Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 14° 38' 21 ", a radius of 175.00 feet, an arc length of 44.71 feet, a chord bearing and distance of South 27° 39' 41" West, 44.59 feet to a point of compound curvature; Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 26° 19' 35 ", a radius of 355.00 feet, an arc length of 163.12 feet, a chord bearing and distance of South 07° 10' 43" West, 161.68 feet to a point; Thence South 05° 59' 04" East, a distance of 159.00 feet to a point; Thence South 83° 59' 24" West, a distance of 279.69 feet to a point of curvature to the right; Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 07° 42' 05 ", a radius of 450.00 feet, an are length of 60.49 feet, a chord bearing and distance of South 87° 50' 26" West, 60.44 feet to a point; AQ9-v -OT SUBAREA D2 7.14 ACRES -2- Thence North 05 59' 04" West, a distance of 214.67 feet to a point of curvature to the right; Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 16 19' 55 ", a radius of 700.00 feet, an arc length of 199.53 feet, a chord bearing and distance of North 02 10' 53" East, 198.86 feet to a point of reverse curvature; Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 16° 21' 27 ", a radius of 700.00 feet, an arc length of 199.85 feet, a chord bearing and distance of North 02 10' 07" East, 199.17 feet to a point; Thence North 06° 00' 36" West, a distance of 227.30 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING and containing 7.14 acres of land, more or less. Bearings for this description are based on the Ohio State Plane Coordinate System as per NAD83. Control for bearings was from coordinates of monuments McNeal and FCGS 6648, with a bearing of North 15° 07' 53" West, as established by the Franklin County Engineering Department, using Global Positioning System procedures and equipment. EVANS, MECHWART, HAMBLETON AND TILTON, INC. EIM: and D=cmba 06 7 147 ac 62131 SUBAREA E 2.42 ACRES Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Union, Jerome Township and City of Dublin, (City of Dublin is located in Washington Township of Franklin County by annexation per City of Dublin Ordinance Number 71 -02, of record in Official Record 371, Page 628, Ordinance Number 67 -05, of record in Official Record 657, Page 224 and ORC § 503.07), lying in Virginia Military Survey No. 2991, being all of the 57.325 acre tract conveyed as Tract Two and all of the 5.002 acre tract conveyed as Tract One, all of the 20.633 acre tract, all of the remainder of the original 27.218 acre tract, all of the 5.003, 4.031, 27.214, 33.575, 20.170, and 1.830 acre tracts conveyed to Suburban Improvement of Columbus, Inc. by deeds of record in Official Record 575, Page 125, Official Record 657, Page 375, Official Record 607, Page 816, Official Record 625, Page 979, Official Record 589, Page 56, Official Record 664, Page 281, Official Record 609, Page 606, Official Record 653, Page 114, and Official Record 604, Page 638, respectively (all references are to the records of the Recorder's Office, Union County, Ohio) and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning for reference, at the centerline intersection of McKitrick Road (40 feet) and Hyland -Croy Road (50 feet); Thence North 06 05' 59" West, with the centerline of said Hyland -Croy Road, a distance of 1045.73 to a point; Thence North 83° 54' 01" East, with Grantor's tract, a distance of 361.02 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence North 06° 05' 59" West, a distance of 132.66 feet to a point of curvature to the right; Thence with the are of said curve, having a central angle of 89° 37' 31 ", a radius of 25.00 feet, an arc length of 39.11 feet, a chord bearing and distance of North 38° 42' 43" East, 35.24 feet to a point; Thence North 83° 31' 29" East, a distance of 322.90 feet to a point, Thence South 06° 05' 59" East, a distance of 305.81 feet to a point; Thence South 83° 54' 01" West, a distance of 347.73 feet to a point; Thence North 06° 05' 59" West, a distance of 146.04 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING and containing 2.42 acres of land, more or less. Beatings for this description are based on the Ohio State Plane Coordinate System as per NAD83. Control for bearings was from coordinates of monuments McNeal and FCGS 6648, with a bearing of North 15° 07' 53" West, as established by the Franklin County Engineering Department, using Global Positioning System procedures and equipment. EVANS, MECHWART, HAMBLETON AND TILTON, INC. EIM: mr/ December 06 2_429 ac 62131 SUBAREA F 16.94 ACRES Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Union, Jerome Township and City of Dublin, (City of Dublin is located in Washington Township of Franklin County by annexation per City of Dublin Ordinance Number 71 -02, of record in Official Record 371, Page 628, Ordinance Number 67 -05, of record in Official Record 657, Page 224 and ORC § 503.07), lying in Virginia Military Survey No. 2991, being all of the 57.325 acre tract conveyed as Tract Two and all of the 5.002 acre tract conveyed as Tract One, all of the 20.633 acre tract, all of the remainder of the original 27.218 acre tract, all of the 5.003, 4.031, 27.214, 33.575, 20.170, and 1.830 acre tracts conveyed to Suburban Improvement of Columbus, Inc. by deeds of record in Official Record 575, Page 125, Official Record 657, Page 375, Official Record 607, Page 816, Official Record 625, Page 979, Official Record 589, Page 56, Official Record 664, Page 281, Official Record 609, Page 606, Official Record 653, Page 114, and Official Record 604, Page 638, respectively (all references are to the records of the Recorder's Office, Union County, Ohio) and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the centerline intersection of Hyland -Croy Road (50 feet) and McKitrick Road (40 feet); Thence North 06 05' 59" West, with the centerline of said Hyland -Croy Road, a distance of 1045.73 feet to a point; Thence North 83 54' 01" East, a distance of 361.02 feet to a point; Thence South 06° 05' 59" East, a distance of 146.04 feet to a point; Thence North 83° 54' 01" East, a distance of 347.73 feet to a point; Thence South 06 05' 59" East, a distance of 125.54 feet to a point on the arc of curvature to the left; Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 20° 15' 20 ", a radius of 125.00 feet, an arc length of 44.19 feet, a chord bearing and distance of South 65° 08' 39" West, 43.96 feet to a point; Thence South 55° 00' 59" West, a distance of 53.54 feet to a point; Thence South 35 51' 05" East, a distance of 125.58 feet to a point of curvature to the right; Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 28° 48' 25 ", a radius of 200.00 feet, an arc length of 100.55 feet, a chord bearing and distance of South 21 ° 26' 53" East, 99.50 feet to a point; Thence South 07 02' 41" East, a distance of 58.04 feet to a point of curvature to the left; Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 41° 52' 26 ", a radius of 200.00 feet, an arc length of 146.17 feet, a chord bearing and distance of South 27 58' 54" East, 142.94 feet to a point; Thence South 48 55' 06" East, a distance of 134.40 feet to a point of curvature to the right; Thence with the arc of said curve, having a central angle of 41 41' 35 ", a radius of 250.00 feet, an arc length of 181.92 feet, a chord bearing and distance of South 28° 04' 19" East, 177.93 feet to a point; Thence South 07 13' 31" East, a distance of 68.89 feet to a point on the centerline of said McKitrick Road; SUBAREA F 16.94 ACRES -2- Thence South 83 31' 29" West, with said centerline, a distance of 922.43 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing 16.94 acres of land, more or less. Bearings for this description are based on the Ohio State Plane Coordinate System as per NAD83. Control for bearings was from coordinates of monuments McNeal and FCGS 6648, with a bearing of North 15 07' 53" West, as established by the Franklin County Engineering Department, using Global Positioning System procedures and equipment. EVANS, MECHWART, HAMBLETON AND TILTON, INC. E1M: and December 06 16 948 ac 62131 SUBAREA EXH IB I T ORGINIA MILITARY SURREY No. 2991 CITY OF DUBLIN" AND ✓EROME TOWNSHIP, UNION COUNTY, OHIO Tarr e/ Breen w w.vMe n wmerMrm ro.wrry a frWNM Cowry OY dnwfbn M OYY e/ MOM Pdhwn IAUrraw )I -N, e/ r,an4 h OMrM Rerore !>I, Pap BM OYnetn Awnae e) -B; o/ rw•wU n BRA:a' R.wn, uR Pep. TTI w4 me ! Jao) I.lav A.rva III i I I BRCCK(8' / Planned R/W ) R�'� P,rw v w �f1 ziln Aa.., O.R. Se$ Py. 91a Rs- R4cw4q 0.R. JBA PB N! pel.ee 9 I - wW SLeureen hwBn'Irnf I WNW W g I u u . lY W Bn4vareu4 nc � 9 Orlphd A — - I �„rorin e F ,.mJB v °i3a ei> PA n, - %Ira Ads, A T _ 0.R. BJ; PB 118 n. 5a, 9nur� Sd D. Bronx we ry °�`j y Here ,WJ'47'SlY 1 i ue Tau vv. BI' _ rrnm• g c . epA Po )e a ana SmN7.TY OR OPncw 3 I !4 — -- I Cawor _ TIAu .. -- A B . Ia fAA SVBAR SU'N•N•W IBBAJ• e 94.87 AC RaaM C T BBlc 4 Lb I F a .. OB J.JJ P� -- O II I I .. W w oo m pE I m 5�rr�BdMwrP n ra A rT I • v � O.B. JI2 Pp i 0. O A Inrt P I w a B 1 srw,eot mwo.wr,w.f _ o A , A — 1. a/OdurnOrrA Mrc M --��" U g OR, eJJ. 9 IJ - e,1J .lJS1J Anu hnwy MnoWf @rpst -`� ` � e, ree 1 0.R. eBA Po 60e SBB'NYYf A...w al)J A An soa L I $ O p Cbrd 15wwe B Ir ll Bdlde E Krpf O R. TOR Py (M— JpO0150Je) JBAB i RTpe A 2 " 1 A—) a S Pa"cvr T w '.• L QR 1M, PB SW F�� �a 730. RB> s v Bs,.Ja Pa.o"Ar r, UiD yr f0A%]p' O B9I, Po I.BT SLBAREA B A V SeJ'SB'N Sll,l'OT 9.14 Ae. T )I Mh 4 irr•✓ dale IJOB J.• Z I �Rro Gc - v n q 8 saea4ON n . , •' A 5 °c S 4.T l r.5 O. R. / Po T.B .,. y� E.. ReJ'3T•46Y S.Owew hp,Pwn -r I ©R� cote, , ,usr',s r ux ceJ. v ex R II.eJ' Ba ® SUBAREc 01 'J'Y2 27.214 o -.. r B.R I . sdz Po 121 OR.. 04, Pp. TBI c y ' IOISJ .wane Favq f( F ces 41. .001 A of Werni � li I i W �rVK avJ. v Ur O.R. 2B4 Po 6M R. FI✓p rvaJ'ST� VY + } 0.R SeB. PA 56 Se,YYA'J © Qghd 1.011 AaBs IOa Y J:N'OI'IY l la ~ M RnrJp•TB 8 '�. 1 I _ Y e raw' 2 © O o.I12A 10 >J d l� 4 J r 4 g a Y t eA cr eFARGrvcs ICGS ~ 664B P .r a n IS'O)' SJ' Hfem w .wruv w qupnnww wr a i ... MCK/7RLCK ROAD Ql R>e08'OS'E 6 ©y/I:N7/' ©MIIOJ'rY ®Mle2 ar ®MJJm4pY 1 1. ST I8K .M1lle Op R�AIYABO IP.)r1C100' A[fe Q SOJtJ'TI'W I�1f Sbete'Y'w 0.YB.RTTJI'41Y Aro-lSn )0' Are.IAAe1' ®�� % . sBU B>ps mo -4nw' aas »,Bas'w aesBTYBrorw R.InoB �R��9'm'r Qr�vw ArB'.N.)I• aa.lasJl• aB -1BArr pbn,Bfty..mr O SBI8783W @5331I'TJ'W ®MJT40'JY ®feJ'Jp J/'w ®MIBYA"J. fTP�I.RAP' J.w IBH �XAAD ,V8.4A lA 81.10' ob- r14ev' ®�O /W JI•' Ys'w ®MOB'Jl'I?• v �IIU�� W �° siula�•w Are.Tl). Ara.JBJAAttb aB:lAaeB' ��S�J5Y0•M ©sJS�'sBJ•w ®vr4veroB' aB -arw %w ®n- .rw:u• aw.rnSr• �s3pvs R.4aa5B a.J -aero• R -afaBO A,c.lnat' ae.nBA7erorw Are- 1eaBr' ®MOIWJI' 9= NYp'w ©G.TBJJ'01• Q SBisr,O'C IJ Sa676'T.•w Ar�w l IrQ JY �TAraW' p,r�.inBJ• �rACtl• r.as" 1.18' eJBI• ® d.. 8 mps (� scOTB�r,'w � prl0'JB 55' ®'�SPA� Y � fMW %'N ® R- P0000' • O'tl�62J11 JOY 1 �, �� R `TBS�W' ®.feiRT:,A'w ©feJlr:YD'w Nc lmfr ®p.OIYPOe' Ymrc. 4 CJ sBlvYrw crs Qe mY %�, !/T.rr ar.Rasxww _uaap• • .e. :1d nn �.,, ••r IBar.alar B :ieiie' ®n.l>wrs• ®aepsr,l• O10 Ar. -Ba4A• ^� Bel W R�Iram' R.rn00 ®MreYe7J' Lltl- //e>JB %Y �^° 2 O. �Y9'JS' AwI4A]O• _IwxW'uY R��TO0.B0' LIrMQQ H' REWfn,NB U sr Yib1 CnB- �ltOYJY aVvfNJ,D'D.TYI JtN' 1568' W [110.161. BO' fR0�IJ9.ee' A,c�JAll' p�p.AA JO' A.c�IBJ lT' MIZZaI1IITIDII.CCIN10124 WK9 r�_�!Ll�t &l Parcel Name Address City State Zip HOPPER LARRY E & PATRICIA JJT LIVES 1260000055000 REM TO SURV 7400 BROCK RD PLAIN CITY OHIO 43064 -9433 1260000055001 RENGEL PATRICK R & DIEDRE 1 7460 BROCK RD PLAIN CITY OHIO 43064 -9433 1260000055002 RENGEL PATRICK R & DIEDRE J 7460 BROCK RD PLAIN CITY OHIO 43064 -9433 1260000056000 BONTA LISA M 7480 BROCK RD PLAIN CITY OHIO 43064 -9433 1260000057000 LUSK ROGER B & MILDRED EJT LIVES 7530 BROCK RD PLAIN CITY OHIO 43064 -9433 1260000058000 SAVAGE SHAWN & HEIDI C 7600 BROCK RD PLAIN CITY OHIO 43064 -9433 O'DONNELL KIMBERLY & 1260000059000 TIMOTHYMORLEY 0 BROCK RD PLAIN CITY OHIO 43064 -9433 1260000060000 MORLEY JUDITHLIEE ESTATE 7670 BROCK RD PLAIN CITY OHIO 43064 -9433 PAUL JAN MOONEY & SHANNONSPEARS 1260000066000 ,DELLA PORTS 9900 HYLAND CROY RD PLAIN CITY OHIO 43064 -9433 1260000067000 KUNZELMAN EDWARD R II & TARA M 9870 HYLAND CROY RD PLAIN CITY OHIO 43064 -9433 1260000068000 KUNZELMAN EDWARD R 11 & TARA M 5200 THE CITY OF DUBLIN DUBLIN OHIO 43017 1260000069000 TRUAX ALAN E & EILEEN T 9836 HYLAND CROY ROAD PLAIN CITY OHIO 43064 -9433 TRAYSER DAVID A & MARGARET 1260000070000 WTRUSTEES OR THEIR SUCCESSOR 9855 HYLAND CROY RD PLAIN CITY OHIO 43064 -9454 1261501001000 THEODORE GRAYDON M & YVONNE V 7651 BROCK RD PLAIN CITY OHIO 43064 -9454 1261501002000 THEODORE GRAYDON M & YVONNE V 7651 BROCK RD PLAIN CITY OHIO 43064 -9454 BAERTLEIN BRIAN ALLEN & DAWN AJT 1261501003000 LIVES REM TO SURV 7667 BROCK ROAD PLAIN CITY OHIO 43064 -9454 BAERTLEIN BRIAN ALLEN & DAWN AJT 1261501004000 LIVES REM TO SURV 7667 BROCK ROAD PLAIN CITY OHIO 43064 -9454 1261501010000 WILLIS JOHN W & LAURANN R 1007 HYLAND CROY RD PLAIN CITY OHIO 43064 -9454 1261501011000 SHERMAN GREGG A & NANCY L 1005 HYLAND CROY RD PLAIN CITY OHIO 43064 -9454 1261501012001 SPARKS ELAINE S & F EDWARD 0 HYLAND CROY RD PLAIN CITY OHIO 43064 -6454 1261501013000 SPARKS EDWARD & ELAINE A 9980 HYLAND CROY RD PLAIN CITY OHIO 43064 -6454 1 261 50101 5000 GATES LESLIE H 37 W BROAD ST STE 725 COLUMBUS OHIO 43215 1270000041000 YINGST DONALD E TRUSTEE 9899 JEROME RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -7609 1270000042000 YINGST DONALD E TRUSTEE 9899 JEROME RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -7609 1270000043000 MATHENA WILDER C & FLOSSIE L JT LIVES 9910 JEROME RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -7609 1270000044000 MATHENA WILDER C & FLOSSIE L IT LIVES 9910 JEROME RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -7609 1270000044001 TULLER ERNEST A& LINDA LEA 9850 JEROME RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -7609 1271301016000 BD OF EDUCATION DUBLIN S D 1024 JEROME ROAD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -7609 BREKER MARK S & MOLLY A JT LVSREM 1271301017000 TO SURV 1019 JEROME RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -7609 1271301018000 KOENIG GLADYS MAXINE 1017 JEROME ROAD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -7609 1271301019000 WILLIAMS DAVID L 1007 JEROME RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -7609 1271301020000 CHAFINS KENNETH & DAWN D 1006 JEROME RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -7609 DICKMAN RALPH E 1R & KATHERINEA 1271301021000 TRUSTEES 5371 GORDON WAY DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -8870 1271301036000 DOUBLE L BUILDERS 5359 GORDON WAY DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -8870 1271301037000 NHG DEVELOPMENT GROUP LTD PO BOX 2055 DUBLIN OHIO 43017 1271301037000 NHG DEVELOPMENT GROUP LTD 2444 DEEWOOD DR COLUMBUS OHIO 43229 -2261 1271301038000 NHG DEVELOPMENT GROUP LTD 5340 GORDON WAY DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -8870 1271301039000 NHG DEVELOPMENT GROUP LTD 5362 GORDON WAY DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -8870 1271301040000 NHG DEVELOPMENT GROUP LTD 5386 GORDON WAY DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -8870 SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS 1 271 303001 000 HEINSIUS ELMER 1 & SUSAN 7411 BROCK RD PLAIN CITY OHIO 43064 -9495 1271303002000 WEARS LESLIE S & KEN A TRUSTEE 7379 BROCK RD PLAIN CITY OHIO 43064 -9495 1271303003000 GATES ROBERT E & SHIRLEY LEETRUSTEES 7319 BROCK RD PLAIN CITY OHIO 43064 -9495 MARGARET A ABEY TRUSTABEY 1271303004000 MARGARET A TRUSTEE 1020 JEROME RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -7609 1271303005000 REEDER ROBERT DALE & SHARON ANN 1018 JEROME RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -7609 1271303006000 REEDER ROBERT DALE & SHARON ANN 1018 JEROME RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -7609 1271303007000 10155 JEROME ROAD LLC 1015 JEROME ROAD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -7609 1271303008000 NESDORE BRUCE G & SALLY JJT LIVES 1009 JEROME RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -7609 1271303009000 LAYMAN RICHARD E 1006 JEROME RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -7609 1271303010000 EDWARDS DALE G 1001 JEROME RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -7609 1 271 30301 3000 LAWYER ROBERT A & PATRICIA K JT LIVES 9969 JEROME ROAD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -7609 1271304001000 NHG DEVELOPMENT GROUP LTD 941 CHATHAM STE 100 COLUMBUS OHIO 43221 1360000005000 BALLARD ROBERT & MARY MLIFE ESTATE 9703 HYLAND CROY RD PLAIN CITY OHIO 43064 -6454 1360000006000 O'BRIEN DANIEL L & LINDA L 9635 HYLAND -CROY ROAD PLAIN CITY OHIO 43064 -6454 1360000008000 BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS 9481 HYLAND CROY ROAD PLAIN CITY OHIO 43064 -6454 BD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS OF 1360000111000 THECOLUMBUS AND FRANKLIN CO 1069 W MAIN ST WESTERVILLE OHIO 43081 -1173 1360000112000 JAMES ANNA E 9338 HYLAND -CROY RD PLAIN CITY OHIO 43064 -6454 1370000008000 1NSCHO CHERYL HUNT 9570 JEROME RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -7609 1370000009000 CRISSINGER DANNY A & ANNETTE 9500 JEROME RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -7609 1370000010000 HOFFMAN WILLIAM G 9468 JEROME RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -7609 1370000011000 PRICE TIMOTHY W & RONDA 1 9444 JEROME RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -7609 WOERNER JOHN C & IRENE% FERGUSON 1370000022000 V W 9447 JEROME RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -7609 EVELYN IRENE WOERNER TRUSTDATED 1370000023000 10/31/00 7181 MCKITRICK DRIVE DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -9303 1370000024000 NPJOERNER SUSAN K TRUSTEE 7229 MCKITRICK RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -9303 JOHNSON DAN E & EDWARDS LAURA KIT 1370000025000 LIVES REM TO SURV 7229 MCKITRICK RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -9303 PARKER DANIEL C & JUDITH AMASTRINE 1370000026000 IT LIVES REM TO SURV 7299 MCKITRICK RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -9303 1370000027000 SMITH BRUCE EDWARD & ELLEN CARROLL 7339 MCKITRICK RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -9303 1370000028000 SMITH BRUCE EDWARD & ELLEN CARROLL 7339 MCKITRICK RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -9303 1370000028000 SMITH BRUCE EDWARD & ELLEN CARROLL 7339 MCKITRICK RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -9303 1370000029000 HAYSLIP RICHARD E & JOAN E JTLIVES 7365 MCKITRICK RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -9303 1370000030000 HAYSLIP RICHARD E & JOAN E JTLIVES 7365 MCKITRICK RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -9303 1370000032000 WINDLE MARY A 7449 MCKITRICK RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -9303 WOERNER GEORGE H & ALTA ANNJT 1370000033000 LIVES REM TO SURV 7471 MCKITRICK RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -9303 1370000034000 CLARK CHARLES E & NANCY N 7501 MCKITRICK RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -9303 1370000053000 SKAGGS LEONARD G & KIMBERLY K 9810 JEROME RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -9303 1370101007000 KOCH KEVIN 1 6850 MACNEIL DR DUBLIN OHIO 43017 1370101008000 NHG DEVELOPMENT GROUP LTD 6860 MACNEIL DR DUBLIN OHIO 43229 -2261 1370102006000 NHG DEVELOPMENT GROUP LTD 6845 MCNEIL DR DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -7975 1370102007000 NHG DEVELOPMENT GROUP LTD 6600 LOCHART LANE DUBLIN OHIO 4017 1370102017000 NHG DEVELOPMENT GROUP LTD 6595 LOCHART LANE DUBLIN OHIO 43017 SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS 1370102018000 NHG DEVELOPMENT GROUP LTD 6885 MCNIEL DR DUBLIN OHIO 43017 1370102019000 NHG DEVELOPMENT GROUP LTD 6895 MCNIEL DR DUBLIN OHIO 43017 1370102029000 NHG DEVELOPMENT GROUP LTD 6900 MCNEIL DR DUBLIN OHIO 43017 1370102030000 NHG DEVELOPMENT GROUP LTD 2444 DEEWOOD DR COLUMBUS OHIO 43229 -2261 1370102031000 NHG DEVELOPMENT GROUP LTD 605 S FRONY ST COLUMBUS OHIO 43215 1261501015000 GATES LESLIE H 37 W BROAD ST STE 725 COLUMBUS OHIO 43215 1261501017000 GATES MARY SUSANFULL INT 37 W BROAD ST STE 725 COLUMBUS OHIO 43215 GATES ROBERT E & SHIRLEY UT LIVES _ 1271303011000 REM TO SURV 9999 JEROME RD DUBUN OHIO 43017 BERGEMANN SHIRLEY A AKA SHIRLEYA 1271303012000 BERGEMAN 9979 JEROME RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 1360000008001 HOFFMAN HERBERT L TRUSTEE 37 W BROAD ST STE 725 COLUMBUS OHIO 43017 1360000118000 JAMES ANNA 9756 HYLAND -CROY RD PLAIN CITY OHIO 43064-6454 1370000005000 R & D NEILL LTD 9641 JEROME RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 OHIO EDISON COMPANY AN 1370000005001 OHIOCORPORATION 37 W BROAD ST STE 725 COLUMBUS OHIO 43215-4199 1370000031000 PROFESSIONAL ACQUISITIONS CORP 7440 MCKITRICK RD DUBLIN OHIO 43017 -9303 1370000035000 NEILL STEVEN L & KATHY E 7610 MCKITRICK RD DUBLIN OHIO 433017 -9303 1370104001000 SHOEMAKER JON C 37 W BROAD ST STE 725 COLUMBUS OHIO 43215 • Charlie Driscoll • Ben W. Hale, Jr. 05 -183Z Tartan Ridge The Edwards Land Company Smith and Hale 9756 Hyland Croy Road 495 N. High Street, Ste. 150 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725 Columbus, OH 43215 Columbus, OH 43215 Jon C. Shoemaker Elaine & Edward Sparks Gregg & Nancy Sherman 121 Horse Spring Coulee Road 9980 Hyland Croy Road 10050 Hyland Croy Road Tonasket, WA 98855 Plain City, OH 43064 Plain City, OH 43064 John & Laurann Willis Graydon & Yvonne Theodore Andrew & Judith DeJaco 10070 Hyland Croy Road - 7651 Brock Road 6198 Inverurie Drive Plain City, OH 43064 Plain City, OH 43064 Dublin, OH 43017 Kimberly Clavin & Brian Reynolds Dan &Debbie Eisert Joseph &Lisa Bonta Brian Road 7707 Brock Road 5119 Reserve Drive Plain City, OH ad Plain City, OH 43064 Dublin, OH 43017 Patrick & Diedre Rengel CHERYL HUNT INSCHO Elmer & Susan Heinsius 7460 Brock Road 9570 JEROME RD 7411 Brock Road Plain City, OH 43064 DUBLIN, OH 43017 Plain City, OH 43064 Leslie & Ken Wears Peter & Carol Sward Dale & Sharon Reedes 7379 Brock Road 7319 Brock Road 10185 Jerome Road Plain City, OH 43064 Plain City, OH 43064 Dublin, OH 43017 Bob & Margie Miller E. and Shirely Bergemann Larry & Patricia Hopper 6900 McNeil Drive 9979 Jerome Road 7400 Brock Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Plain City, OH 43064 JOHN WOERNER & IRENE Kevin Barney FERGUSON 8180 McKitrick Road Current Resident 9447 JEROME RD Plain City, OH 43064 7530 Brock Road DUBLIN, OH 43017 Plain City, OH 43064 Shawn & Heidi Savage Kimberly & Timothy O'Donnell Joan Monney & Shannon Paul 7600 Brock Road 7670 Brock Road 9900 Hyland Croy Road Plain City, OH 43064 Plain City, OH 43064 Plain City, OH 43064 Li -Li Chen & Tara & Edward I1 Kunzelman Fung Gang David & Margaret Trayser 9870 Hyland Croy Road 9740 Concord Road 9855 Hyland Croy Road Plain City, OH 43064 Dublin, OH 43017 Plain City, 04 43064 Donald Yingst, Trustee Current Resident Robert & Sandra Maluso 9899 Jerome Road 9836 HYLAND CROY ROAD 5340 Gordon Way Dublin, OH 43017 PLAIN CITY, OH 43064 Dublin, OH 43017 NHG DEVELOPMENT GROUP LTD EVELYN IRENE WOERNER Dennis & Kristin McIntyre 6905 MACNEIL DRIVE TRUST 10301 Jerome Road DUBLIN, OH 43017 7181 MCKITRICK DRIVE Plain City, OH 43064 DUBLIN, OH 43017 Ernst Tuller& Lind Lea Jon Michael Merriman Eric Grenier 9850 Jerome Road 10308 Jerome Road 10192 Jerome Road Dublin, OH 43017 Plain City, OH 43064 Dublin, OH 43017 Gladys Maxine Koenig Gary & Sandra Clapham Ronald & Sharon Jarret 10174 Jerome Road 5362 Gordon Way 10066 Jerome Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Daniel & Debra Myers Ken Boock Robert & Shirley Gates 5359 Gordon Way 6080 Brigids Close Drive 9999 Jerome Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Jon Field Dale Edwards Current Resident 10063 Jerome Road 10019 Jerome Road 9969 Jerome Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Robert & Mary Ballard DENNIS & KRISTIN MCINTYRE Clinton Field 9703 Hyland Croy Road 1030 JEROME RD 10091 Jerome Road Plain City, OH 43064 PLAIN CITY, OH 43064 Dublin, OH 43017 DANNY & ANNETTE CRISSINGER William Hoffman Timothy & Ronda Price 9500 JEROME RD 9468 Jerome Road 9444 Jerome Road DUBLIN, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 DANNY & ANNETTE CARL A, & JENNIFER LONG MARGARET A ABEY TRUSTEE CRISSINGER 7316 BROOK RD 1020 JEROME RD 9500 JEROME RD PLAIN CITY, OH 43064 PLAIN CITY, OH 43064 DUBLIN, OH 43017 Board of Education Robert & Jill Hoying DENNIS & KRISTIN MCINTYRE 7030 Coffman Road 9071 Tartan Field Drive 1030 JEROME RD Dublin, Ohio 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 PLAIN CITY, OH 43064 James & Linda Rock WILDER & FLOSSIE MATHENA Stephanie Pendleton 9420 Jerome Road 9910 JEROME RD 7229 McKitrick Road Dublin, OH 43017 DUBLIN, OH 43017 DUBLIN, OH 43017 Daniel & Judith Parker Bruce Edward Smith & Richard & Joan Hayslip 7299 McKitrick Road Ellen Carr 7365 McKitrick Road Dublin, OH 43017 7339 McKitrick Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Mary Windle George & Alta Ann Woerner Charles & Nancy Clark 7449 McKitrick Road 7471 McKitrick Road 7501 McKitrick Road Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Katherine Ghidotti Everett & Cathleen Hoekstra Michael & Kimberlee Ferry 6840 MacNeil Drive 6850 MacNeil Drive 6600 Lockhart Lane Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 David Williams Todd & Tracy Dowling Porter & Diane Bertelson 7021 Cook Road 6885 MacNeil Drive 6895 MacNeil Drive Powell, OH 43065 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Current Resident MICHAEL & LAURIE BERG ALAN & EILEEN TRUAX 9643 Brock Road 6835 MACNEIL DRIVE 9836 HYLAND CROY ROAD Plain City, OH 43064 DUBLIN, OH 43017 PLAIN CITY, OH 43064 CYNTHIA REED Dan Livingston BRIAN & DAWN BAERTLEIN 5208 ARYSHIRE DRIVE 4171 Hertford Lane 7667 BROCK ROAD DUBLIN, OHIO 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 PLAIN CITY, OH 43064 ARLINGTON BUILDERS INC MICHAEL & LAURIE BERG FRANCIS & COLLEEN SEGRAVE 6590 LOCKHART LANE 6835 MACNEIL DRIVE 5371 GORDON WAY DUBLIN, OH 43017 DUBLIN, OH 43017 DUBLIN, OH 43017 STEVEN & KATHY NEILL R & D NEILL LTD BRIAN & DAWN BAERTLEIN 7610 MCKITRICK RD 9641 JEROME RD 7667 BROCK ROAD DUBLIN, OH 43017 DUBLIN, OH 43017 PLAIN CITY, OH 43064 Board of Park Commissioners CHARLES & NANCY CLARK Mami Spears 1069 W. Main Street 7501 MCKITRICK RD 9900 Hyland Croy Road Westerville, Ohio 43081 DUBLIN, OH 43017 Plain City, OH 43064 LARRY & DEBORAH CHADWELL 9940 HYLAND CROY RD PLAIN CITY, OH 43064 ROBERT & SHARON REEDER 9643 BROCK ROAD PLAIN CITY, OH 43064 - -9349 ROBERT & CHARLOTTE ARLINGTON BUILDERS INC YEAMANS 6590 LOCKHART LANE 9949 HYLAND CROY RD DUBLIN, OH 43017 PLAIN CITY, OH 43064 ERIC COOK 10150 HYLAND CROY ROAD PLAIN CITY, OH 43064 LEONARD & KIMBERLY SKAGGS 9810 JEROME RD DUBLIN, OH 43017 ANNA JAMES Andrea Eardley 7056 BORDEAUX CT 10154 Hyland Croy Road DUBLIN, OH 43017 Plain City, OH 43064 CITY OF DUBLIN,. Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 71236 Phone: 614.410 -4600 Fax: 614 - 410 -4747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION FEBRUARY 1, 2007 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 05 -183Z — Tartan Ridge — 9756 Hyland - Croy Road Location: 189.57 acres located north of the intersection of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads, bordered to the east by Jerome Road and to the north by Brock Road. Existing Zoning: R, Rural District. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District under the provisions of Code Section 153.050. Proposed Use: A mixed -use development that includes 246 single - family lots, 24 townhouse units, approximately 68,500 square feet of commercial space, and 69.14 acres of open space. Applicant: Charlie Driscoll, The Edwards Land Company, 495 South High Street, Suite 150, Columbus, Ohio 43215; represented by Ben W. Hale, Jr, and Aaron L. Underhill, Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410 - 4675 /chusak @dublin.oh.us MOTION: To approve this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan based on the evaluation of this proposal according to the criteria set forth in Code Section 153.050 and the Ten Land Use Principles, with eleven conditions, as noted below. 1) That the applicant resolve cost sharing for the infrastructure needed to service the site with sanitary sewer, water, and streets, to be finalized and agreed upon prior to final development plan approval; 2) That the Traffic Study be approved by the City of Dublin and Union County prior to final development plan approval; 3) That all rights -of -way as outlined in this report be dedicated with the recording of the final plat; 4) That the applicant participate in improvements to the existing North Fork Indian Run sewer near I -270, subject to approval by the City Engineer; Page 1 of 2 J_A_ o7 '3.- 5._ -07 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION FEBRUARY 1, 2007 1. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 05 -183Z — Tartan Ridge — 9756 Hyland - Croy Road (Continued) 5) That the text be modified to ensure base height for lighting fixtures are appropriately sized for safety and that the text and plans be revised to indicate No- Build Zones, No- Disturb Zone, and landscape buffers as outlined in this report, subject to Planning approval; 6) That the applicant participate in a cost sharing agreement for infrastructure improvements constructed by the City of Dublin to be finalized and agreed upon prior to final development plan approval; 7) That the access point on Brock Road be approved by the City Engineer and Union County and that a stub street to the western property boundary, north of the elementary school, be provided to promote connectivity with possible future development, subject to Engineering approval; 8) That the commercial area be redesigned to create a pedestrian- friendly streetscape and environment by providing parallel parking; subject to Planning and Engineering approval; 9) That the bikepath along McKitrick Road be located sensitively to existing natural features and be sited more centrally within the setback; 10) That the final development plan for this project incorporate additional public open space along the front of lots in Subarea D -2; and 11) That in lieu of meeting the Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines, the applicant works with Planning on a night sky preservation program for the lighting. Ben W. Hale, Jr., representing the applicant, agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 7 — 0. RESULT: This Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan was approved. It will be forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation. STAFF CERTIFICATION Claudia D. Husak, AICP Planner Page 2 of 2 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — February 1, 2007 Page 3 of 11 1. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 05 -183Z — Tartan Ridge — 9756 Hyland -Croy Road Mr. Gerber said the Commission reviewed this case at the last meeting, on January 18, and it was coming back for review of the revised list of uses as it related to retail and commercial. He asked for a progress report with respect to parking in the retail area. Claudia Husak presented updates to this case and slides. She said this is a request for review and approval of a rezoning for 189 acres north of the intersection of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads. She said the applicant was asked by the Commission to revise the text to make changes to the permitted and conditional uses in the neighborhood commercial area, and to address any inconsistencies in the text. Ms. Husak said this has allowed two conditions to be eliminated from this case, and the presentation will focus on the neighborhood commercial area only, as all other aspects have been discussed previously. Ms. Husak said that Planning has met with the applicants in order to address concerns and the text has been revised in terms of the permitted uses and refers to the permitted uses in three sections of the Zoning Code: SO, Suburban Office and Institutional, NC, Neighborhood Commercial, and CC, Community Commercial Districts. She said a revised booklet had been provided to the Commissioners. Ms. Husak said the text also includes language that specifies prohibited uses which would be inappropriate in such a neighborhood setting and language that speaks to the intent of this area as a local neighborhood serving area which will help to determine whether a particular use is appropriate or not. Ms. Husak said the Conditional Use section of the text has been updated, based on previous discussion and Planning believes that the changes will ensure that this area is developed in a manner that is conducive to a neighborhood serving commercial area. She said based on the evaluation of this proposal according to the review criteria for a rezoning and preliminary development plan, and with the modifications stated in the conditions, the plan will successfully provide appropriate development standards for the site. Ms. Husak said in addition to the modifications stated in Conditions 9 and 10 listed in the Planning Report, this proposal will meet all the Land Use Principles and will advance the general planning intent of the area. She said the Tartan Ridge development is unique and attractive, and the applicant has worked with Planning and Engineering to address issues and concerns previously discussed. She said this development will maintain and further the high level of development quality in northwest Dublin, and Planning recommends approval with the ten conditions as detailed in the Planning Report: 1) That the applicant resolve cost sharing for the infrastructure needed to service the site with sanitary sewer, water, and streets, to be finalized and agreed upon prior to submitting any final development plan; 2) That the Traffic Study be approved by the City of Dublin and Union County prior to submittal of a final development plan; 3) That all rights -of -way as outlined in this report be dedicated with the recording of the final plat; 4) That the applicant participate in improvements to the existing North Fork Indian Run sewer near I -270, subject to approval by the City Engineer; Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — February 1, 2007 Page 4 of 11 DRAFT Ben W. Hale, Jr., representing the applicant, Charlie Driscoll, The Edwards Land Company, said the Shamrock Crossing development which City Council recently approved, had the same use issue, and they handled that the same way. He said Council did not like to see all those uses listed, so they have taken out the more objectionable uses and placed the Code sections there so that there are not three pages of uses. Mr. Gerber noted that there were many people in the audience and asked if anyone wished to speak to the issues before the Commission. [No response.] Ms. Jones said she was appreciative of the update in the text. She said the uses prohibited in the text were the items she was looking to be prohibited. She said the essence of everything discussed at the last meeting had been captured regarding targeting this to neighborhood services versus more regional serving uses. She noted that the Conditional Use portion was better defined. Mr. Zimmerman said he agreed with Ms. Jones that the list requested has been submitted. Mr. Gerber referred to Condition 8, and asked if Ms. Husak had discussed it further with the applicant since the last meeting. Ms. Husak said Planning had discussed with the applicants what the vision for that area was, and she thought the applicant was working through how it can be accommodated. Mr. Hale said everybody is interested in having activity in front of that building, and they do not want people to have to go all the way around the building to come back and park. He said if parking is done that way, there might have to be roundabouts at the ends so people can come back and get a space. Mr. Hale said they also thought there might be walls or other treatment that might allow some angular or head -in parking on one side of the street. He said they thought there were a variety of issues that need to be worked through, and they feel like the time to do that is when they get into engineering, and they come in with the final development plan because the outstanding issues are on both sides and they want to explore them fully. He said they understand that when they come back for final development plan approval, the Commission has the right to say that they want all parallel parking, and if so, they will abide by it. However, they want to explore other options with Planning to make sure that they are doing the absolute right thing. Mr. Gerber asked if Mr. Hale had any problem with Condition 8 at this point. Mr. Hale indicated he did not. Mr. Hale said the only other issue they had was that they have a couple of items that they have to do before they can do a final development plan. He said their first phase is 32 lots off Jerome Road and they have to do a turn lane there and would like to be able to process that final development plan prior to resolving the issue how they are going to share costs on other items. Mr. Saneholtz deferred to staff on the timing matters. Ms. Husak said Planning would be comfortable to add: "...prior to the approval of the final development plan" to Conditions 1 and 6. However, she said for Condition 2, she would refer to Engineering as the traffic study has to be approved by the City of Dublin as well as the Union County Engineer. Aaron Stanford said one of the reasons why Engineering included that was so Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — February 1, 2007 Page 5 of 11 �•. that the Planning Report for the final development plan would be able to explain the traffic improvements and how they work with Union County. He said he thought they still had the ability to do that if it were based on an approval, but they were trying to be able to have all the information laid out so that it could be detailed in the Planning Report. Mr. Hale agreed to submit it. He said it would give them the opportunity to work through issues with staff while they are negotiating other items. Mr. Gerber agreed to amend Conditions 1, 2, and 6 to replacing "prior to submitting" with "prior to final development plan approval." Mr. McCash said he was concerned with some commercial uses being this close to the Metro - Park. However, he said there was a need for those types of services in this area. He said because they are close to the Metro Park and on the outskirts of Dublin in the rural areas, he did not think the Dublin External Lighting Guidelines are appropriate for this area. He suggested making it a condition that provisions for night sky preservation and protection be considered instead of following the Dublin External Lighting Guidelines. Mr. McCash suggested Condition 11: That in lieu of the Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines that staff work with the applicant on a night sky preservation program for the lighting. Mr. Hale said he had done that before and agreed there were always things that could be done. Mr. Saneholtz said some of the uses he had concern with were auto repair and auto sales. Aaron Underhill, Smith and Hale, said they specifically excluded automobile sales. He said auto - oriented uses were conditional uses in these districts, therefore they would not be permitted. Ms. Jones noted that the auto - oriented uses were listed on page 44 under number 11. Mr. Saneholtz noted the text read: Miscellaneous repair shops and related services. He said his concern was that if they do have a fuel facility at this location, knowing that it is a conditional use, that he did not want to see auto repair become a part of that. He asked that it be called out in the text. Mr. Langworthy said if the text states that conditional uses are not permitted and this one is called out specifically as being prohibited, there may be some problems later when someone interprets the rest of the conditional uses as being allowed because only one of them was omitted. He said it was an ordinance interpretation issue that has to be dealt with on a fairly regular basis. He said he was concerned how it would affect the City in the future. Mr. Saneholtz and Mr. Walter agreed to leave it the way it was. Mr. Saneholtz said another concern he had was that as result of the Joint Work Session last Monday, it became clear to him that Hyland -Croy Road is going to become potentially a four - lane boulevard, and he did not think this application had addressed creating a significant ease of connectivity or pedestrian-use in access to the Metro Park. Ms. Husak said other than at the Hyland -Croy Road and the school access drive roundabout, where there is pedestrian crossing to access the Metro Park, there are no other specific Metro Park accessible pedestrian areas further south. Mr. Saneholtz said at the Joint Work Session it was made clear to him that not only this site, but also Union County had Jerome Road on the books from US 42 to McKitrick Road as a four -lane roadway. He said he anticipated that the center would attract some attention from the park, and the park certainly would attract attention from the residential area and others that will have Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — February 1, 2007 Page 6 of 11 DRAFT use, that he did not want to see auto repair become a part of that. He asked that it be called out in the text. Mr. Langworthy said if the text states that conditional uses are not permitted and this one is called out specifically as being prohibited, there may be some problems later when someone interprets the rest of the conditional uses as being allowed because only one of them was omitted. He said it was an ordinance interpretation issue that has to be dealt with on a fairly regular basis. He said he was concerned how it would affect the City in the future. Mr. Saneholtz and Mr. Walter agreed to leave it the way it was. Mr. Saneholtz said another concern he had was that as result of the Joint Work Session last Monday, it became clear to him that Hyland -Croy Road is going to become potentially a four - lane boulevard, and he did not think this application had addressed creating a significant ease of connectivity or pedestrian-use in access to the Metro Park. Ms. Husak said other than at the Hyland -Croy Road and the school access drive roundabout, where there is pedestrian crossing to access the Metro Park, there are no other specific Metro Park accessible pedestrian areas further south. Mr. Saneholtz said at the Joint Work Session it was made clear to him that not only this site, but also Union County had Jerome Road on the books from US 42 to McKitrick Road as a four -lane roadway. He said he anticipated that the center would attract some attention from the park, and the park certainly would attract attention from the residential area and others that will have connectivity to this area. Ms. Husak said she was not sure how far along the design of Hyland - Croy Road was. Mr. Saneholtz asked if there could be a condition that would anticipate that additional need. He said it was not a question of if it is going to happen — it is just a question of timing. Mr. Fishman said that was an excellent point, but he was concerned who would pay for a tunnel. He said the City had put in several tunnels after the fact and they were expensive. He questioned whether or not a condition could be added or was needed since the road was not yet engineered. Mr. Hale said no one knows today what the ultimate improvement will be in the future. Mr. Walter said he wondered what the applicant's responsibility was to improvements, based upon growth outside their control. He said he saw there is a pedestrian flow that will happen from Tartan, across through this development, to the park, and he did not think they could tell the developer that because other parcels around are going to develop and their parcel is the natural flow between the use we are trying to get, that they should be unduly burdened with the cost of that. However, he said he did take Mr. Saneholtz's point seriously that the developers bear some responsibility for providing some level of contribution. He said they should have staff consider that. Mr. Hale said there will be negotiation and part of that will be they will have to write a check for Brand Road because of those planned improvements and what their share is. Mr. Gerber said safety and related cost issues will be discussed at City Council. He said the minutes will reflect the Commission discussion. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — February 1, 2007 Page 7 of 11 Mr. McCash said Council had wrestled with as far as what future needs were and how much to put on a particular developer rather than balancing it out and taking it out of the tax dollar component. Ms. Jones asked if the language in Condition 1 lent to that also: "that they had to resolve their cost - sharing arrangement prior..." She asked if "pedestrian ways" could be added so that Council could resolve it, or should it be left to go to the next level. Mr. Saneholtz said he believed that one of the current principles was "pedestrian accessibility to and from the site." He said he was in favor of adding some pedestrian language as well. Mr. Walter and Mr. Fishman agreed that would be a great solution. Mr. Gerber said he agreed with the issues being raised, however he interpreted that the word "streets" addressed all these issues. Motion and Vote: Mr. Gerber moved to approve this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan based on the evaluation of this proposal according to the criteria set forth in Code Section 153.050 and the Ten Land Use Principles, with eleven conditions, as noted below. 1) That the applicant resolve cost sharing for the infrastructure needed to service the site with sanitary sewer, water, and streets, to be finalized and agreed upon prior to final development plan approval; 2) That the Traffic Study be approved by the City of Dublin and Union County prior to final development plan approval; 3) That all rights -of -way as outlined in this report be dedicated with the recording of the final plat; 4) That the applicant participate in improvements to the existing North Fork Indian Run sewer near 1 -270, subject to approval by the City Engineer; 5) That the text be modified to ensure base height for lighting fixtures are appropriately sized for safety and that the text and plans be revised to indicate No -Build Zones, No- Disturb Zone, and landscape buffers as outlined in this report, subject to Planning approval; 6) That the applicant participate in a cost sharing agreement for infrastructure improvements constructed by the City of Dublin to be finalized and agreed upon prior to final development plan approval; 7) That the access point on Brock Road be approved by the City Engineer and Union County and that a stub street to the western property boundary, north of the elementary school, be provided to promote connectivity with possible future development, subject to Engineering approval; 8) That the commercial area be redesigned to create a pedestrian- friendly streetscape and environment by providing parallel parking; subject to Planning and Engineering approval; 9) That the bikepath along McKitrick Road be located sensitively to existing natural features and be sited more centrally within the setback; 10) That the final development plan for this project incorporate additional public open space along the front of lots in Subarea D -2; and 11) That in lieu of meeting the Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines, the applicant works with Planning on a night sky preservation program for the lighting. Mr. Hale agreed to the above 11 conditions. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Ms. Jones, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 7 -0.) CITY OF DUBLIN- land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -fangs Rood Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone: 614-4104600 fox: 614 -410 -4747 Web Site: www- dublin.oh.us PLANNING AND ZONING'COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION JANUARY 18, 2007 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 2. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 05 -183Z — Tartan Ridge — 9756 Hyland- Croy Road Location: 189.57 acres located north of the intersection of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads, bordered to the east by Jerome Road and to the north by Brock Road. Existing Zoning: R, Rural District. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District under the provisions of Code Section 153.050. Proposed Use: A mixed -use development that includes 246 single - family lots, 24 townhouse units, approximately 68,500 square feet of commercial space, and 69.14 acres of open space. Applicant: Charlie Driscoll, The Edwards Land Company, 495 South High Street, Suite 150, Columbus, Ohio 43215; represented by Ben W. Hale, Jr. and Aaron L. Underhill, Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410 - 4675 /chusak @dublin.oh.us MOTION: To table this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan to the February 1, 2007, meeting, waiving the fifteen day rule, to further define the uses within the development text. *Ben Hale, Jr., agreed to the tabling. VOTE: 5-0. RESULT: This Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan was tabled. STAFF CERTIFICATION d 0a C� ? J" /A j� Claudia Husak, AICP Planner Cr -)3 -07 3 - 5 - D7 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 2 of 23 Mr. Gunde said that was the ex ion for Feb ruary be e a work session ha ready been sch ed instead of the sec d meeting. He said n regular cases are sche ed for the secon ebruary meeting. Mr. Gerber moved for pproval of the Decem r 7, 2006 meeting =.;iMr. es as presented. Mr. Zimmerman secon d and the vote was as llows: Mr. Walter, y Saneholtz, yes; Jones, yes; Mr. immerman, yes; and . Gerber, yes. (Approv -0.) Mr. Ge er noted that the applic is for Case 1 had cons ted to the conditions. o one pulled the nsent item.] He ann ced that the cases w d be heard in the ord of the published 1. Final D ,cv6lopment Plan/Final YIdt 06- 109FDP/FP — N uad, Subarea 2 — W ndotte WOW, Sections 6 and 7 — L s 157 through 183 — andotte Woods Boule rd Mr. erber swore in the a icants' representative enell Sniechowski, D. Zande and sociates, who agreed to a following three cond' ions as listed in the P11 report: 1) That the lands pe plans indicate the ect species of street trees for this area and that PI ; and 3) t the scale on the pl,*fbr Section 7 be correct otion and Vote: Mr. Gerber mov:rina r approval of this Fina evelopment Plan/Fina fat because the complies =tin l D evelopment Pl and Final Plat criteria, the applicable dev standards the Northeast Qua UD text, with the t e conditions listed ab Zimmerpffin seconded the motio , and the vote was as yes r. Walter, abstain. Mr immerman, yes; and alter explained that h abstained because he or] relationship. Mr. c) ws: Mr. Saneholtz, y , Ms. Jones, Gerber, yes. (Appr ed 4 -0 -1.) Mr. d with the appli t through a client 2. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 05 -183Z — Tartan Ridge — 9756 Hyland -Croy Road Claudia Husak said this is a request for review and approval of a rezoning of 189 acres north of the intersection of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads for a planned unit development that includes 246 single - family lots, 24 townhouse units, approximately 68,500 square feet of neighborhood commercial space, and 69 acres of open space. She presented a slide of an aerial context map which showed the proposed development and the surrounding area. She said Tartan West was south of the site and the Glacier Ridge Metro Park is to the west. Ms. Husak said further to the south is the recently approved Oak Park Development. Ms. Husak said this case was presented to the Commission under the name, Bantry Greene in June 2006, and the Commission discussed the need for more housing variety in that plan, as well as a need for high - quality architecture, and the proposed location of the retail area. Adjacent Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 3 of 23 residents also voiced concerns regarding the utility connections, increased traffic, and the retail area. She said this case was tabled at that meeting at the applicant's request. Ms. Husak said the plans have been significantly revised. Ms. Husak said small portions of the site are heavily wooded and there are three streams and two ponds currently on the site. She presented slides which showed different views of the site. She showed a proposed site plan for the development which illustrated the proposed layout of the lots, the road network, the commercial area in the south, and the open space areas. Ms. Husak said the housing consists of seven different single - family lot types and 24 townhouses which would be located in four buildings. She said active parks are proposed throughout the site, as well as passive open space located mainly along the boundaries of the site in the 200 -foot setback. Ms. Husak presented a slide showing the proposed seven subareas as well as the permitted lot types in those subareas. Ms. Husak said the proposed development text describes each subarea in detail and provides development standards for each. She said it also places restrictions on garage orientation to orient them away from open spaces and parks. She said the text provides flexibility for a substation of the Washington Township Fire Department to be located in the area north of the elementary school. Ms. Husak said the area is currently shown as open space on the plan, and it is expected to be dedicated to the City at the final development plan stage. She said the fire department has identified the need for a small substation in this area to better serve the northwest area of the City and the City will continue working with the fire department, should they choose to use this location for their substation. Ms. Husak said the proposed architecture was outlined in the development text which included standards intended to create a variety of architectural combinations. She said several architectural styles are described in the text and high - quality; four -sided architecture will be required throughout the development. Ms. Husak presented a graphic which showed the proposed open spaces within the development. She said the text distinguishes neighborhood parks, rural open spaces, and the boulevard green in the description of open spaces and provides the design intended for each of those. She said existing trees and ponds will be incorporated into the parks and the open spaces and unique and different landscaping techniques are encouraged. Ms. Husak said Planning has identified an opportunity for better connections between the open spaces in this development. She said while the open space connections are very well designed along the parks in the north and southern section there is an opportunity where a defined connection between the two areas could be established. Ms. Husak said the final development plan for this project should incorporate additional public open space in the front of lots in Subarea D2 as required by Condition 12 in the Planning report. Ms. Husak presented a slide showing the layout design for the proposed neighborhood commercial area which includes retail, restaurant, and office uses at the corner of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads. She said the preliminary plan shows several building footprints along the Hyland -Croy Road frontage and the main entry into the site. A drugstore with a drive -thru is shown on the south, as well as a gas station with a convenience store along McKitrick Road. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 4 of 23 Ms. Husak said the text contains a typo for the setbacks, but the applicant is aware of that and it will be corrected. Ms. Husak said while the plan for the entire development successfully creates a place for multi - generational living and social interaction by offering a variety of housing types as well as passive and active open spaces and recreational opportunities that are conveniently located in the proximity to neighborhood services, Planning has identified areas in the neighborhood commercial portion where the function of the street network can be improved to better serve the neighborhood and provide additional opportunities to walk in this neighborhood. She said the proposed neighborhood commercial area incorporates typical suburban design elements such as pull -in parking which is auto - oriented and drive aisles in front of the buildings. She said this area should be redesigned to create a pedestrian- friendly streetscape by providing parallel on- street parking that takes advantage of the residential proximity and eliminates pavement in this general area. Ms. Husak said based on the evaluation of the proposal according to the review criteria for the preliminary development plan, Planning is confident that with the modifications stated in the conditions, the plan will successfully provide appropriate development standards for this site and will also advance the general planning intent of this area. She said in addition, Planning has also determined that with the modifications listed in Conditions 11 and 12, the proposal will meet all land use principles. Ms. Husak said the Tartan Ridge development is a unique and attractive project and the applicant has worked with extensively with Planning and Engineering to work through issues and address concerns previously discussed. She said this development will maintain and further the high level of development quality in this northwest portion of the City. She said Planning recommends approval of this preliminary development plan with the 12 conditions as listed in the Planning report: 1) That the applicant continue to work with Engineering in resolution of cost sharing for the infrastructure needed to service the site with sanitary sewer, water, and streets, to be finalized and agreed upon prior to submitting any final development plan; 2) That the Traffic Study be approved by the City of Dublin and Union County prior to submittal of a final development plan; 3) That all rights -of -way as outlined in this report be dedicated with the recording of the final plat; 4) That the applicant participate in improvements to the existing North Fork Indian Run sewer near I -270, subject to approval by the City Engineer; 5) That the text be modified to ensure base height for lighting fixtures are appropriately sized for safety and that the text and plans be revised to indicate No -Build Zones, No- Disturb Zone, and landscape buffers as outlined in this report, subject to Planning approval; 6) That discrepancies between the text and the plans regarding garage orientation and front Build -Zones be revised to accurately reflect the intended restrictions, subject to Planning approval; 7) That the text be modified include the signage provisions as outlined in this report, subject to Planning approval; Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 5 of 23 8) That the applicant participate in a cost sharing agreement for infrastructure improvements constructed by the City of Dublin to be finalized and agreed upon prior to submitting any final development plan; 9) That the access point on Brock Road be approved by the City Engineer and Union County and that a stub street to the western property boundary, north of the elementary school, be provided to promote connectivity with possible future development, subject to Engineering approval; 10) That the commercial area be redesigned to create a pedestrian- friendly streetscape and environment by providing parallel parking; subject to Planning and Engineering approval; 11) That the bikepath along McKitrick Road be located sensitively to existing natural features and be sited more centrally within the setback; and 12) That the final development plan for this project incorporate additional public open space along the front of lots in Subarea D -2. Ben W. Hale, Jr., representing the applicant, Charlie Driscoll, The Edwards Land Company, said that in June, he had said that his client felt that the residential part of this proposal was on the wrong track, and he asked that it be tabled and said they would come back with something very different. He said this is very different from that previous application because many things have happened. He said his former client, M/I Homes no longer owned the property, and Edwards Land Company is the developer of this site. He said this was a very different program because these houses will be built by a number of builders and many of them will be custom houses. Mr. Hale said they looked at the street plan numerous times with the input of Planning and made the appropriate revisions. He said they clearly heard from the Commission at the previous meeting, that they needed high - quality architecture. He said that Brian Jones, their architect, came up with a very innovative solution with six or seven different kinds of houses that have the things that are needed to make the house look right. Mr. Hale said that Mr. Jones did a series of massing drawings which show how the houses should be massed so when an architect designs one, he has the massing drawings. He said they also show how to transition from one material to the other. Mr. Hale said it shows examples how to do gates, front doors, and shutters that are appropriate for the window sizes. He said all the standards and drawings are legal commitments that are in the zoning and it has to be done that way. He said the commercial architecture has to be done that way as well. Mr. Hale said the process, because of multiple builders, will have an architectural review committee. He said they will go through architectural review with the builders to make sure the house is in compliance with this drawing and then they will file a building permit and the City will review it. Mr. Hale said when the City reviews the permit, they will use this book to judge whether or not they followed the criteria in terms of architecture and massing, front door treatment and general surroundings. Mr. Hale said it was hard to look at drawing and understand the scale. He said one of the comparable developments was the Shoppes of Athenry where there is a UDF on the corner, Mary Kelley's, a day care, and an office building which equals 50,000 square feet. Mr. Hale discussed the available retail square footage and vacancies of the submarket, which provided all the retail needs on the west side of the river except for Tuttle Mall. He said that on this side of the City, there is a very healthy commercial base. Mr. Hale said this commercial is really a quality of life thing. It will keep people from being forced to drive four miles to get their prescriptions, to go to Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 6 of 23 a small restaurant, to go to a coffee shop, or to pick up their laundry. He said they have taken the units that are more dense (townhouses and alley lots) and brought them down around the center so that it functions like a little town. Mr. Hale said that Pete Edwards and Charlie Driscoll took a very strong look at Dublin, Ohio and the Dublin school system and one of the things they found was that in Ballantrae, which is in the Hilliard school district, most people who bought at Ballantrae were not moving there from the Dublin school district. He said they believed that there is a very substantial move -up market in Dublin. He said they are talking here about housing that will range in price from $400,000 to $900,000. Mr. Hale said they have been very careful with garages and tried to not have front facing garages on any of the major streets or open spaces. Anne Wanner, The Edge Group, thanked Ms. Husak for the pre - submittal process and said Ms. Husak did a great job and kept them on track and provided great input along with a couple of other planners. Ms. Wanner said the comments and input were all very timely. She said a good job was done on the staff report and thanked Ms. Husak for that as well. Ms. Wanner said there was definitely an underserved market here — a price point between $400,000 and $800,000 and above. She said people come to Dublin to move up and there is nowhere to go. She said the other part of the design intent was that they wanted to blend new urbanism principles with suburban conservation design. She said at times, the conservation design principles now in place are challenging and they wanted to combine them with some of the newer ideas that are coming about in planning. Ms. Wanner said they also wanted to facilitate some of the comments heard before — that the residential and the commercial pieces were not integrated. Ms. Wanner presented an overall regional map which showed what was happening around Tartan Ridge. She said Jerome Village is to the north and will have approximately 2,000 homes. She said Oak Park, previously approved, as well as the ongoing development, Tartan West are located nearby. Ms. Wanner said this large amount of development will need service facilities in this area. She said the vision and inspiration of Tartan Ridge was more important. She said included in the booklet distributed was a variety of imagery, and a perspective views of what Tartan Ridge is going to look like. Ms. Wanner said when their design team first met they wanted to look at other timeless subdivision designs for inspiration. She said Frederick L. Olmstead, known as the grandfather of landscape architecture was also a land planner and he planned subdivision designs in Chicago known as Riverside, Druid Hills in Atlanta, and Forest Hills, in New York. She said in looking at his designs, they saw very interesting organic forms as patterns that they wanted to emulate. She said they visited the site several times. She said the topography of the site was not common in Dublin. She said they wanted to design with nature and use these organic forms. She said they wanted to create a place where people wanted to live. Ms. Wanner said they compared contemporary subdivision design to some of the older subdivisions of Bexley and Upper Arlington. She said they found that there is an inherent conflict with contemporary suburban design which lies in where the driveway is located versus where the pedestrian space or people space is located. She said people live in their driveways by playing in them or socializing in them. Ms. Wanner said the older neighborhoods separate their people space from their auto - oriented space by creating elements that separate the spaces such as gateposts and gates which were an extension of the house and socialization space for the home. She said they wanted to create that. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 7 of 23 Ms. Wanner said people spaces in Dublin had people spaces such as gates and doors. She said they have open spaces that are oriented towards people. She said they wanted to create that. She quoted Fredrick Law Olmsted which she said she thought was very appropriate for their vision: What improvements have you here that tend to insure permanent helpfulness and permanent rural beauty? " She said that was exactly what they wanted to create — permanent beauty here. Ms. Wanner said the other layer they wanted was architectural styles. She said the six architectural styles in the book do not alone create spaces. She said they create an element of how people live. Ms. Wanner said architectural elements, special attention to front doors, windows, shutters, proportion of these elements, are very crucial in space - making. She said gates, gateposts, and hedges are on every lot. Ms. Wanner said brick and stone piers, stone walls, brick sidewalks all create the socialization space that changes how people live and they want to create that. Ms. Wanner said the open space plan is very complete with different types of spaces. She said they have Dunlevin Park, which preserves a very substantial pond. She said keeping the elements on the site is part of the space - making. She presented a slide showing the Lahinch Park site where the large trees shown will be preserved. She said the open spaces will be connected through the use of lush boulevards and sweeping views of vistas. Ms. Wanner presented a development plan showing how the lots were connected. She said there are cottage lots closer to the village area that connects to some of the estate lots towards the north of the area. She said garage orientation is an important piece of how people relate to their neighbors and they wanted to prohibit street- oriented garages, moving the garage back, out of public space and make it a private area. Ms. Wanner presented a slide of a perspective view and some elevations of the village center. She said setbacks are small so that people are not oriented towards one another, but towards the street. She said it slowed traffic and created a village pedestrian feel. Ms. Wanner said an important goal of this project was to meet Dublin's Ten Land Use Principles which have been implemented as part of the Community Plan Update. She said they feel that they have not only met the principles, but exceeded them through the elements they have created, through the additional architectural design standards they have, and through the land use plan. She said they want to create a legacy — timeless landscape architecture and timeless land planning. Brian Jones said as they wanted to make sure that the Olmsteadian vision of trying to create a place that really celebrates the landscape architecture and the planning held through. He said a lesson in studying great places, is that architecture in those places often becomes the background. He said in becoming the background, it often is about what you do not do versus what you do. Mr. Jones said they were striving for diversity within a very limited palette of stylistic expressions. He said the overall architecture of this place is being established by the village center and the commercial piece. He said in that piece, they are really trying to drive their stylistic cues from the things that have occurred throughout Dublin, as well as the Midwest, and really looking to the late 19 to 20 Century for those expressions. He said the architecture of that commercial area leads into the architecture of the residences. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 8 of 23 Mr. Jones said they were committed to looking at criteria that qualified massing, that dealt with fenestration or the way that windows are used around the building, and also a cogent idea about how materials are used and developed which they thought expressed a commitment that is quite uncommon. He said as they looked at the overall connectivity and the scale, this was not really a typical suburban solution and they feel that the commercial has integrated to the residential in a way that will be quite a great example in this region. Mr. Hale said there had been meetings with the neighbors along Hyland -Croy Road and the Muirfield Civic Action group prior to this meeting. Mr. Gerber invited those in the audience who wished to speak, to come forth, state their name for the record. He said comments would be limited to three minutes. Kim Clavin, 7667 Brock Road, presented a slide showing the proposed entry road on Brock Road. She said it did not now match with the entry road into Jerome Village. She said it was approximately 530 feet away. She said it did not seem to be a logical place for the entry road. She suggested that the entry be lined up with Jerome Village. Ms. Clavin said while doing that, the homeowner will be relieved from having property taken. She said also, trees might possibly have to be removed in the action. Ms. Clavin said she saw no improvements in the retail traffic mentioned as a resident concern. She said Hyland -Croy Road was a big traffic area and this development will have an impact on it, therefore it would be the developer's responsibility to fix the roads because they are causing the traffic impact. Ms. Clavin said the residents asked for a major thoroughfare through the development to relieve traffic, and that did not happen. She said the retail was a big concern and she thought the City agreed that they wanted to keep the Glacier Ridge look to be the natural setting. She asked why not put the retail on the southeast corner where it was away from Glacier Ridge. Mr. Gerber asked about the traffic flow Ms. Clavin mentioned. Ms. Clavin said it was the traffic flow between the two developments, Jerome Village and Tartan Ridge. Ms. Clavin said there is also a concern about drainage. She said they have not been approached with what the solution would be. She said there are drainage tiles and they are planning to build on top of them. Mr. Gerber recalled that the phone numbers and addresses of interested residents were taken so that they could be contacted, and asked if they had been notified of any meeting. Ms. Clavin said she received a notice from the developers last Wednesday or Thursday for a meeting on a Monday, and it was a holiday weekend. She said they had four days' notice and a holiday weekend. However, she said the developer made a good effort to contact everyone on the list. Marni Spears, a Hyland -Croy Road resident, said she was approached by the developer the week prior to Christmas to get the neighbors together. She said she appreciated the Commission upholding the standards for the building behind her home, north, next to the water tower. She said if they had to list concerns, it would be the drainage. She said she had not been contacted in six months. She said she had to disconnect two of her downspouts because they were coming up as fire hydrants, as she was the home closest to the field, and was getting the backflow from the section. Ms. Spears said they met with the developers on this past Monday night and reviewed Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 9 of 23 the plats. She said they were told that had been inspected by their engineer, but they were not aware of the creek beds, the boulders placed, etc. Ms. Spears said their second concern was the retail. She said she thought several Commissioners agreed that where the retail was proposed, it was a very hazardous intersection. She said it was very elevated and with the Metro Park having the retail there did not work with the crosswalk. Ms. Spears said traffic concerns were that they would have additional traffic and gas, beer, food, and restaurant deliveries. She said they were told that although the Commission had requested that the proposed homes' quality be increased, that the Commission had also demanded an increase in the number of home builders proposed. Ms. Spears said they originally were told 25 developers would be in Tartan Ridge, and tonight they heard 13. Ms. Spears said she was also there on behalf of Debbie Toddwell, a resident south of her, and also Jan Moony Paul, 9900 Hyland -Croy Road. Eric Cook, 10150 Hyland -Croy Road, said most of the residents on Hyland -Croy agreed with Ms. Spears' summary of their concerns. Mr. Cook said when a development of this size comes into an area, it is important to remember that there is an existing community already there and no one has mentioned that. He said the traffic affects them, their water tiles, septic systems, and wells. He asked that the developer address that. He said "integrating" the existing community has not been mentioned. Sue Hagar, 9900 Hyland -Croy Road, said this was the third time she had addressed the Commission, and she still was against the retail. She agreed with the concerns of Ms. Spears, Mr. Cook, and Ms. Clavin. She was also concerned that the retail might not be sustainable with that proposed at Jerome Village and a mall in the township. She said the retail could be dressed up to look nice, but it was still retail. She said on that corner, there is the Metro Park and it is a dangerous intersection. She said retail did not fit on that corner with the traffic concerns, extra gas trucks to fill up the eight -pump gas station, and food trucks to supply the UDF. Mr. Gerber recalled seeing Ms. Hagar at previous meetings and asking that staff take her address. He asked if she had been contacted, and how many times. Ms. Hagar said she was contacted one week before Christmas for a meeting the week of Christmas which was not convenient for the neighbors. Mr. Gerber said with respect to the water problems, had the City contacted them previously to discuss them. Ms. Hagar said she had not. However, she said there were discussions and concerns about water problems on Monday at the meeting with the developer's new engineer. Mr. Saneholtz said several times he had heard testimony on this property along the lines of the convenience factor of having this retail and gas, etc. close to the residents and how beneficial it would be. He asked Ms. Hagar if she saw a benefit to her fellow neighbors having the convenience factor. Ms. Hagar said they found Perimeter Loop is just three miles from the neighborhood and it supplies them with groceries, gas, hardwares, etc. She said retail had been approved caddy -comer to the high school, and there will be retail with the new Jerome Village to the north. She said she thought it was sad if they could not drive three miles to get groceries or Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 10 of 23 gasoline because it would be a lazy environment where they live. She said she had not missed not having retail. Cynthia Reed, 5208 Aryshire Drive, a Dublin resident since 1986 said she -did not intend to speak but she did not see Robert Fathman here as the representative of the Civic Action Committee of Muirfield North. She said the reason they chose not to speak was because they have since 2003 met with City representatives, Gary Gunderman and Claudia Husak, and all the representatives at the area meetings for the Community Plan. She said they had expressed great concern about any commercial business along Jerome Road. She said there are 2,400 homes planned in the new Jerome Village which is going to be out of Dublin's jurisdiction and control. Ms. Reed said it will add a lot of traffic to that area, which helped them when Tartan West was formed to help create the single -lane roundabout at the Glick/Avery /Jerome Road intersection in anticipation of this new growth to come. Ms. Reed said now, they have a chance here, at this corner to help have a say in how this develops and help alleviate some of the traffic pattern. She said Jerome Road thus far has not been improved to handle any kind of commercial traffic. She said there is the potential also of ODOT bringing down McKitrick Road further west up Hyland -Croy Road, bringing in a potential exit there. Ms. Reed said it has been the opinion of the Citizens for Responsible Zoning (C4RZ) that there would be no opposition from them as long as the commercial development stayed on the Hyland- Croy/McKitrick Road side, simply because that would be less traffic coming into the round -about where there is an elementary and middle school currently. Ms. Reed said she felt for the reside_ nts who had water, sewer, and drainage problems and hoped that the City would help them with those issues. She said her group has had no opposition to the commercial because the City and Ms. Husak have been wonderful in notifying them about anything developing in this area. She said Mr. Hale had been very forthright, and Aaron Underhill has contacted them to let them know of any development in this area. She said he worked with Ms. Husak and Mr. Gunderman to try to meet with the majority of the residents' concerns. She said they had worked hard to keep the traffic minimal on Jerome Road and tried to shift it over to the Hyland -Croy Road site that is being approved. Larry Hopper, 7400 Brock Road, said the extension of Hyland -Croy Road through the Jerome development will be a total thoroughfare, so flipping those two roads made no sense because it would create another thoroughfare in an area that would be highly trafficked anyway. He did not see that it was a necessary item to be moving the road. Mr. Hale said the Brock Road entry concern had been conditioned that they work with staff to coordinate. He said it was true that it could be flipped, if that was were the traffic engineers think it should be, but they have submitted a traffic report and addressed many of these issues and the traffic report has been provided to Dublin staff and Union County and they have committed to coordinate with those entities. He said it may very well line up if that is what the governmental bodies think it should do. Mr. Hale said that with this application, they had filed a preliminary drainage system and they were aware that they have the duty to retain the water that they put on this piece and not to burden those down steam. He said there are ponds on the site to do that. He said they do not have to detain the water, but they have to clean it. He said the concerns are being addressed. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 11 of 23 Diane Marin, EMH &T, said she had been involved in the drainage patterns for this site under M/I Homes. However, she said she had not attended any public meetings. She said there are about 28 acres needing to be picked up from the Hyland -Croy area homes and traveling north to Brock Road. She said she had walked the site. Ms. Marin said the 24 -inch culvert was not blocked by the boulders in front of it. She said a drainage swale came down through the project. She said they will do the standard procedure which is picking up that drainage, getting it through their system, cleaning it, and making sure that they do not exceed the flows that go offsite, north' of them. Mr. Hale said regarding the discussion about the comer of McKitrick and Hyland -Croy Roads, they had done a very extensive traffic study and the City has asked them in the study to look at every intersection in the area, which they have done. He said they understand that they have some very substantial obligations. All the entries have to have turn lanes, they have looked at what their contributions will be, and they are meeting with the City to come up with a program of when- intersections get approved to the Year 2017, which is considered build -out and Jerome Village is supposed to be finished by then. He said when doing the study, they looked at build- out and level of service. Mr. Hale said they thought this commercial has been consistently been shown at many Community Plan meetings as being important to the City because people needed to be out in the community to service it. He said it was appropriately designed from a land planning point of view and from the building architecture and this was an important part of the overall theme of this development. Mr. Gerber asked that Ms. Husak address the residents' concerns. He said he got the impression that they had been contacted, but some felt that they had not been involved. He said going forward; he wanted to be vigilant with that. Mr. Gerber explained that at this stage, the Commission was being asked to make a recommendation to City Council to either support this application or deny it. He said it will then go to City Council, and everyone will have ample opportunity to speak before City Council, and before the Commission a third time. He asked Ms. Husak to give more information about what she had discussed with the applicant and what she envisioned. Mr. Gerber said he saw some conditions that asked for some flexibility and to work things out consistent with staff recommendations. Ms. Husak said this project started after June of last year and it picked up in more earnest in October 2006 when Planning, Engineering and the applicant met on a biweekly basis reviewing concepts for an entire redesign for this development. The applicant is well aware that there are concerns from the neighboring residents. She said as soon as they felt they were ready to have a plan that was pretty close to the plan that they are presenting tonight they did contact those neighbors and it happened to unfortunately be during the holiday season, so that made it more difficult to get together. She said the traffic is as Mr. Hale stated, there is a substantial traffic study that staff as well as Union County staff is reviewing. There are multiple jurisdictions in place here for traffic and utilities and it is challenging as to who is in charge of fixing what problems. She said the applicant is committed to make major traffic improvements around their immediate site as well as the larger area and there were several intersections they had to study. She said it is true that the Hyland -Croy Road area is going to be improved and it is somewhere in the area of a four -lane road going north to Jerome Village. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 12 of 23 Ms. Husak said the access point on Brock Road to the north is being discussed in the Planning Report and Condition 9 speaks to that. She said the condition requires that those access points at the veiy least have to be coordinated. That could mean that they line up, but it is the Township and the Union County Engineer who has to sign off on it as well. Mr. Gerber asked if it was necessary to tie this down at the rezoning/preliminary stage, or was it a "floating target" everybody knows where we need to get and it would be handled at the final stage. Ms. Husak said that was correct and Jennifer Readler agreed. Mr. Gerber recalled that there were water problems in Ballantrae, and asked if staff felt like they could find some solutions here. Ms. Husak said this application would not be before the Commission if Planning did not feel they were on top of it. Mr. Gerber recalled that when this was an M/I project, Mr. Hale made a representation before the Commission, and he was sure he would do so again tonight, that whatever it takes, they will satisfy each and every adjoining landowner in their concerns with respect to water. Mr. Hale replied that there were two water issues. He said with the stormwater concern, they understand what their obligations are and he thought the stormwater, because of farming practices, is being held up and they have sized their pipes preliminarily, they have completed the hydrology studies. He said they are going to pick up that water, clean it, and put it off the property. He said if the residents will allow them, pre - development to test their wells, if the wells degenerate, they will fix them. Mr. Gerber noted that there were conditions that spoke to those issues. He urged every interested resident to give their name, address, and phone number to Flora Rogers or Claudia Husak so that she could share them with the applicant. He said they work as a community when they all talk to one another. Mr. Gerber said he thought the biggest issue tonight was the need for residential/retail components as discussed at the Community Plan Joint Work Sessions. He said before this application can continue, the Commissioners needed to discuss amongst themselves how they feel about the retail/commercial component of this. He said he could not see walking through the architecture, other setbacks, etc. if they cannot have some sort of understanding with respect to that. Kevin Walter recalled that he had suggested moving the retail to the other corner. He said he had visited the site several times. He said he was glad to hear the applicant say that the site had topography. He said the three unique things about the site are topography, substantial landscape elements, and water features which are being preserved. He said he drove through the site to try to imagine what the retail component would look like on the corner. He said looking east, it was not a very attractive corner and there is nothing there that would be displaced. He posed the question could they integrate that into what is going on around it. Mr. Walter said when he saw the renderings, he was not sure about uses, etc., but the concept of retail is supported on that corner, and they have said it during the Community Plan Work Sessions. He said he was further in support of having a retail component of some type in that area. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 13 of 23 Mr. Gerber agreed that a lot of discussion with Council had been with respect to the retail component that as we build out the hospital, all the medical facilities around Perimeter Drive and existing and anticipated housing, etc. in that area, they want to keep people closer to home. Mr. Walter said he did not think this was an excessive amount of retail, but he questioned some of the uses which can be discussed later. Rayna Jones said generally speaking, she was in favor of the development. She said she was very comfortable, now that they have come a long way in their discussions as a group and with Council as to what the uses would be in this area. She said originally, she would have liked to keep this area much more of a rural area, but she saw with the development signs, as they have decided to put the Community Plan together and what is going on in the area and improvements in roadways, and she thought the consensus is that they have opened the door to new development in this area, and as part of that body, she could see that they were going in that direction. Ms. Jones said the design of the overall site is very positive. She said she liked Brian Jones' work and the tone and design. Ms. Jones said her number one concern was water, and that it sounded as though staff was on top of that. She said it had to be addressed very firmly. She said she was not a huge fan of a lot of retail here. Ms. Jones said she thought some may be necessary as this area begins to develop. She said she preferred it not near the Glacier Ridge Metro Park, because she wanted to preserve those vistas. Ms. Jones said she would love to see very restricted retail uses so that it does not become a fast -food drive -in type environment. She did not want anything that would infringe on the enjoyment of the park. She said she was against anything that would travel across the road and interfere with the park which was a priceless gem in our community. Ms. Jones said generally speaking, as far as rezoning and beginning this process, she was fine. Ted Saneholtz asked if the 200 -foot setbacks on McKitrick and Hyland -Croy Roads were met at the corner. Ms. Husak said the current plan shows the 200 -foot setbacks. She said however, there is a discussion about a new right -of -way acquisition on Hyland -Croy Road and there may be some small deviations (20 feet) where those issues will have to be resolved because the projected right -of -way for Hyland -Croy Road was 80 feet, and it is now 120 feet. Mr. Saneholtz asked what the Hyland -Croy Road area would potentially look like. He said a meandered four -lane road was previously discussed. He said he understood it was a preliminary discussion. Ms. Husak said she believed that an Emerald Parkway design was also one that had come up many times when the discussion was about what Hyland -Croy Road could look like. She said Emerald Parkway is a good example of a Dublinized road. Mr. Saneholtz said when he looked at Hyland -Croy now, it was hard for him to accept retail on the corner, but if he thought about what the future holds potentially for that area and intersection, he has a lot less resistance to retail on that corner. He said he was not sure that he accepted all the details of the present plan, but he was not nearly as adamantly against some form of retail/commercial on the comer as he once was, having had the opportunity to envision what Hyland -Croy might evolve into in the future. Ms. Husak agreed that increased development in this area will change it dramatically. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 14 of 23 Todd Zimmerman said he approved of the retail issue on that base. He said it was in the right location from a future traffic standpoint and that it was in a good service location from the east. He said it will draw more people there and keep people from using Avery Road and Perimeter Road. Mr. Saneholtz said his over -riding concern about putting retail here is its long -term viability as a functioning successful retail corner in light of the extensive (700,000 square feet of commercial and retail) just two miles north. He said Oak Park has recently been approved and there will be an interchange at McKitrick Road and US 33. He said his real concern for the community as a whole is that the center becomes not viable and not vibrant and that in 15 years, they regret it after things have developed around it over time. He said that was his major reservation. Mr. Zimmerman pointed out that the Shoppes at Athenry center on Avery Road was vibrant and used. He predicted that someday this will look and be like that. Mr. Gerber said he sensed they had enough support for another one of these concepts, but they seemed to latch onto things in Dublin. He said they get a good idea and all of a sudden; every project has to be the same with the same brick color, etc. He said they needed to get more creative down the road. He said if they are to support retail here he did not think there should be more. He said they had to make sure that the retail here works. Mr. Gerber said retail in some neighborhoods has not worked. He thought it had been a failure of design and that it had also been a failure of the landlord to attract suitable retailers with suitable uses. Mr. Gerber said he thought it was beholding on all of the Commissioners to help in that process to make these people successful and to make these vibrant centers. He said the concept only works if the locals utilize the center. Mr. Saneholtz said that brought up a concept for consideration. He asked Mr. Jones if there was a way to make the 19,400 - square -foot structure and all the structures that are anticipated to be retail, more adaptive to other uses, if in the future office use might be the actual dominant need in this little pod because of the tremendous retail to the north. He asked if there was any way to look at the architecture and the design in such a way to make it not look like they took retail and put offices in it, but something that can function both ways. Mr. Jones said he thought you cannot separate the fact that this really is about place making and they do have the Stavroff Company that has been in the community for a long time and have had that vision. He said when looking at the long -term viability in this place making, it really has much to do with the viability of these buildings becoming something else over a period of time. He said the commitment to quality material and to the architectural design is going to provide for that vitality. He stressed that this is a delicately - scaled project, and if they compared other things that seemed to be like it, and put them side -by -side, it is diminutive in its scale and character. He said the setbacks have increased and it will have a great feel in relationship to the park across the street and will provide that kind of place that is going to be very viable in the next 20 -30 years as a special place. Mr. Jones said its scale will dominate its success over what is occurring to the north. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 15 of 23 Mr. Gerber said they had to make sure that the retail was integrated. He said it is on Dublin's northern border and gateway features, etc. are wanted. He said with the retail, this seemed like where City Council wants to go and where the Joint Work Sessions have gone. He said if it could be done within the parameters that it has to fit, it sounded like all the Commissioners were supportive. He said it was now time for them to do what they normally do at rezonings /preliminary plans and review the text. Mr. Saneholtz asked if there was any economic barrier to it being somehow evolving into office. He said he assumed that retail would command a higher square footage rental than office space and that was part of his concern about the viability of retail here if in fact it becomes expensive and we have very near by, inexpensive retail space. He said that was part of the challenge of this particular site. Mr. Gerber said he heard the applicant say if there was a conversion to occur, that they could sustain that from economics and from an architectural aesthetic standpoint it fits as well. He said if it was the pleasure of the Commission that retail can work there and it is consistent with what they have been doing, then he recommended that they stay on retail and address the condition on parking, and then review the text, and then cover architecture, setbacks, etc. He asked Ms. Husak what Planning's thinking was in regards to parking. Ms. Husak said Planning has reviewed this site plan and particularly how it functions with the remainder of the development. She said the text states the intention of this is to be a neighborhood commercial area. She said Planning is concerned that some design features are more suburban where parking is in front of buildings, signalizing where you can park rather than encouraging walking around in front of the buildings, drawing on the fact that there is a lot of people living in the vicinity that could conceivably walk and use those uses. Ms. Husak said therefore, the idea that Planning has in this area is to have it function more as a street with parallel parking and on- street parking. She said now, it is shown as pull -in parking in front of those buildings. Mr. Gerber asked if Ms. Husak felt there was ample parking for that. Ms. Husak said that was one of the good things about a neighborhood commercial center or mixed -use development where uses have offsetting hours and there are people there that could walk. Mr. Gerber said that they wanted to encourage neighbors to walk. Mr. Saneholtz said the proposed parking was approximately one space for every 240 square feet. He asked if Code was every 150 square feet. Ms. Husak agreed. Mr. Gerber asked if Mr. Hale objected to Planning's suggestion for parking. Ms. Wanner said one of the key issues with this retail is the viability. She said the parking numbers included in the text are key. She said they need to create enough parking for this retail center. She said they understand that Planning staff is trying to minimize the parking, however this is not a good option to keep the center viable. Ms. Wanner said they had addressed the parallel parking next to the buildings where it is most important to be able to create that people space. Mr. Walter said conservation design has only been mentioned briefly tonight. He said in the Community Plan, they said not only that there would be retail in this space, but this entire Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 16 of 23 property would be in a conservation design zone. He said he struggled with coming up the hill and seeing cars parked into a small parking space. He said it was an important vista because it was the crest as you come up the hill. Mr. Walter said he was not supporting making it look like a car dealership. Mr. Gerber confirmed that Ms. Husak had looked at this plan and that there was ample parking and that it will work. Ms. Husak agreed. Steve Langworthy said Planning was trying to have this development live up to what it says it is, a neighborhood center and not a suburban shopping center. He said the view aspect of that was important in that it helps establish the character of that center right from the road. He said he thought Mr. Walter's point about that was crucial, which was that that dominant view be of building, rather than automobiles as might be seen in a traditional suburban shopping center. Mr. Langworthy said if the parking ratio is not adequate for their needs; it may be that they need to shift the design around to get more parking in another area of the site that is not as visible from the road. He suggested it could be further interior to the site or some of the interior spaces or buildings could be moved around to accommodate those other parking pods. He said if parking numbers are a concern, he thought there was a way that can be addressed. Mr. Walter said on the west side there are very heavily wooded areas, and on Hyland -Croy Road to the south, there is the appearance of a grape vineyard, and something comparable is needed that fits with the area. He said retail could be done if it is done correctly. Mr. Saneholtz said he did not see frontage landscaping such as walls and hedges other than internal addressed in the text. He asked about the periphery and along the road with laid stone walls to Dublinize this whole neighborhood. Mr. Langworthy said those were details that they could deal with, but one of the disadvantages of this area is when water is put up front, water does not block views very well. There is not a lot of room to make dense landscaping to make it function like they would like. He said in order to make that neighborhood feel again, they have to minimize the vehicles. Mr. Walter said that Planning said it parked fine and the applicant said they wanted more parking. Mr. Hale said they thought Planning was saying that maybe they should reduce the parking on the site. He said they thought that one parked car per 240 square feet is adequate, but less than that is not adequate. Mr. Hale said the only issue was the arrangement of the parking. He said they thought there should be parallel parking and maybe some angled parking to get more out front. He said they thought there were walls and fences in front. Mr. Gerber said he agreed with comments made with respect that this needs to fit in and that the City does not want another strip center. He said he understood from Ms. Husak that they can do other things and provide the needed parking. Ms. Husak agreed. Mr. Gerber clarified that Condition 10 stated they should work together and the Commission will see it at the final. He said they also could from there get into hedges, walls, etc. Ms. Wanner said the parking scenario presented tonight is identical to what they had done at Oak Park that was approved about a month ago. She said they have 200 feet of the setback, which is ample room to provide mounding and landscaping. She said part of their theming was stone walls. Ms. Wanner said they wanted to put some of that theming along Hyland -Croy Road with Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 17 of 23 trees, shrubs and stone walls which will more than screen those cars. Ms. Wanner said however, it is the cars in front of the retail center that is the viability issue for them. She said being able to screen them is wonderful, but it is having that critical mass of cars in front of the store that is critical to them for the viability of the center. Mr. Langworthy asked whether there were entry doors only on the Hyland -Croy Road side and there is no pedestrian access to the other side. Ms. Wanner said there was pedestrian access on both sides. Mr. Langworthy confirmed that access to the building was not being cut off with parking. Mr. Walter said he was hearing the applicant say that if they do not have parking in the way it is configured, the center is not viable therefore; they do not want to move forward. He asked if that was correct. Ms. Wanner said they believed it was configured appropriately. Mr. Gerber asked if the applicant was saying that the recommendation of staff to the Commission as contained in Condition 10 is unworkable. Mr. Hale and Ms. Wanner said no, it was not unworkable. Mr. Hale said his belief was that Planning thought they had head -in parking on two sides of the street. He said their drawing shows parallel parking on one side and either angled or head -in parking on the other side. He said they were happy to work out the details out with staff before they come back with the final development plan. Mr. Hale said they were convinced that there needs to be parking in front of the buildings along the street. He said the buildings were two - sided and there was signage on both sides. He said that ninety percent of the parking is in the center. Mr. Gerber read aloud Condition 10: That the commercial area be redesigned to create a pedestrian friendly streetscape and environment by providing parallel parking; subject to Planning and Engineering approval. He said he interpreted that as it was the goal of staff and he heard loudly of the Commission that we want this to be integrated into the community and they do not want it to look like a strip center. He said he also heard from Mr. Hale that they could work with that as long as they had certain requirements. Mr. Gerber suggested that they go work on it and let them move forward. Mr. Hale said he agreed to Condition 10. Mr. Gerber asked Mr. Hale what uses he envisioned. Mr. Hale said they had similar discussions at City Council. He said there were two things they could do like the SR 161 /Shamrock project, they could come up with an alternate list that is half this long. He said another thing they could do is say those uses are allowed in a CC, Community Commercial District, except for... Mr. Gerber said this was a planned district, and so they were not talking about Code issues. Ms. Jones said there were many uses listed that she would not consider neighborhood retail services like antique stores and secondary stores. Mr. Gerber said he was most concerned with this because he was sure the houses would be built before the retail and commercial. He said every potential home buyer will have to be told what is coming so that they will have a full awareness. He said someday, a gas station will be warranted in this area, but wondered if it could be deemed a conditional use. Ms. Readler said the gasoline station could be moved to a conditional use section and this list of uses. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 18 of 23 Ms. Jones objected to the conditional use: Drive -thru services in association with any permitted use in Subarea F. She said the only type of drive -thru service she could imagine might be a pharmacy drive -thru to service the neighborhood. She asked if they were going to leave it open ended or try to limit the type of drive -thru. Mr. Gerber said this needed to be balanced because it is not known what is going to go in now or in 15 years. He said he wanted to guard against drive -thru traffic inside because it would not be pedestrian- friendly any more. Mr. Zimmerman read from the top of Page 47, concerning parking and loading and the reduced number of stacking spaces proposed in the text. He said he would like to have something said on stacking, but still give staff an opportunity to review in the future. Mr. Gerber asked how that could be worded as a condition. Mr. Hale suggested the condition: That the stacking will be determined at the time of the final development plan. He suggested making the gas station a conditional use. Ms. Jones asked if they wanted to narrow the list of permitted uses, or leave them as broad as possible to cover the future. Mr. Saneholtz said there were permitted uses listed that he would very strongly object to, for instance, repair shops and related services. Mr. Walter said he had a problem with any of the classifications that had the word "miscellaneous" included. He said if they were going to be this specific, they cannot be this specific and broad at the same time. Mr. Gerber said he thought all drive - thrus had to be deemed conditional uses. Mr. Walter agreed, but said the question was how many drive -thrus were allowed and are there any that the Commission is going to disapprove. Mr. Gerber agreed. Mr. Hale suggested that they say the permitted uses for drive -thrus exclude restaurants. Mr. Saneholtz suggested excluding food service. Mr. Hale said they hope to have a drug store, and possibly a dry cleaner or bank. He agreed they would not do drive -thru restaurants. He agreed that all drive -thrus will be conditional uses, the gas station will be a conditional use, and they will make sure the repair listed does not include auto repair. Mr. Zimmerman asked if they wanted to go through the list use by use. Mr. Gerber asked if there was another way to do it. Ms. Readler said no, unless it was tabled and changed, then brought back to the Commission. Mr. Hale asked if they could agree that the final list will be approved at the time of the final development plan. Ms. Readler said that the problem with that is only the Commission will have the final say on the list of retail uses since Council does not see a final development plan. Mr. Langworthy said there are three types of uses, the ones that fit into a neighborhood context, ones that fit in a neighborhood context with a conditional use approval, and those that do not fit. Ms. Jones said there were some that were more regional in nature and not neighborhood in nature. Mr. Langworthy suggested the case be tabled to the next meeting and that a revised list be brought back for review. Mr. Gerber said that was a good idea. Ms. Jones said this was a big change for our community, and although she thought they were all moving in a positive direction, she thought it would be nice to pin this down so that we are really cautious about what uses we do allow in neighborhood retail for a center of this nature. Mr. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 19 of 23 Saneholtz agreed. Mr. Gerber said when he made the motion, he would add that as a bases for tabling. Mr. Walter asked if the buildings would have second floors, and if so, what would the use be and what was the square footage. Mr. Hale said the square footage given was for the ground floor. He said they included in the text that they could provided office or residential use on the second floors and they do not have to increase the parking ratio. Mr. Zimmerman referred to page 46 of the text under Density: Outdoor dining patios and pedestrian areas shall be encouraged throughout the subarea. He asked if there was an certain maximum amount of square footage allowed for patio. Ms. Husak said it was not calculated like that. She said it was part of the conditional use review. Mr. Zimmerman asked where on the site patio is generally contemplated. Ms. Husak said currently, to the north of the entry a restaurant is indicated with a patio surrounding it on two sides that would face the pond. She said there is also potential for patio space around the major tenant buildings, but it is preliminary at this point. Mr. Saneholtz asked that Item H -1 — Setback Requirements on page 47 of the text be addressed. Ms. Husak said that was the area of the text where there was a typographical error. She said it was supposed to read: The pavement setback shall be 110 feet, and the minimum building setback 180 feet from the proposed future right -of -way. Mr. Saneholtz asked if it was the same for McKitrick Road #2. Ms. Husak said it was. Mr. Hale said changes had been made in the drawings and they did not get added to the text. Mr. Saneholtz referred to Item J — Lighting: All lighting shall be in conformance with Dublin Exterior Lighting Guidelines except as provided for in this text and asked it be explained. Ms. Husak said Condition 5 addressed it. Mr. Walter asked to clarify the lighting condition, and if the reworked Kroger Center on Bridge Street had exposed gooseneck lighting. He asked if that would be precluded in this where it stated that all building illumination shall come from concealed sources. He asked about sign lighting. Ms. Husak said Planning had noticed the Kroger Center as well and is investigating that issue further. She said it is envisioned to be like the Giant Eagle center and the Shppes at Avery, where the Burgundy Room restaurant is located. Mr. Saneholtz said he could not find Exhibit A -8 in Item K — Architecture. Ms. Husak said that Condition 6 should also state "...discrepancy between text and plans in general." Mr. Gerber asked that it be added. Mr. Gerber said that in the final development plan stage, it will be in a larger format because the Commission will have to review a landscape package, etc. He asked if the sign package will be reviewed at the final stage as well. Ms. Readler said yes, except to the extent that it is addressed anywhere in text. Ms. Jones said signs were addressed on Page 45 of the text. Mr. Saneholtz referred to L -3, Page 49 and asked staff if the proposed signage was appropriate. Ms. Husak said Condition 7 addressed that portion of the text. Mr. Walter confirmed that two shopping center monument signs were contemplated; one on each of the roadways for this retail center. Mr. Hale said except for the Code. Ms. Husak said yes. Mr. Saneholtz referred to C on Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 20 of 23 Page 49 and E that mentioned the color of the sign text. He said there was no mention of the color of the signs themselves. Ms. Husak said there were three colors contemplated, but a decision on what the colors will be made at the time of the final development plan. Mr. Saneholtz asked if staff was happy with the phasing of the project. Ms. Husak indicated that they were. Mr. Saneholtz said that Subarea F could be an open field for years. Ms. Husak said Planning has requested that the applicant contemplate phasing for Subarea F, particularly, and due to the multiple conditions, that is the language proposed. Mr. Saneholtz understood that if nothing was done in Subarea E, then literally Subarea F could sit blank forever or until something was done in Subarea E. Mr. Hale said they had never thought that they do not have the right to build the commercial at the same time. He said he did not think they had to wait sequentially to get to the commercial because they believe they are going to do that relatively quickly. Mr. Saneholtz said he was just interested that all of the Commissioners understood that the corner could, under these terms, sit vacant for 15 years. Mr. Gerber said that was the same as with every project that the Commission sees. Mr. Saneholtz said there had been other projects that sat partially finished and they do not have any leverage to cause completion of it. However, he believed that this text said they were going to be required to build some commercial. Aaron Underhill, Smith and Hale, said the intent behind this was to create an edge with either the building at the northeast corner of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads, or at the east/west entry on Hyland -Croy Road. He said they addressed what structures in the first phase must be under construction within 24 month. He said there are no further restrictions placed on when the remainder has to go in. Mr. Saneholtz said he just wanted to clarify that his understanding was correct. Mr. Gerber said he liked the stepping up the level of the architecture. He recalled that at Tartan West there was an internal architectural review board which did a good job, and the same thing is being contemplated here. He said that was a great idea. Mr. Saneholtz said he did not think it applied to the commercial area. Mr. Hale said it did. Mr. Gunderman added that the commercial area will come to the Commission in the final development plan, whereas the single- family homes will just go through an administrative review process. Mr. Saneholtz asked about Exhibit 13 on Page E -9 which calculated the open space. He asked how the required setback space was credited to the development. He said he had heard multiple explanations where some got none, some got half credit, and others got 100 percent credit and asked why. Ms. Husak said that Code requires each subdivision to set aside certain acreage of open space. She said it was approximately 11 for this site. She said it was a formula in the Code based on the size of the site as well as the number of housing units. She said setbacks get credited 50 percent if amenities to the public are included in those open spaces and whether or not a development gets credited for open space, really just becomes an issue if they are short on what they are required to have. , Mr. Walter asked with respect to the bikepath and that general area, what was staffs position on connecting that to the Metro Park. He said at that intersection, it appeared that it was being driven up to the north, to the main entrance. Ms. Husak said it would definitely require some coordination with the Metro Park, similar to what was done with the Oak Park development. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — January 18, 2007 Page 21 of 23 Mr. Walter said it was disconcerting to him that at Jerome High School, there is the same kind of corner situation preventing easy pedestrian access as now exists at the Metro Park. He said it was an unsafe pedestrian/car interaction. He said he would like to see if they could work that better when it gets to final, plus sitting that as a connection to Tartan West that does not seem to be completed. Mr. Saneholtz said the connectivity of this development to the park itself is huge, especially if there is a four -lane boulevard in front. Mr. Walter said the water feature on Hyland -Croy Road seemed to have a hard edge on it and he wondered if they were going to try to naturalize it so that it is in keeping with some of the other naturally existing ponds. Mr. Hale said the side that Mr. Walter was referring to would be naturalized. Mr. Gerber asked if the garden lots and alleyways really sold. He asked what they would look like in 15 years. Mr. Hale said if done right, they will be fine. He said there is a limited number of them and they feel there will be a demand for them. Mr. Gerber asked if they did not work, what would Plan B be. Mr. Hale said he guessed they would come back and request to put in 80- foot lots instead. Ms. Husak asked everyone to recall what was seen in Westhaven where a majority of the lots were alley access lots with garages in the rear and it worked. Mr. Langworthy said he had visited the Kentlands and asked the same question about the marketability of this type of lots. He said the comment made was similar to what Mr. Hale said. He said they said there is a certain market that would not buy that, but there is a certain market that will, and the key is to balance the number so that there is enough to address that market, but not too many that some will stay vacant. Mr. Saneholtz said that he liked the concept of having some alley loaded garages. He said at Westhaven, it gave those sections the pedestrian feel which is definitely different than our typical pattern. He said he appreciated the flexibility and the attempts the developer has taken upon themselves to give us the opportunity to do it. Mr. Gerber said this was a great project and thought that they had moved the biggest mountains tonight. He said he would like to table this in order to get with staff on commercial uses. Mr. Hale asked if the case could be tabled to the February 1 meeting and waive the 15 -Day Rule. Mr. Gerber asked if that would give Planning enough time. Mr. Gunderman said it would be enough time if the only issue to deal with was the commercial uses. Mr. Gerber said it was, with a fine combining of some of the other comments the Commissioners have made. Mr. Gunderman noted that if there is no need for new drawings and only a new list of uses, they could waive the 15 -Day Rule. Mr. Walter asked if that at the next meeting, they would have the opportunity to go into detail on some of the other subareas. Mr. Gerber suggested that the issues with other subareas be discussed tonight. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 22 of 23 Mr. Walter said the topology of the site has a ridge, and he asked how much earth will be moved specifically in Subareas 7 and 2. He said he did not want those areas flattened. Aaron Stanford said if the question pointed toward the level of grading or elevation changes, what they provided did not indicate at this point of time what will be seen as a change in elevation. He said that would be worked out through the final development plan. Mr. Walter said he asked because the grading at the Riverside Drive retail center looked significantly different than what was contemplated. He wanted to make sure that is covered at some point. Mr. Gunderman said there had been questions about that grading and the plans really are consistent. Mr. Walter said he was concerned about the change of hills in Phase 7, Subarea D -2. Ms. Wanner said there will be some grading. She said they will try to keep the natural features like the tree rows and minimiz the grading around the trees. Mr. Walter asked where staff was considering the stub street on the northern entrance to be. Ms. Husak said that was also a final development plan issues. She said they wanted to build in, connectivity to future possibilities for development. She said it would have, to be located sensitively to existing vegetation. Mr. Walter said he liked all the features discussed in the southern area, but the north gets very linear there. He said if there was away to make it less linear he would like it. He said there will probably be two very different characteristics in the neighborhood depending upon which area you live. Mr. Gerber asked that the issue be kept in mind for the final development plan stage. Mr. Saneholtz referred to Page 22 where it stated that shutters were to be operable or appear as such. He asked if "appear as such" meant that they cannot be fastened directly to the building as might be seen in lesser quality. Ms. Husak said the shutters would appear workable and be sized to cover the window. Mr. Saneholtz said he found the wording interesting under I -BB on Page 22 of the text just above the blue shutter graphic. Mr. Jones said "or appears as operable" generally means that there is shutter hardware that is associated. He said it was not just a shutter tacked to the wall. Mr. Hale said they were happy to do whatever the Commission wanted. He asked if they wanted to spend five minutes going over the uses, or bring them back at the next meeting. Mr. Saneholtz said there was no need to rush through the uses, and he would like the professional planning staff time to review them. Mr. Gerber said he understood the list of uses was short. He said other comments had been made tonight. He said the purpose of waiving the 15 -Day Rule was to get it back here. However, he said there is a risk because two Commissioners were not present tonight. He said procedurally, he was not sure how to proceed. Mr. Hale suggested it could be approved, subject to bringing back the list to the next meeting, and the discussion is the list. Mr. Gerber suggested holding off. He said five Commissioners had pretty much signed on to this and are very much committed to recommending approval to City Council. He said it had been tried before and sometimes people get confused about what is going on. He said he preferred that they come back on February 0 and wrap it up. Mr. Gerber said he was not looking for a three -hour meeting on the topic. He said he thought they could go Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —January 18, 2007 Page 23 of 23 through the points that have been raised. He said staff was keenly aware of what those points are and can work with the applicant to get those to the Commission. Mr. Gunderman said basically, the same conditions were expected in the next discussion with the only thing changing between what is before them now would be a list of uses for the commercial area. Mr. Gerber agreed with Mr. Gunderman. Mr. Gunderman said the recommendations for uses will be sent in the Commission packet. Mr. Walter said the Commissioners will see revised conditions, because Mr. Gunderman said the same conditions will get tweaked. Ms. Husak said as an example, Condition 7 was a good candidate to be taken care of then. Mr. Zimmerman referred to Page 39, Subarea D -1, #3, Garden Lots, down to H. He said on the other Subarea D -2 it mentioned: Such fences shall not be made of vinyl and it was absent in H and assumed it was a typographical error he would like correct. Mr. Langworthy said they would like to take the mention out because it was already forbidden by Code. Mr. Zimmerman referred to Subarea E, Page 43, at the bottom: Off Street Parking — All townhouse units.shall be required to have a minimum of two off street parking spaces. He asked if the garage was considered as off street, not a driveway behind the garage. Mr. Hale said garages were considered as off street parking, not the driveway behind the garage. MOTION AND VOTE: Mr. Gerber moved to table this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan to the February 1, 2007, meeting, waiving the fifteen day rule, to further define the uses within the development text, and to further clarify the conditions contained in the staff report, consistent to the discussion at this meeting. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion and Mr. Hale agreed to the tabling. Mr. Gerber said he thought this was a great project and that the big issues were covered. He said they are just about there and he thought he could speak for everyone on the Commission that there was ample support for this and they looked forward to seeing this on February 1't. The vote was as follows: Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Ms. Jones, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Tabled 5 -0.) Mr. Gerber adjourned the meeting at 9:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Flora Roger and Libby F ley Administrative Assistants PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PLANNING REPORT CITY of DUBLIN,. FEBRUARY 1, 2007 Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone: 614 - 410.4600 Fax: 614-410-4747 Web She: www.dublin.oh.us SECTION I - CASE INFORMATION: 1. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 05 -183Z — Tartan Ridge — 9756 Hyland -Croy Road Location: 189.57 acres located north of the intersection of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads, bordered to the east by Jerome Road and to the north by Brock Road. Existing Zoning: R, Rural District. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District under the provisions of Code Section 153.050. Proposed Use: A mixed -use development with 246 single - family lots, 24 townhouse units, approximately 68,500 square feet of commercial space, and 69.14 acres of open space. Applicant: Charlie Driscoll, The Edwards Land Company, 495 South High Street, Suite 150, Columbus, Ohio 43215; represented by Ben W. Hale, Jr. and Aaron L. Underhill, Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410 - 4675 /chusak @dublin.oh.us Update: The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this case at the January 18, 2007 meeting and discussed impact of this proposal to the adjacent area. The Commissioners also built consensus regarding the appropriateness of the neighborhood commercial area. The Planning and Zoning Commission instructed the applicants to further define and restrict the permitted and conditional uses for the neighborhood commercial area. Adjacent residents voiced their concerns regarding utility extensions, increased traffic, and the proposed retail area. The case was tabled and the text has been revised in order to make changes to the permitted and conditional uses in the neighborhood commercial area, address inconsistencies and previous conditions where possible. The planning report has been updated to concentrate on these changes noted with an asterisk before and indented paragraph. Planning and Zoning Commission Planning Report — February 1, 2007 Case No. 05 -183Z — Page 2 of 12 Case Summary: This is a request for review and approval of a rezoning (preliminary development plan) from R, Rural District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District. As modified by the conditions listed, the proposal will comply with the applicable Review Criteria and the Land Use Principles. Planning recommends approval of this rezoning with conditions. * Planning has worked with the applicants to create a list of appropriate uses for the neighborhood - serving commercial area. The text has been revised to state that the intent of the neighborhood commercial area is to provide appropriate scaled uses to serve the local neighborhoods with needed goods and services. This language and the limitation of individual tenant spaces to 20,000 square feet will ensure that the uses remain appropriate to a neighborhood- serving commercial area. * Specifically, the text permits the uses as outlined in the Suburban Office and Institutional District, the Neighborhood Commercial District, and the Community Commercial District of the City of Dublin Zoning Code. The text also lists daycares, dry - cleaning service, post office, and dwelling units on the second floor as permitted uses. A list of prohibited uses is included in the text, which describes uses that are not appropriate for a neighborhood - serving commercial area. * The gasoline service station has been added to the list of conditional uses. In addition, conditional uses such as drive -thrus are not permitted to serve an eating or drinking establishment unless such an establishment prime offering is coffee. The text also has been revised to specifically allow the Planning and Zoning Commission to. approve reduced stacking requirement when considering a conditional use for a drive -thru. Site Description: Project Site. This site is irregularly shaped and located in Union County. The vacant site is bordered by Hyland -Croy Road to the east, McKitrick Road to the south, Jerome Road to the east and Brock Road to the north. Small portions of the site are heavily wooded, and there are three streams and two ponds located on the site. The site has a rolling topography and slopes approximately 20 feet from north to south and extends approximately 4,000 feet from north to south and 3,000 feet east to west. Surrounding Sites. The new Glacier Ridge Elementary School, not included in this rezoning, is located on the east side of Hyland -Croy Road and is surrounded by the Tartan Ridge project on the north, east, and south. The new water tower is located along Hyland -Croy Road north of the school, near the northwestern boundary of the project site. Large lot, rural residential sites are located in unincorporated Jerome Township to the south, north, and northeast of the site. To the east are single - family residences located in the Tartan Fields development and to the west is the Glacier Ridge Metro Park, as well as single - family residences in unincorporated Union County. There are Planning and Zoning Commission Planning Report — February 1, 2007 Case No. 05 -183Z — Page 3 of 12 residences located in the southern portion of the site, along Hyland -Croy and Jerome Roads. The Tartan West development is located south of this site. Proposed Development: General Layout. The residential development consists of 270 units on seven different single - family lot types (Estate, Manor, Park, Village, Cottage, Court and Garden), and 24 townhouse units in four buildings. A 9.5 -acre active park is proposed in the center of the site, and additional active parks are located in the southern and northern portions of the site. Passive open space is shown along the boundaries of the site, mainly within the 200 - foot scenic setback, including 17.3 acres separating the residential portion of this development from McKitrick and Jerome Roads to the south and east. 'A 68,500- square- foot commercial area at the southwest corner of the site at the intersection of Hyland - Croy and McKitrick Roads. Subarea A. This Subarea includes 95 acres in the northern and western portion of the site and accommodates a maximum of 96 lots, with a combination of Estate, Manor, Park and Garden lots. Subarea A includes a 7.76 -acre park in the center of the northern portion as well as a 9.5 -acre park in the center of the western portion. Both parks are surrounded by homes and the text orients garage -doors for all homes away from the front fagade. An additional 19 acres of open space is located mainly along the boundaries of the site within the 200 -foot setback. The text provides flexibility for a substation of the Washington Township Fire Department (WTFD) to be located in this area. This possible location is shown as open space north of the elementary school. This space will be dedicated to the City at the final development plan stage and the City will continue to assist the WTFD should this location be chosen for a substation. • Subarea B. This Subarea consists of 9.24 acres located in the east - central portion of the site. The plan shows 20 Village lots located along two cul -de -sacs off the main entry road to the east. The proposed development text states that Village lots are generally 85 -95 feet wide and have an average lot depth of 125. Front - loading garages are allowed. Subarea C. This Subarea includes 42 acres in the southeast portion of the site, and consists of 61 lots, 7 acres of active park space and 17 acres of passive open space. Village, Cottage and Court lots are provided. Cottage and Court lots have widths of 75 and 55 feet, respectively. The layout of this Subarea is more compact and clusters smaller lots near open space. Subarea D -1. This Subarea is located in the central and western portion of the site and includes 45 lots on 16.74 acres. The lots in this Subarea include Cottage and Court lots as described above. In addition, the plan shows Garden lots in the center of the Subarea, which have alley- accessed rear- loaded garages. Planning and Zoning Commission Planning Report — February 1, 2007 Case No. 05 -183Z — Page 4 of 12 • Subarea D -2. Subarea D -2 has 7.14 acres located in the center of the site. The preliminary development plan layout shows two options; alley- accessed Garden lots as described above, or with a combination of Cottage, Park, and Village lots not served by alleys. Planning recommends that the Garden lot option be utilized as this layout will eliminate curb cuts and create an attractive streetscape. • Subarea E. This 2.42 acres is the smallest Subarea, with 24 attached Townhome units in four buildings located along Hyland -Croy Road north of the commercial area. • Subarea F. Subarea F is the 17 -acre village commercial area with retail, restaurant and office uses at the corner of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads. The preliminary plan shows several building footprints along the Hyland -Croy Road frontage and along the main entry boulevard into the site. A planned pharmacy with a drive -thru is shown at the Hyland- Croy/McKitrick Roads intersection and a gas station and convenience store are proposed along McKitrick Road with access from McKitrick Road. Parking is shown throughout the village commercial area. SECTION II - REVIEW STANDARDS: The purpose of the PUD process is to encourage imaginative architectural design and proper site planning in a coordinated and comprehensive manner, consistent with accepted land planning, landscape architecture, and . engineering principles. The PUD process can consist of up to three basic stages: 1) Concept Plan (Staff, Commission, and/or City Council review and comment); 2) Zoning Amendment Request (Preliminary Development Plan; Commission recommends and City Council approves /denies); and 3) Final Development Plan (Commission approves /denies). The general intent of the preliminary development plan (rezoning) stage is to determine the general layout and specific zoning standards that will guide development. The Planning and Zoning Commission must review and make a recommendation on this preliminary development plan (rezoning) request. The application will then be returned to City Council for a public hearing and final vote. A two- thirds vote of City Council is required to override a negative recommendation by the Commission. If approved, the rezoning will become effective 30 days following the Council vote. Additionally, all portions of the development will require final development plan approval by the Commission prior to construction. Review Criteria: Section 153.050 of the Zoning Code identifies criteria for the review and approval for a Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan. These criteria are summarized in the following categories and may be in a different order than listed in the Code: Planning and Zoning Commission Planning Report – February 1, 2007 Case No. 05 -183Z – Page 5 of 12 Adopted Policies and Plans (Criteria 1, 2, 3, and 4): The proposed development is consistent with the Dublin Zoning Code; is in conformity with the Community Plan; advances the general welfare of the City; and 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. Criteria are met: The Future Land Use Plan within the Community Plan identifies the preferred land use for this site as "Residential— Medium Density (1 -2 du/ac.)." Plans submitted by the applicants indicate an overall density of 1.42 dwelling units per acre. While the proposed density and residential use of this site match the Community Plan, the project also proposes a commercial component, which is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map. The addition of small scale, neighborhood- oriented commercial center provides a mixed -use component to the proposed development, which directly relates to Land Use Principles 3 and 4 as outlined below. During Joint Work Sessions as part of the Community Plan Update process, Commissioners and Council members identified this particular area as a potential site for neighborhood services and emphasized the importance of incorporating Conservation Design into the site design. This application includes the four Conservation Design steps and Planning has determined that this development addresses the Conservation Design principles by providing a significant amount of open space, siting homes adjacent to open space, preserving rural character in portions of the site and offering alternate housing styles that are needed within the city. The Community Plan identifies Hyland -Croy, McKitrick, and Manley Roads as scenic roadways, and while not specifically designated, both Brock and Jerome Roads are also considered scenic. The plans indicate that the development provides for adequate setbacks consistent with these designations. Parks and Open Space (Criteria S and 6): The proposed residential development will have sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives of the Community Plan; and the proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and protects the natural resources of the site. Criteria are met: Code requires a dedication of 11.56 acres of open space based on 173 residential acres and 270 units while the Conservation Design Resolution requires 50 percent open space, or 86 acres. The text indicates that this proposal preserves 40 percent (75.84 acres) as open space, which includes 6.7 acres located on the Glacier Ridge school site. Planning believes that the exact amount of open space provided is not as important as the quality and the design of parks and open spaces. Planning supports the use of this open space in the overall calculation and has received a letter from the School Board agreeing with this provision. The text distinguishes neighborhood parks, rural open spaces and the boulevard green in the description of open space and provides visual concepts of the design Planning and Zoning Commission Planning Report — February 1, 2007 Case No. 05 -183Z — Page 6 of 12 intent of these areas. Existing trees and ponds will be incorporated into parks and open spaces and unique and different landscaping techniques are encouraged. The site contains several well - defined, heavily wooded areas and a tree inventory has been submitted. The text indicates the intent to preserve as many trees as possible and confirms that the requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance will be met. The proposed site design is sensitive to existing natural features and saves a majority of landmark trees. The City of Dublin established two areas as Stream Corridor Protection Zones (SCPZ) within this site and the plans show development in these areas, which is not permitted by the SCPZ regulation. The applicant submitted a request to the City Engineer to remove the Stream Corridor Protection Zones, which was approved following documentation demonstrating that these two areas do not meet the definition of a stream as established by Code. Final open space details will be submitted with the final development plan. Traffic, Utilities and Stormwater Management (Criteria 7, 8, and 11): Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and /or necessary facilities have been or are being provided; and adequate measures have been or will be taken 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; and 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. Criteria will be met through Conditions: The applicant was required, and has submitted a traffic impact study to Union County and the City of Dublin. This study analyzes the effects of the expected traffic on existing roadways makes recommendations on proper access point locations and identifies needed improvements to public roadways. The applicants are required to work with the City Engineer and the Union County Engineer's staff to establish adequate public improvements and agree to any cost sharing of identified improvements (Condition #1). The Traffic Study is currently under review by the City of Dublin and Union County and must be approved by both entities prior to submittal of a final development plan for this proposal (Condition #2). All rights -of -way necessary to comply with the Thoroughfare Plan and Union County requirements, where applicable, must be dedicated with the recording of the final plat. In addition, due to the anticipated increase of traffic levels along Hyland -Croy Road, the applicant will be required to dedicate 120 feet of right -of- way (60 feet from centerline) along Hyland -Croy Road (Condition #3). Planning and Zoning Commission Planning Report — February 1, 2007 Case No. 05 -183Z — Page 7 of 12 This text addresses the provision of utilities and Engineering has determined that this site will be adequately serviced. Several new sections of public sanitary sewer will be constructed. The applicant will be required to participate in improvements to the existing North Fork Indian Run sewer near I -270 where a constricting pipe segment has been identified (Condition #4). A series of water features have been proposed for stormwater management and the site will be required to meet the Stormwater Regulations. In previous public hearings citizens have express concerns about drainage along the western boundaries of this site, north of the elementary school. The applicant will be required to provide adequate drainage facilities to accommodate expected stormwater runoff, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Development Standards (Criteria 9, and 10): The relationship of buildings and structures provides for the coordination and integration of this development to the community and maintains the image of Dublin as a quality community; and the development standards, and the design and layout of the open space systems and parking areas, traffic accessibility and other elements contribute to the orderly development of land within the City. Criteria will be met through Condition: The development text provides standards that will ensure that buildings and other structures are coordinated and integrated and the design and layout of the open space system and the traffic accessibility will maintain the image of the City as a quality community. The development text details provisions for light fixtures in parking areas and Planning is concerned that that proposed fixture height may not be adequate for the safe movement of vehicles. The text should be revised to address this concern. While the preliminary development plan identifies a Build -Zone along the front of each lot, it does not indicate No -Build and No- Disturb Zones on any of the lots. No -Build Zones should be required for lots abutting public open space to maintain a separation between private and public space. No- Disturb Zones need to be provided at the rear of lots along existing trees. In areas where lots back onto other lots within the development, a No- Disturb or a No -Build Zone should be established, as applicable. In addition, the text does not address buffering requirements for lots adjacent to off -site residential properties and landscape buffers should be required along affected properties (Condition #5). Code requires one parking space per 150 square feet of gross floor area for shopping centers. The text permits shared parking and requires one parking space per 225 square feet of development within this Subarea. Planning finds that the reduced number of parking spaces is appropriate to serve this area and that the intent of the proposed commercial center as providing neighborhood services may warrant a further reduction. Final details of parking arrangements will be reviewed at the final development plan stage. Planning and Zoning Commission Planning Report — February 1, 2007 Case No. 05 -183Z — Page 8 of 12 Design Standards (12, and 13): The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed development justify any deviation from the standard development regulations included in the Code or the Subdivision Regulations; are consistent with the intent of the Planned Development District regulations; and 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. Criteria are met: The development text outlines all applicable development standards for this project. Residential deviations from the Code and the Subdivision Regulations primarily include setbacks, lot coverage and fencing. The proposed reduced residential setbacks will create a distinct streetscape and encourage informal encounters between neighbors. An increase in lot coverage is allowed for smaller lots, including Court, Cottage, and Garden lots and these more intensely developed lots are offset by the sizeable open spaces located throughout the neighborhood. The text contains architectural development standards, which are intended to create a variety of architectural combinations. Several architectural styles are described in the text, which also includes descriptions and graphics that address massing, rooflines and use of materials. High- quality, four -sided architecture will be required in all portions of the development, which will be enforced by an Architectural Review Committee. The text also provides standards for the areas surrounding the homes and requires that gates or gateposts along the front of each lot, a brick sidewalk leading from the front door of homes to the public sidewalk, and a hedgerow planting along the front of all residential units. Garage orientation has been carefully considered and restrictions are listed in the development text. These details will exceed the requirements of the Residential Appearance Code and establish Tartan Ridge as a high quality community in the City. * Previously noted discrepancies between the text and the plans regarding garage orientation restrictions and front Build -Zones have been revised to accurately reflect the intended restrictions and a condition was eliminated. The text deviates from Code by permitting decorative fencing or hedges at a height of six feet high to enclose a courtyard in the rear of Garden lots and for the Townhomes. Fences of similar heights have recently been approved for other projects in the City and are appropriate for these units. Final details of these fences will require review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission as stated in the development text. * The text permits each tenant to have two wall signs per tenant and two ground- mounted identification signs for the center. The Commission has recently approved tenant signage for storefronts in specific situations where there are two fronts, to allow both sides to be identified appropriately. The text has been revised to address a previous Planning Planning and Zoning Commission Planning Report — February 1, 2007 Case No. 05 -183Z —Page 9 of 12 concern regarding the size and states that the size of the wall signs is not to exceed 45 square feet for the street side and 30 square feet for the parking lot side of the building. The sign for the proposed gas station is limited to a 35- square -foot ground mounted sign that displays the name of the gas station business and gas prices as permitted by law. (A previous condition has been eliminated). Details regarding signs will be submitted at the final development plan. Infrastructure (Criteria 14, 15 and 16): 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 development can be adequately serviced by existing or planned public improvements; and the applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service the new development. Criteria will be met through Conditions: The development plan includes a proposed phasing plan showing that the eastern portions of the site will be developed first. The preliminary development plan contains the information for an appropriate set of infrastructure for streets, sidewalks, pathways, and utilities. Engineering has determined that the proposed development can be adequately served by the planned improvements. Final detailed design of these elements will be required during the final development plan process. The applicant will be responsible for participating in a cost sharing agreement for infrastructure improvements that were constructed by the City of Dublin. This agreement is required to be established, and approved by the City of Dublin, prior to the applicant submitting a final development plan (Condition #6). The proposed access point along Brock Road should be located so that it will function efficiently with the future access point for the Jerome Village development to the north. The point of access should be approved by the City Engineer and Union County. In addition, a stub street to the western property boundary, north of the elementary school, should be planned to promote connectivity with possible future development (Condition #7). Land Use Principles: On August 21, 2006 City Council established ten Land Use Principles to be utilized as development guidelines in conjunction with the existing Community Plan in the evaluation of pending development applications. The ten Land Use Principles are to be consulted in order to adequately address policies and decision - making processes that may arise during the Community Plan update process and are categorized and summarized as follows: Quality and Character (Principles 1, 6, 7, and 9): High quality design for all uses, recognizing density has important economic implications, but is essentially an outcome not a determinant of creating a quality place; preserving the rural character of certain areas of the community, including the appearance of roads, as well as the landscape; Planning and Zoning Commission Planning Report — February 1, 2007 Case No. 05 -183Z —Page 10 of 12 developing streets that create an attractive public realm and make exceptional places for people; and creating streets that contribute to the character of the community and move a more reasonable level of traffic. Land Use Principles are met: The proposed development creates a high quality neighborhood at an appropriate density. The plan includes areas of higher density, particularly around the commercial area which creates a village -like experience while providing less densely developed areas that preserve natural features and rural character. The text describes and the plan indicates a network of tree -lined streets and boulevards, which create an attractive public realm and will move traffic at a reasonable rate. Rural character of this area is preserved through the plan's compliance with the scenic setbacks and the design of the road network, most notably the main boulevard, which accommodates large landscaped islands and is intended as a green corridor connecting open spaces. The plan includes a number of single- loaded streets in the southern portion of the site and around the major neighborhood park, which successfully eliminates the view of the rear of homes from the public realm. In addition, the text and development plan restrict front - loaded garages for a majority of the lots and includes lots which have alley - accessed garages in the rear of the lot. This design detail creates an attractive neighborhood and enhances the character of the road design. Connectivity (Principles 2, 8 and 10): Creating places to live that have a stronger pedestrian environment, connections to convenient services, and are conducive to multi - generational living and social interaction; creating better connected places, in part, to improve the function of the street network and also to better serve neighborhoods; and providing opportunities to walk and bike throughout the community. Land Use Principles will be met through Conditions: The plan successfully creates a place for multi - generational living and social interaction by offering various housing types as well as active and passive open spaces conveniently located in proximity to neighborhood services. Planning has identified areas where the street network can be improved to better serve the neighborhood and provide additional opportunities to walk. The proposed commercial layout inappropriately incorporates typical suburban, auto - oriented design, such as the drive aisles in front of buildings with head -in parking on both sides. This area should be redesigned to create a pedestrian - friendly streetscape and environment by providing on- street parallel parking that takes advantage of residential proximity, reduces pavement, and presents a more neighborhood oriented commercial view to the street (Condition #8). The proposed development plan includes numerous opportunities for walking and biking throughout the site. All streets will accommodate either sidewalk or Planning and Zoning Commission Planning Report — February 1, 2007 Case No. 05 -183Z — Page 11 of 12 bikepaths and pathways are proposed through and along open spaces and parks. A bikepath is proposed in the southern portion of the site along the interior road, paralleling McKitrick Road. Planning finds that this bikepath should be more sensitive to existing natural features and be sited more centrally within the setback along McKitrick Road to better serve the greater community. (Condition #9) Planning has identified a significant weakness in the open space connections in this development. While the connections are well designed among the parks in the southern portion and the park in the northern portion of the development, a well defined connection between the two areas is missing. The final development plan for this project should incorporate additional public open space along the front of lots in Subarea D -2 to create this connection (Condition #10). Integration (Principles 3, 4, and 5): Creating places with integrated uses that are distinctive, sustainable and contribute to increasing the City's overall vitality; providing some retail services in closer proximity to residential areas as an important amenity to residents; and creating a wider range of housing choice in the community, as well as in new neighborhoods. Land Use Principles are met: This plan utilizes a "neighborhood" approach to development by integrating uses that are not available to serve adjacent neighborhoods. While Council and Commission members have expressed concerns that the adoption of Principle 4 could lead to commercial nodes being proposed with every future residential development, the addition of this commercial area is an important component of this plan as residential uses are expected to increase in the surrounding area. The revised list of permitted uses in this development range from residential, and public (satellite fire station) to basic commercial (pharmacy, gas station, retail and office), which are an amenity extending beyond the boundaries of this particular subdivision and provide access to daily needs thus eliminating travel across the community. The plan provides a variety of housing choices, ranging from smaller and lower maintenance Townhomes, Garden, and Court lots to larger, executive -style Estate and Manor lots. Planning finds that the plan successfully mixes the variety of lot sizes and housing choices throughout the development. SECTION III - RECOMMENDATION: The Tartan Ridge development has the potential to be a unique and attractive development and the applicant has worked with Planning and Engineering to address issues and concerns previously discussed. Further work is necessary to fully address these concerns, but they can likely be resolved with the final development plan. This development will maintained and further the high -level of development quality in northwest Dublin. Based on the evaluation of this proposal according to the criteria set forth in Code Section 153.050 and the ten Land Use Principles, Planning recommends approval of this preliminary development plan/rezoning with ten conditions, as noted below. Planning and Zoning Commission Planning Report — February 1, 2007 Case No. 05 -183Z — Page 12 of 12 Conditions: 1) That the applicant resolve cost sharing for the infrastructure needed to service the site with sanitary sewer, water, and streets, to be finalized and agreed upon prior to submitting any final development plan; 2) That the Traffic Study be approved by the City of Dublin and Union County prior to submittal of a final development plan; 3) That all rights -of -way as outlined in this report be dedicated with the recording of the final plat; 4) That the applicant participate in improvements to the existing North Fork Indian Run sewer near I -270, subject to approval by the City Engineer; 5) That the text be modified to ensure base height for lighting fixtures are appropriately sized for safety and that the text and plans be revised to indicate No- Build Zones, No- Disturb Zone, and landscape buffers as outlined in this report, subject to Planning approval; 6) That the applicant participate in a cost sharing agreement for infrastructure improvements constructed by the City of Dublin to be finalized and agreed upon prior to submitting any final development plan; 7) That the access point on Brock Road be approved by the City Engineer and Union County and that a stub street to the western property boundary, north of the elementary school, be provided to promote connectivity with possible future development, subject to Engineering approval; 8) That the commercial area be redesigned to create a pedestrian- friendly streetscape and environment by providing parallel parking; subject to Planning and Engineering approval; 9) That the bikepath along McKitrick Road be located sensitively to existing natural features and be sited more centrally within the setback; and, 10) That the final development plan for this project incorporate additional public open space along the front of lots in Subarea D -2. P � .��; i � �. - •fir -•� - Glaci Metro Park Ai VIA Glaci : R Ridge MII Metro Park COUNTY .„..... 183Z N City of Dublin 05 - A Land Use and Tartan Ridge Long Range Planning Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan wmmmmmc=== Feet 9756 Hyland -Croy Road 0 500 1,000 PROPOSED SITE PLAN -AREA CONTEXT Glacier Ridge Metrd,,P n 05-183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge 0 u..1 —A PROPOSED SITE PLAN 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge 0949U -1—e !`..... n..,.• PROPOSED SUBAREAS ESTATE LOTS MANOR LOTS PARK LOTS GARDEN LOTS GARDEN LOTS OR COTTAGE LOTS PARK LOTS VILLAGE LOTS i I I Sub Aare A : 94.87 AC. I VILLAGE LOTS SuI Am 6 x914 AC I i COTTAGE LOTS COURTLOTS I GARDEN LOTS / F -2.Q ACF I Sub-A. D1 16.74 AC. Sub-Am e] x14 AC. . s<1d8AC. NEIGHBORHOOD 05 -183Z COMMERCIAL VILLAGE LOTS Rezoning/Preliminary Development COTTAGE LOTS plan COURT LOTS Tartan Ridge PROPOSED ESTATE HOME ELEVATION SUBAREAA ESTATE HOME A 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge PROPOSED MANOR HOME ELEVATION SUBAREA A MANOR HOME A 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge nICK v -a__a n -,... n - - PROPOSED PARK HOME ELEVATION SUBAREAS A, D -2 PARK HOME A D -2 05-183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge PROPOSED VILLAGE HOME ELEVATION SUBAREAS B, C, & D -2 (front- facing garages permitted) B C D -2 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge PROPOSED COURT HOME ELEVATION SUBAREAS C & D -1 COURT HOME C D -1 05-183z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge f :. i C D -1 05-183z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge PROPOSED COTTAGE HOME ELEVATION SUBAREAS C, D -1, & D -2 COTTAGE HOME i i i i C D -1 D -2 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge PROPOSED GARDEN HOME ELEVATION SUBAREAS D -1 & D -2 GARDEN L0T 1 05 -183Z D -1 D -2 Rezoning/Preliminary Developmen plan Tartan Ridge PROPOSED TOWNHOME ELEVATION SUBAREA E TOWN HOME E 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AREA 0 Q 0 0 U O 2 g r:� SUBAREAF 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge F& itiGROMNI �* PROPOSED STREETSCAPE PROPOSED OPEN SPACE PLAN . unary Development Tartan Ridge Dublin City Council/ Planning And Zoning Commission Joint Work Session - September 13, 2006 Meeting Minutes — Page 2 of 25 Mr. Combs said that in ini \a1so plan meetings, p icipants suggested prove ing mixed -use velopment at Summitvie Based on comme is 'from previous join sessions, m . ifications were made te office development hat would not facilitate \-through tra i . He said that the plaempts to blend with the isting residential. Cathy Bo 'ng said she thought the pl s on the right track. She aid that she only has about the 'Shaughnessy Hills develop ent. She did not think at issues could be because of th way lots are platted with mahy residents owning more an one lot. Mr. Combs said th t lots were platted that are s bstandazd with the curre zoning. The area has platted rights- of - -wa \input is trying to ac co odate proper circulat n, safe access, and future development framework. Mr. C bs agreed with Ms. Bo 'ng that a solution will not be found thae everyone happy. \resi dent's ked if azd from anyone residing thin O'Shaughnessy Hi id that Ho a report from June 14 me ded a significant amoun of input re of W Hills nd that staff has had disc sions with the presiders of the ciatiot has be received from O'Shaug essy Hills. Mayor Chinnici uercher said she drove the area after the previ \trate to be morZs conscious of the p sed roads. She voiced oncern about access onew Road with the change in topogra by and visibility. Combs indicated tha technical details must be xplored with EHe confirmed that taff had checked the ecorded plats for Wed ' ood Hills anthat the only locatio for potential road ac ss from tha t developme would be t k area. He said that ff will look at acces o propose the most suits alternaticon entrate on providing i emal circulation. Mayor Chinmci�7uercher agreed and sNd that the ultimate plan sh4ld be one that is feasib Design Character Discussion: Mr. Combs said that discussion will include the Northwest Area, the Central Ohio Innovation Center (COIC), and residual areas along the Avery Road corridor. He referred participants to supplemental packet information regarding neighborhood centers and conservation design. Neighborhood Centers Mr. Combs provided general information on the difference between neighborhood center and town center characteristics. He said that both types of mixed use areas integrate a variety of housing types and other land uses both horizontally and vertically. Depending upon the scale of the center, the service area for commercial uses will differ. He said that for both types of mixed - use areas, there must be a clear integration of pedestrian and vehicular movement to gain access. Mr. Combs noted the adopted Land Use Principles and indicated that overall use is not as important as the architecture and design quality. Structures must be flexible to accommodate changes in use over time. 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge Dublin City Council/ Planning And Zoning Commission Joint Work Session - September 13, 2006 Meeting Minutes — Page 3 of 25 Mr. Combs described the Neighborhood Center as ranging from 40,000 to 100,000 square feet of gross leasable commercial space with uses that would include small supermarkets, specialty stores, restaurants, personal services and other daily needs for people going to work or traveling home. Such daily needs should be in close proximity of the residence, and in Dublin the scale would likely range from 40,000 to 60,000 square feet. Mr. Combs said that Neighborhood Centers are typically within a walking distance of one- quarter mile. However, such centers will have a significant portion of automobile traffic generally within a three -mile radius. He referred to Westhaven as an example where mixed -use development is highly accessible to pedestrians, but has high frontage visibility onto a major arterial. The design minimizes the impact of external traffic within the neighborhood. He said that buildings are placed forward for pedestrian- orientation with parking to the rear. Proper transition through the implementation of town homes is also present to blend with single - family development. Mr. Combs showed slides of the Village of New Albany as an example of a neighborhood center. He said that structures are generally in a two -story scale, providing retail below and offices and/or residential above. The center is in close proximity to higher density residential and is within walking distance of single - family homes. Ms. Boring noted its presence along a major thoroughfare and asked how much housing was in the area. Mr. Combs said that the images were somewhat deceptive. He pointed out that the arterial provided access to the center and buildings were oriented with a pedestrian streetscape. He said that across from the street is a ring of town homes. Mr. Combs said that just outside the picture is a significant number of homes under construction; in this case the mixed -use center is there and the housing is catching up with it. He said that eventually, you will be able to walk to the center from three sides and that good pedestrian connections will likely be provided across the major arterial. Todd Zimmerman asked for the size of the center. Mr. Combs said that the library skews the figures, but that the remainder of the center is clearly within the 50,000 to 100,000 - square -foot range. He noted the good location created for civic uses as a way to create additional foot traffic to support the commercial activities. Mr. Combs showed other examples in the Clintonville area and North Carolina. He noted the variety in character and emphasized that the Community Plan process should be used to determine the form and character of proposed neighborhood centers. Town Centers Mr. Combs said that the Town Center is the next level of mixed -use development that incorporates between 100,000 and 200,000 square feet of retail. He said that as a point of contrast, the town center will include larger format or "big box" stores that are incorporated into the streetscape architecture. Uses include larger groceries, retail, restaurants and personal services. Examples noted include Marimont Village and Birkdale Village in North Carolina, and Easton Town Center. Mr. Combs said that building mass is genera' - 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge Dublin City Council/ Planning And Zoning Commission Joint Work Session - September 13, 2006 Meeting Minutes — Page 4 of 25 significant residential uses and parking structures. Arterial visibility is important to provide access for shoppers without impacting the surrounding residential. Designs are intended to be walkable with paths and greenway connections. John Reiner asked if there are locations where a town center development could be envisioned. Mr. Combs said that this level of development would be appropriate at Dublin Village Center and potentially at the Central Ohio Innovation Center, depending upon the type of market and services needed. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher said that Dublin Village Center is the perfect location with nearby condos and apartments. She noted that materials indicated that a town center does not have the regional drawing power as a power center or super- regional center. She questioned whether Easton would be considered as a regional draw. Mr. Combs said that Easton has developed beyond the scale of a town center, but the massing and feel of the mixed use area and its architecture and layout is the desired form. Mr. Walter asked if a center that is heavier on residential had been considered. He said that neighborhood centers need to be more integrated by having residential within the retail, as opposed to just office uses. Mr. Walter suggested two -story architecture with rental units. Mr. Combs affirmed that staff would like to see as much residential as possible mixed with the retail and office uses to increase activity. He said that a policy decision is needed to determine if requiring the integration of residential in mixed -use areas is desired. Mr. Combs said that there are examples where second -floor residential was not acceptable to the developer, but clear direction is needed. He said that the COIC was being targeted for a project on the scale of a town center. He noted that staff has tried to push developers to integrate residential uses into proposed neighborhood center projects, but that has not been accomplished yet. Mr. Reiner referred to examples in Europe and noted that the issue is problematic for developers here because it is a new way of thinking. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher said that the location is also a problem. [Several members suggested Dublin Village Center.] She said that areas where mixed -use development is contemplated should be specified, particularly in the Northwest Area. She said that she did not envision a four -story project in that area of town because it is very rural, but the area near Sawmill Road is more likely. Tim Lecklider questioned the objective of the discussion and asked if the slide image included structured parking. Mr. Combs confirmed that the image of Birkdale Village did include parking garages within the interior of the blocks and that Dublin Village Center is the recommended location. He said that staff is hoping to provide a clear visual differentiation between the scales of both the neighborhood and town center development types. He said that utilizing a map exhibit is 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge 9756 Hvland -Crov Road Dublin City Council/ Planning And Zoning Commission Joint Work Session - September 13, 2006 Meeting Minutes — Page 5 of 25 intended to determine where such projects will fit in the best. Mr. Combs noted that the issue of density was raised because a threshold of development is needed to support structured parking. Warren Fishman said that he did not have an aversion to density, but the design is incredibly important. Ms. Boring said that retail buildings are always separate from offices. She said that retail is much nicer when it is integrated, and Dublin should encourage more offices that integrate first - floor retail. Mr. Zimmerman noted the French Market as an example in the 1970s, and Mr. Fishman noted that the development did not last long; Ms. Boring added that there were problems with the building materials used and the appearance was too "glitzy." Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher said the design of Easton with the red brick is more spectacular and timeless; Mr. Fishman said that the quality of the Easton project looks durable. Kevin Walter said that the area around DePaul University in Chicago has a very tight integration of retail and high density residential that works well. He said that the transitioning out to lower densities made it work. Ms. Boring asked for an estimate of the number of residential units needed to support a town center. Mr. Combs said that exact figures were not available, but staff could conduct research to obtain information. He said that in general terms, trip generation along arterials is important to support the center, but still to maintain a pedestrian orientation. Ms. Boring said that while the idea is supported, not every project should be a mixed use center. She noted that figures would give more ability to substantiate a project's location_ Mr. Walter said that numerical data should be incorporated into almost every retail proposal to know how the parcel will relate to the surrounding area and to prevent the over - saturation of an area. Amy Salay said that Dublin does not have much remaining capacity for retail that can be supported and centers are being renovated. Mr. Combs said that the retail study conducted did show that there is sufficient community - or regional -level retail. He said that policies should focus on providing neighborhood -level services. Mr. Combs reminded that retail is always changing and that centers are always in a state of success or decline. The plan should incorporate expected locations in the future and, over time, many existing commercial centers could be considered for other uses. Mr. Combs said that land use is a constantly changing thing. Mr. Reiner asked if Mr. Combs believed that a well- built community could last for a couple hundred years. Mr. Reiner noted Northern Lights, Northland, and Pr 05 -1832 Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge (1^744 LI..I.. „.l f`. D.. A Dublin City Council/ Planning And Zoning Commission Joint Work Session - September 13, 2006 Meeting Minutes - Page 6 of 25 group's mission should be to demand quality so that the tax base is sustained and people want to stay in the community. Mr. Combs said that the true, issue is one of architectural flexibility. Today it may be retail, but if the shell is flexible it can be offices or condos in the future if the architecture is of a high quality. Ms. Salay noted that the slide image showed swimming pools in the backyards that backed up to a greenway next to the shopping center. She noted that there is not a significant level of signage and requested photos of tenant signage. She said that signage can take away from or add to an area's character. Mr. Combs confirmed that Birkdale Village had single - family homes with a greenspace transition, and structures along the back of the mixed -use blocks are alternative housing types. He said that with proper transitions, single- family homes can be sited in close proximity. Ms. Boring said that areas should be designated where the concept could work. Mr. Combs agreed and said that the area plan process should be used to determine locations where its application is appropriate. He said that after determining the locations, the area plans can be used to determine acceptable scale and architectural/character types. Conservation Design Mr. Combs said that conservation design has been discussed at length over the past few years and that its purpose is to maintain rural character, provide views, keep natural features and also to provide a mixed of architectural types in clustered housing on more compact lots. He said that homes are placed in defined areas to free up open space in larger connected systems. Mr. Combs said that preserving historic sites or features is also emphasized. He presented slides with the following examples: Serenbe in Palmetto, Georgia; Prairie Crossing in Grayslake, Illinois; and Tryon Farm in Michigan City, Indiana. Mr. Combs provided a map of the Serenbe development in a wooded, hilly area and explained that development was clustered in nodes throughout the development. He explained that specific clusters include a mix of residential, office and retail. Mr. Combs described the project as a hybrid of the conservation and neighborhood center concepts. He said that the project included three to four -story architecture that includes office /retail and high density residential apartments, lofts and condos. The uses are integrated and paths connect the various nodes. Mr. Reiner said it is a neat concept that preserves green space. He wondered how enough foot traffic was generated to sustain the businesses. Mr. Combs said that the clusters have easy access to the arterials. Mr. Walter said that traditionally, wooded areas are clear -cut except for some trees that are saved for each individual lot. He asked if the intent of the conservation design is to suppress the individual's lot's character or rights for the good of the community. 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge Q7S(, 1 xf1 , And_('rnv Rnnd Dublin cit Council/ Planning And Zoning Commission Joint Work Session - September 13, 2006 Meeting Minutes — Page 7 of 25 Mr. Combs said that the idea is to simply look at a broader range of architecture on smaller lots. Mr. Walter asked if the concept would work in the O'Shaughnessy Hills area. Mr. Combs said that given the recorded plat, that it is not likely. He said that plans must work within the limitations of the plat to figure out the best development options that will preserve trees and increase parkland. Mr. Fishman requested the ratio between commercial and residential uses. Mr. Combs said that staff did not have specific numbers on hand, and he described the plan in general terms. He described two larger nodes of development that include significant mixed -use areas (denoted in red and orange). He said that zero -lot lines are used to cluster buildings and the larger plan includes an entire community with a wide range of housing, including traditional single - family lots and larger estate lots. Density created in the core areas provides greater flexibility to the rest of the site plan. Mr. Fishman said that a delicate balance must be met to ensure high quality. He said that a terrific design must be used, and the uses of the commercial area are important because the development is so close, noting that large - format retail would not be appropriate. - Mr. Combs agreed that design is a key factor in all such developments and that big box retail is not appropriate. He said that staff can provide the development's weblink to look at monthly construction photos and other information that will explain the range of architecture and residential styles proposed. Mr. Fishman said that the street shown in the slide was not attractive, and Ms. Boring asked where the project was located. Mr. Combs said that the project is near Palmetto, Georgia. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher noted that the roads shown within the project are significant and that she did not think Dublin has the topography to do a project like Serenbe. She said that she is unsure if one node was used, but that significant areas in the Northwest and Southwest do not have trees. Mr. Combs said that Conservation Design is in many ways a golf course development with another type of open space. He said that obviously flat agricultural land is the option in those areas, but there is still the ability to create open spaces that have regional connectivity. Mr. Walter said he liked the Glacier Ridge area and asked if a design concept for the area could be created and parceled out so that one developer is not required to do it all and the area flows together. He noted concern for placing higher density against the park and noted that one example includes a working farm. Mr. Walter asked if such uses could be integrated to preserve rural characteristics in the area. 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge Q'I[f, IDnoA Dublin City Council/ Planning And Zoning Commission Joint Work Session - September 13, 2006 Meeting Minutes — Page 8 of 25 Mr. Combs said that a variety of different projects are being implemented with specific character types or themes. He said that it is a matter of determining what a developer is willing to do and what will fit into the area. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher said she thinks that Mr. Walter is trying to say that the City should determine the area in question, how much development is acceptable and exactly what is desired. Ms. Jones noted that continuity is needed so that developments do not appear "chopped up." Mr. Combs confirmed that a past concern with Conservation Design was the issue of losing the big picture if development is viewed as individual parcels. He said that an area plan that spells out the general concept is something that can provide clearer expectations for developers. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher asked if the group agreed on the idea of implementing conservation design. Mr. Reiner agreed and said that was a standard they have tried to accomplish for years in Dublin. He said that the plan will reduce problems for the person who constantly brings in proposals for 25 acres. Ms. Boring said that the plan will tell the developer what is clearly expected in an area. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher confirmed that the group agreed on the Northwest Area, and Mr. Reiner suggested to the edge of the City at the Honda Wetlands. Mr. Combs said that staff would like to have graphics within the plan to show areas in the City that are designated for conservation -style development. Mayor Chinicci- Zuercher said the group had agreed to designate areas as being Conservation Design, but she would like to go further into an actual design (referring to the Serenbe plan) so that a developer can see what is wanted. She said that a plan will be more specific than simply saying that a certain area can be "Conservation Design." Mr. Lecklider said that he would be supportive and said he did not know why it could not be done. He asked Jennifer Readier if there were any limitations to apply to individual properties proposed for development if the plan went through the public process and was adopted. He said that Council and the Commission would like to take a plan for 500 to 600 acres that could include multiple developers and be enforced for each one. Ms. Boring said that is why the Community Plan is being completed. Ms. Readier said that if City Council would adopt Conservation Design principles, they can be enforced. She said that staff would have to see if there are any special circumstances that would arise from any particular piece of property. Ms. Salay said that if the plan called for a large area of open space on one particular property, it could be problematic if the neighbor is allowed to develop a town center area. 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge Dublin City Council/ Planning And Zoning Commission Joint Work Session - September 13, 2006 Meeting Minutes — Page 9 of 25 Ms. Readier said that is the pivotal.question, and that staff must look at specific plans to see how the development would look on certain parcels. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher reiterated that was what they were talking about doing. Mr_ Walter said that in Franklin, Tennessee density or land transfers were discussed, and Ms. Salay asked how to make it work with multiple developers and land owners. Ms. Jones noted that in Franklin, formulas were used. Mr. Waiter added that in particular subareas, density was designated in areas so that coordinating properties was encouraged. Mr. Lecklider said that he asked legal counsel so that everyone was not left with a false impression of the decisions made. He said he asked because someone could potentially have 40 acres of open space next to someone with 100 acres slated for high density and retail. Ms_ Readier confirmed that, in theory, a master plan could be completed. She said that there are different regulatory tools that can be used so that property owners who are more disadvantaged, can obtain density credits or other benefits. Ms. Readier noted that landowners are entitled to reasonable use of the property, not necessarily what. will create the greatest monetary return. She said that plans should be conscious of not creating a "taking," but that in theory a master plan could be used. Mr. Zimmerman said that some developers had already created plans, and Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher said those areas could incorporated into the plan. Mr. Fishman said that it is the luck of the draw and that property owners at Sawmill and SR 161 are luckier than those owning land on Maple Street. He said it is not the job of the City to create value for individuals, and that what is best for the community is the primary objective. He did not think that a defined plan should be of concern. Mr. Walter suggested a subcommittee or study session to look at where elements are placed within the plan. He said that he agreed with Mr. Zimmerman that a decision on location is critical and that a policy decision must be made. Mr. Reiner agreed with Mr. Walter and said that legal counsel has for the last ten years said that the City has the right to implement the concepts discussed. He said that a decision is needed tonight to prevent a series of 10 or 25 -acre developments that do not relate to each other. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher asked if the group wanted to continue moving toward the creation of a master plan concept for the Northwest Area. [The group agreed.] She reminded the Commission that City Council adopted the ten principles so that zoning applications would continue to be processed and staff will utilize them to work with developers and make recommendations. Mr. Reiner asked if that was a motion, and Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher said she would be glad to accept it. 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge 071qA u.,lo A- 1 - -, D--A Dublin City Council/ Planning And Zoning Commission Joint Work Session - September 13, 2006 Meeting Minutes — Page 10 of 25 Mr. Walter suggested that general areas west of Avery Road and north of Post Road be considered for the concept; Ms. Salay suggested areas to the east of US 33. Mr. Fishman asked if the proposal would be that Conservation Design is used in the area without saying what goes where; Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher and Ms. Salay agreed that they were not identifying specific locations at this time. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher said her ultimate goal was to outline an area in which such development will be expected and that a task force could maybe consider the issue. Mr. Combs said that staff will be charged with creating the necessary plans and that the work session schedule can be prioritized to accomplish a plan. He cautioned that creating an additional group for staff to facilitate (in terms of setup, public notice, etc.) would be extremely difficult to accomplish. He recommended working plans into the work session schedule as quickly as possible. Ms. Salay noted that there was a developer in the Southwest Area optioning properties and said that she did not want to neglect one area in favor of another. Mr. Reiner said that was not being suggested, but that the Glacier Ridge area should develop as Conservation Design. Mr. Combs said that substantial areas of the Southwest Area are being considered for Conservation Design. He indicated that both areas should probably be looked at to finalize a conceptual master plan that will get into more detail. Mr. Reiner said that in the Southwest Area, Conservation Design is being indicated along the border. He questioned what the border of such areas would be, and Ms. Boring asked that the area be highlighted by staff. Mr. Combs showed a slide that indicated by green stripes those areas in the Southwest proposed for Conservation Design. He said that in the Northwest Area, the discussion generally includes those outlined areas to the east of US 33. Ms. Brautigam cautioned that some areas under consideration as part of the planning area are located within Jerome Township and have not been annexed. Mr. Combs added that the City is looking at the area in terms of future planning and development to be prepared if those areas are annexed. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher asked that a more definitive plan be brought back for both the Northwest and Southwest Areas and inquired about the timeframe and its impact on the work session schedule. Mr. Combs said that it would take at least a couple weeks of solid work to create, and that additional discussion with the consultants would be necessary to coordinate schedules. He said that topics could be shifted to accommodate the plans. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher asked if everyone agreed. 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge 07 6 NvinnrI -Crnv Rnnrl Dublin City Council/ Planning And Zoning Commission Joint Work Session - September 13, 2006 Meeting Minutes — Page 11 of 25 Mr. Reiner made a motion that the areas west of Avery Road and north of Post Road in the Northwest Area be designated as a Conservation Design area Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher asked about the Southwest Area. Ms. Salay noted that there are different areas within the Southwest. She asked how the plan would fit in with the Open Space Master Plan and whether staff had considered parcels or parkland that would be important to the larger system. She said that it seemed as though the plan should dovetail with the open space parcels that Fred Hahn and his staff have considered. Mr. Combs said that staff generally understands that connections between key points are needed, but the design utilizing Conservation techniques can be flexible on flat agricultural land. He said that key features like woodlands will be saved and staff will coordinate with open space planning. Mr. Reiner asked if his motion should be a motion of City Council and the group as a whole. He asked if they should vote twice. Ms. Salay said that she wondered how the Southwest Area would be addressed. She asked if staff expected to come back at a future meeting to focus on the two areas and the design layout. Mr. Combs confirmed that there are two design concepts being utilized in the Southwest Area. He said that Conservation Design is being proposed along the periphery with Amlin targeted for village development. He said that the design challenge will be to blend both concepts together. Mr. Combs suggested that portions to the west of the railroad be considered. Areas to the east incorporate other concepts. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher said at a previous meeting, the entire group voted on a motion so that they were all collectively giving direction to staff of what their intention was_ She said Mr_ Reiner's motion was designated primarily for the Northwest Area, and she suggested another motion for the Southwest Area Mr. Walter seconded Mr. Reiner's motion for the Northwest Area and the group unanimously voted for approval. Ms. Salay referenced a recent Council memo regarding Conservation Design and wondered how this planning process fits or coordinates with the draft ordinance when staff deals with proposed development. She noted that clearly plans are easier to implement when greater amounts of land are assembled. Mr. Combs said that the area plan is a general concept that addresses the big picture, and staff will work with developers on the details. He said that it sounded as though the direction is to make a base concept to which the developers must adhere. Mr. Combs said that each of the area plans will eventually include strategies or action items for implementation. 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge Dublin City Council/ Planning And Zoning Commission Joint Work Session - September 13, 2006 Meeting Minutes — Page 12 of 25 Ms Salay moved to direct staff to look at Conservation Design for portions of the Southwest Area west of the railroad and the headwaters at Hayden Run. Mr. Walter seconded the motion and the group unanimously voted for approval Mixed-Use Areas Mr. Combs said that a determination of where neighborhood centers should be located is necessary. He referred to three small maps and one large format map in the packets for reference. Map 1 includes an aerial of West Dublin with road networks. Mr. Combs said staff highlighted on Map 2 potential areas in dashed circles where pedestrian- oriented centers might make sense. The circles show quarter -mile and half -mile increments to show walkability. He noted that an alternate map was provided that utilized hatching. Map 3 depicts potential areas for Conservation Design. Mr. Combs provided a brief overview of Map 2, noting three potential areas along Hyland -Croy Road in the Northwest Area where neighborhood services might be appropriate. Two other nodes are indicated west US 33. He said that Amlin in the Southwest Area is targeted as a center, and based on recent discussion, the Hirth Road area is another potential location. Mr. Combs noted another proposed location along Avery Road at Woerner- Temple Road. He indicated that further discussion and direction is needed. Ms. Boring asked if they were to pick only a certain number of locations, and Mr. Walter noted that existing centers such as Perimeter Center, Bridge Street, etc. were not called out. He asked how much of a draw those centers needed to be successful. Mr. Combs said that staff had selected potential sites that could make sense and that policy direction is needed as to how many might be appropriate. He said that the locations referenced were community -level centers and that the discussion tonight focused on pedestrian- oriented locations. Mr. Combs said that those centers served the entire community, as well as daily employment. Mr. Walter asked if they were at cross - purposes of each other. Mr. Combs said no, and that neighborhood centers are intended to provide daily needs without having to drive across the community to an Avery Center or Perimeter Center where you must deal with employment traffic to use the same services. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher suggested going through each potential location separately. Ms. Salay said that the locations looked appropriate and that some neighborhood services are needed in the Northwest. She said that some locations may be too close along Hyland -Croy Road, but those proposed in the Southwest will generally be accepted. Mr. Combs confirmed that the locations along Hyland -Croy Road were most critical for discussion purposes and that clear direction is necessary tonight. Mr. Walter said he was least in favor of the northernmost location on Hyland -Croy Road because he believed that Jerome Village will provide plenty of neighborhood ri - 0 483Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge Dublin City Council/ Planning And Zoning Commission Joint Work Session - September 13, 2006 Meeting Minutes — Page 13 of 25 said that the space should be preserved through Conservation Design and that the southernmost location was most preferred. Mr. Combs described the three potential locations along Hyland -Croy Road as the McKitrick, Mitchell- Dewitt and Post Road options. He said that public feedback from the Open House was highly in favor of the Metro Park and preserving rural character. He said that the concepts were supported and ensuring revenue generation at the interchange was important. Mr. Combs noted that written feedback was very limited. Mr. Combs presented a slide of the Post Road concept and explained the proposed residential transition along Post Preserve. He presented the concept of high -end office at the gateway to the COIC and additional officelresearch space that would front onto US 33, south of the Metro Park. He said that the area between the Bishop and Park Place developments provide a potential mixed -use location with a significant pedestrian base and high visibility along a high - traffic road. Mr. Lecklider asked for an explanation of "mixed -use" as it pertained to the parcel, and Mr. Combs said that a small neighborhood center is under consideration. He said that a small center with appropriate architecture and proper transitions into surrounding residential is envisioned. Mr. Lecklider said he generally supports the concept, but is concerned about problems with existing development. He said that proposed centers need to be appropriately spaced and that a .goal would be to reduce trips to Avery Road and Perimeter Drive. He said that perhaps, Jerome Village will eliminate some of the trips which are creating the need for more travel lanes and roundabouts. Mr. Lecklider said that the burden or convenience should be shared throughout the community. Ms. Salay said that trips will be reduced to smaller uses, but not to the grocery store. She cautioned that Jerome Village cannot be relied on for neighborhood uses, noting that Mr. Combs spent a great deal of time discussing neighborhood versus community -level retail. Ms. Salay indicated that relying on Jerome Village will requiring larger north -south roads. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher said that people will not travel north to go shopping. She said that people will drive north for an elementary or middle school, but that it is not normal to travel north. She said that Jerome Village is an internal community and its residents will use the library, school and shopping. Ms. Salay said that she travels north to shop because it is her only alternative. Mr. Lecklider said Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher was echoing his sentiments. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher said she would support this being here because people will not travel north. She said that if you believe that people will use neighborhood places to get an ice cream cone or coffee or walk to get their dry cleaning, then neighborhood centers are needed. Mr. Walter said that the proximity to the park at the north location is his concern. He said that the northernmost site would be preferred along Jerome Road instead of Hyland -Croy Road. He noted that the %z -mile radius encompassed a significant portion of parklau 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge n^7G4 U..1..._.7 n...._. T) - - Dublin City Council/ Planning And Zoning Commission Joint Work Session - September 13, 2006 Meeting Minutes — Page 14 of 25 Ms. Jones said that three locations along Hyland -Croy Road were too many and suggested that three be targeted while starting with one location. Mr. Zimmerman said that the Mitchell -Dewitt Road location has arterial roads and could service more people. He said it would have the best draw. Mr. Lecklider said he was suggesting that the locations be spaced to distribute trips as evenly as possible. He said he was hopeful that grocery stores and other retail will be located near SR 42 because it would reduce the amount of people from outside Dublin traveling to Avery Square and Perimeter Center. There is significant pressure on the interchanges. Ms. Salay noted that the southernmost location is a horse farm and that is the only undeveloped spot along that stretch. She said that the school is already a trip generator and to the north is Tartan Fields, whose residents travel down Muirfield Drive to shop at Kroger because it is the only choice. Mr. Fishman suggested that it would be tough to choose a location due to the market, and that one location be selected Ms. Boring said that Dublin had the Community Plan to direct development. Mr. Lecklider reminded that the potential future interchange should be kept in mind. Mr. Combs said they discussed the potential Mitchell -Dewitt interchange briefly at the last meeting. The proposed location is based on the I -270 Major Investment Study. He reminded everyone that applications are pending that incorporate retail uses in the McKitrick Road and Mitchell- DeWitt Road areas_ Mr. Reiner suggested that the location be decided based upon which developer meets the City's criteria. He said that Conservation Design must be used and it would be fair for the developer to incorporate a neighborhood center if they provide enough land and do a respectable job. Mr. Combs said that is one alternative, but it will complicate the ability for staff to create a master plan as directed by the previous motion. Ms. Boring said she liked the concept of neighborhood shopping, but voiced concern that such development could be a detriment to other shopping centers. She said she did not want Perimeter Center to end up like Dublin Village Center. Mr. Combs said that trips per household are substantially higher in Dublin when compared to the region. He said that given the presence of a community -level shopping within the area, no more than three should be considered, but staff does not have anything empirical to make that determination at this time. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher said at Perimeter Center, the hospital and offices will attract many people who will partake of the grocery store being there. 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge 4756 Hvinnit -Crmv Rnnd Dublin City Council/ Planning And Zoning Commission Joint Work Session - September 13, 2006 Meeting Minutes — Page 15 of 25 Mr. Walter noted that Mr. Reiner and Mr. Fishman suggested that the market dictate where neighborhood centers are located, but wondered whether a maximum number should be established within the area designated for Conservation Design. Ms. Boring said she was uncomfortable allowing the developer to make the determination, but noted that three locations along Hyland -Croy Road are too many. Ms. Jones said she would not support three locations because it would change the character of the park. Mr. Walter said that if they stick to Conservation Design, Mitchell- Dewitt Road is a good area to have neighborhood service because of the road network. He said that if you combine it with townhomes and other elements, it will take away from the Conservation Design. He said that Conservation Design must be considered within the context of the overall area. Mr. Fishman said the Commission does not want to design the project. He said that with Baliantrae, the developer was not told where to put the pool, but the Commission had the flexibility to say they did not want it there. He said that developers are best qualified to say Where it should be. Mr. Lecklider asked if Mr. Fishman was saying that the developer is best equipped to decide these things. Mr. Fishman said that they were best equipped to decide the use for the development... not for. the area. He said that if we say it will be Conservation Design we should say what has to be done without saying where the neighborhood center should be, as long as it meets the criteria. Mr. Lecklider said that Mr- Fishman must understand that as an elected official, he must balance the interests of the entire community with those of his constituents. He said that earlier the Autumn Rose Farm was discussed and he had certain reservations. He said that he supports the concept, but wants to be careful based on past experience. Mr. Lecklider said careful consideration by the Commission and Council should be given, and perhaps they might find that there would be support. Mr. Fishman asked Mr. Lecklider to clarify whether he would not want the neighborhood center at the Autumn Rose Farm location. Mr. Lecklider said it is surrounded by existing single - family development that could be resistant to a neighborhood center. Based on past experience, he is concerned about earmarking that parcel. Mr. Fishman agreed and said that they should decide on one . or two centers, but not to say exactly where they should go. Ms. Salay asked Mr. Combs if staff was looking for approval of specific sites or general numbers to be located along Hyland -Croy Road. She said that a site - specific conversation was much more difficult without public input. 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge A17cc TT_.1 -__-1 r.__ -- Dublin City Council/ Planning And Zoning Commission Joint Work Session - September 13, 2006 Meeting Minutes — Page 16 of 25 Mr. Combs said that staff is looking at development pattern options because they have significant modeling and design implications. He reiterated that unanimous direction was clearly provided earlier by motion that staff is to create a specific master plan to show developers exactly what is expected. He said that if the expectation in the Northwest and Southwest areas is to integrate neighborhood centers within Conservation Design, specific locations must be determined. Ms. Salay said that there are just a handful of vacant parcels east of Hyland -Croy Road, but that more possibilities are present on the other side. She noted that at Woerner- Temple Road and Avery Road neighbors were opposed to initial concepts brought by developers, whether it was the proposed uses or particular concept. She said that people came to the Open House and talked to the planners about a center that would have integrated architecture, setbacks and ponds and suddenly the neighbors thought it would be nice to have the project nearby. Ms. Salay said she was surprised at how receptive the neighbors were given past resistance and indicated that people will be comfortable when they can see how such projects relate to the surrounding neighborhoods, schools and parks. She said that people would be opposed to a Target center, but an architecturally pleasing center within a Conservation Design neighborhood would fit with the Metro Park. Mr. Walter said that the decision has been made for two nodes of neighborhood uses, and Ms. Salay added that there is no way to predict the reaction of residents. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher said that a decision was needed to complete the traffic studies. She said that without a definitive decision, the City will be no further ahead six months from now. Ms. Salay said a maximum of three sites along Hyland -Croy Road should be used to run the traffic numbers, and that the Commission and Council can always back off from that. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher agreed and said that the concepts can be taken to the public for input. Ms. Boring said that staff needed further direction to pinpoint locations and said that she preferred no more than two centers. She stated a preference for the locations at McKitrick Road and Mitchell -Dewitt Road. Mr. Walter said that was satisfactory, but the northern location should face Jerome Road to provide better service to Tartan Fields and Muirfield and to take north -south traffic off Hyland - Croy Road. He said he did not care which southern location was selected, but would support a northern location on Jerome Road and another location along Hyland -Croy Road. Mr. Lecklider asked if an application was approved by the Commission for the northeast comer of Hyland -Croy Road and McKitrick Road with retail. Mr. Walter said it was tabled and had not been approved. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher said a vote was needed as to how many neighborhood centers are desired along Hyland -Croy Road. 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge A rr__1___ -1 'n _ _ 1 Dublin City Council/ Planning And Zoning Commission Joint Work Session - September 13, 2006 Meeting Minutes — Page 17 of 25 Mr. Combs said that staff requests a general idea as to how many locations and where. He suggested that additional background information would assist in the decision - making process. Mr. Walter said that the case was tabled because of the retail component adjacent to the park and the setbacks. He said the developer wanted to place buildings much closer to the street and would have impacted the rural character. He said the developer was reconsidering the context of the plan. Rayna Jones said the Commission did not see how the plan supported the land use principles and kept the rural characteristics of the area. She said the development would not blend with the park. Mr. Zimmerman said the developer only proposed a 100 -foot setback along Hyland -Croy Road and he thought they were in the process of reworking the plan. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher said the developer is now selling the property, and Mr. Lecklider said he remembered commenting on the plan at Council. Mr. Combs said that everyone needed to consider the bigger picture and that the discussion was getting too mired in the details of specific sites. He said that the thoroughfare network is critically important to the area and noted that the likelihood of a two -lane road in the future is negligible. Mr. Combs said that Hyland -Croy Road must be looked at within the context of a significant north -south connector. He indicated that with Jerome Village and other future development to the north, Avery- Muirfield Drive and Hyland -Croy Road become the major north -south arteries to move traffic. He said that it might be better to look at Hyland -Croy Road as an Emerald Parkway -type road in the long -term. Mr. Combs said that staff has been trying to address road issues in the Southwest Area and has looked at the concept of connecting Tuttle Crossing Boulevard into Houchard Road, as well as working to coordinate with Union County's plans. He said that given long -term changes, including an additional interchange at McKitrick Road, the concept of a beltway to serve Dublin from Tuttle Crossing to the COIC around to Hyland -Croy Road is significant. Depending upon roadway choices, it may be difficult in certain locations to facilitate a walkable environment. The particulars of what makes a neighborhood center successful as well as the adopted Land Use Principles should be considered. Mr. Combs started with the southern location and noted that the project would be an infill development with significant visibility for motorists within the three mile catchment area. He noted that the site provides a significant number of rooftops within a walkable distance, as well as connections to large parks. Mr. Combs said that the project could include a combination of civic and park uses and has a large enough area to properly transition into surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Combs described the Mitchell - Dewitt Road location and indicated that with the Metro Park, there is a limited amount of area. The site provides a prime opportunity to put high- quality architecture against the edge of the park that is visible from US 33 and could provide a good gateway appearance as you enter Dublin from the northwest. He saie OS -183Z ..JA `'° Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge Dublin City Council/ Planning And Zoning Commission Joint Work Session - September 13, 2006 Meeting Minutes — Page 18 of 25 difficult to provide enough rooftops for walkability and would be one of secondary preference, but having the high school adjacent could provide conveniences. Ms. Jones said she noticed that a bikepath for the Metro Park crossed just beyond Hyland -Croy Road and that it is difficult for cyclists who have to use Brand and Mitchell - Dewitt Roads. Ms. Boring asked if staff assumed that the existing horse farm will develop into something else and whether the group should decide to encourage the horse farm to remain. Mr. Combs said no, and pointed out that the process is intended to vision for the long -term. He said that if that is the preferred use, then the second half of the discussion would be whether such a use is feasible in the long -term. Mr. Lecklider said they were encouraged to look at Hyland -Croy Road as a future Emerald Parkway, which would necessitate a bikepath tunnel. He said that the logical location seemed to be at Mitchell- Dewitt Road. He said he appreciated the potential for a barrier, but that such development would not be done without providing clear opportunities for crossing. Mr. Combs said that a tunnel would provide the ability to hook up to existing systems. He said that in the long -term, the site could connect to the Indian Run system and beyond and could attract a different type of user being located next to the Metro Park. Ms. Boring said that choosing land that was not vacant to implement the neighborhood center concept would slow the process. Mr. Combs described areas to the north along Hyland -Croy Road and noted that a concept sketch was shown at the Open House that included clustered housing to maximize the open space. He said that development patterns like that of Serenbe or those of a more traditional village feel are different ways to address the idea. Mr. Combs then described the McKitrick Road area and said it provided a potential location for neighborhood services, given expected future development and road network issues. He said that Hyland -Croy Road may be a major north -south connector, and the future interchange will have impacts. He said that the interchange will provide a significant east -west route to cross US 33 in a manner that may encourage future traffic counts that could facilitate a neighborhood center. Mr. Walter asked how precise the location should be. He said the northern area bothered him because it faced Hyland -Croy Road. Mr. Combs said that the locations should try to meet both criteria: high visibility to an arterial and in a location that will afford walkability from residential uses. Ms. Jones said that the southernmost location met the criteria; however, Mr. Lecklider raised the concern of placing a center near existing neighborhoods. She suggested that a concept be presented and studied; however she said they do not want another scenario similar to the Shoppes at Athenry. 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge 9756 Nvland-C rnv Rnad Dublin City Council/ Planning And Zoning Commission Joint Work Session - September 13, 2006 Meeting Minutes — Page 19 of 25 Mr. Combs agreed that compatibility was of concern and that it is always easier to put in the neighborhood center first. Ms. Boring said she would not support the southern location because there is an opportunity to keep the horse farm as a rural amenity. She said that the Bash Driving Range was in jeopardy at one time, but it is now very busy. She asked if the neighbors saw the farm as a nuisance. Mr. Lecklider agreed with Ms. Jones and said he had not heard any complaints about the farm. He said the issue is just about what plan the City has in place in the event that the farm ever decides to close. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher asked if Ms. Boring was suggesting that the site be left as a horse farm or something rural. Ms. Boring said that the horse farm was near the park and existing trails. She said that it would support the park and vice versa. Mr. Zimmerman asked for the farm's acreage, and Mr. Combs estimated approximately 40 acres. Mr. Lecklider said he had legal concerns that there may be future problems if the site is surrounded by residential and the property owners were told that the City liked it as a horse farm in perpetuity. Ms. Boring said that was not the intent and that she said she would like to see a horse farm there as a vision in the Plan. She said that if the property owner wanted to change uses, they had that right; however, she would like it to remain a recreational use supporting the Metro Park. She said they may sell it to someone who wants to keep it as a horse farm and that it is a nice feature to have in the area. Mr. Fishman said that the issue is not cast in stone and that picking a specific location for a shopping center would put a limitation on that parcel. Ms. Boring agreed and said that would happen by placing limitations in the Community Plan by saying what uses (residential, office, retail, etc.) are wanted when the community builds out. Mr. Lecklider said he would not argue limiting the site as a horse farm. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher said this exercise was being completed because Council wanted the Community updated. She said that the Commission and Council are not going to backtrack and not change anything. Direction must be more specific to developers because a different type of development is being considered than previously expressed. She said she supports leaving the farm as a nice green area to see. Ms. Boring made a motion to recommend that this area maintains a recreational use supporting the Metro Park and Mr. Fishman seconded. Mr. Combs said that before the decision is made to designate a recreation or park area, consideration must be given as to how that land use can be achieved. He OS- 1832 -- 1 - - Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge Dublin City Council/ Planning And Zoning Commission Joint Work Session - September 13, 2006 Meeting Minutes — Page 20 of 25 in the area increase, the likelihood of a horse farm sustaining itself in the middle of a City may not be likely. He suggested that implementation strategies should be considered such as whether the City is willing to purchase the site for parkland or what other options might be used to ensure that the site remains a horse farm or recreational use. Ms. Boring asked why strategies were a concern at this time, and Mr. Zimmerman asked if staff was looking at commercial uses as they looked at potential neighborhood center locations on the map. Ms. Salay said that a choice has to be made as to whether the Land Use Principles will be implemented when everyone has complaints about the proposed locations. She said neighborhood services are needed, and the proposed locations are limited due to reality. Ms. Boring withdrew her previous motion and made a motion to consider the area for commercial development. She said the principles were guidelines and that they should be careful to maintain the green. She said it was refreshing to see commercial uses with woods adjacent to them. Ms. Jones noted that one of the principles included preserving rural characteristics and scenic roadways and asked if it applied in this scenario. She asked for direction whether integration with the neighborhoods and some rural characteristics could be achieved. Ms. Salay said that a neighborhood center could incorporate rural building design. She said that the woodlot could be preserved and setbacks provided from Hyland -Croy Road Ms. Salay noted that the design is important to provide transition with the single - family. Mr. Lecklider said he hoped it would not develop for years, but that there will be intense pressure. He stated that is why a realistic plan is needed to address what the future holds for this site. He did not know how the stables would be funded, and said that they would be tough for the City to sustain. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher said that while there are setbacks and water features, there is too much of the same type of housing development. She suggested development that incorporates farm character to take advantage of the site history and noted that the Glacier Ridge Metro Park has buildings that already blend in. She clarified that she is talking about a completely different type of residential development that uses design and architecture to change the flavor. Mr. Lecklider said he agreed that the development was monotonous and asked if that was what Ms. Jones and Ms. Salay was suggesting for the parcel. Ms. Jones said the area was attractive because of the rural characteristics and scenic views. She said that determining neighborhood center locations should be made to not detract from that character. She agreed that the design is critical and that more rural characteristics should be .incorporated into the design. Ms. Jones said that tonight was the first time she heard that the road may be significant, which impacts her thought process. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher said maintaining character will be a challenge with a large road and that the Plan must capture what must happen to obtain the desired charac' ' - - --- OS -1832 Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge Dublin City Council/ Planning And Zoning Commission Joint Work Session - September 13, 2005 Meeting Minutes — Page 21 of 25 She said that changes will be fairly soon with the high school and Jerome Village generating traffic. Mr. Walter said the southern parcel meets demographic characteristics to make neighborhood shopping successful because of proximity, walkability and the number of rooftops. He asked if a concept plan could be created that would preserve rural characteristics in that spot and make that the retail location, as opposed to the Mitchell -Dewitt location. Mr. Zimmerman questioned how a neighborhood center could be placed there with housing on three sides, and Mr. Walter questioned how characteristics of the horse farm could be maintained with a residential development. Mr. Combs said that the issues are design challenges that, on one hand, deal with greenfields but also confront infill difficulties. Ms. Salay said the horse farm was a recreational amenity to the community and that if it is not to be future development should preserve the woods and set a theme that matches the rural character and Metro Park. Ms. Boring said she has concerns that the two locations are too close to maintain a rural feeling. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher said that the northern and southern sites seemed to be the priority. She said she had concerns about the location across from the high school, and questioned whether the location would lend itself to problems such as loitering and stealing. Mr. Lecklider did not agree with the Mayor's summary of the southern site and noted that Mr. Zimmerman, Ms. Salay, Ms. Boring and he had expressed concerns. Ms. Salay suggested taking the ideas to the community with the understanding that at most, three neighborhood centers would be considered that are spaced out. She said that any location must be well- designed and work with the surrounding area, and public input may help the decision. Mr. Walter said there is no community near the north or central locations. He said he did not know what was wrong with saying that the character of the southern plot is desirable. He voiced concern that if it is not designated commercial, then it will be a residential use that will use up all the land. Mr. Fishman said he thought Conservation Design would be used to avoid another Bishop's Run. Mr. Walter said that Council and the Commission should be very firm as to what is acceptable in the area in order to gain stronger community support. Ms. Salay agreed and noted that developers will immediately use the plan to start obtaining ground and discuss projects with staff that will refer to the Plan. Staff will say this is the expectation and if you have something different, you are welcome to go to the Commission without a positive recommendation. She said it is an effort on behalf of staff, the Commission, 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge Dublin City Council/ Planning And Zoning Commission Joint Work Session - September 13, 2006 Meeting Minutes — Page 22 of 25 and Council to carry out the plan; the more things are clarified, the better chance of obtaining what is desired. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher said a decision is needed for that reason. She said that public input is wanted ultimately because the traffic studies will be done. Mr. Fishman said that based on what he heard, the northern site is the only one agreed upon. He did not agree with the horse farm site because he would like it kept as a rural use such as recreation and health_ Mr. Fishman agreed that the high school site is not desirable. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher asked who was in favor of the northern site, and Ms. Salay, Mr. Zimmerman, Ms. Boring and Mr. Fishman simultaneously agreed to the southern target area. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher asked if it could be within the target area, not necessarily on Hyland - Croy or McKitrick Roads because the traffic study would not reflect which. She said they would not do just one traffic pattern. Mr. Combs said that the City is divided into Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ), and the proposed uses are plugged in. He said that the specific location may or may not have impacts on a 40,000 to 60,000 - square -foot center, depending upon the TAZ boundaries. Mr. Combs said that theoretically, much traffic to the center generated from the internal neighborhoods and through - traffic moving along the arterial will stop for convenience. Ms. Salay suggested that if it is truly functioning as a neighborhood center, then the traffic impact should be minimal. Mayor Chinmci- Zuercher said it sounded as though they had identified the southern center as a target area. She then asked how many were in favor of the Mitchell -Dewitt Road location. Ms. Salay said she would like the site shown on the map. She said it could be an amenity close to the high school with uses such as a coffee shop, ice cream shop and dry cleaners (no restaurants). Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher counted four members in favor of the Mitchell -Dewitt Road site and said it should remain on the map. She then addressed the southern location (horse farm). Ms. Salay asked if there was another potential site to consider. She suggested that it might fit on the west side of Hyland -Croy Road with a tunnel. She asked if they must be site specific. Mr. Combs said that the east side of Hyland -Croy Road provides a suitable depth for transition. Moving to the west side would raise the same issues of rooftops and connectivity across the arterial. He said that staff could potentially look at something along the Gorden property, but depth is limited. Based on discussions at the last meeting, it seemed clear that residents have been involved in a process that voiced what is expected in that area. Mr. Lecklider said he wished there was a way to gauge public reaction to the south site, based upon previous cases. 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge QTS6 14vtanrl -('rnv Rnad Dublin City Council/ Planning And Zoning Commission Joint Work Session - September 13, 2006 Meeting Minutes — Page 23 of 25 Mr. Walter said the two concerns are how it can be integrated and how will the surrounding neighborhood react. He said that removing it from the list eliminates the ability for discussion. Mr. Fishman noted that three sites were selected and that was not desired at the beginning of the discussion. Ms. Salay indicated that the plans can be modified later to reduce traffic impacts. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher said this is the reason for the dialogue and indicated that more information on public input and traffic is needed. She said that there have been negative experiences with tunnels and Council does not want to create situations that require tunnels because of the expense. Ms. Salay said the tunnel should be part of the cost of development, and Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher agreed. Ms. Salay said there should be a tunnel, if for no other reason, because of the Metro Park and Dublin park systems. Mr. Lecklider agreed with the Mayor, but said they should not designate a center on the west side that would necessitate a.tunnel. He said that previously he did not envision the creation of an Emerald Parkway -type road up to McKitrick Road without a tunnel. Ms. Jones said that if a neighborhood center is contemplated at Mitchell -Dewitt Road, a mechanism must be incorporated for students to walk from the high school. Mr. Zimmerman said he would expect signalization in the future. Mr. Lecklider asked whether the group would like to leave three areas on the map with the understanding that ultimately no more than two are selected. Ms. Jones asked if data should be used to narrow the locations, and Ms. Salay said that traffic numbers and public feedback shc,uld be used. Mr. Fishman and Mr. Zimmerman said they were not convinced three target areas were needed. Mr. Fishman and Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher both said to give three locations with the expectation there will be two. Mr. Combs summarized that staff will move forward and study the designated Conservation Design areas and will look at the three discussed neighborhood service centers. He noted that the Community Plan process will be utilized to determine which locations will be incorporated. [No one objected to this summary]. US 33 /SR 1 Area: Mr_ Combs sal that plans for e COIC had not ha ublic input on it, o in light of time, no prese Av Road Corrido Duet the late hour, Combs show slides and areas wt n the Avery Co 'dor: I much d there has not b en significant or discuss' n was made. ided a brief ov -- 05-183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge c»c,< 11..1....a r..,... v a Dublin City Council/Planning and Zoning Commission Community Plan Joint Work Session August 28, 2006 — Page 10 of 16 Reiner said had con ms abou a unifo ity of the Ian. He 'd that exe ution of the plan o prevent de elopers fr buildi small ons an osing the ty, circ ation and corn iv is impo t. Mr. Fishman asked what sizes were considered as part of the mixed -use areas. Mr. Combs said that neighborhood centers generally range from 40,000 to 100,000 square feet of space. He noted that the lower end is probably more desirable, and 100,000 square feet is probably equivalent to commercial development under construction at Riverside Drive and SR 161. He said that a range of 40,000 to 60,000 square feet makes sense. Mr. Fishman said he would like to hear how the public feels about the concept_ Mr. Greene said that the public has looked at some of the concepts and how mixed use can be integrated into a neighborhood. He said that there is a misconception that neighborhood centers are not pedestrian- friendly and have lighting issues. Mr. Greene said that other ways have been illustrated during the process to show better integration. He suggested that policies and illustrations would be necessary to explain the concept if desired. Mr. Fishman said that residents at meetings are visualizing about 20,000 square feet or less with a small non -chain drugstore, a small grocery, pizza place, dry cleaners and nothing else. Mr. Greene responded that 40,000 square feet is considered relatively small. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher said that the biggest issues will be access for feasibility. She said an ice cream shop, dry cleaner, pizza place or coffee shop could be envisions as uses that would be nice near your neighborhood. Whether you have to drive or walk is the issue and balancing neighborhood access with visibility to make businesses successful is key. She said that small markets are nice, but such grocers cannot survive today. Mayor Chinruci- Zuercher noted Town Center I as a good example where there is a dentist and individual offices upstairs. She said that the developer would recognize that uses should be on the first floor versus the second. Mr. Fishman agreed and said that a neighborhood center should be two -story Ms. Salay said that buildings should be architecturally attractive and last over time. Mr. Fishman commented that it is difficult in residential neighborhoods to address items such as dumpsters, parking, loading docks, etc. Mr. Greene said that there would be no loading docks in a neighborhood center. The issue is connectivity into the larger network. He said that visibility is extremely important and that the reason the town center in Westhaven grew so large is because they were able to front onto Highway 96. Participants then referred back to the critical questions, and Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the group confirmed support to utilize conservation design along the periphery of the Southwest Area. Mr. Combs then said that the last question was to address mixed uses alor - T -- i 1- Anark hetween 1 -270 and Avery Road. He noted that based on the discussion, it appearec 05-183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Plan Tartan Ridge nr7C4' TV- _7__.1 d'____ 11.._,1 Dublin City Council/Planning and Zoning Commission Community Plan Joint Work Session August 28, 2006 — Page 11 of 16 look at some mixed uses in the Hirth Road area with additional offices to the west, and to further study the potential for a small service area closer to Avery Road. Ms. Salay mentioned the Windmiller parcel and noted that staff should not necessarily discount the potential for neighborhood uses at that location. Mr. Combs said that the site has zoning that would include the types of uses that are contemplated. Mr. Fishman asked if there would be a policy to connect road stubs between subdivisions as an important issue. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher said that the layout of roads is important for connectivity and to avoid another Tara Hill situation. She said that meandering roads would discourage cut- through traffic. Mr, Lecklider asked if the intention was to re- emphasize the connectivity of subdivisions. Mr. Fishman agreed and said that developers will not build neighborhood centers in small residential developments, and there must be accessibility by car and foot for other subdivisions. Ms. Salay suggested that the transit idea be pursued and that staff look at more affordable housing options for college students. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher said that the Community Plan must indicate clearly for future developers and homeowners where potential transit locations are assumed. Ms. Salay added that the appropriate density must be provided in those locations to allow for light rail. Northwest /Glacier Ridge Area Mr. Combs described the concept plan and indicated that a future interchange is planned at Mitchell - Dewitt Road and that the area is located within Dublin's negotiated service area_ Proposed uses around the Post Road interchange generally include primary office functions and research. To the north along Industrial Parkway are a variety of industrial uses and a proposed mixed -use center along SR 161 that would support the Central Ohio Innovation Center (CO[C). Houchard Road is extended to the north as the main arterial and includes future neighborhood centers to support workers and nearby residents. Mr. Combs noted that there are distinctive character types on either side of US 33, explaining that to the west is clearly an industrial character that should be coordinated with the COIL. To the north and west of this area is the Darby Watershed, so conservation design and agriculture are being contemplated. Areas to the east of US 33 include the Glacier Ridge Metro Park so low - density cluster housing as part of conservation design are contemplated that would integrate into the parks. Mr. Combs said that public comment supported the idea of maintaining rural character around the park. Concepts proposed along Hyland -Croy Road were liked, and feedback also noted the need to look at long -term fiscal benefits and tax generation as well as annexation policies. Mr. Combs noted that feedback from the open house was limited, generally suggesting that the proposed concept is headed in the right direction. He noted that there were three areas that were identified as part of the process for more detailed study and gave a brief overview of each: 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge 9756 HvinnA_('rnv Rnnd Dublin City Council/Planning and Zoning Commission Community Plan Joint Work Session August 28, 2006 —Page 12 of 16 (1) Post Road/Hyland- CroyRoad Mr. Combs showed the general layout for the new interchange and described proposed single - family and multi -type housing that would buffer Post Preserve. Setbacks are suggested along Hyland -Croy Road, and US 33 frontage is proposed as high -end office and research space that will serve as a gateway to the COIC. Additional housing on the east side of Hyland -Croy Road will integrate with existing subdivisions. Mr. Lecklider asked if the gray areas on the map were parking areas, and said that he imagined the parking pods were located as to provide setbacks. He suggested moving the parking towards US 33. Mr. Combs confirmed that Mr. Lecklider was referencing conceptual parking areas and explained that the design intent of the area will be to extend the landscape character of the Metro Park. He said that taller grasses and natural areas will be used throughout the suburban office campus setting to prevent parking from being highly visible from US 33 or Hyland -Croy Road. Mr. Lecklider said he would like to maintain the character of Hyland -Croy Road from the Metro Park to Post Road, noting design elements on the east side of the road that have been implemented. He said that the proximity of lighting to residences is also a concern. Ms. Salay asked if realigning Hyland -Croy Road had been considered. Mr. Combs said that a realignment had not been considered to this point, but the landscape comments from Mr. Lecklider are exactly the type of concept that is being proposed. Mr. Keenan asked if that was the same area where there were ingress /egress issues with the neighborhoods. Mr. Combs said that staff is working on access issues because of the interchange development. Mr. Reiner said that the developers will work out much of the details. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher said she was concerned about residential development in cornfields with no trees and asked where Mitchell - Dewitt Road is in context. Mr. Combs indicated that there are two subdivisions to the north of the planning area before the intersection. He noted that significant areas of Metro Park are to the north and west of the area being discussed and that it includes a couple of parcels that includes the horse farm. Mr. Fishman said that staff should be creative in this area so that Hyland -Croy Road does not look like a single 80 -foot lot subdivision. Mr. Fishman said that the area will be highly desirable next to the Metro Park. [Ms. Salay also noted its importance next to the COIC]. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher referred to the map and asked if it denoted higher density condominiums. Mr. Combs said that the plan includes an undefined alternative housing type to provide a transition between the single - family development and the road. The intent is clearly something other than a typical 80'x 130' single - family lot. Mr. Reiner asked if a stepped -down two story office could be used that is residential in character. Mr. Lecklider said they should be careful to protect the existing residents. He said that the higher density is proposed because the parcel is very narrow and hard to develop. He said that single - family there is not appropriate. 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge Dublin City Council/Planning and Zoning Commission Community Plan Joint Work Session August 28, 2006 — Page 13 of 16 Mr. Keenan said that meetings were held with neighbors, and they understand it will be developed. The expectation is not office or retail, but some other type of residential. Mr. Lecklider cautioned that compatibility issues must still be considered on the other side of the road. Mr. Combs said that in the area between Park Place and Bishops Crossing, the plan is intended to integrate with the surrounding neighborhoods. Elements from Franklin, Tennessee have been incorporated to provide a central green space with focal points at each end. Water features and the adjacent woodlot have been integrated, and alley systems are proposed in some areas to provide a cleaner, more attractive streetscape. Mr. Lecklider said that he is not opposed to quality development. Mr. Combs explained that the proposal is a more traditional neighborhood design. Some single - family is included, but other types of units such as duplexes could be considered. He said that residual parcels create more of a challenge with defined access points and a need to transition into the surrounding uses. Mr. Fishman said that the timing of the housing is very important and commercial should go in prior to the residential. He used Willow Grove as an example. Ms. Salay noted that Dublin did not have a Community Plan when Emerald Parkway was constructed in that area. Mr. Reiner said that the housing could kill commercial components if it went in first. He said that he would rather have step -down offices in his backyard than housing. Ms. Salay reminded everyone that it is known what the neighbors want. Mr. Fishman said that the Community Plan must clearly indicate what uses are expected. Mr. Keenan reminded everyone of the adage to be cautious not to create your own opposition. Mr. Fishman and Mr. Reiner said that was exactly what was being done. Mr. Keenan said that the Killilea subdivision adjacent to Cardinal Health was originally slated for office, but it has developed into a nice neighborhood. Mr. Fishman said that it was the timing of Killilea. People who bought homes knew that Cardinal Health was there. Mr. Reiner said that other alternatives should be considered, but the neighbors must be made happy. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher said she was concerned about the amount of blacktop shown with the alleys. She noted that the alley concept was seen in Franklin, but that not everyone liked it. She said there are ways to design alleys and driveways to look more green. Mr. Saneholtz said that he understands that an infill site is being considered and that more of the same development would be boring. However, he said there is concern t 05 -183Z would look odd. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge 9756 NVlanA_('rnv Rnnd Dublin City Council/Planning and Zoning Commission Community Plan Joint Work Session August 28, 2006 — Page 14 of 16 Ms. Salay said that the proposed concept would be similar as you drive along Hyland -Croy Road with the setbacks, size of lots, etc. Mr. Saneholtz suggested that the Amlin area might be more conducive to this type of plan. He said that he did not want to see alleys in every infill area. Mr. Fishman said that the alleys in Franklin did not look attractive from the units. Ms. Salay disagreed and said that many of the single - family backyards and alleys were just as attractive as the front yard and said that the quality is all in the execution. Mr. Zimmerman noted that the landscape was carried to the rear yard and looked just as attractive as along the street. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher asked if there were other comments on this area. She asked for clarification of the gray areas on the map, and Mr. Combs said they were parking areas. Mr. Fishman asked if it made more sense that buffered office is used on the long, skinny parcel [GoFden Property]. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher said the neighborhood had already asked for housing. Ms. Salay said she understood that the neighborhood would support alternative housing types and knew that it would probably not be single - family products. Mr. Reiner said it would be better to provide small -scale supportive medical office next to the larger office buildings. He said that there are ways to use landscaping and design so that the neighbors' expectations can be met with a better development package. Mr. Lecklider said that he wished Mr. Reiner had attended the public meetings held at the recreation center. Mr. Fishman said that most residents would say that they want residential next to them rather than commercial. (2) Mitchell- DeWitt Road and Hyland -Croy Road Mr. Combs noted that the area includes Dublin Jerome High School and the Tartan West development. Areas being studied are surrounded by the Metro Parks. Concepts under consideration include cluster housing at lower densities adjacent to the parks. Areas of more formal layout are combined with clustering that blends into the edges of the park. (3) McKitrick Road and Hyland -Croy Road Mr. Combs continued with the presentation and said that concepts for the area around McKitrick Road include a more traditional mixed -use neighborhood center similar to Franklin that transitions into cluster housing and the large -lot development in the township. Mr. Combs said that the remaining areas in the Northwest will foster key discussion on major planning issues. 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge Dublin City Council/Planning and Zoning Commission Community Plan Joint Work Session August 28, 2006 — Page 15 of 16 1) Where are the appropriate locations for neighborhood serving retail and conservation design in the Northwest? 2) Are the commercial uses in the Post Road focus area seen as appropriate development for the main entrance to the COIC? 3) What land uses are indicative of rural character(to be discussed in the future)? Mr. Combs said that the third question would be discussed at a future meeting in more detail. He noted that the second question had already been discussed, and that more discussion regarding the application of conservation design and neighborhood services is needed. He said that with the remaining time, future meeting dates should be discussed and finalized. He said that staff would provide larger maps for the next meeting that show the context of all of the study areas. Mr. Saneholtz referred to the interchange at US 33 and McKitrick Road. He said he was curious as to why some sort of commercial retail development is not expected on the east side of the interchange. Mr. Combs said that staff was looking at the issue of service provision. The agreement between Dublin and the Metro Parks stipulates that municipal services will not be provided through parkland. There are multiple properties -that will be difficult to serve and character issues and the greenbelt concept of the 1997 Community Plan are being considered. Mr. Saneholtz reviewed the Jerome Village concept to the north and said that a tremendous amount of commercial development is planned along US 42. Mr. Combs said that commercial services within a walkable radius were being considered in the plan. He indicated that the catchment area for neighborhood centers is approximately three miles. Mr. Saneholtz asked if that would be true for future commercial along US 42. Mr. Combs said that its impact depends upon size and design. Being along a US route and considering the Franklin example, the commercial development will likely lend itself to a more community /regional level. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher said she did not like what she saw on the plans. She said that larger plans were needed to consider further. She said the concept looked too dense to her, but she could reconsider. She indicated that decisions needed to be based upon what Jerome Village will do because the project will generate traffic and housing and will also set aside land for an elementary school, which is a good concept. Mr. Lecklider asked if the plans, in light of the US 33 Corridor Group, will complement each other. He asked if Dublin was proposing anything that conflicted with those efforts. Mr. Keenan said he did not think that the plans did so. He said that the group is working on an RFQ and RFP to hire a consultant and the MOU is clgse to being finalized. N . Chinnici- Zuercher ql M 31SR 161 Area Plan [DueNQ time restraints, this that the was not be reviewed n t. i.] [Due to tim estraints, this issue not discussed.] 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge ;ITY OF DUBLIN- Load use and lacy't -V Piaa.i.g $800 Sier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236 Phm: 6144104600 Fax: 6144104141 INA Site: www-duhkoh.us PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION June 22, 2006 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 3. Rezoning 05 -183Z — Bantry Greene — 9756 Hyland -Croy Road Location: 189.57 acres located north of the intersection of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads, bordered to the east by Jerome Road and to the north by Brock Road. Existing Zoning: R, Rural District. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District under the provisions of Section 153.050. Proposed Use: A mixed -use development that includes 244 single- family lots, 82 townhouse units, and approximately 67,400 square feet of retail, with 84.4 acres of open space - Applicants: Suburban Improvement of Columbus, Inc. et al., 37 West Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215; represented by Ben W. Hale, Jr. and Aaron L. Underhill, Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Claudia Husak, Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410- 4675/Email: chusak @dublin.oh.us. MOTION: To table this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan at the request of the applicant so that the applicant may address the concerns regarding the proposed commercial component and the quality of the residential units expressed by the commission. VOTE: 6-0. RESULT: The rezoning application was tabled. STAFF CERTIFICATION a6Z , UGGA& /J44 Claudia D_ Husak Planner 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — June 22, 2006 Page 16 of 23 Community Plan. asked if the area co be looked at soon t e what developme uld be and if this w at was wanted by open house on June Mr. Mc noted that two Co issioners were aga any retail. He sug ted that if the Co ion's position was n to have retail in this ea, then the develope could save money an e Commission soul a it out Mr. Hale requested ling because they azd comments about retail. He said it air to give them the o rtunity to discuss at they had heard what changes they ght have made. Mr. r said it was the C ssion's practice, w en an applicant reque a tabling that it be gr ted_ } Mr. Saneholtz sai or him, it would not ork, so he supported r. Walter's proposal at the Commission di prove this rezoning. Mr. Ger said the applicant heard the Commissi 's comments regazdi the Community Plan d its update, uses, th architecture, and whe er or not the retail co ponent really fitted. H agreed to table this ut said the applican should not waste th ommission's time ringing back a plan t would waste their t e. Mr. Saneholtz d he would support ling if it were der that pretext. He anted it to be clear th t was the applicant's nice. Mr. erber said no promise ere being made that a Commission will a rove this application t time. Motion: Mr. Ge r moved for a tablin requested by the a lcant's representative en W,. Hale, Jr. and . Walter seconded th otion. Vote: The ote was as follows: s. Jones, yes; Mr. aneholtz, yes; Mr. lter, yes; Mr. McCas yes, Mr. Fishman, ye , Zimmerman, ye - and Mr. Gerber, yes. abled 7 -0.) r. Gerber requested t t Mr. Hale contact . Feasel about his li ing issue, and Mr. Hale agreed. Mr. Gerber c ed a short recess at 8• p.m. 3. Rezoning 05 -183Z — Bantry Greene — 9756 Hyland -Croy Road Mr. Gerber said this case was tabled at the May 11 meeting after the Commission had heard the staff and applicant's presentations and the residents' comments. He said it was tabled primarily to attend a mobile workshop in Franklin, Tennessee to review architecture, layouts, site design among other things, which seemed to flow with not only this application, but the previous application heard. 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - June 22, 2006 Page 17 of 23 Claudia Husak presented this case and showed slides of the proposed layout, open space and architecture. She summarized the staff report and said this is a request for review of the rezoning/preliminary development plan for a 189- acre -site that includes 244 single - family lots and 82 attached condominiums. She said a retail area is proposed, on the southwest corner of the site, is at the intersection of McKitrick Road and Hyland Croy Road. She said the plan includes 84 -acres of open space with bikepaths and trails. Ms. Husak said the alley- access carriage lots with rear- loading garages are located in the center of the site. She said they have rear- loading garages accessed through alleys. Ms. Husak said the architecture is traditional and turn of the century Midwestern - style. She said staff is concerned about the architectural and residential unit diversity. Ms. Husak said that recently the Commission and City Council have been engaged in discussions regarding scenic road setbacks, and staff is concerned that the retail area is located too close to the Hyland Croy and McKitrick Roads rights -of -way, based on the setbacks of the surrounding developments. She said staff also believes that the layout of the village area and the lack of integration between this area and the residential component of this development are not conducive to creating a true neighborhood feeling. Ms. Husak said staff still recommends a tabling at this time and contained in the staff report is a list of discussion points that the Commission should comment on, which include: 1) Whether the high -level of development quality achieved in northwest Dublin is being maintained by this development; 2) The proposed reduced setback along scenic roads for the village retail and the general the layout of this area; 3) The lack of integration between the townhouses into the overall neighborhood; 4) The connections between the retail area and the residential portions of this development; 5) The difference between the carriage home area and other single - family areas, including the reduced lot sizes and setbacks, high lot coverage, the casita element, the screening, and function of the alleys; and 6) All proposed uses within the retail area. Mr. Gerber said for the record, Tom McCash recused himself due to a conflict that related to an investor active in this property. Ben W. Hale, Jr., representing the applicant, said they had been involved with this project for two years. He said they proposed a small commercial area which was designed by Brian Jones who did the Market Street area in New Albany. He pointed out that shopping centers provide a variety of functions and because one is used, does not mean the other one will not be used and will be unsuccessful. Mr. Hale said this area is under serviced with retail. Mr. Hale said people tend to buy more than a residence, and the applicants are trying to create a sense of place. He said he and the client had been struggling whether they on the track with the residential portion of this project. He said they were very flexible with the commercial and it could be smaller or redone so there is more of a community green. Mr. Hale said in their text they were not committing that every house will be that house, but they will have houses that are 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — June 22, 2006 Page 18 of 23 a certain style. He said the development will end up with a diverse bunch of houses with diverse styles, the way most houses during the turn of the century were done. Mr. Hale said if the Commission thinks this neo- traditional type of development is the wrong thing to do, they want to hear it. He said they thought they needed to create a sense of place and the development needed to be integrated into the community and be a part of Dublin. He said they were not sure they had done that. Brian Jones, Brian Kent Jones Architects, spoke to the commercial component of this development. He said through meetings the developers had with residents and staff, they thought the commercial piece was something that could be a very successful amenity. He said Market Street in New Albany was a 12 -year process of trying to understand what works in the region within the context of making a place. He said as they have applied some of those strategies to this site, they have tried to integrate not just the components and the architecture of what they believed to be representative of rural Dublin. Mr. Jones said it was crucial to point the terms of scale of,the commercial component, in both projects seen tonight. When someone says 40,000 or 60,000 square feet, those thousands that get applied to the numbers make things feel very large. He said just a regional experience of going to the other side of Columbus and looking at Market Square in New Albany puts into context the kinds of scale devices that they see occurring here as well. He said it is not a retail destination for outsiders, but it clearly becomes a place that people within this community as well as the surrounding communities can begin to identify as theirs. He said it provides a scale. Mr. Jones he said the forms of the proposed buildings are unlike any typical retail use and they have a very delicate domestic scale to them. He said the floor -to -floor heights were very considerate. He pointed out that this project started out from a retail standpoint that had an important viability to make this a successful project. Mr. Jones said they had been encouraged by staff to introduce architecture that had more than single -story height to it. He said the square footage added to the plan was in response to staff's request. Mr. Hale said the square footage was called retail, but was office. He said it was very unlikely there would be any second floor retail. Mr. Hale said if they could be successful here, the development has to be authentic and has to have a sense that it is part of where it really was, and it should be memorable to those who visit. He said that is what they want to do with this plan, but he was not sure they had. Marty Spears, 9955 Hyland Road, said she was speaking on behalf of the Brock/Hyland Croy neighbors. She presented slides and said they were concerned about the drainage in the field in the wooded area, traffic control, lighting of the road, retail uses, zoning preservation, the water tower, school, new homes and the impact on the current residents. She said there had been a major rain during the past two days and there was a backup on an adjacent owner's property. She said that had never happened on Brock Road or Hyland Croy Road. She said it was interesting that Jerome Township had denied an applicant to move in the wooded lot because of the existing flood and drainage problems existing. She said they wanted to know what the plan was to handle the current runoff and who the responsible party for it is and what the solution is. 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — June 22, 2006 Page 19 of 23 Ms. Spears said a Union County Engineer had inspected the drainage and the property with them where the proposed development site is. She said during the backup the past two days, there were 15 homes with septic systems, wells, or cisterns on Hyland Croy and Brock Roads that had drainage into the field. A Brock Road resident pointed out areas where heavy rain causes drainage that looks like a river into the field. He was concerned that these new homes would be built in the same area He further described the areas of the drain tiles and the water that flowed through the area He also asked who was responsible and would be in charge of making sure the tile lines were connected and where are they going to be located. Ms. Spears said the residents of Hyland Croy/Brock Road are also concerned about he traffic control and the road widening. She said the existing traffic has had impact on all current residents and moving the retail use to Hyland Croy Road is not preservation. She. said shopping at Perimeter Loop was fine for them. She said the current residents' quality of life is not preserved with the proposed plan and it did not meet the rural look as stated at the last meeting. Other nearby residents expressed similar concerns regarding the proposed retail area- Ike Bergeman, 9907 Jerome Road, said he had no problem with the retail part of this proposal, however, he thought it could be integrated more into the middle of the development where it would be less visible from the street. Mr. Gerber said he liked the architecture of the previous Oak Park proposal more than what is shown as part of Bantry Greene. He said he was not necessarily sold on the neo- traditional alleyways and some in Franklin, Tennessee that the Commissioners had seen were nice and others were not. He said he had talked with residents of New Albany and some liked them and most do not because of the limitations on the use. He said the layout was nice, but the retail was the same variations as before. Mr. Gerber said since he had been on the Commission, they talked about empty nester homes for a while and now they are again empty nester homes, so they are looking at the same theme over and over. He said he hoped that every community that came to the Commission in the next few years was a combination of empty nester homes, villas, estate homes, retail and commercial. He said the City was trying to achieve some sort of diversity. Mr. Saneholtz said the consultants were trying to help them to understand where this desired rural concept should be located in the City. He said they are still waiting to hear that from the consultant. Mr. Gerber said there had been discussion of having homes in the area of the Innovation Center where the workers are employed. He imaged that something like Bantry Greene would work in that area. Mr. Hale said he thought it would work in southwest Dublin as well. He said he had looked at the different scenarios of the Community Plan and commercial at this corner was always shown. 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge AZr /_ rT_.7 - !N--.. n.....7 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — June 22, 2006 Page 20 of 23 He said he agreed with staff that this needed to be integrated better with the community, but at this point they are questioning whether in terms of the neo- traditional part of this they are on the right track. Mr. Hale said this was a special piece of property in a very special place and he thought the planners were right showing the commercial on all the updates of the Community Plan. He said he thought they needed to go back and take another strong look at this project and come back with what staff said. Mr. Gerber asked about the comments made by the residents regarding drainage. He said he assumed that the issues would be worked out through the City's Engineering staff and the applicants to remedy those situations. Mr. Hale said any runoff coming from this development is by law not permitted to increase the flow onto the adjacent properties. He said because they have to do retention and underground piping to pick this up, when existing residents have water problems, typically their drainage problems get fixed because they are required to pick up and handle the drainage properly on site. Mr. Saneholtz asked Mr. Hale about the Community Plan suggesting commercial on the comer. Mr. Hale said all the proposed updates to the. Community Plan have commercial on that corner. However, he said the current Community Plan suggests 1 to 2 units per acre and this proposal is currently at 1.86 du/ac and it will probably be less with their new plan. Mr. Walter said he was very impressed with the retail center renderings. He said as opposed to the previous applicant, which also had solid architectural detail, he actually thought the rendering showing the two -story and lower one -story actually felt as though it belonged in that place better than the other one did. However, he said he was concerned about the setback from the road. Mr. Walter said he was less opposed to retail in this area. However, he said that same level of quality that he saw on the retail side he did not see carried through to the residential portion and he did not see a lot of imagination in the use of open space. He also said he was impressed with Franklin, Tennessee's narrow center island that incorporated a stream and an existing tree line. He encouraged the applicant to continue working on the residential portion, the use of open space, and pull the retail out of the scenic setback. He said then, he would have a more favorable opinion. Mr. Saneholtz said he would not support retail or commercial at this location because it is inconsistent with what is happening in the area and inconsistent with Dublin's current Community Plan. He said as he saw things now, he agreed with the residents that this is an extremely dangerous corner. He said to put more traffic into this area made no sense. He said the retail component also made no sense because of these concerns. He said it was on Dublin's border, and it is not known what will happen or how much retail and commercial space will develop. Mr. Saneholtz said he did not feel like the City is hurting so much for retail commercial development that it has to go on that comer. He said there is a lot of acreage available that will be developed commercial and retail. - Mr. Saneholtz repeated that he would not support commercial or retail use at the corner, period. Mr. Fishman said he concurred with Mr. Walter. He said this needed a lot of work and he was worried about the corner retail. He said he also was disappointed with the residential portion and 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge n17c< rr_A__ J Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — June 22, 2006 Page 21 of 23 said it was not like Franklin. He said he could not support retail in that corner at this time. He suggested that the application be tabled. Ms. Jones echoed the comments made by Mr. Fishman. She said introducing retail in that corner will change the character of the area She said there is probably some need for neighborhood retail in this area, but the entire area should be examined with the input of the community and the Community Plan update should be completed before she could support retail in that area. Ms. Jones also said the architecture was a slight improvement over some areas she had seen, but it was not quite to the level she would like to see. She said the previous case (Case No. 06 -064Z — Oak Park Mixed -Use) had a better example of the type of architecture the Commission would like to see. She found the Tartan West development one of the very nicest developments in this area, very creative and something similar to that style and caliber would be welcomed. She said she was unsure about the retail, especially at the park entrance. She said she realized there needed to be retail, but she was not sure where the proper placement would be. Mr. Zimmerman referred to the Franklin architecture where the porches were gathering places. He said certain aspects of Franklin created the sense community. He said the townhouses and cottage houses on each side of the street blended because there was greenspace between them with the trees and a creek. Mr. Zimmerman said the architecture here should have that feeling. Mr. Gerber said every unit in Franklin was distinct and well done. He said there was a neighborhood charm. He said some units were angled so that you would not look into the neighbor's front yard. Mr: Gerber said the Franklin, Tennessee architecture had raised the bar. He said the same old architecture will not fly. He agreed with Mr. Hale's previous statement that this proposed plan did not feel right. Mr. Hale said he agreed that they needed to take another look at the site. He said the way to maximize the quality of the house is going to be to create a sense of place. He said residents living here will want to feel like a part of Dublin. Mr. Saneholtz said there were some very interesting aspects of this development. He said there are certain areas of the development that are five units per acre and he understood that sometimes that is done to preserve more openspace and maintain vistas. However, Mr. Saneholtz said, they hated what they saw behind the townhomes in Westhaven because there was an alley, then six - foot wood fences of varying heights. He said all could be seen out a window was six -foot fences and concrete patios. He said that was backed up against the commercial which they felt could be accepted there. Mr. Saneholtz said while creative, it was not appealing. Mr. Saneholtz said he believed the Franklin planning director complained that their alleys were too wide and that they were 16 feet which encouraged people to use them as streets and not as alleys. He said the concrete riveting along the alleys was a tremendous help. He recalled the planning director saying he wished they had been 12 -foot wide alleys because they were getting too much use as streets. Ms. Jones said the site chosen already had its own sense of place that could be capitalized upon. She said she thought a lot of people would enjoy living close to the Metro Park which is a 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge Q7SF. T - irl�nA_r T?^. A Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — June 22, 2006 Page 22 of 23 destination in itself. She said the school is world class and those two things alone make this development quite a draw for residents. She said her Belvedere neighbors frequently comment how beautiful they find Tartan West because it has unique housing styles and a different terrain. She said by being more rural and creative people are attracted to it. Ms. Jones said a more creative design like Tartan West was needed. She questioned if the retail would take away from that particular space. Mr. Gerber asked how many empty- nester homes Dublin could stand. Mr. Hale referred to the future Dublin Riverside Hospital and the OSU research center where many employees will need these types of homes. He said there is still a market in Dublin for single - family units. He said the last Census indicated that most of Dublin's population was not over 36 years old. He said Dublin has little to attract those less than 36 years old. He said if Dublin is deficient in that type of unit. Mr. Gerber asked if Mr. Hale wanted to table this case and Mr. Hale agreed. Motion: Mr. Gerber moved for a tabling as requested by the applicant's representative, Ben W,. Hale, Jr. and Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion. Vote: The vote was as follows: Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; Ms. Jones, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Tabled 6 -0.) Administrative B mess Mr. Gerber it struck him that a time had come the Community that the Commissio pose a taskforce of ee Commission me ers and three City cil members /tity ice a month to finis a Community Plan e asked that Mr. nderman propose Council at their xt meeting. He said ody of six Commi oners and seven City mbers, plus s and consultants g to decide what to o was not workable. e rces had w ked on other projec such as the Code r ision and it made s se to consider trying a orce which would riodically would re rt back to the joint dy. He said otherwise, could not see where e Community Plan going to end. Motion: Gerber moved to mmend a joint Cit ouncil/Planning an oning Co ssion task force be a lished for thZpurp of expediting the C unity Plan update, Fishman second the motion. ote: The vote was follows: Mr. Saneh Ms. Jones, y , Mr. Zimmerman, y ; Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. Fi an, yes; and Mr. rber, yes. (Approve -0.) Vther ecord, aid staff will forty a memZmmur t to be included in t July 3 meeting Mr. Fis an asked how loity Plan u ate had been worked on and Mr. Gerber said most two years. 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge OTS6 Nvland_Crnv Rnad CITY OF DUBUN- Laid Use and Long Rwge Planning 5800 Shier-Digs Rood Dublin, Olio 43016 -1236 Phone: 614410 -4600 Fax: 614410.4747 Weh Site: wwwAblin.oh.as PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION May 11, 2006 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 3. Rezoning 05 -183Z — Bantry Greene — 9756 Hyland -Croy Road Location: 189.57 acres located north of the intersection of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads, bordered to the east by Jerome Road and to the north by Brock Road. Existing Zoning: R, Rural District. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District under the provisions of Section 153.050. Proposed Use: A mixed -use development that includes 244 single - family lots, 82 townhouse units, and approximately 67,400 square feet of retail, with 84.4 acres of open space. Applicants: Suburban Improvement of Columbus, Inc. et al., 37 West Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215; represented by Ben W. Hale, Jr. and Aaron L. Underhill, Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Claudia Husak, Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410 - 4675 /Email: chusak @dublin.oh.us. MOTION: To table this Rezoning application at the request of the applicant. VOTE: 6-0. RESULT: This case was tabled after staff and applicant presentations and public input, in order for the Commission to comment on the issues noted in the staff report after attending the Mobile Workshop in Franklin, Tennessee. STAFF CERTIFICATION Claudia Husak P OS -1832 lnnner Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge 9756 Hyland -Croy Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — May 11, 2006 Page 3 of 11 Mr. Gerber mad a n a this amended development pl because the proposed pati and dede homeowners ' this developmen options that are generally a Table in siopments and 11 enhance the ove appearance of thi site, wi a following s: 1) That the owners patios mit plans and ob proper approval m the City; ) That all ne ary permits be o ed prior to the truction of all fu a patios and decks; 3) Tha a development gu' elines created for t ' application be a d upon as the basi cription and guide ' es for this Planned istrict; 4) at adjacent uni ll be required to c truct identical pat or decks; 5 That the app ' t completes th necessary steps t incorporate the 1 dscaping comments ' in this staff repo ith regard to tree servation and plan ti g standards, vehicul screening, and piemental landsc ' g; 6) That is with existing 1 caping be limited a pour6d concrete tio; and 7) t the applicant co ies with the requir ents of the Stormw er Waiver as appro y City Council o ay 1, 2006. Zimmerman s nded the motio d the vote was follows: Mr. W r, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, ye , Mr. Saneholtz, ye , Fishman, yes; s. Jones, yes; and . Gerber, yes. (Approved 6 0.) 3. Rezoning 05 -183Z — Bantry Greene — 9756 Hyland -Croy Road Tom McCash recused himself from this case due to a possible conflict. Claudia Husak presented the staff report and slides for this request for review and approval of a preliminary development plan of a 189.57 acres site that includes 326 housing units, 84.4 acres of open space, and a 67,400 - square -foot retail area. She said a concept plan for this development was presented to the Commission in October 2005, and City Council provided feedback in November 2005. Ms. Husak discussed the location and the surrounding area of this site while showing illustrative slides. She said the lot plan showed three distinctive single- family lot areas with large estate lots are located in the north area of the site, village lots which are more conventional are located in the center and to the south, and alley- accessed carriage lots make up the majority of the single - family homes in the center of the site. She said the retail area surrounds five townhouse buildings and there are additional townhouse buildings in the center. Ms. Husak said the estate lots have typical front and rear yard setbacks and the village lots have front - loading garages not serviced by the alleys and front yard setbacks of 25 feet. She said staff believed that the setbacks proposed for the village and estate lots should be reduced to create a distinct streetscape. Ms. Husak said 159 carriage lots front on public streets and have alley access rear loading garages. She said the text permits each carriage lot to have a casita, a stand -alone building to the rear of the lot. She said the casita is unique feature that can serve as a mother -in -law suite or a home office. She said the text also permits a six -foot high permanent wood screen within the side and rear setbacks of the carriage lots. Ms. Husak said staff believe; 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — May 11, 2006 Page 4of I screen is appropriate for these lots; however, the wood screens should be within the buildable area of the lot. Ms. Husak showed the conceptual elevations for the homes and said the text includes neighborhood architectural guidelines, which show styles for the neighborhood of single- family homes. She said staff is concerned about the architectural and residential unit diversity of the project, and even though the lot sizes vary, it does not ensure that the housing placed on the lots varies as well. Ms. Husak said two different elevations are shown for the townhouses. She said the traditional style shows brick units which staff believes does not coordinate well with the overall development. She said the traditional brownstone style shown illustrated diversity in the fagade and the units appear as individuals because the materials, shape, and size of the units vary. Ms. Husak said staff believes that this proposed elevation successfully achieves the unique townhouse architecture desired. Ms. Husak displayed a slide of the village retail area proposed in the southwest corner of the site with office, restaurant, retail and live -work uses. She said two large L- shaped buildings are shown along Hyland -Croy Road with parking in the front. She said a drugstore with a drive -thru is shown at the McKitrick and Hyland -Croy Road intersection and a 16 -pump gas station and convenient store are proposed along Hyland -Croy Road. Ms. Husak said City Council and the Commission have recently engaged in discussion during the Community Plan update that dealt with setbacks on scenic roads. She said this development text requires a 20 -foot setback for parking and a 60 -foot setback for buildings. She said staff is concerned that the retail area is located too close to the rights -of -way of McKitrick and Hyland - Croy Roads, especially based on the setbacks of other development at this intersection. Ms. Husak said staff also believes that the layout of the village retail area and the lack of integration between this area and the residential component are not conducive to creating a true neighborhood. Ms. Husak said the applicant has included townhouse units within the retail area to address staff concerns about lack of integration. She said the units will be available to have a live /work component. She said staff believes that the location of these units does not flow cohesively with the remaining development and that the rear of the units fronting onto parking spaces is not a desired aesthetic. Ms. Husak said. the retail area elevations show two and three -story buildings with traditional architecture, which reflects the desired rural village and traditional American theme. She said staff supports the architecture proposed. Ms. Husak said the Bantry Greene development is not intended to be the typical Dublin subdivision. She said staff has recognized that some of the issues involved are quite complex and will likely need more time than just one meeting to review. She said staff recommends tabling at this time and has included a list of items that the Commissioners should comment on, based on issues outlined in the staff report and presented tonight so that staff and the anolicants can move forward with this project. 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge TT_ _i ___ -3 /"'�.____Tl__J Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — May 11, 2006 Page 5ofII Ben W. Hale, Jr., representing the applicants, Suburban Improvement of Columbus, Inc. et al, said they had attended all the Community Plan meetings and considered suggestions and examples of desirable developments. He said they were happy to be present tonight before the Commission goes to Tennessee, because there are a lot of similarities in this development and what had been done there. Mr. Hale said he thought this site plan was better than the one in Tennessee. He said the last time the Commission saw this application, there was a lot of criticism about the architecture of the commercial development. He said after listening to Council and the Commission, they heard good comments about development in New Albany and hired Brian Jones, the architect for the New Albany Company who had a lot of experience with traditional architecture. Mr. Hale presented residential boards. He said there would be several builders, so everyone will do their own thing, but the boards show representation of the styles everyone will be required to do. He said when they come back with the final development plan, there will be many more of these and diversity matrixes as well. Mr. Hale said as encouraged by staff, they have diversified the lots. He said the matrix showed a wide range of lot sizes. He said they were trying to not repeat what was already in Dublin and to get a diversity of price point on adjoining lots without them being very noticeable. Mr. Hale said the tree rows were integrated into the streetscape to make them look as though they had been there a long time. Jim Houk, Bird -Houk Collaborative, reviewed the history of this proposed development. He said following the Conservation style approach, they considered how the natural features could be preserved and they chose to place the estate lots to the north and use a curvilinear road because it fitted the tree lines of the site. Mr. Houk said on the southern portion of the site, the tree rows were driving enough of it that they felt the most appropriate style was to go to the grid approach and work with the tree row, highlighted by the tree row being preserved in the boulevard all the way through the site. Mr. Houk said they considered how to deal meaningfully with the 50 percent openspace. He said they felt there needed to be active parts in keeping with the strong tradition of Dublin. He said they felt anchoring the development with a 4.6 -acre central park was really the key focal of the development. He said another almost three -acre neighborhood park was mixed with the development and along McKitrick Road is a 30 -acre natural preserve area. He said everything is tied together with a bike trail system and sidewalks. Mr. Houk said to address land use diversity, they began by bringing the school into the mixed - use plan. He said they felt offering the village -style alley product and high -end condominiums was something unique that fit well with preserving 50 percent of the site in green space. Mr. Houk said the park system is key to this development. He said they met with Fred Hahn and listened to staff and then adjusted their plan. He showed the Commissioners the latest plan, which was not in their packets. He said it created a larger open space with a gazebo element for community activity. Mr. Houk said Mr. Hahn told him that Dublin was looking for a place for a labyrinth, a circular comptemplative type garden space, 40 to 50 feet around. He said they tried to fit it into the existing trees at the other end of the park. 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — May 11, 2006 Page 6 of 11 Mr. Houk said they were using a concept very similar to that of Franklin, Tennessee. He said a key point there was that they minimized the garage. He said all of the estate lots had side - loaded garages. He said the carriage product is alley loaded so there are large front porches seen from the street. He said the townhouse unit garages are all rear loaded. He said the garage edge units have been pushed back four, to six feet from the face of the house and that the townhouse design had been changed to try to make it fit and blend with the - design of the commercial area. Mr. Houk said that M/I had developed a new product line for this particular development. Brian Jones, Architect, discussed the planning components of the retail use. He said a fundamental piece was the relationship to Hyland -Croy Road. He said they were very respectful of the 200 -foot scenic setback and a fundamental component of this being a successful place was trying to pull it closer to the relationship imagined to exist during the turn of the last century. He said examples of pushing retail centers 200 feet behind a setback show that there is an increased need for larger signage. He said it put pressure on the retail component and they feel very strongly that the design works best with the face of these buildings about 100 feet off the existing centerline of the road system. Mr. Gerber interrupted and said that retail was going to be a big issue with the Commission. He asked if the primary function of the retail was to support the housing, or a larger area. Mr. Hale said he did not think there was a way to build this retail and think that 300, plus houses could support it. He said Hyland -Croy Road is going to be a major road and it will carry a lot of traffic with the huge development coming from the north, and there is little retail in this area anyway. He said they were trying to provide some neighborhood retail so that people will not go south to Avery Road. Mr. Hale said if this development had to only function by serving these residents, you could not put anything there. He said the actual square footage had grown since the first time the Commission saw this proposal to provide two -story, vertical elements, to make the retail area look more like what it historically would have been. Mr. Jones said they looked closely at the scale of the retail. They wanted to get away from the typical architectural vocabulary seen reoccurring in most of the existing retail developments. He said they needed to be in a tighter context in relation to the streetscape. Mr. Jones said they wanted to challenge the Commission to think about the 200 -foot setback. He said a node of retail closer to the road will provide the character of an older community and also slow traffic. Mr. Jones said they thought the scale and activity that occurred in these two nodes will get the vitality, life, and synergy of the place to be identified. He said that was important in a relationship that was not more than 70 to 80 feet from the road location. Mr. Jones said if it got placed 200 feet off the face of the road, all the central activity that identifies this as being Bantry Greene as a viable neighborhood and place within a larger system, they thought it was lost. Mr. Jones said they felt it was important to have architectural diversity represented by a variety of styles, still within a vocabulary, which represents an existing reference to a lot of the issues that occur in Dublin. He referenced Dublin's Journey Book, saying that the mills that existed were what they were trying to make with the corner building. He said even architecturally, being able to retain very simple fenestration and common materials of brick, simple double hung windows, cornices that repeat the character and architecture are important components to try to employ. 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge n-7cc u_.i ..a r_,._, n, 4 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — May 11, 2006 Page 7 of 1 i Mr. Gerber explained that each speaker was limited to three minutes. Elmer Heinsius, 7411 Brock Road, said his five -acre property was directly to the east of this project. He said he had not seen many changes since the last meeting and he was incredibly happy with the comments the Commissioners made. He said he was not against the project, but the development in the southern portion concerned him. Mr. Heinsius said he was concerned about the density, but not as much as he was about the retail. He said he had no clue where the idea that retail was wanted by the area residents came from. He said the Commissioners at the last meeting seemed very responsive to the fact that this was a rural area and it should be kept that way. He said he was adamantly opposed to any retail. Mr. Heinsius said he did not want to see any commercial buildings in this bedroom community. He recalled that at the last meeting, the gas station was discussed and the Commission made it clear that was not something they wanted to see, and yet it is still proposed as a 16 -bay gas station. He asked that the density and retail be considered. Mr. Heinsius was not concerned about the architecture proposed. Mr. Gerber explained that this was the first night of a preliminary development plan rezoning process. He said the Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. He said the case will then go to City Council for deliberation where there will be ample time to speak regarding the development. Mr. Gerber requested that anyone wishing to be notified of the Commission or City Council meetings regarding this case to sign up in the lobby so that notifications can be mailed to them. He said the more resident input received, the better the project becomes. Cynthia Reed, said she represented Bob Fathman, chairman of the Muirfield Civic Action Committee. She said in the past, she had been responsible for arranging meetings with the Citizens for Responsible Zoning who represent both Muirfield Village and Tartan Fields at the office of the retail developer, Stavroff Interests with Matt Stavroff and his staff_ She said they have kept them informed. She said Mr. Stavroff has been cooperative in suggesting these meetings and asking for input ahead of time. She said Mr. Mike Grodhaus, president of C4RZ, thanked Mr. Stavroff for incorporating the group's suggestions into the new plan. Ms. Reed said they felt excitement with the initial proposal, however, she said she did not recognize any of this proposal tonight. She said this was not what they had previously seen. She said they recognize issues in the staff report that gravely concerns the group. Ms. Reed said the gas station access was supposed to be off of a private street in the middle of the neighborhood development, not directly off McKitrick Road. She said they understood it was to be a small neighborhood ice cream shop with six gas pumps at most (a United Dairy Farmers type gas station) buried in the back of the community in behind the retail off McKitrick Road with a very major landscape berm around the outer perimeter. Ms. Reed said they concur with the staff report on page 18 and they would like to see the gas station built into the village block with the pumps behind the business structure and with pump access from the private side street side, not from McKitrick Road. Ms. Reed said Mr. Stavroff at their meetings presented the M/I development with no particulars or guarantees. She said they were excited to see Mr. Jones come aboard and were excited about his architectural elevations and diversity plans. However, she said they were concerned that this mixed -use community as presented to them has vastly changed and that parking was encased almost in a square with an oval of green between the condominiums and the retail. She said they were led to believe that the main entrance for the residential area was on Hyland -Croy Road wh 05 -183Z other infrastructure changes had been approved with Tartan West. N Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge A7CL TT_ .I ___ J Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — May 11, 2006 Page 8 of 11 entrance was on Jerome Road, which is not planned to be improved to handle the vast new development to the north. She said they expected there would be an entrance, just like at Corazon Drive to Tartan West, but they never imagined it would be a main entrance or that the retail would be segregated onto a comer street frontage. Ms. Reed thanked Mr. Stavroff for heeding to their biggest concern of keeping the retail on the Hyland- Croy/McKitrick Road side. She expected there will be a demand for it. She also thanked him for keeping the green space on the corner of McKitrick and Jerome Roads. She said it was important to. Muirfield Village and Tartan West residents because of that intersection. They were concerned that the single -lane roundabout would be overcrowded with this new development. Ms. Reed said the density was not explained to them. For example, she said Subarea C had slightly more than 8.5 du/ac. She said they hoped they could do better than that. She said while they expected the mixed -use concept, that seemed a little high. She said if the Commission could help with any of their concerns to let them know. She said M/I had been very supportive as far as the elementary school— helping to get the water tower and put things into motion to help make it a realistic expectation. She said they were excited about this development. Ms. Reed said she could not say enough nice things about the mixed -use concept. However, she said she was disappointed in the recent changes. She said they would be happier with the middle plan. She said somewhere between the strip shopping center and the current service roads. Jan Paul, 9900 Hyland -Croy Road, said she was concerned because the homes to the north of the school and on the east side of Brock Road had septic systems. She said their leach beds ran into this proposed development. She asked how the developer would handle that. Aaron Stanford said information submitted by the applicant had not taken existing septic systems, leach beds, and wells into account, but as more engineering detail is done, it will be taken into consideration. Judy Parker, 7299 McKitrick Road, said she liked what she had seen of the development proposal. However, she was concerned about the water. She said they were wedged between Muirfield Village, Tartan West, and now this development. She said there were only about seven houses on their road. She said their well had already dropped 1.5 feet and they have replaced a pump. Ms. Parker pointed out that there were lakes or ponds in this development. She said while they are pretty, they do affect the aquifer system and she was concerned that it should be addressed. Dennis McIntyre, 10301 Jerome Road, said he lived next to the Harriott Cemetery and echoed Mr. Heinsius' viewpoint of being strongly opposed to any of the retail. Sue Gart, 9999 Hyland -Croy Road said she also was opposed to the retail. She pointed out that across the street from the proposed retail would be a park. She said she thought the retail would detract from the park. She added that there is no need for a convenience store or gas station. 'Dan Elbert, 7707 Brock Road, said his concern was that the retail and gas station should not be there. He said his biggest concern was sewer and water. 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge 0'71Z4 U. 1�"A_Ornv, RnaA Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — May 11, 2006 Page 9 of 11 Kimberly Clavin, 7667 Brock Road, said she was two houses over from the development. She said she had the same concern as the other neighbors about water and sewage, but she was also concerned about the traffic and road widening. She said with the school, there seemed to be a lot of traffic coming in from Hyland -Croy Road and there has been no proposal to widen the roads. She said especially since the school is a pull in/out type school and the road going through Glacier Ridge Boulevard is not very wide that concerned her. She said the Plain City residents were not informed about the water tower and this was the first she had heard about this development. She expressed the importance of the sidewalks along the major roadways bordering the development. Mr. Hale said regarding the concern about the 30 -acre park, they have tried to retain the existing ponds and vegetation. He said they will work with staff on additional landscaping and earthmoving, keeping in a natural setting. Mr. Hale said concerning the water and sewer, the sewer line has been built to the school and the water line and tower are there. He said under Dublin's contract with the City of Columbus who supplies the water, everyone on the east side of Hyland -Croy Road and south of Brock Road can obtain Dublin water and sewer if they annex into Dublin and subject themselves to Dublin's jurisdiction. Mr. Hale said they have always in their developments done the annexations for neighbors who wish to have water and sewer at no cost. He committed to do the annexation process for a group of residents wishing to do so. He said they would do so for those on the south side of McKitrick Road also. Ike Bergman, 9979 Jerome Road, said he was already a Dublin resident and asked if was possible for him to obtain City water and sewer. Mr. Hale replied that Mr. Bergman had the right to City water and sewer now. Mr. Stanford said the cost to tap into sewer and water varied, depending upon the final alignment of this sewer for this project. He said the connection will come off where there are stubs located. He said additional lines will need to be run from that and will be included in the cost. Mr. Stanford offered to get information on standard tap fees. An audience member also asked if the natural gas lines would be available to existing property owners. Mr. Hale said the gas company built the lines, not the developer, but they wanted it for this development. Ms. Clavin asked for elaboration on the road widening. Mr. Hale said they had to complete an extensive traffic report to the City, which they have done. He said they had a negotiation with the City about what the requirements will be and what it is they will do. He said they will do something in the range of $3.5M worth of improvements in the area. He said the traffic study is public record and can be obtained from his office. Ms. Clavin asked there were plans to take land from existing property owners. Mr. Hale said no, that they did not have the right of eminent domain. Mr. Gerber noted that the staff report recommended a tabling. He sai 05 -183Z going on a field trip next week to see what other parts of the country have Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — May 11, 2005 Page 10 of 1 i Mr. Hale said this development will have better things than many of the things seen on the field trip to Tennessee will be seen. Mr. Gerber asked if there are other developments in Central Ohio similar to this proposed development. Mr. Hale said no. However, he mentioned that Seaside, and the Kentlands in Gaithersburg were similar developments without the conservation zoning goals. Mr. Gerber said he was inclined to a tabling until the Commission has gone on the field trip and met with City Council on June 24 to discuss the trip. He did not want to spend two more hours providing input when the field trip may change viewpoints. He wanted to have all the facts before voting. Warren Fishman noted that wood fences were mentioned and he suggested stone, stucco and brick with landscaping to ensure long - lasting quality. Mr. Fishman also said he had learned that a park was not usable until it was approximately 3.4 acres, therefore the four acre park proposed was not giant. Rayna Jones refrained from asking her questions until after the field trip to gather information. She said this was very inconsistent to what the Community Plan was today. Todd Zimmerman said this site was beautiful with the rolling hills. He suggested everyone visit the site. Ted Saneholtz commented on what one of the residents said regarding what conservation design included. He said regardless of density on any one spot, the idea is to reduce the impact of housing units on the overall land, allowing more openspace and open vistas for generations to come. He said the alternative is to have a house literally on every two acres of this whole square mile and there will be no public land or vistas. He asked for patience with the idea of conservation design because when the Commissioners first heard six du/ac, they were up in arms. Mr. Saneholtz said as an overall density, there were pros and cons, but dense areas promote open areas. He stated that he had a ton of questions and observations but agreed that it would be best to wait until after the field trip to consider this case. Kevin Walter said as he looked at the overall scheme, the plan was high quality, but it should not be looked at solely in the context of the plan. He said it should be looked at in the context of the entire surrounding development and how this plays into the Community Plan. He said he was anxious when they go to Tennessee to see how that is integrated because he saw many of the vistas shown and the elevations show looked high quality in nature, but he questioned whether they fit the characteristics appropriate for this topography and of the other developments that have preceded this. Mr. Gerber said it was important to keep the residents apprised of all meetings. He said this was a very intriguing application. He said there were interesting features of this and they needed to make sure it was the right fit, etc. as the Commission always does. Mr. Gerber asked when this application would return to the Commission. 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — May 11, 2006 Page 11 of 11 Mr. Gunderman said the discussion on May 24 will provide more particulars, which will be helpful. He suggested that this application should come back soon so that any real concerns the Commission might have with the more minor issues they can get on the table. Mr. Gunderman said he was not inclined to see this wait a long time before coming back before the Commission. Mr. Hale agreed to a tabling. Mr. Gerber made a motion to table this rezoning application for the purpose of a field trip and further consideration. - Mr. Saneholtz seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ms. Jones, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Tabled 6 -0.) The meeting adjourned at 8:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Flora Rogers and Libby Farley Administrative Assistants 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge ll7[< L7..lor,ri_(`rnv Rnad RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin City Council Meetin zoned. it does not mwean f the tune" ERs will be t on vial site. Site befiev that the proposal before tonight is a t at of a site located to a substation_ She ca imagine a betto for lttis site. She idces reception area proposed ncil should look positively the natural experience death. This wAN be a nice for the adjacent s tion. Mr. Sett it 'provided some hill of the process. They con kxed the City two years ago for sistance in identifying rha'(ve iale locations for a 8n�s home_ and this was one the five sites identified b. From the stand being a good neig h owners in other cited th e sZ about a proposed eral home- It is quick lized that having an adjacent with heavy t frc at rush hour is much less sirable than a funeral hoaffic at oft hous wttiGh offers a reception ce r that can be used by the y They would to to tie part of the Dublin Corn ntty. Mayor Chirvape- Zuercher thanked Mr. inger, and noted that f�uncd looks forward to workiaq nth him. • Concept Plan - Bantry Greene - 9756 Hyland -Croy Road N Ms. Wanner stated that this concept plan includes 189.57 acres with a variety of residential uses, a village retail area and 86.6- acres of open space. It was reviewed by !� 1i Planning & Zoning Conlrnission on October 6, 2005 and issues of concern included the intensity of use and design of the proposed village area, as well as the 200 -foot setback along Hyland -Croy Road and McKitrick Road. The applicant is seeking feedback on ifte concept plan prior to pursuing a rezoning_ The site is located in the northwest area of 1 ! Dublin and includes several parcels that were recently annexed. She reviewed the aerial i of the site. The site is zoned R_ Rural District and surrounding parcels in the City are also zoned Rural, the Tartan West development to the south is zoned PUD, and the other parcels are outside of the City_ As required by the conservation design resolution; the applicant has submitted maps that address the four conservation design steps. She J� displayed and explained the maps. Based on the existing landscape features and !� provisions of conservation design, the applicant has created a proposed site plan which I' includes 60 estate lots to the north. 70 carriage tots and village lots in the center of the site, and 78 town tomes to the west- A village retail area is shown in the southwest area at the comer of Hyland -Croy and McKiirick Roads There are six access points on the ! plan - two along Hyland -Croy, two along Jerome_ one along Brock Road and one along McKitrick" The plan includes 50 percent open space with bikepaths and trails that i surrounding existing and proposed ponds. A 4.6 -acre central park is located toward the 1I center of the site where carriage homes front the site- The proposed lot plans shows the 1' three distinct single - family areas the northern portion are the estate lots, carriage lots i' have alleys and tear access and are located to the center. to the west is the town home subarea She reviewed some conceptual elevations for the three areas- The applicant has submitted a revised site plan, based on input from the Planning Commission on their initial concept plan. They are seeking feedback from Council !' She highlighted the changes_ some lots have been moved to accommodate an existing tree stand, a tot was eliminated to allow a better view shed and bikepatht access area perceived to have too much of a grid -like pattern. and the applicant has moodled the I plan to create more open space, moving the lots to the south and creating an additional 1, tear access alley, still adhering to the 200 -fool setback. Much of the discussion at Planning Commission related to the village retail area They have revised some of the plans in this area as welt. A new conceptual retail site plan was . included in the council packet Th is area has been further developed, based on I �i comments received Staff felt that the retail and residential areas were too segregated I� and should be more blended, and so the applicant has created a village green portion that '•! is punctuated by smaller park spaces as well as a docklpondlealwe accessible to users 11 of the retail center and to those living in the residential area. With this plan, the applicant j! has taken the notion of the historic four corners block concept and decreased the setback along Hyland -Croy and McKitnc k Roads for the retail portion only The applicant would h like to speak to the concepts tonight. She showed some conceptual retail elevations which were shown to the Commission '- Staff and the Commission felt they lacked village character, and so the applicant provided 1� a revised elevation whic]t divides the masses of the elevations and addresses the rural setting to expand the village notion. L 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council - — - - — M overriber'2r2005 She displayed some additional renderings the applicant has submitted. They are continuing to reline the renderings to ensure they are in keeping with the rural setting. She noted that the site has a 12 -foot grade change through the area, which is some of the more dramatic topography in Dublin. The applicant is continuing to keep that topography in the development process_ She suxnrnadzed that while this proposal does not entirely meet the future land use outlined in the Community Plan, it does strive to create a neighborhood with necessary amenities_ which is a feature envisioned during the Community Plan update process - Staff recommends that the applicant continue to move forward with a rezoning application. based on comments and feedback from staff. Council and the Commission _ Ben Hale Jr- 37W. Broad Street Columbus. OH 43215 noted that he represents the applicant and is accompanied tonight by land planner Jim Houk and architect Brian Jones W. Hale described the process they have undertaken over the last several months, 1 attending many City meetings about the Community Plan update and the Central Ohio Innovation Center. They have also visited some high quality developments identified by staff as a type of development desirable to have in Dublin, such as Franklin. Tennessee and the Kendands_ This development will have four types of housing product- They have created 50 percent open space, more than the 40 percent open space in Tartan West. The 12 -acre area where the elementary school is being built was originally part of this site - The Dublin Schools passed a bond issue but did not have a site_ They had committed to open an elementary school and needed a site_ The developer then sold the Schools that site at cost to facilitate its construction. He noted that architect Brian Jones was retained because of his work on Market Street in New Albany and the desire of some Council Members to have this type of architecture in Dublin_ They have tried to bring an outstanding team together to work on this development_ Jim Houk, land planner stated that when their planning efforts began, they researched the projects staff had referenced as being desirable for Dublin. There are five overriding principles they used in designing this project: diversity of product, different residential types than what had been built in Dublin previously, well planned neighborhood retail. different land use patterns and diverse and high quality open space. He described the topography and tree rows and how that drove the development pattern. They have developed four different lot types within the carriage lots- There are 29 acres of open space preserved at the corner of the site and the central feature is a four -acre park _ A big issue is the retail area. and Brian Jones will address that - Mr- Hale noted that the unloaded road and alleys add cost to the development, one thud more Consumers are willing to pay more for this type of development Mr. Houk added that a key element of the design is to minimize the impact of garages and cars - Brian Jones- Brian Kent Jones Architects stated that he is honored to have the opportunity to contribute to this neighborhood and retail center. He has done some residential work in the Dublin community at the Estates of Muirfield- Upon introduction to the project. they were asked to critique the existing work on the project to date_ Their background in working for the New Albany Company and establishing some of the criteria for that central village redevelopment and with their recent work on the future phases at Easton. they focused on the place- making aspects that have been identified in successful projects such as the Grabill development in Historic Dublin. They are trying to develop a model for an opportunity on this special site. They have looked at two specific development models in their research: lake Forest. Illinois and Shaker Heights in Cleveland. These were wonderful examples at the turn of the fast century of integrating the concept of a village core into a residential concept- He described the various details of the site plan. as the boards were displayed - He emphasized that they have tried to adopt a cogent strategy in the relationship of the front of the buildings to a primary street system- The strategies employed can represent a place that can make a wonderful architectural contribution to the community- Mr- Hate stated that some of the buildings are two story. and they are not certain what will be housed on the second story_ They are still looking at some of the options for uses in the two story buildings. whether it is residential or office - This is the ultimate entry feature and will make a strong architectural statement. They have talked with the Muirfieid I 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge 417S1; PiAnnrl -l"rnv Rnarl RECORD �OF�P�R EED f N GS ___ A7eeting __ - - page 2r - - 1� residents about their plans. in view of their concerns about the previous Kroger proposal. They have received strong support from them that they are on the right track with this development_ Mr- Reiner stated that this is a much better proposal than he anticipated. He is impressed with the project team. His first reaction is what is this development doing in this area of Dublin at this level of intensity. His vision was that surrounding Glacier Metro Park would be development of a conservation design concept and open space in this rural area, consistent with the Community Plan. Dublin is focusing on village concepts in Dublin, but he doesn't envision this as an appropriate location- As this area is developed, there will be traffic impacts with loading all of this onto Brand Road. if there is access to 161. it wdt be overloaded as well. given the current conditions of back up to 270. Another traffic congestion point is the fridge at Glide Road. and there has been no movement by the state to improve the intersection at 745 and Glick Road- He is very concerned with the density in this location. He observes the influence of Brian Jones in the architecture of the commercial portion plans - can he assume that Mr. Jones will participate in the single - family portion and the elevations? There is some high quality design apparent in the two elevations shown in sepia. Mr- Hale responded that they vvll have Mr_ Jones participate in this portion as well_ if that is Councirs desire. &k_ Reiner complimented the City staff on the modification to the plan- 1s it accurate to say that it has 75 percent open space behind the units? Mr. Hale responded that it is 75 percent either front or back on the open space - IUk_ Reiner stated that this is a quality of life issue for people. providing a sense of space which is the goal of the conservation design. Mr. Reiner noted that he is not certain how well integrated the town center is into the overall concept_ Is there enough retail mass to make it viable? He has seen what Mr. Jones has dome with the Market Street area in New Albany - the architecture is exceptional, as is the price - Mr. Hale responded that there are some new units being done there just to the south and they are trying to keep the prices under $400,000. In terms of the amount of retail. they envision this as a neighborhood center, a convenience center. The goal is to intercept trips out of the neighborhood by having the convenience, items located within it - drug store. gas station. dolor s offices. Mr- Reiner noted concerns with the adequacy of the setbacks and fight of way allowances. The Engineer would have to make the judgment of whether this is adequate for future roadways. Mr. Hale responded that they understand that adjustments may be needed, but they do not want the architecture pushed back too far because historically, houses fronted right on the corner Mr_ Reiner reiterated that he remains concerned about having adequate right -of -way fhe engineer's input is critical on this matter. Mr. Hale acknowledged this. adding that staff has also raised this issue. Mr. Reiner commented regarding the Chesapeake units- The stone should be taken to the roofline. not rolled around the corner. The theater facade look does not convey a quality appearance- He also has concerns with the standard looking houses done in grey with the garage doors on the front - This area does not seem in keeping with the rest of the development. There are some other elevations that he has some concerns with_ based on what is being shown tonight_ Mr- Hale responded that they are aware of these concerns Mr. Houk stated that a tot of these are being revisited. They are committed to doing a new product for this area and are working through the details. Mr. Reiner summarized that these are his major concerns- His major question is why this development is in this location - it doesn't belong here. In the Dublin Village Center, with a larger commercial area. or in Historic Dublin it would be fine. He is not certain how many pods throughout Dublin will be saleable. How many villages does Dublin really need? Conservation design would be a more practical approach in this area Mr- McCash stated that it is an interesting concept from the standpoint of layout The density is within the guidelines in the Community Plan of 1 -2 dwelling units per acre Thts is in essence the result of doing some of the provisions of conservation design. and not 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Cow" sacrificing the density in the tradeoff_ The retail element is needed in this area of the City_ The Plan update consultant spoke of the distance those in the northwest are required to access shopping. He favors lie revised elevations done by Mr. Jones versus the previous renderings which were similar to a Dublin Village Center approach. Having said that though, the revised layout still constitutes `putting lipstick on a pig. He envisions that what will result will be a WaWeen's and a UDF with gas pumps. He does not envision the layout of the site as providing a village feel- Whether there is 200 feet along Hyland -Croy or not. he does not favor this layout. He does not like having the double parallel parking. then hidden behind a mound. and then Hyland -Croy itself- This layout at that location does not excite him. In terms of the retail element, they should try to do something other than having a Walgree! i s or CVS on the corner Mrs. Boring stated that she agrees with Mr_ Reiner - the housing should be more unique in terms of the elevations- Regarding the streetscape for the village center. some components are missing such as accessories of lampposts, flower boxes, etc- to soften the look_ Some of Mr_ Combs' Historic Dublin streetscape plans incorporate these accessories. The street-cape for the village center needs to be refined- Mr- Keenan stated that his biggest concern is with the retail element and how it will work_ A retail element is needed to limit the trips in and out of the development by the residents His initial reaction is that any community would welcome this plan - the density is good. the open space is good and in keeping with the conservation design principles_ He supports this concept_ Ms. Salay asked about the dimensions of the tour -acre park. Mr- Houck responded that it is 300 feet Wide by 1.200 feet long. The smaller park is 2.3 acres - Mr- Hale added that there are 29 acres a" McKitrick, some of it 800 feet deep. This is a very large rural setback. Ms. Salay stated that overall, the concept is good - there are details to be worked out It is a creative approach. For the retail area, she believes it should be located in the original location at the southeast corner_ The new Tartan West is located immediately to the south, the elementary school is to the north. and a Metro Park is located across the street It would make more sense to flip this to the other side, away from the Metro Park and school_ There are sometimes conflicts between a retail site and a school The concept needs some further refinement, and she agrees with Mr McCash about the drugstore on the corner Her concern is that would remain would be only the ditty store and the gas station. if the other retail does not flourish. There is a need for retail in this area, which is very underserved. The roadways will be overburdened The original location of the retail makes more sense to her_ Mr- leddider noted that he appreciates all of the word that has been done to this p01nt He is generally supportive of the concept with a diversity of housing He likes the integration of the school site as was done with the Kenttands development He appreciates the revision that has been supplied, which is a positive step toward what he ultimately wants to see_ He does have concerns about the possibility of a national chain drugstore being located on the corner. It would have to have an exceptional design Many drugstores now have a drive - through_ and the would have concerns about that He recognizes retail is needed to serve the general area to eliminate trips southward He cannot imagine what kind of gas station would locate on this development He would likely oppose a typically scaled station that has 12 or more pumps. He noted comments made by Planning Commission about whether the retail center would be two stories He would not have concerns about having two story buildings for that portion. He likes the narrowed entrance off of Hyland -Croy, which creates a special feel In regard to the residential component. the key is the architecture and materials used To him, some of the elevations shown lean more toward the ordinary - Architecture is the key issue for this development_ Mayor Chins ici- zuercher stated that in general, this is an interesting concept She would like to see much more interest in having the architect take into account the location - with a fabulous park across the street, Tartan West with the grapes and Tuscany theme. etc This interesting destination took should be continued She likes the mix within the 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge Minute of i f-lcld RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Dublin city Council Meetin - -- development. She is concerned wwi h the potential traffic and how the developer will work to improve the iafrastructure in the general area for those who work and live there so that they can have egress and access wi thin a reasonable time. The potential success of the retail is dependent upon the mix included. A decision must be made about whether their goal is to reduce the need for people to travel outside the area for their needs. and if so, what does that dictate in terms of types of retail. It would also draw traffic from Tartan West and future development in the area. She cannot envision a large gas station in this location. but there would likely be a smaller type suitable. She likes the setbacks - it looks good She likes the nixed housing types as proposed. The catch always is obtaining what the City is tootling for in terms of architecture and quality, yet at a reasonable price so that a diversity of housing lends itself to accommodating people with a diversity of economic status. It seems that the price point at the end of construction is often not what is predicted at the outset of a project. She surnawized that Council is generally supportive of the direction. with some additional work needed Concept Plan - Sh ack Crossing - West O lin�Granville Road M. Hale noted that th epresent the applicant. d due to the lace hour. suggests this be held over to a ther time. Mayor Chinnici- rcher noted that a res t had signed in to testi on this matter and she invited o make comment at thi +me. Linda Me meant- Masonbrink 3168 Oymat Court noted that tP6 subject property is immed" eiy north of their home. he current proposal for zortirig will adversely i a their roperty value as welt as eir eryoyment of their Pr . She has forward a of a fetter dated Oct 12 which outlines their volvement in reviewing t s project rid their attendance at Planning Commission and meeting with e developer- When they with the developer, y were told that they be notified of any future meet th the Council- Howe v r, they were not notified the City - they learned of tonight' eanng in a different wa . They have not seen an changes to the proposal_ b the concerns expres to the developer_ They ave not had further discussion wi the developer so she is' teresled in knowing the ate on which this will be resched Mayor C nnici- Zuercher noticed t t this notice is provided staff Ms W nner confirmed that prop Ries within ISO feel of th _ proposed rezoning are pro ed with notice Staff coil heck on this Merchant-Masonbrink led their concerns that development is very c e to their roperty Changing this retad use will result inn se, light problems" adver e impacts to wildlife" and more pav, nt 1 hey will return to stdy when this item +s re dteduled Mayor Chinnici Zuer ter asked that staff ensx that notification is provi ed regarding the next hearing- Sh uggesled that the devel r meet with the reside s to share the updated plans Fa)iaf Plat - Tartan West Sect n 6 !� Ms. W er noted the area is all the re/rsSalay,yes.Mt mendments made at e Planri g Commission Staff re mmends appr Mr oring moved approval Reiner seconded the lion ' ote on the motion: Ma r Chinnici- Zuerchet" y Lec +der- yes - Mrs Bourg" yes: Mr einer- yes" Mr McCash. - yes l • Presentalio ne Community Authority Greg Stype. Squire Due to the late r, the presentation was ostponed until the Dec • N -E. Qua ark Naming Ms. Braut,gam tared that the Kids Vote ocess has selected T raid Park" for the N "E i{ quad park_ aft is recommending dying th +s slightly to - E raid Fields- in order to denote th this is an active park 4k Oarree Fields- and to el "ate confusion with Emeral arkway. :� Mr. enan moved approvat of a name - Emerald Field + Mr . Boring seconded them on. le on the motion: Mr_ R ner_ yes. Mr- Keenan_ y M+s Boring. yes- Ms S ay- yes. 1 Mr Lecklider, yes: May Chinnici- Zuercher_ yes r >rs 8. Dempsey i 12 meeting. due 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge Q'7SA T4vlanri_('rnv Rnsd UY OF DUBLIN_ d Use and Ny It-r Marius 100 %W40gs Wad A1* Olio 47016-1236 mr 6144104M oc. 6144104747 A Site_ ww.da6ia Ams PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION OCTOBER 6, 2005 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 7 Concept Plan — 05 -072CP — Bantry Greene — 9756 Hyland -Croy Road Location: 189.57 acres located north of the intersection of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads, bordered to the east by Jerome Road and to the north by Brock Road_ Existing Zoning: R, Rural District. Request: Review and feedback for a mixed -use development concept, under the provisions of Code Section 153.053(C). Proposed Use: A mixed -use development that includes 236 single - family lots, 78 townhouse units, and approximately 53,503 square feet of retail, with 88.7 acres of open space_ Applicant: Suburban Improvement of Columbus, Inc. et al_, 37 West Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215; represented by Ben W. 1 -laic, Jr., Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Claudia Elusak, Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410- 4675/Emall: chusak @dublin.oh.us. RESULT: Discussion included setbacks, pedestrian and bikepath connections, density, retail architecture, further definition of the retail uses in the text, exploring driveway materials, and the inclusion of playground equipment in the greenspace areas - The Commissioners generally liked the proposal. There was no vote or action taken- STAFF CERTIFICATION Claudia Husak Planner 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge w7fL TT_.1..`..7 !`...... D.....7 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — October 6, 2005 Page 8 Mr. Schoedi/the id the average eral procession des up to 20 However, occasionally ay be 100 and he said they 1 back up traffi d for the processions, be quicker r ere was a right -ou nto Emerald P they wi ll proceed - out a lot of turrun Mr_ j&rber said he thou t this is a fine prof t and is something gublin has needed b a long tyre_ He suggested t traffic was a con rn and that the res ents be involved_ We thanked 7. Concept Plan — 05 -072CP Bantry Greene — 9756 Hyland -Croy Road Mr. Gerber explained that this was an application for review and approval of a Concept Plan for a mixed -use development on a 189 -acre site that includes 236 single - family lots, 78 townhome units, and approximately 53,500 square feet of retail with 86.6 acres of openspace. Claudia Husak highlighted the staff report for this case and presented slides of the site. The site includes several parcels recently annexed to the City_ The site is zoned R, Rural District as are surrounding parcels within the City of Dublin_ To the south is the Tartan West development, zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. Ms. Husak said as required by the Conservation Design Resolution, the applicant has submitted maps addressing the four required Conservation Design steps. She said Step 1 required the identification of primary conservation areas, and in this case, they include drainage ways, existing ponds, and sensitive wetland areas_ Step 2 requires the identification of natural features, and on this site, they include existing tree stands_ The applicant has also provided view sheds in and out of the site as indicated on a slide. Step 3 involves the identification of developable areas and location of home sites, taking into account the areas identified as conservation areas_ Step 4 requires layout of roads based on the home site location. Ms. Husak said the proposed site plan includes estate lots to the north, carriage lots and village lots in the center of the site, and townhomes to the west, and the center. A village retail area is generally located at the intersection of Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads_ She said the site includes 50 percent openspace with bikepaths and trails surrounding existing and created ponds. A 4.6 -acre central park with paths and formalized plantings is proposed in the center of the site which provides a unique frontage to village homes and the townhomes. Ms. Husak said the proposed lot plan showed three distinct single - family lot areas, including the estate lots to the north, the carriage lots (rear - loaded lots with alley access), the village lots, and townhome lots_ Estate lots varied in width from 90 to 100 feet and the applicant has provided conceptual elevations_ The 33 village lots are approximately 70 feet in width and the 143 carriage lots vary in width_ Certain carriage lots front onto the center openspace and a boulevarded entry feature. Six -unit townhome buildings are shown on the proposed plan. Ms. Husak showed slides of the conceptual elevations. Elevations of the village retail proposed were included in the Commission packets. 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge 97S6 Niitand -Orni, I? .�A Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes —October 6, 2005 Page 9 Ms. Husak said staff does not believe that the conceptual elevation drawings they reviewed represented a pedestrian- scaled retail area and that they should be revised. She said staff is also requesting that the applicant include 200 -foot setbacks on Hyland -Croy and McKitrick Roads. Ms. Husak said this proposal presents an opportunity to master plan a large area of land and provides a coordinated development with large openspaces which are required by the Conservation Design Resolution. She said staff believes that the proposed layout should be revised to offer an improved connection between the retail and residential uses. In addition, she said staff is encouraging the applicant to further define the proposed residential and retail architecture. Ms_ Husak said while this proposal does not entirety meet the future land use outlined in the Community Plan, it does strive to create a neighborhood with necessary amenities in the village retail area, and it has been one of the features that are being envisioned in the Community Plan update process. Ms. Husak said staff recommends that the site plan be modified, that the architecture be revised, and that the applicant move forward with a rezoning application, based on the comments contained in the staff report and feedback by the Commission at this meeting. Ben W. Hale, Jr., attorney representing the applicant, reported that they had discussed this site with staff for approximately a year. He said the Dublin Schools site was not part of this application. However, the school under construction will have access from one of the development's streets. Ten 20 to 30 -acre farm parcels have been assembled. Mr. Hale said their representatives had attended al[ of the Community Plan Update meetings, trying to understand what Dublin is driving towards. They derived from the meetings that diversity of housing types and architecture, and housing types not available in Dublin were desired. Mr. Hale said they are trying to bring product and housing type not currently in Dublin to create a neighborhood with lots of openspaces and neighborhood retail. He said a roundabout is planned on Hyland -Croy Road. He said they are planning traditional architecture for this development. He said approximately 20 percent of the units are townhomes, 25 percent are estate lots, 20 percent are non -alley lots and approximately 40 percent are alley lots. He said they have tried to preserve the rural setbacks and treelines. Mr_ Hale said the density shown is 1.85 du/ac. Jim Houk, Bird/1-louk Collaborative, said they had worked very hard to create what they believed was similar to ideas referenced at the Community Plan meetings with a diversity of product from estate homes on 100 -foot lots to four different types of carriage homes on alleys, to the townhouse product, and integrated schools. The boulevard has a pedestrian link through the community to the school. The community will be walkable, tied to the school and the. retail area. He said the rural character has been preserved with openspace shown along the entries_ Mr. Hale said the 50,000- square -foot commercial area is neighborhood service. He said they believe it will have a dry cleaners and an ice cream shop — the kind of neighborhood services that current area residents drive to Avery Road to access. He said they had looked at Kentlands, a development in the Washington area that has been very successful, as a model on how to do a very special neighborhood_ Mr. Houk said it was important to know that the existing treerows drove the form of the gridded development design_ He said there was a more curvilinear form to the north where there was a ravine and no treerows. 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge n7c4 Yff 11__A 0 n,. A Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — October 6, 2005 Page 10 Ms. Reiss thought the architecture was fine from the estate homes to the townhomes. She said the design mix will enhance the community. However, she agreed with staff about wanting the setbacks from the roadways and about the pedestrian connections into the - retail area. She questioned if the retail area connection would connect to other parts of the City. She would like to see the City bikepath system connect into this retail village. She was concerned about having a gas station near the ponds because of the environmental issues, and said gas stations were not uses that should be in the retail village. Mr. Hale replied that they saw that as a convenient store type of use. Ms. Reiss said she was also concerned about the sewer line nearing capacity. She said staff needed to inform the Commission if that was an issue. Ms. Reiss liked the layout of the northern portion and she was glad to hear that the natural topography was used to design it_ She wanted to see that more in the southern section. She thought the carriage lot area is too She and because of the lot size, the houses will be very close. Ms. Jones appreciated the applicants attending the Community Update meetings and trying to incorporate some of the suggestions made such as putting village retail near neighborhoods. However, she wondered if the retail traffic would impact students walking from other neighborhoods to school. She welcomed this new and different variety of homes. Ms. Boring asked if there was a definition for "small - scaled commercial." Ms. Husak said the existing Community Plan stated that local neighborhood centers should be close to residential areas and provide residents with convenient and pedestrian access to essential retail stores_ Ms. Boring asked if it addressed size_ Ms. Husak said it did not_ Ms. Boring asked about the size of the Shoppes at Athenry for comparison. Ms_ Husak said the shopping center portion of the Shoppes at Athenrey was approximately 26,600 square feet, but it does not include the other components such as the UDE, the daycare, or the undeveloped parcel which has room for an additional 4,000 square feet. Ms. Boring was concerned that the 53,000 square -foot retail area was too large. She asked if the retail use was two - story. Mr.- Houk said the retail building had a parapet which had the appearance of a second story. Mr. [tale said the only example where they had tried second -story retail was at Town Center i where there were living units over the retail. 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliininary Development Plan Tartan Ridge Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — October 6, 2005 Page I l Ms. Reiss referred to second -story retail in Historic Dublin at the corner of Bridge and High Street which is currently being used by a dentist. Ms_ Boring recalled that in Franklin, Tennessee the retail looked like homes. She said this made her think of a smaller version of the Kroger Centre_ She said it had to look more like village retail. She was not sure of this location. Ms_ Boring said if this concept was developed, the text needs to define and tighten up on the available uses. She said "general use" cannot be used_ She agreed that the setbacks are needed_ Ms. Boring asked if narrower collector streets had been discussed to make it look more residential_ Ms_ Husak said that point had not been discussed. Ms. Boring made the comment that when collector streets are narrow, people therefore do not think they can drive as fast. She thought current neighborhood collector streets were too wide. Ms. Boring was concerned about the pump station and asked if that was the only thing that could be used for the sewer. Aaron Stanford said a sanitary analysis had been done for this area. He said the northeast 120 acres is served by the Deer Run sanitary sewer and because of the elevation falloff, a lift station would be needed to move the sanitary flow. Ms. Boring asked if there was currently an active lift station. Ms. Cox said a self - contained lift station currently exists in front of Wyandotte Woods subdivision with a backup generator. Ms. Boring noted that the plans showed rear loading garages, but she could not see how to access them. Ms. Husak said the village homes have front loading garages and the carriage homes have rear loading garages. Mr. Houk said the village neighborhood would contain village and carriage homes. Ms_ Boring said she liked some of the homes, however the plan looked too repetitious of what is seen in the area already_ Mr. Houk said they had made the commitment to develop a new product_ Ms_ Boring was almost sold on the mixed use, but she was wavering on if this is the best area because of the rural surroundings. She said it was discussed that as development approached the Metro Park, it should appear rural. She was excited about this concept, but she was not convinced that it worked in this area. However, she said she was open to suggestions_ She did not think City Council had given a definite direction yet. Ms_ Boring stated that playground equipment should be included in the greenspace area- 05-183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — October 6, 2005 Page 12 Mr. Zimmerman said a 200 -foot setback was definitely needed in the village retail area. He said more of a gateway feature is needed instead of just an access point into all of the development. Mr. Zimmerman said he had visited the M/I Hayden Farms development on Cosgray Road and Hayden Run in Columbus. He said it also had carriage homes with rear load garages. He suggested the Commissioners visit it. Mr. Zimmerman said this intense use was totally different than seen before by the Commission. He noticed on the M/I project that parking was on the street and driveways were shallow on some models. He did not expect street parking would be sufficient. Mr. Hale said the lots were 90 feet deep. He said the single- family homes would cost approximately $350,000; more expensive than the townhouses which were $200,000. Mr. Zimmerman complimented Ms. Husak for her extremely well done staff report. He said he had the same concerns as staff and was looking for the same things. Mr. Zimmerman agreed that the retail uses needed to be tightened and the_ square footage needed to be defined, similar to Tartan West. Ms. Boring agreed with Mr. Zimmerman that the staff recommendation was on the right track. Mr. Gerber said he agreed with most everything said. However, he said overall, he was lukewarm with the whole concept. He asked if this was neo- traditional Mr. Hale said the development they were guided to look at in Franklin, Tennessee was neo- traditional. Mr. Gerber said Dublin has a Community Plan, yet staff reports make reference to something that does not exist and has not been reviewed by the Commission, or City Council. He said he read that the Community Plan stated "rural characteristics." He said a fine job was done with Tartan West where the Commission fought for rural characteristics. He wondered why that was being abandoned here_ Ms. Husak said staff is taking that process of the Community Plan Update into consideration. Mr. Gerber said he respectfully thought that was a risky approach to planning_ He said it was not the rule today. W. Gerber said architecturally, they were making progress with a different kind of product. He said he was very concerned about the carriage lots with traffic_ He asked where would people park. Mr. Gerber said he had seen this kind of- concept in other places and they are going to have to be tight on rules and regulations as it relates to what can be done in the alleyways, and where they park. He said in some parts of Dublin, this has been permitted, and they ran down over time and some turned into rental properties. He said ideas on how this can be made a top -notch area were needed. Mr. Gerber said gateway features were needed. He said that even empty nesters needed parking. He said the village retail concept was not part of today's Community Plan, but if it is accepted, it needs to define clearly what those uses are to be. Mr. Hale said the had considered universal maintenance- 05-183Z Rezoning/Preliminaiy Development Plan Tartan Ridge Q75A Rnad Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — October 5, 2005 Page 13 Mr. Gerber expected this would end up a good product, but he said Dublin had standards and the Commission wanted to improve upon them. He said the standards needed to be enhanced. Mr. Hale said they understood what the bar was. He indicated they had listened carefully to what was being said. Mr. Gerber asked the applicants to continue working on this Concept Plan so that it will be workable for all sides. Mr. Saneholtz suggested that the driveway parking pads in the townhome and carriage area be concrete instead of asphalt to the alleyways for maintenance reasons. _ He liked the overall concept and said he felt the applicants were _listening to the ideas. He agreed it will appeal to a certain population that he did not think Dublin was presently serving. However, he was surprised at the price point. He thought the village retail was an interesting and necessary component of the overall concept. However he thought something different was needed with the scale. He said he was not necessarily opposed to living accommodations above retail as part of an unique concept. He said some of the homes appeared to be on the back side of the townhomes on the southern edge and he was worried about the aesthetics of that. Mr. Saneholtz said staff should consider that Glacier Metro Park is across Hyland -Croy Road and how busy that road will be in the future_ He suggested that a pedestrian/bikepath tunnel under Hyland -Croy Road and potentially, McKitrick Road be considered. Ms_ Boring asked if staff had received feedback from area residents that there might be a better location for the retail_ She recalled that when Glacier Ridge Park was approved, there was discussion about making sure that the surrounding area remained rural_ Ms. Husak said staff had contact with residents on the east side of Jerome Road, and they indicated that the retail should be on the other side as the earlier iterations of this concept plan had it at the Jerome and McKitrick Roads intersection_ She said some Muirfield residents felt the proposed location would be a good idea_ Ms. Boring asked who would develop the roundabout_ [Ms. Cox replied later. Ms. Boring said staff was right on track with the setback and with the retail_ Mr. Gerber advised the applicant to include area residents. He thanked Mr. Hale and Mr. Houk. Ms. Cox said the City, as part of the agreement with the Dublin Schools, is working on a roundabout in this location, and the widening of Hyland -Croy Road will be necessary to accommodate it. She said staff had talked to Metro Parks and Union County and it is anticipated to be built next year. Mr. Gerber thanked the applicants before calling a short recess. 05 -183Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Tartan Ridge -/ -" 1 _/" ./ -/ Jf. J TARTAN RIDGE RECEIVED F 1 MAR 1 4 �TQF ©LlSL 3V LAND USE & IG RANGE PLANNING r---14 Am 6�� AS SUBMI17LD TO COUNCIL `1 FOR MEETING 00121('V TARTAN RIDGE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN CITY COUNCIL 2nd READING SUBMITTAL March 19, 2007 DEVELOPER / OWNER THE EDWARDS LAND COMPANY 495 S. High Street, Suite 150 Columbus, Ohio 43215 P 614- 241 -2070 F 614- 241 -2080 Charlie Driscoll cdriscoll@edwardscompanies.com LEGAL REPRESENTATION SMITH AND HALE 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725 Columbus, Ohio 43215 P 614- 221 -4255 F 614- 221 -4409 Ben Hale bhale@smithandhale.com Aaron Underhill aunderhill @smithandhale.com LAND PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE GRAPHIC DESIGN THE EDGE GROUP 1400 Goodale Boulevard Columbus, OH 43212 P 614 - 486 -3343 F 614- 486 -3344 Greg Chillog gchillog ®edgela.com ENGINEERING EMH &T 5500 New Albany Road Columbus, OH 43054 P 614- 775 -4500 F 614- 775 -4800 Greg Comfort gcomfort ®emht.com Diane Marin dmarin ®emht.com ARCHITECTURE BRIAN KENT JONES, ARCHITECT 150 East Broad Street, Suite 600 Columbus, OH 43215 P 614- 358 -3729 F 614- 224 -0890 Brian Kent Jones brian@briankentjones.com Karen Danko karen®briankentjones.com ARTIST FORD & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 1500 West First Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43212 P614- 488 -6252 F614- 488 -9963 Mark Ford mford ®fordarchitects.com PWK DESIGN 6371 Riverside Drive Dublin, OH 43017 P 614- 562 -4910 Paul Kelley paul ®pwkdesign.com MUNICIPALITY CITY OF DUBLIN Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 Phone: (614) 410 -4600 Fax: (614)410 -4747 Claudia Husak, Planner TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary DesignIntent ........................................................................ ..............................1 MarketStudy ......................................................................... ..............................2 ProjectStory Board. ............................................................. ..............................3 II. Site Description Locationand Size ................................................................. ..............................4 Existing and Surrounding Land Uses .............................. ..............................4 Existing Conditions and Character ................................... ..............................5 Conservation Design Analysis ........................................... ..............................6 III. Project Overview Proposed Uses and Plan Features .................................... ..............................7 Neighborhood Residential ................................................. ..............................8 Neighborhood Commercial ................................................ .............................10 Parks and Open Spaces of Tartan Ridge ......................... .............................11 Accessand Circulation ......................................................... .............................13 Provision of Utilities .............................................................. .............................13 IV. Applicability of Development Standards ............... .............................14 V. General Development Standards Applicability............................................................................. .............................14 ResidentialLot Types ............................................................ .............................14 Encroachments /No Build /No- Disturb Zones ................. .............................15 BuildingHeights ................................................................. .............................15 Architectural Standards - Residential ............................. .............................15 Access, Loading, Parking and /or Traffic Related Commitments .......... 30 Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space and Screening Commitments... 31 Graphicsand Signage ......................................................... .............................31 Homeowners' Association .................................................. .............................32 ModelHomes ........................................................................ .............................32 VII. Sub -Area A Development Standards Description.............................................................................. .............................33 Permitted Uses and Lot Types.. ........ - .............. ............................................. 33 Numberof Units ........ .... - ..................................................... .............................33 Lot Dimensions, Setbacks, and Garage Types .............. .............................33 RoadSetbacks ...................................................................... .............................35 FireStations ............................................................................ .............................35 VII. Sub -Area B Development Standards Description.............................................................................. .............................36 Permitted Uses and Lot Types ............................................ .............................36 Numberof Units .................................................................. .............................36 Lot Dimensions, Setbacks, and Garage Types .............. .............................36 JeromeRoad Setback .......................................................... .............................36 TABLE OF CONTENTS, CONT'D VIII. Sub -Area C Development Standards Description.............................................................................. .............................37 Permitted Uses and Lot Types ........................................... .............................37 Numberof Units .................................................................. .............................37 Lot Dimensions, Setbacks, and Garage Types ............... .............................37 McKitrick Road and Brock Road Setbacks .................... .............................38 IX. Sub -Area D1 Development Standards Description............................................................ ............................... . . .........39 Permitted Uses and Lot Types ........................................... .............................39 Numberof Units.._ ... .... ................... .... ..................... ............................... ....... 39 Lot Dimensions, Setbacks, and Garage Types ............... .............................39 X. Sub -Area D2 Development Standards Description._ .......................................................................... .............................41 Permitted Uses and Lot Types ........................................... .............................41 Numberof Units .................................................................. .............................41 Lot Dimensions, Setbacks, and Garage Types ............... .............................41 XI. Sub -Area E Development Standards Description............................................................................. .............................44 Permitted Uses and Lot Types ........................................... .............................44 Numberof Units .................................................................... .............................44 Lot Dimensions, Setbacks, and Garage Types ............... .............................44 Streets...................................................................................... .............................44 Alleys ...................................................................................... ............................... 44 Off - Street Parking ................................................................. .............................44 XII. Sub -Area F Development Standards Description .............................. .............................45 Introduction........................................................................... .............................45 PermittedUses ...................................................................... .............................45 Density.................................................................................... .............................46 BuildingHeights .................................................................... .............................46 Parkingand Loading .... ................................................. - .............................. 46 Circulation ........... - ...................................... . .. .......................... .............................47 SetbackRequirements ......................................................... .............................47 Landscaping....................................... .................................................................. 47 Lighting.................................................................................... .............................47 Architecture............................................................................ .............................48 ............. ................... Signage ...................... ............................49 ............................... . Phasing..................................................................................... .............................50 Maintenance.................... :.................................................................................. 50 XIII. Exhibits RegionalContext Map .......................... ............................... ............................E -1 VicinityMap ............................................ ............................... ............................E -2 AerialPhotograph ........................ ..................................................................... E -3 Existing Conditions Map ....................... ............................... ............................E -4 TABLE OF CONTENTS, CONT'D Conservation Design Study............ Sub -Area Plan .... ............................... Development Plan ............................ Phasing Plan ....... ............................... Open Space Plan .............................. Illustrative Master Plan .................... Bird's Eye View .. ............................... Lahinch Park Perspective ............... Architecture Set Garden Lot ........................ Court Home ...................... Cottage Home ................. Park Home ......................... Manor Home ..................... Estate Home ..................... Town Home ....................... Commercial Elevation..... Commercial Perspective. Retail Sign ......................... Engineering Set .................... ............................... E -6 ..................... ............................... E -7 .................... ............................... E -8 .................... ............................... E -9 ..................... ............................... E -10 .................... ............................... E -11 ............... ........................... E -11 ..................... ............................... E -12 .................... ............................... E -12 ..................... ............................... E -13 ....... .................................... ..I .... E -13 ........................................ I........... E -14 ..................................... I.............. E -14 ..................... ............................... E -15 ..................... ............................... E -15 .................................................... E -15 .................................. E -16 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Design Intent The intent behind the planning and design of Tartan Ridge is to blend the finest New Urbanism principles with the foremost Suburban Conservation Design ideas to preserve and link natural features and interconnect land uses. The resulting community is a self- sustaining mixed -use neighborhood that reflects the high - quality architectural standards and parkland traditions of Dublin while also providing a premier development to address the need for executive style homes in the $400,000 to $800,000 price range. The Tartan Ridge PUD is being created in order to facilitate the development of a variety of residential and village retail uses on a site that consists of approximately 189.57 acres bounded by Brock Road on the north, McKitrick Road on the south, Hyland -Croy Road on the west, and Jerome Road on the east. This Planned District seeks to disperse a mix of architecturally diverse residential uses throughout the site in a manner that preserves the natural features of the property and yields generous amounts of open space. Included within this open space are parklands which preserve several stands of trees, and which will serve as a central focal point for the Tartan Ridge PUD. Additionally, all areas of the property will be easily accessible via an extensive pathway and trail system that provides integration between uses and enhances the community feeling. The colonial character of the residential architecture will be complimented by a neighborhood commercial center on the southwestern portion of the site, an off -site elementary school located north of the retail section, and the Glacier Ridge Metro Park to the west. The result of the aforementioned planning and design principles will be a development that provides numerous amenities for its residents, compliments and serves adjacent neighborhoods, and establishes a development scheme that is unique for the area. 7 Market Study I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Tartan Ridge is intentionally designed to attract new and retain current Dublin residents who are seeking a community that offers a higher level of quality in terms of architecture, site design, and nearby amenities. Market research indicates that this next level is related to a price point between $400,000 and $800,000 and includes neighborhood characteristics, floor plans, and architectural styles currently not found in Dublin. While Dublin is flush with residential products that have a proven track record of appeal and marketability, these options repeat floor plans and architectural styles, and retain a commonplace sensibility not preferred by this next level of move -up buyer. As a result, this homebuyer routinely seeks residential neighborhoods and homes outside of Dublin. Tartan Ridge will regain this $400,000 to $800,000 price point buyer by offering a true neighborhood community, wide - ranging architectural possibilities, and home diversity not common to Central Ohio. By meeting the needs of this underserved market with diverse and unique homes, exceptional open space systems and community services, this homebuyer population will be retained and Tartan Ridge will continue the excellence that Dublin has come expect. I � A- ! ✓✓'1 .!./lam' .. - 4 `s 1. is! -w . :r I ,r l ow- .i .4 � • 4 4 .ter •� s La : ri 1 IMF . mw A t TARTAN RIDGE WITH ITS DELIBERATE PLACEMENT OF VILLAGE RETAIL, HOMES, PARKS AND THEMATIC ELEMENTS, TARTAN RIDGE IS DESIGNED FOR BEAUTY. ENDOWED WITH GENTLY CURVING TREE -LINED BOULEVARDS, RICHLY DETAILED ARCHITECIURE, STONE WALLS, GATES, AND BRICK SIDEWALKS, TARTAN RIDGE IS DELIBERATELY DESIGNED TO FULLY INTEGRATE RECREATIONAL, RESIDENTIAL, AND RETAIL USES. IT IS THIS CAREFUL ASSIGNMENT OF WINDING ROADWAYS, PLEASING VISTAS, AND PASTORAL. LANDSCAPES THAT TRANSFORMS TARTAN RIDGE INTO A "GARDEN BOROUGH" THAT WILL BECOME ONE OF THE FINEST EXAMPLES OF MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN IN DUBLIN. FROM A SITE PLANNING STANDPOINT, TARTAN RIDGE PRODUCES A VIBRANT "COMMUNITY WITHIN A COMMUNITY" BY DISTRIBUTING UPSCALE RESIDENCES AROUND GENEROUS AREAS OF ACTIVE AND PASSIVE OPEN SPACE, ALL WITHIN WALKING OR BIKING DISTANCE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD -STYLE COMMERCIAL CENTER AND NEARBY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. EXCEPTIONALLY LARGE AREAS OF USABLE IARKLAND, AS WELL AS COMPLIMENTARY POCKETS OF GREEN SPACE, PROVIDES NOT ONLY EXTENSIVE RECREATIONAL OPPONI'UNITIES, BUT ALSO SERVES AS A NATURAL AESTHETIC AMENITY AROUND WHICH PREMIUM HOME SITES ARE CREATED. THE EXCLUSION OF FRONT FACING GARAGES ACROSS FROM ALL BARK SPACES IN TARTAN RIDGE WILL PROVIDE A RICH ARCHITECTURAL FRAME FOR ALL OPEN AREAS. THE TARTAN RIDGE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE SYSTEM WILL COVER FORTY PERCENT (¢om OF THE PROPERTY AND WILL PRESERVE MANY OF THE SITES NATURAL FEATURES, THE RURAL NATURE OF LOCAL ROADS, AND ACT AS THE COMMUNITY'S SOCIAL AND CULTURAL CENTER. THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER IS APPROPRIATELY SCALED WITH FIRST -RATE ARCHITECTURE COMPLIMENTARY TO THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT AND REMINISCENT OF CLASSICAL, COLONIAL REVIVAL, AND VERNACULAR HYBRIDS. THIS ARCHITECTURE EVOKES THE CHARACTER OF SMALL RURAL COMMERCE CENTERS COMMONPLACE IN THE LATE 19TH AND EARLY 26TH CENTURY THROUGHOUT THE MIDWEST AND INVITES RESIDENTS OF TARTAN RIDGE ON A WALK TO COMPLETE THEIR DALLY TASKS AND ERRANDS. WHEN COMBINED WITH THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE TO THE NORTH, OPEN SPACE NETWORK, AND RESIDENTIAL DIVERSITY TARTAN RIDGE REPRESENTS THE CLASSIC HAT UN OF ESTATE AND PARKLAND DESIGN. FROM THE FIRST INTERACTION WITH THE RIDGETOWNE VILLAGE MARKET PROMENADE TO THE LAST VIEWING GARDEN, TARTAN RIDGE REPRESENTS THE TIME - TESTED SITE PLANNING CONCEPT OF COMBINING RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, RECREATIONAL, AND CIVIC USES RIGHT AT THE DOORSTEPS OF ITS RESIDENTS. 3 II. SITE DESCRIPTION Location and Size The site is located completely in Union County on a 189.57 acre parcel that is bordered by Brock Road on the north, McKitrick Road on the south, Jerome Road on the east, and Hyland -Croy Road on the west. The property is approximately 4,000 feet from north to south and 3,000 feet from east to west. There is approximately 950 feet of frontage along Brock Road, 3,000 feet of frontage along McKitrick Road, 2,200 feet of frontage along Jerome Road, and 1,700 feet of frontage along Hyland -Croy Road. * Refer to Exhibits: E -1 Regional Context Map E -2 Vicinity Map Existing and Surrounding Land Uses The parcel is currently undeveloped agricultural land. Surrounding land uses include the following: 1) Institutional - Glacier Ridge Elementary School Water Tower under Construction 2) Residential - Tartan West Large Lot, Rural Residential Sites Tartan Fields Development 3) Parks Glacier Ridge Metro Park Glacier Ridge Metro Park offers over 11 miles of hiking, biking and bridle trails, nature programs, picnicking and playground equipment. Blue herons, wood ducks, turtles, dragonflies and other wildlife can be found at the 200 -acre restored Honda Wetlands Education Area. * Refer to Exhibits: E -1 Regional Context Map Existing Conditions and Character 11. SITE DESCRIPTION The site is predominantly cleared, agricultural land. Approximately 1,948 trees exist on the property. The overall site has a rolling topography and slopes approximately 20 feet from north to south. There are three ponds and no jurisdictional streams located on the property. Wetland areas under 0.1 acre are located on the property. The site currently has several single family homes and farm structures that are anticipated to be removed. * Refer to Exhibits: E -2 Vicinity Map E -4 Existing Conditions Map Conservation Design Study II. SITE DESCRIPTION i a' ■ , •ter a 1 Ilk # ' -4 a L y_ l Primary Conservation Areas I I 1 alas F Secondary Conservation Areas Unit Plan 6 Is 1 � � t Developable Areas alas F Secondary Conservation Areas Unit Plan 6 Is Proposed Uses and Plan Features III. PROJECT OVERVIEW This preliminary development plan requests the rezoning of ±189.57 acres from an existing R, Rural district to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a mixed -use development. The following uses and densities are proposed: 1) Commercial: Floor Area: 68,500 SF 2) Residential: Estate Lots Manor Lots Park Lots Village Lots Cottage Lots Court Lots Garden Lots Townhomes Gross /Net Density: 270 Total Units 10 75 11* 27* 20* 51 52* 24 1.42/1.56 DU /Ac. * Number may vary based on development of Subarea D -2. 3) Parks: ±75.84 acres of parks, greens and rural open spaces, including Glacier Ridge School Property. Tartan Ridge is a distinctive mixed -use neighborhood designed with conservation design and smart — growth principles. The Tartan Ridge neighborhood plan features the following: 1) Compact forms and distinct edges yielding to large, continuous open space areas. 2) An interconnected network of tree lined boulevards and pedestrian - friendly streets. 3) Small, walkable neighborhood blocks. 4) Public parks, greens, preservation areas and connections to Glacier Ridge Metro Park within easy walking distance of homes. 5) A wide range of dwelling sizes and types. 6) A commercial node offering neighborhood service uses within easy walking distance of homes. 7) Easily identifiable architectural styles inspired by Colonial Revival, Midwestern Vernacular, Classical, American Period Revival, and European Country. * Refer to Exhibits: E -7 Development Plan C 7 III. PROJECT OVERVIEW Neighborhood Residential The participation of various homebuilders and the existence of rigorous architectural development standards will produce virtually limitless architectural permutations. By varying lot sizes, providing garage orientation alternatives, and making a commitment to the use of upscale exterior building materials Tartan Ridge will become a neighborhood of unprecedented quality and uniqueness in Dublin. By detailing the architectural and site planning commitments in the development text, Tartan Ridge will achieve the stated objective of ensuring uniform quality on every individual structure thus creating architectural excellence throughout the entire community. Estate Lots are the largest lots measuring a minimum of 110 feet wide and are capable of accommodating significant square footages and sizable yards. These homes are intended to capture the $400,000 to $800,000 buyer and meet the executive home market need in Dublin. Estate Lots will be located on the north end of the development. Manor Lots are slightly smaller in size when compared to Estate Lots and will be a minimum of 95 wide, but are still able to accommodate large homes and yards. Manor Lots will be located on the north end of the development. Park Lots will include generous building areas but represent a slight reduction in lot size measuring approximately 85 - 95 feet wide. Park Lots are generally located across from park land. Village Lots are subject to all of the same standards as Park Lots, except that Village Lots will permit front - facing garages. Cottage Lots are clustered and shall have reduced setback requirements in order to create a compact, village -like feel. Lot widths range from 75 to 85 feet wide. Cottage Lots will be located on the mid to southern end of the development. Court Lots are clustered near open spaces and shall have reduced setback requirements that, just like Cottage Lots, are intended to create a compact, village -like feel. Court Lots differ from Cottage Lots due to their smaller dimensions and restrictions on the types of allowable garages. Lot widths are a minimum of 55 feet wide. 111. PROJECT OVERVIEW Garden Lots are reminiscent of traditional neighborhood development and shall feature rear - oriented garages that are loaded either from private alleys to the rear. Garden Lots shall allow for a variety of lot widths but shall in all cases be subject to reduced setback requirements. Lot widths shall range from 45 to 75 feet wide. Garden Lots will be located east of the retail Subarea. Townhomes shall consist of attached residential products that may be sold as condominiums or fee simple lots. Each town home building shall have a minimum of four individual units. Townhomes will be located on the southwest end of the development adjacent to the retail area. III. PROJECT OVERVIEW Neighborhood Commercial The Neighborhood Commercial area is located in the southwestern portion of the site within Subarea F. It is intended that various types of commercial uses including retail, restaurant and office uses may co -exist in this area. The uses in this area will provide residents of Tartan Ridge nearby access to everyday goods and services. Maximum commercial area shall not exceed 68,500 square feet. Front fa4ades will be oriented toward the streets, with parking and service areas located to the interior of the mixed -use area. Pedestrian friendly streetscapes will provide access to the shops, restaurants and offices. The commercial area will be highlighted by a pond feature including a boardwalk and promenade detailing. Architectural folly pieces are intended to be included in this area and will coordinate with the retail architecture. A boulevard entry from Hyland -Croy Road shall mark the entrance into the commercial village and continue along the street. Boulevards shall have a minimum right -of -way of seventy (70) feet, with a minimum pavement width on each side of the median of sixteen (16) feet measured back of curb to back of curb. 10 III. PROJECT OVERVIEW The Parks and Open Spaces of Tartan Ridge Open Space Provided: ±69.14 Ac.(36.4 %) Open Space w/ School Property: ±75.84 Ac.(40.0 %) Ownership and maintenance responsibilities will be shared between the City of Dublin and a Homeowners' Association as determined at the time of final development plan and are designated on the Open Space Plan. Neighborhood Parks Ridge Park - The pond and boardwalk feature along Hyland -Croy Road incorporates promenade details such as stone piers, walkways, and gathering areas to visually enhance this scenic road and open space. Townhouse residents and store patrons can walk or relax after dining or shopping in this unique and richly detailed space. Dunlavin Park - This pocket park with its ponds, fishing pier, waterfalls and stone walls, encourages more passive activities and allows shoppers and residents a quiet place to reflect and relax. The preservation of over 20 trees in this park will create a mature, woodland character that is replicated and enhanced throughout the park system. 11 Lahinch Park - This park, designed for a tot lot and a smaller sport field, is perfect for more informal active play. Thematic elements designed for this space include stone walls and piers, meadows and manicured lawns. Aldergrove Park - With the preservation of existing tree rows, tree stands, and a wetland, this park will cultivate a love of nature in those who witness its charm. While more passive in its design, the park provides respite for wildlife and can become a viewing garden unto itself. M. PROJECT OVERVIEW Boulevard Green This linear version of the traditional village green graciously travels past several residences and architecturally rich store fronts to function as the central promenade of the community. Moving eastward, this gently curving tree -lined boulevard continues past the neighborhood commercial area, residences, and parklands creating a green corridor that connects all open spaces. Rural Open Spaces A generous 200 -foot building setback along both scenic roads provides the backdrop for a pastoral, four - corner neighborhood commercial intersection. By providing interconnected open areas adjacent to eighty - seven percent of the homes, Tartan Ridge transforms active and passive parks, bikepaths, and existing tree rows into a new and inviting village setting for current and future residents of Dublin. All open spaces will be linked by sidewalks and bike and walking trails that total over 2 miles in length. Remaining open spaces are deliberately designed to fully integrate recreational, residential, and retail uses. 12 1, 1 1 Access and Circulation III. PROJECT OVERVIEW Vehicular access to the neighborhood will be from five access points. Single access points will be located along McKitrick, Jerome and Brock Roads. Two access points will be located along Hyland -Croy Road. A combination of interconnected public and private streets will provide internal circulation. Access to the mixed -use block for commercial and townhouse parking areas will be via private streets located at the rear of the buildings. A bike path will be located around the perimeter of the site within the scenic corridor setback along Hyland -Croy, McKitrick, Jerome and Brock Roads. An east -west and north -south bike path system will be constructed within the development. Bike path crossings along Hyland —Croy Road will provide connections to Glacier Ridge Metro Park and its trail system. A system of sidewalks will provide interconnectivity between residential, commercial and park uses. * Refer to Exhibits: E -7 Development Plan E -9 Illustrative Master Plan Provision of Utilities Water An existing 16" waterline is located along the east side of Hyland -Croy Road. There is also a 12" waterline located at the East end of Glacier Ridge Boulevard which will be extended through this development to an existing 12" waterline located at the intersection of Corazon & Manley Roads. Stormwater The southwest corner of the project area is in the North Fork Indian Run Watershed per the Dublin Stormwater Master Plan. The remainder of the site is tributary to an unnamed stream flowing into the Scioto River and is outside the Master Plan area. Sanitary The Glacier Ridge Elementary School Sewer is located onsite running from McKitrick Road to the South property line of Glacier Ridge Elementary School and contains both 18" and 8" sewers. This sewer is tributary to the North Fork Indian Run Sewer (NFIR). The design tributary boundary for the Glacier Ridge Elementary School Sewer extends north to Brock Road, east to Jerome Road and West to Hyland -Croy Road, thereby including all of the proposed development. Gas Service The Gas provider for this site is Columbia Gas. Electric Service The electric provider for this site is Ohio Edison and Union Rural Electric. Telephone Service The telephone provider for this site is Verizon North. * Refer to Exhibits: Engineering Set 13 IV. APPLICABILITY OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IV. APPLICABILITY OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: All residential and commercial structures shall comply with the design guidelines of the development standards set forth herein. Unless otherwise specified, the development standards of Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin Code shall apply to this development. The accompanying development plan illustrates that various uses and diverse product types have been dispersed throughout the site. This document first addresses the standards that are generally applicable throughout the development, thereby avoiding unnecessary repetition of these provisions in each individual subarea. It then groups uses and product types into distinct subareas based on their most common characteristics and addresses any unique standards as appropriate, Recognizing the nature of the neighborhood commercial component of the development, it is addressed in its own section (Section XII). V. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: A. Applicability: In recognition of the diversity of lot sizes and residential product types in the Tartan Ridge development, this section of the development standards text has been created to provide a single set of commitments that are to be generally applicable to all residential subareas. The standards of this Section V shall be applied to each residential subarea in Tartan Ridge unless a specific exception is noted. A separate section (Section XII) is provided to address all of the standards that are to be applied to the neighborhood commercial portion of Tartan Ridge and nothing in this Section shall be read to apply to that subarea. B. Residential Lot Types: The following list includes a general description of the lot types that are to be permitted in Tartan Ridge. In the sections that follow, each particular subarea shall specify which of these lot types shall be permitted therein and shall provide detailed standards regarding lot dimensions, setbacks, garage configurations, and other relevant information. 1. Estate Lots: Estate Lots are to be the largest in the development and are capable of accommodating significant square footages and sizable yards. Primary garages that are oriented to the front of the lot are prohibited. These lots shall be permitted only in Subarea A. 2. Manor Lots: Manor Lots are to be slightly smaller in size when compared to Estate Lots but are still able to accommodate large homes and yards. Primary garages that are oriented to the front of the lot are prohibited, These lots shall be permitted only in Subarea A. 3. Park Lots: Park Lots are to include generous building areas and a slight reduction in lot size when compared to Estate Lots and Manor Lots, but will still retain a suburban character. Primary garages that are oriented to the front of the lot shall be prohibited. These lots shall be permitted in Subarea A and Subarea D -2. 4. Village Lots: Village Lots are subject to all of the same standards as Park Lots, except that on Village Lots front - facing garages are permitted. These lots shall be permitted in Subarea B, Subarea C, and Subarea D -2. 5. Cottage Lots: Cottage Lots are clustered and shall have reduced setback requirements in order to create a compact, village -like feel. These lots shall be permitted in Subarea C, Subarea D -1, and Subarea D -2. 6. Court Lots: Court Lots are clustered near open spaces and shall have reduced setback requirements that, just like Cottage Lots, are intended to create a compact, village -like feel. Court Lots differ from Cottage Lots due to their smaller dimensions and restrictions on the types of allowable garages. These lots shall be permitted in Subarea A, Subarea C, and Subarea D -1. 7. Garden Lots: Garden Lots are reminiscent of traditional neighborhood development and shall feature rear - oriented garages that are loaded from private alleys to the rear. Garden Lots shall allow for a variety of lot widths but shall in all cases be subject to reduced setback requirements. These lots shall be permitted in Subarea D -1 and Subarea D -2. 8. Townhomes: Townhomes shall consist of attached residential products that may be sold as condominiums or fee simple lots. Townhomes shall be permitted only in Subarea E. 14 V. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS C. Encroachments; No- Build /No- Disturb Zones: 1. Encroachments: Encroachments into applicable setbacks shall be in accordance with the City of Dublin Zoning Code unless otherwise set forth in this text. Window wells may encroach into side yards a maxi- mum of three and one -half (3' /z ) feet, provided that there shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet of separa- tion between these permitted encroachments on adjoining lots, as measured from the nearest corners of the window wells. Air conditioners may encroach into side yards a maximum of two and one half (2 1 /z) feet. 2. No- Build /No- Disturb Zones: No -build zones and no- disturb zones shall be identified at the time of final development plan for review and approval by the Planning Commission. These zones shall be found in the following locations, if appropriate and practicable: a. on lots abutting public open space to maintain a separation between public and private spaces; b. on the rear of lots with existing trees that the developer intends to preserve; and c. on the rear of lots that back up and are adjacent to other lots within or outside of the PUD. D. Building Heights: The maximum height of residential structures throughout the development shall be thirty -five (35) feet as measured per the City of Dublin Code. Residential Architectural Standards: 1. Unless otherwise set forth herein, all structures shall meet the City of Dublin Zoning Code Residential Appear- ance Standards as they exist on the date that the preliminary development plan approval becomes effective. 2. Architectural Review Committee: The developer shall form an Architectural Review Committee (ARC) to ensure that all dwellings and accessory structures comply with or exceed the architectural standards set forth in this development text. Prior to filing for a building permit with the City of Dublin for the construction of, or any addition or major alteration to, each primary or accessory residential structure in this development, the owner or builder shall be required to subject the exterior architectural elevations and the site plan to a review by the ARC. The ARC shall undertake a review of these elevations and plans for compliance with the commit- ments made in this development text such as (but not limited to) setbacks, building heights, architectural style, diversity, types of materials, configuration of materials on individual building fa4ades, consistency of materials on all elevations of the structure, and colors. The ARC shall approve only those structures that comply with or exceed the requirements set forth in this development text. The City of Dublin shall not be required to issue a building permit for any affected residential structure in this development without written evidence of approval of such structure from the ARC. Rules and regulations relating to the membership of the ARC and the conduct of its affairs shall be the responsibility of and implemented by the developer. The requirement for ARC review and approval shall be evidenced through the developer's recording of deed restrictions with the Union County Recorder prior to commencing construction on any residential structure in this development. The developer shall ensure that the deed restrictions require adherence to the architectural standards in this text and may choose to implement even stricter architectural requirements than are found herein. 3. Architectural Character: The architecture within this development shall be traditional in nature. Its vocabu- lary shall employ Classical, Colonial Revival, Midwestern Vernacular, European Country, and American Period Revival styles. Continuity of element and scale and the commonality of building materials between the refer- enced styles will reinforce an architectural cohesiveness while promoting architectural diversity within the site. 15 V. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS a. Architectural Styles I. Village Center - The architectural expression for the Village Center is intended to maintain a stylistic palette that references late 19th and early 20th century com- mercial buildings prevalent in Dublin and throughout the Midwest. The goal of the hierarchical refinements that occur as one moves northward through the Village Center suggest a more cohesive classical architecture that is reminiscent of success- ful domestically scaled commercial endeavors of the 1920s. The attached residen- tial components of the Village Center build upon these commercial strategies by implementing a common vocabulary of massing, fenestration, and materials that reinforce the Midwestern Vernacular, Colonial Revival, and Classical styles. ii. Midwestern Vernacular - The character of Midwestern Vernacular architecture evolved throughout the mid- to late 19th and early 20th centuries and makes reference to a broad range of styles. Greek revival references incorporate simplicity and permanence of form while retaining versatility, while "farmhouse vernacular" is characterized by Gothic influences and verticality of proportion common to Early Victorian examples. The Midwestern Vernacular style reiterates local forms, strong examples of which are indigenous to Dublin and may also be found in Bexley and Upper Arlington. iii. Colonial Revival - Late 19th century examples of the Colonial Revival style draw inspiration from Renaissance, Georgian, and Neoclassical styles, as evidenced by symmetrical, tightly organized, and well- defined exteriors and restrained ornamentation. Surfaces tend to be pale and smooth; clapboard siding is typical of the Colonial Revival style. iv. Classical - Traditional early American styles such as Colonial, Federal, and Georgian fall under the heading of Classical. Although individual styles evolved throughout the late 17th and whole of the 18th century, Classical residences are characterized by precision in execution, balanced, symmetrical compositions, and careful attention to detail. Main blocks of residences are often finished in brick, although regional variations employing alternate materials such as stone or clapboard do occur. Entry surrounds integrate the Classical Orders through use of columns or pilasters with pediments. v. European Country - Inspired primarily by provincial country homes in France, American examples of the European Country style first appeared in the 1920s, Characterized by the use of stone and stucco as cladding materials, the European Country style also employs deep recesses and reveals for doors and windows as well as steeper roof pitches and flared eaves. Forms tend to be simple and rectangular and tall, well- proportioned windows are common, resulting in a simple, elegant residence. vi. American Period Revival - The late 19th and early 20th century saw the emergence of American Period Revival styles, including Shingle Style and Craftsman. These styles tend to be informal yet disciplined and employ simpler massing and vernacular forms. Broad gables and gambrels are common, as is the incorporation of porches and balconies. Traditional cladding materials are used and include cedar shakes or shingles, wood, and stucco. Fenestration is characterized by horizontal window groupings, shed or arched dormers and glass is often incorporated in the front door. 4. Architectural Diversity: The existence of a variety of homebuilders will lead to diverse architecture across the residential structures in Tartan Ridge. In order to provide further assurance of this result, the development shall be subject to the following diversity standards: a. Area Of Influence: With respect to a home on any particular lot, the same or similar front eleva- tions and /or color treatment shall not be repeated for any home located within two lots on either side, directly across the street from, or within one home on either side of the home directly across the street 16 V. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS from, the subject home (the "area of influence "). With the exception of corner lots, these require- ments apply only to the street on which the home is located; that is, they do not extend to homes on intersecting streets if fewer than two homes are located between the subject home and the end of the street. For corner lots the requirement shall apply to both streets on which the home is situated. A diversity matrix outlining the "area of influence" for each given lot in a community, by subarea, will be submitted at the time of final development plan. b. Administration of Standard: Due to the mix of homebuilders to be found in this development, an advance matrix of "substantially similar" building elevations is not possible. Therefore, it will be the responsibility of the Architectural Review Committee to evaluate each house plan in the development for compliance with the diversity standard. Compliance with the diversity requirement shall be required for the approval of the construction of each new dwelling within the PUD (with the exception of town - homes). c. Themed Communities: Themed or architecturally - coordinated communities featuring a specific ar- chitectural style with one or more builders may be permitted and are not subject to the diversity sched- ule outlined above. In the event that such a community is proposed, the developer shall file a single final development plan for that community with illustrations of representative building elevations and anticipated product mix for review by the Planning Commission. d. Inapplicability to Townhomes: Any Townhome Lots in the Tartan Ridge PUD shall not be subject to the diversity requirements of this Section. e. Enforcement: Any failure of the Architectural Review Committee to perform its duties with respect to the diversity standards set forth herein shall constitute a zoning violation. In that event, the City shall have the right to bring such appropriate lawful action as is necessary to ensure that the Architectural Review Committee performs its duties and upholds the standards set forth in this section. 5. Architectural Massing: a. Key Massing Principles i. Street Presence ii. Proportions and Purity of Form iii. Clean Intersections b. Permitted Massing i. Gable : Gable spanning the short dimension of the main house block enhances street pres- ence ii. Hipped: Reduces roof massing; ideal for floor plans with more of a square proportion iii. Gambrel: Provides interior volume in a story -and -a -half exterior. ri Hipped Gambrel Gable 17 V. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS s` iv. Story- and -a -half (shown with side - loaded garage) A gable or gambrel roof is typical of story- and -a -half massing and results in a home that is comfortably scaled. v. Two -story Gable Roof: (shown with rear - oriented side - loaded and accessory front- oriented garage) When employed on narrower lots, side - loaded garages shall be located to the rear of the main house block; an accessory garage may be oriented to the street vi. Two Story Hipped Roof: (shown with court - loaded garage) Court - loaded garages result in a larger entry court in front of the main house block and are a viable option for narrower lots. A hipped roof provides the ability to control the scale of a larger home by incorporating a flat portion at its top. Roof pitches on all elements should be the same to preserve the integrity of the massing and overall composition. vii. Two Story Gable Roof: (shown with front - loaded garage) Front - loaded garages are required to be set back a minimum of ten feet from the front face of the main house block. Single bay doors are required. Front - loaded garages that occur forward of the front face of the main house block and three car front - loaded garages, as illustrated below, are prohibited. not 18 V. GENERAL DEVELOPMEN STANDARDS c. Prohibited. Massing I. Gable Gabled roof spanning the long dimension of the main block results in awkward proportions ii. Gable When utilized with a square floor plan, the gabled roof results in awkward pro - ati ' e portions iii. Continuous Walls Interrupt the pure form of the object/main house block iv. Continuous Roof Lines Interrupt the pure form of the object; applies to all sides of a home v. Overlapping Forms Disintegrate the clarity of the massing vi.. Deseendina Forms Disintegrate the clarity of the massing 19 6. Exterior Materials: a. Cladding materials: The exteriors of structures, including foundations, shall be constructed of brick, stone, manufactured stone, wood, stucco, EIFS (for trim only), cementitious fiberboard, and other comparable materials (or any combination thereof). b. Configuration of Materials: i. Four -sided architecture shall be required so that similar architectural design elements and details shall be consistent throughout all elevations of the structure. All building elevations shall be articulated with a consistency of detailing. ii. The primary building materials on the front elevation of a home shall be represented on all elevations. Secondary and complementary cladding materials found on the front elevation of the structure shall be utilized on all other elevations of the residence provided that the aesthetic integrity of the entire dwelling is maintained. iii. Material transitions at exterior corners are permitted with an 8 " -12" material return and trim detail. iv. A minimum 42" high masonry base is required on all elevations. v. For residences on designated special lots, the main house block is to be rendered with a consistent cladding material on all prominent sides. vi. The Architectural Review Committee has the right to determine additional lots to which this main block cladding requirement may apply. vii. If the main house block is rendered in masonry, hyphens/ connectors, dependencies, garages, etc, may utilize a secondary cladding material. viii. Changes in cladding material should occur in logical locations, where one building mass meets another. ix. When used, wood siding and Hardiplank® shall be in the pattern of clapboard, drop siding, tongue and groove, or board- and - batten. x. Walls shall show no more than two (2) cladding materials (excluding trim) above the water table unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Committee. Brick and stone may be combined. xi. For residences on corner lots and additional lots as indicated on the attached Exhibit E -7, the main house block shall be rendered with a consistent cladding material on all sides. 20 V. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS xii. Materials Application Examples Front/Right axonometric view aa. Recommended Material Transition - Complex Building Massing • Within a more complex building massing, a definable main house block presents a strong front to the street. • The residence has a consistent watertable, and the predominant cladding material for portions of the side and rear of the residence is secondary in nature. Right/Rear axonometric view Front/Right axonometric view Right/Rear axonometric view Rear /Left axonometric view Left/Front axonometric view bb. Recommended Material Transition - Narrow Building Massing • For residences that are narrow / deep in plan, a definable main house block that presents a strong front to the street is preferred. • The residence has a consistent watertable, and the predominant cladding material for portions of the side and rear of the residence is secondary in nature. • Material transitions may also occur along a consistent horizontal course, with the heavier (or primary) material occurring below the line. • Dependencies or detached /accessory garages shall be rendered in cladding materials consistent with the residence. r I F 1 •: Rear /Left axonometric view Left/Front axonometric view 21 i I Right/Rear axonometric view Front/Right axonometric view Right/Rear axonometric view Rear /Left axonometric view Left/Front axonometric view bb. Recommended Material Transition - Narrow Building Massing • For residences that are narrow / deep in plan, a definable main house block that presents a strong front to the street is preferred. • The residence has a consistent watertable, and the predominant cladding material for portions of the side and rear of the residence is secondary in nature. • Material transitions may also occur along a consistent horizontal course, with the heavier (or primary) material occurring below the line. • Dependencies or detached /accessory garages shall be rendered in cladding materials consistent with the residence. r I F 1 •: Rear /Left axonometric view Left/Front axonometric view 21 V. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CC, Recommended Material Transition — Court - Oriented Building Massing • For residences with court- loaded garages, a garage massing rendered in the primary material applied to the main house block is preferred. The residence has a consistent watertable, and the predominant cladding material for portions of the side and rear of the residence is secondary in nature. • The residence has a consistent watertable, and the predominant cladding material for portions of the side and rear of the residence is secondary in nature. • Material transitions may also occur along a consistent horizontal course, with the heavier (or primary) material occurring below the line. Rear /Left axonometric view c. Trim materials: Permitted exterior trim materials shall include wood, foam - backed vinyl, aluminum (for gutters and downspouts only), copper, fiber - cement products, or any combination thereof. d. Shutters: Shutters, when used, shall be consistently used on all elevations and be sized to fully cover the adjacent window. Shutters must be painted, shall be louvered, raised or flat paneled, or board and batten, and shall be made of painted wood, vinyl, painted synthetic, PVC, or Hardiplank®. Shutters may be considered as "trim" within this development. Shutter Requirements aa. Sized to fully cover the adjacent window. bb. Shutters that are operable, or appear as such, shall utilize approved shutter hardware (s -clips and hinges). cc. While shutters are to be used consistently on all elevations, they should be used judiciously and not on every window. Note: Must be appropriately sized operable shutters 22 Front/Right axonometric view Left/Front axonometric view Right/Rear axonometric view V. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Approved Shutter Types aa. Raised Panel - Classical and Colonial Revival styles bb. Flat Panel - European Country and Midwestern Vernacular styles. cc. Louvered - Midwestern Vernacular styles; some Classical and Colonial Revival examples (2nd floor). dd. Board and Batten - European Country and American Period Revival styles. as bb cc e. Roofs: dd F L Materials: All homes shall utilize an architectural grade dimensional asphalt shingle, wood shake or wood shingle, or natural or synthetic slate. Metal standing seam materials shall be permitted on porches, hyphens, and dependencies. ii. Principal Roofs: Principal roofs, where sloped, shall be a symmetrical gable or hip, or gambrel. Sloped principal roofs shall have a minimum slope of 7:12 rise over run. Roof penetrations, including, without limitation, vent stacks, shall not be located on the front roof slope and shall be painted to match the color of the roof. i. Eaves: Eaves shall be continuous. Eaves which overhang less than one (1) foot shall have closed soffit. ii. Dormers: Dormers shall have gabled, hipped, arched, or shed roofs. Dormer windows shall either match the standard window size of the house or be smaller. Dormers may be no larger than necessary to hold their windows and framing unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Review Committee. iii. Gutters and Downspouts: Traditional half -round gutters and /or ogee gutters with downspouts shall be used and shall be made of aluminum materials that are painted to match or compliment the color of the home's trim. Gutters and downspouts shall be placed at the corner of the building that is least visible from nearby streets or shall be symmetrically arranged as an integral part of the fa4ade composition. Gutters shall be profiled at closed soffits and half -round at exposed eaves. f. Exterior Paint Colors: Exterior paint colors shall be selected from an historic color palette, i.e. Sherwin - Williams "Heritage Colors" or "Preservation Palette "; Benjamin Moore "Historical Color Collection ", "Exterior Expressions "; or similar color lines by alternate manufacturers. 23 V. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS g. Front doors: Front doors shall be wood or an approved composite material, typically painted a dark value, and shall be of a style appropriate to the architectural character of the home. L Five Pillars of Entry Design aa. Pediment/Entablature: entry pediments shall be classically detailed and proportioned. Pt IV bb. Transom: light cuts shall be consistent in scale and proportion to the rest of the residence. cc. Door: front doors shall be of a style appropriate to the architectural character of the residence. dd. Stoop: stoops shall be constructed of a natural material; the use of brick or bluestone is encouraged. ee. Railing: railings are to be integral with the architecture and character of the residence. They are not to be treated as an independent feature, Front doors and entries may provide the residence with an additional touch of person- ality. Special care shall be given to the design and detail of such elements and shall be based on the fundamental principles of the Classical Orders. The design of front doors and entries shall be an area of specific focus for the Archi- tectural Review Committee during the design review process. The image below is a strong example of the relationship between the front entry and the stoop and railing. The proportion of the door itself is echoed in the entry surround and pediment. 24 V. Certain architectural styles, for example, European Country or Midwestern Vernacular, allow for heavier entryways and more deeply recessed doors. Classical principles of proportion still apply in the design and detailing of this type of surround. Door surround examples F .� vi. The Classical Orders aa. The Classical Orders referenced above provide a starting point for develop- ing the design of a front entry with particular regard to the fundamental principles of scale and proportion. bb. The diagram on the facing page illustrates the manner in which the characteristics and proportions of the Doric Order may be used to generate an entry porch or surround. rg a 25 TUGCAN DORIC IONIC CORINTHIAN COMPOOITC V. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS i I u i a 26 V. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS h. Chimneys: All exterior portions of chimneys shall be finished with masonry consisting of brick, stone, or manufactured stone. The use of stucco, siding, and wood shall be prohibited. Cantilevered chimneys are not permitted. Chimneys located on exterior walls must be continuous to the grade line or a substantial structure (e.g., deck, porch, patio slab, etc.). i. 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 con- sistent from unit to unit. j. Front Porches: Front porches shall be covered and open. Glass and screens shall be prohibited. K. Windows: Windows shall be constructed either of wood, painted aluminum, or vinyl clad and shall have clear glass. All windows must have grid patterns. Windows shall be double hung or operable casements. Transoms shall be oriented horizontally with vertically proportioned panes of glass. There shall be no flush- mounted windows. Bay windows shall not be cantilevered. i. Window Requirements as aa. Window grids are to be proportionally similar on all windows with vertical orientation. bb. Light cuts with equivalent horizontal and vertical dimensions are permitted provided that the window maintains an overall vertical proportion. cc. Window surrounds and /or trim appropriate to the architectural character of the residence are required. Typical Window Types and Proportions aa. Double Hung - Typical of Classical and Colonial Revival styles; American Period Revival; appropriate for all styles bb. Casement - Typical of Classical and Colonial Revival styles. cc. Arched Top - Typical of European Country styles; also appropriate for Mid- western Vernacular. bb cc 27 V. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS I. Soffit and fascia: Soffit, fascia, and trim shall consist of vinyl, aluminum, wood, or wood composite materials. Fascia and trim may be capped with vinyl or aluminum. Colors for soffit, fascia, trim, and gutter materials shall be compatible with the color of the dwelling. 7. Garages: a. Permitted Garage Configurations: The various lot types to be found in the development are each intended to accommodate certain garage configurations. The range of permissible garage configurations shall be defined as follows: i. Street loaded /front oriented: Garage faces the public street frontage of the lot and is loaded from a public street in front of the lot. This type of garage must be set back a minimum of ten (10) feet from the front fagade of the residence that contains the front door. Only single bay overhead doors may be used in conjunction with this garage type. No garages with three (3) or more bays shall be permitted to be Street loaded /front oriented. ii. Street loaded /side oriented: Garage faces the side yard of the lot and is loaded from a public street in front of the lot (or from the side on corner lots). iii. Street loaded /accessory front oriented: A single bay garage facing public street frontage and that is loaded from a public street in front of the lot shall be permitted only if aa. another permitted garage type is utilized on the lot, and bb. the single bay garage is setback at least twenty -two (22) feet from the front fa4ade of the primary residential structure that includes the front door to the residence. iv. Street loaded /court oriented: Garage faces the side yard of the lot, and is loaded from a public street in front of the lot via a driveway court. v. Street loaded /rear located: Garage is attached or detached, is located on or to the rear of the primary structure, and is loaded from a public street in front of the lot. vi. Alley loaded /rear oriented: Garage faces the rear of the lot and is loaded from a private alley found to the rear of the lot. b. Additional Garage Standards: Double bay overhead doors and garages containing three (3) or more garage bays shall be permitted unless otherwise set forth herein. S. Gates and Gateposts: Either (a) gateposts or (b) gateposts and a gate shall be required on the front of each lot at the end of the brick sidewalk running from the front door (See Section V(F)(3)). If the lot contains a Street loaded /court oriented garage (as defined above) and therefore does not contain a brick sidewalk, then gateposts shall be required on each side of the driveway on the front of the lot. a. Gate and Gatepost Requirements i. Gateposts are required and shall be located at the intersection of the public side walk and the brick sidewalk running from the front door. Gateposts shall be located on either side of the driveway for residences with court - oriented garages. ii. Gateposts shall integrate with the standard landscape hedge. iii. The design of gates and gateposts shall be appropriate to the architectural character the residence. For example, the iron gate and stone piers pictured below are appropriate for Euro- pean Country styles but may not be appropriate for Classical or Colonial Revival styles. 28 V. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS b. Brick and Stone Piers i. Brick or stone piers may be appropriate for Estate Lots, Manor Lots, and some Park Lots. Masonry piers may be freestanding or used in combination with an en- try gate. The pier material shall coordinate with the primary masonry material used on the residence. c. Wood Posts i. Wood posts shall be detailed in a manner appropriate to the architectural character of the residence. ii. When wood posts are freestanding, they shall portray the appearance of solidity. 29 Curved Rail Iron Gate & Stone Piers Painted Wood Picket 0990 H V. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS iii. Special attention should be given to the incorporation of the gateposts and gates with the landscape hedge and brick sidewalk. iv. The relationship between the residence, front entry, and gateposts should be taken into account when considering a gatepost's design. F. Access, Loading, and other Traffic - Related Commitments: 96 f �1. 1. Public Streets: All roadways constructed as a part of this residential development shall be public unless otherwise noted in the applicable standards for a particular subarea. All public streets shall have a minimum right -of -way width of fifty (50) feet. Pavement width shall be a minimum of twenty -eight (28) feet measured back of curb to back of curb. Boulevards shall have a minimum right -of -way of seventy (70) feet, with a minimum pavement width on each side of the median of sixteen (16) feet measured back of curb to back of curb. Public streets shall be constructed in accordance with the City of Dublin Code and the standards established by the City of Dublin Engineer. 2. Frontage: All dwelling units in this development shall front a public roadway. 3. Sidewalks; bike path; leisure trails: a. For Public Use: A final system of sidewalks, bike paths, and leisure trails shall be provided as approved in the final development plan for each subarea. Sidewalks shall be constructed of concrete and shall be a minimum of four (4) feet in width. Bike paths shall be constructed of asphalt and shall 30 V. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS be a minimum of eight (8) feet in width. Leisure trails shall be constructed of a pervious surface and shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet in width. b. For Private Use: A brick sidewalk shall be required to run from the front door of each residential unit in the development to the public sidewalk located to the front of the lot, unless the lot contains a Street loaded /court - oriented garage (as defined in Section V (E)(6)). In the event that a sidewalk is provided from the front door of a residence to a driveway, then that sidewalk also shall be required to be constructed of brick. Brick sidewalks shall be constructed of a color that is complimentary to the colors used on the residential structure. G. Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space, and Screening Commitments: 1. All residential landscaping shall meet the requirements of Sections 153.130 through 153.148 of the City of Dublin Zoning Code. 2. Dedication and Maintenance of Open Space: Open space to be created as a part of this development shall be dedicated to the City of Dublin as indicated on the final development plan. Any open space that is not dedicated to the City of Dublin shall be maintained by a forced and funded homeowners association at a standard that is similar to that applied to open space maintained by the City. 3. Tree Preservation and Replacement: It is the intent of the developer to preserve as many trees as possible in this subarea. Any trees that are removed and measure between at least six (6) inches but less than twenty -four (24) inches diameter breast height shall be replaced "tree for tree." Any trees that are removed and measure twenty -four (24) inches or more in diameter breast height shall be replaced "inch for inch." Replacement trees (nursery grown or on -site transplanted) shall have a minimum caliper size of two and one -half (2' /z ) inches. All trees to be preserved shall be protected by construction fencing placed outside of the critical root zone prior to the start of any construction and shall be maintained throughout the entire construction period. 4. Street Trees: Street trees shall be required along all public streets. These trees shall be located in the tree lawn and shall be spaced a minimum of thirty (30) 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 the development. All trees shall be a minimum of two and one -half (2 ' /z) inches in caliper at installation. 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 or signage, subject to staff approval. 5. Hedges: A hedgerow planting shall be required in front of all residential units in the development. This hedgerow shall be located on the residential property and run parallel to the front property line of each lot containing a single - family home or townhome building. Details on hedgerow plantings shall be provided at the time of final development plan. 6. Fences: All fencing in the Tartan Ridge PUD shall conform to the requirements of the City of Dublin Zoning Code unless otherwise set forth in the standards for a particular subarea. H. Graphics and Signage Commitments: 1. Residential: At the time of the submission of its initial final development plan to the Planning Commission for any residential development within Tartan Ridge, the developer shall present the Planning Commission with a graphics and signage plan for its review, which may include street signs. This plan, and any future amendments thereto, shall serve as the uniform graphics and signage plan for the entire PUD both for the initial phase of residential development on the site and any phase of residential development occurring thereafter. Once the graphics and signage plan is approved as a part of the initial final development plan, its terms shall apply to all residential graphics and signage within the PUD. 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. 31 V. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Homeowners' Association All residential property owners located within the Tartan Ridge PUD shall be required to join and maintain membership in a forced and funded homeowners' association, which will be formed prior to any lots being sold. Homeowners' association responsibilities shall be detailed within Declarations of Covenants and Restrictions that shall be duly recorded in the office of the Union County Recorder. These Declarations of Covenants and Restrictions shall run with the land and shall include a requirement that the homeowners' association shall be responsible for maintenance of parks and greens within the development as set forth in this text. J. Model Homes: Homes may be used as model homes in each subarea 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 the project and the construction of homes therein, subject to City of Dublin Zoning Code Section 153.098. 32 VI. SUB -AREA A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS VI. SUBAREA A �r A. Description: Subarea A shall be located in the northern portion of the site, ll_ to the south of and adjacent to Brock Road. It shall consist of approximately 94.87 acres. This subarea is to contain most of the larger lots in the development and is intended to accommodate sizable homes with generous yards. Street trees along the scenic roadways in this Subarea are proposed be L planted in a more informal setting to compliment the open space system. B. Permitted Uses; Lot Types: 1. Permitted uses shall include single - family detached homes and fire station. i 1 2. Permitted lot types: a. Estate Lots b. Manor Lots c. Park Lots d. Court Lots C. Number of Units: The maximum number of dwelling units in Subarea A shall be one hundred three (103). Of this total, the minimum numbers of each residential lot/unit type shall be developed: Estate Lots: 8 units Manor Lots: 56 units Park Lots: 8 units Court Lots: no minimum D. Lot Dimensions; Setbacks; Garage Types: The following standards shall apply to each permitted residential lot type in Subarea A: 1. Estate Lots: Estate Lots are to be the largest in the development and are capable of accommodating significant square footages and sizable yards. These lots are subject to the following standards: a. Lot width: Minimum of one hundred (110) feet at the building line b• Lot Depth: Minimum of one hundred forty (140) feet c. Front yard setback: Minimum of twenty (20) feet and maximum of thirty -five (35) feet from the right -of -way. Due to the fact that Lot Numbers 24, 25, 26, 213, 214, 225, and 226 (as numbered on the preliminary plat) have frontage on heavy road curvatures, these lots shall not be required to comply with the front yard setback requirements that are otherwise applicable. The fronts of homes on these lots shall instead be required to be constructed within the build -to zone that is illustrated on the attached preliminary plat. d. No Build /No- Disturb Zone: Minimum of fifteen (15) feet, maximum of twenty -five (25) feet e. Rear Yard Setback: Minimum of twenty -five (25) feet f. Side Yard Setback: Minimum of seven (7) feet g. Lot Coverage: The maximum lot coverage shall be forty -five percent (45 %) h. Permitted garages (see Section V(E)(6) for definitions of each garage type): i. Street loaded /side oriented ii. Street loaded /accessory front oriented iii. Street loaded /court oriented iv. Street loaded /rear located 2. Manor Lots: Manor Lots are to be slightly smaller in size when compared to Estate Lots but are still able to accommodate large homes and yards. These lots are subject to the following standards: 33 VI. SUB -AREA A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS a. Lot width: Minimum of ninety -five (95) feet at the building line b. Lot Depth: Minimum of one hundred thirty -five (135) feet c. Front yard setback: Minimum of twenty (20) feet and maximum of thirty -five (35) feet from the right -of -way. Due to the fact that Lot Numbers 213, 214, 225, and 226 (as numbered on the preliminary plat) have frontage on heavy road curvatures, these lots shall not be required to comply with the front yard setback requirements that are otherwise applicable, The fronts of homes on these lots shall instead be required to be constructed within the build -to zone that is illustrated on the attached preliminary plat. d. No Build /No- Disturb Zone: Minimum of fifteen (15) feet, maximum of twenty -five (25) feet e. Rear Yard Setback: Minimum of twenty -five (25) feet f. Side Yard Setback: Minimum of seven (7) feet g. Lot Coverage: The maximum lot coverage shall be forty -five percent (45 %) h. Permitted garages (see Section V(E)(6) for definitions of each garage type): i. Street loaded /side oriented ii. Street loaded /accessory front oriented iii. Street loaded /court oriented iv. Street loaded /rear located 3. Park Lots: Park Lots are to include generous building areas and a slight reduction in lot size when compared to Estate Lots and Manor Lots, but will still retain a suburban character. These lots are subject to the following standards: a. Lot width: Minimum of eighty -five (85) feet but less than ninety -five (95) feet at the building line b. Lot Depth: Minimum of one hundred twenty -five (125) feet c. Front yard setback: Minimum of thirteen (13) feet and maximum of twenty -five (25) feet from the right -of -way. Due to the fact that Lot Numbers 213, 214, 225, and 226 (as numbered on the preliminary plat) have frontage on heavy road curvatures, these lots shall not be required to comply with the front yard setback requirements that are otherwise applicable. The fronts of homes on these lots shall instead be required to be constructed within the build -to zone that is illustrated on the attached preliminary plat. d. No Build /No- Disturb Zone: Minimum of fifteen (15) feet, maximum of twenty -five (25) feet e. Rear Yard Setback: Minimum of twenty -five (25) feet, without accessory garage loaded from a public a street, in which case there shall be a minimum rear yard setback of fifteen (15) feet if there is an attached or detached garage on the rear of the lot that is loaded from a public street f. Side Yard Setback: Minimum of seven (7) feet g. Lot Coverage: The maximum lot coverage shall be fifty percent (50 %) h. Permitted garages (see Section V(E)(6) for definitions of each garage type): i. Street loaded /side oriented ii. Street loaded /accessory front oriented iii. Street loaded /court oriented iv. Street loaded /rear located 4. Court Lots: Court Lots are clustered near open spaces and shall have reduced setback requirements that, just like Cottage Lots, are intended to create a compact, village -like feel. Court Lots differ from Cottage Lots due to their smaller dimensions and restrictions on the types of allowable garages. These lots are subject to the following standards: Lot width: Minimum of fifty -five (55) feet at the building line Lot Depth: Minimum of one hundred twenty (120) feet Front yard setback: Minimum of thirteen (13) feet and maximum of twenty (20) feet from the right -of -way Rear Yard Setback: Minimum of twenty -five (25) feet, except that there shall be a minimum rear yard setback of fifteen (15) feet if there is an attached or detached garage on the rear of the lot 34 VI. SUB -AREA A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS that is loaded from a public street No Build /No- Disturb Zone: Minimum of fifteen (15) feet, maximum of twenty -five (25) feet Side Yard Setback: Minimum of six (6) feet Lot Coverage: The maximum lot coverage shall be seventy percent (70 %) Permitted garages (see Section V(E)(6)for definitions of each garage type): i. Street loaded /side oriented ii. Street loaded /court oriented iii. Street loaded /rear located E. Hyland Croy, McKitrick and Brock Road Setbacks: The minimum building and pavement setback from the right -of- way along Hyland Croy, McKitrick and Brock Road shall be two hundred (200) feet. F. Fire Station: In recognition of the city's need to provide fire protection to the growing northwest area of Dublin, the developer desires to dedicate property to the City of Dublin within the Tartan Ridge PUD for such a use. A fire station shall be permitted within Subarea A and, if constructed, shall be located north of the elementary school site with frontage on Hyland -Croy Road. Should a fire station not be developed in this portion of Subarea A, then no other uses shall be permitted thereon and this property shall remain as open space or parkland. Regardless of the use found thereon, this portion of Subarea A shall be included in the open space calculation for the Tartan Ridge PUD. The development standards that are applicable to the fire station, such as acreage, setbacks, lot coverage, and related concerns, shall be in accordance with that which is approved as a part of the final development plan for such a use. The fire station shall be developed with architecture that is complimentary to the architecture that is found within the Tartan Ridge PUD. 35 VII. SUB -AREA B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS VII. SUBAREA B A. Description: Subarea B shall be located in the east - central portion of the site, to the west of and adjacent to Jerome Road. It shall consist of approximately 9.24 acres. This subarea is to contain only Village Lots. B. Permitted Uses; Lot Types: I 1. Permitted uses shall include single - family detached homes. 2. Permitted lot types: a. Village Lots C. Number of Units: The maximum number of dwelling units in Subarea B shall be twenty (20). 1� 1 D. Lot Dimensions; Setbacks; Garage Types: The following standards shall apply to each permitted lot type in Subarea B: 1. Village Lots: Village Lots are subject to all of the same standards as Park Lots, except that on Village Lots front - facing garages are permitted. These lots are subject to the following standards: Lot width: Minimum of eighty -five (85) feet but less than ninety -five (95) feet at the building line Lot Depth: Minimum of one hundred twenty -five (125) feet Front yard setback: Minimum of thirteen (13) feet and maximum of twenty -five (25) feet from the right -of -way Rear Yard Setback: Minimum of twenty -five (25) feet, except that there shall be a minimum rear yard setback of fifteen (15) feet if there is an attached or detached garage on the rear of the lot that is loaded from a public street Side Yard Setback: Minimum of seven (7) feet Lot Coverage: The maximum lot coverage shall be fifty percent (50 %) Permitted garages (see Section V(E)(6) for definitions of each garage type): i. Street loaded /front oriented ii. Street loaded /accessory front oriented iii. Street loaded /side oriented iv. Street loaded /court oriented v. Street loaded /rear located E. Jerome Road Setback: The minimum building and pavement setback from the right -of -way along Jerome Road shall be two hundred (200) feet. 36 VI11. SUBAREA C VIII. SUB -AREA C DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Description: Subarea C shall be located in the south - central portion of the site, just to the north of McKitrick Road. It shall consist of approximately 42.18 acres. This subarea is to contain intermediately -sized lots clustered around expansive areas of open space. Street trees along the scenic roadways in this Subarea are proposed be planted in a more informal setting to compliment the open space system. B. Permitted Uses; Lot Types: 1. Permitted uses shall include single- family detached homes. 2. Permitted lot types: a. Village Lots b. Cottage Lots c. Court Lots i i i i I i - - - -J I ' 4 I I � . I I C. Number of Units: The maximum number of dwelling units in Subarea C shall be fifty -two (52). Of this total, the following minimum numbers of each lot/unit type shall be developed: Village Lots: 5 units Cottage Lots: 6 units Court Lots: 35 units D. Lot Dimensions; Setbacks; Garage Types: The following standards shall apply to each permitted lot type in Subarea C: 1. Village Lots: Village Lots are subject to all of the same standards as Park Lots, except that on Village Lots front- facing garages are permitted. These lots are subject to the following standards: a. Lot width: Minimum of eighty -five (85) feet but less than ninety -five (95) feet at the building line b. Lot Depth: Minimum of one hundred twenty -five (125) feet c. Front yard setback: Minimum of thirteen (13) feet and maximum of twenty -five (25) feet from the right -of -way d. Rear Yard Setback: Minimum of twenty -five (25) feet, except that there shall be a minimum rear yard setback of fifteen (15) feet if there is an attached or detached garage on the rear of the lot that is loaded from a public street e. Side Yard Setback: Minimum of seven (7) feet f. No Build /No- Disturb Zone: Minimum of fifteen (15) feet, maximum of twenty -five (25) feet g. Lot Coverage: The maximum lot coverage shall be fifty percent (50 %) h. Permitted garages (see Section V(E)(6) for definitions of each garage type): i. Street loaded /front oriented ii. Street loaded /accessory front oriented iii. Street loaded /side oriented iv: Street loaded /court oriented v. Street loaded /rear located 2. Cottage Lots: Cottage Lots are clustered and shall have reduced setback requirements in order to create a compact, village -like feel. These lots are subject to the following standards: a. Lot width: Minimum of seventy -five (75) feet but less than eighty -five (85)feet at the building 37 VIII. SUB -AREA C GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS line b. Lot Depth: Minimum of one hundred twenty (120) feet c. Front yard setback: Minimum of thirteen (13) feet and maximum of twenty (20) feet from the right -of -way d. Rear Yard Setback: Minimum of twenty -five (25) feet, except that there shall be a minimum rear yard setback of fifteen (15) feet if there is an attached or detached garage on the rear of the lot that is loaded from a public street e. Side Yard Setback: Minimum of six (6) feet f. No Build /No- Disturb Zone: Minimum of fifteen (15) feet, maximum of twenty -five (25) feet g. Lot Coverage: The maximum lot coverage shall be fifty percent (50 %) h. Permitted garages (see Section V(E)(6) for definitions of each garage type): i. Street loaded /front oriented ii. Street loaded /side oriented iii. Street loaded /court oriented iv. Street loaded /rear located v. Street loaded /accessory front oriented 3. Court Lots: Court Lots are clustered near open spaces and shall have reduced setback requirements that, just like Cottage Lots, are intended to create a compact, village -like feel. Court Lots differ from Cottage Lots due to their smaller dimensions and restrictions on the types of allowable garages. These lots are subject to the following standards: a. Lot width: Minimum of fifty -five (55) feet at the building Line b. Lot Depth: Minimum of one hundred twenty (120) feet c. Front yard setback: Minimum of thirteen (13) feet and maximum of twenty (20) feet from the right - of -way d. Rear Yard Setback: Minimum of twenty -five (25) feet, except that there shall be a minimum rear yard setback of fifteen (15) feet if there is an attached or detached garage on the rear of the lot that is loaded from a public street e. Side Yard Setback: Minimum of six (6) feet f. No Build /No- Disturb Zone: Minimum of fifteen (15) feet, maximum of twenty -five (25) feet g. Lot Coverage: The maximum lot coverage shall be seventy percent (70 %) h. Permitted garages (see Section V(E)(6)for definitions of each garage type): i. Street loaded /front oriented ii. Street loaded /court oriented iii. Street loaded /rear located iv. Street loaded /side oriented E. McKitrick Road and Brock Road Setbacks: The minimum building and pavement setbacks from the rights -of -way along McKitrick Road and Brock Road shall be two hundred (200) feet. 38 IX. SUB -AREA D -1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IX. SUBAREA D -1 A. Description: Subarea D -1 shall be located in the central portion of the site and shall be a transitional area between neighborhood commercial and townhome uses to the west and larger -lot development to the east. It shall consist of approximately 16.74 acres. This subarea is to contain intermediately - sized single - family homes adjacent to the elementary school site to the west as well as single - family homes with garage access from private alleys to the rear. Street trees along the scenic roadways in this Subarea are proposed be planted in a more informal setting to compliment the open space system. B. Permitted Uses; Lot Types: 1. Permitted uses shall include single - family detached homes 2. Permitted lot types: Cottage Lots Court Lots Garden Lots y f f Ll i J i I 4 J I i C. Number of Units: Number of Units: The maximum number of dwelling units in Subarea D -1 shall be forty -seven (47). Of this total, the following minimum numbers of each lot/unit type shall be developed: Cottage Lots: 9 units Court Lots: 5 units Garden Lots: 21 units D. Lot Dimensions; Setbacks; Garage Types: The following standards shall apply to each permitted lot type in Subarea D -1: 1. Cottage Lots: Cottage Lots are clustered and shall have reduced setback requirements in order to create a compact, village -like feel. These lots are subject to the following standards: a. Lot width: Minimum of seventy -five (75) feet but less than eighty -five (85) feet at the building line b. Lot Depth: Minimum of one hundred twenty (120) feet c. Front yard setback: Minimum of thirteen (13) feet and maximum of twenty (20) feet from the right -of -way d. Rear Yard Setback: Minimum of twenty -five (25) feet, except that there shall be a minimum rear yard setback of fifteen (15) feet if there is an attached or detached garage on the rear of the lot that is loaded from a public street e. Side Yard Setback: Minimum of six (6) feet f. No Build /No- Disturb Zone: Minimum of fifteen (15) feet, maximum of twenty -five (25) feet g. Lot Coverage: The maximum lot coverage shall be fifty percent (50 %) h. Permitted garages (see Section V(E)(6) for definitions of each garage type): i. Street loaded /front oriented ii. Street loaded /side oriented iii. Street loaded /court oriented iv. Street loaded /rear located v. Street loaded /accessory front oriented 2. Court Lots: Court Lots are clustered near open spaces and shall have reduced setback requirements that, just like Cottage Lots, are intended to create a compact, village -like feel. Court Lots differ from Cottage Lots due to their smaller dimensions and restrictions on the types of allowable garages. These lots are subject to the following standards: 39 IX. SUB -AREA D -1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS a. Lot width: Minimum of fifty -five (55) feet at the building line b. Lot Depth: Minimum of one hundred twenty (120) feet c. Front yard setback: Minimum of thirteen (13) feet and maximum of twenty (20) feet from the right -of -way d. Rear Yard Setback: Minimum of twenty -five (25) feet, except that there shall be a minimum rear yard setback of fifteen (15) feet if there is an attached or detached garage on the rear of the lot that is loaded from a public street e. Side Yard Setback: Minimum of six (6) feet f. No Build /No- Disturb Zone: Minimum of fifteen (15) feet, maximum of twenty -five (25) feet g. Lot Coverage: The maximum lot coverage shall be seventy percent (70 %) h. Permitted garages (see Section V(E)(6)for definitions of each garage type): i. Street loaded /front oriented ii. Street loaded /court oriented iii. Street loaded /rear located iv. Street loaded /side oriented 3. Garden Lots: Garden Lots are reminiscent of traditional neighborhood development and shall feature rear - oriented garages that are loaded from private alleys to the rear. Garden Lots shall allow for a variety of lot widths but shall in all cases be subject to reduced setback requirements. These lots are subject to the following standards: a. Lot width: Minimum of forty -five (45) feet but less than seventy -five (75) feet at the building line b. Lot Depth: Minimum of one hundred ten (1 10) feet c. Front yard setback: Minimum of thirteen (13) feet and maximum of twenty (20) feet from the right -of -way d. Rear Yard Setback: Minimum of twelve (12) feet e. Side Yard Setback: Minimum of six (6) feet f. Lot Coverage: The maximum lot coverage shall be seventy percent (70 %) g. Permitted garages: (see Section V(E)(6) for definitions of each garage type: 1. Alley loaded /rear oriented i. Fences: Decorative fencing or hedges with a maximum height of six (6) feet shall be permitted within the buildable area of each Garden Lot to enclose the courtyard to the rear of the home. Such fences shall be of a color that is complimentary to the architecture of the home. A palette of the allowable fencing to be used in these locations shall be provided for review and approval by the Planning Commission at the time of any final development plan that includes Garden Lots. 40 X. SUBAREA D -2 X. SUB -AREA D -2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS r A. Description: Subarea D -2 shall be located in the central portion of the site ' to the south of Subarea A and to the east of the elementary school site. It i J shall consist of approximately 7.14 acres. This subarea is intended to allow f for some flexibility in the types of dwellings to be developed based on future market data. f I B. Permitted Uses; Lot Types: , - - - -� EI 1. Permitted uses shall include single - family detached homes. l 2. Permitted lot types: This subarea shall be developed under one of - the following schemes, as determined at the time of final development — — _ plan: a. All lots shall be developed as Garden Lots; or 0 b. Lots shall be developed with any combination of Cottage Lots, Park Lots, and Village Lots; in this case, no Garden Lots shall be permitted C. Number of Units: Number of Units: The maximum number of dwelling units in Subarea D -2 shall be twenty -four (24). D. Lot Dimensions; Setbacks; Garage Types: The following standards shall apply to each permitted lot type in Subarea D -2: 1. Garden Lots: Garden Lots are reminiscent of traditional neighborhood development and shall feature rear - oriented garages that are loaded from private alleys to the rear, Garden Lots shall allow for a variety of lot widths but shall in all cases be subject to reduced setback requirements. These lots shall be subject to the following standards: a. Lot width: Minimum of forty -five (45) feet but less than seventy -five (75) feet at the building line b. Lot Depth: Minimum of one hundred ten (110) feet c. Front yard setback: Minimum of thirteen (13) feet and maximum of twenty (20) feet from the right -of -way. Due to the fact that Lot Numbers 162 -168 (as numbered on the preliminary plat) have frontage on heavy road curvatures, these lots shall not be required to comply with the front yard setback requirements that are otherwise applicable. The fronts of homes on these lots shall instead be required to be constructed within the build -to zone that is illustrated on the attached preliminary plat. d. Rear Yard Setback: Minimum of twelve (12) feet h. Side Yard Setback: Minimum of six (6) feet i. Lot Coverage: The maximum lot coverage shall be seventy percent (70 %) j. Permitted garages (see Section V(E)(6)for definitions of each garage type): i. Alley loaded /rear oriented k. Fences: Decorative fencing or hedges with a maximum height of six (6) feet shall be permitted within the buildable area of each Garden Lot to enclose the courtyard to the rear of the home. Such fences shall be of a color that is complimentary to the architecture of the home. A palette of the allowable fencing to be used in these locations shall be provided for review and approval by the Planning Commission at the time of any final development plan that includes Garden Lots. 2. Park Lots: Park Lots are to include generous building areas and a slight reduction in lot size when compared to Estate Lots and Manor Lots, but will still retain a suburban character. These lots are subject to the following standards: 41 X. SUB -AREA D -2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS a. Lot width: Minimum of eighty -five (85) feet but less than ninety -five (95) feet at the building line b. Lot Depth: Minimum of one hundred twenty -five (125) feet c. Front yard setback: Minimum of thirteen (13) feet and maximum of twenty -five (25) feet from the right -of -way. Due to the fact that Lot Numbers 162 -168 as numbered on the preliminary plat) have frontage on heavy road curvatures, these lots shall not be required to comply with the front yard setback requirements that are otherwise applicable. The fronts of homes on these lots shall instead be required to be constructed within the build -to zone that is illustrated on the attached preliminary plat. d. Rear Yard Setback: Minimum of twenty -five (25) feet, except that there shall be a minimum rear yard setback of fifteen (15) feet if there is an attached or detached garage on the rear of the lot that is loaded from a public street e. Side Yard Setback: Minimum of seven (7) feet f. No Build /No- Disturb Zone: Minimum of fifteen (15) feet, maximum of twenty -five (25) feet g. Lot Coverage: The maximum lot coverage shall be fifty percent (50 %) h. Permitted garages (see Section V(E)(6) for definitions of each garage type): i. Street loaded /side oriented ii. Street loaded /accessory front oriented iii. Street loaded /court oriented iv. Street loaded /rear located 3. Village Lots: Village Lots are subject to all of the same standards as Park Lots, except that on Village Lots front- facing garages are permitted. These lots are subject to the following standards: a. Lot width: Minimum of eighty -five (85) feet but less than ninety -five (95) feet at the building line b. Lot Depth: Minimum of one hundred twenty -five (125) feet c. Front yard setback: Minimum of thirteen (13) feet and maximum of twenty -five (25) feet from the right -of -way. Due to the fact that Lot Numbers 162 -168 as numbered on the preliminary plat) have frontage on heavy road curvatures, these lots shall not be required to comply with the front yard setback requirements that are otherwise applicable. The fronts of homes on these lots shall instead be required to be constructed within the build -to zone that is illustrated on the attached preliminary plat. d. Rear Yard Setback: Minimum of twenty -five (25) feet, except that there shall be a minimum rear yard setback of fifteen (15) feet if there is an attached or detached garage on the rear of the lot that is loaded from a public street e. Side Yard Setback: Minimum of seven (7) feet f. No Build /No- Disturb Zone: Minimum of fifteen (15) feet, maximum of twenty -five (25) feet g. Lot Coverage: The maximum lot coverage shall be fifty percent (50 %) g. Permitted garages (see Section V(E)(6) for definitions of each garage type): i. Street loaded /front oriented ii. Street loaded /accessory front oriented iii. Street loaded /side oriented iv. Street loaded /court oriented v. Street loaded /rear located 4. Cottage Lots: Cottage Lots are clustered and shall have reduced setback requirements in order to create a compact, village -like feel. These lots are subject to the following standards: a. Lot width: Minimum of seventy -five (75) feet but less than eighty -five (85) feet at the building line b. Lot Depth: Minimum of one hundred twenty (120) feet c. Front yard setback: Minimum of thirteen (13) feet and maximum of twenty (20) feet from the right -of -way. Due to the fact that Lot Numbers 162 -168 as numbered on the preliminary plat) have frontage on heavy road curvatures, these lots shall not be required to comply with the front yard setback requirements that are otherwise applicable. The fronts of homes on these lots shall 42 X. SUB -AREA D -2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS instead be required to be constructed within the build -to zone that is illustrated on the attached preliminary plat. Rear Yard Setback: Minimum of twenty -five (25) feet, except that there shall be a minimum rear yard setback of fifteen (15) feet if there is an attached or detached garage on the rear of the lot that is loaded from a public street Side Yard Setback: Minimum of six (6) feet No Build/NO- Disturb Zone: Minimum of fifteen (15) feet, maximum of twenty -five (25) feet Lot Coverage: The maximum lot coverage shall be fifty percent (50 %) Permitted garages (see Section V(E)(6) for definitions of each garage type): i. Street loaded /front oriented ii. Street loaded /side oriented iii. Street loaded /court oriented v. Street loaded /rear located vi. Street loaded /accessory front loaded 43 XI. SUB -AREA E DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS XI. SUBAREA E r - - -- - , A. Description: Subarea E shall be located in the western portion of the site and to the north of and adjacent to the neighborhood commercial area of the development. It shall consist of approximately 2.42 acres. This subarea is to contain attached townhomes. J F B. Permitted Uses; Lot Types: 1. Permitted uses shall include attached townhomes for sale. 2. Permitted lot types: - - - - -- 1 a. Townhomes C. Number of Units: Number of Units: The maximum number of dwelling units in Subarea E shall be twenty-four (24). L__ — _L_ . _ ' D. Lot Dimensions;. Setbacks; Garage Types: The following standards shall apply to each permitted lot type in Subarea D -2: 1. Townhomes: Townhomes shall consist of attached residential products that may be sold as condominiums or fee simple lots. Each townhome building shall have a minimum of four (4) individual units. These lots shall be subject to the following standards: a. Lot width: Fee simple lots containing townhomes shall have a minimum width at the building line of twenty (20) feet b. Front yard setback: Minimum of six (6) feet and maximum of fifteen (15) feet from the right -of- way c. Rear Yard Setback: Minimum of twelve (12) feet d. Side Yard Setback: There shall be no minimum side yard setback for individual townhome units. There shall be a minimum separation between townhome buildings of twenty (20) feet. e. Permitted garages (see Section V(E)(6) for definitions of each garage type): i. Alley loaded /rear oriented f. Fences: A six (6) foot high privacy fence shall be permitted to separate the rear yards of townhome units. Such fences shall be permitted along shared property lines in the event that the townhomes are sold as fee simple units. E. Streets: All streets running along the front of townhomes in this subarea shall be public and shall be constructed in accordance with the General Development Standards portion of this text. All other streets shall be private and shall have a minimum of twenty -two (22) feet of pavement measured back -of -curb to back -of -curb. F. Alleys: Private alleys shall be found to the rear of all townhome units. Pavement width for these alleys shall be a minimum of sixteen (16) feet, Parking shall not be permitted on alleys. Waste and refuse collection shall occur in alleys. G. Off - street parking: All townhome units shall be required to have a minimum of two (2) off - street parking spaces. 44 XII. SUBAREA F XII. SUB -AREA F DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Description: Subarea F shall be located on the extreme southwestern portion of the site, northeast of and adjacent to the intersection of McKitrick Road and Hyland -Croy Road. This subarea shall consist of approximately 16.94 acres and shall permit the development of a neighborhood -scale retail/ commercial center. B. Introduction: The commercial component of the Tartan Ridge PUD will provide easy access to neighborhood retail and other commercial uses with the intent to accommodate the everyday needs of nearby residents. Rather than traveling to dense retail nodes in other parts of the city, the neighborhood commercial area of Tartan Ridge will allow commuters to quickly take care of daily tasks on the way home from work and will encourage visitors to walk or ride their bikes to shop and run errands. The high - quality architecture in this subarea will compliment the rest of the development while serving to create its own unique sense of place. The site planning concept for this subarea meets the objectives of providing convenient and entertaining uses for the area and scaling the development appropriately in the context of surrounding communities. C. Permitted Uses and Development Standards: I i I I I s� . 1 1. Permitted Uses: The uses in Subarea F are intended to serve Tartan Ridge and other local neighborhoods with conveniently located business establishments that are appropriately scaled to provide needed goods and services to the area. The following permitted uses shall be allowed in Subarea F: a. The permitted uses listed in City of Dublin Code Section 153.026, Suburban Office and Institutional District, Section 153.027, Neighborhood Commercial District, and Section 153.028, Community Commercial District, except as provided in Section (C)(2) below. b. Day care with exterior play area c. Dry cleaning services d. Post offices e. Dwelling units located on the second floor of a structure 2. Prohibited Uses: The following uses from City of Dublin Code Sections 153.026, 153.027, and 153.028 shall be prohibited in Subarea F: 1. Department stores 2. Limited price variety stores 3. News dealers and news stands 4. Check cashing 5. Electrical repair stores 6. Watch, clock, and jewelry repair as a primary business 7. Reupholster and furniture repair as a primary business 8. Miscellaneous repair shops and related services as a primary business 9. Private employment 10. Self- service laundries 11. Motor vehicle, aircraft, and marine dealers 12. Tire, battery, and accessory dealers 13. Hotels, motels, and rooming and boarding houses 14. Lumber and other materials dealers 15. Heating and plumbing equipment dealers 45 XII. SUB -AREA F DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 16. Farm equipment sales and service 17. Sexually oriented business establishments 3. Conditional uses: The following conditional uses shall be allowed in Subarea F, provided that they are approved in accordance with City of Dublin Code Section 153.236: a. Drive -thru services in association with a permitted use in Subarea F. A drive thru in association with an eating or drinking establishment shall be prohibited, with the following exception: i. A drive thru may be allowed as a conditional use in association with a business whose primary concern is the sale of coffee or similar products with limited offerings of pastries and like food items. Nothing herein shall be read to permit a drive thru in association with an establishment in which the sale of donuts, pastries, or other food items constitutes a significant portion of its business. b. Outdoor service facilities, including outdoor dining patios c. Gasoline service station, provided that no more than eight (8) fueling positions (e.g., four (4) double pumps) shall be permitted. In the event that a gasoline service station use is allowed as a conditional use, it shall be placed in the general location shown on the preliminary development plan. 4. 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. D. Density: A maximum of sixty -eight thousand five hundred (68,500) square feet of retail and /or office space shall be permitted within Subarea F, to be distributed as set forth in the final development plan(s) for this subarea. Each single retail user within Subarea F shall have less than twenty- thousand (20,000) square feet of floor space. Outdoor dining patios and pedestrian areas shall be encouraged throughout Subarea F and may be permitted in addition to the allowable aggregate building area in this subarea. E. Building Heights: The maximum height of all buildings in this subarea shall be forty (40) feet as measured per the City of Dublin Code. Towers and entry features that are part of primary buildings shall have a maximum height of fifty - eight (58) feet. F. Parking and Loading: 1. Unless otherwise stated herein or otherwise depicted on the preliminary development plan, all parking and loading shall be regulated by Dublin Code Section 153.200 et seq. 2. Parking spaces: Based on the nature of this commercial area and the formal arrangement of the buildings, the parking and service areas are to be shared between uses and separate buildings (through the use of cross - easements, if necessary). As such, strict compliance to the Dublin Zoning Code parking requirements by use is not required. Irrespective of use, off - street parking shall be provided at a minimum rate of four and a half (4.5) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet of development in this subarea. Interior lot lines shall not be required between each parking area. 3. In the event that the Planning Commission approves a conditional use request for a drive -thru, it may, but is not required to, approve a reduction in the stacking rates provided by the Dublin Zoning Code. Drive -thru stacking may be reduced to the following minimum rates per drive thru lane should the Planning Commission approve a drive -thru for these specified uses: Bank — 6; Pharmacy — 4; Dry Cleaner -2; ATM — 2; Other Uses —6. 4. Pedestrian walkways shall be provided as approved as a part of the Final Development Plan to provide access between buildings in Subarea F. 46 X11. SUB -AREA F DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 5. Bicycle Parking: Bicycle parking shall be provided in Subarea F at a rate that is determined by multiplying the required minimum number of automobile parking spaces in this subarea by five percent (5 %). The developer of Subarea F shall provide this parking using bikeracks but may be permitted to utilize other bicycle parking devices if approved by the Planning Commission at the time of Final Development Plan. G. Circulation: 1. Vehicular Access: The east -west road running from Hyland -Croy Road through this subarea and the north -south road running from McKitrick Road to this subarea shall be public roads. All other streets and vehicular use areas in this subarea shall be private. 2. Public Streets: Public streets in this subarea shall have a minimum right -of -way width of fifty (50) feet. Public streets that accommodate parking on two sides shall be permitted if they meet applicable engineering standards and are requested and approved at the time of final development plan. Pavement width shall be a minimum of twenty -eight (28) feet measured back of curb to back of curb. Boulevards shall have a minimum right -of -way of seventy (70) feet, with a minimum pavement width on each side of the median of sixteen (16) feet measured back of curb to back of curb. Public streets shall be constructed in accordance with the City of Dublin Code and the standards established by the City of Dublin Engineer. 3. Private Streets: Private streets and drive aisles with no parking shall have a minimum width of twenty (20) feet; private streets and drive aisles with parking shall have a minimum width of twenty -two (22) feet. One - way private streets and drive aisles (if any) with or without parking shall have a minimum width of thirteen (13) feet. 4. Sidewalks; bike path; leisure trails: A final system of sidewalks, bike paths, and leisure trails shall be provided as approved in the final development plan for this subarea. Sidewalks shall be constructed of concrete and shall be a minimum of four (4) feet in width. Bike paths shall be constructed of asphalt and shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet in width. Leisure trails shall be constructed of a pervious surface and shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet in width. H. Setback Requirements: 1. Hyland -Croy Road: Along Hyland -Croy Road, the minimum parking setback shall be one hundred ten (110) feet and the minimum building setback shall be one hundred eighty (180) feet from the future proposed right -of -way, which extends sixty (60) feet from the centerline. 2. McKitrick Road: Along McKitrick Road, the minimum parking setback shall be one hundred ten (110) feet and the minimum building setback shall be two hundred (200) feet from the future proposed right -of -way, which extends forty (40) feet from the centerline. 3. Other Rights -of -Way: Along all other public rights -of -way, the minimum pavement setback shall be zero (0) feet from the right -of -way and the minimum building setback shall be eight (8) feet from the right -of -way. 4. Interior: Interior lot lines shall have a zero (0) setback for parking and buildings. I. Landscaping: A landscaping plan for this subarea shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as a part of the Final Development Plan for each phase of development. Landscaping shall be in conformance with that which is approved as a part of the Final Development Plan. Street trees along the scenic roadways in this Subarea are proposed be planted in a more informal setting to compliment the open space system. J. Lighting: 1. A lighting plan shall be provided for review by the Planning Commission at the time of Final Development Plan. Lighting shall be in conformance with the plan that is approved as a part of the Final Development Plan for each phase of development. Lighting in Subarea F shall be provided in a manner that employs 47 XII. SUB -AREA F DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS night sky preservation principles where reasonably practicable. The requirement to take into account night sky preservation principles shall include, without limitation, a commitment to generally conform with the recommendations and ideals of the International Dark Sky Association ( "IDSA "). The applicant shall work with staff during the final development plan review process to determine which of these recommendations and ideals are appropriate for use and implementation in this subarea. To the extent that any of the standards of this development text differ from any recommendation or standard of the IDSA, then the standards of this text shall govern. 2. External building lighting shall be cutoff type light fixtures, except that uplighting of buildings shall be permitted to accent architectural details or features. Cutoff type landscape lighting shall be permitted. 3. All parking, pedestrian, and other exterior lighting shall be cutoff fixtures (either pole or wall- mounted) and shall be of a coordinated type and style. Gooseneck fixtures shall be permitted. All light fixtures shall be decorative in nature and of a coordinating style to the architecture of this subarea. Fixture and pole specifications shall be included with the lighting plan that will be presented as a part of the Final Development Plan for each phase of development. 4. All light poles and standards shall be dark brown, black, or bronze metal. 5. Parking lot lighting shall be limited to eighteen (18) feet in height to the top of the fixture. Concrete bases of these light fixtures shall be decorative in design and painted to coordinate with the light pole. Concrete bases on parking lot light fixtures located in a paved area shall be at least thirty (30) inches in height, while the concrete bases on parking lot lighting fixtures in a lawn or landscaped area shall be no more than six (6) inches in height. 6. All lights shall be arranged to reflect light away from any street or adjacent property. 7. All building illumination shall come from concealed sources. 8. No colored lights shall be used to light the exterior of any building. K. Architecture: 1. Architectural Character: Development of Subarea F shall establish proper relationships between the buildings in this subarea and adjacent developments. The architecture within this subarea shall be traditional in nature; its vocabulary shall employ Classical, Colonial Revival, and Vernacular hybrids while evoking the character of small rural centers of commerce commonplace in the late 19th and early 20th century throughout the Midwest. The massing strategy for this subarea focuses around an "Original Town Center" with attached and connected massing that suggest a series of ownerships yet with a commonality of materials that builds upon the traditions of the referenced period. As development moves away from this "Original Town Center," massing becomes more permeable, suggesting an historical and thematic variation that will support the goal of supplementing the architectural diversity of the site. The attached Exhibit E -15 illustrates the architectural character of this subarea. 2. The basic building materials shall be brick, stone/synthetic stone, stucco /synthetic stucco, wood siding, engineered wood composite material (e.g., Hardiplank® or Smartside@ siding and trim), and EIFS (trim only), or any combination thereof. Exterior finish materials must be used to complete massing elements. All building fa4ades shall be treated as "front" fa4ades. 3. Architectural elements shall maintain traditional scale and massing. Pitched roofs and flat roofs that integrate strong cornice lines and parapets are encouraged. Pitched roofs and parapet walls that screen mechanical units must be consistent with the overall architectural theme. 4. Roofing materials shall be dimensional shingles, wood shakes or wood shingles, natural or synthetic slate, or metal standing seam. 5. The use of dormers, vertical vents, and other architectural treatments are encouraged 48 XII. SUB -AREA F DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 6. With the exception of enclosed service corridors, all buildings shall generally have a similar degree of exterior finish on all sides. Other than for necessary service areas, blank facades on the rear of any building shall not be permitted, but the articulation of such fa4ades with recesses, fenestration, fences, pilasters, etc. shall be encouraged. 7. The amount of fenestration should generally be balanced with the amount of solid fa4ade. L. Signage: 1. Unless otherwise set forth herein or approved as a part of a final development plan for this subarea, all signage shall comply with the City of Dublin Signage Code, Sections 153.150 though 153.164. 2. A signage and graphics plan with exhibits conforming to these guidelines shall be submitted to the Planning Commission as part of the Final Development Plan for each phase of development. All signage shall be in conformance with that which is approved as a part of the final development plan. 3. Building Signage: The following signage standards recognize the unique configuration of the buildings and parking within Subarea F and seek to promote effective means for the identification of uses to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Vehicular traffic will view the front facades of buildings in Subarea F from either Hyland -Croy Road or McKitrick Road but in many instances will be required to park behind these buildings. The ability to utilize wall signage on the front fa4ades of buildings will enable passing traffic to identify a particular use from Hyland -Croy Road and McKitrick Road, while the use of wall signage on the rear facades of these same buildings will allow traffic to identify tenants from parking areas after traveling to the rear of the building. a. One (1) wall sign shall be permitted on each tenant storefront that fronts onto a public street, private street or parking area (e.g. on the front of the building). A second wall sign shall be permitted on a second building fa4ades that fronts to a second public right of way (e.g., the building at the corner of Hyland -Croy Road and McKitrick Road is permitted a wall sign on each building facades facing those rights -of -way). Each tenant's wall sign plaque shall be two feet ten inches (2'10 ") in height and sixteen (16) feet in width so that the total area of each wall sign plaque is forty -five (45) square feet and consistent in size. An illustrative building wall plaque sign exhibit is attached to this text as Exhibit A -10. b. Due to the nature of the building configurations and parking locations relative to the building fronts, one (1) wall sign shall be permitted at each tenant's parking area (rear) entrance for purposes of identifying the tenant or user. Each tenant's rear wall sign plaque shall be two (2) feet in height and fifteen (15) feet in width so that the total area of each wall sign plaque is thirty (30) square feet and consistent in size. c. All wall signage shall be located on a standard wall plaque of a consistent size and profile and shall be constructed with high - density urethane plaques. d. A total of three (3) sign plaque colors shall be permitted. e. Text on the plaques shall be limited to white, black or gold lettering. f. All wall- mounted signs shall be externally illuminated using gooseneck light fixtures. 4. Ground Signage: a. One (1) ground monument sign identifying the commercial center shall be permitted along each public right -of -way on Hyland -Croy Road and McKitrick Road. b. A maximum graphic area of fifty (50) square feet per sign face shall be permitted on each ground sign in this subarea, with a limit of no more than two (2) faces per sign. 49 X11. SUB -AREA F DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS c. The maximum height of each ground sign shall be eight (8) feet above the top of the adjacent street curb. d. Each ground sign shall have a rectangular profile and shall have a masonry base that is harmonious to the masonry used on the buildings in this subarea. e. Ground signs shall be externally illuminated and shall only identify the commercial center. No tenant identification signage or graphics shall be permitted on these ground signs. d. The area of the sign base (if any) shall not exceed the area of its sign face. The base shall not be included in the overall area permitted for the sign face. 5. Signage for gasoline service station uses shall be permitted in accordance with the City of Dublin Code, except that ground signage for such a use shall be limited to thirty-five (35) square feet of area as measured per Code and shall display only the name of the business and pricing in accordance with applicable law. M. Phasing: As a part of the Final Development Plan for the initial phase of development in Subarea F, the developer shall be required to include plans for 32,500 square feet of building development including associated parking along either (a) the northeast corner of Hyland -Croy Road and McKitrick Road or (b) the east -west entry road off Hyland - Croy Road. The intention of this phasing plan is to provide an architectural edge into and/or along the retail subarea. Development proposals shall demonstrate conformance with this standard unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission. Different dates are permissible for the commencement of construction for individual buildings within the identified first phase; however, the developer agrees to use commercially reasonable efforts so that all principal structures in this first phase will be under construction no later than twenty -four (24) months from the issuance of an occupancy permit for any completed building within the first phase. Future phases shall be developed as dictated by market conditions. In the event that the construction of any building within Subarea F has not been commenced at such time as occupancy permits are issued for any dwelling units in Subarea E, then the developer shall seed and maintain the ground within Subarea F and shall erect a temporary six (6) foot high wooden privacy fence near the shared line between Subareas E and F behind all dwelling units. This fence shall remain in place until such time as the initial phase of development in Subarea F is complete but may be removed sooner if it interferes with the ability to develop any portion of Subarea F in accordance with an approved final development plan. N. Maintenance: All buildings, structures, fences, paved areas, landscaped areas and other improvements shall at all times be kept in good condition and repair and with a clean and orderly appearance. Landscaped areas shall be maintained with materials specified in the plan and in a healthy living state, mowed, pruned, watered and otherwise maintained as appropriate. There shall be provided, and kept in good working order, trash compactors and/or depositories at approved locations which shall be emptied prior to becoming full and a pest and rodent control program shall be provided if necessary. Tenants will be required to deposit trash only in said compactors or depositories and said properties shall be kept free of litter under all reasonable conditions and parking and paved areas shall be power swept where necessary. All signage shall be kept in good repair. Lighting, painting and associated materials on signage shall be kept in a continuously upgraded condition. When, and if, vacancies shall occur, said spaces shall be decoratively maintained free of litter, dirt, and left over and /or deteriorated signage so as to appear ready for re- rental and re- occupancy provided that nothing herein shall be construed as interfering with the right to make reasonable repairs or alterations to said premises. Edwards McKitrick Dev Text(3).doc (1/22/07) (alu) s0 Regional Context Map XIII. EXHIBITS E -1 5 y y.SfJ XIII. EXHIBITS Vicinity Map Pow.! Villa n I IlC If -1 , '?'T %n" ll� AN mv Thp Site J89.57 AC. Aerial Photograph XIII. EXHIBITS F -3 Existing Conditions Map XIII. EXHIBITS LEGEND TRIES BY SPECIES AkOCK FOdO _ TOTLL lxISIR1G IR[F )d'CALIVEX OR (iRfAIER "'IF 79 PA(1CKERNUTTICKORY d IlA1 1.FMUIT1W?A )R IAIII 'M' i) I!'rr.L fP M1LYIRANMF ) M111 RFMYMUITLSTEM 6 0 EXISTING TNE�6' -23 "CALDER BEECH Id AYkAVAYSImUCE 3N )3 Rf IC lI MId I: SIIM I IKIRWAY SGaIICI 1,11LII -1. B6 BIT PERNJT I'CKORY 3 OSAGCORANCC 8 ORN SPACE • )) OC1f,[(N3M1.V( xEUl Ii51IKE 1 BLACK LOCUST NW\TISTEIA 3 P EXISTING STRUCTURE '.1 SMIF 0[1XEUD,R s� ITN 0.1K MULP STEM 1 BEq MARE 9 tl[)JIkIU_X lAll lldlkM A PdO NY 31 57 AC, = RU TIER CMl[R' FFAN I / 7A RfDCFUAR I XLO IAULII -SI[IA 1 CAIILRY FEAR MUIkI Sifts 3 SCOTC TCNAN 4 .r . .� bbl .,� � ..MI.A�■ CAIALYA CIXRRY CNFM'l MUlll -\IExI 10TTOI.YXN10 J '.J 3 ]9 aA"�'' COITp.N000MUL1131EEA 2 SWA9 MAP.E 1SL EtIA IA) SUCM MARE MULTI STEM 6 , NRA60 AAFA5 EIM MEAT; -SEEM 13 `� '7 - � � • �� BFI► ]UN I Y(AM ROAD GRI fN ASH GRffN ASUMNEI -STEM 3 36 MCXI TRIfK XoRIB �!+ uN Kll.xn CUINm Ndwom iw.l NACKBEMY D rw IPY das 'VO -vyk LEGEND TRIES BY SPECIES TOTLL lxISIR1G IR[F )d'CALIVEX OR (iRfAIER "'IF 79 PA(1CKERNUTTICKORY d IlA1 1.FMUIT1W?A )R IAIII 'M' i) I!'rr.L fP M1LYIRANMF ) M111 RFMYMUITLSTEM 6 0 EXISTING TNE�6' -23 "CALDER BEECH Id AYkAVAYSImUCE 3N )3 Rf IC lI MId I: SIIM I IKIRWAY SGaIICI 1,11LII -1. B6 BIT PERNJT I'CKORY 3 OSAGCORANCC 8 ORN SPACE MACKLM", )) OC1f,[(N3M1.V( xEUl Ii51IKE 1 BLACK LOCUST NW\TISTEIA 3 NEI OAK NA EXISTING STRUCTURE '.1 SMIF 0[1XEUD,R IS 1 ITN 0.1K MULP STEM 1 BEq MARE 9 tl[)JIkIU_X lAll lldlkM A PdO NY 31 OVIRLYO IL(TY RU TIER CMl[R' FFAN I 10 RfDCFUAR I XLO IAULII -SI[IA 1 CAIILRY FEAR MUIkI Sifts 3 SCOTC TCNAN 4 , IWES CAIALYA CIXRRY CNFM'l MUlll -\IExI 10TTOI.YXN10 J '.J 3 ]9 SNAGBANi NKKUKY 40 VIAG94RK UK KURT MIX II 1 STEVEN fAA %! LLVFR MARE MUli1 SEEM 3' 3S COITp.N000MUL1131EEA 2 SWA9 MAP.E 1SL EtIA IA) SUCM MARE MULTI STEM 6 , NRA60 AAFA5 EIM MEAT; -SEEM 13 SWAMPWMIEDAK 2 (NCJ M1N WN MIT MUI it slf rA ]UN I Y(AM GRI fN ASH GRffN ASUMNEI -STEM 3 36 IVN MR 11 WAI NUT EALRU -STEM 3 �!+ uN Kll.xn CUINm Ndwom iw.l NACKBEMY 61 WXUE OAK 21 r IIACCHIREY MUIII -SIIM 9 1&I A I ILYi110EW 10 WU1TE WIIL PIN MULTFSTCM A IWWIII(RWMUI1451LIA IlfYdiYLOCIIST I 1 ML R OW \YRLOW M00-STEM fi FREES BY SIZE AND CONDITION TOTLL GOOD FM POOR p.�li' IlA1 w5 1tl1 f1 I!'rr.L fP dlA Tn sT w IB'DEA' 131 91 )3 11 AA'. Id0 B6 32 23 Ig1N MO, 191tl I:IY.) NJ IK E -4 XIII. EXHIBITS Conservation Design Study Primary Conservation Areas Secondary Conservation Areas r J '`- I' f Developable Areas 2i a' e WETLAND AREAS rte' SCR Svfsniartlu Profrclpl tout 1 E -5 IMEND I, EXMW, TREE • 24' CAI IPFR OR GRFATrR i EMS[ING SIRUC IURE 9 EXISTWGTREr•6 - 23 "CALIPER OVEA ANU FLOW I OPEN SPACE / RIWES Unit Plan WETLAND AREAS rte' SCR Svfsniartlu Profrclpl tout 1 E -5 XIII. EXHIBITS Sub-Area Plan Sub-Area E 2.42 AC, Sub-Area B * 9.24 AC. Sub 'A rea 7,14 AC Sub-Area DI :t 1&74 AC. Sub-Area C Sub-Area F .42.1 8 AC. 16,94 A(. 4 - - _N ( E-6 Development Plan XIII. EXHIBITS 1) EVE L 0W.1t N OATA GDRARLi: A1MiK GOMMFIIML 65 . I— lbw Am yS]0 N NESSDENTIAL Arta ]31K Ua IJdlw ZID IMf Ltwn lM r.L lw. n rr Nb9rlar cwA•Lw T] m Covllw 51 finfnlw L EaNa+wf UmMlDeey N IE]I1560WK OPEN SPACE 0-5—A 169.14. (M7 %1 DPw�s, —ftb SCedA�'IY •ISM. MO LEGEND _ ❑ ESTATE (1 W FINE W 9-4 ❑ EMNOII LR' • I I IT 'Aft) F1 PAEE PS 95 , ) ❑ IALEme p5' 9S' We.) ® EmrADE pr � R• wtbl CDUR lSS' 6r wlNl ■ roWNN0ME5 ■ Sb GMOEN 101f IK' SS' aside) ■ w aAEDeN LDTS tsr -R' w(eE) ■ ]D' "IIOFN LOTS ST � 75' nidr) ■ toraaiaAL DnNSrAa ■ STAIEISt'APF P D.W. k not DqudeO In oqn N>«e nktdPfar ®FONDS SPEC IAL ARCHITECTURAL ATTENTION WILL BE G NEN TO THE PROM ENT FACAD ES ON THESE LOTS BY THE ARCHTECTURAL TOTHE REVIEW COMMITTEE A UE RN MT 2Tw -ru5 - AA EA.P?l GARAGE Odt(E$eATL O IRGRA#A LEGEND ■GAAA S WINE E5AAE NOT FADNr OMENILO GAlu1GT PEIIMTIED ❑ DENOTES WHEEE 1HIER -111D FEDNT DpEIL1ED DAAAbR ME PEMfTw E -7 Phasing Plan O O z O l 8 2 5 f x pf ❑ V Y R T a Q 0 f 0 Please Note: Phasing Plan is subject to change due to market conditions. XIII. EXHIBITS 4 BROCK ROAD/ C.R. 16 E -8 Open Space Plan X11111. EXHIBITS DEVELOPMENT DATA OPEN SPACE Open Space Provided: *69.14 Ac. (36.4 %) Open Space Provided with School Properly *75.84 Ac_ (40 0 %) "Final Open Space area calculations, reserves, and maintenance responsibilities will be provided at Final Development Plan phase. LEGEND OPEN SPACE AREAS PARK SPACE AREAS GLACIER RIDGE ELEMENTARY (6.7 AC ) x 0. Z At. [173,80 Ac. 7.76 Ac. A)cC'fgfcSti'N Pafk x 6.91 At. Ridge O Park 3.39Ac. nd dJ4 Ac. Ga)1'Inch Park 9.50 Ac. f x 2.80 Ac W Y S 17.29 Ac. E -9 XIII. EXHIBITS Illustrative Master Plan y � i 1 onvnru�T u�tA ��lY •awe Yvlpunal �r s� Nr. i Yt Y ANe WAPW y • E -10 XIII. EXHIBITS J 40 4 BIRDS EYE VIEW LANHINCH PARK PERSPECTIVE \7'� 1 7%e,-ov.A Ab E-11 XIII. EXHIBITS GARDEN LOT COURT HOME E -12 RR IAN KENT )ONES ARCHITECT 10 X III. EX H I BITS R R I A N KENT JONES ARCHITECT a vj3 + 1 + "T% COTTAGE HOME PARK HOME E -13 XIII. EXHIBITS RR IAN (CENT )ONES ARCHITECT In MANOR HOME F-W '` . f - �, - 0 4 ESTATE HOME E -14 XIII. EXHIBITS R R I A N K ENT JONES A R C H I T E C T rj TOWN HOME COMMERCIAL PERSPECTIVE E -15 XIII. EXHIBITS 16' - 0" I'-10 1/2 " - 3' -9" 3' -9" 3' -9" I' -10 1/2 " lw r� HALL 516N PLAQUE 16ALM km L W „ I' -4 1/2 " „ 3' -9" 3' -9" 3' -5" - V -4 V2 ' .,6" 1. 916 ,r PARKIN& LOT 916N FLAME 5 of," xTA E -16 i I 0 N 0 0 N ry Q Q O m 0 III F- F- O J Q M 0 0 N N Z w w ry m 0 w Q F- Q J ry F- Z U x a 10 cri m X 00 a 10 x Q m 00 LL- w ry X M A Q X w n Z 0 v C� n n w 00 a 10 Z Q J F- 7 ` w O J w > w n F- m_ _ x w 00 a 10 0 0 N U w O ry r / Z w A O J w > w n F- n U / / LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE DEVELOPMENT DATA GROSS AREA: ±189.6 ACRES COMMERCIAL AREA: ±173.1 ACRES UNITS: 270 UNITS ESTATE LOTS: 10 MANOR LOTS: 75 PARK LOTS: 1 1 VILLAGE LOTS: 27 COTTAGE LOTS: 20 COURT LOTS: 51 GARDEN LOTS: 52 TOWNHOMES: 24 GROSS /NET DENSITY: 1.42 / 1.56 DU /ACRES OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED: ±69.00 ACRES (36.4%) OPEN SPACE PROVIDED WITH SCHOOL PROPERTY: ±75.70 ACRES (40.0%) TABLE OF CONTENTS INDEX PLAN PRELIMINARY PLAT PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PLAN TYPICAL SECTIONS Planning Commission Approval Date: Council Approval Date: Date Date Planning & Zoning Commission, Secretary Date M/I Homes of Central Ohio, LLC. 1 2 -4 5 -7 8 Date w � o D� z ::D 0:01 o z 0 Z z ::D Qz J m ::D LL. O r H � U PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAT INDEX PLAN PREPARED FOR: 9A The Edwards Land Company An Edwards Company PREPARED BY: Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Scientists 5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054 Phone: 614.775.4500 Fax: 614.775.4800 M C M X X v I DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2006 REVISED: JANUARY 4, 2006 REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: GRAPHIC SCALE: 300' 0 150' 300' 600' 1 " =300' NORTH TARTAN RIDGE SHEET 1 8 2004 -0289 F. r) a M C'4 r_1 0 0 C'4 ry ry 0 ry) n LU F_ F_ 0 10 0 0 C'4 C'4 Z - 7 LU ry co n LU F_ ry ry F_ 7 U 2- 10 co X 00 10 00 10 &i LL_ LU ry X 7 A 7 LU 0 LU n ry Z LU ry C'4 0 v n n r) 00 10 7 F_ 7 LU 0 LU n F_ X LU 00 10 0 0 C'4 rL U LU 0 ry r) rL 7 LU 0 LU n F_ n U I I I I BROCK ROAC� C.R. 16 k ......................................... .. ........... . --------------- .......... ...... ............ - - -------- . ......... . --- - - - - - - M ..... . .... . ..... ------- ------ . ... . ...... ..... - 2 ........... 9,5,8.B ...... ........... 1, I Y,59 ............. --------- --- ----- ...... ..... a • - - ------------------- ...... . ... ........... .......... ..................... ......... . ...... -- - - ----- - - ----------- ........ . ....... ....... 777 ..................... ...... ......... ....................... < AC ES E R V E 13 ±3W I -A Aber-- M c(rg a ref lo, . . . ................. ' .2206 cres -'O.R. 7?., Pg. < I ------------ lr6vd6n K4. & Y V .... PROPOSED F_ V U_ I ------------- -NTIQN' Theod AC R ETE ±0.69 AC I 189 Acres > 01, pg. 6 ...................... . .............. I . . ...... . ............... II& Sharon Ann 130' 120' 1 F Baker I0 Rob6rf 'Dale . __ , .., w wwwwwwwwwwww ; ; + ; CA) 2.0618 Acres 9 Cq I 3 D.B. 274, Pg. 3 6 Cr, .. ....... M I0 3 4 -0, > 151 I E 20735' BUILD ZON. -aydon M. & Yvonne V. I 5' 120' 120' 66 Theod CD 44' 0 ore ...... ................ wwwwww Acres cr, 'D I I 235 B. 282, Pg. 65 9 I C/) 011 89'� I ob 100 loo 2 N CD cri Q0 B U ILD ZONE 6 E 20735 B m Robert E. & 234 O= Shirley Lee Gates,,1 ... "I 0 Cn (n Cn A z L eslie S. 8, Cn Cn 450- .246 245 244 243 242 Ken A. Wears 0 R 87, Pg. 122 5' 2 1 4.93 Acres 0 - 0 52' 5 583 • O.R. 344, Pg. 624 CD 4 0 0 9 , oT 52;1' 7 CD I \0 Q (D 1 �] 4 233 100 1,22 I 10 ----- ...... .. C/) 7\ 01 - ----- Elmer John & - --- -- ------- Susan Jean C�l 149 John W. & Heinsius 5' 2 M .. ........ Jerbtrii5lRoad LLC Laurann R. Willis 5' !"2 "i,46' 5.018 Acres I ------- -------- C-D 237 ...... 1".001 Acres 238 239 240 241 5.0130 Acres O.R. 294, Pg. 358 --- -------- . ........ R'ESERVE-- . Cn Cn 6.R. 285, Pg. 676 I I • / i v Cn cri Cn 7 O.R. 279, Pg. 458 C12 V ------ - ------- (D 0 , BUILD ZONE - -- ----- ------- oa I 16 ------ _77 ------ ....... - 83 0 571 6" E 290.00' IN 3,�� ..... 100 22' . .. ..... loo CTI �j on R. Fiel C ....... ------- res ------------- • (D R. vvvvvvvvvvv 4i s. . . . ....... ...... b22 Ac 0,1 43" I 10 r 00 ....................... -7 CP Gregg A. & Nancy L. Sherman 9 3.339 Acres 10 0' 35 B U IL't) ZON E C,) :0 C�) `�ESERVE"'C" cil D.B. 289, Pg. 627 ...... 10 (D 2 7 ±7 At E, c5 Jb.n H. Field �1.00 Acre 52' M 109, 15.1' PgJ253 C.) ------------- is Esf:RVF"' M +0.79 A . ...... }III .... ....... 2 o 9 Q 0, b6 . ...... ..... . D RETENTION/ PRdP05`E' Elaine A. Spark N 830475TE 1 1 5.00 , s F. Edward � > k 2' PROP6SEQ 5 A6es D.B. 213, tg. 7U0 I RETENTION 5 I CD 22§ Q CA) CD 2 N3 C C 0 . 0 1 ibbl 10 3' loo. '000� I 20735 B ZONE, ard's" 15 I' .................. -4 r _�clw • O O O • s . 1.00 Acre r: .......... _1 M O.R. 364, Pg. 992 0 I < Ch - --- --- Cn cD 0 47 CD 2� 23 � h h iv and I F. Edw & Elaine A. Sparks %Lri 5' 2, I................ I L 3.345 Acres D.B. 276, Pg. 127 24 .1 ' I W 25� • I 226 191, Robert E. & Shirley L. Gates 2.063 Acres C) 15 co D . 343, Pg. 296 ....... ..... cri S V I I lu I 10 W LU :E 0 W 11 LU "ey • �32' 100 100 83' 17' 169- SA I735 BUILD ZONE ' 20 - ------ W Shifley A. Bergemann - ------ 4,8 Acres D-.�B. 312, Pg. 719 26 I ........................ I Ln Cn Cn 5' �,Jan M60ne y Paul (]/� 224 -, 223 - .22-2.2 , 2,2-1-.-.. cn -220 lerest) 5' 'I 57' ............ . ... ... 'Par itia K. J. - S, &� ........ & 01 Robert A. cc 5.445 Acres� 70 2 --- ----- 0 I� �30 I M Pg. 228 & 230 loo 00 100 118 O� Aci� 1.0 4 C/) M O.R. 29�, Pg. �,35 C.) 135 95' I0 27' 5' 02 M . ............. G) 156' 21,5\ 1+ ....... I .......... 11, ......... ............. ........... .. .... .... . . Cn 2/17 21\8 Cn 219 0 0 11 cr, • -n RESERVE ol Z IM I -7" ...................... . ... . +6.9 C R �S I A .. 20��j -B-IJILD ZONE' > E) 28 n I I bo 00 100 log. 1 100 \ 1 oa 95' 95' 95' 107' 178' 203 204 I 1 0 < - - -- ------- " 6 ' 202 ' 205 2' � 0 " no / i I M 10 C2 co co %0735' BUILD ZONE loo 95' 77' 23' 29' 71 I 95 95' Donald E. Yingst 6.295 Acres O.R. 206, Pg. 500 �� 3 1 43 :z U2 I " I ............... - - - - - - - - - - Donald E. Yingst .... Parcel 0.773 -Acr�'es O.R. 206, Pg".• X00 ----------- .............. - - - -------- - -- I PROPOSED'\ h RETTNTION L ... . ... w o ,hi . � �` 0 Dr 0 U 0 :Z1 Z Q z LL. 0 Q r � U PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN PRELIMINARY PLAT PREPARED FOR: The Edwards Land Compan An Edwards Compan PREPARED BY: Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Scientists 5500 New Alban Road, Columbus, OH 43054 Phone: 614.775.4500 Fax: 614.775.4800 M C M X X v I DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2006 REVISED: JANUARY 4, 2006 REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: GRAPHIC SCALE: 100 0 50' 100 200' 1 " -100' NORTH SHEET 2 8 TARTAN RIDGE 2005-0289 10 95' X 44 90 157' cil 0 01 Todd A. & April L. King 89" 5' 100 \90, 2? CA) 100 l 2.754 Acres 20'/35',BUILD1�01\1 CD -..--O.R. 522,3g. 931 159 C) cc 10 ' 2 213 21 2 21 1 �4 21 209 Ln S 35 :30 I bo 00 100 log. 1 100 \ 1 oa 95' 95' 95' 107' 178' 203 204 I 1 0 < - - -- ------- " 6 ' 202 ' 205 2' � 0 " no / i I M 10 C2 co co %0735' BUILD ZONE loo 95' 77' 23' 29' 71 I 95 95' Donald E. Yingst 6.295 Acres O.R. 206, Pg. 500 �� 3 1 43 :z U2 I " I ............... - - - - - - - - - - Donald E. Yingst .... Parcel 0.773 -Acr�'es O.R. 206, Pg".• X00 ----------- .............. - - - -------- - -- I PROPOSED'\ h RETTNTION L ... . ... w o ,hi . � �` 0 Dr 0 U 0 :Z1 Z Q z LL. 0 Q r � U PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN PRELIMINARY PLAT PREPARED FOR: The Edwards Land Compan An Edwards Compan PREPARED BY: Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Scientists 5500 New Alban Road, Columbus, OH 43054 Phone: 614.775.4500 Fax: 614.775.4800 M C M X X v I DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2006 REVISED: JANUARY 4, 2006 REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: GRAPHIC SCALE: 100 0 50' 100 200' 1 " -100' NORTH SHEET 2 8 TARTAN RIDGE 2005-0289 X 44 I bo 00 100 log. 1 100 \ 1 oa 95' 95' 95' 107' 178' 203 204 I 1 0 < - - -- ------- " 6 ' 202 ' 205 2' � 0 " no / i I M 10 C2 co co %0735' BUILD ZONE loo 95' 77' 23' 29' 71 I 95 95' Donald E. Yingst 6.295 Acres O.R. 206, Pg. 500 �� 3 1 43 :z U2 I " I ............... - - - - - - - - - - Donald E. Yingst .... Parcel 0.773 -Acr�'es O.R. 206, Pg".• X00 ----------- .............. - - - -------- - -- I PROPOSED'\ h RETTNTION L ... . ... w o ,hi . � �` 0 Dr 0 U 0 :Z1 Z Q z LL. 0 Q r � U PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN PRELIMINARY PLAT PREPARED FOR: The Edwards Land Compan An Edwards Compan PREPARED BY: Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Scientists 5500 New Alban Road, Columbus, OH 43054 Phone: 614.775.4500 Fax: 614.775.4800 M C M X X v I DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2006 REVISED: JANUARY 4, 2006 REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: GRAPHIC SCALE: 100 0 50' 100 200' 1 " -100' NORTH SHEET 2 8 TARTAN RIDGE 2005-0289 i M ) W 0 00 C'4 O O C'4 Q tY Q 0 m n LU F_ O L M 10 O O C'4 N Z z W w _ ry r m n \ W Q F_ Q J U7 F_ Z X M a 10 N co X 00 CT 10 X Q m 00 (T 10 W ry X M A z W W 0 LU W n Iv a Z W tY (L M O v n n W CT 1 0 i Z Q J W F_ Z W O \ W W n F_ m _ X W M � W o, O O C'4 U W O ry r Z W (L O W W 0 Q 0 _ U i ° 51 1 48 II W 1 �� ; � ,.. \.. \: ✓ \:'`.: "� ` X354.38 � , ° ,� • '�.2 ..,100' . 100' ...,__ \100' _ __..... 109' h • 10 ' 100 95 95 95 "' ' 178 h 143 203 \ h h 1 , ` 165 S 83 y , 07 I k: yh , , ,., , ^ \. _. .. '., ; \.. .� .. _: v ..... , \ ,_ _: � .: ',... -. .. - .. ,.. .. ,.. \_. \_. \_ .. .. : "\ is 10 43 EX C5 44 i ; v , ; 31 RESERVE F x �' 202 2a 204 � 2Q5 206 207 1 C�8 01 h POND ±6.91 ACRES �' • / , \ �' __,; _ ,' :h X0'/35' BUILD ZONE .. �h '32 A , I s 3 S ' 100' 29' 71 i 95' 95' 95' 89' 3� V / I ' - - -- . ..... � �E h h ,., ` '_: ° , , + +_, _ _ R - 450' / _��J �9'` � � :. , , 2 ... - - - - - --------- \ ------ \ � aav . vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv \i wwv `• +`•" .... --- ,,.,`�}• • ivvvwai»at+vvvwai „a „v�vwww, arty aw \,,,w w. \ . ------------------ - ++ ++ 31' 2 I � � 7 05 8 :�, 1 ; \tip --�` I I `�3 20' B D ZO N E � � 33 � , .� I I b ...._ R- 47000 \ ,,...,, ,.. _,. , : ti h _� I I �� ;', ry � 1 � � Q I 28' L'LJ (� I � r~�, 4� hB S75 195 _ _ _ _ I' ChD= 139.68 . , I '�I _ 1 ` 1 _ 1 � 169 - � I �N ,, 4 . y e: `*.: -,h ;hs6L `h• 200 0 7 _ I 193' I L CA ., „.,- _,, ; \: \, i • y � .... "_ .. ",. ._,..,.. .. .\ \, �, ^��.,. w ,;.. h + 1 2 , 5 .. Arc - 140.20 N = ._.. I 4..__: � I o � I • "' u--I O \ �Ol I _ `� �' 1 I I I 5 S85 =01 °45� � � ° I . 11 - ° : �X = 17 °05' ��7" I _,.., .: , � 5 `� I , z� - • $, � S85 38 10 W 159.99 ��$3 5 44 .'_`. 0 �` •.: -: �._+ �_- f:�` I m W h . � ._ h Il 12'7 R- 2970.00 °� \ R= $30.Op _.' ' ::::: ,:' `' I 79' 7�' 70' 82� I: ^' �� 5 " �•: I N - 10 ChB -S8� ::45;25;•W:� ChB -S�5 1 5 W 3 C 9 6 '� "�9` -�: lo��•� . \, �, � _ 4/ 1 „ i. ; � COQ 157.E 1 .. , � � � a- � ��'�. A 91 .' -Q�EX ST _ ' I � - ,,. G� • 1 �9' w 144' 1 1 \.•. a \ \ o � .� Arc 91.16 •, :. � , � +�.,,., I � I � ,�„ Arc 158.1 Q .- ' °, o w \ 99 y , � ... ,,; •. 208' 140' 01 CD cl\ 168 7 z .? l__ 5' 2 �• I .'� \ :�' �, � + + ++ � .,, -ti.. •`, _., - -- :.� 139' 156' � ZO ... ....... ............ -- ------------------------- %\ =a I I 174 C � O 1 �7 \ y \ i ;f ^' ((j/`�� ■yam �, ,. I' 142' \ 140' h \ I uE, 176' `; 'P h h I U l I \ . � h � ., ,,, _,,, �.: � i,.:? •` ` • , • 1 �8' I I N I .1 N O \, � � ` � r.� 5 i i y I . I I I` � � � I _ � z � I .� _� 175_ '. 1 �6 W ° 7 36�� 2 I I �\ I a a a •;,, � y I\o _ \ 146' v i35' ,� I � � I w 49 o` I R BOO I' m e :' \ • i h wh V � � ±0 >��1 0 A 187 � '\ \ `• • l ;; � i � � v ' , � , \ . \,., �..,,+ �� , �, 1 77 1 .� : 1 4 �� :' i \. ..__, \ . \,._ \ ` , ``� 155' I j � +EX' ST . + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ ,� � 146' 168' 1 16' =3701 \ 10 178 ST ---O C-11 • 5 1 EX n � �_ ' � �v � \1 _ b , h 142' X W I I; I I::•. -. 142' 151' ^ h , I • h , i , i i i i ; i I , h V I `� • I 94 ; h '^ C� 179 , h X + E S i , ^ , ; , . ` VJ" h V J 1 l� I3? . . ., h �% h y h ., 5 39;. Q 6.�7� � ., _ , I . I � I 30' 146' � / , 4, ., �•, "� , 1 / ,. ;.� � .� 79' 87' > ' __: - RESERVE DD �, + ; � 60 ., 60' • £3U` 80' 7 'I k` 1 5' 2 n ` . _. h,. _. .. _. • \-' : .: ^ ; , .:� � L W, I =' I � � `180 - 1 h I � h 9 -2 90 h � �,_� I I 'I o_ 130' 5� 21 > 188 f 187 186 � 85 184 183 R SERVE "P" •• . • � 193 `�' : + l 91 W .. ,. � W 18.9- N - , - � V o , '� I � � I i � , o 13 I I I r I I o � 18;.1''�� 0 20' 0 160 ,. , , I I ...... 16 . o I � � � ±x.50 ACRES • \ �• � BUILDING SETB C'/20 "BUILD ZONE I � � 130' 140' z 5Y 7 K 13 13 kkKING CK � � ' \ 60' a0'., 60' .60''' � ' ' 9 80' 79 79 30' , \ • , \ - - -- - ..W.__v - - -- .. - - -- - - --- -- - -- -- - - - - -- - -- - -- �- - : - - - - -- -- 8 � J I � 182 159 Cri I , ` ,, . Imo' \`• .,_. _ ,r , � ' -- � N u, ` _ 34� ✓� I � I �' ° °- I , ; � -�/ vI � Ste, - II :ter" - ' :� 1 61' �_�\h � � � __.• ,. ,. ,.. 10 95' 115' • - �i•0 55' 26' 34 I \ I I I \ Cl) \� � . ��.� /2 450' 150 �{�� 62 -- - > co • h `` e` � : y ... ... ..... . . ..... . " - -- .... ....... _ "'_ _ I - -� � I I I 134' 2 N � � � 25' 35' 60' 1 15' I,.`• '• . "I � .,,..I = _ •' -' 1 152 I I I _, _.... .....- - hh I�; I I � +.. � � 15 � W �r y53 �, �.� ._�:. PROP .SE�D _ 149 + �+ ` \ ,.... ,,,, tt, ,.. .,,,.tt \......� „ \tt \..........� \ ..._ ,+ I ��� - .- _,... � W 154 � , � � .__..._ • :,.: - 131 • ��1R�T E N T��•N II I 134 1 55 j 16 �„ I 1 0 _1U III I .. \, �„ ``� � I + �58 140' 148 __. , I: °• 132 + h - -...__ l.:'� I I � , 2 I Q' 134' •� N I / �. I _ / 4 h i S' r II n 6 O L h �' . - I 48� � I 0 147 s 134' +0 19: A C � 62' w / � ... 1 mo m 5 / . .,.. .- � � 0 146 0 ' `�, � '�o':� � �•�' s � // b i ,, .,��` ;�. `• •_ ,* _� �`3 I _ _ bG' 51'' 50' 60' �0' 60' S0' 25' 16' i � / - I I � II II� 93 i • I i 134' .. _ .. R E 4 I• �. ,. � lh l _ 1 4 i 3 Q , v • ' i i J i I 0.09 A i ,. i / I / h I u, • c„ ,.. 5 a 2 I h 0' h _ _ _141.. _1 _ _1 _ _ � I ��l 4• 39���• 37 � 1 h �, o 0 3 / - I 14 5 „ \ / (Jl i _ I b� / 1. ,. h h i , I 13.4.' 0 0 0 0 0 0` o I /p([Jyp/ I / N I w +'h 92 , �I h W - - - - - _ '1' 1 , h 144. i I , \ h h /y 1 h ,\ { I I • F 41' �� 109 ; 60 , 50' 50' 60 � �50' 60' s' 50' 2S' i ` , v • , , . ? * y : • 4J1 / + v h II '+ II h � \ II II h v, / 1 � \ .., .... �, h y' ..i �: -• _ l ^. 5 RES X ±0. 5 AC � ;� - - - 129 � 30 RES 0.1` SAC PG h "` �> yip \• / � ` .130' � - ( I h h , t 1 2 5 4 .�.._.. �, 128 ' h� 0 01 C" h ,' r h •, `t ',, ,. ��\ 11 � 1 h .. 2 , RES R.,, � � � . 60 � 60' 60' 13' 45"_ "` � '. 130 ; ' ' P ISO P , \ i �- ' <�•`. \. �� 3720' BUILD:ZON I , RETENTI N .` ,.. • � � � ill ' 2 h 3 � -' +.. \ t ''i., �. � h - .W • '(� W W O 1. 'h h �I `t I v, h , , ..__,, ".,,, ...'__. .. "__ .. ,, � �, •�, + .., h ' 'o 0 0 � ;> „ 130 s> I . i i. ^ h 5 , + l , \ h . , I . CD o 00 .03 7 _ 6i0 ` 6C� 60' \ , 1^ h h .., � `` � I I I I 30' Z � I � h 130' � I I h -\ . I \ N I , RESERVE , attttttattvvvvvvvvvvwwwwwwwwwi »»»»>h ; : ., .atip h \ .+, _.. .. \ h : - : -- ; , :: i h �. ,<• .: ` �. `.. • °� \ \ -7.22 A , o`. o� I : I � 10 + 28' Yl I I '�� � _ � ,.. w \ .. "" `'` CJ O O � O h fll 00 3 ACRES s \ \ - \ \ 50' �•4 i- ; , 21 .. \ y ., i 140 � I � � � , • � � ; ;: .,: � , , ; � , ` `. ,. :: - ��� �� ,.,._ .,.. +. •. ' � � � 130' 2 \ , : VE CC ER h _ RES _ h ,w � i h• 1 I , 30' „ _ .03 AC , �o 0 5 ..� 2 h I y 88 .; . . y . ;. , ..,., , : ; , ., .,, .. "' � �, ° 105 O 2 .:' ,,. i \ '',, `,. .__...4 • w 60' � \ 6U �� 60 °bU' 60' 60 • 8(1' , h - 66 : � U I h h 1 �� I * I h �. h \. h , I 4 ' j 130' a \ 1 5 I 1 14 1: �����. � 1�� 1 1 w 90 00' �h w I 85 ' h ^ ','ii h W z / ^h \ W dC,.W Cl) I ^ , h \ � � h o •° 0 o• 0 0 . , O b +, . 7; • 1 1; 1..1, . 3 J 4 v � � .1 1 2 ''�' , BUIL �'ZON � ' ,w _ \ h ._ S NG POND _ � 87 �6 8 \5 _ h 1 ?t �� \, PROPOSED _ 5 v h 5 _ RE , TENTI •�,' O N - N Cn �- \ I 1 2 �'B I LCx Z _ - \ 3' S' U O N R ti S s : \ S' h \. \ \ ♦. ` 1 , +V ^ h , N h / 1 h 'h + l i h h l,, v i ^ / ; , : O \. h h h `1 \ • h , , \ „ 4 i l� .l - i \ h \ : \ \ h, \ \ REEVE h _ „ \,,, ., , , , �, � • ~� , � PROPOSED . ., � y y h, _171 29 ACRES ; `\ ; ^ ; . PROPOSED \ EXISTING CC REP . O RESERVE TENT IO N w 4 h \ , h h : \. h x vvv` h h , . , , . v h , h Shi , . .. .. . _... S 83 1 29 W 9 9 _' .. "' " -- „ i � w.1.v h \- h _ ._ . _ + .. ,. \ MCKITRICK ROAD h i � - attttttttttttttty ,vvv .vvv vvv, ,vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv +www wwwwwwwwww T ^" at ttttttavvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv vaw ,www as aaaaaaaaa»»> »> h ` ,� .h , , , ,vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvxaaaaaaaa tt 1 tt »�»> ; - � v ,vvv .vvv , wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwi »»»»»»»»»»»»> •ttt ttt att .tttttttttttttttt h \ �RR� ,\ , vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ,www ,www aww , t 1 tt vvy � i i Y \ , �' �� - v www .vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv - Awwwwwwww� \wwwwww ..»> .»> "ttttttttttttttttttttttt � t, ,v v� wwwwww�\ wwwwwwwwwwwi»» »� >ti, � 4aww � i i i i ,. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ,�ivvwwww�w . ..... ...... . Robert E �\ www�R ak' TZR1' � RS�4RRRtttR44444C�� 'vvvvvv�vvvv� a �keeeeeeee'�ieeee.�w \ �. - i i i i i i h ti. �w www a» �u 44\,R vvtaaaarseR�ccc�c .0 �RRRRSRSStRR444 \itRR44444444'4R4R <•RRRRRRw�:;f h' � ""V »» ,,- ` i % h h h . 8, r Lee Gates, Trustees h h .. '� ` Road LLC ` - _ \ -`\ � Dale G. Edwards under t 10155 Jerome , h ..` ._:• :� - __ er�y. ��ard �nd'G�ro�, Living Trust Sharon Ann,:Reeder 4 1 .� `_... .. � T � 1i 1 1 h h h - - - __ -_ .._ _._'_ - _ -- .. -. ..' �_ .._ Orr inat 7.73 Acres \ � he Gates '` - 0 046 Acre Agree ment 1 001 Acres ._ __ __ • 3 Au O.R. 577, g 250 O 0.046 Acre O.R. 28 g 676 --- -'- ���� � � f2 Acres ditors) P • h h �� "--- h h 4 i 4 248 � - 910 � P. k h g 927 k 0 084 Acre O.R. 577, Pg. O.R. 582, Pg. � w .R. 582, P h h 4 w � o Dr Z � o Z 0 Z Z Qz J I..L LL. O Q r � U PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN PRELIMINARY PLAT PREPARED FOR: The ea..a.as Land compan An Edwards Compan PREPARED BY: Evans Mechwart Hambleton 8, Tilton Inc. Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Scientists 5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054 Phone: 614.775.4500 Fax: 614.775.4800 M C M X X v I DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2006 REVISED: JANUARY 4 2006 REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: GRAPHIC SCALE: 100' 0 50' 100' 200' 1 " -100' NORTH SHEET 3 8 TARTAN RIDGE 2005 -0289 F. r) 10 M 00 C'4 r_1 0 0 C'4 ry 0 ry) n LU F_ F_ 0 cYi 10 0 0 C'4 C'4 Z - 7 LU ry co n LU F_ ry F_ F_ 7 U 10 co X 00 10 00 10 &i LL_ LU ry X 7 A 7 LU 0 LU n ry Z LU ry 0 v n n r) 00 10 7 F_ 7 LU 0 LU n F_ X LU 00 10 0 0 C'4 rL U LU 0 ry r) rL 7 LU 0 LU n F_ n U X • 4 � v,J Rg.,,, < 115 �0 \0 43 44' S6 r\0 C � 3 i 202 20-3 204� \205 0-1 2'66 01 _47 0 , C2 00 00 00 10 I 0POSED\ P R�` ....... %%% I 10 I RETENTION ....... -%%- %% ......... %% 20735' BUILD ZONE -23) .. ....... ....... 95' 95' 8 55 R=38'.� 58 X> '32' , , " 100, Ir 77" 23' 4 29' 71' 95- 1Z 89' G) ......... .... .... w I 54' 9' 3i . ........ 70' 3 64 1 700528 Z-0 LU 10 2 Lu > 0 .... ... Cn 0-1 R=470.00' '13720'KILD ZONE 59 %% Z�l 10 4 I 46 54 ....... ..... ..... 11W 2 0 -------- RESERVE "N" LU �� /V _ `\ \. l..� 1 \ \+� (.. � \ h y � ` v ChB -S75 1 9'5 5 0 69 1 93' LU Uj (D 40' \% ChD=139.68' I 17 1 1 70 I 7 01 140 Cn ±2.80 ACRES 23' 150' Arc= 1 40.20' LU 0 I 200 c- I IC - 04 + I A� M r M ... ...... r-4 70 5' 2$ 82� to r-4 10 R=530.016' 79 70' 34 101 U 10 1-1, 10 M I (D 0 CD ChB=S75'1 5"W 40 C) -,%, 53 _4 7 I 51 1, 144' Arc= 158. I I01 . ...... 11 I ., 11.11 , I 5c� 241 40' 01 173 2� 0 9 168 ............ z - - ------------------ 5' 2, ...... . . ....... 0 00 139' 156' Cn 10 10 ...... CD 6" 35 39 48 \, 52 . ........................ 8, 67 ....... 174 215 i I 4C�- 1 1)0 2' 40' 14 176- 72 107' 9 90 95' 115' 100' ........................ Uj 11 C) 3' 36 O/ 0 k 1 46' 5' o I38 2 3' 6 11 A 49' -50, Cl) Cn --- . . ......................... LLJ r-4 cri 10 10 Ic �n 10 Cn 0. 81 "I \ l r iv \± � >` / • _ 176 '0 R E5. K1 ±0`1 0 A 187' M ........................... 90 01 32' �4O�' 6 NO O 1 77 164 R=355' 155' 90' . ..... ±O 2 4 C 146 168' I10 (1 cri 195, 10 178 1> 142' 15 Y I 142 I Ins- 2 I.... . ..... 194 Cj, 179 16 ... ....... ....... V 130' 146' 5 2 . . ...... ... . ...... 79 = %\ 8 79 1 6 I01 0 5' 21 CD 130' 01 1 188 187 186 `8 5 184 7 1 83 RtS E R E R 'ERVE ES CD CD CD . .... . 20', 160 +0.50 ACRE� �1 -7 +I 7*.29,AC R E& _6j' 0 " 13720 "BUILD ZONE 130' 1 40' 1 5 % , I 'BUILD lo 80 49' z C, 80' 182 . ......... 159 (z) 0 Cn - R .... ... j. 1 7' 3. r� ell 10 95' 1 01 3v �6' 34' 19, 3' 1 25 152 I01 12 I 150 c- co D 25' 35' 60' I 1 5' 5 O 1 34' 65 0 1 , %-,\ 0 1 51 152 V 2 1 25' 20' 96 \ 5 3 CD < 154 1 34' 131 Cn �55 95 0 1 40' 98 66 Cr t 156 158 2 CY, C) 57 98 82 55' 60' 3_l ._._. i , I %.. 72,� 1 34' 36 2 132 94 0 740 Cn Cn 98 F: 1 47 RES "W" +0 0 1 34' .1 AC 50' 10' '33 M + o lo 99 S- cri 146 0 59 60' 60' 25 R EST 93 50' 1 6' 1 34' 68 1 34/ 1 1 1 0.09 A NN I • , E) h C� c� 20' 43. I A I- 137 I 0 55' NN ti tk 2 Q (D CD 7 I 140- 92 1-4-2 oo,�� N 144 rn ZCNE lo 60'� - 6 _0� 1 50 60'/ 1 _2�� -41 50' -ol Cn - ------ AC 71 _Pt 2, - ------- ------ 11,% ±01*05 7 -Ica 130 30' ------- % • `55 C I RES 11V11 ±0. T� CD RES ±0. 129 IN - -- - ------ ------ 25 . ... ... 01 91 01 I 60' 60' 13 45 130, 72 �NN 7 128 U 72, > C) - 7 - 1 3/20' 1 30' w Cl) 0 CD C) ... ....... go\ 0 Y6 126 -24' 21, - 7 lb EXISTING POND/ • PROPOSED UIL co RETENTION 1 30', 125 > r 03 co 0 cd CD 8 r-4 74 W 41' 0 146 I> 95' > C 0 ` � y h 1 'RESERVE " , r� , 4", \ .1� " - 1 30' 125 60 60 < 60 llS 28' s 'O r 0> +7.22 ACRES 0, 0 CD M 0 '89 00 5 INS V9 CD ES, E�Vr%, w U M [.. �Ij � 1: .... .. 5 104 z 1 28', -7.22.,Ac . . ..... 1 30" 1 83 84 RESERVE "Q" 1 40� 17.29 ACRES 01 30' L • h ,s Cn '8 00 'I 25' < I------- ....... I 0 1 W Ln 88 105 0 60' 6b' 619 60' 2, 60' 6 40' 82 A.7' CNI 01 C:) 0 11,2 1 4S' I 30' 1 -11 77 1 14 90 100 8 85\ I C, 0 (D 89' LLJ (D W ��o V) I - cad Ik 89 60' I LU 23 1,5 12U 1 B 5 lo I CD -,O '�60' 8 N3 PROPOSED � • . j � O' 60' 5' (D w 21 Cn 2 I8\5 I LE�-ZON 8 I 0 EXISTING POND/ 8 7�1' 7 1, T' I 2 K) cri RETENTION �BUIL Okl� ��2+0'B LD Z +1 1 3725 D, Z ON 2 /0 I 64' / 60' 60' 64 hi . . .. . .. ... .......... . , I\ % I VE K LS E R PROPOSED A(�RES 72 RETENTI EXISTING PROPOSED RETENTION POND I ------- -------- 5, ------ - - - ------- - - ------ ...... I - ---- ------- ------- . ....... . ...... . ....... ------ .... ------ ------- -- . ....... . ... .. ...... ------ ...... .. MCKITRICK ROAD - - - %%%%%%%%%%, ................ ....... ;;� ......... ......... \ ........... .......... %,%%%%%% ....... . . k ..... -%%%%%%%%%%%% I Robert E. & Shirley Lee Gates, Trustees q n d -, Dale G. Edwards 10 1 55 Jerome Road, LLC I 0.046 Acre 1.001 Acres 54� ' 317 I i � , 1 4 1 -Origi-n - 7.73 Acres PQter Sward under the Gates Living Trust T. Sward. Agreement ------ ------- al O.R. 577, Pg. 250 O.R. 285, Pg. 676 0.046 Acres - (2 - 3 - A&6s Auditors) O.R. 582, Pg. 927 0. R. 582, P 91 0 II LU 0 0 Dr z � o U z 0 Z 44* z LL. O Q r � U PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN PRELIMINARY PLAT PREPARED FOR: The Edwards Land Compan A n Edwards Compan y PREPARED BY: Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Scientists 5500 New Alban Road, Columbus, OH 43054 Phone: 614.775.4500 Fax: 614.775.4800 M c M X X v I DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2006 REVISED: JANUARY 4, 2006 REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: GRAPHIC SCALE: 100 0 50' 100 200' NORTH SHEET 4 8 TARTAN RIDGE 2005-0289 a N N Z Z Z Ilk W O I h O Ilk s m I �o Q o� �o v o� I Z W s s Z W I V 3 O LAJ �O Z 1 John W. & / Laurann R. Willis 5.0130 Acres O.R. 279, Pg. 458 I Gregg A. & Nancy L. Sherman 3.339 Acres D.B. 289, Pg. 627 F. Edward & Elaine A. Sparks 3.345 Acres D.B. 276, Pg. 127 „ I I � BRO K ROAD/ R. 16 I s I A. ergemann 365 - Ac - res - 312, Pq /779 Li --_ Ro ert Dale &Sharon Ann Baker 2.06 i D.B. 18 Acres 274, Pg. 336 i i I LEGEND Storm Manhole Catch Basin Curb & Gutter Inlet Z � Storm Sewer St. I Abey Sanitary Sewer So. I San. Manhole ;res I �� g 1 �� �i Fire Hydrant Water Line w W y Street Light Ii Flow Arrow I� I I /I /I \ Jero Road, LLC \ \ 1.001 Acres \ \ \ O.R. 285, Pg. 676 I • C inton R. Field In 2.022 Acres I O.R. 522, Pg. 37 \'V" I I I w I I Y i I on H. Field I 1.00 Acres O I 547, . P X53 1 g ry � w e G. Edward 7 �00\\cres 364, Pg 0 l IMF - - -J Robert E. & Shirley L. Gates 2.063 Acres D.B. 343, Pg. 296 Robert A. & Par ' is K. J. Lawye 1.004 Ac s O. R. 296, Pg. 735 L w � o Dr Z 0:01 o Z 0 Z Z Qz J In I..L LL. O Q r � U PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PLAN PREPARED FOR: The Edwards Land Company A n Edwards Compan y PREPARED BY: Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Scientists 5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054 Phone: 614.775.4500 Fax: 614.775.4800 M C M X X v I DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2006 REVISED: JANUARY 4, 2007 REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: GRAPHIC SCALE: 100' 0 50' 100' 200' 1 " =100' NORTH SHEET 5 8 BANTRY GREEN 2005 -0289 I _ _ I I Donald E. Yingst P I 1 0.77�cres i t I O.R. 206, Pg. 500 \ I � ' - - 1I I��_ I III 2 4 " Strr� 1 \ l \ I - — I - / \ III \ liil w � o Dr Z 0:01 o Z 0 Z Z Qz J In I..L LL. O Q r � U PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PLAN PREPARED FOR: The Edwards Land Company A n Edwards Compan y PREPARED BY: Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Scientists 5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054 Phone: 614.775.4500 Fax: 614.775.4800 M C M X X v I DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2006 REVISED: JANUARY 4, 2007 REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: GRAPHIC SCALE: 100' 0 50' 100' 200' 1 " =100' NORTH SHEET 5 8 BANTRY GREEN 2005 -0289 \\ II cl �I I I II I III I I 1 I II I I IIII / L /-,n moo — = -- ;��� I� \ h 1 I � I I 1 I II I I 1 1 � I \ u l I� I "? 1 10 1 I � \ I \I I I / I � I I 1 I I O - -- I / Ex 28" Stm.� � III I II yl II Ij II I pl I _ I O - \1II II I p R i p II . Y III II , III% O III U II� �I I / / 1 J I / 1 / • 11 'I • I� n • i O.R. 582, Pg. 910 _ TT le G. Edwards 0.046 Acre O.R. 577, Pg. 250 42 LEGEND Storm Manhole Catch Basin � � Curb &Gutter Inlet \ Storm Sewer St. San. Manhole Sanitary Sewer - Sa. Fire Hydrant Water Line w w Street Light i Flow Arrow � J X / '2" Stm a� 5" Stm. — o l � i i r l ___1 I/ C r 1C \°0 1C 1 � 1 1 1 1 1 1 — 8" San.' I I / 18" Stm. iWA I Ji 1 0 1111 1 • 2 A& 011 Robert E. & Shirley Lee Gates, Trustees under the Gates Living Trust Agreement 0.046 Acres O.R. 582, Pg. 927 10155 Jerome Road, LLC 1.001 Acres O.R. 285, Pg. 676 i i i I w � o Dr Z � o Z 0 Z Z Qz J ::D C) I..L LL. O Q r � U PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PLAN PREPARED F� The Edwards Land Company An Edwards Compan PREPARED BY: Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Scientists 5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054 Phone: 614.775.4500 Fax: 614.775.4800 M C M X X v I DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2006 REVISED: JANUARY 4, 2007 REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: GRAPHIC SCALE: 100' 0 50' 100' 200' 1 " =100' NORTH SHEET 6 8 BANTRY GREEN 2005 -0289 24 \ Stnr . I I - - \ 4 31 43 \ 4 \ > > �� \� i 1 t I I o� '9g� — -� 202 0 I 204 5 2 6 , - _ 207 \ \ X08 I \ \) I I � I I I I �� - =_, -9 99y/ , �i / \ L — \,�/ L EGEN D 8 "ISan. \ 8" San. �„ SO/7 --- 55���� I 58 \ \\ I I III I ` II �I Storm Manhole Catch Basin I — �° / �/ // — — \ \ / 1 I \ \ I 11 I I I // C 12 urb &Gutter Inlet Sty Storm Sewer st. — °� _ \ \ \ 1 I \ l \\ \ \ / �� ,' \ 1 \ \ IIII — i 2 std Q \ / , - - \ _ / 9e / / / I III San. Manhole Sanitar ewer Sa. 12 W.M. 1 81 0 h rs\ \ \ \ I rY )�- _ Stm� /q� 14 1 / I - / �/ <' S9 < < 1 / ;II Fire Hydrant llj , \ l 1 I i \ \ I I Water Line w w �� \\ \� _ -- / \\ \\ `� �� III I I I \ I / �s o ao \ / 200 20 l � ,� 17,2 \71 17C� 169 � I , _ � , , \ \ I I J Street Light i -- - /IN I I r / I I \ �- / I--, \ \\ I I \� Flow Arrow CIO 1 1 1 (r�J = -,�, / I , I 40 47 53 \ - \ -'0- — — \ �\ \ - i / - - - 1 Q ',.DU J I 1�7 i" Stm.-- 50 49 -N 4 47 " 46 � 45 44 X N N, \ I (j) -987 \ I % U — Pte Y. Su rdaro� Sward — �rigiiaeaI 7'73 Acres (2.3 Acres Auditors) I II I I � � 11 I �/ / � IIIII I �� Ibl1III III Iili I III I 1 1 1111 I � I I I II I II I I IIIII Q II I I �I I I \ \ I I I II i l� I Ii l l l ll » Stm. � 1 1 II IIII I' I IIII �I II 1 1 1 I II I I I \ I IIII � j I =� I �I 1 1 I I Ili i I � 1 I I II I I I 1 11 1 11 11 IIIIII IIIIkiIIi 1 N G I II 1 1 111 I I " IIII I I II lh 1 1.1 " I I �I viol •� I II I III I I I II I J I LI I I (I I I IIII I III I .IIII 1 , I I I: 11 I I I I I 9 I II I I III I i 1 I I 1 I I� III III III � II IIII 1111 II 111 \III I 1 11 i I I I I I: I I II 1 I I I i 1 1111 II ,IIIIII, l I I Ipl II I I II I \\ 1 1� l \ LU 0 � o Dr Z � o Z 0 Z Z ::D Qz J 00 ::D C—) ry LL. O Q r � U PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PLAN PREPARED F OR: � The ards Land Compan An Edwards Compan PREPARED BY: Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Scientists 5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054 Phone: 614.775.4500 Fax: 614.775.4800 M C M X X v I DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2006 REVISED: JANUARY 4, 2007 REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: GRAPHIC SCALE: 100' 0 50' 100' 200' 1 " =100' NORTH SHEET 7 8 BANTRY GREEN 2005 -0289 1 4 125 — 1 9/ ,' Il 18 \ }/7 \ 126 I I I I \ \1 1 I 12l I q X N N, \ I (j) -987 \ I % U — Pte Y. Su rdaro� Sward — �rigiiaeaI 7'73 Acres (2.3 Acres Auditors) I II I I � � 11 I �/ / � IIIII I �� Ibl1III III Iili I III I 1 1 1111 I � I I I II I II I I IIIII Q II I I �I I I \ \ I I I II i l� I Ii l l l ll » Stm. � 1 1 II IIII I' I IIII �I II 1 1 1 I II I I I \ I IIII � j I =� I �I 1 1 I I Ili i I � 1 I I II I I I 1 11 1 11 11 IIIIII IIIIkiIIi 1 N G I II 1 1 111 I I " IIII I I II lh 1 1.1 " I I �I viol •� I II I III I I I II I J I LI I I (I I I IIII I III I .IIII 1 , I I I: 11 I I I I I 9 I II I I III I i 1 I I 1 I I� III III III � II IIII 1111 II 111 \III I 1 11 i I I I I I: I I II 1 I I I i 1 1111 II ,IIIIII, l I I Ipl II I I II I \\ 1 1� l \ LU 0 � o Dr Z � o Z 0 Z Z ::D Qz J 00 ::D C—) ry LL. O Q r � U PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PLAN PREPARED F OR: � The ards Land Compan An Edwards Compan PREPARED BY: Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Scientists 5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054 Phone: 614.775.4500 Fax: 614.775.4800 M C M X X v I DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2006 REVISED: JANUARY 4, 2007 REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: GRAPHIC SCALE: 100' 0 50' 100' 200' 1 " =100' NORTH SHEET 7 8 BANTRY GREEN 2005 -0289 �~ v= Wco �W 50' 0" 11' - -0" 19' -0" PA WNG SECTION 1' 4' 7' -0" 18" SIDEWALK 6" 6" 6" SL ORE.- SLOPE.• 3/1 I T 3/16 /FT 3 16" FT. ` SLOPE.• J-1 MAX. CITY OF DUBLIN CONCRETE 2 3 4 5 COMBINA T/ON CURB & GUTTER RD -02 NO. 57 AGGREGA TE 4" SUB DRAIN ODOT Item 70731 or 707.33 EAR TH FU TURF NOT TO SCALE FUTURE PARKING COMMERCIAL 6 „ AREA 3 16' %FT. r\ 0 0 z W m W 0 Q- I 0 r\ 0 0 CQ CIO w Q J w X 0 Z I Z 0 W J v I Ui ° v C) W rn Q0 Q CL NO. 57 1 2 3 4 5 A GGREGA TE 4" SUB DRAIN ODOT Item 707.31 or 707.33 TYPICAL 48' glB BOULEVARD SECTION WITH FUTURE PARALLEL PARKING 70' R/W NOT TO SCALE k W C� 70' R/W �W 35' -0" 35' -0" 11' -0" 14' - -0" PA WNG SECTION 10' 10' 14' -0" PA WNG SECTION 4' 7' -0" 18" 12" 12" 18 SIDEWALK' 6" 6" I 6 " STRAIGHT 18" % 6 " N Qo I CONCRETE CURB �b cV SL OPE.• SLOPE—Per 2000 Dr. A 3 /16' %FT. 3/16'%FT. j �j 59; 3/16 /FT. I 3/16 " /FT. V q- - - OPE.• 3.• 1 MAX. CITY OF DUBLIN CONCRETE COMBINA T/ON CURB & GUTTER RD -02 NO. 57 A GGREGA TE 4" SUB DRAIN o N N ODOT Item 707.31 or 707.33 100'R 50' - -0" 20' 20' 19' - -0" PA WNG SECTION 12" 12" 18" EARTH 6 " STRAIGHT 18" i SL OPE.• CONCRETE CURB 59, Per 2000 Dr. A SLOPE. 3.• 1 MAX. CITY OF DUBLIN CONCRETE 3 16"IFT. _ TION CURB & GUTTER — RD -02 EARTH NO. 57 A GGREGA TE — NO. 57 4 " SUB DRAIN — A GGREGA TE ODOT Item 70731 4" SUB DRAIN or 707.33 ODOT Item 707.31 or 707.33 \0 70' R/W 35' -0" 35' -0" 14' -0" PA WNG SECTION 10' 10' 14' -0" PA WNG SECTION — 12" 12 „ 12 „ 12" FUTURE PARKING COMMERCIAL - 6" , 6" STRAIGHT 18" 6" AREA ! I CONCRETE CURB Per 2000 Dr. A ,W6" FT I I I 3 611 T. o I x/16 " FT. v I EARTH 30' -0" k J �Q 11' - -0" ' 4 7' -0" MIN. SIDEWALK EARTH- SL OPE.• SL OPE.• 3/16 /FT 3/16 /FT - SL OPE.• J. 1 MAX. CITY OF DUBLIN CONCRETE COMB /NA TION CURB & GUTTER—/ RD -02 NO. 57 A GGREGA TE 4 " SUB DRAIN ODOT Item 70731 or 707.33 TYPICAL 28' BIB SECTION 60' R/W NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE 50' C R /W 25' -0" 14' -0" PA WNG SECTION 14' -6" GRADING 2' -0" N PROF /LE GRADE �. �. 3/16'%FT. N I 3/16'%FT. TYPICAL 28' BIB SECTION 50' R/W NOT TO SCALE 25' -0" 10' -6" SLOPE. J-1 MAX. k J= Q� �W 8 „ „ 6, 4, SLOPE.- SLOPE.• 0 0 , 3/16 " /FT. 3116'%FT. -1 �-j SLOPE- J. 1 MAX. Z 20'-0" ALLEY J J 6" PA VIN SECTION GRADING SECTION W � 12" N STRING LINE � 3116 %FT. j 3116 %FT. N 1 2 3 4 5 TYPICAL 16' PR /VA TE ALLEY PA VING SECTION 24 -O" PARKING ' PROFILE GRADE -\ 6" NOT TO SCALE 18' - -0" PARKING VARIES o 3 /16' %FT. 3/16'%FT. p 3/i� 6'�FT — NO. 57 EARTH STRAIGHT 18" I AGGREGA TE CONCRETE CURB A STRAIGHT 18" STRAIGHT 18" � 2 3 4 CONCRETE CURB Per 2000 Dr. A �� 5 4 " SUB DRAIN CONCRETE CURB I I I ODOT Item 707.31 � Per 2000 Dr. A o N N ° V- -0 I or 707.33 I NN O TYPICAL PRI VA TE 24' SECTION PLUS PARKING (LO 77/ SIDES NOT TO SCALE PA VEMENT LEGEND 1 -1/4 " ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE TYPE 1 PG. 64 -22 MEDIUM TRAFFIC ITEM 448 1 -3/4" ASPHALT CONCRETE INTERMEDIA TE COURSE TYPE 2 PG. 64 -22 MEDIUM TRAFFIC ITEM 448 3" BI TUMINOUS A GGREGA TE BA SE, I TEM 301 6 " A GGREGA TE BA SE, I TEM 304 SUBGRADE COMPACTION ITEM 204 N NN ' I LU 0 � o Dr Z � o Z 0 Z Z ::D Qz J ::D O Q r � U PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN TYPICAL SECTIONS PREPARED F✓ � The Edwards Lana compan An, Edwards Compa PREPARED BY: Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. Engineers •Surveyors • Planners •Scientists 5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054 Phone: 614.775.4500 Fax: 614.775.4800 M C M X X v I DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2006 REVISED: JAN URAY 4, 2007 REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: GRAPHIC SCALE: 100' 0 50' 100' 200' 1 " =100' NORTH SHEET 8 8 BANTRY GREEN 2005 -0289 EARTH 6-- NO. 57 2 3 4 5 A GGREGA TE 4" SUB DRAIN ODO T Item 707.31 or 707.33 TYPICAL 48' aZ8 BOULEVARD SECTION 70 R/W NOT TO SCALE 50' C R /W 30' -0" � �W Wei W-0" 7' -O 4' 1, SIDEWALK 6" SL OPE.• SL OPE.• 3/16 " /FT. 3 116' %FT. 14' -0" PA WNG SECTION 14' - -6" GRADING SECTION 15' -6" 0» i 18 „ » 6, 6” MIN. k N PROF /LE GRADE \ 00 I SLOPE.• �. �. 3 116' %FT. N 3116'%FT. o o , 3/16 /FT. f— 1 2 AJ 4 5 k- � �W �L Wei W-0" 7' -0„ 4' 1 , SIDEWALK 6" SLOPE. SL OPE.• 3/16 " /FT. 3116'%FT. SL OPE.• 3.• 1 MAX. 3' EAR TH FU TURF SLOPE- 3.• 1 MAX-I \0 8' 1 ' BIKE PA TH SLOPE.- 3 /16' %FT. 16' -0 3' 4' 9' -0" MIN. SIDEWALK EARTH SL OPE.• SL OPE.• 3/16 /FT 3/16 /FT SLOPE. 3.• 1 MAX. CITY OF DUBLIN CONCRETE COMB /NA TION CURB & GUTTER — RD -02 NO. 57 A GGREGA TE — 4 " SUB DRAIN — ODOT Item 70731 or 707.33 k J �Q 11' - -0" ' 4 7' -0" MIN. SIDEWALK EARTH- SL OPE.• SL OPE.• 3/16 /FT 3/16 /FT - SL OPE.• J. 1 MAX. CITY OF DUBLIN CONCRETE COMB /NA TION CURB & GUTTER—/ RD -02 NO. 57 A GGREGA TE 4 " SUB DRAIN ODOT Item 70731 or 707.33 TYPICAL 28' BIB SECTION 60' R/W NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE 50' C R /W 25' -0" 14' -0" PA WNG SECTION 14' -6" GRADING 2' -0" N PROF /LE GRADE �. �. 3/16'%FT. N I 3/16'%FT. TYPICAL 28' BIB SECTION 50' R/W NOT TO SCALE 25' -0" 10' -6" SLOPE. J-1 MAX. k J= Q� �W 8 „ „ 6, 4, SLOPE.- SLOPE.• 0 0 , 3/16 " /FT. 3116'%FT. -1 �-j SLOPE- J. 1 MAX. Z 20'-0" ALLEY J J 6" PA VIN SECTION GRADING SECTION W � 12" N STRING LINE � 3116 %FT. j 3116 %FT. N 1 2 3 4 5 TYPICAL 16' PR /VA TE ALLEY PA VING SECTION 24 -O" PARKING ' PROFILE GRADE -\ 6" NOT TO SCALE 18' - -0" PARKING VARIES o 3 /16' %FT. 3/16'%FT. p 3/i� 6'�FT — NO. 57 EARTH STRAIGHT 18" I AGGREGA TE CONCRETE CURB A STRAIGHT 18" STRAIGHT 18" � 2 3 4 CONCRETE CURB Per 2000 Dr. A �� 5 4 " SUB DRAIN CONCRETE CURB I I I ODOT Item 707.31 � Per 2000 Dr. A o N N ° V- -0 I or 707.33 I NN O TYPICAL PRI VA TE 24' SECTION PLUS PARKING (LO 77/ SIDES NOT TO SCALE PA VEMENT LEGEND 1 -1/4 " ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE TYPE 1 PG. 64 -22 MEDIUM TRAFFIC ITEM 448 1 -3/4" ASPHALT CONCRETE INTERMEDIA TE COURSE TYPE 2 PG. 64 -22 MEDIUM TRAFFIC ITEM 448 3" BI TUMINOUS A GGREGA TE BA SE, I TEM 301 6 " A GGREGA TE BA SE, I TEM 304 SUBGRADE COMPACTION ITEM 204 N NN ' I LU 0 � o Dr Z � o Z 0 Z Z ::D Qz J ::D O Q r � U PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN TYPICAL SECTIONS PREPARED F✓ � The Edwards Lana compan An, Edwards Compa PREPARED BY: Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. Engineers •Surveyors • Planners •Scientists 5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054 Phone: 614.775.4500 Fax: 614.775.4800 M C M X X v I DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2006 REVISED: JAN URAY 4, 2007 REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: REVISED: GRAPHIC SCALE: 100' 0 50' 100' 200' 1 " =100' NORTH SHEET 8 8 BANTRY GREEN 2005 -0289 EARTH 6-- NO. 57 2 3 4 5 A GGREGA TE 4" SUB DRAIN ODO T Item 707.31 or 707.33 TYPICAL 48' aZ8 BOULEVARD SECTION 70 R/W NOT TO SCALE 50' C R /W 30' -0" � �W Wei W-0" 7' -O 4' 1, SIDEWALK 6" SL OPE.• SL OPE.• 3/16 " /FT. 3 116' %FT. 14' -0" PA WNG SECTION 14' - -6" GRADING SECTION 15' -6" 0» i 18 „ » 6, 6” MIN. k N PROF /LE GRADE \ 00 I SLOPE.• �. �. 3 116' %FT. N 3116'%FT. o o , 3/16 /FT. f— 1 2 AJ 4 5 k- � �W �L Wei W-0" 7' -0„ 4' 1 , SIDEWALK 6" SLOPE. SL OPE.• 3/16 " /FT. 3116'%FT. SL OPE.• 3.• 1 MAX. 3' EAR TH FU TURF SLOPE- 3.• 1 MAX-I \0 8' 1 ' BIKE PA TH SLOPE.- 3 /16' %FT. W a Z `� 42 O oU Z 745 33 m T z 42 S BROCK RD \G ��O DELAWARE CN FRANKLIN CNTY O UNION CNTY z_ O En} Y 6 F- Z Z �U • • T • lL - PRE - DEVELOPED WATERSHED DIVIDE POST- DEVELOPED WATERSHED DIVIDE Summary of Pre - Developed Hydrolo A. Allowable Release Rates (cfs /ac) CF5 /Acre (Areas within City of Dublin Studied Watershed) 5ub001 0utlet "A" -COD # 8070 for NFIR Yr No- Detention Required (undisturbed area) (ac) 5ub002 Outlet "B" -COD # 8330 for NFIR 1- Critical 5torm -10 Yr 20.60 Storm CF5 /Acre Pre Area Allowable Yr (ac) (cfs) 1- 0.10 4.29 0.43 2- 0.10 4.29 0.43 5- 0.10 4.29 0.43 10- 0.10 4.29 0.43 25- 0.20 4.29 0.86 50- 0.40 4.29 1.72 100- 0.50 4.29 2.15 Estimated Detention Vol. = 5.53 ac -ft 20.60 Calculated WQ Vol = (0.4 x 20.6x0.75)/12 = 0.51 ac -ft Total Storage Required within 5ub002 = 6.04 ac-ft 5ub003 Outlet "C" -COD # 8340 for NFIR Critical 5torm -10 Yr Storm CF5 /Acre Pre Area Allowable Yr (cfs) (ac) (cfs) 1- 0.10 20.60 2.06 2- 0.10 20.60 2.06 5- 0.10 20.60 2.06 10- 0.10 20.60 2.06 25- 0.10 20.60 4.12 50- 0.20 20.60 6.18 100- 0.40 20.60 8.24 Estimated Detention Vol. = 4.54 ac -ft Calculated WQ Vol = (0.4 x 5.04x0.75)/12 = 0.53 ac -ft Total Storage Required within 5ub002 = 5.07 ac-ft 5ub004 Outlet "D" Critical Storm -25 Yr Storm CF5 /Acre Pre Area Allowable Yr (ac) (cfs) 1- 0.50 20.10 10.05 2- 0.50 20.10 10.05 5- 0.50 20.10 10.05 10- 0.50 20.10 10.05 25- 0.50 20.10 10.05 50- 2.81 20.10 56.48 100- 3.41 20.10 68.54 Estimated Detention Vol. = 5.75 ac -ft 0.30 Calculated WQ Vol = (0.4 x 13.13x0.75)/12 = 1.12 ac -ft Total Storage Required within 5ub004 -A = 6.87 ac-ft 5ub005 Outlet "F" (Pre 5ub006) Critical 5torm -10 -Yr Storm CF5 /Acre Pre Area Allowable Yr (cfs) (ac) (cfs) 1- 0.10 31.4 3.14 2- 0.10 31.4 3.14 5- 0.10 31.4 3.14 10- 0.10 31.4 3.14 25- 0.20 31.4 6.28 50- 0.30 31.4 9.42 100- 0.40 31.4 12.56 Estimated Detention Vol. = 6.78 ac -ft Calculated WQ Vol = (0.4 x 31.6x0.75)/12 = 0.71 ac -ft T & u t eb06 o -Ui�Ylet e 'g jre 6t ,t h i g 05NF 4 ac-f 008) Critical 5torm -5 -Yr Storm CF5 /Acre Pre Area Allowable Yr (cfs) (ac) (cfs) 1- 0.47 17.9 8.41 2- 0.79 17.9 8.41 5- 1.23 17.9 8.41 10- 1.59 17.9 28.46 25- 2.18 17.9 39.02 50- 2.72 17.9 48.69 100- 3.30 17.9 59.07 Estimated Detention Vol. = 2.26 ac -ft Calculated WQ Vol = (0.4 x 23.3x0.75)/12 = 0.58 ac -ft Total Storage Required within 5ub006 = 2.84 ac-ft 5ub007 Outlet "&"- Critical 5torm -10 -Yr Storm CF5 /Acre Pre Area Allowable Yr (cfs) (ac) (cfs) 1- 0.55 4.1 2.25 2- 0.55 4.1 2.25 5- 0.55 4.1 2.25 10- 0.55 4.1 2.25 25- 2.53 4.1 10.37 50- 3.15 4.1 12.91 100- 3.81 4.1 15.62 Estimated Detention Vol. = 0.59 ac -ft Calculated WQ Vol = (0.4 x 5.8x0.75)/12 = 0.14 ac -ft Total Storage Required within 5ub008 = 0.73 ac-ft 5ub008 Outlet "I "- (Pre 5ub009) Critical 5torm -1 -Yr Storm CF5 /Acre Pre Area Allowable Yr (ac) (cfs) 1- 0.42 20.6 8.65 2- 0.71 20.6 14.63 5- 1.11 20.6 22.87 10- 1.44 20.6 29.66 25- 1.97 20.6 40.58 50- 2.47 20.6 50.88 100- 2.99 20.6 61.59 Estimated Detention Vol. = 1.68 ac -ft Calculated WQ Vol = (0.4 x 19.7x0.75)/12 = 0.49 ac -ft Total Storage Required within 5ub009 = 2.17 ac-ft Ex. 15" W a Z `� 42 O oU Z 33 m T U 42 S BROCK RD \G �1�O DELAWARE CN FRANKLIN CNTY 3 1 O UNION CNTY 6 ? O E} Y 0 Q <Z Z • • I • lL - 2 HORIZONTAL SCALE 5ummary of Pre - Developed Hvdroloav A. Allowable Release Rates (cfs /ac) (Areas within City of Dublin Studied Watershed) Sub001- Outlet "A" -COD # 8070 for NFIR Storm CFS /Acre Yr Allowable 1- 0.20 2- 0.20 5- 0.30 10- 0.40 25- 0.50 50- 0.60 100- 0.80 Sub002- Outlet "B" -COD # 8330 for NFIR Storm CFS /Acre Pre -Dev Peak Allowable Yr (ac.) (cfs) (Cfs /ac) 1- 0.10 8.39 0.47 2- 0.10 14.12 0.79 5- 0.10 21.98 1.23 10- 0.10 28.56 1.59 25- 0.20 39.08 2.18 50- 0.40 48.70 2.72 100- 0.50 59.09 3.30 Sub003 Outlet "C" -COD # 8340 for NFIR Storm CFS /Acre Area Pre -Dev Peak Yr Yr (ac.) (cfs) 1- 0.10 20.60 8.66 2- 0.10 20.60 14.67 5- 0.10 20.60 22.87 10- 0.10 20.60 29.75 25- 0.20 20.60 40.75 50- 0.30 20.60 50.82 100- 0.40 20.60 61.68 Sub006 Outlet "F" -COD # 8340 for NFIR Sub010 Outlet 7" Storm CFS /Acre Storm Area Yr Allowable Yr (ac.) 1- 0.10 1- 6.00 2- 0.10 2- 6.00 5- 0.10 1 5- 6.00 10- 0.10 10- 6.00 25- 0.20 25- 6.00 50- 0.30 50- 6.00 100- 0.40 100- 6.00 B. Allowable Release Rates (cfs /ac) 3.92 (Areas outside City of Dublin Studied Watershed) Sub004 Outlet "D" Storm Area Pre -Dev Peak Allowable Yr (ac.) (cfs) (Cfs /ac) 1- 20.20 9.95 0.50 2- 20.20 16.69 0.83 5- 20.20 25.85 1.28 10- 20.20 33.50 1.65 25- 20.20 45.74 2.26 50- 20.20 56.90 2.81 100- 20.20 68.94 3.41 Sub005 Outlet "E" Storm Area Pre -Dev Peak Allowable Yr (ac.) (cfs) (Cfs /ac) 1- 28.60 12.94 0.45 2- 28.60 21.70 0.76 5- 28.60 33.60 1.17 10- 28.60 43.55 1.52 25- 28.60 59.45 2.08 50- 28.60 73.97 2.58 100- 28.60 89.68 3.13 Sub007 Outlet "6" Storm Area Pre -Dev Peak Allowable Yr (ac.) (cfs) (Cfs /ac) 1- 4.1 2.27 0.51 2- 4.1 3.80 0.86 5- 4.1 5.88 1.32 10- 4.1 7.61 1.71 25- 4.1 10.38 2.35 50- 41 12.90 2.92 100- 4.1 15.62 3.55 Sub008- Outlet "H" Storm Area Pre -Dev Peak Allowable Yr (ac.) (cfs) (Cfs /ac) 1- 17.9 8.39 0.47 2- 17.9 14.12 0.79 5- 17.9 21.98 1.23 10- 17.9 28.56 1.59 25- 17.9 39.08 2.18 50- 17.9 48.70 2.72 100- 17.9 59.09 3.30 Sub009 Outlet "I" Storm Area Pre -Dev Peak Allowable Yr (ac.) (cfs) (Cfs /ac) 1- 20.60 8.66 0.42 2- 20.60 14.67 0.71 5- 20.60 22.87 1.11 10- 20.60 29.75 1.44 25- 20.60 40.75 1.97 50- 20.60 50.82 2.47 100- 20.60 61.68 2.99 Sub010 Outlet 7" Storm Area Pre -Dev Peak Allowable Yr (ac.) (cfs) (Cfs /ac) 1- 6.00 3.49 0.58 2- 6.00 5.80 0.97 1 5- 6.00 8.92 1.49 10- 6.00 11.53 1.92 25- 6.00 15.68 2.61 50- 6.00 19.47 3.24 100- 6.00 23.54 3.92