Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
71-07 Ordinance
F RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank, Inc Form No 30043 Ordinance No. 71 -07 Passed 20 1 1 AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.66 ACRES LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF HEATHER BLUFF DRIVE AND WILCOX ROAD, FROM R -1, RESTRICTED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. (HEATHER BLUFF ESTATES — PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN - CASE NO. 02- 117Z). NOW, THEREFQRE, 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 I day of —Ye —r> 2007. Mayor - Presiding Officer Attest: 64ulv�� (2-- Q441� Clerk of Council Sponsor: Land Use and Long Range Planning '.l CITY OF DUBLIN_ Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1006 Phone: 614 - 410 -4400 • Fax: 614 - 410 -4490 TO: Members of Dublin City Council FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager QT � 5 - I DATE: September 13, 2007 Memo INITIATED BY: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning RE: Ordinance 71 -07 — Rezoning 1.66 Acres - Heather Bluff Estates (Case No. 02 -117Z) (September 17 Second Reading) Summary Ordinance 71 -07, a request for rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District, of a six -lot subdivision with a 0.229 -acre park located at the intersection of Wilcox Road and Heather Bluff Drive was introduced at the September 4, 2007 meeting. Members of City Council requested that the tree preservation zone associated with Lot 4 be designated as parkland and be dedicated to the City. The applicant has revised the development text and plans to concur with this request. The creation of a 0.229 -acre park area meets the Code requirement of open space dedication and eliminates the need for waiver of a required parkland fee. In addition, inquiry was made regarding the cost of roadway and public improvements associated with this development. Engineering has determined that the total cost incurred by the City to construct the Heather Bluff Drive extension and install water lines and storm sewers is approximately $280,000. Recommendation: Approval of Ordinance 71 -07 at the second reading/public hearing on September 17, 2007. Heather Bluff Estates REVISED DEVELOPMENT TEXT BASED ON CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS Jeff Hackett- 1.66 Acres at intersection of Heather Bluff Drive and Wilcox Road August 16, 2007 DEVELOPMENT PLAN TEXT Introduction The proposed site is the former Woodin family trust property located adjacent to the existing Heather Glen South Subdivision on the west, a single family home owned by Scott & Cheryl Shafer on the north, Wilcox Road/ a single family owned by Joel Acheson on the east, and by an 11.272 acre tract owned by the City of Dublin on the south. It is presently agricultural land on flat ground with no other buildings. There are a number of other subdivisions and developments in the area, most notably the Heather Glen(s) subdivisions with immediate proximity to the target property, which have left this agricultural tract out of place. The Community Plan shows this site as Residential with medium density (2 -5 dwelling units per acre). With that in mind, the proposed single family development will meld easily into the surrounding communities, while not significantly adding traffic in the area. Development Standards The current plan proposal features 6 new single family homes on 1.66 acres, for a gross density of 3.6 du/ac. Homesites vary in width from 65' to 73' at the front of each lot and a minimum lot size of 9147 square feet. Required side yards on each lot will total 12' or more, with a minimum of 6' on each side. Rear yard shall be the Tree Preservation line. The maximum height of any buildings on the lot shall be 35' as measured by Code. Nothing herein shall prohibit over -lot grading, drainage facilities, utility lines or utility structures within said Zones. The building setbacks along Heather Bluff Drive and Wilcox Road shall be a minimum of 25'. Parks and Open Space The Development has dedicated lot 5 for parkland in lieu of fee, LandscavinQ and Tree Preservation Street trees for a street program shall be placed a minimum of 45' on center, Red Oak is the approved Tree for this location. Final approval for tree selection and placement shall be given by the City Forester. Most of the existing trees on the site are along the boundaries of the property. The rear 30' of the lots on the north and south side, a 15' strip on the west side (both north and south sides), a 15' strip between lots 3 and 4 shall be covered by a Tree Preservation Zone pursuant to and following Dublin's Do Not Build ordinance. This zone will allow for the mowing and maintenance of the entire lot but prohibit the removal of any trees determined to be in good condition. Any tree removed will be replaced per the Dublin Tree Replacement policy, unless otherwise approved. Provision of Utilities Sanitary sewer on the north side of Heather Bluff shall be extended to the site from the current termini adjacent to the proposed development area. Stormwater and Water Systems were installed with the extension of Heather Bluff. Circulation and Access E—FOR UBMITTED TO COUNCIL R EC ' EIV E-n MEETING ON f 1710 7 S 1 ( 1 2007 U //,? -Z_� The subdivision will be accessed from either the north or south from Wilcox Road or from the Wes from Heather Bluff Drive. All internal rights -of -way shall be 60'. All rights -of -way have been dedicated accordingly. Parking shall be in accordance with Dublin road use requirements. Sidewalks and bike paths have been provided with the extension of Heather Bluff. Architecture The exterior of all homes shall be constructed in accordance with Dublin's architectural standards. Natural materials including brick, stone, wood, stucco, and/or fiber cement siding (Hardiplank) will be used. All homes to comply with the Residential Appearance Code and must be differentiated from each other by having four clearly distinguished front elevations, none of which shall be adjacent to each other. Fencin Fencing shall be installed per Dublin's code requirements. Signgge No additional signage is proposed, Protect PlzasinQ Upon completion of the zoning and obtaining of all plat approvals, utilities will be extended in conjunction with construction to develop the entire subdivision as a single phase. ADDii t 1 RemesentaEtive Date Heather Bluff Estates City of Dublin, Franklin County, Ohio Preliminary Development Plan LDTHIAN STREET (61yRMf1 PIRTHSHIRE STREET l6D'Rlw HEATHER GLEN SECTION 3 !, it,' TO l I � ti HEATHER GLEN } SOU H m r 1 to Z Z I N L a 5' SeRNCE ww I L L t 1 � II 1 k;J 1 I 0 -IOiUI 10.]i3 q.tt. L 5,p9G p.2 1 ' I o3 \! xr.� 6 Y 1 M lg I 9 � I 4 9.95s sa.it I }I prll wt L J L J t C ' HEATHER BLUFF DRIVE (60'R/W) a•wL — — -- — — -- — e 1� HEATHER GLEN + ' SOUTH ! IJ � GRAPHIC SCALE NORTH 1 r ti r' cult wrx , I t t ■ 1 I t I� j 1 I I I y 33 I ^j 99ns .a'IC j � tovs9 q.2 1 �� 0355 eve, �4 I L 1 ! r ti r � S X 0 a 0 0 .u» VICINITY MAP rar ro srxc AS SUBMITTED TO CCUNCI � ;4 MEETING ON � IZ �; FOR EE RECEI VE[) 10 07 � I • i 'Ut�i \ 1 OF 1 0 oU) LL] Q D� z o Ul Q U W J z � � Y LL IL m LLJ U � � Z m LLI U o: U �Q o Ld F U � \ n e�'oss xcu om ' ttm 000 -362 -27.64 T O 93 U is C C 0 c - �w o g oo Nye no �� N C N U C Ld 1( C r O �c QL N<0 L KOv, n o > ° x IA..JI I SCALE: 1 ° = 40' PROJECT #: 1344 FILENAME: ,344 CONCEPT PLOT FILE: r' cult wrx 0 7391Y:Y ury3\ avers I a�5s P � ITQSY i - zn.a5" j G+ lOR,ot' w aft ! r 55'w au� r � S X 0 a 0 0 .u» VICINITY MAP rar ro srxc AS SUBMITTED TO CCUNCI � ;4 MEETING ON � IZ �; FOR EE RECEI VE[) 10 07 � I • i 'Ut�i \ 1 OF 1 0 oU) LL] Q D� z o Ul Q U W J z � � Y LL IL m LLJ U � � Z m LLI U o: U �Q o Ld F U � \ n e�'oss xcu om ' ttm 000 -362 -27.64 T O 93 U is C C 0 c - �w o g oo Nye no �� N C N U C Ld 1( C r O �c QL N<0 L KOv, n o > ° x IA..JI I SCALE: 1 ° = 40' PROJECT #: 1344 FILENAME: ,344 CONCEPT PLOT FILE: 01 O — I } ul EM. la/W 72,95' 4" SPECES E 1 B" 30' _ m f4 $„ I� 81.03' P 1 7.1 7- ” M°AP A, „ 784637 � S- 3 28 , 8 "t1WP 6 it } 10 ' I 6" - 55.09 Baal w I n R I I 1 1a� i 14' UAPPP 1 } 10 t_ ULO 1 B V i 4 M 1 r 7BJ[Gk (IYP.) I e" Sp (RE 4 t GOOD CONDITION 7 r 1� 30' BLUE SPRUCE 0000 CONDITION 6 12" 30' BLUE SPRUCE 1 ()p I 13 1A } 15" 30' BLUE SPRUCE GOOD CONDITION _ 10 6" fl WHITE PINE GOOD CONDITION 11 B" 30' I 1 1 ; 9,496 0.210 acres sq.ft. �; �I 30' 1 10,312 sq.ft. 0.218 g` w 1 9,952 sq.ft. � w �1 o q GOOD CONDITION acres. 14' 4 0.228 acres w; `" i M 'D 16' I 1 WHITE PINE y 1 I ' [ I 5 16 r w w I 1 W CATALPA POOR CONDITION 17 16" 32' CATALPA ON NEIGHBORING LOT 18 36' w ' m a CATALPA GOOD CONDITION 19 6' 30' CEDAR GOOD CONDITION I I '1 2, ��1i ¢� O ON NEIGHBORING LOT 21 16" 25' SETBACK z CRAB APPLE __J z 25' SETBACK B" u1 "1 GOOD CONDITION 23 10" 30' MAPLE FAIR CONDITION 24 — 0 - 1 Y .. 4" UT) ,. GOOD CONDITION 25 . 30' MAPLE 01 O — I } ul EM. la/W 72,95' 4" SPECES CONDITION 1 B" 30' _ m k $„ F R 1 12 A, 3 } 10 ' 30" AUSTRIAN PINE - � I n R I I 1 1a� 10,959 sq.fL 29 0.252 acres ; o I } I iN 3 %T 1 } 10 t_ } I -- S' SIDE PRESERVA M 1 r 7BJ[Gk (IYP.) I e" 67.49' 0 GRAPHIC SCALE e la I' = 2n' NORTH S 89 °5 E 234 .58' �' 4" A(3 S3. 12 p 6 ., E u i W �9 t err ) 1 c a t 10' (6) l 14 1 7 . 1 t ,— 1 R r wP 11,370 sq.ft. 0.261 acres i i SETBACK .00' C,. 4 W d WP(5) 14 W_ 10' P 13 in ' V1 r1 32 32 ,3" P 2)w DEDICATED PARKLAND 9,954 sq.ft. 4" R 0.229 acres 6" P) O P 8" y� O oOP f ENP y' Eyy 6 ap • l Q f r ,�a f 95' 10" POP(2) !/ i I I I I I I I 4 I I I I I } 1 } } 1 } � I I n o } I � I � O I D M I Q d D I n I o Q I TREE SURVEY CHART LABEL DIA. CRITICAL ROOT Z DIAMETER SPECES CONDITION 1 B" 30' _ AUSTRIAN PINE GOOD CONDITION 2 10" 30' AUSTRIAN PINE; GOOD CONDITION 3 12' 30" AUSTRIAN PINE GOOD CONDITION 4 14" 30' AUSTRIAN PINE GOOD CONDITION 5 6" 30' BLUE SPRUCE GOOD CONDITION 6 e" 30" BLUE SPRUCE GOOD CONDITION 7 1 10" 30' BLUE SPRUCE 0000 CONDITION 6 12" 30' BLUE SPRUCE GOOD CONDITION 9 15" 30' BLUE SPRUCE GOOD CONDITION _ 10 6" 30' WHITE PINE GOOD CONDITION 11 B" 30' WHITE PINE GOOD CONDITION 12 10" 30' AUSTRIAN PINE GOOD CONDITION 13 12' 30' AUSTRIAN PINE GOOD CONDITION 14 14' 30' WHITE PINE GOOD CONDITION 15 16' 32' 1 WHITE PINE GOOD CONDITION 16 6" 30 CATALPA POOR CONDITION 17 16" 32' CATALPA ON NEIGHBORING LOT 18 36' 72' CATALPA GOOD CONDITION 19 6' 30' CEDAR GOOD CONDITION 20 12' 30' CRAB APPLE ON NEIGHBORING LOT 21 16" 30' CRAB APPLE OR NEIGHBORING LOT 22 B" 30' MAPLE GOOD CONDITION 23 10" 30' MAPLE FAIR CONDITION 24 12" 30' MAPLE GOOD CONDITION 25 14' 30' MAPLE GOOD CONDITION 26 16" 32' CHERRY GOOD CONDITION 27 18" 36' MAPLE', GOOD CONDITION 26 20" 40' MAPLE GOOD CONDITION 29 12" 30' OAK I GOOD CONDITION 30 15" 30' OAK GOOD CONDITION 31 16" 32' OAK GOOD CONDITION 32 8' 30' POPLAR GOOD CONDITION 33 7' 30' POPLAR GOOD CONDITION 34 B 30' POPLAR GOOD CONDITION 35 9" 30' POPLAR ON NEIGHBORING LOT 36 10" 30' POPLAR G000 CONDITION 37 12" 1 30' BOX ELDER GOOD CONDITION 38 14' 30' POPLAR GOOD CONDITION 39 6' 30' RED BUD GOOD CONDITION _ 40 12" 30' RED BUD ON NEIGHBORING LOT 41 14" 30' RED BUD ON NEIGHBORING LOT 42 30" 60' CATALPA FAIR CONDITION 43 36' 72' LTM3530 LINDEN, DAMAGED — POOR CONDITION 44 12" 30' WALNUT GOOD CONDITION CAT 4 ° ss.v ss.as' 1. CAT 5 - so' s K g to I I - -- i 60 60 , 4 50 C,4T REDS 5 W ' ' M 1 14 41 F °r, s w EXISTING as HOUSE ° 1 9906 sq. t. I o z 0. acres I 0 4" IP e 1 2) z 5 i 5 I 32931 sq.ft. J 55 35 U" I 0.756 acres gg //.. C 6 510E JI 1 I SETBACK (T'P.) 6 W 'r 0 I g _/-� N 71p — I _I ;��1 1 NUT 9 9 44 JOEL ACHESON V-1 1 I' i �VP LABEL N 87'47'22" W 244.48' — — — — TREE PRESERVATION i ! _ CRITICAL ROOT ZONE 4 greater. �j TREE TO BE REMOVED x BY DEVELOPER D 1 D G PROTECTION FENCING D = 73'00'27" \ 1 R = 170.55' L = 217.32' 1 } CH = 202.91 ` } CH BRG = 1 1 } N56'10'0 1 "W I LABEL SPECIES \ TOTAL DIA Critical root zone i. the area scribed by an im ginary line o n } he ground beneath 1 tree ho in g canter point at the enter t the trunk ,. the tree and having a radius equal to one foot for every inch of tliameter at breast height, or 15' whichever is 8" BLUE SPRUCE 4 greater. ao \ \\ — All trees in the c Ibuatian a not specifically designated for } removal shall be preserved. Trees to be preserved shall be pratected witvisibility h high v tree protection fencing as shown, is \ Owner shall be responsible for the construction, erection, and ` } m aorta..... of protection fencing. DATE ` 4 } The lancing o must rem n in place during all phases it The e My honge the protective Fencing must be CHECKED: approved by the planning director. C1 \� — It ah II be unlawful to fail to abide by the terms of the tree } preservati emolan or removal permit. —Trees r ni g ... e I a be fertilized and pruned (if needed) two 1 yearn arts' construction, ro 1 — Every effort shall be made to s e the trees a and the Pond. Root trimming shall be used were grading takes place. \ I —Once existing structures have been oved ree t protection I fence shall be moved to aw mm.d,h, c itiaal raat zo e CURVE DATA \ TREE REPLACEMENT DATA D = 73'00'27" \ 1 R = 170.55' L = 217.32' 1 } CH = 202.91 ` } CH BRG = 1 1 } N56'10'0 1 "W I LABEL SPECIES QU ANTITY REMOVED MOVED TOTAL DIA $ 8" BLUE SPRUCE 4 32" ao s" OAK 1 is DA TOTAL = 47" r,. w I zl a <czzs I .w x rr v 1' PER INCH OF — �y -11NC TAM TO DIAMETER LEAST REMAFN. HEIGHT OR 15' WHICHEVER 15 a NO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY GREATER PERMITTED WITHIN THE TREE PROTECTION FENCING, RICH VISIBILITY TREE PROIECROM FENCE, TREE PROTECTION FFNGE T am 10 VD&C CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO TREE PRESERVATION PLAN FOR HEATHER BLUFF S87' 48'15 35.33' PREPARED BY: CorneraLana Engineering and Plonning Cn. Cr C:e.wjl and CorT-�wg Cnglneels S�sy tnq i] LYI�IIL91 ®® aAUe, i" easde r,. w I zl a <czzs I DESIGN: MSW =. 11l16E'.S ORDER NO. o,rTl�nvisa T1or ' DATE DRAWN: MSW CHECKED: S 82'10'44" E 8 1.03' ! T7 I A+ V d� 9,496 sq.ft. u' 0.210 acres w , 9,952 sq,ft. 1I IA 0.228 acres I ryi H ; I Z I ( W l IIJ1 I t ^! I® ' � � Iz i n I J 1 qi } N + in 'q I I i 25' SETBACK Z 25' SCIBACK 70.94' 71.00' V rn 0 �S 78 Jt6 37" F 20-7-54. 07 54, 83 g6, 1 30' TREE PRESERVATION ZdNE l i I I I' I it ;I 1 11 11 I II �I I 10,312 sq.ft. w I roil 1 , �, 11,370 sq.ft. 0.218 acres l 1 E H � ; 0.261 acres wl oil n il �c II mil >vIl pill a li oil l Z L- -- SETBACK 73.00' S 89 °5 E 234 }� I I � I 1 l SiY screACK _ ' SETBA" I I r-: I I I [V l I I - 1 } I l f Q S 9906 sq. f 1 I l I m 10,959 sq.ft. i z; 0.227 acres l ± 0.252 acres l I 1 I m I i } I I � l ► ; t__�_�___ J�_______ ► $` SIDE R£E PRESEftVATICT#J 24N 6 7.49' GRAPHIC SCALE NORTH Z 69.89' s 7 '' QS sls. 1 T 1 i l 1 1 e 1 } �T' ► sa.J b�J aR w Pled, (Y, a ,LJJp I W � I DESIGN: Nil M � I ►► DATE to O 1n ► rn >n I • DEDICATED PARKLAND } 9,954 sq.ft. 0.229 acres I 1 I I I I >x 95' o I >e I � � I / O I W I L4 � A m EXISTING i HOUSE 1 ��l O Z y 32931 sq.ft. r —6' SIDE i 0.756 acres SETBACK (rl y 1 1.E JOEL ACHESON N 87'4 7'22" W 244.48' � \ I \ I � I I I \ I I CURVE DATA \ I D = 73'00'27" \ I R = 170.55' L = 217.32' CH = 202.91' CH BRG = N56 "10'01 "W CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HEATHER BLUFF S87'48' 15 35.33' PREPARED BY: Csrnerxtanc F,ngincarirsq and Plovi my CO- Cn +i Deirjn arod C�ornLdCV1y Clymeen sa.J b�J aR w Pled, (Y, a ,LJJp _ mH�A�s -TYS r.ulal f.cax. DESIGN: Nil SCALE UNLESS OTNENCNf otm I -2p O DATE DRAWN: MSW CHECKED: MSW City of Dublin 02 -1172 N n Land Use and Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Long Range Planning Heather Bluff Estates Fee 5 Wilc Rd. 0 250 500 PROPOSED PLAT N 76 t22�� w J 11 V' 1 � b NORTH ,r I Division of Planning 5800 Shier-Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236 Phone/TDD: 614-410-4600 Fax: 614-761-6566 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Amount Rec . 1 - Receipt No I L4 EXHIBIT - REZONING APPLICATION (Code Section 153.234) EXPIRE ORDINANCE NO. CITY COUNCIL 1ST READING CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL ACTION Application No: P&Z Date(s): P&Z Action: MIS Fee No: Date Received: Received By* Type of Request: NOTE: Applicants are highly encouraged to contact the Division of Planning at 410-4600 for assistance to discuss the P&Z review process prior to submitting a formal application. I. CHECK THE TYPE OF APPLICATION: ❑ Composite Plan (§153.058) Preliminary Development Plan (§153.056) ❑ Other (Please Describe) II. PROPERTY INFORMATION: . ....... ........ . ....................... .. . . . .. . . ..................... -.1 .... . ... Parcel Size: Tax IDIParcell Number: 00 (Acres) ajq A1 004 - ---------- ----- -- - ------------- ---------- . .... -- ---------- L -r- Property Address: f Lt gri -- ..&A- W 1-1 1 1 --1 ? -------- - - -------- ------- ---- -- - ------------ 1 - ----- Side of Street (N, S. E W)- --l-1- .. - — ---- Aj Nearest Intersection' - - ----- ----- ---- Distance from Nearest Intersection w FEET, S, E. W (Circle) from Nearest Intersection -------- ------ ------------- ...._......I......_............ ........... I . ........ I - --------------- f . Existing Land Use Development: ----- c 6-4 - ------------- Proposed Land Use Development: e , -- - --------------- Number of Acre �tbe Rezone f ---- JXA ------------- --- I- --- ---- b --'� Current or Existing Zoning District: Requested Zoning District: ------------- �--J. P-Q. . ..... — - ---- - -------- 1-0- . . ............. ........... Rezoning Application rX r- k-,, %1 U P 0'a � -z. " FILE COPY OCT 9 r- MU2 Page 1 of 5 8 ftM ro0r102 . CITY'OFT'D UN Rezoning Statement: - ... ---- ........... I ... . ............ . . ..... ........... ....... State briefly how the proposed zoning and development relates to the existing and potential future land use character of the vicinity. V[ &+e Y-N 'IL - pi.A j C 0 cwc� Lj iyl K CA n C t-ryx e, 5 J U 41 d'. tk ---- ... ........ .. . ............ -.1-1-- ....... 1----.— .......... — ..................... -- .. . ............. -- - — ------ State briefly how the proposed zoning and development relates to the Dublin Community Plan. TV, ki Cc OL '- ["-r- Vr, a rk L L tk Previous Application: Has an application for rezoning the property been denied by the City Council within the last two (2) years? Ivy If Yes, When? State the basis of reconsideration: K/A ........ . .. .. .. -- . ...... IF A PLANNED DISTRICT IS REQUESTED, IS A COMPOSITE OR PRELIMINARY PLAN ATTACHED? . ........... . .......... .......... .... I ... . .................... IF A PLANNED DISTRICT IS REQUESTED, IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT ATTACHED? —1 ............ ---- .......... . ............... ........ — ..... -- .......... -- ... ... — .... ----------------------- YES NO ❑ YES ❑ NO )pr FILE COPY Rezoning Application Page 2 of 5 PLA-108 Date 07/26/02 IV. PLEASE SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING: ❑ V TWO (2) ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION AND THIRTEEN (13) COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION ❑ 1 14 COPIES OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION Legal description of the property to be zoned consists of _ page(s). I 14 SETS OF A SCALED, SITE /STAKING PLAN (NOT GREATER THAN 24" x 36 ") AND 14 SETS OF REDUCED SITE DRAWING(S) (NOT GREATER THAN 11" X 17 ") SHOWING: a. The site and all land 500 feet beyond the boundaries; b. North arrow and bar scale; c. Locations, size, and dimensions of all existing and proposed conditions and structures (significant natural features, landscaping, structures, additions, decks, access ways, parking, etc.); d. Proposed Uses (Regional transportation system, densities, number of dwellings, building /unit types, square footages, parking /open space, etc.); e. Existing and proposed zoning district boundaries; f. Size of site in acres /square feet; and g. All property lines, setbacks, street centerlines, rights -of -way, easements, and other information related to the site. ❑ 14 COPIES OF COUNTY OWNERSHIP MAP: (NOT LESS THAN 8 1 /2' X 11" AND NOT MORE THAN 16" X 20 ") Showing contiguous property owners within 500 feet from the perimeter of the area to be rezoned. ❑ 1 14 SETS OF SCALED, DETAILED ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS (IF APPLICABLE) ❑ FOR SIGNS, 14 COPIES OF ACCURATE, SCALED DRAWINGS SHOWING: a. Location of sign and sign type (wall, ground, projecting, or window) b. All dimensions of sign, including letter sizes and proposed distance from sign to grade c. Proposed copy layout and lettering styles (fonts) d. Materials and manufacturer to be used in fabrication e. Total area of sign face (including frame) LJ MATERIAL AND COLOR SAMPLES (color chips, photos, plans or brochure of product information). Include manufacturer name and number. Rezoning Application Page 3 of 5 FILE COPY PLA -108 Date 07/26/02 V1. PROPERTY OWNER / APPLICANT INFORMATION-:---.-...-- Current r op Prety Owner /Applicant: I tc� Of - - ------ - - -------- - ------------ - -- - -------- - ------ -- ------ - Mailing Address: ) 4q, 6, (Street, City, State, Zip Code) I— VIII. Ix PRIMARY CONTACT: Who is the primary contact person? (if different from owner's Representative and Applicant) .................... ........ .......... --.- ...... — AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROPERTY: Site visits to the property by City representatives are necessary in order to process this application. The Owner/Applicant hereby authorizes City representatives to visit, photograph and post a notice on the property described in this application. X. 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 northwest Franklin County 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 future date. The ApplicantlOwner acknowledges that approval of this request for rezoning by the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission andlor 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 said Applicant. XI x1l scribed and sworn to before me this ERIK J. SIPES NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF OHIO My COMMISSION EXPIRES 04.19-06 ---- ........... -1 ............ I ------ -------- --- ...... J e t [�Lk4, the applicant/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. S ignature of Appl or D ate: Authorized ReprosentatIve: ( v / ..... . .. ... .......... j�dey of 20 OZ- Notary Public Page 5 of 5 FILE Copy PLA-108 Date 07/26/02 Uf%r21'7A'r1^K1 C^12 AGENT/REPRESENTATIVE: OWNER AUT HORIZATION - ------ - ------ — ....... ---- ........ —.1 ............. -.1 —1— ............. ...... - --- ---------- -- - ----------- ---- ...... the owner/applicant, to act as my agent/representative in all matters eluding modifying the project, and I agree to be bound by all ............. ...... .. .... ............. Date: ............ .......... ... - - ----- . ............ 1. t W & A K-4e- hereby h rize 1 �t ,nck&- pertaining to the processing and approval of this application in representations and reements made by the designated agent _��q ................ --- ....... ... .. .................. ............. Hgrtatu * of Current Property APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT: Fax: 5k, o L"I'. i I- Fax* �J/k Se Dayti Telephone ....... ... .. ... - VII. OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE INFORMATION: ............... Representative if different from property owner or applicant: (Also complete Section IX) --------------- --- Mailing Address: P . & (Street, City, State, Zip Code) . ...... ------------------------------- - -- - ---------------------- ----- --------------- Daytime Telephone: VA 1 4 tobo 0 11 0G VIII. Ix PRIMARY CONTACT: Who is the primary contact person? (if different from owner's Representative and Applicant) .................... ........ .......... --.- ...... — AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROPERTY: Site visits to the property by City representatives are necessary in order to process this application. The Owner/Applicant hereby authorizes City representatives to visit, photograph and post a notice on the property described in this application. X. 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 northwest Franklin County 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 future date. The ApplicantlOwner acknowledges that approval of this request for rezoning by the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission andlor 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 said Applicant. XI x1l scribed and sworn to before me this ERIK J. SIPES NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF OHIO My COMMISSION EXPIRES 04.19-06 ---- ........... -1 ............ I ------ -------- --- ...... J e t [�Lk4, the applicant/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. S ignature of Appl or D ate: Authorized ReprosentatIve: ( v / ..... . .. ... .......... j�dey of 20 OZ- Notary Public Page 5 of 5 FILE Copy PLA-108 Date 07/26/02 Uf%r21'7A'r1^K1 C^12 AGENT/REPRESENTATIVE: OWNER AUT HORIZATION - ------ - ------ — ....... ---- ........ —.1 ............. -.1 —1— ............. ...... - --- ---------- -- - ----------- ---- ...... the owner/applicant, to act as my agent/representative in all matters eluding modifying the project, and I agree to be bound by all ............. ...... .. .... ............. Date: ............ .......... ... - - ----- . ............ 1. t W & A K-4e- hereby h rize 1 �t ,nck&- pertaining to the processing and approval of this application in representations and reements made by the designated agent _��q ................ --- ....... ... .. .................. ............. Hgrtatu * of Current Property APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT: Fax: 5k, o L"I'. i I- Fax* �J/k Se tnstr:aooa Nllllllll�llulll9nllll lllnll a9GSO +92��7 eerert9a2 papas:4 F:S22.00 9:39M t 1Yat:ED Robert G Monteomar' 720020099407 Franklin County Raoordar MORTHWES pWR 010W, GENERAL WARRANTY DEED* TIMOTHY J. MANSBERRY, UNMARRIED , of Franklin County, Ohio, for valuable oonslderation paid, grants) wth4eneral wa anty covenants, to RICHARD W, ANDERSON whose tax-mailing address is, ���p °�� the following REAL PROPERTY: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part thereof... PROPERTY ADDRESS: 5781 Wilcox Rd., Dublin, Ohio 43016 PARCEL NUMBER: 271 -004998 SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD IF ANY AND TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS HEREAFTER DUE AND PAYABLE. Prior Instrument Reference: Instrument #199807090171559, Instrument #199909150233971, and Instrument #199909300246062 of the Deed Records of Franklin County, Ohio. Executed this 29th day of July, 2002. STATE OF OHIO COUNTY OF FRANKLIN, ss. Tt thy J. ansb ry BE IT REMEMBE=RED, That on this 29th day of July, 2002, before me, the subscriber, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally came TIMOTHY J. MANSBERRY, the Grantor(s) in the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the signing thereof to be their voluntary act and deed. IN TESTIMONY THEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed my official seal on the day and year last aforesaid. - (Notary Public) N ublic -S a of 1 Commission Expires: 4 p5Flrltgr y :`Cf JanT99 SGtrtt 5tevr3tTSflrt =Attorney -At -Law SGq% of Ohio os �' PtlarG uloutre Cotrtminlott This instrument was prepared by. TAX C �T A T N> AUG 0 6 2002 I105"" W TESTA AUDITOR Ae�7erY god ReeorhAt sumo FILE #02 -65367FI -See sad- IM 05 aed 5302 06 OW R-*W Curie. FILE COPY !ST Ti-'_= OHIO 43220 i1 -6313 Exhibit A Legal Description Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin and in the Township of Washington and bounded and described as follows: Being a part of Virginia military Survey Number 3004, and being part of the original 20.822 acre tract conveyed to Frank G. c Ruth E. Woodin by deed of record in Deed Book 2728, page 307, records of the Recorder's office, Franklin County, Ohio, and containing 3.347 acres, more or leas, as more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a railroad spike in the centerline of Wilcox Road and the Easterly line of the said original 20.822 acre tract at a Northeasterly corner of the 17.468 acre tract conveyed to Wilcox Road Associates, by deed of record in O.R. 11502D03, said spike being located S 5 degrees 39' 54" E, a distance of 553.83 feet from a railroad spike at the Northeasterly corner of the 1.428 acre tract now or formerly owned by Ray Edwards and Leah Mae Higgins, of record in Deed Book 1985, page 498; Thence N 87 degrees 47' 22" W, a distance of 407.29 feet, along a Northerly line of the said 17.468 acre tract, to an iron pin at an angle in said line; Thence N 3 degrees 47' 22" W, a distance of 353.22 feet, along an Easterly line of said 17.468 acre tract to an iron pin at the Southwesterly corner of said 1.428 acre tract; Thence the following three (3) courses and distances along the Southerly line of said 1.428 acre tract: 1) Thence S 82 degrees 10' 44" E, a distance of 98.17 feet, to an iron pin; 2) Thence N 78 degrees 46' 37" E, a distance of 207.54 feet, to an iron pin; 3) Thence S 71 degrees 06' 56" E a distance of 98.79 feet, to a railroad spike in the centerline of Wilcox Road and the Easterly line of the said original 20.822 acre tract and the Southeasterly corner of the said 1.428 acre tract; Thence 5 5 degrees 39' 54", a distance of 365.00 feet, along the centerline of Wilcox Road and the Easterly line of said original 20.822 acre tract to the point of beginning, containing 9.347 agree, more or less, and being subject to all casements, restrictions and rights of way of record. The bearings in the above description were based upon the centerline bearing of S 5 degreees 39' 54" E for Wilcox Road, as shown of record in O.R. 11502D03. A survey of the property was made November 17, 1988 by R.D. 2ande 6 Associates, Limited, Registered Surveyor, EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING TWO TRACTS: Tract 1: Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, and in the City of Dublin and bounded and described as follows: Being a part of Virginia Military Survey Number 3004, and being part of the 3.347 acre tract conveyed to Timothy J. mansberry by deed of record in Instrument 199BO7090171559 Legs! Description - Continued FILE COPY /0-1 L 0/ C2- �• J 17n—iS. &E n� i i F FILE COPY Legal Description- Continued of the Franklin County Recorder's office, Franklin County, Ohio, and containing 0.910 acres, more or less, as more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a railroad spike found at the southeast corner of the original 3.347 tract, said railroad spike being located South 05 degrees 39' 54" East a distance of 553.843 feet from Franklin County Monument 5325 and lying on the centerline of Wilcox Road; Thence following the southerly property line of said 3.347 acre tract North 87 degrees 47' 22" West a distance of 35.33 feet to the Iron Pin Set and the TRUE PLACE OF BEGINNING of this 0.910 acre tract; Thence along the north line of the 11.272 acre City of Dublin tract in Official Record 34106, page C 06 of the Franklin County Recorder's office, North 87 degrees 47' 22" West a distance of 244.47 feet to . a 314" Iron Pin Set; Thence into the 3.347 acre Timothy .;. Mansberry tract North 00 degrees 07' 13" East 159.65 feet to a 3/4" Iron pin Set; Thence continuing into the 3.347 acre Timothy J. Mansberry tract South 89 degrees 52 47' East a distance of 36.43 feet to a 3/4" Iron Pin Set; Thence following a curve to the right having a radius of 25.00 feet, a length of 20.32 feet, and a chord of length 19.76 feet and bearing South 66 degrees 35' 45 East to a 3/4" Iron Pin Set; Thence following a curve to the left having a radius of 55.00 feet, a length of 131.10 feet, a chord of length 102.19 feet and bearing North 68 degrees 24' 14' East to a 314" Iron Pin Set; Thence North 84 degrees 20' 06" East a distance of 74.28 feet to the northeast corner of said new 0.910 acre tract, said corner lying on the westerly right -of -way of Wilcox Road and 35.00 feet west of the centerline of Wilcox Road; Thence South OS degrees 39' 54" East a distance of 207.11 feet parallel and 35.00 feet west of the centerline of Wilcox Road returning to the PLACE OF BEGINNING of this description, containing 0.910 acres, more or less, and being subject to all easements, restrictions and rights of way of record. The bearings in the above description were based upon the centerline bearing of Wilcox Road being South 05 degrees 39' 54" East, as shown of record in Instrument 199807090171559. Tract II: Situated in the City of Dublin, Township of Washington, County of Franklin, and State of Ohio: Being a part of Virginia Military Survey Number 304, and being part of the 3.347 acre tract conveyed to Timothy J. Maneberry by Deed of Record in Instrument 199807090171559 of the Franklin County Recorder's office, Franklin County, Ohio, and containing 0.296 acres more or lose, as more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a railroad spike found at the southeast corner of the original 3.347 acre tract, said railroad spike being located South 05 degrees 39' Son East a distance of Legat Oescdpffon - Continued FILE COPY Legal Description - Continued 553.843 feet from Franklin County Monument 5325 and lying on the centerline of Wilcox Road, said point being the TRUE PLACE OF BEGINNING of this description: Thence following the southerly property line of said original 3.347 acre tract North 87 decrees 47. 22" West a distance of 35.33 feet to a 3/4" Iron Pin; Thence North 05 degrees 39' 54" West a distance of 376.15 feet to a 3/4" Iron Pin; Thence South 71 degrees 06. 56" East a distance of 38.48 feet to the centerline of Wilcox Road; Thence South 05 degrees 39' 54" East a distance of 365.00 feet along the centerline of Wilcox Road returning to the TRUE PLACE OF BEGINNING of the right -of -way dedication, containing 0.298 acres, more or less, and being subject to all easements, restriction* and right* of way of record.' The bearing* in the above description were based upon the centerline bearing of Wilcox Road being South 05 degrees 39' 54" East, as shown of record in Instrument 199807090171559. The above descriptions are based upon a field survey performed by RCT Surveying and ?Dapping on December 12, I998. End Of Legs! Description FILE COPY eroxlmity xeport xesults roroxirnity FteI:tcrt RFsu The selection distance was 300 feet The selected parcel was 273 - 004998. To view a table showing the within the displayed proximity, scroll down. Print Window . .y; Back to Proximity Report 0 M Image Date: Wed May 16 11:18:512007 Disclaimer This map is prepared for the real property inventory within this county. It is compiled from recorded deeds, survey plats, and other public records and data. Users of this map are noted that the public primary information source should be consulted for verification or the information contained on this map. The county and the mapping companies assume no legal responsibilities for the information contained on this map. Please notify the Franklin County GIS Division of any discrepancies. Proximity Parcels To copy this report to another program: 1. Hold down the left mouse buttton over the top -left corner of the area you want to get. 2. Drag the mouse to the bottom -left comer of the desired area. 3. Let go of the mouse button. 4. Select Edit Copy from the menu bar. You can then Paste the report Into another application, 273- 010148 ACHESON JOEL 273- 006637 ALIFF SCOTT D ALIFF SHARI S 273 - 004998 ANDERSON RICHARD W 273 - 006635 ANTHONY STEPHEN T & BARBARA A 273 - 006638 BOLTON DAVID A WILLEFORD LORI L 273 - 005000 CITY OF DUBLIN 273 - 009779 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO 273 - 006636 CLEVENGER BONNIE L 273 - 005640 CUNNINGHAM KATHY L 273- 005653 DICKS SEAN M DICKS LISA A 273 - 005652 DONAHUE BRIAN P TR 273- 005649 DONG YAOFENG & JIANG TONG 273 - 005392 FAITH EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH OF CE 5781 WILCOX 5899 HADDLER 5781 WILCOX 5890 HADDLER 5895 HADDLER 5781 WILCOX HORN 5896 HADDLER 5905 SCOTSMAN 5988 HEATHER GLEN 5986 HEATHER GLEN 5981 HEATHER GLEN 5762 rage 1 of FILE COPY http:/ /209.51.193.89 /scripts/mw5rer.pl 5/16/2007 Proximity Report Results rage 2- or z 273 - 007151 FOLEY DAVID 5937 LOTHIAN 273 - 005647 FOYLE ROBERT C 5987 HEATHER GLEN 273- 009770 GIVENS WILLARD P GIVENS DONA E 6057 HEATHER BL 273- 007160 HAWK PHILIP D HAWK PHILLIP D 6065 PIRTHSHIRE 273 - 009778 HE TING YU LI 5794 NORN 273 - 005650 HEATHER PROPERTIES LLC 5980 HEATHER GLEN 273 - 007152 JEJ REALTY III LLC 5945 LOTHIAN 273 - 009773 JOYCE CAROLYN JOYCE JASON 6040 HEATHER BLUFF 273 - 006634 LEE IN P PARK SUNG H 5882 HADDLER 273 - 009776 MAC -BETH PROPERTIES LTD 6064 HEATHER BLUFF 273 - 009769 MAJKA MARTIN P MAJKA JEANNE F 6065 HEATHER BLU 273 - 005648 MAYLE CRYSTAL L 5983 HEATHER GLEN 273 - 009771 MEADOWS MICHAEL D MEADOWS JODI A 6049 HEATHER 273 - 007156 NADIMPALLY PATTABHI. SRIGIRIRAJU ROH 6041 PI 273 - 009772 NG GIN G WONG SIEW F 6041 HEATHER BLUFF 273 - 009774 ROBBINS ANDREW J 6048 HEATHER BLUFF 273- 007154 SCHMIDT ULRICH A TR SCHMIDT INGEBOR 5961 L 273- 004999 SHAFER SCOTT T SHAFER CHERYL A 5867 WILCOX 273 - 009775 SHAMRUKH MAHER M OMARI MUNA 6056 HEATHER BLUFF 273 - 005651 SMITH BURL W SMITH CYNTHIA F 5982 HEATHER GLEN 273 - 007159 STEVENS SHELLEY L 6057 PIRTHSHIRE 273 - 007157 SMOCK NICKY T II STROCK BETHANY L 6043 PIRTHS 273 - 007158 SUNDARARAJAN RAJAGOPALAN RAGHUNATHA 6051 273 - 009777 THUMULURI SAIRSINIVAS THUMULURI MIN 5786 273 - 007155 WYNK BRIAN D CHIVINGTON AMANDA 5969 LOTHIAN 273 - 007153 MANG YI GAO HARRY 5953 LOTHIAN FILE COPY http:// 209.51.193.89 /scripts/mw5rer.pi 5/16/2007 CITY OF DUBLIN_ Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1006 Phone: 614- 410 -4400 • Fax: 614 - 410 -4490 TO: Members of City Council Memo FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manage 5- (� DATE: August 30, 2007 INITIATED BY: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning RE: Ordinance 71 -07: Rezoning — Heather Bluff Estates (Case No. 02 -117Z) Summary: A rezoning application for the Heather Bluff Estates development encompassing 1.66 acres located at the intersection of Wilcox Road and Heather Bluff Drive is being forwarded to City Council for consideration. This application is a rezoning request (preliminary development plan) from R -1, Restricted Suburban District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District. The proposed PUD zoning allows for 6 lots with a density of 3.6 dwellings per acre. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of this rezoning on August 9, 2007 with four conditions, which can be found in the attached Record of Action. The applicant has addressed conditions 3 and 4 by modifying the development text and combining Lots 4 and 5. Planning will ensure Condition 2 will be fulfilled entirely at the final development plan stage. The remaining condition, Condition 1, recommends that a request be made to City Council to waive the parkland dedication fee for this application. The Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation was based on the reconfiguration of Lots 4 and 5, with the area previously designated for Lot 5 as a Tree Preservation Zone and not designated as parkland. Based on this recommendation, a fee waiver request of $8,847.80 will be placed on the September 17, 2007 City Council agenda. 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: Approval of Ordinance 71 -07 at the second reading/public hearing on September 17, 2007. REVISES DEVELOPMENT TEXT Heather Bluth' Estates BAS E [D O N PZC COMMENTS Jeff Hackett- 1.66 Acres at intersection of Heather Bluff Drive and Wilcox Road August 16, 2007 DEVELOPMENT PLAN TEXT Introduction The proposed site is the former Woodin family trust property located adjacent to the existing Heather Glen South Subdivision on the west, a single family home owned by Scott & Cheryl Shafer on the north, Wilcox Road/ a single family owned by Joel Acheson on the east, and by an 11.272 acre tract owned by the City of Dublin on the south. It is presently agricultural land on flat ground with no other buildings. There are a number of other subdivisions and developments in the area, most notably the Heather Glen(s) subdivisions with immediate proximity to the target property, which have left this agricultural tract out of place. The Community Plan shows this site as Residential with medium density (2 -5 dwelling units per acre). With that in mind, the proposed single family development will meld easily into the surrounding communities, while not significantly adding traffic in the area. Development Standards The current plan proposal features 6 new single family homes on 1.66 acres, for a gross density of 3.6 du /ac. Homesites vary in width from 65' to 99' at the front of each lot and a minimum lot size of 9147 square feet. Required side yards on each lot will total 12' or more, with a minimum of 6' on each side. Rear yard shall be the Tree Preservation line. The maximum height of any buildings . on the lot shall be 35' as measured by Code. Nothing herein shall prohibit over -lot grading, drainage facilities, utility lines or utility structures within said Zones. The building setbacks along Heather Bluff Drive and Wilcox Road shall be a minimum of 25'. Parks and Open Space The Development has combined lot 4 and "old" 5 into one larger lot 4 while designating the whole of what was "old" lot 5 to the tree preservation zone in lieu of open space or fee. Landscaping and Tree Preservation Street trees for a street program shall be placed a minimum of 45' on center, Red Oak is the approved Tree for this location. Final approval for tree selection and placement shall be given by the City Forester. Most of the existing trees on the site are along the boundaries of the property. The rear 30' of the lots on the north and south side, a 15' strip on the west side (both north and south sides), a 15' strip between lots 3 and 4, and all of "old" lot 5 as denoted on Tree survey map, shall be covered by a Tree Preservation Zone pursuant to and following Dublin's Do Not Build ordinance. This zone will allow for the mowing and maintenance of the entire lot but prohibit the removal of any trees determined to be in good condition. Any tree removed will be replaced per the Dublin Tree Replacement policy, unless otherwise approved. Provision of Utilities Sanitary sewer on the north side of Heather Bluff shall be extended to the site from the current termini adjacent to the proposed development area. Stormwater and Water Systems were installed with the extension of Heather Bluff. RECRIM0 AS suVITTED TO COUNCIL A 1 7 2007 SOH MEETING ON — CFry 0} �/ , LONG LA PLAT NING Circulation and Access The subdivision will be accessed from either the north or south from Wilcox Road or from the West from Heather Bluff Drive. All internal rights -of -way shall be 60'. All rights -of -way have been dedicated accordingly. Parking shall be in accordance with Dublin road use requirements. Sidewalks and bike paths have been provided with the extension of Heather Bluff. Architecture The exterior of all homes shall be constructed in accordance with Dublin's architectural standards. Natural materials including brick, stone, wood, stucco, and/or fiber cement siding (Hardiplank) will be used. All homes to comply with the Residential Appearance Code and must be differentiated from each other by having four clearly distinguished front elevations, none of which shall be adjacent to each other. Fencinz Fencing shall be installed per Dublin's code requirements. Si a e No additional signage is proposed. Project Phasing Upon completion of the zoning and obtaining of all plat approvals, utilities will be extended in conjunction with construction to develop the entire subdivision as a single phase. Aop ican 1 Representative Date � Y CITE' OF DUBLIN. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Land Use and RECORD OF ACTION long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016.1236 AUGUST 9, 2007 Phone: 614.410 -4600 Fox: 614 -410 -4747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Heather Bluff Estates 02- 117Z 5781 Wilcox Road Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Proposal: A seven -lot subdivision on 1.66 acres located at the intersection of Heather Bluff Drive and Wilcox Road. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan under the Planned District provisions of Code Section 153.050. Applicant: Richard Anderson, represented by Jeff Hackett. Planning Contact: Joanne M. Ochal, Planner Contact Information: (614)410 -4683, jochal @dublin.oh.us MOTION: To approve this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan application because the proposal complies with rezoning/preliminary development plan criteria set forth in Section 153.050 of the Dublin Zoning Code, with three conditions: 1) That a recommendation for a waiver to the parkland dedication fee be forwarded to City Council; 2) That accurate tree replacement information must be submitted before the final development plan stage; 3) That the plans and text be updated to include comments in this Planning report regarding residential appearance and diversity and prior to scheduling a public hearing at City Council; and 4) That the area presented for Lot 5 be combined with Lot 4, and be designated as a Tree Preservation Zone. * Jeff Hackett agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 5-1. RESULT: This Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan application was approved. STAFF CERTIFICATION anne M. Ochal `Planner Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — August 9, 2007 cr Page 3 of 13 Heather Bluff Estates 5781 Wilcox Road 02- 117Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Mr. Gerber asked that only the changes made to this plan since the last meeting be highlighted. Joanne Ochal said her presentation would be very short. She said this case was tabled at the July 12, 2007 Commission meeting to allow the applicant to talk to the surrounding property owners and address their concerns regarding this proposal. She said the applicant had been in contact with the homeowners association, and some of the residents. Ms. Ochal said e -mails received from neighbors pointing out their concerns had been placed on the dias for the Commissioners' review. She said Planning contacted the residents thatwho attendeding the July 12 meeting and also those who the residents that sent e- mailed to discuss talk to them about this project. She said the conversations that occurred with these neighbors and the applicant indicated that the preservation of the trees was very important. to them. Ms. Ochal said the applicant had done that with tree preservation areas located throughout the site. She said the applicant had not changed his proposal since the July 12 meeting, and the size and number of lots remain the same. Ms. Ochal said Planning has evaluated this proposal, and based on the review criteria outlined in the Planning Report, it is their opinion that the zoning meets the criteria. She said in Planning's opinion, the applicant has met with the Landuse Principals and. She said Planning recommends approval of this rezoning with the three conditions as listed in the Planning Report: following three conditions: 1) That the parkland dedication fee be submitted prior to final platting; 2) That accurate tree replacement information must be submitted before the final development plan stage; and 3) That the plans and text be updated to include comments in this Planning report regarding residential appearance and diversity and prior to scheduling a public hearing at City Council. Jeff Hackett, the applicant, said they met with residents and contacted them via phone and e- mails. He said they also spoke with several residents after the last Commission meeting in the lobby. Mr. Zimmerman asked if the applicant considered the elimination of Lot 5 and the redistribution of the other four lots, as the Commission discussed at the last meeting. Mr. Hackett said a problem with eliminating Lot 5 and adding that acreage into the other four lots was that it would move one house in the middle of the preservation zone between Lots 3 and 4. He said their goal had always been to preserve trees, and so doing so would involve them clearing out the whole tree row. Mr. Zimmerman said he thought by eliminating Lot 5 and adjusting the other four lots, more greenspace could be preserved. Mr. Hackett said several of the neighbors had commented that by losing Lot 5, leaving the other three lots as were and combining Lots 4 and 5, someone could build a larger house and it would actually not fit the theme throughout Heather Glen South. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — August 9, 2007 F CT Page 4 of 13 Mr. Zimmerman said the Commission was not suggesting a double -lot, but instead, increasing the side yard setbacks, keeping the size of where the house would be located the same. Mr. Hackett said many trees would have to be cleared in the Tree Preservation Zone. Mr. Zimmerman suggested that the lots could be shifted to preserve trees. Mr. Gerber asked where the proposed ingress and egress was located for Lot 5. Ms. Ochal said although not submitted, it had been discussed to be off of Heather Bluff Drive. Mr. Walter said these homes were in character with the current lot size of those in Heather Glen South. He said small development should be encouraged. He said the Commission was discussing whether or not it would look a little nicer if a lot was eliminated, and he thought that it had a significant economic impact to the applicant. He said this proposed infill project is in character with the surrounding subdivisions. Mr. Zimmerman said his concern is not their economic impact on developing this, but what this would look like and what character it is going to Mr. Walter said sometimes when looking at a plan like this, you get caught up in the lines that are on the paper. He said the impressions of Lot 5 is that it is a quite sizable lot. He said you won't see necessarily that the lot line falls right at the edge of their property. He said he did have a concern whether the driveway access was adequate for that site, but he fundamentally did not think that it is so out of character to have that house there. Mr. Fishman said parkland and open space was set based on not having any lots there when the development was done. He said he did not care if lots were moved, but he thought they should eliminate the lots because it was awkward and he thought it should be common area. Mr. Fishman said the applicant did not have to do any parkland dedication and so it could use some open space. He said it is a natural entrance for that area. He said if the entrance lot were eliminated, it would improve the whole development and will be an asset. Mr. Gerber asked Mr. Fishman what criteria he felt the applicant failed to meet. Mr. Fishman said that he thought the Commission had the responsibility to try to make things a little better, and he thought they were not failing any criteria. Mr. Walter asked to look at the tree preservation plan. Ms. Ochal presented a slide of the preliminary landscape plan where some trees were marked to be removed. She noted that there were a couple of large trees being removed, but no trees on Lot 5 would be removed. Mr. Gerber restated that a criteria was needed. Mr. Zimmerman said part of it was Criteria 6: Preserving the rural character of certain areas of the community. He said it was heavily treed and at one time, it was a large massive lot. He said he thought it creates part of Criteria 3. He said he did not think they were integrating this properly in and he thought it needed to be open space in the front. He said the proposal fails on Criteria 3 and 6. Mr. Walter questioned calling a 0.229- acre -lot "rural character." He said he thought the intent of "rural characteristic" was not to preserve a site in the middle of a developed area. Mr. Walter asked if the landscape plan was accurate. Ms. Ochal said Planning had field checked the site and there were some discrepancies between the number of trees that they are proposied to be removed and the number of trees that staff has determined need to be removed. She said the landscape plan submitted was not accurate. Mr. Walter said then, he could not base a decision on it. Ms. Ochal said the landscape plan will be updated at the final development plan stage when a certified arborist will walk the site and prepare an accurate tree survey. Mr. Walter asked for an opinion from Ms. Ochal as to how many trees will be disturbed. Ms. Ochal said there was quite a number of trees. Mr. Walter said that completely changed his opinion. Chris Amorose Groomes said she had no opposition to Lot 5, but it would be nice if it were not there. She agreed with Mr. Fishman that she would not adjust any of the boundaries of the lots because that would make them not fit in with the balance of the neighborhood. However, she questioned whose responsibility the openspace created by eliminating Lot 5 would it fall upon to maintain. Mr. Gunderman said these seven lots would have to maintain open space, which was not realistic. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she leaned favorably towards including Lot 5 because she did not believe any other options were within the Commission's power. She said she thought the best option before the Commission is the one on the plan. Steve Smith, Jr. said while the Commissioners' ideas are interesting and may be beneficial, the problem is what is before them is based on the criteria in the Code and they cannot condition this application upon what the neighbors may do unless it can be tied into some of the criteria that are before the Commission tonight. He said the Commissioners were to vote on this application as it is submitted, based on the criteria that are in the Code. Mr. Gerber said if this application is disapproved, it has to be found where it fails to meet some criteria. He said he was concerned about the ingress /egress with respect to the driveway, and how it will flow into the street area. He said he understood that is typically handled at the time of the final development plan, but given the unique proximity of this lot, he felt it was a setback issue which was part of the preliminary that needed to be addressed now because if the Commission is not satisfied with the way it is setback, etc., then they will not be able to address the other issue at the time of the final. Ms. Am orose Groomes said on the drawing a driveway is shown, and if approved, it would be the approved location of that drive. Tom McCash said Lot 5 was odd lot from the orientation and setback standpoint and how to get access to it. He said he was disappointed that there is no parkland dedication, and he could see Lot 5 with the woods area back in the back being a small pocket park for this neighborhood. He said he saw no reason that just because Heather Glen was four and five dwelling units per acre, that they had to do the same here. -He said he would rather see these residents and others in the area have a small park or just an open space setback preserve. He said he was not supportative of this with Lot 5 included. Mr. Gerber said he did not see how a setback can be properly established for Lot 5, and for that reason, he could not support it. He noted that a letter was received from residents Willard and Donna Givens, who stated they had not heard from anybody regarding this proposal. He said at the last meeting, he stated that it had been the Commission's and the City's practice to have developers work with residents and vice versa, and a better situation always comes about when that occurs. He said he was disappointed that it had not happened. ' Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission ED� n Minutes — August 5 5 of 13 Page of 13 Mr. Walter asked if the landscape plan was accurate. Ms. Ochal said Planning had field checked the site and there were some discrepancies between the number of trees that they are proposied to be removed and the number of trees that staff has determined need to be removed. She said the landscape plan submitted was not accurate. Mr. Walter said then, he could not base a decision on it. Ms. Ochal said the landscape plan will be updated at the final development plan stage when a certified arborist will walk the site and prepare an accurate tree survey. Mr. Walter asked for an opinion from Ms. Ochal as to how many trees will be disturbed. Ms. Ochal said there was quite a number of trees. Mr. Walter said that completely changed his opinion. Chris Amorose Groomes said she had no opposition to Lot 5, but it would be nice if it were not there. She agreed with Mr. Fishman that she would not adjust any of the boundaries of the lots because that would make them not fit in with the balance of the neighborhood. However, she questioned whose responsibility the openspace created by eliminating Lot 5 would it fall upon to maintain. Mr. Gunderman said these seven lots would have to maintain open space, which was not realistic. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she leaned favorably towards including Lot 5 because she did not believe any other options were within the Commission's power. She said she thought the best option before the Commission is the one on the plan. Steve Smith, Jr. said while the Commissioners' ideas are interesting and may be beneficial, the problem is what is before them is based on the criteria in the Code and they cannot condition this application upon what the neighbors may do unless it can be tied into some of the criteria that are before the Commission tonight. He said the Commissioners were to vote on this application as it is submitted, based on the criteria that are in the Code. Mr. Gerber said if this application is disapproved, it has to be found where it fails to meet some criteria. He said he was concerned about the ingress /egress with respect to the driveway, and how it will flow into the street area. He said he understood that is typically handled at the time of the final development plan, but given the unique proximity of this lot, he felt it was a setback issue which was part of the preliminary that needed to be addressed now because if the Commission is not satisfied with the way it is setback, etc., then they will not be able to address the other issue at the time of the final. Ms. Am orose Groomes said on the drawing a driveway is shown, and if approved, it would be the approved location of that drive. Tom McCash said Lot 5 was odd lot from the orientation and setback standpoint and how to get access to it. He said he was disappointed that there is no parkland dedication, and he could see Lot 5 with the woods area back in the back being a small pocket park for this neighborhood. He said he saw no reason that just because Heather Glen was four and five dwelling units per acre, that they had to do the same here. -He said he would rather see these residents and others in the area have a small park or just an open space setback preserve. He said he was not supportative of this with Lot 5 included. Mr. Gerber said he did not see how a setback can be properly established for Lot 5, and for that reason, he could not support it. He noted that a letter was received from residents Willard and Donna Givens, who stated they had not heard from anybody regarding this proposal. He said at the last meeting, he stated that it had been the Commission's and the City's practice to have developers work with residents and vice versa, and a better situation always comes about when that occurs. He said he was disappointed that it had not happened. ' Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — August 9, 2007 d Page 6of13 Mr. Gerber said also, at the last meeting, there were many comments about Lot 5. He said some people were concerned about tree preservation and others were concerned with the setback and the nature of that setback creating a dangerous ingress /egress situation. -He said this was the same plan the Commission saw at the last meeting, and he could not support it for the reason that he could not see how a setback could be created to allow for a safe ingress /egress to Lot 5. Mr. Walter asked for Planning's comments on the ingress /egress issue. Aaron Stanford said some of the controlling conditions on Lot 5 regarding access were that they wanted to preserve Wilcox Road, and so they restricted the access off Wilcox Road. He said it was thought by staff that it was a reasonable location for the driveway. He said that intersection was stop controlled, with a lower speed limit. Mr. Walter asked if there were any dimensions that said this was appropriate on this site, so far from the intersection. Mr. Stanford said he did not think there was a rule of thumb regarding the distance and dimension. He said he thought it was standard as far as what you see from any corner lot from the intersection. He said he thought they have seen driveways that are this close in residential areas. Mr. Walter said he thought it misleading to talk about tree preservation and preserving one tree stand to have a map with a house and a lot where actually a significant amount of trees will be cut down is shown. He said for that reason, he did not know if he could support this. Mr. Hackett said regarding the parkland, there is City -owned land adjacent to this property and there are parks across Woemer- Temple Road. He said a parkland dedication fee will be submitted. Mr. Hackett said they had been working on this since 2002. He said as far as losing a lot, it meant everything to them. He said he understood that it might look nice to have some greenspace, and that was why they did everything they could to preserve the trees. He said it meets all the guidelines of Heather Glen, and it meets or exceeds the size of the lots already there, and the type, style and structure of the house that they want to put there fits. Mr. Hackett said they will meet the architectural review standards. Mr. Hackett said regarding talking to the neighbors, he asked staff who said to contact the homeowners association president, Sean Dicks, which he did. He said Mr. Dicks said he would e -mail the homeowners stating that he supported the project. Mr. Hackett said he talked to everyone at the last meeting afterwards and he said most people were happy because they wanted to preserve the trees. He said most people left not providing their names and contact information. He said he did not talk to Donna Givens because Scott Aliff said he had spoken to her, and it was not necessary for him to call her. Mr. Hackett said he made every effort to talk to everyone necessary. He said he had tried to talk to Ms. Givens and share his thoughts the night of the last meeting, but he could not change her mind. Mr. Hackett said this meets all the criteria and it is a beautiful infill piece that matches Heather Glen. Mr. Hackett said regarding Lot 5, they dedicated land to Dublin for the road that was a 70 -foot setback (35 feet on that side of Wilcox Road), and that was almost another half -lot size that will be added into that, so that is actually going to look like the largest lot that is there. Dublin Planning and Zoning Conunission D U u n F cj Minutes - August 9, 2007 (�=� u Page 7 of 13 Mr. Gerber said he appreciated Mr. Hackett's passion and overall, it was a fine project. He reiterated that his concern was that there was a problem with Lot 5 as it relates to safe traffic movement (ingress /egress). He said it was brought to Mr. Hackett's attention at the last meeting and he did not see it addressed. Mr. Gerber said for that reason alone, he could not support this. He said he realized that every resident could not be appeased, but the Commission asked that simply they be contacted for a meeting by the applicant with staff s assistance to present the plan, listen to their concerns, and try to incorporate them to the extent possible. He said he recognized that it was impossible to satisfy everyone, but most of their concerns could be addressed. Mr. Gerber said although staff may have been convinced about Lot 5 and the traffic safety concern, but he has not been convinced that a car could be backed in or out th4e of the drive safely. Mr. Walter said he agreed with the applicant in that staff had made some engineering recommendations, however, when he listened to testimony from Engineering, it seemed very subjective to him. He said if egress is the issue, some of the facings of those lots could be adjusted to move that driveway a little further. Mr. Walter said he thought the Commission was being objective in saying that it is going to look this way or that way. He said he thought the applicant in good faith was trying to ask what the Commission wants done and what is the issue with the fifth lot, and if it was egress, then what is the specific concern about egress from a distance perspective. Mr. Gerber said with respect to the setback and the safe movement of traffic in and out of Lot 5, he thought it was something that should have been addressed and it had not. He asked if Mr. Walter was suggesting that this application be tabled again or that the Commission vote on this. Mr. Walter said he was suggesting that it be tabled, and the applicants either get specific about the egress issues with Lot 5 and really work with Engineering on that and either reconfigure lots or make a decision to eliminate the lot. He said the Commission needed to be sensitive to the fact that these are the types of projects that they need to encourage. Mr. Fishman said he would like to give Mr. Hackett another chance and table this case so that he could come back and show what can be done with the fifth lot. He said that he was in favor of a tabling because of Mr. Hackett's passionate sales presentation. Mr. Walter said if he were the applicant, he would see that there were three potential options, 1) to have it tabled; 2) a vote; or 3) to put a condition to eliminate Lot 5, which they could do, and then he assumed they would get approval. Mr. Gerber asked to hear the balance of the Commission's thoughts. Mr. McCash said he appreciated the passionate salesmanship. He said the Commissioners are not here to guarantee a certain rate of return on an investment. He said the applicant did not have to build the waterline or road, so the traditional, typical development costs have not impacted this particular basis. He said even if Lot 5 is lost, there will still be money made on the project. He said Lot 5 has no real front yard because of the way it is cut off. He said there can be a small front yard, and the rest will be City property. He said there will be problems when the homeowner wants to plant things and there will be maintenance issues between homeowner and the City. Mr. McCash said he would like to see more of an open space, park area gathering space actually here, not having to send children across Woerner- Temple Road or Avery Road to Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — August 9, 2007 BRAFT Page 8 of 13 another park area. He said there would be a nice visual vista and openness with not having the house on Lot 5 and having that open look coming into the whole area and this subdivision off of Woerner- Temple Road, and even coming down Wilcox Road. Mr. McCash said he wanted to see Lot 5 eliminated. He said the e -mails he received from the area residents indicated that they liked the proposal, but they would like to see Lot 5 eliminated. Mr. Fishman said he too, had egress concerns. He said as far as complying with the Land Use Principles, he thought it was an egress situation. He said Lot 5 was an awkward lot, so if it were eliminated, he could support it, otherwise, he could not. Mr. McCash said Condition 1 could be changed and Lot 5 would become the parkland as part of the tree preservation. Mr. Gerber said there was not enough support for approval of this application tonight, and he did not think there was enough support for a tabling, therefore the option of adding Condition 4 was the only possible solution for approval. He suggested Condition 1 as listed in the Planning Report be eliminated and replaced with: that Lot 5 be eliminated and replaced with passive features. Mr. Hackett agreed to the following three conditions: 1) That the parkland dedication fee be submitted prior to final platting, and that Lot 5 be eliminated and replaced with passive features; 2) That accurate tree replacement information must be submitted before the final development plan stage; and 3) That the plans and text be updated to include comments in this Planning report regarding residential appearance and diversity and prior to scheduling a public hearing at City Council. Mr. McCash confirmed that Mr. Hackett understood that it was going to be parkland. Mr. Gunderman asked to clarify whether they were talking about private ownership and maintenance or public ownership and maintenance of Lot 5. Mr. McCash said if it were strictly passive parkland similar to Heather Glen's undeveloped woods, it could stay as private, although ideally, it would be nice to have it as public. Mr. Gunderman said usually when tree preservation is discussed, they talk about keeping it as part of somebody's lot and putting a restriction on the removal of trees on it. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if it was being suggested that Lot 4 be extended to include this area, but the setback would be increased off of Wilcox Road. Mr. Gunderman said he was only inquiring as to which of those type of options the Commission really wanted to condition. Mr. Gerber said he thought it should be kept private so that the City would not incur additional costs to maintain it. Mr. Walter said if Lot 4 were extended to cover that land and a Tree Preservation Zone was placed around all of Lot 5, it would potentially increase the value of Lot 4 and allow them some Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission ED ^ CT Minutes — August 9, 2007 , W Page 9 of 13 degree of economic benefit from that and still keep the trees and not have the egress issues and therefore, the City will not incur the expense of maintenance. Mr. Gunderman said if that were done solely, then he did not know if they had dealt in the traditional manner with the park dedication fee. Mr. Gerber said that was why initially, he wanted to keep it. Mr. Hackett pointed out that they would then have to give up Lot 5 and still pay the parkland fee. Mr. Gerber said it could be recommended to City Council that the dedication of the park fee could be waived. Ms. Amorose Groomes said under the circumstances, she thought it reasonable for the parkland fee be waived and suggested that Condition 1 be amended to read: That it be recommended that the parkland replacement fee be waived, and that Lot 4 be inclusive of all of the property that is presently proposed as Lot 5 on the drawing and that the entire area of Lot 5 be designated as a tree preservation zone. Mr. Walter suggested that Ms. Amorose Groomes' suggested amendment to Condition 1 be split into two conditions — the recommendation of the waiver, separate from the inclusion so that City Council could turn down the one condition. Mr. Gerber said Condition 1 should be modified to recommend a waiver of the dedication fee, and then they will pick up Condition 4 for the balance like Ms. Amorose Groomes said. He said there will be four conditions. Mr. Hackett confirmed that all of Lot 5 was included in Lot 4 as far as ownership, but as far as the tree preservation, it encompasses all of Lot 4. Mr. Gerber agreed. Motion and Vote Mr. Gerber made a motion to approve this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan because it this proposal complies with rezoning/preliminary development plan criteria set forth in Section 153.050 of the Dublin Zoning Code, modifying Condition 1 as read into the record and adding Condition 4: 1) That it be recommended that City Council waive the parkland replacement fee; 2) That accurate tree replacement information must be submitted before the final development plan stage; 3) That the plans and text be updated to include comments in this Planning report regarding residential appearance and diversity and prior to scheduling a public hearing at City Council; and 4) That the area presented for Lot 5 be combined with Lot 4, and be designated as a Tree Preservation Zone. The vote was as follows: Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes. Mr. McCash, commented that in concept on eliminating the lot, he agreed, but he did not agree with the way that Condition 4 read — that all the area gets included into Lot 5, and so for that reason, he voted no; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 5 —1.) On OF DUBLIN- land use and Lang Range Planning 5300 55iec•Rings Rood Lblh Okia 43016 -1236 Phone: 614.410 -4600 fax: 614.410.4747 19eh Silt: wuw.dohlin.ah.as PLANNING REPORT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 2007 SECTION I — CASE INFORMATION: 1. Heather Bluff Estates 5781 Wilcox Road 02- 117Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Proposal: A seven -lot subdivision on 1.66 acres located at the intersection of Heather Bluff Drive and Wilcox Road. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan under the Planned District provisions of Code Section 153.050. Applicant: Richard Anderson, represented by Jeff Hackett. Planning Contact: Joanne M. Ochal, Planner Contact Information: (614)410 -4683, jochal @dublin.oh.us UPDATE: On July 12, 2007, Planning and Zoning Commission tabled this case to allow the applicant the opportunity to contact surrounding property owners. Discussion that evening included comments by some Commission members that Lot 5 should be eliminated to reduce the overall density of the site. Case Summary: This is a request for review and approval of a rezoning /preliminary development plan for seven single- family lots, from R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District to a PD, Planned Unit Development District. Case Background: On June 4, 2007, City Council approved the rezoning of this property from a Washington Township zoning classification of R -1B to a City of Dublin zoning classification of R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. Site Description: Project Site Heather Bluff Drive bisects this irregularly shaped 1.66 -acre parcel. The site has approximately 380 feet of frontage north of Heather Bluff Drive and 135 feet along the south. A tributary ditch of Cramer Creek runs along the northern property line. This site Planning and Zoning Commission August 9, 2007 — Planning Report Case No. 02 -117Z Page 2 of 7 contains significant tree rows throughout the northern, western and southern portions with an additional tree row located between lots three and four. Sidewalks are currently located on the north and south side of Heather Bluff Drive providing connection to the Heather Glen South subdivision. Surrounding Sites Immediately to the west of this site is the Heather Glen South subdivision, zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District. There are two single - family homes: one located directly to the north and one located east of this site both zoned R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. Further north and east of the site is the Heather Glen subdivision, zoned PLR, Planned Low Density Residential District. Proposed Development: Proposed Use and Parcel Size The applicant is proposing the rezoning of this 1.66 -aces site to a planned district consisting of seven single - family lots with a gross density of 4.2 dwelling units per acre. The applicant has not revised the plans to eliminate Lot 5 and density remains unchanged. Site Layout The proposed preliminary plat indicates a total of seven lots, fronting on Heather Bluff Drive. Five lots will be located on the north of this roadway and two lots on the south of this roadway. Development Standards The proposed lots vary from 65 to 73 feet in width and depths vary from 91.5 to 163 feet. Required side yards will be a minimum of 12 feet with at least six feet on one side, similar to Heather Glen South located to the west. The plans indicate a 30 -foot Tree Preservation Zone along the rear of the property, which coincides with the rear yard setback requirement. Lot 5 will have a 20 -foot side yard setback along Wilcox Road. The maximum building height allowed is 35 feet. The minimum building setback along Heather Bluff Drive will be 25 feet, consistent with the existing lots on Heather Bluff Drive. Neighborhood Contact At the July 12, 2007, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting adjacent residents voiced their concern about this proposal. The applicant has since been in contact with the president of the Heather Glen Civic Association and surrounding property owners. The applicant has met with some neighbors on -site to explain the project and has corresponded with homeowners and staff. Comments received overall are positive. The residents would prefer the lot sizes remain consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and as many trees be preserved as possible. Architecture The applicant is proposing to continue the existing architectural theme of the Heather Glen South subdivision. Natural materials including brick, stone, wood, stucco, and /or Planning and Zoning Commission August 9, 2007 — Planning Report Case No. 02 -117Z Page 3 of 7 fiber cement siding (Hardiplank) will be used. All seven houses must comply with the Residential Appearance Code and must be differentiated from each other by having four clearly distinguished front elevations, none of which shall be adjacent to each other. The development text needs to be revised to reflect this diversity. Landscaping and Tree Preservation The site plan indicates a 30 -foot Tree Preservation Zone located along the rear of all lots and a 15 -foot Tree Preservation Zone along the western property line of Lots 1 and 7 and between Lots 3 and 4. The site contains heavily wooded areas and a tree inventory has been submitted. The text indicates the Tree Preservation Ordinance will be met. Accurate tree replacement information will be required at the final development plan stage. The City Forester shall approve the location of street trees. Red Oak is the approved street tree for this subdivision. The text has been revised to eliminate Maple, Ash, Linden, and Locust species as street trees. Access Access to the proposed subdivision is from Wilcox Road to the east and Heather Bluff Drive from the west. All lots front onto Heather Bluff Drive. The Thoroughfare Plan indicates Wilcox Road as a collector road with 70 feet of right -of -way. Plans originally submitted indicated a 60 -foot right -of -way. Engineering has determined 70 feet of right - of -way was dedicated and the plan has been revised to accurately indicate the right -of- way. Parks and Open Space This proposal includes no parkland. The required parkland dedication for this proposal is 0.54 acre, which is too small for consideration as a park. The applicant will pay a fee in lieu of parkland, to be submitted prior to recording the final plat. Utilities and Stormwater This development is served by an existing eight -inch waterline located on the south side of Heather Bluff Drive. The extension of a ten -inch sanitary sewer from the existing sanitary sewer line to the west located on the north side of Heather Bluff Drive will be necessary to serve this development. Open cutting of the existing roadway is not permitted. Public storm sewers were installed with the Southwest Area Traffic Calming — Phase Three Project. The applicant's engineer has submitted a preliminary stormwater report. The applicant must submit a final stormwater management plan with the final development plan application. Planning and Zoning Commission August 9, 2007 — Planning Report Case No. 02 -117Z Page 4 of 7 Stream Corridor Protection Zone Engineering has determined that the tributary, located on the northern property line of the site, does not meet the criteria to be considered as a stream corridor protection zone. SECTION II — REVIEW STANDARDS: Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 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. Evaluation and Recommendation based on Zoning/Preliminary Development: 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: 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 of the Community Plan identifies the land use for this site as "Residential -High Density (2 -5 du/ac)." The proposed development density is 4.2 dwelling units per acre. 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. Planning and Zoning Conunission August 9, 2007 — Planning Report Case No. 02 -117Z Page 5 of 7 Criteria may be met with conditions: This 1.66 -acre site is too small to provide usable parkland. Sandy Corners and Balgriffen parks are available for residents in the area. The applicant will be required to pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication required by Code. (Condition #1) 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 are met: All rights -of- -way necessary to comply with the Thoroughfare Plan have been dedicated. The applicant has submitted a preliminary stormwater report and will need to work with Engineering on the final stormwater report required with the final development plan. 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 may be met with conditions: Development standards for this proposal are similar to the Heather Glen South subdivision located to the west. The development text for this subdivision has been updated to reflect the Tree Preservation Zones as outlined in this report. The applicant must submit accurate tree replacement information at the final development plan stage (Condition #2). 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 may be met with conditions: Housing styles and materials will be consistent with the surrounding subdivisions. Changes need to be made to the text regarding residential appearance requirements and diversity by having clearly distinguished front elevations for each lot (Condition #3). 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 Planning and Zoning Commission August 9, 2007 — Planning Report Case No. 02 -117Z Page 6 of 7 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 are met: Given the size of this proposal and that Heather Bluff Drive is existing; no traffic study was required with this proposal and all other infrastructure needed will be constructed as part of this project. 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; 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 met: The proposed development will continue the character of the community. In Planning's opinion this proposed single - family subdivision will continue the quality of development of surrounding subdivisions. 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 met: Criteria have been met through the previous construction of Heather Bluff Drive by the City completing the street connection. Sidewalks will be included in this project as house construction is completed. 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 met: This proposal integrates new development within an established neighborhood with compatible standards. Planning and Zoning Commission August 9, 2007 — Planning Report Case No. 02 -117Z Page 7 of 7 SECTION III — PLANNING OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION: Approval In Planning's opinion, this proposal complies with rezoning/preliminary development plan criteria set forth in Section 153.050 of the Dublin Zoning Code. Approval with three conditions is recommended. Conditions: 1) That the parkland dedication fee be submitted prior to final platting; 2) That accurate tree replacement information must be submitted before the final development plan stage; and 3) That the plans and text be updated to include comments in this Planning report regarding residential appearance and diversity and prior to scheduling a public hearing at City Council. � r► r k�IM a ki�v� OD 'Othian - at. D DAD ?U U F T�r,7 A � %B Iu C ff 3 D T ::::- Hea zI h�p�e Rd: ViK 11MEMP IL IV, z � 0 L D U a a a Q , In C Hathaway C o N City of Dublin Land Use and Development Context Ma, Long Range Planning Rezonnz Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan -- Heather Bluff Estates 5781 Wilcox Road CITY OF DUBLIN,. Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone: 614 -410 -4600 Fax: 614 -410 -4141 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION July 12, 2007 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 4. Heather Bluff Estates 02- 117Z 5781 Wilcox Road Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Proposal: A seven -lot subdivision on 1.66 -acre located at the intersection of Heather Bluff Drive and Wilcox Road. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan under the Planned District provisions of Code Section 153.050. Applicant: Richard Anderson, 844 Brookdale Drive, West Jefferson, Ohio 43162; represented by Jeff Hackett, 2616 Lytle Road, Centerburg, Ohio 43011. Planning Contact: Joanne M. Ochal, Planner (614)410 -4683, jochal @dublin.oh.us MOTION: To table this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan application so that the applicant and Planning can meet with the neighboring residents to address their issues. * Richard Anderson agreed to the tabling. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: This Rezoning application was tabled. STAFF C RTIFI ATl N' /" " Gary f. Gun rman Planning Mana1?er 02 -117Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Heather Bluff Estates 5781 Wilcox Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 12, 2007 — Minutes Page l 1 of 3 l is at this point in t and he was disappointed to h that. He pointed out that th Commissioners d respectively disagree with res o is it a proper use at this locati ut landowner d rights too, and if someone want o put something on t<propert t maybe you of like it, we have to ba lance then ings. Mr. Close requested a tabling f days for them to look at changin change everybody's mind. Mr. er said there was no vote taken o oncepetic Mr. Close could bri a concept every two weeks to the C ission. Mr. San tc explained that part of the spirit a concept plan was to o trim the cost to a po 1al developer. He said if there is ncept plan that the Co ton, as a group does not feel is appropriate and then the ap nt can take that lnformat' and do with it what they wish. Mr. Cnrsaid he s e woul=given ctliing because he saw three Commissioners that w >s concept. Mr. G e Commissione r comments and thanked Mr. Close for his 4. Heather Bluff Estates 5781 Wilcox Road 02- 117Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Gary Gunderman presented this request for a rezoning/preliminary development plan approval for an area on the north side of Woemer Temple Road, and west of Wilcox Road. He said the applicant is requesting a PUD, Planned Unit Development District zoning for seven single - family lots. He said the surrounding zoning is residential with PLR, Planned Low Density Residential, and PUD Districts. Mr. Gunderman said there is a tree preservation area proposed behind all the lots and on the sideyards of four lots. He presented a slide showing the tree vegetation in the area, looking west on Heather Bluff Drive, looking back towards Wilcox Road at the intersection, and looking outside of this proposed site at the existing houses. He said many rectangular lots in the area are approximately 62 feet wide which are a couple of feet narrower than lots in this application. He said in Planning's opinion, based on the review criteria, with conditions, all of the criteria have been met. He said it was also reviewed with the ten Land Use Principles, and given the character of the area, Planning feels they are also met. Mr. Gunderman said Planning recommends three conditions as listed in the report. He noted that since the roadways have already been constructed through this area, most of the basic layout features are obvious and there is not flexibility in terms of the overall layout of the project. Jeff Hackett, the applicant pointed out that this is an infill piece that is consistent with the long range plan. Deana Foley, 5937 Lothian Street said that the only concerns she and Donna Givens, 6057 Heather Bluff Drive had were that they had not had any communication and no one had approached any of the residents. She said their three main concerns were that there were too many houses, the construction traffic and safety, and the trees. Mr. Gerber assured that everything possible would be done to protect the trees. Ms. Foley said they were unable to contact the president of Heather Glen to see if he had been contacted. She said that when they got the notices from the City they wanted to know more. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission July 12, 2007 —Minutes Page 12 of 31 Ms, Givens said the way the existing houses sit on both sides of the street, the five proposed houses on one side will look very crowded. She said they need to meet to hear what is actually being proposed. Mr. Gerber said that he will make sure that Planning and this applicant contact them. David Bolton, 5895 Haddler Court, said his main concern was density and the size of the houses having an impact on property values. Mr. Bolton said he received the City notice but has not had adequate time to study the proposal. However, he was somewhat encouraged that they are single - family units and that there is some effort to make them consistent with the look and feel of the neighborhood. Mr. Gerber said that all surrounding residents should be contacted when there is an application and he was disappointed to hear when it did not happen. He said he was not inclined to hear this application until he was satisfied that the residents had a chance to have input, particularly when there is an infill. Mr. Gerber said when the Code is revised they may want to consider a special provision for infill and how these things happen because in some respect, the current Code tools for this kind of project do not seem to work. He said there needs to be a mechanism in place to involve the surrounding residents because these are smaller than the old proverbial cookie - cutter, 300 housing unit that we have. Mr. Gerber asked how this density fits with the surrounding area. Mr. Gunderman said these lots are slightly larger than the existing rectangular- shaped ones. He said if only cul -de -sac lots were included and a few other extraordinary lots were compared, these proposed lots would be smaller. Mr. Gerber asked if it was envisioned that a similar sized house would be built on these lots. Mr. Gunderman said he thought they would. He said the setback is aligned with the other houses on the street. Mr. Gerber noted that this was a planned development, and with respect to building materials, characteristics to keep consistent with the surrounding area, that was within the Commission's purview. Mr. Gunderman said this particular text was modeled after adjacent subdivision to the west, which is not a newer or detailed text, relative to many others. Mr. Gunderman pointed out that there had been a good deal of resident phone calls and interest on this proposal, but he felt once they understood the seven lots and their configuration, they were fairly satisfied. He said most calls were with concerns that there was something really different going on here. Mr. Gunderman said the Association president, Sean Dicks, talked to Planning and sent a couple of communications. He said Mr. Dicks seemed pleased once he saw the drawings. However, he was concerned about the size of the houses. Mr. Gerber said this might still be too dense. He said he would feel more comfortable if additional comments were received from Mr. Dicks and the residents and that the density issue should be addressed before going forward. Mr. Fishman said that the residents had made an excellent point. He said when Heather Glen was proposed and zoned it was sold as affordable housing, even though it did not turn out that way, that is why the lots were allowed to be small. He said he thought they needed to be very vuuwi nmuw% du 11; L VILUIUD vu July 12, 2007 —Minutes Page 13 of 3 l careful with infill. Mr. Fishman said he thought this was too dense and there should be six lots with openspace at the entrance. He said the houses should be similar in size to those existing and five -feet should be added to each lot because this is a heavily wooded site. He said the build zone should be the same as on the existing lots and then the entrance would have openspace. Mr. Zimmerman said if Lot 5, a front lot, was eliminated, a 25 -foot span would have 5 to 6 feet added on each of the remaining north lots and then an openspace in front, based on Planning looking at it from the tree aspect. and what is there. Mr. Fishman said the Commission wanted to make things better, not the same, so they wanted to go to a lower density and take advantage of the wooded site. Mr. Walter said this was not too dense. He said the lots are larger and the house size will be consistent with those existing. He said there were not so many homes that it would have an impact. Mr. Walter said it was a small section, and it might look more out of place by being all of a sudden this little thumb of larger homes. He said he supported this application. He said Lot 5 had a short frontage, but it would benefit from the openspace to the east. Mr. Walter said that he thought they wanted to encourage infill, and having the last lot makes it economically viable for the applicant to build. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked where the driveway would be for Lot 5. Mr. Gunder said it could be solidified on the final. He said it probably would be preferred to come off of the new road as opposed to Wilcox Road which had a limited driveway access. He said driveways had not been dealt with at this stage of the process, but would be at the final development plan stage.. Mr. Saneholtz agreed with Mr. Walter and said this was extremely consistent with what had been constructed in the area and he was interested in maintaining the integrity and the consistency of the neighborhood. He said he would support this preliminary development plan. Mr. Zimmerman said getting together with the neighborhood to get their approval and input is the first step. Mr. McCash said he would eliminate Lot 5 because from a density standpoint, there was not really a front yard. Mr. Fishman said that the density was not a problem for him. He said it was aesthetics. He agreed that Lot 5 should be eliminated. Mr. Gerber said his preference was to table this application. He asked that the applicant and Planning work with the neighbors. He said that it was more utility and aesthetics with Lot 5. He said perhaps through the tabling, Planning, residents, and the applicant could work this out. Mr. Anderson agreed to the tabling. Motion and Vote Mr. Gerber made the motion to table this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan application so that the applicant and Planning can meet with the neighboring residents to address their issues. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Tabled 7 — 0.) CITY OF DUBLIN DivWon PkrAq 5800 Sher -Rigs Road Di&, Ohio 43016 -1236 AmA00: 614 - 161 -6550 Fax: 6W761-6566 web Sik: rrww.dubGo,.ah.us DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION February 19, 1998 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 3. Final Development Plan 98- 001FDP - Heather Glen South Location: 6.194 acres located on the east and west sides of Nom Street, approximately 100 feet south of Pirthshire Drive and 400 feet west of Wilcox Road. Existing Zoning: PUD, Planned Unit Development District. Request: Review and approval of a final development plan under the provisions of Section 153.056. Proposed Use: A single - family neighborhood of 16 lots with 1.07 acres of park. Applicant: Rockford Homes, c/o Donald R. Wick, Vice President, 999 Polaris Parkway, Columbus, Ohio 43240. MOTION: To approve this final development plan with 12 conditions: 1) That all development standards including setbacks, "no- build" zones, fence restrictions, etc. be described in notes on the final plat, subject to staff approval; 2) That a 15 -foot "no- build" zone be placed along the southern lot line of Lot #6; 3) That a temporary "T" tam- around that meets City of Dublin requirement`s be shown on the plans and constructed by the developer at the terminus of Heather Bluff Driver 4) That the-14orn Street cross - section be revised to show the bike path; 5) That all construction traffic use Woerner- Temple Road extension as soon as it is available and that all future plans and plats include this note; 6) That all areas for "major flood routing" be identified on all future plans and plats as "no -build zone." 7) That revised text and notes regarding fence restrictions be submitted, subject to staff approval; 8) That the developer erect permanent fencing for the grave site area, subject to staff approval; Page 1 of 2 02 -117Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Heather Bluff Estates 5781 Wilcox Road DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION February 19, 1998 13. Final Development Plan 98- 001FDP - Heather Glen South (Continued) CITY OF DUBLIN 9) That a tree and site protection plan be submitted showing the location of snow and Division of mmain9 protective fencing to be placed and maintained around all trees lines and the grave 58W5kCer- R.ugskoad site area, to the satisfaction of staff; 1 thkn, Ohio 43015.1236 10) That th � e landscape plan (marked street tree be revised, subject to staff approval; rlmee/lmr. 614 - 761 -6550 11) That all reserve areas, except the grave site area, be fine graded and seeded to the FoL 614- 7614566 satisfaction of staff; and Wei Site: www.dubl'n.o6.us 12) That revised final development plans, satisfying all above conditions, be submitted prior to scheduling the final plat before City Council. * Christopher T. Cline, Jr., attorney, representing the applicant, agreed with the above conditions. VOTE: 7 -0. RESULT: This final development plan was approved. STAFF CERTIFICATION �� - Chris Hermann Planner 02 -117Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Heather Bluff Estates 5781 Wilcox Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - February 19, 1998 Page 2 3. final Development Plan 98- OOIFDP - Heather Glen South Chris Hermann presented this plan for 6.196 acres near Wilcox Road. The plan has 16 lots and 1.07 acres of park. It was called Wilcox Estates in the rezoning process. Access will be from Norn Street and the future Woerner- Temple Extension. Park is along the north side of the Woemer- Temple alignment, containing an old foundation and a grave marker. He said the grave site should be protected during development, and permanently by a 3% foot wrought iron fence. Mr. Hermann said there is a 15 -foot no-build zone around the entire tract. Originally, a detention pond was planned, but the stormwater will be handled off site within Heather Glen, Section 1. There is a significant floodwater route through this site. Mr. Hermann said the Commission approved the rezoning on July 11, 1996, and City Council approved it on September 16, 1996. The 240 -day PUD time limit expired, and an extension was approved on September 14, 1997. He said the minimum lot width is 63 feet, the minimum depth is 101 feet, and the smallest lot is 6,969 square feet. The minimum sideyard is six feet (12 feet combined). The rear yard is 20 percent of lot depth, and there are 15 -foot no-build zones. Staff recommends a no-build zone along Lot 6, abutting the park. The overall density of this development is 2.58 du/ac. Dublin will complete the Woerner- Temple extension (100 -foot right -of -way) by Spring 1999. Construction traffic will use Norn Street, through Heather Glen only until the Woerner- Temple extension is done. Nom Street will have 36 -foot pavement and 60 -foot right -of -way. A bikepath will be on the west side of Norn Street. This area was rezoned prior to adoption of the updated Community Plan, and the preferred 200 -foot setback will not be applied. This setback will be about 155 feet from centerline. The development is not within the 100 -year floodplain. The 50- foot flood route is graded to guide the water and will become a no -build zone. Mr. Hermann said the only styles fences permitted are split rail yard, black ornamental around pools, and privacy for patios and decks close to the house. He said a statement that privacy fences cannot be used around pools is needed. The edge of the park is to be indicated by a row of trees, and a mix of tree species (other than white pines) should be used. The street tree list should include red oaks on Heather Bluff Drive, and street trees should be measured by caliper, not height. The fence row is in a no-buUd zone which needs to be fenced for protection throughout the construction process. A tree preservation plan must be provided. Mr. Hermann said staff recommends approval with 13 conditions: 1) That all development standards including setbacks, " no-build" zones, fence restrictions, etc. be described in notes on the final plat, subject to staff approval; 2) That a 15- foot "no- build" zone be placed along the southern lot line of Lot #6; 3) That a temporary "T" turn- around that meets City of Dublin requirements be shown on the plans and constructed by the developer at the terminus of Heather Bluff Drive; 4) That the developer pay the City the cost of constructing a five -foot wide sidewalk and planting the required street trees along the abutting north side of Woerner- Temple Road; 5) That the Norn Street cross - section be revised to show the bike path; 02 -1172 Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Heather Bluff Estates 5781 Wilcox Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - February 19, 1998 Page 3 6) That all construction traffic use Woerner- Temple Road extension as soon as it is available and that all future plans and plats include this note; 7) That all areas for "major flood routing" be identified on all future plans and plats as "no- build zone;" 8) That revised text and notes regarding fence restrictions be submitted, subject to staff approval; 9) That the developer erect permanent fencing for the grave site area, subject to staff approval; 10) That a tree and site protection plan be submitted showing the location of snow and protective fencing to be placed and maintained around all trees lines and the grave site area, to the satisfaction of staff; 11) That the landscape plan (marked "street tree ") be revised, subject to staff approval; 12) That all reserve areas, except the grave site area, be fine graded and seeded to the satisfaction of -staff; and 13) That revised final development plans, satisfying all above conditions, be submitted prior to scheduling the final plat before City Council. Mr. Hermann said a previous condition requires 105 feet between Woerner- Temple Road and Lot 6. He said there have been several adjustments to this lot line, and the lot will be 88 feet from the right -of -way, including a 15 -foot no -build zone along the lot line. A unresolved issue is a five -foot sidewalk and street trees along one side of the Woerner- Temple extension. At rezoning, the condition referenced only interior streets. The conditions from the time extension in September 1997, indicate that sidewalks and street trees are also required along the Woerner- Temple extension. This was not discussed at the meeting and was accepted by the applicant. This replicates the development requirement placed on the Sandy Corners development. Mr. Ferrara said there were many street trees missing in Heather Glen. Mr. McCash asked if the major flood routing towards the Higgins property on Wilcox Road would cause problems. Mr. Hermann said the water flows down to the property line between this site and Heather Glen Section 3, and then runs east, and to the detention area in Heather Glen Section 1. Mr. Harian asked if there was an existing open ditch after the water went towards the Higgins property. Mr. Hermann did not know. Mr. Lecklider asked if all property owners were sent proper notice. Mr. Hermann said yes. There was discussion of sidewalk and bikepath locations. Bikepaths will be located on the east side of Nom Street within the park and along the south side of the Woeraer- Temple extension. Woerner- Temple will have a five -foot sidewalk; all other streets will have four -foot walks. Mr. Lecklider asked about the stormwater regarding Lots 11 -14. He was most concerned whether houses would fit well on Lots 13 and 14. Mr. Lecklider said if there was not room for decks or patios on those lots, he wanted them red - flagged for potential buyers. 02 -117Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Heather Bluff Estates 5781 Wilcox Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - February 19, 1998 Page 4 Mr. Lecklider asked if the fence restrictions matched those of the other parts of Heather Glen. Mr. Hermann said yes. Mr. Lecklider asked if privacy fences were permitted to the building setback line. Ms. Clarke thought only split rail fences are permitted in Heather Glen. Mr. McCash said the design for Woerner- Temple extension was discussed at the last Council meeting. He asked why the bikepath had been switched to the south side of the road. Randy Bowman said the bikepath was moved to the south side to take advantage of the bikepath tunnel at the intersection of Avery Road and Woerner- Temple Road. The tunnel could not be accommodated in the right -of -way existing for Sandy Corners subdivision on the north side of the road. Christopher W. Cline, Jr., attorney, said they agreed with all the above conditions excluding the 15 -foot no -build zone and the street trees and sidewalk for Woerner- Temple Road. Mr. Cline said there have been several staff members assigned to this case, and he believes there is a communication problem. The rezoning action required sidewalks and street trees along the interior streets and nothing along Woerner- Temple Road. The text addresses this specifically. When they returned to the Commission for the 240 -day extension, he did not receive the staff report until the day of the meeting and he not have the opportunity to compare it to the previous approvals. Mr. Cline said staff used a different set of conditions. He said the day after the extension was approved, the mistake was realized and they advised staff. He thought it had been corrected, and they cannot agree to Condition 4. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher said the September 1997 Planning and Zoning Commission Record of Action does have different conditions. Ms. Clarke said she recalls the events somewhat differently. In September 1996, the rezoning was approved by City Council. Because a final development plan was not filed within 240 days, the PUD zoning actually expired in June 1997. An extension request was accepted after the expiration date because staff thought it was the best way to deal with the issue. Dublin had previously retained a designer to create a better layout for this site without success. Dublin has bought abutting properties for road and park purposes, and the road alignments are set. Staff assumed that a re- initiated rezoning process would yield the same plan. However, during that intervening year, the Sandy Corners plan went through the system. Its developer was required to pay for the bikepath and the street trees along Woerner- Temple Road. Any new rezoning request would have faced the same requirement. Ms. Clarke believed this. was the reason conditions changed at the time extension. She said the unresolved sidewalk/street tree issue is not a pivotal one. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher said if the developer did not pay for the sidewalk and street trees, these will be done at public expense. Mr. Cline said if new conditions had been requested at the time extension and agreed upon, it would be different. They were told the conditions remained the same as those for the rezoning. 02 -117Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Heather Bluff Estates 5781 Wilcox Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - February 19, 1998 Page 5 Ms. Clarke wrote the staff report for the time extension but Suzanne Wingenfield presented it in her absence. Ms. Chinnici Zuercher asked how much it would cost to install the sidewalk and street trees. Mr. Cline did not know. He said the this development has been pressed to the limit. Mr. McCash suggested a compromise that the developer provide only the street trees, estimated at $2,500. Don Wick, Rockford Homes, said he had discussed this with Randy Bowman. It had been agreed by all that no bikepath or street trees would go here. Mr. Wick said communication had been poor, but he could not agree to anything further. Mr. Cline said there is one grave monument and a barn foundation. Mr. Sprague if disinterring the remains to the Dublin cemetery was considered. Mr. Cline is confident no body is under the gravestone, but it could be anywhere on the original farm or a local cemetery. He said it used to be common to relocate cemeteries or sometimes just to remove the tombstones. Wherever the marker is placed, it symbolizes the historic difficulties of the area. He said the barn foundation may merit an archeological dig, but the Ohio Historical Society did not feel it was significant. Mr. Peplow asked about the material for bikepaths in front of residences. Randy Bowman said where bikepaths crossed lot frontages, they should be concrete. The bikepath here will be asphalt. Mr. McCash asked how the flood route affects Lots 11 -15. If the houses are built at the wrong elevation, or another problem arises, then there is basement flooding. Mr. Cline said a small creek runs between the Woodin and Higgins homes, and then the water goes into a culvert under Wilcox Road. That drainage route has been replaced by a 60 -inch pipe to the north, flowing to the Heather Glen basin. This is only used to carry regular storm flow, but only during a major flood when all other stormwater facilities are overwhelmed. Jason Francis, R.D. Zande, said there is a significant storm sewer system that ties into the 60 -inch storm sewer for the primary storm drainage, the two and five -year storms. A creek still exists east of this site and there is a culvert under Wilcox Road for the major flood routing. In addition, grading on the construction drawings, and details on the final plat will assure this gets put onto the plot plans used for individual lot grading. The final engineering plans have been submitted and comments have been received back from the Engineering Department. Mr. McCash said the building pad on Lot 14 seems very constrained. He suggested adding restrictions on where landscaping, gardens, swing sets, etc. can be located. Mr. Francis said Lot 14 had a 55 -foot building depth. He said there would be additions to the plat defining no -build zones which will prohibit swing sets, pools, decks, satellite dishes, etc. Mr. Francis said there were several options for the major flood routing. There is a much acreage to the west, and its stormwater comes down Woerner- Temple Road and then north on Norn Street. Their preference would have been to route it down Norn Street, but it conflicted with the street 02 -117Z Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Heather Bluff Estates 5781 Wilcox Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - February 19, 1998 Page 6 grade. He said they worked closely with Burgess and Niple to coordinate the alignment. This plan is very conservative, the 50 -foot easement is more than enough to protect the homes. Mr. McCash asked if a model was run on the culvert at Wilcox Road. Randy Bowman said the culvert size did not have to be increased. In the Stormwater Management Master Plan certain public improvements were identified to bring the drainage system up to acceptable standards. This was not identified. Major flood routing is provided in all subdivisions. Easements for all major flood routing are necessary, but securing them has not been a consistent practice in Dublin in the past. Mr. Harlan asked if a wrought iron fence is proposed around the grave site. Mr. Cline said yes. Mr. Lecklider said he did not like fences of any type, particularly with small lot sizes. He asked if the deed restrictions will restrict above ground pools. Mr. Cline said yes. Mr. Lecklider asked where privacy fences could be installed. Mr. Cline said only around the deck or patio area. Mr. Sprague said it made sense to be consistent with developments in the area, but this seemed to be a good faith disagreement. Given that, he supports installation of the trees and sidewalk by the City. Dublin should pay for the bikepath/sidewalk and street trees if they want them. It is possible the City made an error, and it was not an expectation of the applicant. Mr. Peplow, Mr. Harlan, Mr. Lecklider, Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, and Mr. Ferrara agreed.. Mr. Harian said that in the future, it should be the developer's responsibility. Ms. Chinnid-Zuercher was surprised that Mr. Cline did not catch this error in a timely manner. Mr. Ferrara made a motion to approve this final development plan with 12 conditions: 1) That all development standards including setbacks, "no- build" zones, fence restrictions, etc. be described in notes on the final plat, subject to staff, approval; 2) That a 15 -foot "no- build" zone be placed along the southern lot line of Lot #6; 3) That a temporary "T" turn- around that meets City of Dublin requirements be shown on the plans and constructed by the developer at the terminus of Heather Bluff Drive; 4) That the Norn Street cross - section be revised to show the bike path; 5) That all construction traffic use Woerner- Temple Road extension as soon as it is available and that all future plans and plats include this note; 6) That all areas for "major flood routing" be identified on all future plans and plats as "no- build zone." 'n That revised text and notes regarding fence restrictions be submitted, subject to staff approval; 8) That the developer erect permanent fencing for the grave site area, subject to staff approval; 9) That a tree and site protection plan be submitted showing the location of snow and protective fencing to be placed and maintained around all trees lines and the grave site area, to the satisfaction of staff, 10) That the landscape (marked "street tree ") plan be revised, subject to staff approval; 02 -1172 Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Heather Bluff Estates 5781 Wilcox Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - February 19, 1998 Page 7 11) That all reserve areas, except the grave site area, be fine graded and seeded to the satisfaction of staff; and 12) That revised final development plans, satisfying all above conditions, be submitted prior to scheduling the final plat before City Council. Mr. Sprague seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Peplow, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Harian, yes; Ms. Chinnici Zuercher, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; and Mr. Ferrara, yes. (Approved 7-0.) 4. Develop me Plan 98 -003DP - rsmeter Center - S area D - HER R -5725 Perime Drive Kim Li ton presented this d elopment plan for 1. acres within Subar D of the PCD, Plan Commerce District erimeter Center. proposal is for an 11 square foot, two - office building. Pe 'tted uses within this area include office institutional uses. T site is located on th outh side of Pe 'm rive. A required -foot landscaping mo d is located on the Ju ' Center site. He sai ere was an eclectic ection of buildings i e area. A surroundin ffice-flex building on a north side of Peri r Drive had i fs, stucco material, dormers for them cal units. Office dings Glaser to Petched ri ter center have sio oafs, a combination brick and stucco ma al, and a residenti a and character. r. Littleton said th arking was propos n the west and sou des of the building. e building meets all the setback regI ireme The sidewalk from a building has been ended to the existin ikepath. The propo sign needs to be ed to meet the req ' 12 -foot setback. agpole proposed m conform to the buil . g setbacks and sign dards in the Code. -foot height limita ` for a 4' X 6' Bove ent flag.) e building materials ' ude stucco stone (cul ed stone) on the base the building with stu on the upper port%© here are eight - over - ght light windows. amain pitch roof is 2:12 pitch, and the s' roof is an 8:12 pits . Mr. Littleton said s f had worked with pplicant to make m al on the side elevat' s equivalent to their a on the front eleva ' . Stone has been ad to the side elevati o and the window fen e ation has been revis . The proposed roo a has been broken u ith dormers on both 'des. Mr. Littleton staff believes there s uld be additional ston n the south elevation atching the proportio on all other elevatio Mr. Littleton ` staff recommends pi s and spruce trees no a used in the lands ing and street trees w' a broader spread be sed. A mature tree r extends along the side of the site whic auld be protected b no -build zone. M . ittleton said 55 pe nt of the building fa de was stucco stone the remaining ar ing windows or stu o. The primary cold s gray for the stucco id the stone is gray/ ` ht tan. He said the r elevations should h e additional stone tr ment or another mate ' 02 -117Z Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Heather Bluff Estates 5781 Wilcox Road