Loading...
Ordinance 11-11RECORD OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. 11 -11 Passed . 20 AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 51.7 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF DUBLIN ROAD AND MEMORIAL DRIVE, FROM R -1, RESTRICTED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (WASATCH ESTATES) TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (DEER RUN - CASE 10- 062Z/PDP/PP). NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, of its elected members concurring, that: Section 1 . The following described real estate (see attached legal description marked Exhibit "A ") situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned PUD, Planned Development District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 2 . The application, 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. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law. Passed this A day of l a a;e Ch/ 2011. . 66444'�' Mayor - Pr i ing Officer ATTEST: Clerk of Council CITY OF DUBLIN_ Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1090 Phone: 614 - 410 -4400 • Fax: 614 - 410 -4490 To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Marsha Grigsby, City Manager "Z� Date: March 24, 1011 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director, Land Use and Long Range Planning Memo Re: Ordinance 11 -11 —Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat — Deer Run PUD — Deer Run (Case No. 10- 062Z /PDP /PP) Summary Ordinance 11 -11 was introduced at the February 28, 2011 City Council meeting. The request is for approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan and preliminary plat for 51.7 acres from R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District, and PUD, Planned Unit Development District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Deer Run) to allow nine estate lots and 37 cluster lots with 10 acres of open space. Based on the concerns raised by members of Council at the first reading, the following are addressed below: Sidewalks Council expressed concerns regarding Planning's request to reconsider the internal sidewalk for Subarea C, and most members did not find the sidewalk necessary given the proposed character of this development. Council requested pictures of development with a similar design character with and without sidewalks for review, which are included in packet. Additionally, Planning and Engineering have determined that a sidewalk can be accommodated within the existing private street easement and does not require additional area, and continues to ask Council to reconsider a sidewalk within Subarea C. Garages Council inquired about the number of lots containing front- and side /court - loaded garages in Subarea C. The proposed plat and development text has nine, 70 -foot wide lots, which could accommodate side or court- loaded garages. Since five, 60 -foot wide lots could also accommodate side or court- loaded garages, the text has been modified to specify that a minimum of 14 of the 37 lots in Subarea C have side or court- loaded garages. Council also asked how much of the front fagade would be taken up by the proposed front -load garages and how this compares to the Residential Appearance Code. The Appearance Code requires that garage not be more than 35 percent of the front elevation nor project more than 12 feet. The final floor plan and site design will be determined with the final development plan; however, the preliminary lot orientation provided by the applicant indicates that the front- loaded garages will meet this requirement. Memo re. Ordinance 11 -11 — Rezoning — Deer Run, w. Preliminary Dev. Plan & Plat March 24, 2011 Page 2 of 2 Tree Waiver At the first reading, the applicant indicated a desire to request a tree waiver. At Planning's initiative, the waiver has been incorporated in the proposed development text. The applicant has requested a tree waiver for the Deer Run site, as the property owner planted a significant number of trees on the site. Given the heavily wooded nature of the site and the applicant's efforts to cluster the development and preserve as many trees as possible, a tree waiver is reasonable. Planning has worked with the applicant to determine an appropriate waiver given that the property owner should not be penalized for the replacement of trees he has planted. Applicant has agreed to modify the proposed development text to contain the following replacement requirements. 1. Any trees removed from the common open space (except as noted in the text) and from the required rear yard setbacks which measure up to 6 inches and including 18 inches (DBH) in width be replaced on a tree - for -tree basis; 2. Any trees removed measuring greater than 18 inches (DBH) in width be replaced on an inch - for -inch basis; and 3. A tree survey indicating tree removal and replacement, based on the requirements listed above, be submitted with the final development plan. Previous tree waivers granted by City Council required tree replacement for all trees removed from a site on a tree - for -tree basis for trees measuring between 6 inches (DBH, diameter breast height) and up to 24 inches, and on an inch - for -inch basis for trees 24 inches (DBH) or greater, or fees paid in lieu of tree replacement. This tree waiver request is stricter in that the applicant will have to replace trees measuring 18 inches (DBH) and greater on an inch - for -inch basis because any trees planted by the property owner would not have yet reached this size. In addition, the applicant will not be responsible for replacing trees measuring 6 inches up to 18 inches (DBH) in width that are impacted by the roadway construction, utility easement improvements or storm water measures within Subarea C, because this area contains the greatest number trees planted by the property owner. Recommendation Planning recommends City Council continue to reconsider the sidewalk within Subarea C and approval of Ordinance 11 -11 with the modifications to the development text as described. Developments with Sidewalks ha rt Tartan West - Mediterra Place, Dublin, OH Marble Crossing - Lake Shore Drive, Columbus, OH Villas at Ballantrae - Carinlough Place, Dublin, OH Developments without Sidewalks Muirfield - Lea Court, Dublin, OH Muirfield - Pitlochry Court, Dublin, OH Muirfield - Moors Place, Dublin, OH Side -Load Garage Locations Subarea C 70 -foot wide lots (side - loaded garages required) 60 -foot wide lots Additional lots able to accomodate side - loaded garages N m Subarea B \ � / I I Subarea C p \111 Xm e Ir 70 -foot wide lots (side - loaded garages required) 60 -foot wide lots Additional lots able to accomodate side - loaded garages N DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011 Development Text Introduction: Deer Run is a +/- 51.7 acre Planned Unit Development in the City of Dublin. The site is situated just west of the Scioto River, and straddles the boundary line between Franklin and Delaware Counties. The site is bound by Kerry Glen Subdivision to the North, the Scioto River and City of Dublin owned property to the East, Memorial Drive and Amberleigh Subdivision to the South, and Dublin Road to the west. The site is unique in that it is heavily wooded, and contains a variety of topography, including a large ravine that bisects the site. This PUD seeks to provide a variety of residential choices that will embrace the existing character, and preserve as much of the natural features as possible through the use of large lots, and smaller, clustered lots. Deer Run March 28, 2010 1 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011 General Development Standards 1) Applicability: The development will consist of three subareas (Subareas A -C), each of which is subject to the applicable standards set forth in the text. Except where defined in this text, the development shall meet the standards in the City of Dublin Code. 11) Residential Lot Types: Subarea A is the northern -most portion of the site, north of the large ravine, and is made up of Estate Lots. Subarea B is the central portion of the site, south of the large ravine, and is also made up of Estate Lots. Subarea C is the southern -most portion of the site and is made up of Cluster Lots. III) Residential Architectural Standards: A) All dwelling units shall comply with the design guidelines of the development standards in this text, except for any existing buildings or site improvements that will remain. Redevelopment or alterations to those existing elements shall be in compliance with the design guidelines of the development standards in this text. Unless otherwise specified in the submitted drawings or in this written text, the development standards of Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin Code shall apply to this subarea. B) All structures shall meet the City of Dublin Zoning Code Residential Appearance Standards, unless otherwise set forth in this text. IV) Setbacks: Setbacks from the perimeter of the PUD site shall be as follows: A) Minimum building and pavement setback from Dublin Road right -of -way shall be one hundred (100) feet. The private access and utility easement shall be permitted to encroach on this setback as shown on the plans. B) Minimum building and pavement setback from Memorial Drive right -of -way shall be one hundred (100) feet. C) The minimum building and pavement setback from all other PUD perimeter property lines shall be twenty five (25) feet. Access and utility easements shall be permitted to encroach on these setbacks, as shown on the plans. Deer Run March 28, 2010 2 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011 D) The existing private drive from Dublin Road, as well as its proposed extension along the northern property line, shall be permitted to encroach on these setbacks, as shown on the plans. V) Graphics and Signs: A) At the time of the submission of its initial Final Development Plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission for any residential development, the developer shall present the Planning Commission with a graphics and signage plan for its review. This plan, and any future amendments thereto, shall serve as the uniform graphics and signage plan for the entire PUD both for the initial phase of residential development on the site and any phase of residential development occurring thereafter. Once the graphics and signage plan is approved as a part of the initial final development plan, its terms shall apply to all residential graphics and signage within the PUD. B) In the event that the graphics and signage plan is silent on any matter addressed by the City of Dublin Sign Code then the terms of those Code sections shall apply. VI) Landscaping Vision: Landscaping shall maintain a natural appearance along Dublin Road and Memorial Drive, in common open spaces, along the private streets in subareas A and B, and throughout undeveloped areas of the site. Subarea C may appear more formalized to complement the intended "European village" style of the architecture. More formalized landscaping may be designed to complement the individual homes in all subareas. Landscaping should be designed to complement appearance and plant material existing in the adjoining woods and natural areas. A significant effort shall be made to preserve the natural features, including existing trees and topography, particularly in Subarea B. VII) Expiration of Zoning Approval: A) This PUD requests an exemption from the Dublin Zoning Code which requires the submission of a final development plan within three years of approval of this preliminary development plan and the Planned Development District designation. This preliminary development plan shall remain in effect until such time that a Final Development Plan is approved. VIII) Home Owners' Associations Deer Run March 28, 2010 3 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011 A) Two separate forced and funded homeowners' associations shall be established: one for Subareas A and B, and one for Subarea C. B) The associations shall own and maintain all common facilities, including but not limited to open spaces, private streets, private utilities, and access gates and signs, common area landscaping and fencing. IX) Public Improvements A) A five (5) foot wide concrete sidewalk will be installed per city standards within the right -of -way along the north side of Memorial Drive. The sidewalk, as shown on the plan, will tie into the existing bike path to the west. B) The applicant will be responsible for any roadway improvements identified within the finalized Traffic Impact Study, subject to approval by the City Engineer. X) Perimeter Fencing A) The existing black, 4 -rail, wood fence along Dublin Road and Memorial Drive shall be permitted to remain and be maintained in its existing location. B) The length of black, 4 -rail, wood fencing that extends from the east boundary of the property along Memorial Drive and onto the City of Dublin property shall be removed from the City of Dublin property and relocated by the applicant at time of construction of either this development or the city park, whichever comes first. C) A survey for the final development plan shall verify any additional off -site encroachments and their correction shall be made as part of the final development plan. Deer Run March 28, 2010 4 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011 Subarea A: Estate Lots 1) Description: A) Subarea A shall be located on the northernmost portion of the site adjacent to Dublin Road to the east, Kerry Glen Subdivision to the north, the Scioto River to the east, and Subarea B separated by the ravine to the south. This subarea shall be approximately 18.5 acres and shall contain "Estate Lots" as described below. The subarea includes two existing single - family homes that shall be permitted to remain. 11) Permitted Uses: A) Permitted uses shall include single - family detached homes, and the current use of the existing building on proposed Lot #2 as a guest lodge / clubhouse. B) Accessory Uses shall be as permitted by City of Dublin Code. III) Density, Height, Lot and /or Setback Commitments: A) The maximum number of dwelling units shall be four (4). The maximum density shall be 0.22 du /ac. B) Minimum Lot size shall be 2 acres. C) Setbacks (1) The minimum front yard setback shall be twenty -five (25) feet from the private street easement line. (2) The minimum side yard setback shall be twenty -five (25) feet from each side property line. (3) The minimum rear -yard setback shall be 30 feet from the property line, or the 100 -year flood line, whichever is greater... D) Encroachments into applicable setbacks shall be in accordance with the City of Dublin Code, or as outlined within this text. E) Maximum building height shall be thirty -five (35) feet. Height shall be measured from the finish grade at the front or main fagade of the house to the height of the dominant roof mass. Architectural features that exceed this height must be Deer Run March 28, 2010 5 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011 compatible with the style and massing of the overall architecture of the building and shall be approved by staff. F) There shall be only one principal use permitted on each lot, and such lot shall not be covered more than 30% by structures. G) Homes shall be permitted to have walk -out basements so as to minimize the need for extensive site grading. IV) Access, Loading, Parking and /or other Traffic - Related Commitments: A) Access (1) Access to Subarea A shall be from Dublin Road at the existing curb -cut and shall provide shared access to Subarea B. The common access easement of approximately 0.7 acres within Subarea B shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. B) Private Streets (1) All dwelling units in this subarea shall have access from a private street. (2) The existing private street width and decorative gravel surface contribute to the natural and rural character of this site. It is the intent of this plan to maintain that character by matching the existing private street as much as possible. (3) All streets constructed as a part of this subarea shall be privately owned and maintained and shall be combined access and utility easements. (4) All private street easements shall have a minimum width of fifty (50) feet. All existing private streets and driveways shall be permitted to remain. (5) The future extension of the private street shall be a minimum width of twelve (12) feet. The street shall provide a widened "bump -out' at new hydrant locations to provide a minimum width of twenty -six (26) feet. The extension of the street and any utilities shall be adjusted within the easement so as to minimize removal of trees. (6) Curbs and gutters shall not be required. (7) All private streets shall be designed per the City of Dublin engineering standards, except as noted above and so as to accommodate access by emergency vehicles. Deer Run March 28, 2010 6 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011 (8) Pavement surface may be asphalt top- dressed with decorative gravel to match the appearance of the existing private street. C) Existing Bridge (1) The existing bridge shall be evaluated at final development plan to verify that vehicle load limits are suitable for emergency access. Should improvements be required based on the results of the study, such improvements shall be required to be completed prior to the submission of a building permit for Subarea A. (2) Signage identifying load limits shall be posted at both entrances to the bridge. D) Sidewalks, bike paths, or leisure trails shall not be required. E) Estate Lot driveways (1) Materials shall be asphalt top- dressed with decorative gravel to match the appearance of the existing private street or the driveway materials permitted per City of Dublin Code. (2) Multiple curb -cuts may be permitted from the private street where appropriate and approved by the City. Multiple curb -cuts shall be based on safety, design aesthetics, and lot entry. (3) The existing driveways of the existing homes shall be permitted to remain. (4) This subarea shall otherwise be exempt for residential driveway code. V) Architectural Standards: A) Design Review: All homes within this subarea are envisioned to be custom homes and shall be held to a high quality of design and construction. No improvements, change, construction, addition, excavation, landscaping, tree removal, or other work or action that in any way alters the exterior appearance of the lots or common open space shall be commenced or continued without review and written approval from the Design Committee. The committee shall be appointed by the Trustees of the Association, and shall consist of at least three members. Design review procedure shall be outlined within the deed restrictions of the lots. B) Architectural Diversity: In order to ensure that there is architectural diversity, homes located on adjacent lots within Subarea A shall be required to utilize either Deer Run March 28, 2010 7 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011 (1) different floor plans or (2) different architectural styles. In the event that homes with the same architectural style are built on adjacent lots, then, in addition to being required to incorporate different floor plans, these homes also shall be required to use different exterior colors and materials. C) Exterior materials: (1) All buildings shall incorporate four -sided architecture. (2) Finish building materials shall be applied to all sides of the exteriors of all buildings. (3) Colors shall be harmonious and compatible with colors of the natural surroundings and other adjacent buildings, if any. The Design Committee shall have the sole right to approve or disapprove materials and colors, consistent with the approved development text and approved final development plan. (4) Cladding materials: The exteriors of structures in this subarea shall be constructed of brick, stone, manufactured stone, wood, stucco, cementitious siding, and other comparable materials, subject to approval by Planning (or any combination thereof). (5) Trim materials: Permitted exterior trim materials shall include wood, aluminum (for gutters and downspouts only), copper, EIFS fiber - cement products, or composite wood, products. Shutters shall be considered "trim" for purposes of this development text. (6) Roof materials: All homes shall have dimensional asphalt shingles, wood, slate, tile, metal, or copper. VI) Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space and /or Screening Commitments A) All residential landscaping shall meet the landscape requirements of the City of Dublin Zoning Code, unless specified within the development text. B) Open Space: Subarea A shall contain approximately 1.2 acres of common open space, located along Dublin Road. Common Open Space shall be maintained by a forced and funded homeowners association. C) All existing trees in fair or good condition shall be preserved within the common open space, except in locations of necessary common access and utility Deer Run March 28, 2010 8 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011 easements. Any area not occupied by trees shall be maintained as lawn, planting area for screening purposes, or as natural vegetation. D) Tree Preservation: (1) It is the intent of the developer to preserve as many trees as possible in this subarea due to the heavily wooded nature of the site. (2) A tree survey will be provided at the final development plan identifying any trees within the proposed development footprint of any site improvement that will be removed. A tree replacement plan shall also be provided identifying tree replacement in accordance with the requirements as outlined below in Section (3). A good -faith effort shall be made to limit any tree removal to only those areas within the development footprint, to be identified on the final development plan. (3) The site shall meet the following tree preservation and replacement requirements: a. Any trees in good or fair condition removed from the common open space area (except as noted above) or from any required rear yard setback measuring between 6 inches up to and including 18 inches (DBH) in width shall be replaced on a tree - for -tree basis, and b. Any trees in good or fair condition greater than 18 inches (DBH) removed from the site shall be replaced on an inch - for -inch basis. (4) All trees to be preserved shall be protected by tree preservation fencing in accordance with the City of Dublin's tree preservation fence details and guidelines. E) Street Trees shall not be required along any private streets. Any landscaping along the private street should maintain a natural appearance. F) Existing vegetation along the north property line shall be preserved as a landscape screen. VII) Gate and Entry Sign A) Gate (1) The access shall be permitted to have an entry security gate, allowing 24- hour emergency access, and shall be approved by Washington Township Deer Run March 28, 2010 9 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011 Fire Department. The existing gate shall be permitted to remain, so long as the Washington Fire Department requirements are met. (2) The gate shall have decorative masonry columns and wing -walls not more than six (6) feet in height. The gates shall be decorative in appearance and not more than six (6) feet in height. B) Sign. (1) Entry feature signage shall be permitted at the private drive entrance along Dublin Road. (2) The entry sign(s) may be incorporated into the gate structure indicating the development name. (3) The sign shall not exceed 20 square feet in size VIII) Model Homes A) Model homes shall not be permitted in this subarea. Deer Run March 28, 2010 10 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011 Subarea B: Estate Lots 1) Description: Subarea B shall be located on the central portion of the site adjacent to Dublin Road to the east, Subarea A and the ravine to the north, the Scioto River to the east, and Subarea C to the south. This subarea shall be approximately 16.1 acres and shall contain "Estate Lots" as described below. 11) Permitted Uses: A) Permitted uses shall include single - family detached homes. B) Accessory Uses shall be as permitted by City of Dublin Code. III) Density, Height, Lot and /or Setback Commitments: A) The maximum number of dwelling units shall be five (5). The maximum density shall be 0.31 du /ac. B) Minimum Lot size shall be 2 acres. C) Setbacks (1) The minimum front yard setback shall be twenty -five (25) feet from the private street easement line. (2) The minimum side yard setback shall be twenty -five (25) feet from each side property line. (3) The minimum rear -yard setback shall be 30 feet from the property line, or the 100 -year flood line, whichever is greater.. D) Encroachments into applicable setbacks shall be in accordance with the City of Dublin Code, or as outlined within this text. E) Maximum building height shall be thirty -five (35) feet. Height shall be measured from the finish grade at the front or main fagade of the house to the height of the dominant roof mass. Architectural features that exceed this height must be compatible with the style and massing of the overall architecture of the building and shall be approved by staff. Deer Run March 28, 2010 11 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011 F) There shall be only one principal use permitted on each lot, and such lot shall not be covered more than 30% by structures. G) Homes shall be permitted to have walk -out basements so as to minimize the need for extensive site grading. IV) Access, Loading, Parking and /or other Traffic - Related Commitments: A) Access (1) Access to Subarea B shall be from Dublin Road at the existing curb -cut and shall provide shared access to Subarea A. (a) Refer to Subarea A for shared access and gate provisions. B) Private Streets (1) All dwelling units in this subarea shall have access from a private street. (2) The existing private street width and decorative gravel surface contribute to the natural and rural character of this site. It is the intent of this plan to maintain that character by matching the existing private street as much a possible. (3) All streets constructed as a part of this subarea shall be privately owned and maintained and shall be combined access and utility easements. (4) All private street easements shall have a minimum width of fifty (50) feet. All existing private streets shall be permitted to remain. (5) The proposed private street shall be a minimum width of eighteen (18) feet. The street shall be widened at hydrant locations as shown on the plan to provide a minimum width of twenty -six (26) feet. The street and any utilities shall be adjusted within the easement so as to minimize removal of trees. (6) Curbs and gutters shall not be required. (7) All private streets shall be designed per the City of Dublin engineering standards, except as noted above, and so as to accommodate access by emergency vehicles. (8) Pavement surface may be asphalt top- dressed with decorative gravel to match the appearance of the existing private street. C) Sidewalks, bike paths, or leisure trails shall not be required. Deer Run March 28, 2010 12 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011 D) Estate Lot driveways (1) Materials shall be asphalt top- dressed with decorative gravel to match the appearance of the existing private street or the driveway materials permitted per City of Dublin Code. (2) Multiple curb -cuts may be permitted from the private street where appropriate and approved by the City. Multiple curb -cuts shall be based on safety, design aesthetics, and lot entry. (3) This subarea shall otherwise be exempt for residential driveway code. V) Architectural Standards: A) Design Review: All homes within this subarea are envisioned to be custom homes and shall be held to a high quality of design and construction. No improvements, change, construction, addition, excavation, landscaping, tree removal, or other work or action that in any way alters the exterior appearance of the lots or common open space shall be commenced or continued without review and written approval from the Design Committee. The committee shall be appointed by the Trustees of the Association, and shall consist of at least three members. Design review procedure shall be outlined within the deed restrictions of the lots. B) Architectural Diversity: In order to ensure that there is architectural diversity, homes located on adjacent lots within Subarea A shall be required to utilize either (1) different floor plans or (2) different architectural styles. In the event that homes with the same architectural style are built on adjacent lots, then, in addition to being required to incorporate different floor plans, these homes also shall be required to use different exterior colors and materials. C) Exterior materials: (1) All buildings shall incorporate four -sided architecture. (2) Finish building materials shall be applied to all sides of the exteriors of all buildings. (3) Colors shall be harmonious and compatible with colors of the natural surroundings and other adjacent buildings, if any. The Design Committee shall have the sole right to approve or disapprove materials and colors, consistent with the approved development text and approved final development plan.. Deer Run March 28, 2010 13 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011 (4) Cladding materials: The exteriors of structures in this subarea shall be constructed of brick, stone, manufactured stone, wood, stucco, cementitious siding, and other comparable materials, subject to approval by Planning (or any combination thereof). (5) Trim materials: Permitted exterior trim materials shall include wood, aluminum (for gutters and downspouts only), copper, EIFS, fiber - cement products, or composite wood, products. Shutters shall be considered "trim" for purposes of this development text. (6) Roof materials: All homes shall have dimensional asphalt shingles, wood, slate, tile, metal, or copper. VI) Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space and /or Screening Commitments A) All residential landscaping shall meet the landscape requirements of the City of Dublin Zoning Code, unless specified within the development text. B) Open Space: Subarea B shall contain approximately 1.9 acres of common open space, located along Dublin Road. Common Open Space shall be maintained by a forced and funded homeowners association. C) Each Estate Lot within Subarea B shall contain a portion of platted tree preservation area totaling 3.9 ac. This area shall be located south of the access easement that bisects the subarea. No structures or other site improvements may be built within this area. All existing trees and topography shall be preserved. D) All existing trees in fair or good condition shall be preserved within the common open space, except in locations of necessary common access and utility easements. Any area not occupied by trees shall be maintained as lawn, planting area for screening purposes, or as natural vegetation. E) Tree Preservation (1) It is the intent of the developer to preserve as many trees as possible in this subarea due to the heavily wooded nature of the site. (2) A tree survey will be provided at the final development plan identifying any trees within the proposed development footprint of any site improvement that will be removed. A tree replacement plan shall also be provided identifying tree replacement in accordance with the requirements as outlined below in Section (3). A good -faith effort shall be made to limit any tree Deer Run March 28, 2010 14 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011 removal to only those areas within the development footprint, to be identified on the final development plan. (3) The site shall meet the following requirements regarding tree preservation and replacement: a. Any trees in good or fair condition removed from the common open space area (except as noted above) or from any required rear yard setback measuring between 6 inches up to and including 18 inches (DBH) in width shall be replaced on a tree - for -tree basis, and b. Any trees in good or fair condition greater than 18 inches(DBH) removed from the site shall be replaced on an inch - for -inch basis. (4) All trees to be preserved shall be protected by tree preservation fencing in accordance with the City of Dublin's tree preservation fence details and guidelines. F) Street Trees shall not be required along any private streets. Any landscaping along the private street should maintain a natural appearance. VII) Model Homes A) Model homes shall not be permitted in this subarea. Deer Run March 28, 2010 15 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011 Subarea C: Cluster Lots 1) Description: Subarea C shall be located in the southern portion of the development east of Dublin Road, along the north side of Memorial Drive, and west of the existing City of Dublin parkland along the Scioto River, and south of Subarea B. This subarea shall consist of approximately 17.1 acres and shall contain "Cluster Lots" as described below. 11) Permitted Uses: A) Permitted uses shall include single - family detached dwellings. . B) Accessory Uses shall be as permitted by City of Dublin Code. III) Density, Height, Lot and /or Setback Commitments: A) The maximum number of dwelling units in Subarea C shall be thirty -seven (37). The maximum density shall be 2.2 du /ac. B) Cluster Lots shall vary in size as shown on the site plan with a minimum width of sixty (60) feet at the maximum depth of the front build zone. C) The minimum lot depth shall be of one hundred - twenty (120) feet. D) Setbacks (1) There shall be a front build zone of zero (0) feet to ten (10) feet, as measured from the private street easement line. Any portion of the structure shall be built at or within the build zone. (2) The minimum rear -yard setback shall be thirty (30) feet from the property line. (3) The minimum side yard setback shall be five (5) feet from both side property lines. (4) Minimum building separation shall be ten (10) feet. (5) The parking setback shall be zero (0) feet from the private street easement line. E) Encroachments into side yards by bay- windows, chimneys, air conditioner condensers, decks, or porches shall not be permitted. Deer Run March 28, 2010 16 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011 F) Encroachments up to 10 feet into the rear yard setbacks are permitted for patio, decks and fences, subject to approval by Planning. G) Maximum building height shall be thirty -five (35) feet. Height shall be measured from the finish grade at the front or main fagade of the house to the height of the dominant roof mass. H) Lot Coverage: The maximum impervious coverage of any single lot shall not exceed 70 %. 1) Homes shall be permitted to have walk -out basements so as to minimize the need for extensive site grading. IV) Access, Loading, Parking and /or other Traffic - Related Commitments: A) All streets constructed as a part of this subarea shall be privately owned and maintained and shall be combined access and utility easements. (1) Entry Boulevard: (a) An entry boulevard shall provide access from Memorial Drive and shall be aligned to the intersection of Autumnwood Way. (b) Easement width shall be a minimum of fifty -four (54) feet. (c) Width of each drive lane on either side of the median shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) feet measured back of curb to back of curb. (d) The median shall be eight (8) feet in width measured back -of -curb to back -of -curb. B) All other private streets: (1) Easement width shall be a minimum of forty (40) feet. (2) Pavement width shall be a minimum of twenty -two (22) feet measured back of curb to back of curb. (3) The street shall be widened at hydrant locations as shown on the plan to provide a minimum width of twenty -six (26) feet back -of -curb to back -of- curb. C) Stormwater Management (1) In lieu of traditional concrete gutters, streets may utilize permeable paving in up to three (3) feet wide strips adjacent to the face of both curbs, as part of Deer Run March 28, 2010 17 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011 the stormwater management system. The final width, infiltration trench, and overflow shall be sized and finalized at final engineering and shall be approved by the City of Dublin engineering staff. (2) Permeable Gutters shall be maintained regularly with routine street - sweeping to remove foreign objects that could block drainage. The use of sand as a winter street treatment should be avoided as it can clog the permeable pavers. Maintenance shall be the responsibility of the homeowner's association. D) On- street parking shall not be required. The need for on- street parking will be evaluated with the final development plan. Should on- street parking be desired, bump -outs may be provided in areas as shown on the plan to provide a minimum width of twenty -six (26) feet measured back -of -curb to back -of -curb. The number of on- street spaces will be determined with the final development plan. E) Minimum Parking: All units shall be required to have a minimum of two (2) parking spaces within a garage, and two (2) parking spaces in driveway stacking area or in an auto -court for side -load garages. F) All units in this subarea shall front a private street. G) Garages (1) Garages shall adhere to the minimum side yard and rear yard setbacks. (2) Garage elevations shall be detailed consistently with the main building fagade. (3) Front load garages shall be setback a minimum of eighteen (18) feet from the access easement line. (4) Side load garages with an auto court shall be permitted on all lots, and shall be required on lots 70 foot wide or greater. Side load garages may be used to meet the front build zone requirement. (5) A minimum of 14 lots shall contain side loaded garages. H) Driveways (1) Driveway materials shall be concrete, decorative unit pavers, or a combination thereof. Asphalt, gravel, and mulch shall be prohibited as driveway materials. Deer Run March 28, 2010 18 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011 (2) Driveway curb -cuts shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in width. 1) Auto - Courts (1) Auto courts shall be screened from the street and from the adjoining lot by a four (4) feet tall screen. Double screening and waste spaces should be avoided, and it is encouraged that the design of lots be coordinated with adjoining lots to share screening alongside lot lines. The maintenance of any screen shall be the responsibility of the lot owner on which the screen is constructed. (2) The screen may be made of a decorative masonry wall detailed to complement the main building fagade, or an evergreen hedge, and may be permitted to encroach into the front and side yard setbacks. (3) Hedge material shall be sized to reach the required height within four (4) years of installation and shall be planted within a minimum three (3) feet wide planting bed. (4) Hedge material may be used in combination with piers detailed to complement the main building fagade, and / or decorative metal fencing. (5) Screening oriented toward an adjoining lot may be located adjacent to the property line. The auto -court may be permitted to encroach into the side yard up to the screening. J) Sidewalks, bike paths, or leisure trails shall not be required along the private street. K) A four (4) foot wide pedestrian path shall be provided from the end of the eastern- most private street to the future City of Dublin park, as shown on the plan. Final path location shall be coordinated with City staff. V) Architectural Standards: A) Design Review: All homes shall be held to a high quality of design and construction. No improvements, change, construction, addition, excavation, landscaping, tree removal, or other work or action that in any way alters the exterior appearance of the lots or common open space shall be commenced or continued without review and written approval from the Design Committee. The committee shall be appointed by the Trustees of the Association, and shall consist Deer Run March 28, 2010 19 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011 of at least three members. Design review procedure shall be outlined within the deed restrictions of the lots. B) Architectural Design (1) Four -sided architecture shall be required on all homes, all elevations on a home shall be architecturally consistent. (2) Front fagade: A minimum of 20% of the front fagade shall be stone or brick. (3) Side fagades: When the side fagade of a unit is visible from the private street or is oriented towards the private street, the amount of brick and stone used on the side fagades shall be proportional to the amount used on front fagades, as architecturally appropriate, subject to Planning approval. (4) Rear fagades: When the rear fagade is visible from the public or private street, or is oriented toward the private street or a neighboring lot's side fagades, the amount of brick and stone used on the rear fagades shall be proportional to the amount used on front fagades, as architecturally appropriate, subject to Planning approval. (5) A change in materials must occur in architecturally appropriate locations. (6) Exterior cladding materials: Brick, stone, manufactured stone, wood, stucco, cementitious siding, or any combination thereof. (7) Trim materials (a) Brick, stone, wood, aluminum (for gutters and downspouts only), copper, EIFS fiber - cement products, composite wood and vinyl products. Shutters shall be considered "trim ". (b) Windows and doors on the front and sides of the house shall incorporate trim that is architecturally appropriate. (8) Colors shall be earth -tone, or mimic natural materials. High - chroma colors are not permitted. (9) Roofs (a) Minimum pitch shall be 8 inch rise to12 inch run Permitted Materials: dimensional asphalt shingles, wood, slate (including manufactured slate products), or tile. A metal roof, such as copper, may be permitted for up to 20% of the total roof area. Deer Run March 28, 2010 20 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011 (10) Chimney Materials: Same as permitted Exterior cladding materials, with the exception of wood. (11) Lighting: Each house shall have a minimum of one yard -post light near the walk of the front entry, and one porch -light near the front door. (12) Front porches shall not be required. However, when included, the style of the porch must support the style of the house. Glass and screens shall be prohibited from front porches. (13) Garage Doors shall be a maximum 18 feet wide opening. C) Diversity Homes located on adjacent lots shall be required to utilize different floor plans and different massing configurations. D) Architectural Style The intended architectural style of this subarea is "Romantic Revival ". Appendix 1 Architectural Guidelines is included as a guide to illustrate common characteristics of that style. Homes should be design based on interpretation from these guidelines, and also to meet the minimum requirements in this section. VI) Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space and /or Screening Commitments A) All residential landscaping shall meet the landscape requirements of the City of Dublin Zoning Code, unless specified within the development text. B) Open Space: Subarea C shall contain approximately 7.3 acres of common open space. Common open space shall be maintained by the homeowners association. C) Common open spaces may incorporate utility easements and facilities including stormwater management facilities, such as detention, conveyance swales, or rain gardens. D) All existing trees in fair or good condition shall be preserved within the common open space, except in locations of necessary common access and utility easements or storm water management facilities. Any area not occupied by trees shall be maintained as lawn, planting area for screening purposes, or as natural vegetation. E) Tree Preservation Deer Run March 28, 2010 21 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011 (1) It is the intent of the developer to preserve as many trees as possible in this subarea due to the heavily wooded nature of the site. (2) A tree survey will be provided at the final development plan identifying any trees within the proposed development footprint of any site improvement that will be removed. A tree replacement plan shall also be provided identifying tree replacement in accordance with the requirements as outlined below in Section (3). A good -faith effort shall be made to limit any tree removal to only those areas within the development footprint, to be identified on the final development plan. (3) The site shall meet the following requirements regarding tree preservation and replacement: a. Any trees in good or fair condition removed from the common open space area (except as noted above) or from any required rear yard setback measuring between 6 inches up to and including 18 inches (DBH) in width shall be replaced on a tree - for -tree basis, and b. Any trees in good or fair condition greater than 18 inches(DBH) removed from the site shall be replaced on an inch - for -inch basis. (4) All trees to be preserved shall be protected by tree preservation fencing in accordance with the City of Dublin's tree preservation fence details and guidelines. F) Lot Landscaping (1) Lot Trees: In the event that the required number of lot trees (as determined by the City of Dublin Code) do not fit within the front yard space of a Cluster Lot due to space limitations, then those trees shall be relocated either on the rear of the lot or elsewhere in the subarea as indicated on the Final Development Plan. (2) Front Yard Landscaping (a) All lots shall incorporate landscaping between any street - facing building elevation or auto -court screen and the private street back -of -curb. (b) Landscaping shall be ornamental in nature consisting of any combination of shade trees, ornamental trees, shrubs, perennials, annuals, and lawn and designed to enhance the character of the streetscape, house, and auto court screen. Deer Run March 28, 2010 22 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011 (c) Plantings shall not obstruct sight visibility triangles of driveways or street intersections (d) All material shall be sized, installed and maintained to City of Dublin code requirements. Maintenance shall be the responsibility of the lot owner. G) Street Trees: (1) Street Trees shall not be required along private streets. (2) The entry boulevard median shall incorporate ornamental landscaping consisting of ornamental trees, shrubs, perennials, annuals, or any combination thereof. (3) Plantings shall not obstruct sight visibility triangles of driveways or street intersections H) Permanent Wood Screening: (1) Wood screening at a height of up to four (4) feet shall be allowed to encroach 10 feet into the required rear yard setback and be located along the side property lines, provided that such screening does not extend beyond the front fagade of the home. Gates may be included. It is encouraged that fencing be arranged so that adjoining lots can tie into fences along side property lines, eliminating double fences and wasted side yard space. (2) Maintenance responsibilities shall be addressed within the deed restrictions. Deer Run March 28, 2010 23 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to City Council March 28, 2011 VII) Gate and Entry Sign A) Gate (1) The boulevard access shall be permitted to have a security gate for each drive lane, allowing 24 -hour emergency access, and shall be approved by Washington Township Fire Department. (2) The gate shall have decorative masonry columns and wing -walls not more than six (6) feet in height. The gates shall be decorative in appearance and not more than six (6) feet in height. B) Sign. (1) Entry feature signage shall be permitted at the private drive entrance along Memorial Drive. (2) The entry sign(s) may be incorporated into the gate structure indicating the development name. (3) The sign shall not exceed 20 square feet in size. VIII) Model Homes Model homes may be constructed and used as sales locations, but these will be typical of residential architecture planned for the subarea, and will ultimately be sold as residences. Deer Run March 28, 2010 24 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to Citv Council March 28. 2011 Development Text Introduction: Deer Run is a +/- 51.7 acre Planned Unit Development in the City of Dublin. The site is situated just west of the Scioto River, and straddles the boundary line between Franklin and Delaware Counties. The site is bound by Kerry Glen Subdivision to the North, the Scioto River and City of Dublin owned property to the East, Memorial Drive and Amberleigh Subdivision to the South, and Dublin Road to the west. The site is unique in that it is heavily wooded, and contains a variety of topography, including a large ravine that bisects the site. This PUD seeks to provide a variety of residential choices that will embrace the existing character, and preserve as much of the natural features as possible through the use of large lots, and smaller, clustered lots. Deer Run March 28, 2010 1 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to Citv Council March 28. 2011 General Development Standards 1) Applicability: The development will consist of three subareas (Subareas A -C), each of which is subject to the applicable standards set forth in the text. Except where defined in this text, the development shall meet the standards in the City of Dublin Code. 11) Residential Lot Types: Subarea A is the northern -most portion of the site, north of the large ravine, and is made up of Estate Lots. Subarea B is the central portion of the site, south of the large ravine, and is also made up of Estate Lots. Subarea C is the southern -most portion of the site and is made up of Cluster Lots. III) Residential Architectural Standards: A) All dwelling units shall comply with the design guidelines of the development standards in this text, except for any existing buildings or site improvements that will remain. Redevelopment or alterations to those existing elements shall be in compliance with the design guidelines of the development standards in this text. Unless otherwise specified in the submitted drawings or in this written text, the development standards of Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin Code shall apply to this subarea. B) All structures shall meet the City of Dublin Zoning Code Residential Appearance Standards, unless otherwise set forth in this text. IV) Setbacks Setbacks from the perimeter of the PUD site shall be as follows: A) Minimum building and pavement setback from Dublin Road right -of -way shall be one hundred (100) feet. The private access and utility easement shall be permitted to encroach on this setback as shown on the plans. B) Minimum building and pavement setback from Memorial Drive right -of -way shall be one hundred (100) feet. C) The minimum building and pavement setback from all other PUD perimeter property lines shall be twenty five (25) feet. Access and utility easements shall be permitted to encroach on these setbacks, as shown on the plans. Deer Run March 28, 2010 2 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to Citv Council March 28. 2011 D) The existing private drive from Dublin Road, as well as its proposed extension along the northern property line, shall be permitted to encroach on these setbacks, as shown on the plans. V) Graphics and Signs: A) At the time of the submission of its initial Final Development Plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission for any residential development, the developer shall present the Planning Commission with a graphics and signage plan for its review. This plan, and any future amendments thereto, shall serve as the uniform graphics and signage plan for the entire PUD both for the initial phase of residential development on the site and any phase of residential development occurring thereafter. Once the graphics and signage plan is approved as a part of the initial final development plan, its terms shall apply to all residential graphics and signage within the PUD. B) In the event that the graphics and signage plan is silent on any matter addressed by the City of Dublin Sign Code then the terms of those Code sections shall apply. VI) Landscaping Vision: Landscaping shall maintain a natural appearance along Dublin Road and Memorial Drive, in common open spaces, along the private streets in subareas A and B, and throughout undeveloped areas of the site. Subarea C may appear more formalized to complement the intended "European village" style of the architecture. More formalized landscaping may be designed to complement the individual homes in all subareas. Landscaping should be designed to complement appearance and plant material existing in the adjoining woods and natural areas. A significant effort shall be made to preserve the natural features, including existing trees and topography, particularly in Subarea B. VII) Expiration of Zoning Approval: A) This PUD requests an exemption from the Dublin Zoning Code which requires the submission of a final development plan within three years of approval of this preliminary development plan and the Planned Development District designation. This preliminary development plan shall remain in effect until such time that a Final Development Plan is approved. VIII) Home Owners' Associations Deer Run March 28, 2010 3 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to Citv Council March 28. 2011 A) Two separate forced and funded homeowners' associations shall be established: one for Subareas A and B, and one for Subarea C. B) The associations shall own and maintain all common facilities, including but not limited to open spaces, private streets, private utilities, and access gates and signs, common area landscaping and fencing. IX) Public Improvements A) A five (5) foot wide concrete sidewalk will be installed per city standards within the right -of -way along the north side of Memorial Drive. The sidewalk, as shown on the plan, will tie into the existing bike path to the west. B) The applicant will be responsible for any roadway improvements identified within the finalized Traffic Impact Study, subject to approval by the City Engineer. X) Perimeter Fencing A) The existing black, 4 -rail, wood fence along Dublin Road and Memorial Drive shall be permitted to remain and be maintained in its existing location. B) The length of black, 4 -rail, wood fencing that extends from the east boundary of the property along Memorial Drive and onto the City of Dublin property shall be removed from the City of Dublin property and relocated by the applicant at time of construction of either this development or the city park, whichever comes first. C) A survey for the final development plan shall verify any additional off -site encroachments and their correction shall be made as part of the final development plan. Deer Run March 28, 2010 4 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to Citv Council March 28. 2011 Subarea A: Estate Lots 1) Description: A) Subarea A shall be located on the northernmost portion of the site adjacent to Dublin Road to the east, Kerry Glen Subdivision to the north, the Scioto River to the east, and Subarea B separated by the ravine to the south. This subarea shall be approximately 18.5 acres and shall contain "Estate Lots" as described below. The subarea includes two existing single - family homes that shall be permitted to remain. 11) Permitted Uses: A) Permitted uses shall include single - family detached homes, and the current use of the existing building on proposed Lot #2 as a guest lodge / clubhouse. B) Accessory Uses shall be as permitted by City of Dublin Code. III) Density, Height, Lot and /or Setback Commitments: A) The maximum number of dwelling units shall be four (4). The maximum density shall be 0.22 du /ac. B) Minimum Lot size shall be 2 acres. C) Setbacks (1) The minimum front yard setback shall be twenty -five (25) feet from the private street easement line. (2) The minimum side yard setback shall be twenty -five (25) feet from each side property line. (3) The minimum rear -yard setback shall be 30 feet from the property line, or the 100 -year flood line, whichever is greater... D) Encroachments into applicable setbacks shall be in accordance with the City of Dublin Code, or as outlined within this text. E) Maximum building height shall be thirty -five (35) feet. Height shall be measured from the finish grade at the front or main fagade of the house to the height of the dominant roof mass. Architectural features that exceed this height must be Deer Run March 28, 2010 5 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to Citv Council March 28. 2011 compatible with the style and massing of the overall architecture of the building and shall be approved by staff. F) There shall be only one principal use permitted on each lot, and such lot shall not be covered more than 30% by structures. G) Homes shall be permitted to have walk -out basements so as to minimize the need for extensive site grading. IV) Access, Loading, Parking and /or other Traffic - Related Commitments: A) Access (1) Access to Subarea A shall be from Dublin Road at the existing curb -cut and shall provide shared access to Subarea B. The common access easement of approximately 0.7 acres within Subarea B shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. B) Private Streets (1) All dwelling units in this subarea shall have access from a private street. (2) The existing private street width and decorative gravel surface contribute to the natural and rural character of this site. It is the intent of this plan to maintain that character by matching the existing private street as much as possible. (3) All streets constructed as a part of this subarea shall be privately owned and maintained and shall be combined access and utility easements. (4) All private street easements shall have a minimum width of fifty (50) feet. All existing private streets and driveways shall be permitted to remain. (5) The future extension of the private street shall be a minimum width of twelve (12) feet. The street shall provide a widened "bump -out' at new hydrant locations to provide a minimum width of twenty -six (26) feet. The extension of the street and any utilities shall be adjusted within the easement so as to minimize removal of trees. (6) Curbs and gutters shall not be required. (7) All private streets shall be designed per the City of Dublin engineering standards, except as noted above and so as to accommodate access by emergency vehicles. Deer Run March 28, 2010 6 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to Citv Council March 28. 2011 (8) Pavement surface may be asphalt top- dressed with decorative gravel to match the appearance of the existing private street. C) Existing Bridge (1) The existing bridge shall be evaluated at final development plan to verify that vehicle load limits are suitable for emergency access. Should improvements be required based on the results of the study, such improvements shall be required to be completed prior to the submission of a building permit for Subarea A. (2) Signage identifying load limits shall be posted at both entrances to the bridge. D) Sidewalks, bike paths, or leisure trails shall not be required. E) Estate Lot driveways (1) Materials shall be asphalt top- dressed with decorative gravel to match the appearance of the existing private street or the driveway materials permitted per City of Dublin Code. (2) Multiple curb -cuts may be permitted from the private street where appropriate and approved by the City. Multiple curb -cuts shall be based on safety, design aesthetics, and lot entry. (3) The existing driveways of the existing homes shall be permitted to remain. (4) This subarea shall otherwise be exempt for residential driveway code. V) Architectural Standards: A) Design Review: All homes within this subarea are envisioned to be custom homes and shall be held to a high quality of design and construction. No improvements, change, construction, addition, excavation, landscaping, tree removal, or other work or action that in any way alters the exterior appearance of the lots or common open space shall be commenced or continued without review and written approval from the Design Committee. The committee shall be appointed by the Trustees of the Association, and shall consist of at least three members. Design review procedure shall be outlined within the deed restrictions of the lots. B) Architectural Diversity: In order to ensure that there is architectural diversity, homes located on adjacent lots within Subarea A shall be required to utilize either Deer Run March 28, 2010 7 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to Citv Council March 28. 2011 (1) different floor plans or (2) different architectural styles. In the event that homes with the same architectural style are built on adjacent lots, then, in addition to being required to incorporate different floor plans, these homes also shall be required to use different exterior colors and materials. C) Exterior materials: (1) All buildings shall incorporate four -sided architecture. (2) Finish building materials shall be applied to all sides of the exteriors of all buildings. (3) Colors shall be harmonious and compatible with colors of the natural surroundings and other adjacent buildings, if any. The Design Committee shall have the sole right to approve or disapprove materials and colors, consistent with the approved development text and approved final development plan. (4) Cladding materials: The exteriors of structures in this subarea shall be constructed of brick, stone, manufactured stone, wood, stucco, cementitious siding, and other comparable materials, subject to approval by Planning (or any combination thereof). (5) Trim materials: Permitted exterior trim materials shall include wood, aluminum (for gutters and downspouts only), copper, EIFS fiber - cement products, or composite wood, products. Shutters shall be considered "trim" for purposes of this development text. (6) Roof materials: All homes shall have dimensional asphalt shingles, wood, slate, tile, metal, or copper. VI) Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space and /or Screening Commitments A) All residential landscaping shall meet the landscape requirements of the City of Dublin Zoning Code unless specified within the development text B) Open Space: Subarea A shall contain approximately 1.2 acres of common open space, located along Dublin Road. Common Open Space shall be maintained by a forced and funded homeowners association. C) All existing trees in fair or good condition shall be preserved within the common open space t^ the eXt^ ^t ^^ ^^ "' except in locations of necessa v common Deer Run March 28, 2010 8 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to Citv Council March 28. 2011 access and utility easements Any area not occupied by trees shall be maintained as lawn, planting area for screening purposes, or as natural vegetation. D) Tree Preservation: (1) It is the intent of the developer to preserve as many trees as possible in this subarea due to the heavily wooded nature of the site. (2) A tree survey will be provided at the final development plan identifying t4a IeGatleRS o f Q,t„ of [D R ,y g a t e d 'I,..d,, RF k t. aRel any trees within the proposed development footprint of any site improvement that will be removed. A tree replacement plan shall also be provided identifying tree replacement in accordance with the requirements as outlined below in Section (3) A good -faith effort shall be made to limit any tree removal to only those areas within the development footprint, to be identified on the final development plan. f3L_The site shall meet the following tree preservation and replacement requirements; „£ th@ 9tI ' 9f 861191 L R 'S #@ atG R plaG.mept a. Anv trees in good or fair condition removed from the common open space area (except as noted above) or from any required rear yard setback measuring between 6 inches up to and including 18 inches (DBH) in width shall be replaced on a tree - for -tree basis: and b. Any trees in good or fair condition greater than 18 inches (DBH) removed from the site shall be replaced on an inch - for -inch basis. @ 4) All trees to be preserved shall be protected by tree preservation fencing in accordance with the City of Dublin's tree preservation fence details and guidelines. E) Street Trees shall not be required along any private streets. Any landscaping along the private street should maintain a natural appearance. F) Existing vegetation along the north property line shall be preserved as a landscape screen. VII) Gate and Entry Sign A) Gate Deer Run March 28, 2010 9 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to Citv Council March 28. 2011 (1) The access shall be permitted to have an entry security gate, allowing 24- hour emergency access, and shall be approved by Washington Township Fire Department. The existing gate shall be permitted to remain, so long as the Washington Fire Department requirements are met. (2) The gate shall have decorative masonry columns and wing -walls not more than six (6) feet in height. The gates shall be decorative in appearance and not more than six (6) feet in height. B) Sign. (1) Entry feature signage shall be permitted at the private drive entrance along Dublin Road. (2) The entry sign(s) may be incorporated into the gate structure indicating the development name. (3) The sign shall not exceed 20 square feet in size VIII) Model Homes A) Model homes shall not be permitted in this subarea. Deer Run March 28, 2010 10 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to Citv Council March 28. 2011 Subarea B: Estate Lots 1) Description: Subarea B shall be located on the central portion of the site adjacent to Dublin Road to the east, Subarea A and the ravine to the north, the Scioto River to the east, and Subarea C to the south. This subarea shall be approximately 16.1 acres and shall contain "Estate Lots" as described below. 11) Permitted Uses: A) Permitted uses shall include single - family detached homes. B) Accessory Uses shall be as permitted by City of Dublin Code. III) Density, Height, Lot and /or Setback Commitments: A) The maximum number of dwelling units shall be five (5). The maximum density shall be 0.31 du /ac. B) Minimum Lot size shall be 2 acres. C) Setbacks (1) The minimum front yard setback shall be twenty -five (25) feet from the private street easement line. (2) The minimum side yard setback shall be twenty -five (25) feet from each side property line. (3) The minimum rear -yard setback shall be 30 feet from the property line, or the 100 -year flood line, whichever is greater.. D) Encroachments into applicable setbacks shall be in accordance with the City of Dublin Code, or as outlined within this text. E) Maximum building height shall be thirty -five (35) feet. Height shall be measured from the finish grade at the front or main fagade of the house to the height of the dominant roof mass. Architectural features that exceed this height must be compatible with the style and massing of the overall architecture of the building and shall be approved by staff. Deer Run March 28, 2010 11 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to Citv Council March 28. 2011 F) There shall be only one principal use permitted on each lot, and such lot shall not be covered more than 30% by structures. G) Homes shall be permitted to have walk -out basements so as to minimize the need for extensive site grading. IV) Access, Loading, Parking and /or other Traffic - Related Commitments: A) Access (1) Access to Subarea B shall be from Dublin Road at the existing curb -cut and shall provide shared access to Subarea A. (a) Refer to Subarea A for shared access and gate provisions. B) Private Streets (1) All dwelling units in this subarea shall have access from a private street. (2) The existing private street width and decorative gravel surface contribute to the natural and rural character of this site. It is the intent of this plan to maintain that character by matching the existing private street as much a possible. (3) All streets constructed as a part of this subarea shall be privately owned and maintained and shall be combined access and utility easements. (4) All private street easements shall have a minimum width of fifty (50) feet. All existing private streets shall be permitted to remain. (5) The proposed private street shall be a minimum width of eighteen (18) feet. The street shall be widened at hydrant locations as shown on the plan to provide a minimum width of twenty -six (26) feet. The street and any utilities shall be adjusted within the easement so as to minimize removal of trees. (6) Curbs and gutters shall not be required. (7) All private streets shall be designed per the City of Dublin engineering standards, except as noted above, and so as to accommodate access by emergency vehicles. (8) Pavement surface may be asphalt top- dressed with decorative gravel to match the appearance of the existing private street. C) Sidewalks, bike paths, or leisure trails shall not be required. Deer Run March 28, 2010 12 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to Citv Council March 28. 2011 D) Estate Lot driveways (1) Materials shall be asphalt top- dressed with decorative gravel to match the appearance of the existing private street or the driveway materials permitted per City of Dublin Code. (2) Multiple curb -cuts may be permitted from the private street where appropriate and approved by the City. Multiple curb -cuts shall be based on safety, design aesthetics, and lot entry. (3) This subarea shall otherwise be exempt for residential driveway code. V) Architectural Standards: A) Design Review: All homes within this subarea are envisioned to be custom homes and shall be held to a high quality of design and construction. No improvements, change, construction, addition, excavation, landscaping, tree removal, or other work or action that in any way alters the exterior appearance of the lots or common open space shall be commenced or continued without review and written approval from the Design Committee. The committee shall be appointed by the Trustees of the Association, and shall consist of at least three members. Design review procedure shall be outlined within the deed restrictions of the lots. B) Architectural Diversity: In order to ensure that there is architectural diversity, homes located on adjacent lots within Subarea A shall be required to utilize either (1) different floor plans or (2) different architectural styles. In the event that homes with the same architectural style are built on adjacent lots, then, in addition to being required to incorporate different floor plans, these homes also shall be required to use different exterior colors and materials. C) Exterior materials: (1) All buildings shall incorporate four -sided architecture. (2) Finish building materials shall be applied to all sides of the exteriors of all buildings. (3) Colors shall be harmonious and compatible with colors of the natural surroundings and other adjacent buildings, if any. The Design Committee shall have the sole right to approve or disapprove materials and colors, consistent with the approved development text and approved final development plan.. Deer Run March 28, 2010 13 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to Citv Council March 28. 2011 (4) Cladding materials: The exteriors of structures in this subarea shall be constructed of brick, stone, manufactured stone, wood, stucco, cementitious siding, and other comparable materials, subject to approval by Planning (or any combination thereof). (5) Trim materials: Permitted exterior trim materials shall include wood, aluminum (for gutters and downspouts only), copper, EIFS, fiber- cement products, or composite wood, products. Shutters shall be considered "trim" for purposes of this development text. (6) Roof materials: All homes shall have dimensional asphalt shingles, wood, slate, tile, metal, or copper. VI) Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space and /or Screening Commitments A) All residential landscaping shall meet the landscape requirements of the City of Dublin Zoning Code unless specified within the development text B) Open Space: Subarea B shall contain approximately 1.9 acres of common open space, located along Dublin Road. Common Open Space shall be maintained by a forced and funded homeowners association. C) Each Estate Lot within Subarea B shall contain a portion of platted tree preservation area totaling 3.9 ac. This area shall be located south of the access easement that bisects the subarea. No structures or other site improvements may be built within this area. All existing trees and topography shall be preserved. Q_AII existing trees in fair or good condition shall be preserved within the common open space except in locations of necessary common access and utility easements. '^ #^ ^ ^ ^ ^' ^ �. Any area not occupied by trees shall be maintained as lawn, planting area for screening purposes, or as natural vegetation. 84EITree Preservation (1) It is the intent of the developer to preserve as many trees as possible in this subarea due to the heavily wooded nature of the site. (2) A tree survey will be provided at the final development plan identifying any trees within the proposed development footprint of any site improvement that will be removed. A tree replacement plan shall also be provided identifying tree replacement in accordance with the requirements as outlined below in Section (3). A good -faith effort shall be made to limit any tree Deer Run March 28, 2010 14 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to Citv Council March 28. 2011 removal to only those areas within the development footprint, to be identified on the final development plan. (3) The site shall meet the following requirements regarding tree preservation and replacement: a. Anv trees in good or fair condition removed from the common open space area (except as noted above) or from any required rear yard setback measuring between 6 inches up to and including 18 inches (DBH) in width shall be replaced on a tree - for -tree basis: and b. Anv trees in good or fair condition greater than 18 inches(DBH) removed from the site shall be replaced on an inch - for -inch basis. (4} f1All trees to be preserved shall be protected by tree preservation fencing in accordance with the City of Dublin's tree preservation fence details and guidelines. Street Trees shall not be required along any private streets. Any landscaping along the private street should maintain a natural appearance. VII) Model Homes A) Model homes shall not be permitted in this subarea. Deer Run March 28, 2010 15 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to Citv Council March 28. 2011 Subarea C: Cluster Lots 1) Description: Subarea C shall be located in the southern portion of the development east of Dublin Road, along the north side of Memorial Drive, and west of the existing City of Dublin parkland along the Scioto River, and south of Subarea B. This subarea shall consist of approximately 17.1 acres and shall contain "Cluster Lots" as described below. 11) Permitted Uses: A) Permitted uses shall include single - family detached dwellings. . B) Accessory Uses shall be as permitted by City of Dublin Code. III) Density, Height, Lot and /or Setback Commitments: A) The maximum number of dwelling units in Subarea C shall be thirty -seven (37). The maximum density shall be 2.2 du /ac. B) Cluster Lots shall vary in size as shown on the site plan with a minimum width of sixty (60) feet at the maximum depth of the front build zone. C) The minimum lot depth shall be of one hundred - twenty (120) feet. D) Setbacks (1) There shall be a front build zone of zero (0) feet to ten (10) feet, as measured from the private street easement line. Any portion of the structure shall be built at or within the build zone. (2) The minimum rear -yard setback shall be thirty (30) feet from the property line. (3) The minimum side yard setback shall be five (5) feet from both side property lines. (4) Minimum building separation shall be ten (10) feet. (5) The parking setback shall be zero (0) feet from the private street easement line. E) Encroachments into side yards by bay- windows, chimneys, air conditioner condensers, decks, or porches shall not be permitted. Deer Run March 28, 2010 16 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to Citv Council March 28. 2011 F) Encroachments up to 10 feet into the rear yard setbacks are permitted for patio, decks and fences, subject to approval by Planning. G) Maximum building height shall be thirty -five (35) feet. Height shall be measured from the finish grade at the front or main fagade of the house to the height of the dominant roof mass. H) Lot Coverage: The maximum impervious coverage of any single lot shall not exceed 70 %. 1) Homes shall be permitted to have walk -out basements so as to minimize the need for extensive site grading. IV) Access, Loading, Parking and /or other Traffic - Related Commitments: A) All streets constructed as a part of this subarea shall be privately owned and maintained and shall be combined access and utility easements. (1) Entry Boulevard: (a) An entry boulevard shall provide access from Memorial Drive and shall be aligned to the intersection of Autumnwood Way. (b) Easement width shall be a minimum of fifty -four (54) feet. (c) Width of each drive lane on either side of the median shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) feet measured back of curb to back of curb. (d) The median shall be eight (8) feet in width measured back -of -curb to back -of -curb. B) All other private streets: (1) Easement width shall be a minimum of forty (40) feet. (2) Pavement width shall be a minimum of twenty -two (22) feet measured back of curb to back of curb. (3) The street shall be widened at hydrant locations as shown on the plan to provide a minimum width of twenty -six (26) feet back -of -curb to back -of- curb. C) Stormwater Management (1) In lieu of traditional concrete gutters, streets may utilize permeable paving in up to three (3) feet wide strips adjacent to the face of both curbs, as part of Deer Run March 28, 2010 17 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to Citv Council March 28. 2011 the stormwater management system. The final width, infiltration trench, and overflow shall be sized and finalized at final engineering and shall be approved by the City of Dublin engineering staff. (2) Permeable Gutters shall be maintained regularly with routine street - sweeping to remove foreign objects that could block drainage. The use of sand as a winter street treatment should be avoided as it can clog the permeable pavers. Maintenance shall be the responsibility of the homeowner's association. D) On- street parking shall not be required. The need for on- street parking will be evaluated with the final development plan. Should on- street parking be desired, bump -outs may be provided in areas as shown on the plan to provide a minimum width of twenty -six (26) feet measured back -of -curb to back -of -curb. The number of on- street spaces will be determined with the final development plan. E) Minimum Parking: All units shall be required to have a minimum of two (2) parking spaces within a garage, and two (2) parking spaces in driveway stacking area or in an auto -court for side -load garages. F) All units in this subarea shall front a private street. G) Garages (1) Garages shall adhere to the minimum side yard and rear yard setbacks. (2) Garage elevations shall be detailed consistently with the main building fagade. (3) Front load garages shall be setback a minimum of eighteen (18) feet from the access easement line. _Side load garages with an auto court shall be permitted on all lots, and shall be required on lots 70 foot wide or greater. Side load garages may be used to meet the front build zone requirement. (4} (51 A minimum of 14 lots shall contain side loaded garages. H) Driveways (1) Driveway materials shall be concrete, decorative unit pavers, or a combination thereof. Asphalt, gravel, and mulch shall be prohibited as driveway materials. Deer Run March 28, 2010 18 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to Citv Council March 28. 2011 (2) Driveway curb -cuts shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in width. 1) Auto - Courts (1) Auto courts shall be screened from the street and from the adjoining lot by a four (4) feet tall screen. Double screening and waste spaces should be avoided, and it is encouraged that the design of lots be coordinated with adjoining lots to share screening alongside lot lines. The maintenance of any screen shall be the responsibility of the lot owner on which the screen is constructed. (2) The screen may be made of a decorative masonry wall detailed to complement the main building fagade, or an evergreen hedge, and may be permitted to encroach into the front and side yard setbacks. (3) Hedge material shall be sized to reach the required height within four (4) years of installation and shall be planted within a minimum three (3) feet wide planting bed. (4) Hedge material may be used in combination with piers detailed to complement the main building fagade, and / or decorative metal fencing. (5) Screening oriented toward an adjoining lot may be located adjacent to the property line. The auto -court may be permitted to encroach into the side yard up to the screening. J) Sidewalks, bike paths, or leisure trails shall not be required along the private street. K) A four (4) foot wide pedestrian path shall be provided from the end of the eastern- most private street to the future City of Dublin park, as shown on the plan. Final path location shall be coordinated with City staff. V) Architectural Standards: A) Design Review: All homes shall be held to a high quality of design and construction. No improvements, change, construction, addition, excavation, landscaping, tree removal, or other work or action that in any way alters the exterior appearance of the lots or common open space shall be commenced or continued without review and written approval from the Design Committee. The committee shall be appointed by the Trustees of the Association, and shall consist Deer Run March 28, 2010 19 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to Citv Council March 28. 2011 of at least three members. Design review procedure shall be outlined within the deed restrictions of the lots. B) Architectural Design (1) Four -sided architecture shall be required on all homes, all elevations on a home shall be architecturally consistent. (2) Front fagade: A minimum of 20% of the front fagade shall be stone or brick. (3) Side fagades: When the side fagade of a unit is visible from the private street or is oriented towards the private street, the amount of brick and stone used on the side fagades shall be proportional to the amount used on front fagades, as architecturally appropriate, subject to Planning approval. (4) Rear fagades: When the rear fagade is visible from the public or private street, or is oriented toward the private street or a neighboring lot's side fagades, the amount of brick and stone used on the rear fagades shall be proportional to the amount used on front fagades, as architecturally appropriate, subject to Planning approval. (5) A change in materials must occur in architecturally appropriate locations. (6) Exterior cladding materials: Brick, stone, manufactured stone, wood, stucco, cementitious siding, or any combination thereof. (7) Trim materials (a) Brick, stone, wood, aluminum (for gutters and downspouts only), copper, EIFS fiber- cement products, composite wood and vinyl products. Shutters shall be considered "trim ". (b) Windows and doors on the front and sides of the house shall incorporate trim that is architecturally appropriate. (8) Colors shall be earth - tone, or mimic natural materials. High - chroma colors are not permitted. (9) Roofs (a) Minimum pitch shall be 8 inch rise to12 inch run Permitted Materials: dimensional asphalt shingles, wood, slate (including manufactured slate products), or tile. A metal roof, such as copper, may be permitted for up to 20% of the total roof area. Deer Run March 28, 2010 20 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to Citv Council March 28. 2011 (10) Chimney Materials: Same as permitted Exterior cladding materials, with the exception of wood. (11) Lighting: Each house shall have a minimum of one yard -post light near the walk of the front entry, and one porch -light near the front door. (12) Front porches shall not be required. However, when included, the style of the porch must support the style of the house. Glass and screens shall be prohibited from front porches. (13) Garage Doors shall be a maximum 18 feet wide opening. C) Diversity Homes located on adjacent lots shall be required to utilize different floor plans and different massing configurations. D) Architectural Style The intended architectural style of this subarea is "Romantic Revival ". Appendix 1 Architectural Guidelines is included as a guide to illustrate common characteristics of that style. Homes should be design based on interpretation from these guidelines, and also to meet the minimum requirements in this section. VI) Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space and /or Screening Commitments A) All residential landscaping shall meet the landscape requirements of the City of Dublin Zoning Code unless specified within the development text 0J_0pen Space: Subarea C shall contain approximately 7.3 acres of common open space. Common open space shall be maintained by the homeowners association. Common open spaces may incorporate utility easements and facilities including stormwater management facilities, such as detention, conveyance swales, or rain gardens. M D) All existing trees in fair or good condition shall be preserved within the common open space, except in locations of necessary common access and utility easements or storm water management facilities. Any area not occupied by trees shall be maintained as lawn, planting area for screening purposes, or as natural vegetation. @jEITree Preservation Deer Run March 28, 2010 21 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to Citv Council March 28. 2011 (1) It is the intent of the developer to preserve as many trees as possible in this subarea due to the heavily wooded nature of the site. (2) A tree survey will be provided at the final development plan identifying any trees within the proposed development footprint of any site improvement that will be removed. A tree replacement plan shall also be provided identifying tree replacement in accordance with the requirements as outlined below in Section (3). A good -faith effort shall be made to limit any tree removal to only those areas within the development footprint, to be identified on the final development plan. (3) The site shall meet the following requirements regarding tree preservation and replacement: a. Anv trees in good or fair condition removed from the common open space area (except as noted above) or from any required rear yard setback measuring between 6 inches up to and including 18 inches (DBH) in width shall be replaced on a tree - for -tree basis; and b. Any trees in good or fair condition greater than 18 inches(DBH) removed from the site shall be replaced on an inch - for -inch basis. (2) The sto sha T t the . eq61^FPRqPRRt £ the Qty o f [D phi R'S try FRee (9) All trees to be preserved shall be protected by tree preservation fencing in accordance with the City of Dublin's tree preservation fence details and guidelines. S}ELLot Landscaping (1) Lot Trees: In the event that the required number of lot trees (as determined by the City of Dublin Code) do not fit within the front yard space of a Cluster Lot due to space limitations, then those trees shall be relocated either on the Deer Run March 28, 2010 22 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to Citv Council March 28. 2011 rear of the lot or elsewhere in the subarea as indicated on the Final Development Plan. (2) Front Yard Landscaping (a) All lots shall incorporate landscaping between any street - facing building elevation or auto -court screen and the private street back -of -curb. (b) Landscaping shall be ornamental in nature consisting of any combination of shade trees, ornamental trees, shrubs, perennials, annuals, and lawn and designed to enhance the character of the streetscape, house, and auto court screen. (c) Plantings shall not obstruct sight visibility triangles of driveways or street intersections (d) All material shall be sized, installed and maintained to City of Dublin code requirements. Maintenance shall be the responsibility of the lot owner. 94G)_Street Trees: (1) Street Trees shall not be required along private streets. (2) The entry boulevard median shall incorporate ornamental landscaping consisting of ornamental trees, shrubs, perennials, annuals, or any combination thereof. (3) Plantings shall not obstruct sight visibility triangles of driveways or street intersections €)LLPermanent Wood Screening: (1) Wood screening at a height of up to four (4) feet shall be allowed to encroach 10 feet into the required rear yard setback and be located along the side property lines, provided that such screening does not extend beyond the front fagade of the home. Gates may be included. It is encouraged that fencing be arranged so that adjoining lots can tie into fences along side property lines, eliminating double fences and wasted side yard space. (2) Maintenance responsibilities shall be addressed within the deed restrictions. Deer Run March 28, 2010 23 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN ESTATES — PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Submitted to Citv Council March 28. 2011 VII) Gate and Entry Sign A) Gate (1) The boulevard access shall be permitted to have a security gate for each drive lane, allowing 24 -hour emergency access, and shall be approved by Washington Township Fire Department. (2) The gate shall have decorative masonry columns and wing -walls not more than six (6) feet in height. The gates shall be decorative in appearance and not more than six (6) feet in height. B) Sign. (1) Entry feature signage shall be permitted at the private drive entrance along Memorial Drive. (2) The entry sign(s) may be incorporated into the gate structure indicating the development name. (3) The sign shall not exceed 20 square feet in size. VIII) Model Homes Model homes may be constructed and used as sales locations, but these will be typical of residential architecture planned for the subarea, and will ultimately be sold as residences. Deer Run March 28, 2010 24 Preliminary Development Plan ORDINANCE 11 -11 FIRST READING MATERIALS FOLLOW CITY OF DUBLIN_ Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1090 Phone: 614 - 410 -4400 • Fax: 614 - 410 -4490 To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Marsha Grigsby, City Manager Date: February 24, 2011 .X�r Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director, Land Use and Long Range Planning Memo Re: Ordinance 11 -11 —Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat — Deer Run PUD — Deer Run (Case No. 10- 062Z/PDP /PP). Summary Ordinance 11 -11 is a request for review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan and preliminary plat for 51.7 acres from R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District, and PUD, Planned Unit Development District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Deer Run) to allow nine estate lots and 37 cluster lots with 10 acres of open space. History The site consists of two separate previously approved developments. The north portion of the site includes 11 platted estate lots approved as Deer Run Estates in 1984. A City - sponsored area rezoning to establish R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District zoning for this portion of the site was approved by City Council in 2003. The southern portion of the site was originally part of the Amberleigh North subdivision, Sections 4 and 5, which was approved for 11 single- family units and 63 cluster condominium units in 1995. A revised preliminary development plan for Wasatch Estates to permit five estate lots and a gatehouse with caretaker's quarters was approved by City Council in 2002. A concept plan for this current proposal was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 10, 2009. The Commission supported the proposal for rezoning/preliminary development plan application. Commission comments included a request that the applicant explore a more village - like lot arrangement for the cluster lots in an effort to preserve more natural features. The need for high quality design and architectural standards was also emphasized to be incorporated in the future development text. Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this rezoning request and recommended approval of the rezoning with preliminary development plan to City Council at the February 3, 2011 meeting with the following four conditions. The Commission eliminated a recommended condition from Planning that sidewalks be provided on the interior of the development. 1) The plans be revised to relocate the gate and boulevard treatment at the entrance along Memorial Drive farther into the development to provide stacking space for vehicles waiting to enter; Memo re. Ordinance 11 -11 Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Deer Run February 24, 2011 Page 2 of 4 2) The text and the plans be revised to incorporate a five -foot sidewalk along the north side of Memorial Drive, and the sidewalk be continued to connect to existing sidewalk stub on the east side of Vista Ridge Drive, subject to Engineering approval; 3) The applicant revise the proposed development text to reflect the changes requested by the Commission, subject to Planning approval; and 4) The text and plans be revised to extend the four -foot sidewalk between lots 28 and 29 from the proposed development into Amberleigh Park to allow easy access to the extensive park trail system, subject to approval by Engineering and Parks and Open Space. The Planning and Zoning Commission also reviewed the preliminary plat request and recommended approval of the plat to City Council at the February 3, 2011 meeting with the condition that the applicant ensure that any minor technical adjustments to the plat should be made prior to City Council submittal. The applicant has revised the proposed plans and development text to ensure all of the conditions have been met or noted appropriately. Description The site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Memorial Drive and Dublin Road. The northern 22 acres (formerly Deer Run Estates) has two single - family homes, accessed from Deer Run Drive, a gated, private drive from Dublin Road. The southern 29 acres (former Wasatch Estates) is undeveloped. The entire site is heavily wooded with mature trees throughout and contains steep topography, particularly adjacent to the creek, which separates the estate lots from the cluster lots. The proposed plan has three subareas, with nine estate lots in two subareas, and the 37 single - family cluster lot subarea. The estate lots on the north have four lots on the north side of the existing creek with access from the existing private drive (Subarea A), and five south of the creek with access from a new private cul -de -sac (Subarea B). The 37 cluster lots (Subarea C) are located in the south portion of the site serviced by two culs -de -sac. Proposed Development Text The proposed development text addresses the requirements by the individual Subareas, as well as general development standards that apply to the overall development. The applicant has also included architectural guidelines that apply to the cluster lots within Subarea C. Use The development text permits single - family detached dwelling units in all three subareas, with the inclusion of the existing guest lodge and clubhouse in Subarea A as a permitted use. Accessory uses are permitted per the Zoning Code. The Future Land Use classification is Resiclential Low Density (0.5 — I dwelling emits per acre), which would permit 51 dwelling units. The 46 units on 51.7-acres equal a density of 0.8 dwelling units per acre. The proposed use and overall development outlined in the proposed development text is consistent with the Future Land Use designation and is compatible with the surrounding lower density, traditional suburban neighborhoods. Memo re. Ordinance 1 I A l Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Deer Run February 24, 2011 Page 3 of 4 Density /Got Coverage The proposed development text specifies the following Subarea densities and lot sizes: Setbacks The proposed development indicates a 100 -foot setback from Memorial Drive and Dublin Road, which meets the Community Plan designation for River Character, which specifies a 60 -100 -foot setback from roadways. The proposed development text also outlines the following setbacks: Setbacksl Max. # of Units Max. Density Min. Lot Size Subarea A 4 units 0.22 du /ac 2 acres Subarea B 5 units 0.31 du /ac 2 acres Subarea C 37 units 2.2 du /ac 0.16 acres Setbacks The proposed development indicates a 100 -foot setback from Memorial Drive and Dublin Road, which meets the Community Plan designation for River Character, which specifies a 60 -100 -foot setback from roadways. The proposed development text also outlines the following setbacks: Setbacksl Subareas A -B Subarea C Side 25 feet each side 5 feet each side Rear 30 feet 30 feet Front 25 feet Zero to 10 -foot build zone ( any portion of structure within zone) Access Access is provided by two separate, gated private drives. The existing Dublin Road access point, Deer Run Drive, will provide access to Subareas A and B. A new drive for Subarea C's cluster lots is proposed from Memorial Drive aligning with Autumnwood Way. A five -foot public sidewalk is proposed along the north side of Memorial Drive, connecting to the larger system on Dublin Road. The applicant will also provide a sidewalk connection between this newly proposed sidewalk and the sidewalk stub along the east side of Vista Ridge Drive. Internal Sidewalks At the February 3, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Planning recommended that the Commission condition the approval to require a four -foot sidewalk in Subarea C between the curb and property line to ensure adequate pedestrian safety. The Commission removed this condition, based on the cluster design and layout of proposed Subarea C. While Planning recognizes the proposed layout incorporates a tighter design and layout, the incorporation of an internal sidewalk system should be included within Subarea C, especially given the narrower private street and the provision for on- street parking along much of the street frontage. On the revised plans, the applicant is showing a four -foot sidewalk on the east side of the private drive entrance along Memorial Drive, providing pedestrian access into Subarea C. Even with this proposed sidewalk by the applicant, Planning recommends that City Council consider requiring a sidewalk throughout the development as originally recommended by Planning. Primate Streets The private drive specifications for Subarea C includes a pavement width of 22 feet with curb and a permeable gutter system located within a 40 -foot wide private street easement. No internal sidewalk is provided along the private drives. The existing Deer Run Drive is constructed of asphalt top - dressed with decorative gravel, without curb, gutter or sidewalk. The text and proposed development plan indicate the extension of the drive to Subareas A and B to have the same material and design. Memo re. Ordinance 11 -11 Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Deer Run February 24, 2011 Page 4 of 4 The drive widths are proposed at 12 feet for Subarea A and 18 feet for Subarea B, with wider "bump -out" areas to meet Washington Township Fire Department requirements. Architecture The development text details material, color and design requirements, including brick, stone, wood and cementitious siding cladding materials in colors that are harmonious and compatible with natural surroundings. The text proposes that the homes will be reviewed and approved by a Design Review Committee. The Committee review will be based on the requirements set forth in the development text and proposed Architectural Guidelines. The Guidelines illustrate common characteristics of the Romantic Revival Style, which is outlined as the design theme and is proposed to apply to the cluster lots within Subarea C. LaucL�capiug and Tree Preservation The proposed text outlines a goal to preserve and minimize the development effects on existing trees. A platted tree preservation area is proposed on lots 5 -9 of Subarea B to preserve the large stands of trees between Subareas B and C. The text also proposes front yard and lot landscaping requirements for Subarea C. The development text states that all tree preservation and replacement requirements of the Code will be met. Preliminary The proposed preliminary plat subdivides 51.7 acres of land into 9 single - family estate lots, within Subareas A and B; and 37 single - family cluster lots within Subarea C. The lots range between 7.6 and 2.2 acres within Subareas A and B, and 0.16 and 0.19 acres within Subarea C. The proposed development text for Subarea C has minimum lot widths of 60 feet, and a lot depth at 120 feet for all lots. The proposal contains eight open spaces areas: 1.2 acres (Open Space "A ") in Subarea A; 1.9 acres (Open Spaces "B" and "C ") in Subarea B; and 7.3 acres (Open Spaces "D" — "I ") in Subarea C. The plat indicates that all the Open Space areas will be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. Neighborhood Contact At the February 3, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, several Amberleigh North residents expressed concern about the proposed development regarding traffic and access along Memorial Drive and lack of involvement or knowledge of the proposed development. Following the meeting, Planning urged the applicant to schedule a meeting with the adjacent neighbors to provide them with information about the project and understand the neighborhood concerns. The applicant has reached out to the president of the Amberleigh North Homeowners Association and offered to meet with the neighbors. A meeting has not yet been scheduled. Recommendation Staff recommends City Council consider requiring a sidewalk throughout the development as originally recommended by Planning and approval of Ordinance 11 -I t at the second reading /public hearing on March 14, 2011. City of Dublin 10062Z/PDP x Land Use and Preliminary Development Plan /Retuning A Long Range Planni ng Deer Run States pee Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd 0 1500 3p00 February 2009 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION I ®N APPLI ATI N (Code Section 153.232) Wind Use and Long Ronge Planning 5800 Sne1 -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone/ TOO 614- 410 -4600 Fax: 614- 410 -4747 Web Sile: www.doblin.ohas ❑ informal Review ❑ Final Plat (Section 152.085) ❑ Concept Plan ❑ Conditional Use (Section 153.056(A)(1)) (Section 153.236) '❑ Preliminary Development Plan I Rezoning ❑ corridor Development District (COD) (Section 153.053) (Section 153.115) ❑ Final Development Plan (Section 153.053(E)) ❑ Amended Final Development Plan (Section 153.053(E)) ❑ Standard District Rezoning (Section 153.018) ❑ Preliminary Plat (Section 152.015) ❑ Corridor Development District (CDD) Sign (Section 153.115) ❑ Minor Subdivision ❑ Right -of -Way Encroachment ❑ Other (Please Specify): Please utilize the applicable SuppMmeental Application Requirements sheet for additional submittal requirements that will need to accompany this application form. fL PROPERTY INFORMATION: This section must be completed. Property Address(es): See attached Exhibit A See attached Exhibit A Mailing Address: (Street, City, State, Zip Code) Tax IDIParcel Number(s): Parcel Size(s) (Acres): 273 - 001054 -00; 60043307017000 ;60043307012000;60043401014000; 9.946 acres; 18.915 acres; 14.673 60043401015000; and 60043401010000 acres; 2.035 acres; 4.474 acres; and 1.32 acres per Franklin County and Delaware County Auditor's websites Existing Land Use/Development: R -1 Restricted Suburban Residential and PUD I IF APPLICABLE, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: Proposed Land UselDeveiopment: PUD with estate lots and single family cluster housing Total acres affected by application: 51.70 acres (plus proposed purchase of City property equal to 0.6 acres) III r`I IRRGMT PP n PF PTY C11/f MPP I C6- Pie.acn offo,h aeirii+innal ehnnfo, if nrnrinrl. Name (Individual or Organization): See attached Exhibit A See attached Exhibit A Mailing Address: (Street, City, State, Zip Code) Daytime Telephone: Please contact representative Fax: Email or Alternate Contact Infonnafion; Page 1 of 3 IV. APPLICANT(S): This is the person(s) who is submitting the application if different than the property owner(s) listed in part III. Please complete if applicable. Name: Same as Part III Applicant is also property owner: yes ❑ no E] Organization (Owner, Developer, Contractor, etc.): Mailing Address: (Street, City, State, Zip Code) Daytime Telephone: Fax: Email or Alternate Contact Information: V. REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF APPLICANT / PROPERTY OWNER: This is the person(s) who is submitting the application on behalf of the applicant listed in part IV or property owner listed in part Ill. Please complete if applicable. Name: Michael L. Close, Esq. Organization (Owner, Developer, Contractor, etc.): Wiles, Boyle, Burkholder & Bringardner Co. , LPA Mailing Address: (Street, City, State, zip Code) 300 Spruce Street, Floor One, Columbus, Ohio 43215 Daytime Telephone: ( 614) 221 -5216 F ax' ( 614) 221 -0624 Email or Alternate Contact information: mclose @wileslaw.com VI. AUTHORIZATION FOR OWNER'S APPLICANT or REPRESENTATIVE(S): If the applicant is not the property owner, this section must be completed and notarized. I Robert D. Walter the owner, hereby authorize Michael L. Close to act as my applicant or representative(s) in all matters pertaining to the processing and approval of this application, including modifying the project. I agree to be bound by all representations and agreements made by the designated representative. Signature of Current Property Owner: Date: S R 0 18 U Check this box if the Authorization for Owner's Applicant or Representative(s) is attached as a separate document Subscribed and sworn before me this aO'I"k day of nt E"-t & i i - 26 State of 6 k ) o County of f 7 2-o J (c. f : Notary Public VII. AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROPERTY: Site visits to the property by City r application. The Owner /Applicant, as noted below, hereby authorizes City representatives to property described in this application. Katherine L. Jenkins Notary Public, State of Ohio My commission Expires 10.10.201 YSsential to process this and post a notice on the I Robert D. Walter , the owner or authorized representative, hereby authorize City representatives to visit, photograph and post a notice on the property described in this application. Signature of applicant or authorized representative: Date: 9i - Z o - 1 0 Page 2 of 3 VIII. UTILITY DISCLAIMER: The Owner /Applicant acknowledges the approval of this request for review by the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission and /or Dublin City Council does not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able to provide essential services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by said Owner /Applicant. 1 _R obert D. Walter , the owner or authorized representative. acknowledge that approval of this request 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 Owner /Applicant. Signature of applicant or authorized representative: IX. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT: This section must be completed and notarized I Robert D. Walter , the owner or authorized representative, have read and understand the contents of this application. The information contained in this application, attached exhibits and other information submitted is complete and in all respects true and correct, to the best of my tnowledge and belief. Signature of applicant or authorized representative: Subscribed and sworn to before me this _;�-'b"Ft- Date: (ij _ ZO — 1 3 Date: 8 a o't u State of U F^ 1 o County of FP-aa - 1', 0 Notary Public Katherine L. Jenkins Notary Public, State of Ohio Commission Expires 10-10 -2011 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Amount Received: pplication No; date {s): P &Z Action: Receipt No: Map Zone: _ Date Received: 9 � Received By: City Council (First Reading):,2 City Council (Second Reading): City Council Action: ordinance Number: Type of Request: 1 N, $0W (Circle) Side of: &S, E, W (Circle) Side of Nearest Intersection: 1,� n ._,�- [{Z Distance from Nearest Intersection: Existing Zoning District: P t> I �.M1 V Requested Zoning District: PL. Page 3 of 3 day of AL. a uL s t 20 0 EXHIBIT A II. Property Information Property Addresses: Dublin Road, Dublin, OLI 43017 Memorial Drive, Dublin, OH 43017 4900 Deer Run Dr., Dublin, OH 43017 5000 Deer Run Dr., Dublin, OH 43017 Deer Run Dr., Dublin, OH 43017 III. Current Property Owners (Names and Mailing Addresses): Wasatch Partners LLC P.O. Box 7182 Dublin, OH 43017 Deer Run Land LLC P.O. Box 7182 Dublin, OH 43017 Deer Run Associates LLC P.O. Box 7182 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin Ohio Deer Run Estates c/o Deer Run Owners Association P.O. Box 7182 Dublin, OH 43017 Property Owners within 300' PARCEL ID 273001054 OWNER WASATCH PARTNERS LLC AWRES' DUBLIN RD 273001381 CIMINO DOMINIC L 8438 TIBBERMORE CT 273001382 DOTRONG MY 8422 TIBBERMORE CT 273001383 A 8410 TIBBERMORE CT 273001402 INC MEMORIAL DR 273001403 INC MEMORIAL DR 273009382 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO DUBLIN RD 273010579 MURRAY LORI M 4688 VISTA RIDGE DR 273010580 M 4680 VISTA RIDGE DR 273010585 ASGHAR LORPARI- ZANGANEH MEHRMAZ 8380 SOMERSET WY 27301058E KAREN 8388 SOMERSET WY 27301058E COMMUNITYASSN 8406 AUTUMNWOOD WY 27301058 COMMUNITYASSN 8405 AUTUMNWOOD WY 3193230200100 CITY OF COLUMBUS RIVERSIDE DR 6004230100900 CITY OF COLUMBUS GLICK RD 6004330400100 RESERVE ASSOCIATION THE RESERVE DR 6004330400200 PARENTEAU MARSHA K 5124 RESERVE DR 6004330600100C RESERVE ASSOCIATION THE RESERVE DR 6004330600200C BONTA JOSEPH A TRUSTEE 5119 RESERVE DR 6004330601000C TRUSTEES 5114 CHAFFINCH CT 6004330700100C CROTTY JOHN R & LARA L 5049 GLENAIRE DR 6004330700200C BUNK STANLEY BETTYANN 5065 GLENAIRE DR 6004330700800C BRISCOE CHERYL 8718 GLENAMOY CIR 6004330700900C KELLEY CHRIS 8708 GLENAMOY CIR 6004330701000C MAUREEN L 8719 GLENAMOY CIR 6004330701100C TRUSTEES 8731 GLENAMOYCIR 6004330701200C DEER RUN LAND LLC DUBLIN RD 6004330701700C WASATCH PARTNERS LLC DUBLIN RD 60043307017001 CITY OF DUBLIN OHIO DUBLIN RD 6004330701700 CITY OF DUBLIN DUBLIN RD 6004340100700C TRUSTEE 10815 EDGEWOOD DR 6004340100800C CURRY ROGER L EMILY J 10820 EDGEWOOD DR 6004340101000C MUIT ESTATES DEER RUN DR 6004340101400C DEER RUN ASSOCIATES LLC 4900 DEER RUN DR 6004340101500C DEER RUN ASSOCIATES LLC 5000 DEER RUN DR 6004340101600C BROGAN MARTHA ANNE 5033 GLENAIRE DR 6004340101700C L 5017 GLENAIRE DR 6004340101800C A 5002 GLENAIRE DR 10- 062Z /PDP Deer Run Michael Close, Attorney Deer Run Associates 300 Spruce Street, Floor One PO Box 7182 Columbus, OH 43215 Dublin, OH 43017 MacDonald & Cheryl Wick Wasatch Partners, LLC Dominic Cimino 8351 Dublin Road PO Box 7182 8438 Tibbermore Court Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 My Dotrong Jeffrey & Paula Cerny Muirfield Association, Inc. 8422 Tibbermore Court 8410 Tibbermore Court 8372 Muirfield Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 William & Stephanie Stein Patricia McMillen Richard P. Stratton II & 8389 Autumnwood Way 8397 Somerset Way Cynthia Stratton Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 8389 Somerset Way Dublin, OH 43017 Ruchika Mehra Robert & Lori Murray Romi & Hema Bhasin 4696 Vista Ridge Drive 4688 Vista Ridge Drive 4680 Vista Ridge Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Asghar Zanganeh- Lorpari & Kevin & Karen O'Connor Elisha Morrison Mehrmaz Zanganeh Lorpari 8388 Somerset Way 8374 Autumnwood Way 8380 Somerset Way Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Gary & Merideth Mann Matt & Nicole Kelbick Oye & Ade Olatoye 8306 Amberleigh Way 8373 Autmnwood Way 8372 Somerset Way Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Okey Eneli Robert & Lori Murray Amberleigh North 8382 Autumnwood Way 4688 Vista Ridge Drive Community Assn Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 8405 Autumnwood Way Dublin, OH 43017 Joseph A. Bonta, Trustee William & Ruth Pacey,Trustees John & Lara Crotty 5119 Reserve Drive 5114 Chaffinch Court 5049 Glenaire Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Stanley & Betty Ann Bunk Cheryl Briscoe Gary Undermine & 5065 Glenaire Drive 8718 Glenamoy Circle Chris Kelley Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 8708 Glenamoy Circle Dublin, OH 43017 William & Maureen Doecker Noah & Patricia Frazier, Jerry & Judy Ellis 8719 Glenamoy Circle Trustees 10815 Edgewod Drive Dublin, OH 43017 8731 Glenamoy Circle Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Roger & Emily Curry 10820 Edgewood Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Deer Run Associates, LLC 4900 Deer Run Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Deer Run Associates, LLC 5000 Deer Run Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Martha Anne Brogan Shigeo Okajima & Ting -ing L Michael & Marcia Strall 5033 Glenaire Drive 5017 Glenaire Drive 5002 Glenaire Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 DEER RUN REZONING STATEMENT I. Scope, Character and Nature of the Project The Applicant proposes 51.7 acre Planned Unit Development comprised of three sections, including two separate sections of estate lots and an architecturally significant, single - family cluster community with a large percentage of open space. The overall density of the project would be +/- 0.9 dwelling units per acre. With proposed balance of natural feature preservation, low- development intensity, and clustering of buildings in a specific area, the plan can be appropriately characterized as conservation development. Subarea A (northern -most) is + \- 18.5 acres with a proposed 4 estate lots. There are currently two homes on two of these lots that are served by the existing Deer Run Drive. The owner occupies one of the existing homes and owns the other. A wooded ravine divides this Subarea from the balance of the site. Subarea B (the middle area) is + \- 16. 1 acres with 5 buildable estate lots proposed to be served by a cul -du -sac access road. This road would connect to the existing Deer Run Drive on the west side of the Subarea near Dublin Road. A significant portion of land on the southern boundary of this Subarea is proposed as a platted tree preservation area, along with common open space. The Applicant has also purchased of +/- 0.6 acres of City property bordering the eastern edge this Subarea in order to further separate uses and create privacy. Subarea C (southern -most) is +/- 17.1 acres and is proposed for development of a community of 37 cluster of single - family homes. The homes will be designed to meet the standards of the included architectural design guidelines, which are based on a European -style village, and the development text herein. Over 7 acres of open space, much of it wooded, are planned to buffer the cluster community from Memorial Drive to the south and Dublin Road to the east. A boulevard entry is proposed off Memorial Drive, that is lined up with the existing street to the south. (Autumnwood Way — Amberleigh). Green common area islands are planned for internal streets servicing the cluster housing. II. Relationship to Existing Land Use Character of the Vicinity The proposed plan is consistent with medium and low density single - family residential development to the north, west and south. The majority of the property making up proposed Subarea C, south of the ravine was zoned as part of the Amberleigh North Subdivsion (phases 4 and 5). The existing zoning calls for 63 cluster condominiums in 3 and 4 unit buildings in phase 5 on 15.32 acres and 11 single - family lots in phase 4 of the Amberleigh North Plan. (Z96 -002) This plan called for empty- nester housing with architecture consistent with such projects as Weatherstone and The Mews. Currently, this portion of the site is undeveloped, with significant existing woods. The applicant proposes the continuation of the existing large estate lot development that exists in Deer Run Estates, with the extension of Subarea B to the south of the ravine. The proposed single - family cluster housing development in Subarea C represents a less intense plan for the southernmost area with 37 cluster homes and approximately 42.7% open space replacing 63 condominium units and 11 single - family homes. III. Relationship to Dublin Community Plan and Applicable Standards The 2007 Dublin Community plan marks the site as future "Residential Low Density" which is made up of a density of 0.5 to 1 unit per acre. The overall density of the proposed plan is 0.9 units per acre, with significant open space, natural feature and tree preservation. The proposed development seeks to protect the site's unique land characteristics, including the ravine between Subareas A and B and existing woods. Through such preservation, and by concentrating most building in Subarea C, along with limiting the ravine area to large, estate lot development, the proposal meets the Community Plan's definition of "Residential Low Density ". The resulting balance of protecting natural and sensitive areas, while configuring buildings and integrating development in harmony with the existing character of the land, is expected to create opportunities for outstanding living environments. IV. Criteria for Planned Districts 1. The proposed development maintains a relatively low density residential use within a neighborhood of similar uses. The intent of the zoning code appears to maintain these similarities as sites develop. 2. The development seeks to conform with the Community Plan's goals, by preserving unique natural features, providing a mix of residential choices, protecting aesthetic character through open space, preservation areas, and wide setbacks from public streets. 3. The development will infill a mostly undeveloped tract of land that is located between "built -out" areas of the community. The generally low - intensity of the proposed development will help to preserve the character of the site. 4. The proposed use is appropriately located in the city. 5. The proposed development will have approximately 20% common open space, in addition to deed restricted preservation areas. The site borders a future City of Dublin Park, all together providing an appropriate amount of open spaces. 6. The plan is designed to follow the existing topography, utilizes areas of thin vegetation, and provides setbacks and buffers to protect natural features. 7. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage are being provided; see the following exhibits. 8. Site access is limited to two access points. The relatively small number of dwelling units will not severely impact public roads. 9. The larger homes of the estate lots are intended to blend with the natural features of the site. The clustering of the smaller homes is intended to group them within a buffer of existing vegetation. 10. The proposed development characteristics are consistent with the adjoining landuses, and seek to maintain the character of the site. 11. Adequate provision is made for stormwater through a combination of strategies, such as permeable pavement strips, overland percolation and discharge, and the installation of storm structures. 12. The proposed development is intended to be characterized by the unique character of the site. Any deviations from the standards are to highlight, or preserve those characteristics. 13. The proposed buildings will be further designed at a later time. The Estate Homes are intended to be high - quality custom homes. The cluster homes will be held to the architectural design guidelines submitted herein. 14. The proposed development can be separated into three phases by the three subareas. The potential phasing lends flexibility to the actual development timeline. 15., 16.The proposed development does not appear to generate the need for any significant off -site improvements. CHEER RUN ESTATES N. R9Dat 0. W..", RUHn 11.4$8 Ac, CO. ,P SITUATED IN THE STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF DELAWARE:. VILLAGE OF OWIN: AND 862X6 IN VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY N0, 2545, AND :OESNG ALL OF THAI � a tti. AS8 ACRE TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO ROBERT O: WALTER.' TRUSTEE,. BY OECD OF RECORD IN OECD acox4l ;, PA6EYAxc.REC0A0£R OFFICE.' DELAWARE COUNTY, OBZO, AND BEING THE RERAZ81H3 (ISIS ACRES OF THAT ORIGINAL 23.373 ACRE TRACT Of LAND EONYEVED TO ROBERT K. FERGUS BY DEED OF RECORD 10 DEED BOOK 934, PACE 30, RECORDER'S OFFICE.: DE"VAAE COUNTV, MID. INS. UNDERSIGNED. ROSCRT H, FERGUS AND OAABARA 4, FERGUS, HUSBAND AND WIFE. An ROBERT D. WALTER, TRUSTCC, . 00 MEREST CERTIFY THAI THE ATTACHED MAY CORRECTLY REPRESENTS THEIR -DEER RUN ESTATES" A SUBDIVISION OF LOT A.TO: LOT 11. INCLUSIV €, AM RESERVE 4 A -. AND DO THEREBY ACCEPT. THIS PLAT OF SAME AND DEDICATE TO PUBLIC USE AS SUCH A" OR PART OF THE .ROAD SHOWN HEREON AND NOT HERETOFORE DEDICATED. AREA IN.OEOICATED ROAD a 0,041 ACRE. E&StWENTS ARE RESERVED WME -AE: INDICATED ON THE RAT FOR INGRESS AND EORE53 A"/OR FOR THE CONSTRUCTION. OPERATION ANO WINTHANCE DF ALL PUSHED AND PRIVATE UT%L%TSES A" THE CAR" TELEVISION INDU9TRY, BOTH ABOVE AND BENEATH THE SURFACE OF INC MOu" AM WHERE. NECC5SAPY ARE FDA THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND WAINTENANCE OF SERVICE CONNEC110M TO ALL AOJACEHT LOTS AM LANDS. AM FOR STOW WATER ORAINAGE, . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ROBERT M, FERGUS An BARBARA K. FERGUS HAVE HEREUNTO SET YM919 HANDS THIS DAY OF I904. y FoA+n N FaquT m W3TN£09£b BY " Cuiq: 23.313 At. :r ROBEAT)r, POROUS Now If.911 Ac " 08 . 434, R SO �a . ♦ - u By D - -- ""- ---� BARBARA X FERGUS / (7 A COUNT Y OH S TATE AMT 0.' FRANKLIN BEFORE WE A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID COUNTY AHD STATE, PERSONALLY APPEARED ROBERT H. FERGUS AND BARBARA p /+I p�^i �H--yy D RAWI N G K. FER HO GU$" HUSBAND AM WIFE. W ACXNOSIED60 THE SIGNING OF THE FOREGOING CERTIFICATE TO BE THEIR FREE AM VOLUNTARY BACKGkOUN V V RAW ING ACT An DEED FOR THE USES AM PURPOSES THEREIN EXPRESSED. SCALE' I a SOO IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I RAVE HEREUNTO SET AT MOUND AM AFFIXED WY OFFICIAL SEAL THIS - N DP ,._...,,,.. 19pV. LOCATION MAP F •� � y Prir .ynyt<aose e Iprnl IN WITNESS ANDREW, ROBERT D. WALTER, TRUSTEE, HAS HEREUNTO SET NOUN �THIS _. N Y OF 1 3989; •�' - WITNESSES: BY / ✓A 1� ' rBERT 0, WAVER TRUSTEE ? M, NOTE- - - ONLY TWO42I CUTS FOR WORE$$ AND EGRESS. FROM S.R. 745 $TAYS Of OHIO atuw.u4W cocw7r WILL BE AUDWIU,Nqk&WAL WILL RE VA RUN ORtVE COUNTY OF FRAMXLIN AND THE ISO A . IN TMf NORTHWEST CCTYMEA OF SITE, BEFOAEEWE A "TART PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID COUNIY: AND STATE, PERSONALLY APPEARED ROBERT 0. WALTER, TRUSTEE, WHO - ACKNOVLE0GE0 THE 51"1" OF TYE;OREGOTN6 CERTIFICATE TO BE HIS FREE AND VOLUNTARY. ACT AND DECD FOR TIC USES AND PURPOSES THEREIN EXPRESSED, '. .. -. IN 101EES WNERECG, I HAVE tommTO SET MT NANO An AFFIXED MY OFFICIAL SEAL THIS 31IYA DAY. Be g'e.kS „±;..,. 1984. RH WE DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT VE HAVE SURVEYED THE ABOVE - - IVY .9 CW OtISSION EXPIRES j14'S' N 14 PREWI5ES An PREPARED THE ATTACHED. PLAT AND THAT 3410 APPROVED T . HIS /.f DAY OF - nrs ✓ 1984, `�)FYy � •'yg"){ 'Sca��... RAT IO CORRECT, ALL DIMENSIONS ARE SHOWN IN FEET AM - - CH IRNAN, PLANNING C - NOTART,PUBLIC. FRANxWN COUNTY. MID DECiUAL PARTS THEREOF. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON DOUMOARY VILLAGE OF DUBLIN, MID SURVEY BY W,N; IEECHWART OF EVAN$, MCMDUART, NAIBLETCi% EARITRIBC ICY %INS a TILTON, INC., CCN9IR.TIMG EMINECAS 0 SURVEYORS IN - - - rX4l rivet IW.a .,I1 . . MOVEMEA. 1573, a.A tl!. WHUtNW araW M>� ARPRBYEI' THIS ,u'E.- OAY K ✓. IBM, ?+ks. RUN ESTATES N. R9Dat 0. W..", RUHn 11.4$8 Ac, CO. ,P SITUATED IN THE STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF DELAWARE:. VILLAGE OF OWIN: AND 862X6 IN VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY N0, 2545, AND :OESNG ALL OF THAI � a tti. AS8 ACRE TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED TO ROBERT O: WALTER.' TRUSTEE,. BY OECD OF RECORD IN OECD acox4l ;, PA6EYAxc.REC0A0£R OFFICE.' DELAWARE COUNTY, OBZO, AND BEING THE RERAZ81H3 (ISIS ACRES OF THAT ORIGINAL 23.373 ACRE TRACT Of LAND EONYEVED TO ROBERT K. FERGUS BY DEED OF RECORD 10 DEED BOOK 934, PACE 30, RECORDER'S OFFICE.: DE"VAAE COUNTV, MID. INS. UNDERSIGNED. ROSCRT H, FERGUS AND OAABARA 4, FERGUS, HUSBAND AND WIFE. An ROBERT D. WALTER, TRUSTCC, . 00 MEREST CERTIFY THAI THE ATTACHED MAY CORRECTLY REPRESENTS THEIR -DEER RUN ESTATES" A SUBDIVISION OF LOT A.TO: LOT 11. INCLUSIV €, AM RESERVE 4 A -. AND DO THEREBY ACCEPT. THIS PLAT OF SAME AND DEDICATE TO PUBLIC USE AS SUCH A" OR PART OF THE .ROAD SHOWN HEREON AND NOT HERETOFORE DEDICATED. AREA IN.OEOICATED ROAD a 0,041 ACRE. E&StWENTS ARE RESERVED WME -AE: INDICATED ON THE RAT FOR INGRESS AND EORE53 A"/OR FOR THE CONSTRUCTION. OPERATION ANO WINTHANCE DF ALL PUSHED AND PRIVATE UT%L%TSES A" THE CAR" TELEVISION INDU9TRY, BOTH ABOVE AND BENEATH THE SURFACE OF INC MOu" AM WHERE. NECC5SAPY ARE FDA THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND WAINTENANCE OF SERVICE CONNEC110M TO ALL AOJACEHT LOTS AM LANDS. AM FOR STOW WATER ORAINAGE, . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ROBERT M, FERGUS An BARBARA K. FERGUS HAVE HEREUNTO SET YM919 HANDS THIS DAY OF I904. y FoA+n N FaquT m W3TN£09£b BY " Cuiq: 23.313 At. :r ROBEAT)r, POROUS Now If.911 Ac " 08 . 434, R SO �a . ♦ - u By D - -- ""- ---� BARBARA X FERGUS / (7 A COUNT Y OH S TATE AMT 0.' FRANKLIN BEFORE WE A NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID COUNTY AHD STATE, PERSONALLY APPEARED ROBERT H. FERGUS AND BARBARA p /+I p�^i �H--yy D RAWI N G K. FER HO GU$" HUSBAND AM WIFE. W ACXNOSIED60 THE SIGNING OF THE FOREGOING CERTIFICATE TO BE THEIR FREE AM VOLUNTARY BACKGkOUN V V RAW ING ACT An DEED FOR THE USES AM PURPOSES THEREIN EXPRESSED. SCALE' I a SOO IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I RAVE HEREUNTO SET AT MOUND AM AFFIXED WY OFFICIAL SEAL THIS - N DP ,._...,,,.. 19pV. LOCATION MAP MY EDL29910NEXPIRE9 :, , .; ,jF. HO SCALE NOTARY PUBLIC, FRANNUN COUNTY M APC 4ffii<NlF Iprnl IN WITNESS ANDREW, ROBERT D. WALTER, TRUSTEE, HAS HEREUNTO SET NOUN �THIS _. N Y OF 1 3989; •�' - WITNESSES: BY / ✓A 1� ' rBERT 0, WAVER TRUSTEE NOTE- - - ONLY TWO42I CUTS FOR WORE$$ AND EGRESS. FROM S.R. 745 $TAYS Of OHIO WILL BE AUDWIU,Nqk&WAL WILL RE VA RUN ORtVE COUNTY OF FRAMXLIN AND THE ISO A . IN TMf NORTHWEST CCTYMEA OF SITE, BEFOAEEWE A "TART PUBLIC IN AND FOR SAID COUNIY: AND STATE, PERSONALLY APPEARED ROBERT 0. WALTER, TRUSTEE, WHO - ACKNOVLE0GE0 THE 51"1" OF TYE;OREGOTN6 CERTIFICATE TO BE HIS FREE AND VOLUNTARY. ACT AND DECD FOR TIC USES AND PURPOSES THEREIN EXPRESSED, '. .. -. IN 101EES WNERECG, I HAVE tommTO SET MT NANO An AFFIXED MY OFFICIAL SEAL THIS 31IYA DAY. Be g'e.kS „±;..,. 1984. RH WE DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT VE HAVE SURVEYED THE ABOVE - - IVY .9 CW OtISSION EXPIRES j14'S' N 14 PREWI5ES An PREPARED THE ATTACHED. PLAT AND THAT 3410 APPROVED T . HIS /.f DAY OF - nrs ✓ 1984, `�)FYy � •'yg"){ 'Sca��... RAT IO CORRECT, ALL DIMENSIONS ARE SHOWN IN FEET AM - - CH IRNAN, PLANNING C - NOTART,PUBLIC. FRANxWN COUNTY. MID DECiUAL PARTS THEREOF. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON DOUMOARY VILLAGE OF DUBLIN, MID SURVEY BY W,N; IEECHWART OF EVAN$, MCMDUART, NAIBLETCi% EARITRIBC ICY %INS a TILTON, INC., CCN9IR.TIMG EMINECAS 0 SURVEYORS IN - - - rX4l rivet IW.a .,I1 . . MOVEMEA. 1573, tl!. WHUtNW araW M>� ARPRBYEI' THIS ,u'E.- OAY K ✓. IBM, ?+ks. - VILLAGE £MGINC£R, VILLAGE OF OUBLIN. 0810. TRANSF2RRCO THIS A l l ? DAY .104 r - )//ss APPROVED THIS -10-- OAT OF OV 1984, AUDITOR, DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO 4 ' UAT VILLAGE DUBLIN, OHIO . Op�j PILED FOR flCC9Rb TMI WAY OF AT ” + M. t,.p, BIRO L R.J, ,BULL, LTD. .� .W : ,1989 6133 LI#W0.47H ROAD w APPROVED AND ACCEPTED THIS BAY OF 1 1904, 81 VOTE OF COUNCIL. WWENCIN WORTNTMGTCH, OLIO �'" c x - 's ALL OF THE ROAD SHOWN HEREON, IS ACCEPTED AS SUCH 0Y THE COUNCIL FOR THE VILLAGE OF pDDLIH. IN PLAT BOOK PAGES r SA'9 t I4� RECORDED THIS DAY OF ,}989, / IM WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 HAVE HEREUNTO SET NY NANO AND AFFIXED MY SEAL THIS" OAY OF KT 1984. FEE -FILE NO. V RTCNAR3 J. DUEL. OH SURVEYOR NO. 4723 ' LLAGE. CtfRK," VILLAGE OF- OVSLTN, OHIO '.RE ,`OQ AWARE TT, OHtD mr. i ti I i i �. -•° - -. �)srx• d ui'snr. sn., ,,"t+t.GtlSSnr 7tilftsd t 4r,. t {I r° ,'• tki. SYi'F..., ! # l•: � 7559.0!' £ .5 1898` 90.84' - - { N ?n "DT F413 � ,- ^�^Y"'" N.7Q °F7`f4.8 ao f {, __.6:QG�a1fi r 500.00 do - {6 -$ •p v: 384.00` ` : f. i _ -.1 ca sa`pby;, �.` '� ro ww __ 1° -^•iw i ns .Y"" m� 1238 AD. 2 Lu R.L. Dn05�d~ t 1 Tv JDITt• t{lyy 4p' 1919 Ac. k YVd,31� f ,�, fAelS9.T� 1 w MA'eJI £6'a 1k p. { r "Sl,98 BIN+JY Ftltr.naMr r l s xn'26'02 lei t @ t o 1 4 t :. 1.308 Ac. _ . i 1 j/j t ` 3i W .l t ! t - `, a WWI, = 'rz i f - 4 � rD r y va f ow f v j ,t i n h� i ry IasdsR4' : j. ml s a4 O � �• J IR.roD.II 0741, 2035 Am t � 8.591 fic r A f �� w 6 �, � h+ ' +4Y1 �•�,.:,. - -�q,� i aS.`.� i n i i raw, ...� , C '. " N i 6' d:�•Dp"GYj _ ": �h: i30 xT•O'D02 � �. '~ ISL t. I�d+tlY q G1 aS da ij R5 r ter••• 1D'Gn + +b 1 w 1 1 r i.ld2 fd fn h t # b . {�C.fn c d?35 •^i.� —"— faraaans \\ 1 .G r . T.813q Ac.. \ F. 9 7 , sr` l a Ac. �II B3p0 s y3 o I t 44 E - +� ix y" � rnp+ea. 3 Ey{ia £a.rmW 1.305 Act W •t�" s Ac 9 = t° , W ° 13`S.ery{rd a f �^- -^-' ° yJ • rR ' a :.t9 no tM" ` szR � $t ,� JsD '3 eam °nf�.�� EEE w oaeo n a =fro DO a p m ��.. t is kY A it. Dd 6n� ST2 4E D0. y . J •. Gns 4494' .MR Xit to f! t " T Sl d L \\ �'i� u Y � d4 NA $ �,. -.•... $� � >52..5fl433F..K.. ^ y _ - _., . �w� dd 5 m r4.dd s.B -a.�•h � �:,, �., - 4. ^ "�` �..,.�.. -°"... 1 jj r �� � �. rPFSFRVF a.. , §yam Cnmmnn 4324 Ac. ; tb a 622 . A ,w �.«�•• m Tdaay \ 5p 6"s - at - %\ ¢s .�o.,y`\,"� N (�� ,. a ✓� y 5 � r •..•.. �~' � ,�,,�. ? Q 5yb 2,576 AF *g ° - • %.? pa. ��"- �,.....,- y—_... y ` JS 6'? <.. 3,31.48`. `� °! _.. 40-4 Sk$ ry ` "W 169. $73°00'08 55' r S85 "04'49'w j8k.75 txs7r °38 = #! x— ---- 24P.S9=- �-- ty! Qty �. MN at MX MI - r �._, frdrL•atts Porhts. - p 6p J2D /Bp Pap �._ P'd %adJBa 314" JR ll4 Ppe Set, .,..,�_,. menoms km PiR{'u RR 5Prir Prav;waty Sef 6y wb R*l 3' 1nNFn R-r ' h� a 'h x. VMS 2345 V.NS 2594 Inst i 20020 1 2 iiiluluiiiii F:$26.00 0 0 5!15/2002 Pag es.5 2:0552 Robert G. Montgomery 720020057052 QUIT CLAIM DEED Franklin County Recorder MEPSONIR K Margaret M. Walter (the "Grantor "), for valuable consideration received from Wasatch Partners, LLC ( "Grantee "), whose tax - mailing address is 109 South High Street, Dublin, Ohio 43017, hereby Remises, Releases and Forever Quit Claims to the said Grantee, its successors and assigns forever, the following real property: Situated in the City of Dublin, Counties of Franklin and Delaware, and the State of Ohio: The real property described on Exhibit A attached hereto but excepting therefrom the real property described on Exhibit B attached hereto. Subject to covenants, conditions, reservations, restrictions, easements, rights -of -way, setback lines, taxes and easements of record, if any. Prior Instrument Number: Instrument No. 199801160011256, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, and Deed Book 636, Page 407, Recorder's Office, Delaware County, Ohio. EXECUTED BY, the said Grantor this J day of May, 2002. ?Yta�a�to1 � MargAoeM. Walter STATE OF OHIO ) COUNTY OF FRANKLIN ) SS: Sworn to and subscribed in my presence by Margaret M. Walter this — P " — day of May, 2002. J ' ' '"`"`'"r Notary Public Instrument Prepared. By: Anneliese A. Bohm, EsG, Baker 8e Hostetler LLP 65 East State Street Suite 2100 Columbus, Ohio 13215 WALM CLARAT. RUSSELL, NdW Public U oWforIM 000101110 MyC*Wnb"E*wJvL14,2007 _ TRANSFERRED- L_ ` MAY 1 5 2002 JOiiPH * ESTA JOSEPH 1N. TESTA 1NKLtN AUDITOR AUDITOR FRANKLIN COUNTY, CH10,4d EXHIBIT A 15.050 ACRES EAST OF DUBLIN- BELLEPOINT ROAD (S.R- 745) SOUTH OF GLICK ROAD CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO Situated in the State of Ohio, Counties of Franklin and Delaware, City of Dublin being pan of Virginia Military Survey No. 2545, being 15.050 acres out of that 43.965 acre tract (Tract 2), as described in a deed to Hoag Limited Partnership, of record in Official Records Volume 33470, page G -09 (Franklin County) and Deed Volume 613, page 433 (Delaware County), all references herein being to the records of the Recorder's Office of the respective County, and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning FOR REFERENCE at an iron pin found at the southwesterly comer of said 43.965 acre tract, in the line between Virginia Military Survey No. 2545 and Virginia Military Survey No. 2544 and in the centerline of Dublin - Bellepoint Road (State Route 745), 60 feet in width at this location; thence North 14° 55'40" West, along said centerline, a distance of 297.56 feet to the TRUE PLACE OF BEGINNING located 40.00 feet north of the centerline intersection of Memorial Drive. Thence continuing along said centerline, the westerly line of said 43.965 acre tract, the following courses: L North 14° 55' 40" West, a distance of 452.56 feet to an angle point at station 156 +03.80 witnessed by two monuments to the east at 27 feet: 2. North 15° 07' 13" West, a distance of 272.42 feet to the northwesterly comer of said 43.965 acre tract, the southwesterly comer of Deer Run Estates, a subdivision of record in Plat Book 18, pages 34 and 35 (Delaware County, Ohio) Thence along the northerly line of said 43.965 acre tract, the southerly line of Deer Run Estates, the following courses: I . North 74' 52' 57" East, passing an iron pin found in the easterly right of way line of Dublin - Bellepoint Road at 61.84 feet, a total distance of 395.30 feet to an iron pin found; 2. South 77° 1 P 57" East a distance of 123.73 feet to the center oFMaahole No. 41 of a 36" sanitary trunk sewer; 3. North 75° 39'34" East, a distance of 242.66 feet to the center of Manhole No. 40; 4. North 25' 10' 24" East, a distance of 363.23 feet to the center of Manhole No. 39; 5. North 72° 52' 48" East, a distance of 153.81 feet to the center oFManhole No. 38; Thence through said 43.965 acre tract with a new division line the following courses: I. South 3 24' 06" West, a distance of 570.65 feet to an iron pin set; 2. South 37° 43' 03" West, a distance of 392.16 feet to an iron pin set; 3. With the arc of a non - tangent curve to the right, having a radius of 275.00 feet, a central angle of 32' 35'27", the chord of which bears South 6° 53' 58" East, a chord distance of 154.32 feet to an iron pin set at the point of tangency; 4. South 9 23' 45" West, a distance of 84.73 feet to an iron pin set; 5. South 33 57' 40" East, a distance of 27.73 feet to an iron pin set; 6. With the arc of a non - tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 765.00 feet, a central angle of 27 24' 56 ", the chord of which bears South 88 46' 48" West, a chord distance of 362.57 feet to an iron pin set at the point of tangency; 7 South 75 04'20" West, passing an iron pin set in the easterly right of way line of Dublin- Bellepoint Road at 175.52 feet, a total distance of 243.40 feet to the TRUE PLACE OF BEGINNING and containing 15.050 acres of land, 5.342 acres being in Franklin County and 9.708 acres being in Delaware County. Iron pins set consist of a I" (O.D.) iron pipe, 30" long with a plastic cap inscribed "M-E ENG /5 -6871 The manhole centers reference herein are center of the structure, not the center of the manhold lid. l. — t.�..n8,.,.� ry e,r �� ..:. 3' ., r,a c= ..rn �Y'S� `.)c •r N_ c cNYcn L,�- T .._e d:. rn tY 2..r f p - to '7- C- O� SP�� SRO tY rRing:e, 9� o y 2 0 5 4 —3) EXHIBIT B DESCRIPTION FOR A 1.164 ACRE TRACT SITUATED IN THE STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF FRANKLIN AND DELAWARE, CITY OF DUBLIN, BEING PART OF VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NO. 2545 AND ALSO BEING A PART OF A 15.05 ACRE TRACT CONVEYED TO MARGARE "F M. WALTER AS SHOWN OF RECORD IN INST. NO. 199801160011256 (FRANKLIN COON FY RECORDER'S OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO) AND DEED BOOK 636 PAGE 407 (DELAWARE COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO) AND BEING MORE PARTICULARY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BFG INN] NO FOR REFERENCE AI A RAILROADS PIKE FOUND IN THE CENTERLINE OF DUBLIN - BF,LLEPOINT ROAD (STATE ROUTE 745) AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF A 29.79 ACRE TRACT CONVEYED TO THE TOLL LAND XXV I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AS SHOWN OF RECORD IN INST. NO. 199811060286235 FRANKLIN COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH10 THENCE N 17'08'54" W, A DISTANCE OF 297.64 FEET ALONG SAID CENTERLINE AND WESTERLY LINE OF SAID 29.79 ACRE TRACT TO A SMALL RAILROAD SPIKE SET AT I'HE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID 29.79 ACRE TRACT ALSO BEING THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID 15.05 ACRE TRACT AND THE TRUE PLACE OF BEGINNING FOR THIS PARTICULAR DESCRIPTION; THENCE N 17 '08'54" W, A DISTANCE OF 452.31 F'EE'T CONTINUING ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID ROAD, THE EASTERLY LINE OF MUIRFIF.LD VILLAGE PHASE 13 AS SHOWN OF RECORD IN PLAT BOOK 55, PAGE 65, FRANKLIN COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID 15.05 ACRE TRACT TO A P.K. NAIL FOUND AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID MUIRF'IF.I.D VILLAGE PHASE 13, ALSO BEING THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THE RESERVE PHASE I AS SHOWN OF RECORD IN PLAT BOOK 68, PAGE 59, FRANKLIN COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO; THENCE N 17 W, A DISTANCE OF 272.64 FEE F CONTINUING ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID ROAD, THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID 15.05 ACRE TRACT, AND THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID THE RESERVE PRASE I SUBDIVISION, PASSING A RAILROAD SPIKE FOUND IN THE FRANKLIN /DELAWARE COUNTY LINE AT 20.04 FEET, TO A SMALL RAILROAD SPIKE SET AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID 15.05 ACRE TRACT ALSO BEING THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF DEER RUN ESTATES AS SHOWN OF RECORD IN PLAT' BOOK 18 PAGE 34, DELAWARE COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO; THENCE N 72'41'01" E, A DISTANCE OF 61.80 FEET LEAVING THE CENTERLINE OF SAID ROAD ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID 15.05 ACRETRACT AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID DEER RUN ESTATES TO A CAPPED IRON PIN FOUND STAMPED BIRD AND BULL AT THE EXISTING EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID ROAD; THENCE S 17 °02'51" E, A DISTANCE OF 481.22 FEET THROUGH SAID 15.05 ACRE TRACT AND CONTINUING ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGI IT OF WAY LINE OF SAID ROAD TO AN IRON PIN. SET; THENCE S 52 °41' 10" E, A DISTANCE OF 86.02 FEET THROUGH SAID 15.05 ACRE TRACT AND CONTINUING ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINT OF SAID ROAD "TOA CAPPED IRON PIN SET; 'THENCE S 03'3 1' 17" E, A DISTANCE OF 178.96 FEET THROUGH SAID 15.05 ACRE TRACT AND CONTINUING ALONG THE EAS "I ERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID ROAD TO ACAPPED IRON PIN FOUND IN THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID 15.05 ACRE TRACT AND THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID 29.79 ACRE TRACT; THENCE S 72 °5 1'49" W, A DISTANCE OF 67,99 FEET LEAVING SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID 15.05 ACRE TRACT AND THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID 29.79 ACRE TRACT TO T H E T RUE PLACE OF BEGINNING CONTAINING A TOTAL OF 1.164 ACRES MORE OR LESS, 0.792 ACRES (FRANKLIN COUNTY) AND 0.372 ACRES (DELAWARE COUNTY) AND BEING SUBJECT TO ALL LEGAL HIGHWAYS, EASEMENTS, LEASES AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD AND OF RECORDS IN THE RESPECTIVE UTILITY OFFICES, IRON PINS SET ARE 5/8" DIAMETER REINFORCING BARS 30 INCHES LONG WITH AYELLOW CAP STAMPED P.S 7863. BEARINGS FOR THIS DESCRIPTION IS THE CENTERLINE OF DUBLIN - BELLEPOIN'T ROAD (STATE ROUTE 745) BEING N 17'08'54" W, AS SHOWN IN SHEET 4 OF 5 OF THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT - OF-WAY PLANS FOR FRA. -745-2.941 DEL. - 745 - (0.18)(1.98). 2 THIS DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY JOHN J. RAAB OHIO REGISTERED SURVEYOR NO. 7867 FROM IN ACTUAL FIELD SURVEY CONDUCTED IN JANUARY, 2001 ALONG WITH THE WRITTEN RECORD BY USING EXISTING Sl'ATE HIGHWAY PLANS, FRANKLIN COUNTY AND DELAWARE COUNTY COURTHOUSE RECORDS AND IS A BOUNDARY SURVEY IN ACCORDANCE TO THE MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR BOUNDARY SURVEYS IN THE STATE OF OHIO. A DRAWING OF THIS DESCRIPTION IS // ATTACHED II ERETO AND MADE PART THEREOF. �� DTE ,. OI NJ AB .S. 7863 D 7E JOHN J. RAAB 7683 �t6 o`E DOdn R6n ^le. P.E., >•S, Frzrkiin CounP7 LIMITED WARRANTY DEED IIIIIIIIIIIIilllllllllllllllllilllllllllllll ��'� 200404230091671 Pgs. 4 $44.00 720040036603 04/2312004 2:38PM B%CHICRGO TIT Robert G. Montgomery Franklin County Recorder DUFFY COMMUNITIES, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company ( "Grantor "), for valuable consideration paid, grants with limited warranty covenants to WASATCH PARTNERS, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company ("Grantee"), whose tax mailing address is 109 South High Street, Dublin, Ohio 43017, the approximately 15.349 acre tract of real property situated in the State of Ohio, Counties of Delaware and Franklin, City of Dublin, and being described in the attached Exhibit A, which is hereby incorporated herein by reference (the "Property "). This conveyance is subject to the lien of real estate taxes and assessments not yet due and payable, zoning and building laws, legal highways, and those easements, conditions and restrictions of record set forth on the attached Exhibit B, which is hereby incorporated herein by reference. Tax district and parcel numbers: Parcel No. 10- 60043307017002 as to Delaware County, Ohio, and Parcel No. 273 - 001054 as to Franklin County, Ohio. Prior instrument references: Instrument No. 199911190289567 of the Official Records of the Recorder's Office of Franklin County, Ohio, and Volume 12, page 415 of the Official Records of the Recorder's Office of Delaware County, Ohio. 5 f Signed this day of April, 2004. STATE OF OHIO DUFFY COMMUNITIES, LLC B: ame: ... , r+ c s Title: Ste• e COUNTY OF FRANKLIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this c 1 day of April, 2004 by the Ss.r• 4•• of Duffy Communities, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, on behalf of the limited iability company. Notary Public This instrument was prepared by: � D -n Steven P. Elliott, Esq. Wiles, Boyle, Burkholder & Bringardner Co., L.P.A. 300 Spruce Street, Floor One Columbus, OH 43215 � �( ` TJ* (614) 221 -5216 1 90241 SUSAN WILGUS MY corm ssion State Emges 06 25-05 TRANSFERRED A P R 2 3 2004 JOW N W. TESTA AiNT A RirA oom CAl3WTY, aruo EXHIBIT A SITUATED IN THE STATE OF OHIO, COUNTIES OF FRANKLIN AND DELAWARE, CITY OF DUBLIN, BEING PART OF VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NO. 2545 AND 2544, BEING 15.349 ACRES OUT OF THAT ORIGINAL 43.965 ACRE TRACT (TRACT 2), AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO HOAG LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, OF RECORD IN OFFICIAL RECORDS VOLUME 33470, PAGE G90 (FRANKLIN COUNTY) AND DEED VOLUME 613, PAGE 433 (DELAWARE COUNTY), ALL REFERENCES HEREIN BEING TO THE RECORDS OF THE RECORDER'S OFFICE OF THE RESPECTIVE COUNTY, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING FOR REFERENCE AT AN IRON PIN FOUND AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID 43.965 ACRE TRACT, IN THE LINE BETWEEN VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NO. 2545 AND VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NO. 2544 AND IN THE CENTERLINE OF DUBLIN - BELLEPOBQT ROAD (STATE ROUTE 745),60 FEET IN WIDTH AT THIS LOCATION; THENCE NORTH 14 DEG 55' 40" WEST, ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, A DISTANCE OF 297.56 FEET TO A POINT AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF A 15.050 ACRE TRACT, AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO MARGARET M. WALTER, OF RECORD IN INSTRUMENT NUMBER 199801160011256; THENCE NORTH 75 DEG 04'20" EAST, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID 15.050 ACRE TRACT, A DISTANCE OF 243.40 FEET IN A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE WITH THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 765.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 27 DEG 24'56", A CHORD WHICH BEARS NORTH 88 DEG 46' 48" EAST, A CHORD DISTANCE OF 362.57 FEET TO AN IRON PIN SET AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID 15.050 ACRE TRACT AND THE TRUE PLACE OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY PERIMETER OF SAID 15.050 ACRE TRACT, THE FOLLOWING COURSES: 1. NORTH 33 DEC 57'40" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 27.73 FEET TO AN IRON PIN SET; 2. NORTH 9 DEG 23'45" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 84.73 FEET TO AN IRON PIN SET AT A POINT OF CURVATURE; 3. WITH THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 275.00 FEET, . A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 32 DEG 35' 27 ", A CHORD WHICH BEARS NORTH 6 DEG 53' 58" WEST, A CHORD DISTANCE OF 154.32 FEET TO AN IRON PIN SET; 4. NORTH 37 DEG 43'03" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 392.16 FEET TO AN IRON PIN SET; 5. NORTH 3 DEG 24'06" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 570.65 FEET TO THE CENTER OF MANHOLE NC. 38 IN THE SOUTHERLY PERIMETER OF "DEER RUN ESTATES ", A SUBDIVISION OF RECORD IN PLAT BOOK 18, PAGES 34 AND 35 (DELAWARE COUNTY); THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY PERIMETER THE FOLLOWING COURSES: 1. SOUTH 54 DEG 38' 12" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 187.35 FEET TO AN IRON PIN FOUND; 2. SOUTH 64 DEG 40'57" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 113.19 FEE TO AN IRON PIN FOUND; 3. SOUTH 79 DEG 35' 49" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 95.72 FEET TO AN IRON PIN SET AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF A 12.000 ACRE TRACT, AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO, OF RECORD IN INSTRUMENT NUMBER 199710100117335; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY PERIMETER OF SAID 12.000 ACRE TRACT THE FOLLOWING COURSES: 1. SOUTH 22 DEG 13'54" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 715.95 FEET TO AN IRON PIN SET; 2. SOUTH 2 DEG 19'20" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 142.08 FEET TO AN IRON PIN SET; 3. SOUTH 61 DEG 23'04" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 367.24 FEET TO AN IRON PIN SET; 4. SOUTH 14 DEG 32'20" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 121.90 FEET TO AN IRON PIN SET; THENCE NORTH 75 DEG 27'40" WEST, THROUGH SAID 43.965 ACRE TRACT, A DISTANCE OF 504.49 FEET TO AN IRON PIN SET AT A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE CONTINUING THROUGH SAID 43.965 ACRE TRACT WITH THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 765.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2 DEG 03' 04 ", A CHORD WHICH BEARS NORTH 76 DEG 29' I1" WEST, A CHORD DISTANCE OF 27.39 FEET TO THE TRUE PLACE OF BEGINNING AND CONTAINING 15.349 ACRES OF LAND, 5396 ACRES BEING IN FRANKLIN COUNTY AND 9.953 ACRES BEING IN DELAWARE COUNTY. IRON PIN SET CONSISTS OF A I" (O,D.) IRON PIPE 30" LONG WITH A PLASTIC CAP INSCRIBED "M -E ENG /S- 6872 ". BEARINGS HEREIN ARE BASED ON NORTH 14 DEG 55'40" WEST, FOR THE CENTERLINE OF DUBLIN- BELLEPOINT ROAD SOUTH OF STATION 156 +08.80. THE MANHOLE CENTER REFERENCED HEREIN IS THE CENTER OF THE STRUCTURE, NOT THE CENTER OF THE MANHOLE LID. THIS DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY M -E COMPANIES, INC., CIVIL ENGINEERING GROUP BASED ON A SURVEY OF THE PREMISES. 0 — / g7 -G E M �� nt+ C. RINCLE P.P..PS. 4mw OF � 105' y -9 /os �f — y—, I ? #90386 vl EXHIBIT B 1. Easement of Record in Deed Book 428, Page 35, Recorder's Office, Delaware County, Ohio. 2. Easement of Record in Deed Book 3009, Page 335, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio. 3. Easement of Record in Deed Book 3673, Page 795, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio. 4. Easement of Record in Deed Book 3688, Page 794, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio. 5. Easement of Record in Deed Book 3720, Page 548, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio. 6. Real estate taxes and assessments for the second half of 1999 and subsequent years thereafter. VOL0203 PAE0500 QUIT CLAIM DEED Margaret M. Walter (the "Grantor "), for valuable consideration received from Wasatch Partners, LLC ( "Grantee "), whose tax- mailing address is 109 South High Street, Dublin, Ohio 43017, hereby Remises, Releases and Forever Quit Claims to the said Grantee, its successors and assigns forever, the following real property: Situated in the City of Dublin, Counties of Franklin and Delaware, and the State of Ohio: The real property described on Exhibit A attached hereto but excepting therefrom the real property described on Exhibit B attached hereto. Subject to covenants, conditions, reservations, restrictions, easements, rights -of -way, setback lines, taxes and easements of record, if any. Prior Instrument Number: Instrument No. 199801160011256, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, and Deed Book 636, Page 407, Recorder's Office, Delaware County, Ohio. EXECUTED BY, the said Grantor this Z day of May, 2002. �O4 )LI It )f i�i' Filed for Record in PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN ANY DEED OR OTHER INSTRUMENT DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF A DWELLING WHICH RESTRICT fl . H E U } SALE, RENTAL OR USE OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE OF Ft � � am ' Margret M. Waltt . 00 COLOflAflE1NVAUDUNDEflFEDEHAl1AWANDARr .LNEN'17fiCUw.... R bank iii„ Page Scr - ;;0q 2 Q Oc'(1 0 t 1232 Filed Tor Record in DELAWARE: COUNTY, OHIO KAY E. CONKLIN 05 -2 -2002 At 10;1 am. STATE OF OHIO ) DEED 28. o0 COUNTY OF FRANKLIN ) SS: OR book 20 Faye 5()t) - 504 ra Sworn to and subscribed in my presence by Margaret M. Walter this day of MaP m m r,, 20(12'. "l" m s s r s I rz 0 a ro uI _A /10 rn gym - Notary Public z 1nsCllrmentl'repar2N By:' B j3ohm.' P L`LARAT.MJSSELL,Notary Public 65 a'Ytt State Stre as East state; stree In and f the State of Ohio Suite 2100 DBI8ANCM* My Commission Expires Jan. 14,2007 Columbus, Ohio 43215 'r/ /��& rtMo`� "`777 M RC. Ddmre Caed h1ft6y r YGL0203 PAGE050 I EXHIBIT A 15.050 ACRES EAST OF DUBLIN -BELLE POINT ROAD (S.R. 745) SOUTH OF GLICK ROAD CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO Situated in the State of Ohio, Counties of Franklin and Delaware, City of Dublin being part of Virginia Military Survey No. 2545, being 15.050 acres out of that 43.965 acre tract (Tract 2), as described in a deed to Hoag Limited Partnership, of record in Official Records Volume 33470, page G -09 (Franklin County) and Deed Volume 613, page 433 (Delaware County), all references herein being to the records of the Recorder's Office of the respective County, and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning FOR REFERENCE at an iron pin found at the southwesterly corner of said 43.965 acre tract, in the line between Virginia Military Survey No. 2545 and Virginia Military Survey No. 2544 and in the centerline of Dublin - Bellepoint Road (State Route 745), 60 feet in width at this location; thence North 14° 55' 40" West, along said centerline, a distance of 29756 feet to the TRUE PLACE OF BEGINNING located 40.00 feet north of the centerline intersection of Memorial Drive. Thence continuing along said centerline, the westerly line of said 43.965 acre tract, the following courses-: North 14° 55' 40" West, a distance of 452.56 feet to an angle point at station 156 +08.80 witnessed by two monuments to the east at 27 feet; North 15° 07' 13" West, a distance of 272.42 feet to the northwesterly comer of said 43.965 acre tract, the southwesterly comer of Deer Run Estates, a subdivision of record in Plat Book 18, pages 34 and 35 (Delaware County, Ohio) Thence along the northerly line of said 43.965 acre tract, the southerly line of Deer Run Estates, the following courses: I. North 74° 52' 57" East, passing an iron pin found in the easterly right of way line of Dublin - Bellepoint Road at 61.84 Feet, a total distance of 395.30 feet to an iron pin found; 2. South 77° 1 V 57" East a distance of 123.73 feet to the center of Manhole No. 41 of a 36" sanitary trunk sewer; 3. North 75' 39' 34" East, a distance of 242.66 feet to the center of Manhole No. 40; 4. North 25° 10' 24" East, a distance of 363.23 feet to the center of Manhole No. 39; 5. North 72' 52' 48" East, a distance of 153.81 Feet to the center of Manhole No. 38; Thence through said 43.965 acre tract with a new division line the following courses: I. South 3° 24' 06" West, a distance of 570.65 feet to an iron pin set; 2. South 37° 43' 03" West, a distance 01 392.16 feet to an iron pin set; 3. With the arc urn non - tangent curve to the right, having a radius of 275.00 feet, a central APPROVED FOR Transfer Chris Bausetman Delaware County Engineer rOL0203 PAH0502 angle of 32' 35' 27 ", the chord of which bears South 6' 53' 58" East, a chord distance of 154.32 feet Loan iron pin set at the point of tangency; 4. South 9' 23' 45" West, a distance of 84,73 feet to an iron pin set; 5. South 33' 57' 40" East, a distance of 27.73 feet to an iron pin set; 6. With the are of a non - tangent curve to the left, having a radius of 765.00 feet, a central angle of 27' 24'56", the chord of which bears South 88' 46'48" West, a chord distance of 362.57 feet to an iron pin set at the point of tangency; 7 South 75' 04' 20" West, passing an iron pin set in the easterly right of way line of Dublin- Bellepoint Road at 175.52 feet, a total distance of 243,40 feet to the TRUE PLACE OF BEGINNING and containing 15.050 acres of land, 5.342 acres being in Franklin County and 9.708 acres being in Delaware County. Iron pins set consist of a I" (O.D.) iron pipe, 30" long with a plastic cap inscribed "M -E ENG /S -6872. The manhole centers reference herein are center of the structure, not the center of the manhold lid. t��n z,: He¢:. .. r.r Z.. ,a ,: A/;.rn fY 1 PI`7c ' N:r_ r, p,- eav7 6 r 7 b 3:.rter- Nt - oa' Y71 0 - to'7 -G 5. 3w2 Ac. SPI.,Z - rY 2.?3- to54- 10203 PAGE0503 EXHIBIT B DESCRIPTION FOR A 1.164 ACRE TRACT SITUATED IN THE STATE OF OHIO, COUNTY OF FRANKLIN AND DELAWARE, CITY OF DUBLIN, BEING PART OF VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NO. 2545 AND ALSO BEING A PART OF A 15.05 ACRE TRACT CONVEYED TO MARGARET M. WALTER AS SHOWN OF RECORD IN INST. NO. 199801160011256 (FRANKLIN COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO) AND DEED BOOK 636 PAGE 407 (DELAWARE COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO) AND BEING MORE PAR'TICULARY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING FOR REFERENCE AT A RAILROAD SPIKE FOUND IN THE CENTERLINE OF DUBLIN - BELLEPOINT ROAD (STATE ROUTE 745) AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OFA 29.79 ACRE TRACT CONVEYED TO THE TOLL LAND XXVI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AS SHOWN OF RECORD IN INST. NO. 199811060286235 FRANKLIN COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO THENCE N 17 °08'54" W, A DISTANCE OF 297.64 FEET ALONG SAID CENTERLINE AND WESTERLY LINE OF SAID 29.79 ACRE TRACT TO A SMALL RAILROAD SPIKE SET AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID 29.79 ACRE TRACT ALSO BEING THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID 15.05 ACRE. TRACT AND THE TRUE. PLACE OF BEGINNING FOR THIS PARTICULAR DESCRIPTION; THENCE N 17 °08'54" W, A DISTANCE OF 452.31 FEET CONTINUING ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID ROAD. THE EASTERLY LINE OF MUIRFIELD VILLAGE PHASE 13 AS SHOWN OF RECORD IN PLAT BOOK 55, PAGE 65, FRANKLIN COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO AND THE WEST'E'RLY LINE OF SAID 15.05 ACRE TRACT TO A P.K. NAIL FOUND AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID MUIRFIELD VILLAGE PHASE 13, ALSO BEING THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF T'HE RESERVE PHASE I AS SHOWN OF RECORD IN PLAT BOOK 68, PAGE 59, FRANKLIN COUN "FY RECORDER'S OFFICE, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO; THENCE N 17 °18'59" W, A DISTANCE OF 272.64 FEET CONTINUING ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID ROAD, THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID 15.05 ACRE TRACT, AND THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID THE RESERVE PHASE I SUBDIVISION, PASSING A RAILROAD SPIKE FOUND IN THE FRANKLIN /DELAWARE COUNTY LINE AT 20.04 FEET, TO A SMALL RAILROAD SPIKE SET AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID 15.05 ACRE TRACT ALSO BEING THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF DEER RUN ESTATES AS SHOWN OF RECORD IN PLAT BOOK 18 PAGE 34, DELAWARE COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO; THENCE N 72 °41'01" E, A DISTANCE OF 61.80 FEET LEAVING THE CENTERLINE OF SAID ROAD ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID 15.05 ACRE TRACT AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID DEER RUN ESTATES TO A CAPPED IRON PIN FOUND STAMPED BIRD AND BULL AT THE EXISTING EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID ROAD: THENCE S 17 °02'51 "E, A DISTANCE OF 481.22 FEE'S' THROUGH SAID 15.05 ACRE TRACT AND CONTINUING ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID ROAD TO AN IRON PIN SET; THENCE S 52 °41' 10" E, A DISTANCE OF 86.02 FEET THROUGH SAID 15.05 ACRE TRACT AND CONTINUING ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID ROAD TO A CAPPED IRON PIN SET; THENCE S 03 ° 3 P I7" E. A DIS IANCE OF 178.96 FEET THROUGH SAID 15.05 ACRE TRACT AND CONTINUING ALONG THE EAS - I FRLY RIGHTOF WAY LINE OF SAID ROAD TO A CAPPED IRON PIN FOUND IN THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID 15.05 ACRE TRACT AND THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID 29.79 ACRE TRACT; THENCE S 72. 51'49" W, A DISTANCE OF 67.99 FEET LEAVING SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID 15.05 ACRE TRACT AND THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID 29.79 ACRE TRACT TO THE TRUE PLACE OF BEGINNING CONTAINING A TOTAL OF 1.164 ACRES MORE OR LESS, 0,792 ACRES (FRANKLIN COUNTY) AND 0.372 ACRES (DELAWARE COUNTY) AND BEING SUBJECT TO ALL LEGAL HIGHWAYS, EASEMENTS, LEASES AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD AND OF RECORDS IN THE RESPECTIVE UTILITY OFFICES. IRON PINS SET ARE 5/9" DIAMETER REINFORCING BARS 30 INCHES LONG WITH A YELLOW CAP STAMPED P.S..7863, BEARINGS FOR THIS DESCRIPTION IS THE CENTERLINE OF DUBLIN - BELLEPOINT ROAD (STATE ROUTE 745) BEING N 17 "08'54" W, AS SHOWN IN SHEET 4 OF 5 OF THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF "TRANSPORTATION RIGHT - OF - WAY PLANS FOR FRA. - 745 -2.84 / DEL. - 745 - (0.18)(1.98 ). VOL0203 PAHE0504 z THIS DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY JOHN 1. RAAB OHIO REGISTERED SURVEYOR NO. 7863 FROM IN ACTUAL FIELD SURVEY CONDUCTED IN JANUARY, 2001 ALONG WITH THE WRITTEN RECORD BY USING EXISTING STATE HIGHWAY PLANS, FRANKLIN COUNTY AND DELAWARE COUNTY COURTHOUSE RECORDS AND IS A BOUNDARY SURVEY IN ACCORDANCE TO THE MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR BOUNDARY SURVEYS IN THE STATE OFOHIO. A DRAWING OF THIS DESCRIPTION IS ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE PART THEREOF. U D �O a OHN 1. A8 P 7863 DATE m� ° "' ° '� ".. 3 JOHN J. _? RAAB s 7883 ° �troo� " Daacrfpnon " wnoaa Dean P,'•, -,le. P.E.. M.S. Frzr.kAn o untv ;' -0494 FH2604 LIMITED WARRANTY DEED c,. v f e; DUFFY COMMUNITIES, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company ( "Grantor ,, ), for valuable consideration paid, grants with limited warranty covenants to WASATCH PARTNERS, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company ( "Grantee "), whose tax mailing address is 109 South High Street, Dublin, Ohio 43017, the approximately 15.349 acre tract of real property situated in the State of Ohio, Counties of Delaware and Franklin, City of Dublin, and being described in the attached Exhibit A, which is hereby incorporated herein by reference (the "Property'). This conveyance is subject to the lien of real estate taxes and assessments not yet due and payable, zoning and building laws, legal highways, and those easements, conditions and restrictions of record set forth on the attached Exhibit B, which is hereby incorporated herein by reference. Tax district and parcel numbers: County, County, Ohio. Prior instrument references Records Signed this -/ W day of April, 2004. DUFFY COMMUNITIES, LLC Provlalom contained In any deed or other Instrument for the conveyance of a dwelling e; , .. - ,t sct the sate. rental or use of Nte property M c..:.::.: 7i race or color are invalid under federal law and are unentorce- able. STATE OF OHIO COUNTY OF FRANKLIN Parcel No. 10-6 0043307017002 as to Delaware Ohio, and Parcel No. 273 - 001054 as to Franklin Instrument No. 19991 1190289567 of the Official of the Recorder's Office of Franklin County, Ohio, and Volume 12, page 415 of the Official Records of the Recorder's Office of Delaware County, Ohio. Title: rd in Y, OHIO u4 -2004 At 43:32 pa. DEED 44.00 OR Hook 494 Page 2604 — 2607 200400019123 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me T / Apri l, 2004 bye,,, o,/, rtw day of of Duffy , the S ,,. f, r , Communities, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, on b half of the limited liability company. _,. Delaware County The Grantor Has Complied With Section 319.202 Of The R.C. �a E Transfer Tax Paic% RANSFERRED OR fRAid9fi Delaware County Auditor ,+ SUSAN WILGUS Notary PuDflc, State 01 1" U „- >. -1y rommissm E )pires 06- 25.OF. Notary Public 'x`'10494 F,0EE26O5 EXAIBIT A SITUATED IN THE STATE OF OHIO, COUNTIES OF FRANKLIN AND DELAWARE, CITY OF DUBLIN, BEING PART OF VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NO. 2545 AND 2544, BEING 15.349 ACRES OUT OF THAT ORIGINAL 43.965 ACRE TRACT (TRACT 2), AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO HOAG LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, OF RECORD IN OFFICIAL RECORDS VOLUME 33470, PAGE G90 (FRANKLIN COUNTY) AND DEED VOLUME 613, PAGE 433 (DELAWARE COUNTY), ALL REFERENCES HEREIN BEING TO THE RECORDS OF THE RECORDER'S OFFICE OF THE RESPECTIVE COUNTY, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING FOR REFERENCE AT AN IRON PIN FOUND AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID 43.965 ACRE TRACT, IN THE LINE BETWEEN VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NO. 2545 AND VIRGINIA MILITARY SURVEY NO. 2544 AND IN THE CENTERLINE OF DUBLIN - BELLEPOINT ROAD (STATE ROUTE 745),60 FEET IN WIDTH AT THIS LOCATION; THENCE NORTH 14 DEG 55' 40" WEST, ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, A DISTANCE OF 297.56 FEET TO A POINT AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF A 15.050 ACRE TRACT, AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO MARGARET M. WALTER, OF RECORD IN INSTRUMENT NUMBER 1 99801160011256; THENCE NORTH 75 DEG 04' 20" EAST, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID 15.050 ACRE TRACT, A DISTANCE OF 243.40 FEET IN A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE WITH THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 765.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 27 DEG 24' 56 ", A CHORD WHICH BEARS NORTH 88 DEG 46' 48" EAST, A CHORD DISTANCE OF 362.57 FEET TO AN IRON PIN SET AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID 15.050 ACRE TRACT AND THE TRUE PLACE OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY PERIMETER OF SAID 15.050 ACRE TRACT, THE FOLLOWING COURSES: 1. NORTH 33 DEG 57'40" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 27.73 FEET TO AN IRON PIN SET; 2. NORTH 9 DEG 23'45" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 84.73 FEET TO AN IRON PIN SET AT A POINT OF CURVATURE; 3. WITH THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 275.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 32 DEG 35' 27 ", A CHORD WHICH BEARS NORTH 6 DEG 53' 58" WEST, A CHORD DISTANCE OF 154.32 FEET TO AN IRON PIN SET; 4. NORTH 37 DEG 43'03" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 392.16 FEET TO AN IRON PIN SET; 5. NORTH 3 DEG 24' 06" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 570.65 FEET TO THE CENTER OF MANHOLE NC. 38 IN THE SOUTHERLY PERIMETER OF "DEER RUN ESTATES ", A SUBDIVISION OF RECORD IN PLAT BOOK 18, PAGES 34 AND 35 (DELAWARE COUNTY); THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY PERIMETER THE FOLLOWING COURSES: I. SOUTH 54 DEG 38'12" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 187.35 FEET TO AN IRON PIN FOUND; M ;IO�s94 PAUE 2606 2. SOUTH 64 DEG 40'57" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 113.19 FEE TO AN IRON PIN FOUND; 3. SOUTH 79 DEG 35'49" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 95.72 FEET TO AN IRON PIN SET AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF A 12.000 ACRE TRACT, AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO, OF RECORD IN INSTRUMENT NUMBER 199710100117335; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY PERIMETER OF SAID 12.000 ACRE TRACT THE FOLLOWING COURSES: L SOUTH 22 DEG 13'54" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 715.95 FEET TO AN IRON PIN SET; 2. SOUTH 2 DEG 19'20" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 142.08 FEET TO AN IRON PIN SET; 3. SOUTH 61 DEG 23'04" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 367.24 FEET TO AN IRON PIN SET; 4. SOUTH 14 DEG 32'20" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 121.90 FEET TO AN IRON PIN SET; THENCE NORTH 75 DEG 27'40" WEST, THROUGH SAID 43.965 ACRE TRACT, A DISTANCE OF 504.49 FEET TO AN IRON PIN SET AT A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE CONTINUING THROUGH SAID 43.965 ACRE TRACT WITH THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 765.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2 DEG 03' 04 ", A CHORD WHICH BEARS NORTH 76 DEG 29' 11" WEST, A CHORD DISTANCE OF 27.39 FEET TO THE TRUE PLACE OF BEGINNING AND CONTAINING 15.349 ACRES OF LAND, 5.396 ACRES BEING IN FRANKLIN COUNTY AND 9.953 ACRES BEING IN DELAWARE COUNTY. IRON PIN SET CONSISTS OF A 1" (O.D.) IRON PIPE 30" LONG WITH A PLASTIC CAP INSCRIBED "M -E ENG /S- 6872 ". BEARINGS HEREIN ARE BASED ON NORTH 14 DEG 55'40" WEST, FOR THE CENTERLINE OF DUBLIN - BELLEPOINT ROAD SOUTH OF STATION 156 +08.80. THE MANHOLE CENTER REFERENCED HEREIN IS THE CENTER OF THE STRUCTURE, NOT THE CENTER OF THE MANHOLE LID. THIS DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY M -E COMPANIES, INC., CIVIL ENGINEERING GROUP BASED ON A SURVEY OF THE PREMISES. 490386 vi 0494 PA E2607 EXMBIT B Easement of Record in Deed Book 428, Page 35, Recorder's Office, Delaware County, Ohio. 2. Easement of Record in Deed Book 3009, Page 335, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio. 3. Easement of Record in Deed Book 3673, Page 795, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio. 4. Easement of Record in Deed Book 3688, Page 794, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio. 5. Easement of Record in Deed Book 3720, Page 548, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio. 6. Real estate taxes and assessments for the second half of 1999 and subsequent years thereafter. March 24, 2010 0.600 Acres Part of Parcel 10-60043307017001 Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Delaware, City of Dublin, being part of Virginia Military Survey Number 2545 and part of the 12.000 Acres conveyed to the City of Dublin, Ohio in Deed Volume 630, Page 341, Recorder's Office, Delaware County, Ohio (all references made are of said Recorder's Office, unless otherwise noted), said 12.000 Acres also being recorded in Instrument 199710100117335, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio; Beginning at a railroad spike found at the southeast corner of Lot 11 of Deer Run Estates, as the same is numbered and delineated upon the record plat of record in Plat Book 18, Page 34, at the southwest corner of Reserve "A" of said Subdivision and in a northerly line of said 12.000 Acre tract; Thence, across said 12.000 Acre tract, the following two (2) courses: 1. South 24' 23' 40" East, 195.00 feet to an iron pipe set; 2. South 60' 20' 24" West, 130.74 feet to a point in a westerly line of said 12.000 Acre tract and in an easterly line of the Wasatch 15.349 Acre tract as conveyed in Official Record 494, Page 2604 (Delaware County) and in Instrument 200404230091671 (Franklin County); Thence, along a westerly line of said 12.000 Acre tract and an easterly line of said 15.349 Acre tract, North 24' 23' 40" West, 223.00 feet to a 1 inch hollow iron pipe found with an orange cap inscribed "M -E ENG S- 6872" (passing an iron pipe set for a reference at 10.00 feet) at the northwest corner of said 12.000 Acre tract, the northeast corner of said 15.349 Acre tract and in a southerly line of said Lot 11; Thence, along a northerly line of said 12.000 Acre tract and a southerly line of said Lot 11 the following three (3) courses: (Continued) Page 2 0.600 Acres Part of Parcel 10-60043307017001 1. South 81' 46' 09" East, 38.25 feet to a 1 inch hollow iron pipe found; 2. North 62' 55' 16" East, 82.88 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar found; 3. North 62' 49' 02" East, 15.20 feet to the place of beginning CONTAINING 0.600 ACRES, subject however to all legal highways, leases, agreements, easements, restrictions of record and of records in the respective utility offices. Iron pipes set are 30" x 1" O.D. with orange plastic caps inscribed P.S. 6579, unless otherwise noted. The foregoing description was prepared from actual field measurements in accordance with Chapter 4733 -37 Ohio Administrative Code in March 2010. Basis of bearings is the Ohio State Plane Coordinates (North Zone) based on the easterly line of said 15.349 Acre tract held as South 24' 23' 40" East. Myers Surveying Co., Inc. Albert J. Myers, P.S. 6579 (112042009) March 24, 2010 0.600 Acres Part of Parcel 10-60043307017000 And Parcel 273 - 001054 Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Delaware and Franklin, City of Dublin, being part of Virginia Military Survey Number 2545 and part of the 15.349 Acres conveyed to the Wasatch Partners, LLC in Official Record 494, Page 2604, Recorder's Office, Delaware County, Ohio and in Instrument 200404230091671, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio; Commencing at a railroad spike found at the southeast corner of Lot 11 of Deer Run Estates, as the same is numbered and delineated upon the record plat of record in Plat Book 18, Page 34, at the southwest corner of Reserve "A" of said Subdivision and in a northerly line of the City of Dublin, Ohio 12.000 Acre tract as conveyed in Deed Volume 630, Page 341 (Delaware County) and in Instrument 199710100117335 (Franklin County); Thence, across said 12.000 Acre tract, the following two (2) courses: 1. South 24' 23' 40" East, 195.00 feet to an iron pipe set; 2. South 60' 20' 24" West, 130.74 feet to a point in a westerly line of said 12.000 Acre tract and in an easterly line of said 15.349 Acre tract; Thence, along an easterly line of said 15.349 Acre tract and a westerly line of said 12.000 Acre tract, South 24' 23' 40" East, 92.78 feet to an iron pipe set at the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of the herein described tract; Thence, continuing along an easterly line of said 15.349 Acre tract and a westerly line of said 12.000 Acre tract the following two (2) courses: (Continued) Page 2 0.600 Acres Part of Parcel 10-60043307017000 And Parcel 273 - 001054 South 24' 23' 40" East, 400.00 feet to 1 inch hollow iron pipe found with an orange cap inscribed "M -E ENG S- 6872'; 2. South 00' 09' 34" West, 142.08 feet to 1 inch hollow iron pipe found with an orange cap inscribed "M -E ENG S- 6872'; Thence, along a southerly line of said 15.349 Acre tract and a northerly line of said 12.000 Acre tract, South 59' 14' 19" West, 55.12 feet to an iron pipe set and for a reference, (continuing to the northeast corner of Memorial Drive 100 feet wide, as recorded in Plat Book 96, Page 31, Franklin County) continuing along said line, South 59' 14' 19" West, 312.48 feet; thence, along an easterly line of said 15.349 Acre tract and a westerly line of said 12.000 Acre tract, South 12' 23' 24" West, 121.98 feet to the northeast corner of said Memorial Drive; Thence, across said 15.349 Acre tract, North 12' 23' 27" West, 547.31 feet to the point of beginning CONTAINING 0.600 ACRES (0.523 Acres out of Parcel 10- 60043307017000 and 0.077 Acres out of Parcel 273- 001054), subject however to all legal highways, leases, agreements, easements, restrictions of record and of records in the respective utility offices. Iron pipes set are 30" x 1" O.D. with orange plastic caps inscribed P.S. 6579, unless otherwise noted. The foregoing description was prepared from actual field measurements in accordance with Chapter 4733 -37 Ohio Administrative Code in March 2010. Basis of bearings is the Ohio State Plane Coordinates (North Zone) based on the easterly line of said 15.349 Acre tract held as South 24' 23' 40" East. Myers Surveying Co., Inc. Albert J. Myers, P.S. 6579 (112042009) Myers Surveying Company, Inc. 2740 East Main Street, Columbus 43209 (Bexley), Ohio 614 - 235 -8677 FAX:614- 235 -4559 A Boundary Survey prepared for and certified to: Wasatch Partners, LLC and/or City of Dublin, Ohio Legal Description: Situated in The State of Ohio, County of Delaware, City of Dublin Being Part of Virginia Military Survey #2545 Posted Address: Dublin- Bellepoint Road (745), Dublin, Ohio DEER R 'UN ESTATES 1N P. B. 1 B, P. 314 ,ca *' -' L o r 1 1 1 holow I .P. fd. / orange "M —E ENG 72" 8- 68 E R 5 R / 150' 75' 0' 150' Scale 1" =150' Date: 03/24/2010 5/8" rek r fd R.R. Spk, ftl. P.O.B. 0 000 (out of " I.P.fd 'p 0 P.O.C. 0. O ' 6'� 0 . N d , (out of n 4c, s "N w/ cap Q I.P. set Q 3 1 Q I.P. set I.P. set P.O.B. 0.600 Acres (out of Wasatch tract) Parcel 10- 60043307017000 O.R. 494, P. 2604 Wasatch Partners, LLC — 15.349 Acres M Parcel 10- 60043307017001 D.V. 630, P. 341 k.� / NN k.� 5 City of Dublin, Ohio 12.000 Acres 1 s 0.523 Acres in De %ware County N s., U . holow I.P. ftl. w/ cap Q E E S-68 ENG 5 -6812" Q 3 1 Q D ELA W ARE C O. FRANKLIN CO. 0.077 Acres in Franklin County M NIIIII 1 Eolbw .P, id. I.P. set w/ oran a cap Parcel 273- 001054 Instrument 200404230091671 M E E MORIA� N (P. $y �— en =p 00 �9 ^, S -68 ENG / S 69 �` 1Y 5 -6812" h0 5 Y Parce ?9 — 009382 Instr nt 199710100117335 We hereby certify that the foregoing Boundary Survey was prepared from actual field measurements in accordance with Chapter 4733 -37 Ohio Administrative Code. Iron pipes set are 30 "xl" O.D. with an orange plastic plug inscribed T.S. 6579 ", unless otherwise noted. Basis of bearings is the Ohio State Plane Coordinates (North Zone) based on the easterly line of said 15.349 Acre tract held as South 24° 23'40" East. Acres Ifn tract) Acres atch tract) O U N Myers Surveying Co., Inc. By Professional Surveyor Myers Order No. - 1- 12/04/2009 IitLlllkiill „1Llkti „II,iL111,,,,IkJiiilll 200912041 January 12,2004 Ingress — Egress Easement across Wasatch Partner's LLC. Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Delaware, City of Dublin, in Virginia Military Survey 2545, being a part of the parcel conveyed to Wasatch Partner's LLC, in Official Record Volume 203, Page 500, all records being of the Recorder's Office, Delaware County, Ohio, being a 50 foot wide easement for ingress — egress the centerline being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a point in the east line of a 2.301 Acre tract conveyed to the State of Ohio for highway purposes in Deed Book 427, Page 11, at the southwest corner of Lot 7 of Deer Run Estates as recorded in Plat Book 18, Page 34 and being in the north line of said Wasatch Partner's LLC parcel; Thence, along the east line of said 2.031 Acre tract, South 16 degrees 42 minutes 26 seconds East, 205.55 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the easement herein intended to be described; Thence, across said Wasatch Partner's LLC parcel, the following eight courses: 1. North 73 degrees 00 minutes 08 seconds East, 78.96 feet to a point; 2. North 54 degrees 46 minutes 51 seconds East, 66.43 feet to a point; 3. North 43 degrees 25 minutes 48 seconds East, 44.48 feet to a point; 4. North 35 degrees 03 minutes 05 seconds East, 50.15 feet to a point; 5. North 21 degrees 10 minutes 25 seconds East, 46.94 feet to a point; 6. North 08 degrees 57 minutes 28 seconds East, 47.98 feet to a point; 7. North 21 degrees 46 minutes 30 seconds West, 44.84 feet to a point; 8. North 53 degrees 49 minutes 36 seconds West, 9.07 feet to the north line of said Wasatch Partner's LLC tract and the south line of said Lot 7 and the point of termination of the centerline of the easement herein intended to be described, said termination point being North 73 degrees 00 minutes 08 seconds, 260.09 feet from the southwest corner of said Lot 7. Myers Surveying Company, Inc. 26100903 January 12,2004 Ingress — Egress Easement across Deer Run Estates Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Delaware, City of Dublin, in Virginia Military Survey 2545, being a part of Deer Run Estates as recorded in Plat Book 18, Page 34, all records being of the Recorder's Office, Delaware County, Ohio, being a 50 foot wide easement for ingress — egress, the centerline being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a point in the east line of a 2.301 Acre tract conveyed to the State of Ohio for highway purposes in Deed Book 427, Page 11, at the southwest corner of Lot 7 of said Deer Run Estates and in the north line of a tract conveyed to Wasatch Partner's LLC in Official Record Volume 203, Page 500; Thence, along the south line of said Lot 7 and the north line of said Wasatch Partner's tract, North 73 degrees 00 minutes 08 seconds East, 260.09 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the centerline of the easement herein intended to be described; Thence, across part of said Deer Run Estates the following ten courses: 1. North 53 degrees 49 minutes 36 seconds West, 39.12 feet to a point; 2. North 68 degrees 18 minutes 32 seconds West, 22.79 feet to a point; 3. North 73 degrees 00 minutes 23 seconds West, 34.60 feet to a point; 4. North 78 degrees 15 minutes 40 seconds West, 43.85 feet to a point; 5. North 73 degrees 15 minutes 47 seconds West, 36.36 feet to a point; 6. North 62 degrees 23 minutes 00 seconds West, 31.05 feet to a point; 7. North 47 degrees 27 minutes 48 seconds West, 26.03 feet to a point; 8. North 13 degrees 16 minutes 28 seconds West, 45.04 feet to a point; 9. North 10 degrees 20 minutes 47 seconds East, 31.33 feet to a point; 10. North 32 degrees 58 minutes 22 seconds East, 35.40 feet to the point of termination of said centerline. Myers Surveying Company, Inc. 26100403 DEER RUN - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 28, 2011 Development Text Introduction: Deer Run is a +/- 51.7 acre Planned Unit Development in the City of Dublin. The site is situated just west of the Scioto River, and straddles the boundary line between Franklin and Delaware Counties. The site is bound by Kerry Glen Subdivision to the North, the Scioto River and City of Dublin owned property to the East, Memorial Drive and Amberleigh Subdivision to the South, and Dublin Road to the west. The site is unique in that it is heavily wooded, and contains a variety of topography, including a large ravine that bisects the site. This PUD seeks to provide a variety of residential choices that will embrace the existing character, and preserve as much of the natural features as possible through the use of large lots, and smaller, clustered lots. Deer Run February 21, 2011 1 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 28, 2011 General Development Standards 1) Applicability: The development will consist of three subareas (Subareas A -C), each of which is subject to the applicable standards set forth in the text. Except where defined in this text, the development shall meet the standards in the City of Dublin Code. 11) Residential Lot Types: Subarea A is the northern -most portion of the site, north of the large ravine, and is made up of Estate Lots. Subarea B is the central portion of the site, south of the large ravine, and is also made up of Estate Lots. Subarea C is the southern -most portion of the site and is made up of Cluster Lots. III) Residential Architectural Standards: A) All dwelling units shall comply with the design guidelines of the development standards in this text, except for any existing buildings or site improvements that will remain. Redevelopment or alterations to those existing elements shall be in compliance with the design guidelines of the development standards in this text. Unless otherwise specified in the submitted drawings or in this written text, the development standards of Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin Code shall apply to this subarea. B) All structures shall meet the City of Dublin Zoning Code Residential Appearance Standards, unless otherwise set forth in this text. IV) Setbacks: Setbacks from the perimeter of the PUD site shall be as follows: A) Minimum building and pavement setback from Dublin Road right -of -way shall be one hundred (100) feet. The private access and utility easement shall be permitted to encroach on this setback as shown on the plans. B) Minimum building and pavement setback from Memorial Drive right -of -way shall be one hundred (100) feet. C) The minimum building and pavement setback from all other PUD perimeter property lines shall be twenty five (25) feet. Access and utility easements shall be permitted to encroach on these setbacks, as shown on the plans. Deer Run February 21, 2011 2 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 28, 2011 D) The existing private drive from Dublin Road, as well as its proposed extension along the northern property line, shall be permitted to encroach on these setbacks, as shown on the plans. V) Graphics and Signs: A) At the time of the submission of its initial Final Development Plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission for any residential development, the developer shall present the Planning Commission with a graphics and signage plan for its review. This plan, and any future amendments thereto, shall serve as the uniform graphics and signage plan for the entire PUD both for the initial phase of residential development on the site and any phase of residential development occurring thereafter. Once the graphics and signage plan is approved as a part of the initial final development plan, its terms shall apply to all residential graphics and signage within the PUD. B) In the event that the graphics and signage plan is silent on any matter addressed by the City of Dublin Sign Code then the terms of those Code sections shall apply. VI) Landscaping Vision: Landscaping shall maintain a natural appearance along Dublin Road and Memorial Drive, in common open spaces, along the private streets in subareas A and B, and throughout undeveloped areas of the site. Subarea C may appear more formalized to complement the intended "European village" style of the architecture. More formalized landscaping may be designed to complement the individual homes in all subareas. Landscaping should be designed to complement appearance and plant material existing in the adjoining woods and natural areas. A significant effort shall be made to preserve the natural features, including existing trees and topography, particularly in Subarea B. VII) Expiration of Zoning Approval: A) This PUD requests an exemption from the Dublin Zoning Code which requires the submission of a final development plan within three years of approval of this preliminary development plan and the Planned Development District designation. This preliminary development plan shall remain in effect until such time that a Final Development Plan is approved. VIII) Home Owners' Associations Deer Run February 21, 2011 3 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 28, 2011 A) Two separate forced and funded homeowners' associations shall be established: one for Subareas A and B, and one for Subarea C. B) The associations shall own and maintain all common facilities, including but not limited to open spaces, private streets, private utilities, and access gates and signs, common area landscaping and fencing. IX) Public Improvements A) A five (5) foot wide concrete sidewalk will be installed per city standards within the right -of -way along the north side of Memorial Drive. The sidewalk, as shown on the plan, will tie into the existing bike path to the west. B) The applicant will be responsible for any roadway improvements identified within the finalized Traffic Impact Study, subject to approval by the City Engineer. X) Perimeter Fencing A) The existing black, 4 -rail, wood fence along Dublin Road and Memorial Drive shall be permitted to remain and be maintained in its existing location. B) The length of black, 4 -rail, wood fencing that extends from the east boundary of the property along Memorial Drive and onto the City of Dublin property shall be removed from the City of Dublin property and relocated by the applicant at time of construction of either this development or the city park, whichever comes first. C) A survey for the final development plan shall verify any additional off -site encroachments and their correction shall be made as part of the final development plan. Deer Run February 21, 2011 4 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 28, 2011 Subarea A: Estate Lots 1) Description: A) Subarea A shall be located on the northernmost portion of the site adjacent to Dublin Road to the east, Kerry Glen Subdivision to the north, the Scioto River to the east, and Subarea B separated by the ravine to the south. This subarea shall be approximately 18.5 acres and shall contain "Estate Lots" as described below. The subarea includes two existing single - family homes that shall be permitted to remain. 11) Permitted Uses: A) Permitted uses shall include single - family detached homes, and the current use of the existing building on proposed Lot #2 as a guest lodge / clubhouse. B) Accessory Uses shall be as permitted by City of Dublin Code. III) Density, Height, Lot and /or Setback Commitments: A) The maximum number of dwelling units shall be four (4). The maximum density shall be 0.22 du /ac. B) Minimum Lot size shall be 2 acres. C) Setbacks (1) The minimum front yard setback shall be twenty -five (25) feet from the private street easement line. (2) The minimum side yard setback shall be twenty -five (25) feet from each side property line. (3) The minimum rear -yard setback shall be 30 feet from the property line, or the 100 -year flood line, whichever is greater... D) Encroachments into applicable setbacks shall be in accordance with the City of Dublin Code, or as outlined within this text. E) Maximum building height shall be thirty -five (35) feet. Height shall be measured from the finish grade at the front or main fagade of the house to the height of the dominant roof mass. Architectural features that exceed this height must be Deer Run February 21, 2011 5 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 28, 2011 compatible with the style and massing of the overall architecture of the building and shall be approved by staff. F) There shall be only one principal use permitted on each lot, and such lot shall not be covered more than 30% by structures. G) Homes shall be permitted to have walk -out basements so as to minimize the need for extensive site grading. IV) Access, Loading, Parking and /or other Traffic - Related Commitments: A) Access (1) Access to Subarea A shall be from Dublin Road at the existing curb -cut and shall provide shared access to Subarea B. The common access easement of approximately 0.7 acres within Subarea B shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. B) Private Streets (1) All dwelling units in this subarea shall have access from a private street. (2) The existing private street width and decorative gravel surface contribute to the natural and rural character of this site. It is the intent of this plan to maintain that character by matching the existing private street as much as possible. (3) All streets constructed as a part of this subarea shall be privately owned and maintained and shall be combined access and utility easements. (4) All private street easements shall have a minimum width of fifty (50) feet. All existing private streets and driveways shall be permitted to remain. (5) The future extension of the private street shall be a minimum width of twelve (12) feet. The street shall provide a widened "bump -out' at new hydrant locations to provide a minimum width of twenty -six (26) feet. The extension of the street and any utilities shall be adjusted within the easement so as to minimize removal of trees. (6) Curbs and gutters shall not be required. (7) All private streets shall be designed per the City of Dublin engineering standards, except as noted above and so as to accommodate access by emergency vehicles. Deer Run February 21, 2011 6 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 28, 2011 (8) Pavement surface may be asphalt top- dressed with decorative gravel to match the appearance of the existing private street. C) Existing Bridge (1) The existing bridge shall be evaluated at final development plan to verify that vehicle load limits are suitable for emergency access. Should improvements be required based on the results of the study, such improvements shall be required to be completed prior to the submission of a building permit for Subarea A. (2) Signage identifying load limits shall be posted at both entrances to the bridge. D) Sidewalks, bike paths, or leisure trails shall not be required. E) Estate Lot driveways (1) Materials shall be asphalt top- dressed with decorative gravel to match the appearance of the existing private street or the driveway materials permitted per City of Dublin Code. (2) Multiple curb -cuts may be permitted from the private street where appropriate and approved by the City. Multiple curb -cuts shall be based on safety, design aesthetics, and lot entry. (3) The existing driveways of the existing homes shall be permitted to remain. (4) This subarea shall otherwise be exempt for residential driveway code. V) Architectural Standards: A) Design Review: All homes within this subarea are envisioned to be custom homes and shall be held to a high quality of design and construction. No improvements, change, construction, addition, excavation, landscaping, tree removal, or other work or action that in any way alters the exterior appearance of the lots or common open space shall be commenced or continued without review and written approval from the Design Committee. The committee shall be appointed by the Trustees of the Association, and shall consist of at least three members. Design review procedure shall be outlined within the deed restrictions of the lots. B) Architectural Diversity: In order to ensure that there is architectural diversity, homes located on adjacent lots within Subarea A shall be required to utilize either Deer Run February 21, 2011 7 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 28, 2011 (1) different floor plans or (2) different architectural styles. In the event that homes with the same architectural style are built on adjacent lots, then, in addition to being required to incorporate different floor plans, these homes also shall be required to use different exterior colors and materials. C) Exterior materials: (1) All buildings shall incorporate four -sided architecture. (2) Finish building materials shall be applied to all sides of the exteriors of all buildings. (3) Colors shall be harmonious and compatible with colors of the natural surroundings and other adjacent buildings, if any. The Design Committee shall have the sole right to approve or disapprove materials and colors, consistent with the approved development text and approved final development plan. (4) Cladding materials: The exteriors of structures in this subarea shall be constructed of brick, stone, manufactured stone, wood, stucco, cementitious siding, and other comparable materials, subject to approval by Planning (or any combination thereof). (5) Trim materials: Permitted exterior trim materials shall include wood, aluminum (for gutters and downspouts only), copper, EIFS fiber - cement products, or composite wood, products. Shutters shall be considered "trim" for purposes of this development text. (6) Roof materials: All homes shall have dimensional asphalt shingles, wood, slate, tile, metal, or copper. VI) Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space and /or Screening Commitments A) All residential landscaping shall meet the landscape requirements of the City of Dublin Zoning Code. B) Open Space: Subarea A shall contain approximately 1.2 acres of common open space, located along Dublin Road. Common Open Space shall be maintained by a forced and funded homeowners association. C) All existing trees in fair or good condition shall be preserved within the common open space, to the extent possible. Any area not occupied by trees shall be maintained as lawn, planting area for screening purposes, or as natural vegetation. Deer Run February 21, 2011 8 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 28, 2011 D) Tree Preservation: (1) It is the intent of the developer to preserve as many trees as possible in this subarea due to the heavily wooded nature of the site. (2) A tree survey will be provided at the final development plan identifying the locations of City of Dublin designated "landmark trees" and any tree within the proposed development footprint of any site improvement. A good -faith effort shall be made to limit any tree removal to only those areas within the development footprint, to be identified on the final development plan. (3) The site shall meet the requirements of the City of Dublin's tree preservation and replacement ordinance, unless a waiver is approved by City Council. (4) All trees to be preserved shall be protected by tree preservation fencing in accordance with the City of Dublin's tree preservation fence details and guidelines. E) Street Trees shall not be required along any private streets. Any landscaping along the private street should maintain a natural appearance. F) Existing vegetation along the north property line shall be preserved as a landscape screen. VII) Gate and Entry Sign A) Gate (1) The access shall be permitted to have an entry security gate, allowing 24- hour emergency access, and shall be approved by Washington Township Fire Department. The existing gate shall be permitted to remain, so long as the Washington Fire Department requirements are met. (2) The gate shall have decorative masonry columns and wing -walls not more than six (6) feet in height. The gates shall be decorative in appearance and not more than six (6) feet in height. 3) Sign. (1) Entry feature signage shall be permitted at the private drive entrance along 97 o NOT- :1 (2) The entry sign(s) may be incorporated into the gate structure indicating the development name. (3) The sign shall not exceed 20 square feet in size Deer Run February 21, 2011 9 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 28, 2011 VIII) Model Homes A) Model homes shall not be permitted in this subarea. Deer Run February 21, 2011 10 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 28, 2011 Subarea B: Estate Lots 1) Description: Subarea B shall be located on the central portion of the site adjacent to Dublin Road to the east, Subarea A and the ravine to the north, the Scioto River to the east, and Subarea C to the south. This subarea shall be approximately 16.1 acres and shall contain "Estate Lots" as described below. 11) Permitted Uses: A) Permitted uses shall include single - family detached homes. B) Accessory Uses shall be as permitted by City of Dublin Code. III) Density, Height, Lot and /or Setback Commitments: A) The maximum number of dwelling units shall be five (5). The maximum density shall be 0.31 du /ac. B) Minimum Lot size shall be 2 acres. C) Setbacks (1) The minimum front yard setback shall be twenty -five (25) feet from the private street easement line. (2) The minimum side yard setback shall be twenty -five (25) feet from each side property line. (3) The minimum rear -yard setback shall be 30 feet from the property line, or the 100 -year flood line, whichever is greater.. D) Encroachments into applicable setbacks shall be in accordance with the City of Dublin Code, or as outlined within this text. E) Maximum building height shall be thirty -five (35) feet. Height shall be measured from the finish grade at the front or main fagade of the house to the height of the dominant roof mass. Architectural features that exceed this height must be compatible with the style and massing of the overall architecture of the building and shall be approved by staff. Deer Run February 21, 2011 11 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 28, 2011 F) There shall be only one principal use permitted on each lot, and such lot shall not be covered more than 30% by structures. G) Homes shall be permitted to have walk -out basements so as to minimize the need for extensive site grading. IV) Access, Loading, Parking and /or other Traffic - Related Commitments: A) Access (1) Access to Subarea B shall be from Dublin Road at the existing curb -cut and shall provide shared access to Subarea A. (a) Refer to Subarea A for shared access and gate provisions. B) Private Streets (1) All dwelling units in this subarea shall have access from a private street. (2) The existing private street width and decorative gravel surface contribute to the natural and rural character of this site. It is the intent of this plan to maintain that character by matching the existing private street as much a possible. (3) All streets constructed as a part of this subarea shall be privately owned and maintained and shall be combined access and utility easements. (4) All private street easements shall have a minimum width of fifty (50) feet. All existing private streets shall be permitted to remain. (5) The proposed private street shall be a minimum width of eighteen (18) feet. The street shall be widened at hydrant locations as shown on the plan to provide a minimum width of twenty -six (26) feet. The street and any utilities shall be adjusted within the easement so as to minimize removal of trees. (6) Curbs and gutters shall not be required. (7) All private streets shall be designed per the City of Dublin engineering standards, except as noted above, and so as to accommodate access by emergency vehicles. (8) Pavement surface may be asphalt top- dressed with decorative gravel to match the appearance of the existing private street. C) Sidewalks, bike paths, or leisure trails shall not be required. Deer Run February 21, 2011 12 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 28, 2011 D) Estate Lot driveways (1) Materials shall be asphalt top- dressed with decorative gravel to match the appearance of the existing private street or the driveway materials permitted per City of Dublin Code. (2) Multiple curb -cuts may be permitted from the private street where appropriate and approved by the City. Multiple curb -cuts shall be based on safety, design aesthetics, and lot entry. (3) This subarea shall otherwise be exempt for residential driveway code. V) Architectural Standards: A) Design Review: All homes within this subarea are envisioned to be custom homes and shall be held to a high quality of design and construction. No improvements, change, construction, addition, excavation, landscaping, tree removal, or other work or action that in any way alters the exterior appearance of the lots or common open space shall be commenced or continued without review and written approval from the Design Committee. The committee shall be appointed by the Trustees of the Association, and shall consist of at least three members. Design review procedure shall be outlined within the deed restrictions of the lots. 3) Architectural Diversity: In order to ensure that there is architectural diversity, homes located on adjacent lots within Subarea A shall be required to utilize either (1) different floor plans or (2) different architectural styles. In the event that homes with the same architectural style are built on adjacent lots, then, in addition to being required to incorporate different floor plans, these homes also shall be required to use different exterior colors and materials. C) Exterior materials: (1) All buildings shall incorporate four -sided architecture. (2) Finish building materials shall be applied to all sides of the exteriors of all buildings. (3) Colors shall be harmonious and compatible with colors of the natural surroundings and other adjacent buildings, if any. The Design Committee shall have the sole right to approve or disapprove materials and colors, consistent with the approved development text and approved final development plan.. Deer Run February 21, 2011 13 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 28, 2011 (4) Cladding materials: The exteriors of structures in this subarea shall be constructed of brick, stone, manufactured stone, wood, stucco, cementitious siding, and other comparable materials, subject to approval by Planning (or any combination thereof). (5) Trim materials: Permitted exterior trim materials shall include wood, aluminum (for gutters and downspouts only), copper, EIFS, fiber - cement products, or composite wood, products. Shutters shall be considered "trim" for purposes of this development text. (6) Roof materials: All homes shall have dimensional asphalt shingles, wood, slate, tile, metal, or copper. VI) Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space and /or Screening Commitments A) All residential landscaping shall meet the landscape requirements of the City of Dublin Zoning Code. B) Open Space: Subarea B shall contain approximately 1.9 acres of common open space, located along Dublin Road. Common Open Space shall be maintained by a forced and funded homeowners association. C) Each Estate Lot within Subarea B shall contain a portion of platted tree preservation area totaling 3.9 ac. This area shall be located south of the access easement that bisects the subarea. No structures or other site improvements may be built within this area. All existing trees and topography shall be preserved. D) All existing trees in fair or good condition shall be preserved within the common open space, to the extent possible. Any area not occupied by trees shall be maintained as lawn, planting area for screening purposes, or as natural vegetation. E) Tree Preservation (1) It is the intent of the developer to preserve as many trees as possible in this subarea due to the heavily wooded nature of the site. (2) A tree survey will be provided at the final development plan identifying the locations of City of Dublin designated "landmark trees" and any tree within the proposed development footprint of any site improvement. A good -faith effort shall be made to limit any tree removal to only those areas within the development footprint, to be identified on the final development plan. Deer Run February 21, 2011 14 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 28, 2011 (3) The site shall meet the requirements of the City of Dublin's tree preservation and replacement ordinance, unless a waiver is approved by City Council. (4) All trees to be preserved shall be protected by tree preservation fencing in accordance with the City of Dublin's tree preservation fence details and guidelines. F) Street Trees shall not be required along any private streets. Any landscaping along the private street should maintain a natural appearance. VII) Model Homes A) Model homes shall not be permitted in this subarea. Deer Run February 21, 2011 15 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 28, 2011 Subarea C: Cluster Lots 1) Description: Subarea C shall be located in the southern portion of the development east of Dublin Road, along the north side of Memorial Drive, and west of the existing City of Dublin parkland along the Scioto River, and south of Subarea B. This subarea shall consist of approximately 17.1 acres and shall contain "Cluster Lots" as described below. 11) Permitted Uses: A) Permitted uses shall include single - family detached dwellings. . B) Accessory Uses shall be as permitted by City of Dublin Code. III) Density, Height, Lot and /or Setback Commitments: A) The maximum number of dwelling units in Subarea C shall be thirty -seven (37). The maximum density shall be 2.2 du /ac. B) Cluster Lots shall vary in size as shown on the site plan with a minimum width of sixty (60) feet at the maximum depth of the front build zone. C) The minimum lot depth shall be of one hundred - twenty (120) feet. D) Setbacks (1) There shall be a front build zone of zero (0) feet to ten (10) feet, as measured from the private street easement line. Any portion of the structure shall be built at or within the build zone. (2) The minimum rear -yard setback shall be thirty (30) feet from the property line. (3) The minimum side yard setback shall be five (5) feet from both side property lines. (4) Minimum building separation shall be ten (10) feet. (5) The parking setback shall be zero (0) feet from the private street easement line. E) Encroachments into side yards by bay- windows, chimneys, air conditioner condensers, decks, or porches shall not be permitted. Deer Run February 21, 2011 16 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 28, 2011 F) Encroachments up to 10 feet into the rear yard setbacks are permitted for patio, decks and fences, subject to approval by Planning. G) Maximum building height shall be thirty -five (35) feet. Height shall be measured from the finish grade at the front or main fagade of the house to the height of the dominant roof mass. H) Lot Coverage: The maximum impervious coverage of any single lot shall not exceed 70 %. 1) Homes shall be permitted to have walk -out basements so as to minimize the need for extensive site grading. IV) Access, Loading, Parking and /or other Traffic - Related Commitments: A) All streets constructed as a part of this subarea shall be privately owned and maintained and shall be combined access and utility easements. (1) Entry Boulevard: (a) An entry boulevard shall provide access from Memorial Drive and shall be aligned to the intersection of Autumnwood Way. (b) Easement width shall be a minimum of fifty -four (54) feet. (c) Width of each drive lane on either side of the median shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) feet measured back of curb to back of curb. (d) The median shall be eight (8) feet in width measured back -of -curb to back -of -curb. B) All other private streets: (1) Easement width shall be a minimum of forty (40) feet. (2) Pavement width shall be a minimum of twenty -two (22) feet measured back of curb to back of curb. (3) The street shall be widened at hydrant locations as shown on the plan to provide a minimum width of twenty -six (26) feet back -of -curb to back -of- curb. C) Stormwater Management (1) In lieu of traditional concrete gutters, streets may utilize permeable paving in up to three (3) feet wide strips adjacent to the face of both curbs, as part of Deer Run February 21, 2011 17 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 28, 2011 the stormwater management system. The final width, infiltration trench, and overflow shall be sized and finalized at final engineering and shall be approved by the City of Dublin engineering staff. (2) Permeable Gutters shall be maintained regularly with routine street - sweeping to remove foreign objects that could block drainage. The use of sand as a winter street treatment should be avoided as it can clog the permeable pavers. Maintenance shall be the responsibility of the homeowner's association. D) On- street parking shall not be required. The need for on- street parking will be evaluated with the final development plan. Should on- street parking be desired, bump -outs may be provided in areas as shown on the plan to provide a minimum width of twenty -six (26) feet measured back -of -curb to back -of -curb. The number of on- street spaces will be determined with the final development plan. E) Minimum Parking: All units shall be required to have a minimum of two (2) parking spaces within a garage, and two (2) parking spaces in driveway stacking area or in an auto -court for side -load garages. F) All units in this subarea shall front a private street. G) Garages (1) Garages shall adhere to the minimum side yard and rear yard setbacks. (2) Garage elevations shall be detailed consistently with the main building fagade. (3) Front load garages shall be setback a minimum of eighteen (18) feet from the access easement line. (4) Side load garages with an auto court shall be permitted on all lots, and shall be required on lots 70 foot wide or greater. Side load garages may be used to meet the front build zone requirement. H) Driveways (1) Driveway materials shall be concrete, decorative unit pavers, or a combination thereof. Asphalt, gravel, and mulch shall be prohibited as driveway materials. (2) Driveway curb -cuts shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in width. Deer Run February 21, 2011 18 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 28, 2011 1) Auto - Courts (1) Auto courts shall be screened from the street and from the adjoining lot by a four (4) feet tall screen. Double screening and waste spaces should be avoided, and it is encouraged that the design of lots be coordinated with adjoining lots to share screening alongside lot lines. The maintenance of any screen shall be the responsibility of the lot owner on which the screen is constructed. (2) The screen may be made of a decorative masonry wall detailed to complement the main building fagade, or an evergreen hedge, and may be permitted to encroach into the front and side yard setbacks. (3) Hedge material shall be sized to reach the required height within four (4) years of installation and shall be planted within a minimum three (3) feet wide planting bed. (4) Hedge material may be used in combination with piers detailed to complement the main building fagade, and / or decorative metal fencing. (5) Screening oriented toward an adjoining lot may be located adjacent to the property line. The auto -court may be permitted to encroach into the side yard up to the screening. J) Sidewalks, bike paths, or leisure trails shall not be required along the private street. K) A four (4) foot wide pedestrian path shall be provided from the end of the eastern- most private street to the future City of Dublin park, as shown on the plan. Final path location shall be coordinated with City staff. V) Architectural Standards: A) Design Review: All homes shall be held to a high quality of design and construction. No improvements, change, construction, addition, excavation, landscaping, tree removal, or other work or action that in any way alters the exterior appearance of the lots or common open space shall be commenced or continued without review and written approval from the Design Committee. The committee shall be appointed by the Trustees of the Association, and shall consist of at least three members. Design review procedure shall be outlined within the deed restrictions of the lots. Deer Run February 21, 2011 19 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 28, 2011 B) Architectural Design (1) Four -sided architecture shall be required on all homes, all elevations on a home shall be architecturally consistent. (2) Front fagade: A minimum of 20% of the front fagade shall be stone or brick. (3) Side fagades: When the side fagade of a unit is visible from the private street or is oriented towards the private street, the amount of brick and stone used on the side fagades shall be proportional to the amount used on front fagades, as architecturally appropriate, subject to Planning approval. (4) Rear fagades: When the rear fagade is visible from the public or private street, or is oriented toward the private street or a neighboring lot's side fagades, the amount of brick and stone used on the rear fagades shall be proportional to the amount used on front fagades, as architecturally appropriate, subject to Planning approval. (5) A change in materials must occur in architecturally appropriate locations. (6) Exterior cladding materials: Brick, stone, manufactured stone, wood, stucco, cementitious siding, or any combination thereof. (7) Trim materials (a) Brick, stone, wood, aluminum (for gutters and downspouts only), copper, EIFS fiber - cement products, composite wood and vinyl products. Shutters shall be considered "trim ". (b) Windows and doors on the front and sides of the house shall incorporate trim that is architecturally appropriate. (8) Colors shall be earth -tone, or mimic natural materials. High - chroma colors are not permitted. (9) Roofs (a) Minimum pitch shall be 8 inch rise to12 inch run. Permitted Materials: dimensional asphalt shingles, wood, slate (including manufactured slate products), or tile. A metal roof, such as copper, may be permitted for up to 20% of the total roof area. (10) Chimney Materials: Same as permitted Exterior cladding materials, with the exception of wood. Deer Run February 21, 2011 20 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 28, 2011 (11) Lighting: Each house shall have a minimum of one yard -post light near the walk of the front entry, and one porch -light near the front door. (12) Front porches shall not be required. However, when included, the style of the porch must support the style of the house. Glass and screens shall be prohibited from front porches. (13) Garage Doors shall be a maximum 18 feet wide opening. C) Diversity Homes located on adjacent lots shall be required to utilize different floor plans and different massing configurations. D) Architectural Style The intended architectural style of this subarea is "Romantic Revival ". Appendix 1 Architectural Guidelines is included as a guide to illustrate common characteristics of that style. Homes should be design based on interpretation from these guidelines, and also to meet the minimum requirements in this section. VI) Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space and /or Screening Commitments A) All residential landscaping shall meet the landscape requirements of the City of Dublin Zoning Code. B) Open Space: Subarea C shall contain approximately 7.3 acres of common open space. Common open space shall be maintained by the homeowners association. (1) Common open spaces may incorporate utility easements and facilities including stormwater management facilities, such as detention, conveyance swales, or rain gardens. C) Tree Preservation (1) It is the intent of the developer to preserve as many trees as possible in this subarea due to the heavily wooded nature of the site. (2) A tree survey will be provided at the final development plan identifying the locations of City of Dublin designated "landmark trees" and any tree within the proposed development footprint of any site improvement. A good -faith effort shall be made to limit any tree removal to only those areas within the development footprint, to be identified on the final development plan. Deer Run February 21, 2011 21 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 28, 2011 (3) The site shall meet the requirements of the City of Dublin's tree preservation and replacement ordinance, unless a waiver is approved by City Council. (4) All trees to be preserved shall be protected by tree preservation fencing in accordance with the City of Dublin's tree preservation fence details and guidelines. D) Lot Landscaping (1) Lot Trees: In the event that the required number of lot trees (as determined by the City of Dublin Code) do not fit within the front yard space of a Cluster Lot due to space limitations, then those trees shall be relocated either on the rear of the lot or elsewhere in the subarea as indicated on the Final Development Plan. (2) Front Yard Landscaping (a) All lots shall incorporate landscaping between any street - facing building elevation or auto -court screen and the private street back -of -curb. (b) Landscaping shall be ornamental in nature consisting of any combination of shade trees, ornamental trees, shrubs, perennials, annuals, and lawn and designed to enhance the character of the streetscape, house, and auto court screen. (c) Plantings shall not obstruct sight visibility triangles of driveways or street intersections (d) All material shall be sized, installed and maintained to City of Dublin code requirements. Maintenance shall be the responsibility of the lot owner. E) Street Trees: (1) Street Trees shall not be required along private streets. (2) The entry boulevard median shall incorporate ornamental landscaping consisting of ornamental trees, shrubs, perennials, annuals, or any combination thereof. (3) Plantings shall not obstruct sight visibility triangles of driveways or street intersections F) Permanent Wood Screening: (1) Wood screening at a height of up to four (4) feet shall be allowed to encroach 10 feet into the required rear yard setback and be located along Deer Run February 21, 2011 22 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 28, 2011 the side property lines, provided that such screening does not extend beyond the front fagade of the home. Gates may be included. It is encouraged that fencing be arranged so that adjoining lots can tie into fences along side property lines, eliminating double fences and wasted side yard space. (2) Maintenance responsibilities shall be addressed within the deed restrictions. Deer Run February 21, 2011 23 Preliminary Development Plan DEER RUN - PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL — FEBRUARY 28, 2011 VII) Gate and Entry Sign A) Gate (1) The boulevard access shall be permitted to have a security gate for each drive lane, allowing 24 -hour emergency access, and shall be approved by Washington Township Fire Department. (2) The gate shall have decorative masonry columns and wing -walls not more than six (6) feet in height. The gates shall be decorative in appearance and not more than six (6) feet in height. 3) Sign. (1) Entry feature signage shall be permitted at the private drive entrance along Memorial Drive. (2) The entry sign(s) may be incorporated into the gate structure indicating the development name. (3) The sign shall not exceed 20 square feet in size. VIII) Model Homes Model homes may be constructed and used as sales locations, but these will be typical of residential architecture planned for the subarea, and will ultimately be sold as residences. Deer Run February 21, 2011 24 Preliminary Development Plan SITE PLAN RENDERING G' r T ` ' 0 1 o m y Existing Gate _ • J � ,� � >� J.•� J _� y- Subarea 'C' Cluster Homes H ' $l'EEt ' 1 r Sidewalk connector f. �,�� �(Aa!"G4f a , .e��n..4 eF � �4 to future city park ` �—Sdewalk �" f1 Existing Trees - - Entry,nd� Mem °r"I - Sidewalk Exit Gates � r � ✓ e - Autumn Wood Way ✓. Vista Ridge Drive 02.18.201 1 Job Number: 09009 1 a +f " n, r. � • J � ,� � >� J.•� J _� y- Subarea 'C' Cluster Homes H ' $l'EEt ' 1 r Sidewalk connector f. �,�� �(Aa!"G4f a , .e��n..4 eF � �4 to future city park ` �—Sdewalk �" f1 Existing Trees - - Entry,nd� Mem °r"I - Sidewalk Exit Gates � r � ✓ e - Autumn Wood Way ✓. Vista Ridge Drive 02.18.201 1 Job Number: 09009 211 7, P ....... g4 A d I V A, BIRD'S EYE—VIEW LOOKING NORTH yx 02.18.2011 Job Number: 09009 ARTIST'S RENDERING OF PROPOSED STREETSCAPE CHARACTER 02.18.201 1 Job Number: 09009 LOCATION MAP Deer Run Site City of Dublin 02, 1$,201 t Job Number: 090091 Preliminary Development Plan REGIONAL CONTEXT MAP 02,1$,2011 Job Number: 090091 Preliminary Development Plan �oncord"Tdwnshl � p t,. �, obB 1 < a' \ �-Concord`"Township `ao t �r PUD 0 r -.- r_ _ if V E -x PO\N OP\" t m m ■ ■V , ■ ■�I ■r - 577, �.� ' SCI [�, i M ■ ►�ti ` v c �r`'?� Cat � �'� �' � � �� �� v �� ' \ • v ' 1 �Q _ ^"" � �� C>� � l� � C��` ter•• • y a fi ��(j A�: � v ��� VICINITY MAP 02.18.201 1 Job Number: 090091 Preliminary Development Plan i P -, . F- •- ko U n 2 0 rn G i 77 SITE 6 . x 02.18.2011 Job Number: 090091 Preliminary Development Plan „ c t ✓° � cam, � ' %' .•� y „ r M1 A S QWfB ERLEIGH' -- - SECTIO94 -• - 11 LOTS v�) EXISTING PLATS .p ,A ./ .. .. l AMBE SECTI t 63UNLTS CITY OF DU PARK t i 09,07,2010 Job Number: 090091 Preliminary Development Plan v i 09,07,2010 Job Number: 090091 Preliminary Development Plan LOT 1 1 LOT 6 PROPOSED LOT LOT 1 \ NUMBER t `\ EX. \ ` \ P is / LOT 2 LOT 4 Va,,B / \ COMMON \ OPEN ` SPACE \\ ~ \\ LOT 7 \ \ LOT 3 \ \ L \7-0 \\ LOT 5 \ COMMON \ \ OPEN COMMON ACCESS \ \ SPACE & UTILITY \,\ EASEMENT \ 14 \ \ OMMON 9 10 \ \\ \ OPEN 11 SPACE 13 8 12 \\ \\ \ 7 s 5 4 3 2 COMMON \ I \ \ OPEN SPACE I I 7 ' z °o E 8 0 50 100' Y 300 5CALP: I"= 100' LL W T O O ro� N O 3 3 Z L a3 O Lu Q — CD > mo D (0 o M / 1r\ J Q N 0 :O L W ) O N > W ci i U C co U O 0) LOT 1 1 LOT 6 PROPOSED LOT LOT 1 \ NUMBER t `\ EX. \ ` \ P is / LOT 2 LOT 4 Va,,B / \ COMMON \ OPEN ` SPACE \\ ~ \\ LOT 7 \ \ LOT 3 \ \ L \7-0 \\ LOT 5 \ COMMON \ \ OPEN COMMON ACCESS \ \ SPACE & UTILITY \,\ EASEMENT \ 14 \ \ OMMON 9 10 \ \\ \ OPEN 11 SPACE 13 8 12 \\ \\ \ 7 s 5 4 3 2 COMMON \ I \ \ OPEN SPACE I I 7 ' j Z O q b Z R W z 8 0 50 100' 200' 300 5CALP: I"= 100' j Z O q b Z R W no. revisions: job no: 09009 date: 02/18/11 sheet: L1.00.1 z 8 C 'o 5 L Z w Lu 0 A? a ^^ O J > W Qc m > W J 0 Q W a N / 0 O Q 0° Z i J o U� _ z J ON W r W z� T .. Z 0 U¢ ID 0 V m cu O zm a � O 1 2 0 W 0 �° c W X D U no. revisions: job no: 09009 date: 02/18/11 sheet: L1.00.1 EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVE Within Subareas A and B, the intent is to maintain the rural character of the site by utilizing the existing private streetwith the decorative gravel top- dressing. The new private streets will be constructed so as to match the character of the existing private street. New streets will be built ottypicel asphalt pavement, per city standards. A top - dressing of decorative gravel will be selected to match the gravel on the existing drive. 02.1 8,2011 Job Number: 090091 Preliminary Development Plan EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVE CHARACTER EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVE CHARACTER ^U BAR EA C ENTRY BOULEVARD 2NTRYAND EXIT GATE WITH 24 OUR EMERGENCYACCESS -0' MIN. SETBACK FROM ROW ;TONE WALLSTO MATCH MISTING SOAR FENCETO REMAIN HLONG ROW JEW SIDEWALK EXISTING BIKE PATH 3 0 o o � z � � 'FINAL GATE DESIGN TO BE DETERMINED AT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. GATE ACCESS AND FINAL CLEAR WIDTH TO BE APPROVED BY CITY STAFF AND FIRE. EXISTING GATED ENTRY AT DUBLIN ROAD TO REMAIN LOCATION OF GATED ENTRY TO SUBAREA C FROM MEMORIAL DRIVE MEMORIAL DRIVE 02.1 8,2011 Job Number: 090091 Preliminary Development Plan 30' REAR 5ETBACK AUTO COURT 5' SIDE 5ETBACK POTENTIAL NOME CONFIGURATION ± 3,000 5Q. FT. FOOTPRINT 5HOWN 5IDE -LOAD GARAGE O' -10' FRONT BUILD ZONE 1 LOT 19: CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT SCALE: 1"=60'—O" NOTE: LOT IAYOUT5 ARE FOR IU J5TRATIVE FURPO5E5 ONLY. BUILDING FOOTPRINr5, DRIVEWAY5. AND OTHER 5RE IMPROVEMENT5 WILL BE DETERMINED WITH FINAL ENGINEERING Wasatch Partners Lot Layouts i BI RD HOU K DEER RUN Potential Configurations I A DIVISION OF OHM Dublin, Ohio sheet reference: 1-1.01 achlecwm ' planning' uroanaeslgnienglneenng job no: 09009 date: 02/18/2011 by: RF sheet no: � A gah rna, o t 31230 phone: ird-ho k.corn gehenre,ahio 43230 www.birtl- houk.com Copyright C 2003 by Bird Houk. All Rights Reserved. These documents are our instruments of service for this project only and may not be used, copied, or agere0 without our written censent. PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN CITY OF DUBLIN, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO FEBRUARY 18, 2011 APPLICANT: WASATCH PARTNERS, LLC. LAND PLANNING AND CIVIL ENGINEERING r.3i:ar.1•m:� A DIVISION OF OHM architecture I planning I urban design I engineering 600 creekside plaza phone: 614.418.0600 gahanna, ohio 43230 www.bird - houk.com LEGAL CONSULTANT WILES, DOYLE, DURKHOLDER, * DRINGARDNER CO., LPA ATTORNEYS AT LAW 300 SPRUCE STREET, FLOOR ONE COLUMBUS, Oh 43215 INDEX OF DRAWINGS 1-1 .00 EXISTING CONDITIONS 1-1 .01 PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1-1 .03 BIKE PATH LAYOUT PLAN 1-1.02 OPEN SPACE PLAN 1-1.03 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN 1-2.01 PRELIMINARY PLAT: SUBAREAS A * B 12.02 PRELIMINARY PLAT: SUBAREA C C1.01 UTILITIES PLAN: 51J5AREA5 A * B C 1.02 UTILITIES PLAN: SUBAREAS C 1-3.01 PRIVATE STREET 5ECTION5 p \ I. \ 5 l \ \ \ \\ \ 1 I I 1 N A"x 50) � r f', LP TO 11 _. _.. ' — ���\ \ \� , �' / (I I ► (I �� \� 1 \ \� \\ �. \� \ \� III 1\ \ \ \ >i\ �oe� J 1 `RESERVE �?.. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ G� \ � \ )) \ \\ LOT 1 S ; \ I I 111\ \ l I Il 11 LOT)s� /� �jy� �� �� �. Rilp �\\� LOT Fe� PEE I C N f� ApROX. I / �j / � / \ \ \ y� 1 M. \ e LOCATION EXISTII�IG J I I PRIVATE STREET J / l 'e� \ l / \ \ �� 1 .46PHALT WITH D �y \ /? ECORATI g� ALCM F OWES GRA�L TOP -1f5�1 / —/ \ / ` r V j I 1 �\ / \ I \ \\ ( l 1 IlC III \ \\ • tty . ,W PTH VA�IE5,/ 12' MHJ NT - YGATE /�/ D ONE WALIb �/ w`�� I< < �� e M � \ \IC r c TREE A5 > I 1 11 1�- Ir 5 \ \ \ \ \ \` \ ( / ,— J e� TYP. ODF NCE ON6 BOW N a \ \ WORD FENCE \ 1 \ l / �EONG ROW s J /PR \\ BI KEPATH- (O(lND \ \ \\ .y -- I i i1 SITE DATA TOTAL 517E AREA: ± 51.7 AC. NOTES 1. 13A5E INFORMATION 15 COMPILED FROM VARIOUS SOURCES, 5UCH A5 COUNTY AND CITY GI5, 517E SURVEYS, AND 517E OBSERVATION. PLAN AND BA5E INFORMATION MAY CHANGE WITH FINAL SURVEYING AND ENGINEERING. 2. CONTOUR INTERVAL = 2' Z) Z O O Z R W no. revisions: job no: 09009 date: 02/18/11 sheet: L1.00 1 of: 1 Z o E 8 $ 0 = Y co O LL ^ W T O O ro� .2) °3 3 Z Z � a3 O Lu 0 —� 5 j CID n coo CIS D (0 M Q� Q J a r ao L W y o „ > c m U C co U O (00) Q ca a no. revisions: job no: 09009 date: 02/18/11 sheet: L1.00 1 of: 1 Z 8 $ C J 0 L z m Lu 0 5 N n n O J W E > m W _` T 0 Q a N 0 Q ° z ° 0 o C/) z o J O� W r W z� N ^` .. z OL U¢ W C Z) Y J 0 � . 2 '2 a O H� 1 W 0 �° � W X D wl U no. revisions: job no: 09009 date: 02/18/11 sheet: L1.00 1 of: 1 � �� \ EX4EN PRIVATE TOpR� W I TM JM C� 1) ) \ ✓ \\ \ \ \\ 11 /�� G / / I GRA L tO MATCH SRI TIX/E/ r J I/ � X11 \ \ �I � � ; \ � \A \ \\ I I I I LA `I Ax 1'[ RANfi \. l ) ) �-1 x 1 \ \ / \ gSLOEN H CA NS;/LG MIN ` °�` \ \ \\\ \ ± �� 3 � AI F°Y /�I) q UT L I � C EMENS \ v \ \ \ I ii r� %�! i ;� ��/ �', \�_� r �\ l (}� j PRIVATE IEEll L . 1 1 1� �\ /%�- �\ \�3 TO REMAI N � / �\ ` 7 6 A • 1 r )( 1 I / � L � / 1 / � � � � _ 111 = \ \ \ Y \� f V bi�vi OFF TO�REMAIN \ \ i a S /ems �\ \ L* RIVANE WlgTH; 8' MINT Wl H; ;RA �DLT� ATILIRE l INGPREA\/ THE O\ 5TREfIVATE / I / I � ✓ HARE B 1 ate \ \ \\ \ \�M� STREfT�TO \ / �,O ' �� / �� 50 ACC��AN \ TIAATT HYD�gF�NT rWID H� UTILITX�EASEIv4E EMAIN WID \ \ J\ ` J \\\\CE5°AANND \TRF= �\ \ UTILT�Y J I PV ERVATIOI� rs vas° I� ��FSE�2VAy4�NE 7 A H EM T / tREE� C / /AREA PRE55RVON r� 1 F^ITION REA -� v , � • \\ \ \� �� � �� �� e � � I Il o �/ �, �� � �\ \.( 1 11)\ \\ \ \ �� GO ° r , l \ \ / \ �\ \\ \ I 7 �\ GO COTvTIGON , 79 �a GO 9� -L \ \ QPE�N SPAGf LJ PORT�{AL0 I / 1D �j PARKING r Q ��Z / X 70 / G G ) 5a <O 9 l� 8,32-f G % Go I I 70 CGO 7 � I BP W / \ \ I I l REAR SST If t \� \\ 1111 7BACKS K 4'SID �� \7Q� \ \ 100 5t B 4' SI � ` — bfNDSCA Mf)3AR1� q�W AL�ti, \ f RIV�ATE-STREET/ COMMO� l J I ) PARK PAT 5 EX�5TIN WOOD RAI�FENG TO ACCESS d DTtNTY�ASE�� / / \� Q PLANNING F REMAIN (TYp.) ^ NTRY AND M A - 11C ATES £ AND3gE]NF A SP N E B W BACKCXTE MINI FROM POOWRY �\ \ \ \\ 551DEWALK �— 1 PR pER / SP CE \ / ( \ I \\\\\ \�\ \\ \/ / f EXISTING F >\� \_PATYt�� � _ EIbI ( OUI�pARY l I RELOC D F \ I 1 n �� \\ \\ \ L D _ PROPERTY APPLICANT ///��� I \ ,_— fx DK ATH WALK � TI DEIN�EXI N \ \\ 1 \ \ \� �j� 5TU ATVIS�TARIDGEDRIV� as /` �N� DEVELOPMENT DATA TOTAL 517E AREA: ± 51.7 AC. TOTAL LOT5: 4G LOT5 E5TATELOT5: 9 LOTS CLU5TERLOT5: 37 LOT5 OVERALL DENSITY: ± 0.89 DU /AC TOTAL COMMON OPEN SPACE: � 10.4 AC (20. 1 %) TOTAL COMMON ACCESS 4 UTILITY FASEMENT:± 2.9 AC. (5.G 0 16) PLATTED TREE PRESERVATION AREA ± 3.9 AC. (7.5%) SUBAREA A: ESTATE LOTS TOTAL AREA: ± 18.5 AC. TOTALE5TATE LOT5: 4 LOT5 SUBAREA DENSITY: 0.22 DU /AC COMMON OPEN SPACE: ± 1.2 AC (G.5%) SUBAREA B: ESTATE LOTS TOTAL AREA: ± I G. I AC. TOTALE5TATE LOTS: 5 LOTS SUBAREA DENSITY: 0.31 DU /AC COMMON OPEN SPACE: ± 1.9 AC (1 1.8%) COMMON ACCE55 * UTILITY EASEMENT: � 0.7 AC. (4.4%) PLATTED TREE PRESERVATION AREA: ± 3.9 AC (24.2 %) SUBAREA C: ESTATE LOTS TOTAL AREA: ± 17.1 AC. TOTAL CLUSTER LOTS: 37 LOTS SUBAREA DENSITY: 2.2 DU /AC COMMON OPEN SPACE: ± 7.3 AC (42.7 %) COMMON ACCE55 * UTILITY EASEMENT: ± 2.2 AC. (12.9%) NOTES 1. SEE SHEETS C 1 .01 AND C 1.02 FOR UTILITIES AND EASEMENTS. 2. SEE SHEET L 1.03 FOR OPEN SPACE AND PLATTED TKEE5 PRESERVATION AREAS. 3. BASE INFORMATION IS COMPILED FROM VARIOUS SOURCES, SUCH A5 COUNTY AND CITY GI5, 517E SURVEYS, AND SITE OBSERVATION FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. EXISTING CONDITIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED BY 51TE SURVEY FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. 4. CONTOUR INTERVAL = 2' 5. BUILDINGS AND DRIVEWAYS SHOWN ON PROPOSED ESTATE LOTS ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY. LOCATIONS AND LAYOUT WILL CHANGE WITH FINAL ENGINEERING. G. ALL AREA5 DESIGNATED "COMMON OPEN SPACE" "COMMON ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT", AND ALL PRIVATE STREETS, SHALL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY A FORCED AND FUNDED HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 201 1 DATE COUNCIL APPROVAL DATE: DATE PLANNING * ZONING COMMISSION SECRETARY DATE WA5ATCH PARTNERS, LLC DATE 0 50 100' 200 300' 5CALE: I" = 100' j Z O O ;0: R W no. revisions: job no: 09009 date: 02/18/11 sheet: Ll 001 1 of: 1 Z °o E rT 0 = co 0 0 1 C ` W (0 -r T O 0 (0 U) O 3 3 Z 'D _r_ a3 0 ca Z 0 m CD > m o co o c» D (0 M °' /Y\ a .0 W Q � a o s. U 0 /, J U C co U O (00) ca m no. revisions: job no: 09009 date: 02/18/11 sheet: Ll 001 1 of: 1 Z 8 C O 0 L Z m W m o C 8 n G J W m / c m W 0 0 Q a N . 0 m Q co Z c� �0 _ J N0 m LU f'1r d I..L � co ■ ■ Z r rn _ a c> � 0�E° a o L c _ ^+ co W -0 W T 0 U no. revisions: job no: 09009 date: 02/18/11 sheet: Ll 001 1 of: 1 r � ; Ol \\ L r LO SPACE + Qj I `A X V l� of 1 �_.. _.. • % ��� �� � \ 1 I II I \ \ � y \\ \� � ))) l l l � � l / ) \ � � == - - �.. \\� 10 R �,� y, k �,� All \� � NW, LO /1 \ Y' :.. :. ; AG �� /e `✓ / \ C�MM� OPE \ 1 I SP CE IV A IrA 1 � )4 It 01 q( LJ CON tI • � � o �\ 1 \ \`�` \ • � :- � � — � J ate— � I III \:,: �� �JJJ � ��� � � m¢7 0 MA 2 A r 4EXCL.NP V OPEN SPACE DATA TOTAL 517E AREA: ± 51.7 AC. TOTAL COMMON OPEN SPACE: ± 10.4 AC (20. 1 %) PLATTED TREE PRESERVATION AREA: ± 3.9 AC (7.5 %) SUBAREA A: ESTATE LOTS TOTAL AREA: 18.5 AC. COMMON OPEN SPACE: ± 1.2 AC (G.5 %) SUBAREA B: ESTATE LOTS TOTAL AREA: ± I G. I AC. COMMON OPEN SPACE: ± 1.9 AC (1 1.8%) PLATTED TREE PRESERVATION AREA: ± 3.9 AC (24.2 %) SUBAREA C: ESTATE LOTS TOTAL AREA: 17.1 AC. COMMON OPEN SPACE: ± 7.3 AC (42.7 %) NOTES 1. SEE SHEETS C 1 .01 AND C 1.02 FOR UTILTIIES AND EASEMENTS. 2. BASE INFORMATION 15 COMPILED FROM VARIOUS SOURCES, SUCH AS COUNTY AND CITY GIS, SITE SURVEYS, AND SITE OBSERVATION. PLAN AND BASE INFORMATION MAY CHANGE WITH FINAL SURVEYING AND ENGINEERING. 3. CONTOUR INTERVAL = 2' 4. BUILDINGS AND DRIVEWAYS SHOWN ON PROPOSED ESTATE LOTS ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY. LOCATIONS AND LAYOUT WILL CHANGE WITH FINAL ENGINEERING. 5. ALL AREAS DESIGNATED "COMMON OPEN SPACE" "COMMON ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT , AND ALL PRIVATE STREETS, SHALL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY A FORCED AND FUNDED HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, G. PLATTED TREE PRESERVATION AREAS SHALL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE INDIVIDUAL LOT OWNER. KEY COMMON OPEN SPACE DEED RESTRICTED PRESERVATION AREA j Z O O Z R W no. revisions: job no: 09009 date: 02/18/11 sheet: L1.02 1 of: 1 Z o E rT 00 U O o 0 ^W C ` (0 � T O O �� 10 O 3 Z a) a3 O Z w w ��� r- mo ca D (0 °� M M . a ' L.LJ Q � as O 0 ) U ci J U C U O L �0) ca E no. revisions: job no: 09009 date: 02/18/11 sheet: L1.02 1 of: 1 Z c 8 C 'o 6 L Z w w 0 a O J w E � m w _` T 0 Q a N w o Q ; Z 0 C _ G — J w ZL o r J y N ^` •• Z wL U fm a) L Y _ CU o �m 0 1 W w© 0 Nw�E 10 , T D U no. revisions: job no: 09009 date: 02/18/11 sheet: L1.02 1 of: 1 TREES WITHIN LOTS SHALL BE PRESERVED, EXCEPT WITHIN APPROVED DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINTS FOR PERMITTED STRUCTURES AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS. FINAL LAYOUTS SHALL BE DETERMINED AT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.— 1 ALL TREES WITHIN COMMON OPEN SPACES THAT CONTROL NATURAL AREAS SHALL BE PRESERVED. — ALL TREES WITHIN THE 100 YEAR \ FLOODPLAIN SHALL BE PRESERVED. \ THE DESIGN AND LAYOUT OF INDIVIDUAL LOTS SHOULD UTILIZE \ AREAS OF THIN VEGETATION FOR 51TE IMPROVEMENTS WHEN POSSIBLE. PRIVATE STREETS AND UTITILITIES SHOULD BE ADJUSTED WITHIN THE EASEMENT, WHERE POSSIBLE, AT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO AVOID REMOVAL OF TREES TREES ARE SAVED BY REUSING THE EXISTING PRIVATE STREET LOCATION AND BY ALLOWING THE WIDTH TO REMAIN AS NARROW AS POSSIBLE. \ 0 \ TREES WITHIN SETBACKS SHALL BE PRESERVED \, WHERE POSSIBLE. WHERE UTILITIES OR DRAINAGE COURSES ARE ROUTED THROUGH SETBACKS, INSTALLATION SHOULD BE COORDINATED TO MINIMIZE IMPACT' TREES. ALL TREES WITHIN COMMON OPEN SPACES THAT CONTROL NATURAL AREAS SHALL BE PRESERVED. — o\ \ LANDMARK TREE (TYP) APPROX. LOCATION CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (TYP EDGE OF TREE MASS (TYP , BUILT AREAS SHALL BE PRESERVED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. WHERE UTILITIES OR DRAINAGE COURSES ARE ROUTED THROUGH SETBACKS, INSTALLATION SHOULD BE COORDINATED TO / MINIMIZE IMPACT TO TREES. TREE PRESERVATION 1. A TREE SURVEY, REMOVAL, AND PRESERVATION PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. EACH LOT SHALL MEET CITY TREE PRESERVATION CODE REQUIREMENTS. 2. DUE TO THE HEAVILY WOODED NATURE OF THE SITE, THE FINAL ENGINEERING AND LOCATIONS OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE FURTHER REFINED TO MINIMIZE IMPACT TO EXISTING TREES. PRIVATE STREETS SHALL BE ROUTED WITHIN THE EASEMENT TO AVOID LANDMARK TREES WHERE POSSIBLE. 3. WALK -OUT BASEMENTS SHALL BE PERMITTED IN ALL SUBAREAS TO MINIMIZE GRADING. 4. COMMON OPEN SPACES SHALL PRESERVE EXISTING TREES, EXCEPT IN LOCATIONS OF NECESSARY UTILITY EASEMENTS. TREE REPLACEMENT SHALL BE PER CITY CODE. KEY COMMON OPEN SPACE PLATTED TREE PRESERVATION AREA NOTES 1. SEE SHEETS C 1.01 AND C 1.02 FOR UTILTIIE5 AND EASEMENTS. 2. BASE INFORMATION 15 COMPILED FROM VARIOUS SOURCES, SUCH AS COUNTY AND CITY GIS, SITE SURVEYS, AND SITE OBSERVATION. PLAN AND BASE INFORMATION MAY CHANGE WITH FINAL SURVEYING AND ENGINEERING. 3. BUILDINGS AND DRIVEWAYS SHOWN ON PROPOSED ESTATE LOTS ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY. LOCATIONS AND LAYOUT WILL CHANGE WITH FINAL ENGINEERING. 5. TREE PRESERVATION ZONE: AS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING CODE, NO BUILDING, STRUCTURE, FENCE, PATIO, RECREATIONAL OR ATHLETIC FACILITY OR ANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT OF ANY KIND MAY BE PLACED TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY UPON IN OR UNDER THE AREA DESIGNATED HEREON AS "TREE PRESERVATION ZONE" NOR SHALL ANY WORK BE PERFORMED THEREON WHICH WOULD ALTER THE NATURAL STATE OF THE ZONE OR DAMAGE ANY OF THE TREES OR VEGETATION THEREIN; PROVIDED HOWEVER THAT THE ZONE MAY BE DISTURBED TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES, MOUNDING, LANDSCAPING AND SUBDIVISION ENTRANCE FEATURES. ANY PART OF THE ZONE DISTURBED BY MAINTENANCE SHALL BE RESTORED AS NEARLY AS PRACTICABLE TO THE ORIGINAL CONDITION. ANY HEALTHY VEGETATION OR TREES REMOVED SHALL BE REPLACED WITH LIKE NUMBER AND VARIETY. OTHERWISE NO TREES OR OTHER VEGETATION MAY BE REMOVED FROM THE ZONE EXCEPT FOR THE REMOVAL OF DEAD, DISEASED, DECAYED, OR NOXIOUS TREES AND OTHER VEGETATION OR AS MAY BE REQUIRED FOR CONSERVATION OR AESTHETIC PURPOSES OR IN KEEPING WITH GOOD FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. cpk CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) 1 -FOOT FOR EVERY INCH OF DIAMETER BREAST HEIGHT (DBH) OVER 6 -INCH CALIPER TREE. H Z P/ U W f f f a) (D 0 C) U 2X4 WOOD CRZ OR �° C RAILS 115' RADIUS 0 O LL WHICHEVER T 4X4 WOOD POT X4 WO •' HI (D i LANDMARK TREE (TYP) APPROX. LOCATION CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (TYP EDGE OF TREE MASS (TYP , BUILT AREAS SHALL BE PRESERVED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. WHERE UTILITIES OR DRAINAGE COURSES ARE ROUTED THROUGH SETBACKS, INSTALLATION SHOULD BE COORDINATED TO / MINIMIZE IMPACT TO TREES. TREE PRESERVATION 1. A TREE SURVEY, REMOVAL, AND PRESERVATION PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. EACH LOT SHALL MEET CITY TREE PRESERVATION CODE REQUIREMENTS. 2. DUE TO THE HEAVILY WOODED NATURE OF THE SITE, THE FINAL ENGINEERING AND LOCATIONS OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE FURTHER REFINED TO MINIMIZE IMPACT TO EXISTING TREES. PRIVATE STREETS SHALL BE ROUTED WITHIN THE EASEMENT TO AVOID LANDMARK TREES WHERE POSSIBLE. 3. WALK -OUT BASEMENTS SHALL BE PERMITTED IN ALL SUBAREAS TO MINIMIZE GRADING. 4. COMMON OPEN SPACES SHALL PRESERVE EXISTING TREES, EXCEPT IN LOCATIONS OF NECESSARY UTILITY EASEMENTS. TREE REPLACEMENT SHALL BE PER CITY CODE. KEY COMMON OPEN SPACE PLATTED TREE PRESERVATION AREA NOTES 1. SEE SHEETS C 1.01 AND C 1.02 FOR UTILTIIE5 AND EASEMENTS. 2. BASE INFORMATION 15 COMPILED FROM VARIOUS SOURCES, SUCH AS COUNTY AND CITY GIS, SITE SURVEYS, AND SITE OBSERVATION. PLAN AND BASE INFORMATION MAY CHANGE WITH FINAL SURVEYING AND ENGINEERING. 3. BUILDINGS AND DRIVEWAYS SHOWN ON PROPOSED ESTATE LOTS ARE CONCEPTUAL ONLY. LOCATIONS AND LAYOUT WILL CHANGE WITH FINAL ENGINEERING. 5. TREE PRESERVATION ZONE: AS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING CODE, NO BUILDING, STRUCTURE, FENCE, PATIO, RECREATIONAL OR ATHLETIC FACILITY OR ANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT OF ANY KIND MAY BE PLACED TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY UPON IN OR UNDER THE AREA DESIGNATED HEREON AS "TREE PRESERVATION ZONE" NOR SHALL ANY WORK BE PERFORMED THEREON WHICH WOULD ALTER THE NATURAL STATE OF THE ZONE OR DAMAGE ANY OF THE TREES OR VEGETATION THEREIN; PROVIDED HOWEVER THAT THE ZONE MAY BE DISTURBED TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES, MOUNDING, LANDSCAPING AND SUBDIVISION ENTRANCE FEATURES. ANY PART OF THE ZONE DISTURBED BY MAINTENANCE SHALL BE RESTORED AS NEARLY AS PRACTICABLE TO THE ORIGINAL CONDITION. ANY HEALTHY VEGETATION OR TREES REMOVED SHALL BE REPLACED WITH LIKE NUMBER AND VARIETY. OTHERWISE NO TREES OR OTHER VEGETATION MAY BE REMOVED FROM THE ZONE EXCEPT FOR THE REMOVAL OF DEAD, DISEASED, DECAYED, OR NOXIOUS TREES AND OTHER VEGETATION OR AS MAY BE REQUIRED FOR CONSERVATION OR AESTHETIC PURPOSES OR IN KEEPING WITH GOOD FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. cpk CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) 1 -FOOT FOR EVERY INCH OF DIAMETER BREAST HEIGHT (DBH) OVER 6 -INCH CALIPER TREE. H Z P/ U W �° a) (D 0 C) U 2X4 WOOD CRZ OR �° C RAILS 115' RADIUS 0 O LL WHICHEVER T 4X4 WOOD POT X4 WO •' HI (D i r SQUA E S GREA E O 3 3 It 0 ON TRAFFIC IS PROHIBI N OTES: 1. INSPECTION OF INSTALLATION IS REQUIRED. CALL (614) 410 -4660. 2. THE CITY IS TO BE CONTACTED IF FENCE LOCATION NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED OR PRIOR TO ANY ENCROACHMENT OF PRESERVATION AREA. FENCING (PREFERRED) TREE PROTECTION FENCE 0 50 100' 200 300' 5CALE: I" = 100' j Z O O Z R W no. revisions: job no: 09009 date: 02/18/11 sheet: Ll m03 1 of: 1 ET E a) (D 0 C) U C 00 C 0 O LL W T O (D i 'o 5 O 3 3 Z � a3 O Q —.0 j CD W C N O ca 0 co M °' /Y\ °' W CL Q N 0 :O t )c II J U C co a U O 0) no. revisions: job no: 09009 date: 02/18/11 sheet: Ll m03 1 of: 1 z C 'o 5 L W `o 5 m n L n J a W m / c m W 0 0 Q a N . 0 m o z EL0 0 J O W HL F- < d ai n ` J / W N ■■ z w L U) rn a) C W x tf cu o m a Wo 2 0 W c w© c l) 3:00 no. revisions: job no: 09009 date: 02/18/11 sheet: Ll m03 1 of: 1 — ��\ — \�\\� \ \�\ \ \I R / / I DU CKER L UR E L / \\ Sy�� ELLIS J \ �� ,• 7r / GUNDERM9N�GARY-P &'ELLEY CHRIS \ \\ \ \ \Rb7Y �O�F N R t L�13DIVI SI - I bN -_\ � BROGAN.MYS2T ANNE J \ �O�OKAJIMA SHIGE TING -ING L � � CURRY ROGER L� � � � 1 I \ I 1 � Y � A I C I I I I \W \ \ / RR JU'{IY 99 STEyI N&E: L ATIO�I OF EXIS G I P�V M N S "LL r• ) BE V IFIED BX 5ITE 51J VgY FOR IN L� I W� -OPMEI PUjN. I �I I I I III g g FINAVENGI ERN GR� hf(v1EN/fS S�1AlIL E C1�FIEC� WIT \ B I I )1 \ / /i �� �/I yII I I� / ) 4 2 � 1 .I j\ 5 . STI )>J / I NG alCiVtTARY / 1 ✓ 1 I ( / / i / Pf�IVAT r // I /. /' / / / � / / / 1 `\ \ ✓ fg 5T EET�IN510NI \ 1 I tszz I �1 I 1 I I I I I 1 I I (STING TREES ( ) ALL TR E SHALL BE I 1 I I�I I II I / �� / / / \ \ O PRESERVED WHERE ?0551 L!. T1RfE 'AL t ItALL BE IDENTIFI D AT FI�A I EV LOPNFEN� LANDKIBEFP PLAN AN - 5FrALL BE LIMITS QPTH // •' l / / \ / I // ' I / I \ AEeR\LOCATION D VELOF�MENT FOOTPRINT IpAUl POSSIB 1 I 45.5' 1 1 . I SCIOTO RIVER � � ►I III II I I I I � I / � /..� � � 1 ( ( I /�I I / //i � ��� %, �,,�) / /� '�� ; • �, , �EXI5TING RIVEWAY \ p 6T12 I \ \ \ L T ;X /0� A'zra `^' s) \ ) \ 1 I �• I I I Z \ - _�3� / \ / / 1 a PC B ACE: / / / / I� ` / /'K\ f 2.6 ✓/ X I \\ \ \ l is� z l l n N I�1 1 I ING B/// 1� ��r ?s q I // •..� oP \ 1 \ I •U 14CI (ST RI G �I \ V I( OA� MI TO B S COON \ \ PO If I /XGE AT \ m OPEN ssPACE 'A' \ /•� j� \ \ \ \ _I + I NTRANCEIT �T E GRID / \ \ / E T NG BU DING I .2 A� \ \ ' T Ate. �C. I I I I ) I �I I ► /� /% i � _— —��� �\ ►\�' ��!� \�Z p I / �O I — —� 1 szJS CITY OF COLUMBUS D 22'EX. RJ / I I l / I / I' �J \ � � _ — EXIS NG DPI /� \ 72` I 91' I I I 1 ��� / / i "T // A �j \ \\ I I I I I \\ O I 1111 I \� '� \ / \ \ � �1 /� �/ � \�� 8 S / /ice — � a � ,ni:�•� ` � I / - I / l � \\ �� — — ,� ,�% �- — �� � --►— �� �� �� I � — � �� —` ,� �� \ � ��� / � f� III F. 1 �a ., / / \ ST1P1F BU LDI 1>1 .. 04921 III 1 Ij�j I I \ � °, co \ < m \\ \ LSTIN4G / 6Y ES J5, I \ I \\ \ / 4. EXISTING ITA�Y I \I - \ J t � EASEMENT I I M z \� �\ \ ` � `\ \ LpT 5 II (III /jai_ /�� / \ \ /� \ \ `\ I I / �i�� i Ize.r \0 ? ze• z� ± I ��� / i / / �TZSa \ �. I \ \- alY I� \� q \ \ //� ^9:ft u'' , (LOT 7 i '�Z� \ / I I I COM ON \ `\ `\ \ AC. \ \ / — / e °w /' \ \ f + 3 �� OPEN 5 ��CE 'B' \ \ `� \� �/ / // ll APPROX \ — \ 1 LANDMARK THE (fYP) J ) I I I I\ . LOC ION \ •�z / \ I I \ \ \\ w� / `� \ \ \ EXI5NNG PRIVATE 73 I \ \ TREET TO REMAIN 1 (2 ,1 I 62' I O O CCE55 \ s �9ND�ILITY EEM€WT ? \ ± 0.7 AC. 1 I EX�STFOOD�N� � // TCLJ IZ1AIN EXI5TING KY GATE I\ \ TO REMAIN C ON 5015A� U20 / 70 OPSPACE 'C' MIN TCYS ± 0.G AC. 1GYIU1 E: L2 02 P& \ EXIS WOOD FENCE 9 BARE g/ I ,"O REM \N \ ) \ \ J u \ I I 141' / CIO �LLPOTT El \� 784 II I l I I I U O U Q a� MH y . 42 LO . T 6 14 ~„�► CCFSk \ V / _ 8 \ \ \ \ I I I �IiY DUBLIN R= I Co. zsr? R4 5' TREE P65ER T10A1 A3FA � � � \ � -� � { �J�� -<• � — I '(p � / C � �$ I R6 \ � � 1 \) \ \ I ) \ r` � 1 � I I � 1 I I I I � I I � i � °�' �`'� �' � �✓ � ( ( --� .� n`i � � 1 --� � � / \ / I I I� III � I � a✓ \ / \� T.R�E�45Ek\/ATION AR�cA + 2O T /4 TREE PRESERVATION AREA s / ) / \ \ \ FA5E1 T NI�RY) J il cm UBLIN\ \ 1 I I.. I �'eW l \ea\ / 1� \ 1 \ \ CCCl➢ll �II l1 1 .. � L I I Try r � NOTES 1. 5EE SHEETS C 1.0 1 AND C 1.02 FOR UTILTIIE5 AND EASEMENTS. 2. BASE INFORMATION 15 COMPILED FROM VARIOUS 50URCE5, SUCH A5 COUNTY AND CITY GI5, 5ITE SURVEYS, AND 5ITE OBSERVATION. PLAN AND BASE INFORMATION MAY CHANGE WITH FINAL SURVEYING AND ENGINEERING. 3. CONTOUR INTERVAL = 2' 4. EXISTING SITE ZONING NORTH PARCEL: R- I SOUTH PARCELS: PUD 5. ALL AREA5 DESIGNATED "COMMON OPEN SPACE", "COMMON ACCE55 AND UTILITY EASEMENT ", AND ALL PRIVATE STREETS, SHALL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY A FORCED AND FUNDED HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION. G. PRIVATE STREETS IN 5U5AREA5 A AND B SHALL BE TYPICAL ASPHALT PER CITY OF DUBLIN STANDARDS. DECORATIVE GRAVEL TOP- DRE55ING MAY BE PERMITTED, AND MATERIALS SHALL BE SELECTED AT TIME OF FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO MATCH THE DECORATIVE GRAVEL USED ON THE EXISTING PRIVATE 5TREET. 7. PLATTED TREE PRESERVATION AREA SHALL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE INDIVIDUAL LOT OWNER. 8. TREE PRESERVATION ZONE: A5 REQUIRED BY THE ZONING CODE, NO BUILDING, STRUCTURE, PENCE, PATIO, RECREATIONAL OR ATHLETIC FACILITY OR ANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT OF ANY KIND MAY BE PLACED TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY UPON IN OR UNDER THE AREA DESIGNATED HEREON A5 'TREE PRESERVATION ZONE" NOR SHALL ANY WORK BE PERFORMED THEREON WHICH WOULD ALTER THE NATURAL STATE OF THE ZONE OR DAMAGE ANY OF THE TREES OR VEGETATION THEREIN; PROVIDED HOWEVER THAT THE ZONE MAY BE D15TUR13ED TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF UTILITIE5 AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES, MOUNDING, LAND5CAPING / P TION�II R� ch l� � 2 p, \ �� I � � � �I I III► 1 I ���� co q 111 LQ a Z J $ C L z w W 0 a O a J W 00 ca � m > w < T 0 cn a < ur .-. W it o Z m z o U) 1 o J 1 m W J= F- J W W D < Al! C Z z cu m a O Jo 0 W c W© �w -a �T 00 I no. revisions: by: job no: 09009 date: 02/18/11 sheet: L2.01 °o rT O 0 00 U = Ad �o o 0 0 W T O O i O 3 3 Z � a3 0 Q j c6 O ca D (0 ° M /Y\ .0 °' a� W _ L a o J ' 0 ) O ci U C U O L ° m ca 0) Z J $ C L z w W 0 a O a J W 00 ca � m > w < T 0 cn a < ur .-. W it o Z m z o U) 1 o J 1 m W J= F- J W W D < Al! C Z z cu m a O Jo 0 W c W© �w -a �T 00 I no. revisions: by: job no: 09009 date: 02/18/11 sheet: L2.01 -6ARFIAS- MESIAS F �zpz S UgA� 1 I CIMINO DOMJN� L 1 / Na �� 'w* lELp VILLA EI II I II I I ,I I / ` ✓ / 1 56' �� Z� / \ -- � 15 yC = \ ) \ 1 G —s� ) \ I I j�7 � �-_ 1 20' / R 4' o 46 0 / / / C OMMON \ S \ ca 1 l.J / / Rp5 5 SPACE 'D' / \ 13 1 s6 7 1 1 \ I I ✓ j / ✓ I / J �� I I .�, , r cy� / \ I —J/ ±o.ol AC s R75 \ � 0' POPEP1Ti�L —� @\ \ ✓� 1 V / f J I 177' % 6 // / / \vd s9, • p _ 9 POTENT Elm / O PA�CIN nb I6' / I I / / a s COMMON M P ti / I / RONG M / N OPEN SPACE 'E' 1 \ \ \ \� \ \ 1 y J I I 5 _8fi9— 0 2� A 8 J \ / I \ 1 r— \\� / UCN � DMAf�KTR- E(TW.) APPR0 LOC TION 4 EX. WOOD FENCE / / 5 Ssl qND UT %[l>\�S ` i J / / \)I f I I \ I I( I / �T R E M AIN �— \ / / J \ \ ry 3 47' -/v 46 R s' / - - o] • I I 6!/ I I \.— � _ R - I \ \ � 4 8 ) I � � \ CERNYJEFFFZE1'ASPAULAi / \\�4w / I EX. aKE PATH / \ \ \ ss ( $ 35 �\ WO D FENCE \ \ REM�IN \ \ �OMMON 2 � / \ OPEN SPACE 'H' \ 0�0 I AC. — —� 551DE EX� N IKE PATH s �— _ _ 51DEWALK � ENTRY GATE: 5ET13ACK 40' MIPROM-R&AL \ 1 cp / _ _ 11/=R FOREST `-� I \\ -- . - - -� -� - --- ° \�, \\ / \ \ ` 4 WICK MACDO�LD P $ CHERYL A COMMON OPEN 5PACET CITY OF DUBLIN MBERLEIGH NORTH COMMUNITY ASSN 60 28' I 24 z' OP S A E'l' �rn Z Jff 3 0� � 3 1 2 28' ,r 5 CID L T _ / /\ / \ ` �. �- S \ \ �- /2� �/ ) /1�� / �\ �` \\ �G°�\ `� / / / 29 if F� / ✓%/ 1 \ EX. WOODE� q � /�/ / / / \ \ \ TO REMAfN 4 / ✓ / I _ / I IN 1. SEE SHEETS C 1 .01 AND C 1.02 FOR UTILTIIE5 AND EASEMENTS. 2. BASE INFORMATION 15 COMPILED FROM VARIOUS 50URCE5, 5UCH A5 COUNTY AND CITY GI5, 51TE SURVEYS, AND 51TE OBSERVATION. PLAN AND BA5E INFORMATION MAY CHANGE WITH FINAL SURVEYING AND ENGINEERING. 3. CONTOUR INTERVAL = 2' 4. EXISTING 51TE ZONING NORTH PARCEL: R- I SOUTH PARCELS: PUD 4. ALL AREAS DESIGNATED "COMMON OPEN SPACE" "COMMON ACCESS 4 UTILITY EASEMENT', AND ALL PRIVATE STREETS SHALL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY A FORCED AND FUNDED HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION. 5. TREE PRESERVATION ZONE: A5 REQUIRED BY THE ZONING CODE, NO BUILDING, STRUCTURE, FENCE, PATIO, RECREATIONAL OR ATHLETIC FACILITY OR ANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT OF ANY KIND MAY BE PLACED TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY UPON IN OR UNDER THE AREA DESIGNATED HEREON A5 "TREE PRESERVATION ZONE" NOR SHALL ANY WORK BE PERFORMED THEREON WHICH WOULD ALTER THE NATURAL STATE OF THE ZONE OR DAMAGE ANY OF THE TREES OR VEGETATION THEREIN; PROVIDED HOWEVER THAT THE ZONE MAY BE DISTURBED TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES, MOUNDING, LANDSCAPING AND SUBDIVISION ENTRANCE FEATURES. ANY PART OF THE ZONE D15TURDED BY MAINTENANCE SHALL BE RE5TORED A5 NEARLY A5 PRACTICABLE TO THE ORIGINAL CONDITION. ANY HEALTHY VEGETATION OR TREES REMOVED SHALL BE REPLACED WITH LIKE NUMBER AND VARIETY. OTHERWISE NO TREES OR OTHER VEGETATION MAY BE REMOVED FROM THE ZONE EXCEPT FOR THE REMOVAL OF DEAD, DISEASED, DECAYED, OR NOXIOUS TREE5 AND OTHER VEGETATION OR A5 MAY BE REQUIRED FOR CONSERVATION OR AESTHETIC PURPOSES OR IN KEEPING WITH GOOD FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. AMBERLrEIGH NO H 2 \�\` `\ \ / / � / �KP f SIDEWALK;TIEINTOPAAT \ \ AP NOFYH COMMU ASSN �/ \\ \ \ \ \ S L JALK A T�t / / � / SYSTEM, PER PLANNING STAFF PP R VA / ` ,c, / I �/•p II CITY OF DUBLIN I OCONNOrIN OCONN KAREN BHASIN ROMI)3HASIN H�MA M , I mo` \ � �— , \ I ► I r► \ i . � � /, ,/ � � 1 \ c o � EXISTING WOOD FENCE ON CITY OF DUB PROPE TY TO BE RELOCATED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION OF� \ \ \ EITHER THIS DEVELOPMENT OR OP�I CITY PARK 517E I \ \ WHICHEVER OCCURS FIF8T. PRESERV DEC�L �,�LIBLE .TR OV�1 EE REM ^ 5HALL BE IPENTIFIED4 f FINAL DpEtOPMENT PLAN AND /5HALL B LIMITED TO DEVELOPMENT ffOOTPRI NTLi MUQi- A5'6551BLf- / TIE 51 EWALK I O TING STUB( / I / AT VI TA RIDG DRIVE I I I / I j R Z O O Z a W a 2 c 2 0.9 r � L C O 0� Z -p 0� J > rn C D CL Q N U L Z 2 ca ° o E m 0 C) �? c6 r T 0 3 a3 co O CD N Q M N � L O N c U co 0 co c job no: 09009 date: 02/18/11 sheet: L2.02 1 of: 1 z � $ C J 'o 0 L Z w W N 0 5 N n 0 ° J a W E � m W _` T 0 Q a N 0 Q Z 0 5 � O — J o W W F- r t W N Z �a CU cm �0�E „ ° W c _ 2 75 co co W -0 D T U no. revisions: by: job no: 09009 date: 02/18/11 sheet: L2.02 1 of: 1 1�M \ O x � I s I \ 9 � 8 wm 8• f \ 8 8 12 CULVERT � ENERGY 6 \ IP I I \ DISSIPATER S . ENERGY i DISSIPATER \ I I r ,, 6' SAN I '�'� 8 wM r . \/ ..- _ / / \ \ -��/ \ ' "A I I \ " 6 NAZI \ / •+ 12 CULVERT / ' / ENERGY G I DISSIPATER w / 12 STM / �� V 16 STM STM 8 _ \ / \ su DISSIPATER --18 STM c LEGEND STORM SEWER & MANHOLE SANITARY SEWER & MANHOLE &W WATER MAIN W /GATE VALVE & WELL DITCH FLOW ARROW ■ CATCH BASIN CULVERT END SECTION FIRE HYDRANT a � S,y Sy C1, p FT Cl p I �,Y I �iii�►il I j Z O 1 f \� � I 0 30 60' 120' 180' SCALE 1 "= 60' z Q E _ .� 0 m o O U ° Y � � o LL w L O 0 rn a ai � O � N J N 0 � a a E o= W a cu 0 ° 0 a Q 0 0 LL — � N N a m U ° w L o z a z� U C L z U ^ J ^ O c � i O L O 0 cu O � z job no: 09009 date: 01/13/11 sheet: C1.01 1 of: 2 Q U U J o Y z w a a ° U O � N J N 0 w a E W a D 0 ° 0 a Q 0 0 z J U ° w L z a z� Q L m L z ^ J ^ O c L.L O J w m o W 0 N � w D o m �T ° U no. revisions: by: job no: 09009 date: 01/13/11 sheet: C1.01 1 of: 2 i s 12 CULVERT P OVA 20' WD o x / SEWER EMENf \ SEINER EAS la r / / I II j \. T . / \ / \ \ 8 ! \ 1 .58 \ \\ / / I /0 " 20 .� SEWER ENT s�e^ 12 Ar 8 SAN \ / \ INV 829.41 12* Jim I 15• STMM a' wM 20' WD STORM EWER EASEMENT / 12' STM I l 8' siw � f STRUCTURE ENERGY ' ✓/ \ ' DISSAPAIER TC \ la STM — SEWER EASEMENs �� ry,T EX SAN MH 136A I 1 r \ INV 825.35 �8' SAN 8' SAN I 20''WD RM { SEWER EISDAENT� 12' SrM WATER / \ I SIRUCIURE / r l - -- 8 WM - •r \ — — - - -- 18' SIM . 1 20' WD — I \ / SEWER EAS ENT , 2 r I ' SIM I \ �- III r • � _ � `� j' 20 WD EI •/ _ j / \ \\ \ � \ T \ \ \�. 24' SIM v I LEGEND STORM SEWER & MANHOLE SANITARY SEWER & MANHOLE &W WATER MAIN W /GATE VALVE & WELL — DITCH � FLOW ARROW ■ CATCH BASIN CULVERT END SECTION 'r FIRE HYDRANT v r I `INV 828.35 36' �27'STM I I / Pr- / ( \ ) SH � � �\ HEM • o, � � ��-- , I� \ QQ O oZ z I Q ol= O U .� o a p U 1 wwww- o Y O C � 0 Y � 7 O LL LV L O O C G a a ° U O � N J N 0 � a E O w a D 0 ° 0 0— a �- 0 0 c N mmmmmm cu a� N a m 0 U ° Q LV L o L O (3) z � I, u U O C i z U C v L i O L O 0 W 0 J o z I job no: 09009 date: 01/13/11 sheet: C1.02 2 of: 2 Q O U J a 1 wwww- o Y z LV C G a a ° U O � N J N 0 LVa \ E w a D 0 ° 0 a 0 0 z MENNEN J 0 U ° LV L z z � � � L i z J m �a v 0 ° �� Wm O W 0 J o goo �T ° U no. revisions: by: job no: 09009 date: 01/13/11 sheet: C1.02 2 of: 2 EXISTING TREES AND NATURAL VEGETATION TO REMAIN EXISTING TREES AND NATURAL d ° STREET TREES NOT PROVIDED VEGETATION TO REMAIN A ° STREET TREES NOT PROVIDED d d ° ° A ° d d d d d ° d d ° d d ° d d d d d d d d d 1 ° ° d ° ° d m m 3 1_ 0 1. i 1 211 O11 31_0II PRIVATE STREET LOCATION OF STREET SHALL BE 181 011 3 ' -0 " ADJUSTED WITHIN THE EAEMENT 3 1 .0 11 LOCATION OF STREET SHALL BE SO AS TO PRESERVE EXISTING TREES PRIVATE STREET ADJUSTED WITHIN THE EAEMENT PROVIDE 3' -0" CLEAR BETWEEN EDGE SO A TO PRESERVE EXISTING TREES 50' - 0 " OF 5TREET IMPROVEMENTS AND EDGE PROVIDE 3' -0" CLEAR BETWEEN EDGE PRIVATE STREET EAEMENT OF EXISTING VEGETATION TO REMAIN 50' - 0 " OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND EDGE GRAS SWALE STORMWATER CONVEYANCE APHALT STREET WITH DECORATIVE GRAVEL PRIVATE STREET EAEMENT OF EXISTING VEGETATION TO REMAIN TOP -DRESS TO MATCH EXISTING PRIVATE STREET. ASPHALT STREET WITH DECORATIVE GRAVEL A REQUIRED PER CIVIL ENGINEERING. SEE BUILD -UP SECTION, L3.01 /DT 4 A5 REQUIRED PER CIVIL ENGINEEERING. TOP -DRESS TO MATCH EXISTING PRIVATE STREET. WIDEN STREET WIDTH TO 26' AT HYDRANT SEE BUILD -UP SECTION, L3.01 /DT 4 LOCATIONS AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS WIDEN STREET WIDTH TO 2G AT HYDRANT LOCATIONS A5 SHOWN ON THE FIAN5 O SUBAREA A & B: 12' PRIVATE STREET CHARACTER SUBAREA B: 18' PRIVATE STREET CHARACTER 1 SCALE: 1 " =6' -0" SCALE: 1 " =6' -0" CONSTRUCTION O WIDTH VARIES 12' - 18' L PROP CROWN & PLAN GRADE ° 1 6 6 1 °° ° 5REET TREES NOT PROVIDED; 3 INCH BITUMINOUS AGGREGATE BASE (ITEM 301) 2.00 INCH GRAVEL TOP COURSE TO MATCH EXISTING ROAD FRONT YARD TREE5 AND TREE REPLACEMENT PERMITTED 6 INCH AGGREGATE BASE (ITEM 304) 1.25 INCH ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE (ITEM 404) A'I y SUBGRADE COMPACTION (ITEM 204) 1.75 INCH ASPHALT CONCRETE INTERMEDIATE COURSE (ITEM 402) LANDSCAPING BETWEEN ° SCREEN WALL (OR HOUSE ° SUBAREA A & B: PRIVATE STREET CROSS SECTION FACADE) AND CURB ° PRIVATE STREET, TWO -WAY NO ON- STREET PARKING 4' HEIGHT AUTOCOURT NO SIDEWALKS PROVIDED SCREEN WALL CONSTRUCTION \ LANDSCAPING BETWEEN CL AUTOCOURT HOUSE FACADE AND CURB FRONT -LOAD FOR 51DE -LOAD ° ° GARAGE GARAGE PERMEABLE CONCRETE PAVERS \ 2' 1' 8' 8' 1' 2' (UNI ECO -STONE BY UNILOCK OR APPROVED EQUAL) PROP CROWN & STRAIGHT 18 INCH CONCRETE ® ® 2% PLAN GRADE I CURB (ITEM 609) = _III =III = =III I I 2% 1 r i C�L (TMP 2% I 2% III - "' � I I 01 -.. - 5 -0" MAX. 1 0' -10' I 1 1 1L 1 BUILD ZONE i 22 1 -0 11 BUILD ZONE I I I i PRIVATE STREET I 1 0 J 1 1 L 1 I 1 1 OPEN GRADED AGGREGATE (NO. 8) Ilk 40 1_ 0 " 18 1_ 0 11 12 INCH GEOTEXTILE SEPARATOR (TYP) PRIVATE STREET EAEMENT PERMEABLE PAVER GUTTER WITH GARAGE CONC DIVIDER 3 INCH STRUCTURAL BACKFILL TYPE 3 i SETBACK I 3 INCH STRUCTURAL BACKFILL TYPE 2 APHALT PAVEMENT INFILTRATION. TRENCH, OVERFLOW 3 INCH BITUMINOUS AGGREGATE BASE (ITEM 301) SEE BUILD -UP SECTION, L3.01 /DT 4 PIPE, AND HEADER CURB 6 INCH AGGREGATE BASE (ITEM 304) 4 INCH PIPE UNDERDRAIN WIDEN STREET WIDTH TO 26' AT HYDRANT SUBGRADE COMPACTION (ITEM 204) 1.25 INCH ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE (ITEM 404) LOCATIONS A5 SHOWN ON THE PLANS 1.75 INCH ASPHALT CONCRETE INTERMEDIATE COURSE (ITEM 402) 3 SUBAREA C: TYPICAL STREET CHARACTER SUBAREA C: TYPICAL STREET CROSS SECTION SCALE: 1 " =6' -0" 4 PRIVATE STREET BUILD -UP DETAILS SCALE: 1 " =5' -O" job no: 09009 date: 02/18/11 sheet: L3.01 1 of: 1 c o � $ C J � 0 rn � LL a� r O O 0 L w ' a) 0 o Z 0 n ^ VJ � CD J m W E ^ a) � N U i U O N .-. O job no: 09009 date: 02/18/11 sheet: L3.01 1 of: 1 Z � $ C J O L w W `o n ^ 0 J W E W _` T 0 Q n N .-. O C/)N it O Zw z O c 0 F o W 9 W / 0 W V/L r W W I..L W� N Z m �¢ W C Y c» O W m .T a L _ 0 Q W � © CO) ca uJ 0 D r �0 no. revisions: by: job no: 09009 date: 02/18/11 sheet: L3.01 1 of: 1 APPENDIX 1 SUBAREA C: ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES RQMANTIC REVIVAL: The Romanfie Revival Style merges elements of early 20th century English and Preneh Revival styles. The architec- ture isaninformal, picturesque style which merges the medieval English cottage, the Tudor sty le, French country and manor vernaculars. The I is rooted in hadifion and speaks of old fashioned coziness and dignified prosperity. Common characteusfics include complex, steep roofs with cross gables and multiple overlapping gables, dormers, and a prominent ctumney. DESIGN CRITERIA: A. All structures shall meet the City of Dub - fin ZnningCode ResidenfialAppearance Stan- dards unless otherwise set forth in this text. All structures are single family homes. B. Architectural Styles: This Architectural Guideline is intended to convey the architec- tural character and styles [hat shall be found in this subarea. The architectural style is the Romantic Revival which includes both Eng- fishand Prench Revival styles. C. Architectural Diversity: In order to ensure that thus is architectural diversity, homes lo- cated on adjacent lots within Subarea C shall be required to ufihze different floor plans and different massing configurations. D. Claddingmateuals: Theexteuorsofstmc- turea i❑ this subarea shall be constructed pf buck, stone, manufactured stone, wood, stuc- co, and cementifious siding, (or any combi- nauon thereof), provided that these mateuals are used in accordancewith the Architectural Guideline A 20% minimum area of stone or brick is required on the facade as specifiedin the development text. E. Tutu materials: Permitted exterior trim mateuals shall include buck, stone, wood, aluminum (for gutters and downspouts onlyj, copper, EIPS fibu- cement, composite wood and vinyl products, Shutters shall be consid- ered "trim" for purposes of the Architectural Guidelines. APPENDIX 1 DESIGN CRITERIA CONTINUED: F. Roofs: Tall and steeply pitched (12:12 to 20:12 encouraged, 8:12 minimum). All homes shall have dimensional asphalt shingles, wood, slate ( ncluding manufactured slate products), or tile. A metal roof such as copper may be used for up to 20% of the total roof area. G. Four -sided architecture shall be required so that similar architectural design elements and details shall be consistent throughout all elevations of the structure. H. Chimneys: Any of the exterior cladding materials are allowed with the exception of wood. I. Lighting: Each unit shall have a minimum of one approved yard post fight near the walk- way at the front entry and one porch fight near the front door. J. Front Porches: Glass and screens shall be prohibited. In keepingwith the Romantic Re- vival style it is encouraged that porches be treated as minor elements that are notched out or extended under the roof. K Exterior Finish: Colors must be earth -tone or mimic natural materials. High Chroma col- ors are not permitted. ENCOURAGED ELEMENTS AND POSSIBILITIES: • Simple detailing. • Arched entry. • Use of a hipped "Jeddn- Head" roof. • Prominent brick or stone chimney. • Multiple chimneys with multiple flues. • Heavy stone headers and sills • Use of conductor heads at gutters. • Two car garage door is divided into equal halves. • Roof fine (eaves) extending below the win- dows at the second floor. • Use of tripped, barrel-roofed or eyebrow dor- mers. • Second floor overhang. • bay windows. • curved gables. • Windows with divided -fight appearance. • Half timbering applied to the upper areas. • Use of glazing at the top row of garage pan- eling. • Slate appearance at roof. APPENDIX 1 Architectural Elements: Windows - Design Intent: Tall and relatively narrow casement and double -hung windows often in groups separated by mullions are common. All windows utilize muntins for a divided fight appearance. The size of the windows should be reduced at the upper levels. Windows are often deeply recessed to give the appearance of thickwalls with heavy stone or soldier course headers and sills. Windows are arranged randomly to break up the massing of the house. Bay windows and small narrow accent windows me encouraged Mnimum requirement: Wood, vinyl or aluminum clad windows with imitation munfins. Doors - Design Intenu Plank/board or panel style single doors, often with arched transoms, and brick surrounds are common. Arched tope, including the Tu- dorArch, andwrought iron accents are encouraged, as is the use of glazedpanels above, inspired by English medieval forms. Mnimum requirement: Wood, fiberglass or steel with embossed panels. [I E 2 [H APPENDIX 1 Architectural Elements continued: Dormers - Design Intent Cable hipped, azched and shed dormers aze all common. The `eyebrow' dormer style is encouraged. Minimum requirements: Dormer windows follow the same guidelines as standard windows. Chimneys - Design IntenC Massive brick or stone chimneys aze encour- aged. The chimney should be asymmetric. Multiple flues aze common. A wide variety of chimney cap profiles is encouraged. The placement of the chimney is random. Minixxium requirement: If the chimney occurs on an exterior wall the chimney must go to grade and get wider at the base. i��� �\ APPENDIX 1 Facade Composition: The Romantic Revival style is characterized by an asymmetric and balanced placement of doors and windows. Front doors are typically located near the center. The roof pitch is between 8:12 to 20:12. Massing -Design Intent: A. L- shaped plan with a two -story front fac- ing gable, with a hipped garage roof par- allel to the street. The dormer has a shed roof. Chimney at front facade. B. L- shaped plan with a two -story front facing gable, with a hipped garage roof parallel to the street. The roof of the front - facing gable curves down to provide a covered entry. The dormer also has a hipped roof. Chimney at the side facade. C. Similar to diagram `A' but with a single story plan and roof extension at the entry. D. L- shaped plan with a tower at the inter- section of the V. A side loaded single story garage. A hipped two -story roof with extended entry is parallel to the street. E. Similar to diagram `D' but with a single story plan and with a front facing chim- ney. F. 2 stories are the maximum allowed. FACADE COMPOSITION DIAGRAMS 2$' -36' 20' -24' ® ®® 00 EQ EQ 45' -60' 2$' -36' 20' 24' 28' -36' 20' -24' I I I I ® oo EQ EQ EQ EQ 45' -60' o � o EQ. EQ� EQ� EQ. EQ, EQ. EQ, EQ. 11. ► . 9 1 .1.111 A B.two -story front loaded aaraae C. one story front - loaded aaraae D. two story , side loaded garage E. one story side loaded garage APPENDIX 1 Typical Lot Orientation Minimum building size. 1800 sq. ft. Maximum building size. 5000 sq.1t, 6 Rear setback Ski setback 70' W Rear setback e Ske setback a N Fbrra 18'Min. Front lead garage setback from street ea 2rargarage front line, 2 parking spaces provided In driveway d -10' build zone Note. Slc'zlcad garage and Landscaping permitted up autocourt permitted on 610' to curb, rralntaln driveway wk]e lots visibility angles per code. 60' Wide Lot Garage Placement Examples Autocourt required on 70' Lots, permitted on 617' lots, 2 parking spaces provided In autocourt 4 Screen wall or hedge, screen front and sides 2rargarage 9 -10' bided zone Landscaping permitted up to curb, nalrbin driveway visibility trlanges per code 70' Wide Lot Front -load garage, setback with parking area in drive- Side-load garage with auto court way, landscaping to curb Side -load garage with auto court, 4' screen walls, landscaping to curb APPENDIX 1 Romantic Revival Examples A APPENDIX i Romantic Revival Examples 1] Mil aI The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 3. Deer Run Estates Memorial Drive and Dublin Road 10- 0622 /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Preliminary Plat Proposal: Creation of a new Planned Unit Development District (PUD) for a single - family development, which includes 9 estate lots, 37 cluster lots and over 10 acres of open space, located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Memorial Drive and Dublin Road. Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council of a rezoning and preliminary development plan under the Planned District provisions of Code Section 153.050. Applicant: Robert Walter, owner; represented by Michael Close. Planning Contact: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planner II. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4690, jrauch @dublin.oh.us MOTION 41: To recommend approval to City Council of this Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan because it complies with all applicable review criteria and the existing development standards within the area with four conditions: 1) The plans be revised to relocate the gate and boulevard treatment at the entrance along Memorial Drive farther into the development to provide stacking space for vehicles waiting to enter; 2) The text and the plans be revised to incorporate a five -foot sidewalk along the north side of Memorial Drive, and the sidewalk be continued to connect to existing sidewalk stub on the east side of Vista Ridge Drive, subject to Engineering approval; 3) The applicant revise the proposed development text to reflect the changes requested by the Commission, subject to Planning approval; and 4) The text and plans be revised to extend the four -foot sidewalk between lots 28 and 29 from the proposed development into Amberleigh Park to allow easy access to the extensive park trail system, subject to approval by Engineering and Parks and Open Space. * Michael Close, on behalf of the applicant, agreed to the above conditions. Page 1 of 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION CITY OF DUBLIN- FEBRUARY 3, 2011 Land Use and Lang Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236 Phone / TDD: 614 - 410 -4600 Fax: 614- 410 -4747 Web Site:w .dublin.oh.us CreatInq a L egacy 1] Mil aI The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 3. Deer Run Estates Memorial Drive and Dublin Road 10- 0622 /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Preliminary Plat Proposal: Creation of a new Planned Unit Development District (PUD) for a single - family development, which includes 9 estate lots, 37 cluster lots and over 10 acres of open space, located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Memorial Drive and Dublin Road. Request: Review and recommendation of approval to City Council of a rezoning and preliminary development plan under the Planned District provisions of Code Section 153.050. Applicant: Robert Walter, owner; represented by Michael Close. Planning Contact: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planner II. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4690, jrauch @dublin.oh.us MOTION 41: To recommend approval to City Council of this Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan because it complies with all applicable review criteria and the existing development standards within the area with four conditions: 1) The plans be revised to relocate the gate and boulevard treatment at the entrance along Memorial Drive farther into the development to provide stacking space for vehicles waiting to enter; 2) The text and the plans be revised to incorporate a five -foot sidewalk along the north side of Memorial Drive, and the sidewalk be continued to connect to existing sidewalk stub on the east side of Vista Ridge Drive, subject to Engineering approval; 3) The applicant revise the proposed development text to reflect the changes requested by the Commission, subject to Planning approval; and 4) The text and plans be revised to extend the four -foot sidewalk between lots 28 and 29 from the proposed development into Amberleigh Park to allow easy access to the extensive park trail system, subject to approval by Engineering and Parks and Open Space. * Michael Close, on behalf of the applicant, agreed to the above conditions. Page 1 of 2 W Mil aI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION FEBRUARY 3, 2011 3. Deer Run Estates Memorial Drive and Dublin Road 10- 0622 /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Preliminary Plat VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: Approval of this Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan will be recommended to City Council. MOTION 42: To recommend approval to City Council of this Preliminary Plat because it complies with all applicable review criteria and the existing development standards within the area with the following condition: 1) The applicant should ensure that any minor technical adjustments to the plat should be made prior to City Council submittal. * Michael Close, on behalf of the applicant, agreed to the above condition. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: Approval of this Preliminary Plat will be recommended to City Council. STAFF CERTIFICATION Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP Planner II Page 2 of 2 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2011 — Minutes Page 1 of 12 DRAFT 3. Deer Run Estates Memorial Drive and Dublin Road 10- 062Z /PDP /PP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Ms. Amorose Groomes introduced this Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan application which involves the creation of a new planned development district, for a single - family development including nine estate lots, 37 cluster lots, and over ten acres of open space, located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Memorial Drive and Dublin Road. She swore in those intending to address the Commission regarding this case, including the applicant's representative, Michael Close; and city representatives. Jennifer Rauch presented this request. She said the area includes 51 acres and the surrounding developments include the Amberleigh North subdivision to the south, the Scioto River to the east, and Kerry Glen subdivision to the north. She presented the plan that included the proposed three subareas are heavily wooded. She said Subarea A includes two existing residential structures, and a creek runs between Subareas A and B. Ms. Rauch said the Concept Plan was reviewed by the Commission in 2009 and the proposed plan is consistent. She said the Commission expressed concerns about the architectural details, particularly in Subarea C, which the applicant has addressed in the proposed development text. She said in addition, the Commission discussed the setback of the lots within Subarea C to be consistent with developments to the north and south. Ms. Rauch said the property and proposed site plan indicate two private drive access points. She said the existing drive on Dublin Road provides access to Subareas A and B, and a new proposed private drive will be located on Memorial Drive and align with Autumnwood Way, within the Amberleigh North subdivision on the south side, and provide access to Subarea C. Ms. Rauch said the proposed development text, the uses and density meet the Community Plan. She said the setbacks for proposed Subarea C are 100 feet from Dublin Road, which match the setbacks for Kerry Glen and Amberleigh North subdivisions. She said stormwater and tree preservation is addressed within the development text, but the final details will be provided, should this be approved at the Final Development Plan. She said a traffic study was conducted, and at this point no additional traffic improvements are required based on the study. Ms. Rauch said Subareas A and B contain the nine estate lots on sites ranging from two to seven acres. She said the proposed development text for these two subareas are practically identical, the only difference is the five lots in Subarea B have a platted tree preservation zone indicated on the preliminary plat to protect the substantial number of trees in that area. Ms. Rauch said the architectural standards and materials were highlighted in the text. She said the review of the final architecture will be completed by a design committee in accordance with the text, should it be approved. She said the proposed text discusses the material and design of the private for Subareas A and B, which is consistent with the existing material, which is a asphalt with a decorative gravel topcoat. She said the widths of those are less than typical streets, but meet the requirements of Engineering and Fire in terms of fire hydrant locations, turning radii, and durability. Ms. Rauch said open space areas are identified on the preliminary Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2011 — Minutes Page 2 of 12 DRAFT plat and include 3.2 acres, in areas surrounding the edges of the property which will be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. Ms. Rauch said Subarea C proposes 37 cluster lots in the southernmost portion of the site and access to the site will be provided via a private drive. She said the plans indicate a boulevard and gated entrance into this portion of the site. She said Planning recommends a condition that the applicant move the gate and boulevard treatment farther into the site to provide additional stacking space. Ms. Rauch said the applicant is proposing a four -foot wide sidewalk along the north side of Memorial Drive, and Engineering is requesting it be increased to five feet to meet City standards, in addition to providing to an existing sidewalk stub into Vista Ridge Drive. Ms. Rauch said the development text accounts for setbacks for these individual lots which include a build zone in the front of the yard of zero to ten feet of which a portion of the building is required to be located in. She said the text and the plat indicate 60 and 70 -foot wide lots with a 120 -foot minimum depth. She said as indicated in this proposal, some of the lots do not meet those requirements, but will be modified prior to approval by City Council. Ms. Rauch said no internal circulation is provided for pedestrians within Subarea C. She said Planning recommends within the private drive easement a sidewalk be provided for pedestrians. . Ms. Rauch said architecture and materials are specified within the development text. She presented architecture examples and potential layouts submitted by the applicant to meet the requirements within the text. She said in addition to the development text, the applicant has provided architectural guidelines to help provide a context for the theme and appropriate design elements. Ms. Rauch said based on Planning's analysis of the rezoning with the preliminary development plan and the preliminary plat, Planning recommends approval of the two motions with the conditions, as listed in the Planning Report. Mike Close, representing the applicant, stated the applicant and the City conducted a 0.6 -acre landswap. He said the proposal is a down zoning, as in 1995 it was part of the development of Amberleigh with 63 units in the area south of Deer Run and 11 units north of Deer Run where the Walter residence is located. He said they were backing off 30 units from what was previously approved. Mr. Close said in 2002 a rezoning was approved by City Council, but because the conditions attached by City Council were not satisfactory to the applicant, they did not make any changes to the text. He said pursuant to an opinion by the then, Planning Director, as approved by the City Law Director that zoning expired 18 months after the approval and reverted back to the zoning of 63 units, plus 11 units. Mr. Close said they had no problem with the conditions listed in the Planning Report, except one. He said Planning is asking for a sidewalk within Subarea C. Mr. Close said the Commission should consider the proposed sidewalk, as the applicant is trying to balance the amount of impervious surface and the need for a sidewalk system. Mr. Close offered to construct a sidewalk along the boulevard entrance from Memorial Drive into Subarea C. He Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2011 — Minutes Page 3 of 12 DRAFT said given the size of the proposed development the applicant did not believe sidewalks were necessary. Mr. Close pointed out the area where most of the construction will take place the applicant in conjunction with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources has planted all the trees and there is a request that with the final development plan City Council approve a tree waiver. Mr. Close said a waiver has been requested on the normal three -year time period to begin development. He said Mr. Walter has no intention of leaving where he lives now, and no intention of building on this site at the present time. He said Mr. Walter is attempting to guarantee the zoning on the best buildable parcel in Dublin. Mr. Close said they held a community meeting regarding this proposal when they first submitted the Community Plan. He said the plan is very similar and he said as a result, they sent letters to all the neighbors inviting questions. He said they got one question from a neighbor, who was with the homeowners association and they mailed him the entire development packet. He said they had not yet met with the other neighbors and he apologized if it would have been helpful. Mr. Taylor asked who would be the potential buyers in this development. Mr. Close said the property would not be inexpensive and would largely be empty nesters. Kevin Walter referred to a resident's note regarding proper notice for this hearing. He asked if an appropriate notice had been mailed. Ms. Rauch said notices had been mailed, but the particular residence was located outside the required notification of property owners, which by Code, is 300 feet from the edge of this site. She said as a practice, Planning notifies homeowners associations so that they are aware of what is happening. Mr. Walter said he visited the property and saw the notification signs posted by Planning. Jim Houk, Bird Houk OHM, explained the background of the proposal. He said the intent was to maximize the preservation of the quality trees on the site. He said the homesites were field located. He said an important element is a natural swale drainage area that ran between Subareas and most of the quality trees exist in this area. He said in the area where it was sparse there was reforestation. He said they tried to cluster the homes in the area where they could minimize the impact on the grade to preserve the trees, and pushed it back 100 feet with the hope that they can continue to preserve and maintain a natural forest. He said the intent was to have a high quality cluster back in the middle of a beautiful wooded area. Mr. Houk said the intent was to pull the homes up close to the street. He said there was a 30 -foot rear yard to try to preserve the trees and develop a strong character. He said they agreed when they saw the Planning comments they missed the opportunity to provide a the sidewalk into the development along the proposed boulevard entry. He said they believe with only 37 lots, people will walk down the street naturally. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2011 — Minutes Page 4 of 12 DRAFT Mr. Walter asked if they plan on retaining the trees with the open space areas. Mr. Houk said they would retain and augment the existing trees in the open space. He said along the frontage, all the existing trees will be preserved and they will add trees within that zone with the hope that the homes will not be visible from Memorial Drive. Ms. Amorose Groomes invited public comments regarding this application. Patricia McMillen, 8397 Somerset Way, said she recently received the notification and it was the first she knew of this development. She said many of her neighbors had concerns regarding not having proper notification. She said a main concern was the new road proposed across from Autumnwood Way. She said many times it was difficult to get out onto Dublin Road during peak traffic, and approximately 148 more vehicles would be added with the 37 cluster homes, not counting school buses, service trucks, or visitors. She said soon traffic will be arriving and leaving from the new park She said that would be a tremendous amount of traffic at Autumnwood Way onto Dublin Road. She preferred to see two entrances on Dublin Road, perhaps at each end rather than having all the traffic put on the neighborhood. She also thought residents would use Autumnwood Way to avoid the traffic, causing more traffic through their neighborhood. She asked how they would ever know when this development would begin and end. Ms. Rauch said a final development plan would have to be submitted and reviewed by the Commission, and additional notification would be provided regarding the hearing. Ms. McMillen was concerned about construction parking and traffic for those who build the homes. She asked if there would be restrictions for trucks and how many people can park along Memorial Drive. She said that might possibly be a problem for those visiting the park, too. She was also concerned about construction dust, dirt, and noise when construction begins affecting the Amberleigh swimming pool. She asked if there would be a swimming pool on this property because they have found neighboring communities use their swimming pool by jumping the fence. Nicole Kelbick, 8373 Autumnwood Way, said they heard about this proposal less than a week ago and she notified the neighborhood. She said they had contacted Mr. Walter's attorney regarding notification. She asked what address was used for the Association. Ms. Rauch offered to check and discuss the mailings after the meeting. Ms. Kelbick said the main concern she had heard was about the increased traffic that will result with this proposed development. She said she was informed the traffic study conducted and indicated that the amount of increased traffic did not justify a traffic light or roundabout. She requested a copy of the traffic study. Ms. Kelbick asked about house values and sizes. Ms. Amorose Groomes explained this was a rezoning and preliminary development plan, and those questions are typically discussed with the final development plan. She said the same Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2011 — Minutes Page 5 of 12 DRAFT notifications would be mailed prior to that hearing. She said they appreciated the applicant would maintain the existing trees along Memorial Drive. Jim Olmstead, 8381 Somerset Way, said he resided outside of the 300 -foot notification area, but he had lived at his address for six years and he has been a member of the Amberleigh North Community Association the entire time. He said traffic in the area was severe on Dublin Road during peak times. He said when there was construction outside Amberleigh North, people used their development as a throughway and speedway. He said traffic flow and number of cars for this development are a great concern. He asked how the number of units will impact the power grid and availability of power in the area. He was also worried about overflow into the park area and safety if there is a retention pond proposed. He said the sign posted outside the property was the first time he was aware of this zoning application. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested that anyone interested in being placed on the notification mailing list see Ms. Rauch after the hearing to exchange information. Okey Eneli, 8382 Autumnwood Way, who had experience with rezoning applications, said to find out one day before that this development is proposed, is critically unfair. He said he personally thought this might be a good development, but without knowing more about it, he cannot ask pertinent questions. He said traffic is a concern with the park and this development. He said he did not think the traffic study had combined both the impacts of the park and this development to the Amberleigh North neighborhoods. He said he would like to see the study and the date it was completed, the nature of the property, and the cost of the materials. He said it was frustrating after being a resident of the subdivision for six years that somehow this was happening right next to him. He said without knowing more, he could not ask the right questions, so he asked that the applicant to meet with the neighbors and tell what they are building. Jennifer Readler reminded everyone that the Commission was making a recommendation tonight to City Council, and that the final decision for the rezoning will be made by Council. Mr. Walter said the same notice provision occurs to the same distance from that property, and he thought the residents needed to pay attention to the 300 feet distance, because it was a large area. He said very few properties were within that notice area. He suggested that not be used that for their sole trigger for notice. Ms. Rauch assured the residents their names and addresses can be added to the notification list after the meeting. Meredith Mann, 8306 Amberleigh Way, thanked the Commission for their time and consideration. She said they understood that this was preliminary. She said she was an honorary member of the Amberleigh North Association, and their three main concerns they asked the Commission to consider were their property values, traffic, and the safety of their families, especially their children. She said it was really their desire to work as closely with the applicant and Mr. Close as they possibly can move forward. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2011 — Minutes Page 6 of 12 DRAFT Oye Olatoye, 8372 Somerset Way, reiterated that at 300 feet, not many residents were notified, but 300 feet from the pool meant that everybody that lived on Amberleigh North should get a notice. He asked that be considered. He said they use the swimming pool and have a vested interest in the pool, and everyone that lives on Amberleigh North should be notified. Mr. Olatoye said his concern was for children living in Amberleigh North and the increased traffic. He was concerned the cost of the cluster homes would not be similar to those in Amberleigh North and their property values might depreciate as a result of this development. He asked if the properties would devalue the existing property in the area. He said he believed the preliminary meeting with the homeowners should happen first before this Commission makes a recommendation to City Council. Elisha Morrison, 8374 Autumnwood Way, said she also was concerned about the lack of notification because it did not give them enough time to meet with the homeowners association and be more prepared for this discussion. She said she would like to see the roadway moved onto the main street, not coming into Memorial Drive, or at least have another exit so that traffic has an additional way to leave. She said on the plan the cluster homes on average were on minimum 0.16 -acre, and that was not consistent with the lot sizes in their neighborhood. She said one of her main concerns was they want to safeguard the value of their properties in the Amberleigh North development. She said they would like to see information on what kind of studies were conducted regarding the traffic flow, whether the park was included, and finalized studies regarding stormwater runoff and the impact into the Scioto River. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked the Commissioners' discussion begin. Richard Taylor said regarding the traffic and property value concerns of the residents, traffic is something that everyone has to deal with, he said when he pulled out onto Dublin Road from Bellaire Avenue 20 years ago, there was no roundabout, Donegal Cliffs, Amberleigh North or South, Reserve, or Brandon. He said the roundabout meant traffic never stops, but that was something he had to endure. He said in terms of property values, sometimes it can be misunderstood that property values means that the next house built has to be exactly the same as the house that is built by you to maintain property values. He said if this development was a street grid built directly adjacent, connected, and visible to Amberleigh, he would agree that it might be a potential property value situation that would be a concern, however, this is a very isolated development. He said this kind of cluster home development, with high end houses as shown on the plan, very comparable to Riversgate Village on Fishinger Road, which is now ten years old, had a positive effect on area properties. He said he thought there was a potential here, given the high quality of architecture proposed and the seclusion of this proposal that it is not going to be a problem. He said he did not think this will generate much traffic, especially for the age range of people considered here. He said that was his personal opinion which will be born out more with studies. Mr. Taylor said he was curious about what the City would do in terms of the intersection and if any improvement is being contemplated. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2011 — Minutes Page 7 of 12 DRAFT Mr. Taylor said on the details submitted, he would like to see changes in the development text. He referred to pages 5, 10 and 16 of the development text, where it discussed each subarea, That the height shall be measured from the finished grade to the mean height of the roof. He suggested it be changed to, " the height of the dominant roof mass ", so it is clear that they are talking about the significant roof, and not just any roof, but the larger one. Mr. Taylor also suggested that there be a statement somewhere in the development text that every effort will be made to maintain significant natural features on the site. He said that specifically refers to Subarea B, and he was sure that was the intent because that was dramatic property back there and it will enhance that. Mr. Taylor said page 19. a comment under V. Architectural Standards, 2) A minimum of 20 percent of the front facade shall be stone or brick materials, and the front of the house must turn the corner to the side elevation conflicted with 3) A change in materials must occur in architecturally appropriate locations. He said the unfortunate affect of `turn the corner' is a house ends up being stone in the front with two foot wings on the side, and then it is stucco from there back He said he thought that looked worse than if they made appropriate architectural transition between materials. He asked that be stricken. Mr. Taylor said 5) b. — Fascia size 7) a — Minimum Roof Pitch, specifically the section That eaves shall be a minimum of 12 inches; and 11) Doors shall include windows in the upper portion and have simulated panel details, are okay, except that given the architectural style proposed, it is very common in these styles to have very small overhangs and none in some cases. He pointed out that some of the pictures showed that. He said in some places, they would not actually have a fascia board, so in order to keep it high quality and a European style they are looking for, he thought those restrictions probably hurt it more than they helped it. Mr. Taylor referred to the Appendix I, second page that began F) Roofs, one of the examples is good and one not, so he would like to see the second one taken out because he thought it was a substantially lower quality of design than the others. He said on the following two pages, the small vignette details were great, but on Appendix I with the Romantic Revival examples, he would like to see three removed. (Two top ones and bottom center one.) He said on the last page there was a sharp house with a turret, but the previous turret was bad and he would like to see it removed. John Hardt echoed the comments made by Mr. Taylor. He said he supported this application because the proposal would result in less than half the number of residences on this property than the zoning that exists. He said that was something important that they needed to make sure did not get lost in conversation. He thanked Mr. Taylor for doing all the homework on the residential details. Mr. Hardt referred to page 5 of the proposed text, the first page of Subarea A — Setbacks — 3) Minimum rear yard setback 30 feet from the property line. He said on the preliminary plat there were cases where the property line at rear of the estate lot is either in the ravine or across the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2011 — Minutes Page 8 of 12 DRAFT ravine. He said Lot 8 shows a setback of 30 feet off the rear property line that does not make a lot of sense. He suggested establishing rear setbacks off the centerline of the creek or the 100 - year flood plain. He said he assumed the intention was not to have homes hanging off the side of the ravine because that would destroy the environment there. Mr. Hardt referred to page 6 — Private Streets, item seven states, All private streets shall be designed per City ofDublin Engineering Standards. He said that seemed to be a conflict. He said if it said All public streets shall be designed per City of Dublin Engineering Standards, except as noted above, it would make sense. Mr. Hardt referred to the top of page 7, The existing bridge shall be evaluated at the final development plan to verify that vehicle load limits are suitable for emergency access. He asked what if the bridge is not suitable for emergence access. Mr. Houk said they were trying to locate the original construction documents regarding the bridge, and if they cannot be located, then they will have an engineering test to determine that. He said he understood that until they satisfy the condition, they cannot build more homes there. Steve Langworthy said if the applicant evaluates the bridge at the final development plan, and improvements are needed, the applicant will be required to complete the improvements prior to the first building permit request. Mr. Hardt said he understood Mr. Houk to say that if it does not comply with the requirements for emergency access, it would be upgraded. Mr. Hardt said that it said, The bridge would be evaluated to verify that it was suitable for emergence access. Signage identifying load limits shall be posted. He said that left open the possibility that the bridge would not be sufficient and they simply would put up a sign that said it a ridiculously low number, and it would not work for emergency access. Mr. Houk said the intent was to ensure the bridge can carry the required load. Mr. Hardt asked it be rewritten. Mr. Hardt referred to page 9, regarding the entry gate: Access shall be permitted to have an entry security gate allowing 24 -hour emergency access. Shall be approved by Washington Township Fire Department. The existing gate shall be permitted to remain. He said if the existing gate does not work for the Washington Township Fire Department, then what. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she understood the existing gate meets the Fire Department requirements with the appropriate bypass systems. Alan Perkins, Washington Township Fire Department, said the existing gate meets their current requirements and they have been there a couple of times for fire alarm responses and have crossed that bridge. He said the Fire Code specifies that they have a verification that it meets load requirements. He said the bridge was constructed before the present 2003 Fire Code. He said because they are adding onto this road, they asked for more specifications. He said the Fire Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2011 — Minutes Page 9 of 12 DRAFT Code specifies that it has to be posted particularly on the entry side. He said they have tankard vehicles from other stations that may be responding or construction vehicles that need to see the load sign. He said the bridge met the specifications and the tankard vehicles have crossed the bridge. Mr. Hardt said that his comments about the rear setbacks and the design of the public streets exist in the text of Suabarea B, as well. Mr. Walter spoke to the residents and said when this property was originally rezoned it was for 63 homes and if the applicant chooses to do nothing, he can put 63 homes there. He said moving it from 63 to 37 homes was a big improvement and when you think about this property, it is going to be afabulous development and their property values will only be impacted positively by having a known quantity that is going to be there. He said normally, the Commission does not usually see a text and quality specifically laid out that says what they will do. He said this proposal is specific and the applicant is doing that on purpose so that he can monetize this property and develop a great property within the City. He encouraged the residents to work with staff and their Council representative, and to express to City Council their concerns about traffic in the area, safety, the intersection and the impacts on their property. He said there was a real difference in the demographics and when they go to work, the Deer Run residents will not be going there. He said the residents' concerns were valid and they had an active association. He said they really needed to work to express those concerns in a way that will really have an impact. He said if they can work with the applicant to make things better about the property, that would be great. Mr. Walter said his specific concern was the HOA conveyance and he asked if deed restrictions were spelled out in the final development plan. Ms. Rauch said the City was not involved in this, but it happens once a final development plan is approved. Mr. Walter said his concern was with the private street and the maintenance and expense. He said it needed to be conveyed and he would like to see a maintenance plan or what the City would determine to be an acceptable maintenance load for that street network. Mr. Walter said from the applicant's perspective, he concurred that there should not be interior sidewalks. Ms. Kramb echoed Mr. Walter's comments about the traffic issues. She did not think this development will cause any more problems than what is already there. She strongly agreed that the entrance to this development is where it should be, and she would not approve any additional entrances onto Dublin Road with the higher speeds and conflict points. Ms. Kramb said she thought this proposal was great and she was very excited about rezoning it as a PUD so that all this detail can be included so that they know exactly what is going there. She said to see this much detail up front was excellent. She said she definitely agreed with the waiver because whenever it is built, it will be wonderful. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2011 — Minutes Page 10 of 12 DRAFT Ms. Kramb said she found one grammar on the front page, It straddles the boundary line between Franklin and Delaware... Ms. Kramb referred to page 9, Entry Feature Signage. She said nowhere did they say a limit to the amount of signs. She said that usually defaulted to Code. She noted it said Entry sign(s), but she assumed they got one sign because they had one entrance and one on Memorial Drive. Ma Kramb had concerns about the Subarea A and B Tree Preservation Zones, where it said, The Tree Preservation Zone is not considered a common area, therefore it is not covered by homeowners, it is covered by property owners. She said these are going to be very hard to determine who is the property owner because there will be a huge area of trees and it will be difficult to determine whose tree fell. Ms. Amorose Groomes said when a tree falls in that area, it just lies and there is nothing to do. She said it is a preserved area and they will not be allowed to do anything. Mr. Langworthy said that becomes an advantage to the City if there becomes some sort of enforcement problem. He said it was easier for Code Enforcement to go after a single property owner than a homeowner /s association responsible for it. Ms. Kramb said she agreed with Mr. Close about the sidewalks and tree preservation, but she questioned if the internal roadway should be a little wider than 22 feet, which does not allow for any on street parking at all. Ms. Rauch said there is on- street parking shown in the northern portion and each side of this open space area. Warren Fishman echoes what Mr. Walter said to the residents about the downzoning. He said he was concerned about the private streets because he has seen them when they go into disrepair, years later they petition the City to take them because they do not want to repair them. He asked if all the streets would be built to City standards. Mr. Houk said the width will be varied and all the pavement will meet City standards. Mr. Fishman said he also agreed that if there should be no internal sidewalks, if the applicant does not want them. He said he thought that was the ambiance of the neighborhood. Mr. Fishman said so often the Commission sees beautiful elevations, and no matter how you transition, there is a beautiful elevation and three sides of stucco. He said the Appearance Code requires four -sided architecture, however four -sided architecture when dissected by the builders is if there is brick in the front, you can bring a watertable around in brick, and then it gets covered with bushes, and that is their four -sided architecture. He said since they are interested in a high quality development, he would like to see in the text specify the percentage of material on the sides and rear. He said if there is 100 percent brick in the front, it should be at least 75 percent brick in the back, not a water table or brick trim around a door. He said he would like to see materials brought around on four sides. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2011 — Minutes Page 11 of 12 DRAFT Mr. Houk said when houses are set close together there will be more articulation on the front. He said to put that much money on the side, right up against another side did not make fiscal sense He said this is typical in these type of cluster home developments. He said he would be glad to work with their architects to find the right wording so there is the right mix, but they certainly do not want to take the articulation to the side that is six to ten feet from another house and is rarely seen. He said he would be glad to work the language out that if the side is seen from a roadway that it is consistent. Mr. Taylor said it was very difficult to legislate. He said the applicant is interested in doing whatever is necessary to build this development correctly. He said the neighbors at Amberleigh will be surprised to learn how expensive these houses are going to be. Mr. Zimmerman echoed that this downsizing is a huge plus for Amberleigh. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she agreed with the comments made by the other Commissioners that the downzoning is areal benefit to the City and to all of its residents. She said she believed the park will have a far more profound impact on the traffic than this proposed development will. She said fortunately the City has a very responsive group in Engineering and she encouraged everyone if it were to become more problematic as the park and this develops to engage them. She said there are certain tests that they will run that will indicate whether or not there is some action required. She said if it needs to happen and it is justifiable it ultimately will be improved. Ms. Amorose Groomes said this development far exceeds of Dublin's Code in terms of quality, layout, density, and lot coverage. She said this is a legacy development which she thought was a great thing to live around. Mr. Olatoye said he did not want the Commission to think that they were against this development.. He said if they were included in the process many of them might not be there. He said hearing the comments from the Commissioners put their minds to rest. He said when there is a neighborhood association in Dublin, the 300 -foot definition for notifications should be in the common use area, which is the swimming pool for them. Ms. Rauch asked if the Commissioners agreed that Condition 3 regarding the internal sidewalks should be eliminated. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she heard consensus on this topic. Ms. Rauch said she would strike Condition 3 and add another, The applicant change the text to reflect the modifications made by the Commission. Mr. Langworthy said he did not think the Commission should approve any residential development without an internal sidewalk. Motion 41 and Vote — Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Mr. Taylor made a motion to recommend approval to City Council of this Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan because it complies with all applicable review criteria and the existing development standards within the area with four conditions: Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2011 — Minutes Page 12 of 12 DRAFT 1) The plans be revised to relocate the gate and boulevard treatment at the entrance along Memorial Drive farther into the development to provide stacking space for vehicles waiting to enter; 2) The text and the plans be revised to incorporate a five -foot sidewalk along the north side of Memorial Drive, and the sidewalk be continued to connect to existing sidewalk stub on the east side of Vista Ridge Drive, subject to Engineering approval; 3) The applicant revise the proposed development text to reflect the changes requested by the Commission, subject to Planning approval; and 4) The text and plans be revised to extend the four -foot sidewalk between lots 28 and 29 from the proposed development into Amberleigh Park to allow easy access to the extensive park trail system, subject to approval by Engineering and Parks and Open Space. Mr. Fishman seconded the motion. Michael Close, on behalf of the applicant, agreed to the above conditions. The vote was as follows: Mr. Hardt, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Approved 7 -0.) Motion 42 and Vote — Preliminary Plat Mr. Taylor made the motion to recommend approval to City Council of this Preliminary Plat because it complies with all applicable review criteria and the existing development standards within the area with the following condition: 1) The applicant should ensure that any minor technical adjustments to the plat should be made prior to City Council submittal. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion. Michael Close, on behalf of the applicant, agreed to the above condition. The vote was as follows: Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Approved 7 — 0) Ms. Amorose Groomes reiterated that residents should see Ms. Rauch to get their names and addresses on the notification mailing list and that Mr. Close should communicate with them. Ms. Amorose Groomes adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. 7 City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF DUBLIN,. Planning Report land Uie and Long Range Planning Thursday, February 3, 2011 6800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin. Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone /TOO: 614- 410.4600 Deer Run PUD - Deer Run Fox: 614-410 -4747 web Site: w .dubGn.oh.us Case Summary Agenda Item 3 Case Number 10- 062Z /PDP /PP Site Location Located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Memorial Drive and Dublin Road. Proposal A new Planned Unit Development District for 51 acres currently located within Deer Run Estates subdivision and Wasatch Estates Planned Commerce District. The proposal is for a single - family development, consisting of 9 estate lots, 37 cluster lots and 10 acres of open space. Applicant Robert Walter, owner; representative by Michael Close, Wiles, Boyle, Burkholder and Bringardner Co., LPA. Case Manager Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planner II 1 (614) 410 -4690 1 jrauch@dublin.oh.us Requests Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat Review and recommendation to City Council under the Planned District provisions of Zoning Code Section and Subdivision Regulations. Planning Recommendation Approval of the rezoning with preliminary development plan and preliminary plat with conditions. Based on Planning's analysis, the proposal complies with all applicable review criteria and the existing development standards within the area and approval of all applications is recommended. Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan 1) The plans be revised to relocate the gate and boulevard treatment at the entrance along Memorial Drive farther into the development to provide stacking space for vehicles waiting to enter; 2) The text and the plans be revised to incorporate a five -foot sidewalk along the north side of Memorial Drive, and the sidewalk be continued to connect to existing sidewalk stub on the east side of Vista Ridge Drive, subject to Engineering approval; 3) The text and plans be revised to incorporate a four -foot sidewalk within the private street easement for Subarea C; and 4) The text and plans be revised to extend the four -foot sidewalk between lots 28 and 29 from the proposed development into Amberleigh Park to allow easy access to the extensive park trail system, subject to approval by Engineering and Parks and Open Space. Preliminary Plat 1) The applicant should ensure that any minor technical adjustments to the plat should be made prior to City Council submittal. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 10- 062Z /PDP /PP I Deer Run PUD-Deer Run Thursday, February 3, 2011 1 Page 2 of 12 n City of Dublin 10- 0627JFDP n N LendUSeand Preliminary Development Plan I Rezoning Long Range Planning Deer Run Estates Fee Memorial Dr, and Dublic Rd 0 1,250 2,500 City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 10- 062Z /PDP /PP I Deer Run PUD- Deer Run Thursday, February 3, 2011 1 Page 3 of 12 Facts Overall Application Site Area 51.7 ac j The northern parcels are zoned R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential Zoning District, while the southern parcels are zoned PUD, Planned Unit Developme Distric for Wa satch Estates Surrounding Zoning North: R -2, Limited Suburban Residential District, Kerry Glen subdivision and Uses South: PUD, Amberleigh North subdivision East: PUD, Amberleigh Community Park Wes PUD Mui rfield Vi Phas 13 and PLR, The Reserve subdivisions Site Features • 1.350 feet of frontage on Dublin Road and 1,100 feet of frontage on Memorial Drive. Northern 22 acres (formerly Deer Run Estates) has two single - family homes, accessed from Deer Run Drive, a gated, private drive intersecting Dublin Road. Southern 29 acres (Wasatch Estates) is undeveloped. . Heavily wooded with mature trees throughout entire development. Steep articular) adjacent to the creek, which separates p p Y 1 p the northern and southern portions of the proposed development. Community Plan The Future Land Use classification is Residential Low Density (0.5 - 1 dwelling units per acre), which would permit 51 dwelling units. The 46 units on 51.7 -acres equal a density of 0.8 dwelling units per acre. The proposed use and overall development outlined in the proposed development text is consistent with the Future Land Use designation and is compatible with the surround lower density, traditional suburban nei ghborhoods. Case Background Deer Run Estates (northern portion of site) • 11 platted estate lots approved as Deer Run Estates in 1984. • City- sponsored area rezoning to establish R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District zoning was approved by City Council in 2003. Wasatch Estates (southern portion of site) • Originally part of the Amberleigh North subdivision, Sections 4 and 5, which was approved for 11 single - family units and 63 cluster condominium units in 1995. • A revised preliminary development plan for Wasatch Estates to permit five estate lots and a gatehouse with caretaker's quarters was approved by City Council in 2002. Deer Run Proposal A concept plan was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission in 2009. The Commission was generally supportive of the proposal moving forward as a formal rezoning /preliminary development plan application. Some Commissioners advised the applicant to review the setbacks along Dublin Road and ensure they are adequate. The Commission requested the applicant explore a more village -like lot arrangement for the cluster lots in an effort to preserve more of the site's natural features. The provision of high quality design and architectural standards was also emphasized and the Commission requested that high quality standards be incorporate in t f uture d text. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 10 -062Z /PDP /PP I Deer Run PUD —Deer Run Thursday, February 3, 2011 1 Page 4 of 12 Details R ezonin g wi P D evelopment Plan Process Rezoning to a Planned Unit Development requires approval of a development text to serve as the zoning regulation; the Zoning Code covers all requirements not addressed in the development text. This development text establishes a new Planned Unit Development District (Deer Run) with a development text that applies to these 51.7 acres. Plan Overview The rezoning with preliminary development plan includes: • Rezoning the site from R -2 and PUD to PUD. • Establishing a new development text with development requirements for the 51.7 acre site, for a single - family development, consisting of 9 estate lots, 37 cluster lots and 10.6 acres of open space. Layout The proposed plans show three subareas, with nine estate and 37 single - family cluster lots. The estate lots are in the northern part of the site, four of which are located on the north side of the existing creek accessed off the existing private drive (Subarea A), and five in the middle of the site south of the creek accessed off a new private cul -de -sac (Subarea B). The 37 cluster lots (Subarea 3) are located in the south portion of the site along two cuts- de -sac. Development The proposed development text addresses the requirements by the Text individual Subareas, as well as general development standards that apply to the overall development. The applicant has also included architectural guidelines that apply to the cluster lots within Subarea C. = evelopment text permits single - family detached dwelling units in all ubareas, with the inclusion of the existing guest lodge and clubhouse area A as a permitted use. Accessory uses are permitted per the Code. Density and Lot Sizes The proposed development text specifies the following Subarea densities and lot sizes: Setbacks The Community Plan Identifies the character of Memorial Drive and Dublin Road as River Character, with setbacks of 60 -100 feet and informal landscaping and design elements that incorporate the overall feel of the river corridor. The proposed development indicates a 100 -foot setback from Memorial Drive and Dublin Road, which meets the Community Plan and is also consistent with the setbacks for the lots within the Kerry Glen, Amberleigh North and Amberleigh subdivisions located along the west side of Dublin Road. Max. # of Units Max. Density Min. Lot Size Subarea A 4 units 0.22 du /ac 2 acres Subarea B 5 units 0.31 du /ac 2 acres Subarea C 37 units 2.2 du /ac 0.16 acres Setbacks The Community Plan Identifies the character of Memorial Drive and Dublin Road as River Character, with setbacks of 60 -100 feet and informal landscaping and design elements that incorporate the overall feel of the river corridor. The proposed development indicates a 100 -foot setback from Memorial Drive and Dublin Road, which meets the Community Plan and is also consistent with the setbacks for the lots within the Kerry Glen, Amberleigh North and Amberleigh subdivisions located along the west side of Dublin Road. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 10- 062Z /PDP /PP I Deer Run PUD — Deer Run Thursday, February 3, 2011 1 Page 5 of 12 Details Rezonin with Prelimina De Plan The proposed development text also outlines the following individual lot setbacks by Subarea: Access and Public Access is provided by two separate, gated private drives. The existing access Sidewalks point, Deer Run Drive, located along Dublin Road will remain and provide access to Subareas A and B. A new southern drive is proposed along Memorial Drive aligning with Autumnwood Way for access to the cluster lots in Subarea C. All the proposed lots are located along cul -de -sac streets, which meet the requirements of the Washington Township Fire Department for adequate turning radii, street widths and pavement durability. The proposed south access point is a boulevard with a gate at the intersection, Planning recommends the gate and boulevard be moved farther into the development to provide stacking space for vehicles. A four -foot, public sidewalk is proposed along the north side of Memorial Drive, connecting to the larger system on Dublin Road. Engineering recommends the proposed sidewalk width be increased to five feet, as it is close to a future public park and would connect to an existing pedestrian tunnel beneath Dublin Road. Code requires five foot sidewalks on through or significant streets. The applicant should provide a sidewalk connection between this newly proposed sidewalk and the sidewalk stub along the east side of Vista Ridae Dri Private Streets and The existing Deer Run Drive is constructed of asphalt top- dressed with Internal Sidewalks decorative gravel, without curb, gutter or sidewalk. The text and proposed development plan indicate the extension of the drive to Subareas A and B to have the same material and design. The drive widths are proposed at 12 feet for Subarea A and 18 feet for Subarea B, with wider "bump -out" areas to meet Washington Township Fire Department requirements. Planning, Engineering, and Fire have determined the proposed private drive design meets the necessary requirements. The private drive specifications for Subarea C, includes a pavement width of 22 feet with curb and a permeable gutter system located within a 40 -foot wide private street easement. No internal sidewalk is provided along the private drives. Planning recommends the applicant incorporate a four -foot sidewalk between the curb and property line. The proposed plans indicate a four -foot wide sidewalk between lots 28 and 29 to provide future connection to the Amberleigh Park system. Engineering recommends the applicant construct a connection from the proposed development into Amberlei h Park to allow easy access to the park system. Subareas A & B Subarea C Side 25 feet, each side 5 feet, each side Rear 30 feet 30 feet Front 25 feet Zero to 10 -foot build zone l nnv nnrfinn of structure within zone Access and Public Access is provided by two separate, gated private drives. The existing access Sidewalks point, Deer Run Drive, located along Dublin Road will remain and provide access to Subareas A and B. A new southern drive is proposed along Memorial Drive aligning with Autumnwood Way for access to the cluster lots in Subarea C. All the proposed lots are located along cul -de -sac streets, which meet the requirements of the Washington Township Fire Department for adequate turning radii, street widths and pavement durability. The proposed south access point is a boulevard with a gate at the intersection, Planning recommends the gate and boulevard be moved farther into the development to provide stacking space for vehicles. A four -foot, public sidewalk is proposed along the north side of Memorial Drive, connecting to the larger system on Dublin Road. Engineering recommends the proposed sidewalk width be increased to five feet, as it is close to a future public park and would connect to an existing pedestrian tunnel beneath Dublin Road. Code requires five foot sidewalks on through or significant streets. The applicant should provide a sidewalk connection between this newly proposed sidewalk and the sidewalk stub along the east side of Vista Ridae Dri Private Streets and The existing Deer Run Drive is constructed of asphalt top- dressed with Internal Sidewalks decorative gravel, without curb, gutter or sidewalk. The text and proposed development plan indicate the extension of the drive to Subareas A and B to have the same material and design. The drive widths are proposed at 12 feet for Subarea A and 18 feet for Subarea B, with wider "bump -out" areas to meet Washington Township Fire Department requirements. Planning, Engineering, and Fire have determined the proposed private drive design meets the necessary requirements. The private drive specifications for Subarea C, includes a pavement width of 22 feet with curb and a permeable gutter system located within a 40 -foot wide private street easement. No internal sidewalk is provided along the private drives. Planning recommends the applicant incorporate a four -foot sidewalk between the curb and property line. The proposed plans indicate a four -foot wide sidewalk between lots 28 and 29 to provide future connection to the Amberleigh Park system. Engineering recommends the applicant construct a connection from the proposed development into Amberlei h Park to allow easy access to the park system. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 10- 062Z /PDP /PP I Deer Run PUD - Deer Run Thursday, February 3, 2011 1 Page 6 of 12 Details Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Parking On- street parking is shown in along the north side of Open Space E and the east and west side of Open Space F to address previous concerns raised by the Commission regarding visitor parking. __--j - Architecture The development text details material, color and design requirements, F including brick, stone, wood and cementitious siding cladding materials in colors that are harmonious and compatible with natural surroundings. cy with The text proposes that the homes will be reviewed and approved by a ning Design Review Committee. The Committee review will be based on the Code requirements set forth in the development text and proposed Architectural 2. Conformance with Guidelines. The Guidelines illustrate common characteristics of the Romantic adopted Plans Revival Style, which is outlined as the design theme and is proposed to apply to the cluster lots within Subarea C. Landscaping and The proposed text outlines a goal to preserve and minimize the development Tree Preservation effects on existing trees. A platted tree preservation area is proposed on lots 5 -9 of Subarea B to preserve the large stands of trees between Subareas B and C. The text also proposes front yard and lot landscaping requirements for Subarea C. The site proposes to meet the requirements of the Stormwater and Stream Protection Code with a Stormwater management system of storm sewer, grass lined swales in Subareas A and B, and permeable gutters and hydrodynamic separators in Subarea C. This site is exempt by City Code from EUtilities providing Stormwater quantity control as it lies within the area defined in the Scioto River Corridor Exemption area. Appropriate water and sanitary sewer connections are available and are adeuately provided for with the ro osed development. Traffic Study study has been submitted analyzing the proposed development [ Atraffic ffic impact on the existing transportation network. No off -site nsportation improvements are needed. Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan Section 153.050 of the Zoning Code identifies criteria for the review and F approval for a rezoning /preliminary development plan (full text of criteria attached). Following is an analysis by Planning based on those criteria. cy with Criterion met. This proposal is consistent with the Zoning Code, except as ning appropriately altered in the proposed development text. Code 2. Conformance with Criterion met: The Community Plan identifies the land use for this site as adopted Plans Residential Low Density. The uses and density proposed for this site are consistent with the Future Land Use designation. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 10- 062Z /PDP /PP I Deer Run PUD - Deer Run Thursday, February 3, 2011 1 Page 7 of 12 3. Advancement of Criterion met. This proposal conforms to the Community Plan and is general welfare and compatible with the surrounding residential development. orderly development 4. Effects on Criterion met: The proposal is appropriately located in the city and will adjacent uses safeguard the value of property within and adjacent to the area. 5. Adequacy of Criterion met: No additional open space dedication is required with the open space for proposed development of the site, as this requirement was meant with the residential original PUD zoning (Amberleigh North). 6. Protection of Criterion met: The provision of the large common open spaces and the natural features and platted tree preservation area, in conjunction with the tree preservation resources requirements outlined within the proposed development text serve to p rotect for the significant natural features that exist on this site. 7. Adequate Criterion met: With the proposed improvements installed, the site will have infrastructure access to adequate utilities. 8. Traffic and Criterion met with conditions: The applicant has provided a traffic analysis, pedestrian safety which accounts for the proposed future development. Planning recommends the gate and boulevard treatment located at the entrance Condition 1 along Memorial Drive be moved farther into the development to provide stacking space for vehicles waiting to enter the development. In order to provide a safe pedestrian environment and adequate pedestrian connections throughout the development and within the larger public system, Planning and Engineer recommend the following three conditions: Conditions 2 -4 • That the public sidewalk shown along the north side of Memorial Drive, be increased to five feet wide, as required by Code, and the applicant provide a sidewalk connection between this newly proposed sidewalk and the sidewalk stub along the east side of Vista Ridge Drive. • That the applicant incorporate a 4 -foot sidewalk within the area located between the curb and property line for Subarea C. • That the applicant construct a connection from the proposed development into Amberleigh Park to allow easy access to the extensive park trail system. 9. Coordination & Criterion met: The proposal maintains the existing development patterns of integration of surrounding developments. building & site relationships 10. Development Criterion met: The proposed plans appear to contribute to the orderly layout and intensity development of this site, including proposed uses, setbacks, and density. Planning will work with the applicant at the final development plan stage to define the site design. 11. Stormwater Criterion met: Adequate provision is made for stormwater management. management 12. Community Criterion met: The development text outlines all applicable development benefit requirements for this project. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 10- 062Z /PDP /PP I Deer Run PUD - Deer Run Thursday, February 3, 2011 1 Page 8 of 12 13. Design and Criterion met: The proposal outlines high - quality building materials and appearance architectural design standards within the proposed development text and architectural guidelines. 14. Development Criterion met: The final development phasing for the proposed project has phasing not been determined, but the applicant has indicated it will take place over the long -term, which is accounted for within the proposed development text. 15. Adequacy of public services Criterion met: There are adequate services for the proposed development. 16. infrastructure Criterion met: No public infrastructure contributions are required with this contributions application. Right -of -way dedication along Dublin Road and Memorial Drive have been met. Recommendat Rez / Dev Pl Approval In Planning's analysis, this proposal complies with the rezoning /preliminary development plan criteria and the existing development standards within the area. Approval with conditions is re(-.nmmPnHP.H 1) The plans be revised to relocate the gate and boulevard treatment located at the entrance along Memorial Drive farther into the development to provide stacking space for vehicles waiting to enter the development; 2) The text and the plans be revised to incorporate a 5 -foot sidewalk along the north side of Memorial Drive, and the sidewalk be continued to connect to existing sidewalk stub on the east side of Vista Ridge Drive, subject to Engineering approval; 3) The text and plans be revised to incorporate a four -foot sidewalk within the private street easement for Subarea C; and 4) The text and plans be revised to extend the 4 -foot sidewalk between lots 28 and 29 from the proposed development into Amberleigh Park to allow easy access to the extensive park trail system, subject to City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 10- 062Z /PDP /PP I Deer Run PUD — Deer Run Thursday, February 3, 2011 1 Page 9 of 12 Details Preliminary Plat Plat Overview The proposed preliminary plat subdivides 51.7 acres of land into 9 single - family estate lots, within Subareas A and B; and 37 single - family cluster lots within Subarea C. The lots range between 7.6 and 2.2 acres within Subareas A and B, and 0.16 and 0.19 acres within Subarea C. The proposed development text for Subarea C has as minimum lot widths of 60 feet, and a lot depth at 120 feet for all lots. Lots 28 and 29 do not meet the 60 -foot minimum widths requirements, and the lot depth between Lots 8 and 9 do not need minimum depth requirements. In addition, the plat needs to be revised for the lots within Subarea C to eliminate the curvature at the rear of the lots and to extend the tangents to meet at the property corners. The preliminary plat lists the required setbacks, which will need to be removed to ensure that plat and zoning requirements do not conflict. The proposed plat contains all information required by the Subdivision Regulations. Open Space The proposal contains eight open spaces areas: 1.2 acres (Open Space "A ") in Subarea A; 2 acres (Open Spaces "B" and "C ") in Subarea B; and I 7.4 acres (Open Spaces "D" — "I ") in Subarea C. The plat indicates that all the Open Space areas will be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. - Analysis Y - _ _.. Preliminary Plat Process The Subdivision Regulations identify criteria for the review and approval for i a plat. F is an analys by Planning based on those criteria. 1) Plat Information Criterion met with condition: This proposal is consistent with the j and Construction requirements of the Zoning Code and all required information is included Requirements on the plat. The applicant should ensure that any minor technical adjustments to the plat should be made prior to City Council submittal, Condition including lot width and depth requirements are met and the rear lot lines are adjusted for Subarea C, and the setback information is removed from Subareas A -C. 2) Street, Sidewalk, Criterion met: Street widths, grades, curvatures, and intersections signs and Bike path comply with the appropriate Code sections and engineering requirements. Standards Sidewalks or bikepaths are required on both sides of all public streets in c with City co nstruction standards. 3) Utilities Criterion met: This plat establishes necessary easements for the construction and maintenance of private streets and utility provision 4) Open Space I Criterion met: The open space requirement has been met in approvals for Requirements previous sections. Recommendation Preliminary Plat City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 10- 062Z /PDP /PPI Deer Run PUD - Deer Run Thursday, February 3, 2011 1 Page 10 of 12 Details , .Prelimina Plat Approval This proposal complies with the preliminary plat criteria and a recommendation to City Council for approval of this request is recomme with one condition. Condition The applicant should ensure that any minor technical adjustments to the plat should be made prior to City Council submittal, including meeting lot width and depth requirements, rear lot lines are adjusted for Subarea C, and setback info is removed from all Subareas. City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 10 -062Z /PDP /PP I Deer Run PUD - Deer Run Thursday, February 3, 2011 1 Page 11 of 12 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 forwarded to City Council for a first reading /introduction and a second reading /public hearing for a 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. In the case of a combined rezoning /preliminary development plan and final development plan, the final development plan is not valid unless the rezoning /preliminary development plan is approved by Council. Review Criteria Section 153.050 of the Zoning Code identifies criteria for the review and approval for a Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan. In accordance with Section 153.055(A) Plan Approval Criteria, Code sets out the following criteria of approval for a preliminary development plan (rezoning): 1) The proposed development is consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable standards of the Dublin Zoning Code; 2) The proposed development is in conformity with the Community Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, Bikeway Plan and other adopted plans or portions thereof as they may apply and will not unreasonably burden the existing street network; 3) The proposed development advances the general welfare of the City and immediate vicinity and will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding areas; 4) The proposed uses are appropriately located in the City so that the use and value of property within and adjacent to the area will be safeguarded; 5) Proposed residential development will have sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives of the Community Plan; 6) The proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and protects the natural resources of the site; 7) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and /or necessary facilities have been or are being provided; 8) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on the surrounding public streets and to maximize public safety and to accommodate adequate pedestrian and bike circulation systems so that the proposed development provides for a safe, City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission Case 10 -001 Z /PDP /FDP /CU I Riverside PCD, Subareas B and B1 Avery Square Shopping Center Thursday, September 16, 2010 1 Page 12 of 12 convenient and non - conflicting circulation system for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians; 9) The relationship of buildings and structures to each other and to such other facilities provides for the coordination and integration of this development within the PD and the larger community and maintains the image of Dublin as a quality community; 10) The density, building gross floor area, building heights, setbacks, distances between buildings and structures, yard space, design and layout of open space systems and parking areas, traffic accessibility and other elements having a bearing on the overall acceptability of the development plan's contribution to the orderly development of land within the City; 1 1) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site so as to maintain, as far as practicable, usual and normal swales, water courses and drainage areas; 12) The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed development justify any deviation from the standard development regulations included in the Dublin Zoning Code or Subdivision Regulation, and that any such deviations are consistent with the intent of the Planned Development District regulations; 13) The proposed building design meets or exceeds the quality of the building designs in the surrounding area and all applicable appearance standards of the City; 14) The proposed phasing of development is appropriate for the existing and proposed infrastructure and is sufficiently coordinated among the various phases to ultimately yield the intended overall development; 15) The proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing or planned public improvements and not impair the existing public service system for the area; and 16) The applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service the new development. Deer Run Estates Approved Plat Approved on April 16, 1984 A N ,r 10- 062Z/PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Location Map Amberleigh North Wasatch Estates Approved Site Plan February 19, 2002 LOT 1 8.S75:ac >, (f 6 4.2.626 ac.\:' i /x" �. i 1,16059 aC. � � ,\_' S LOT 3 act LOT 4' t :'e \.';,'•; o -*'3,69Z ac. w.�a• i cOggirr; • I f , X F\ �•; � .�.'�,' � v LOTS 4.736 ac.. 10- 062Z /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Location Map Proposed Subarea Plan _,l 5 r in. Subarea A % areaB�� — e A Suborea C �, f r o- aczz /PDP Prcliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Proposed Preliminary Development Plan Subareas A and B T N 10- 062Z/PDP Pic[ imi nary Development Plan /Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Proposed Preliminary Development Plan Subarea C r N e 10- 062Z /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Typical Lot Configuration Subarea C 18' Min. Front- badgarage setback from streatease- rrant line; 2 parictg spaces proy69d In driveway — IWte: Sida -load garage and autocourt permitted on 60' Wide bts Putocourt recpiredon 70' Lots. pern1wd on W btg 2 tarldng spaces providad in aut=urt 4' Scram war or hedge; screen frontand sides---/ 2c rgarge 0 -10' bulk) zone Landscaping pernitted up to curb; r - sinmin d'iveway visbllty WargIss percode. 70' Wide Lot I 0- 0G2Z /PDP Prclinlinary Development Plan / Rezoning Dccr Run Estatcs Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. ----- - - - - -, 30' Rear setback I I I I I i I & Skb setback I I I hbr {� 2ca game 0'- 10'build zone �— Landscaping permitted up to curb; nY fntain dnvewsy visibil triangles per ccde. 60' Wide Lot 2c rgarge 0 -10' bulk) zone Landscaping pernitted up to curb; r - sinmin d'iveway visbllty WargIss percode. 70' Wide Lot I 0- 0G2Z /PDP Prclinlinary Development Plan / Rezoning Dccr Run Estatcs Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Proposed Architectural Concepts Subarea C 10- 062Z /PDP Pic[ iminary Development Plan/ Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. WASATCH ESTATES Development Text City of Dublin, Ohio As passed by Council on: 5U8Mn7 g)10C=NC1L 2. l < l C� <: FOR MMYiNG ON ` 1 `t C' 1. (Revised per Conditions of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission, December 6, 2001) 10- 0627/PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning DeerRun Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. WASATCH ESTATb:S DEVELOPMENT TEXT Planned Unit Development Wasatch Estates The following information is submitted in accordance with the requirements of the City of Dublin Code Section 153.056, "Planned Unit Development District'. Any additional information regarding this development text or the PUD can be obtained from the PUD Preliminary Development Plan, Wasatch Estates, dated Lapp date hwrC�J. A. Site Data Site data information for all subareas of Wasatch Estates is as follows: Total Acreage: _h, 29.009 acres * Total Lots: 6 lots Gross Density: + 0.207 dwelling units per acre * Park Land /Open Space: Already dedicated per original Amberleiglr Nortli PUD See attached plan Exhibit A: Wasatch Estates Preliminary Development Plan (Drawings L -01 & L-02). B. Subareas The following subareas shall be made part of the PUD plan and are further illustrated in the plan (Exhibit A) and further discussed in this text: Subarea A — Estate Lots (+ 27.95 acres) * This subarea composes the majority of the development site and contains five large residential lots. The residential nature of this subarea compliments the surrounding residential developments of Deer Run Estates, Muirfrcld, and Amberleigh North. Estate homes will occupy these lots. One or two lots may be devoted to community facilities for private entertaining and meeting the recreational and maintenance needs of the development. Such structures will be residential or barn -like in appearance. Subarea B — GateHouse (+ 1.059 acres) The primary entrance to Wasatch Estates will be from Dublin Road. This subarea contains the gatehouse located at this entrance and will serve as the security and caretaker living quarters. The architecture of the gatehouse will fit the residential character of the area. The site was -t. 29.258 acres in size prior to P &7 condition to dedicate to the City an additional 10 feet along Memorial Drive. This also changed the density from ±0.205 units per acre. The size of Subarea A also changed from 1-28.198 acres. Page 2 of 6 10- 0622 /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Dec? Run Fstatcs Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. WASATCH ESTATES DEVELOPMENT TEXT C. General Development Standards 1. If these standards conflict in any way with the City of Dublin Codified Ordinances, the standards of this Planned Unit Development shall prevail. Standards in the Dublin Zoning Code applicable to mattes not covered in this document shall apply to each of the subareas in the Planned Unit Development, 2. Replacement of Amberleigh North PUD Sections 4 & 5: This Planned Unit Development replaces Sections 4 and 5 of the approved Amberleigh North PUD. All design and commitments of the preliminary development plan for those two sections are nullified with this approved plan. This development reduces the number of approved residential units from 75 (12 [Sect. 41 + 63 [Sect. 5]), as provided by Amberleigh North, to six (6). 3. Open Space Dedication: The site for Wasatch Estates already met the open space requirements of the City of Dublin through earlier dedications of land as part of Amberleigh North, and is therefore exempt. The 1.16 -acre strip of land along Dublin Road was dedicated to the City per the originally approved Amberleigh North PUD. The total land dedicated by the Wasatch Estates site exceeds the open space requirement for this development. 4. Tree Replacement: Good -faith effort shall be made to preserve trees on -site, particularly within al l setbacks. The tree replacement requirement shall be waived for this site in exchange for the additional parkland already dedicated to the City. 5. Entrances: The entrance for the Deer Run Estates subdivision will be closed and that development will gain access through Wasatch Estates. Wasatch Estates will have two access points, the primary access will be on Dublin Road between Subarea A and B, and the secondary access will be on Memorial Drive, spaced appropriately from the Dublin Road intersection. The entrances will be gated. 6. Streets: The streets will be private drives and are further described in this text. The drives shown on this plan are the ones that will be platted and constructed. While the layout of private drives will be constructed, their precise location may vary from that shown so long as the functional objectives continue to be attained. Page 3 of 10- 062Zmotl Preliminary Development Plan /Rezoning Dccr Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. WASATCH ESTATES DEVELOPMENT TEXT D. Permitted Uses Land and buildings in Wasatch Estates shall be used only for the following purposes: Subarea A — Estate Lots: (1) Dwelling Structures: One - family dwelling structure. (2) Private Conunity Recreation Facility: Clubhouse structure for residents of Wasatch Estates and Deer Run Estates. (3) Honae Occupation: Home Occupation as specified below. (4) Accessory Uses: Accessory uses and buildings in association with permitted dwellings as specified below, including domestic servants' quarters (employed on- premise). (5) Private parks. Subarea B — Gatehouse: (1) Dwelling Structures: One - family dwelling structure, including attached office for security and maintenance staff. (2) Honee Occupation: Home Occupation as specified below. (3) Accessory Uses: Accessory uses and buildings in association with permitted dwellings as specified below. (4) Private parks•. Accessory Structures All accessory uses permitted in the R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District, are permitted in all subareas. Unattached accessory uses may be located in any buildable area of the lot and are restricted to the maximum height limitation of the respective subarea. The total of all accessory structures shall contain no more than thirty percent (30 %) of the gross Moor area of the principal structure. Private Community Recreation Facility Any private community recreation facility will be limited to the residents and guests of residents of Wasatch Estates and Deer .Run Estates. The private community recreation facility is restricted to non - commercial uses. Ilome Occupation All of the lots in Wasatch Estates must meet the standard home occupation requirement specified by City of Dublin Code, except for one. For that lot, the following type of home occupation will be permitted: No more than six (6) unrelated people shall be engaged in ahome occupation. The space devoted to the home occupation shall be within the main structure or basement and will occupy no more than 1,000 square feet. Not more than six (6) vehicles used by employees, shall be parked at the location of the home occupation at one time. Page 4 of 6 1 o -o62z /Poll Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. WASATCH ESTATES DEVELOPMENT TEXT E. Development Standards Unless otherwise specified, the following development standards apply to all subareas: Lot Requirements Lot Area and Coverage: Subarea A — Estate Lots: For each principal structure there shall be a lot of not less than 2.5 acres. Only one principal use shall be permitted on a lot, and such lot shall not be covered more than thirty (30) percent by structures. Subarea B — GateHouse: For each principal structure there shall be a lot of not less than 1.0 acre. Only one principal use shall be permitted on a lot, and such lot shall not be covered more than thirty (30) percent by structures. Minimtan Lot Width: For the principal structure there shall be a lot width of 150 feet or more at the front line of the building, and such a lot shall have access to a private street. Minimum Building Setback: Dublin Road: Sixty (00) feet from public right-of-way. Memorial Drive: One hundred (100) feet from public right-of-way, Minimum Side Yard Setback: None. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: None. Maxinnan Height: Subarea A — Estate Lots: Thirty -,five (35) feet for Lots 1, 4, & 5 and fifty (50) feet for Lots 2 & 3, as measured per City of Dublin Code. Subarea B — GateHouse: 'Thirty -five (35) feet, as measured per City of Dublin Code. Page 5 of 6 10- 062rarDe Pic] iminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. WASATC.II ESTATES DEVELOPMENT TEXT T. Private Drives Internal Drives Internal drives shall be private with not Less than twelve (12) feet of pavement. Access to lots and maintenance of the drives is subject to a cross- access easement agreement (see Exhibit B). The cross - access easements are fifty (50) feet wide, measured twenty -five (25) feet from each side of the private drive centerline. Curb Cuts Curb cuts on public streets shall be limited to one on Dublin Road and one on Memorial Drive. Curb cut spacing shall be restricted to a minimum of 250 feet from intersections, with offsets no less than 100 feet. Parking Temporary parking during special events for up to fifty (50) vehicles shall be permitted on Lot 4, internal to the subdivision. Sidewalks In keeping with the estate appearance of the Wasatch Estates, sidewalks will not be included with the development. G. landscape Plan Fencing and Walls Fences shall be permitted along lot lines and internal to lots, provided the fences are decorative and open and do not exceed six (6) feet in height. Masonry stone walls, up to four feet in height, shall be permitted along lot lines and internal to lots. Private screening fences and walls are permitted within the buildable area of all lots. Entry Feature Entry security gates shall be permitted at both access points within the building setback. Twenty-four hour emergency access will be provided to both gates. The gates shall have decorative masonry colunuis and wing walls not more than eight feet in height. The gates shall be decorative in appearance and not more than eight feet in height. A sign may be incorporated into the gate structure at both entrances indicating the address and /or development name. Each sign will not exceed 24 square feet in size. II. Final Development Plan The final development plan submittal will include a tree preservation plan and a landscape plan detailing items such as entry features and signagc. Page 6 of 6 t o- ot2zmDt' Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Development Text Introduction: Deer Run is a +/- 51.7 acre Planned Unit Development in the City of Dublin. The site is situated just west of the Scioto River, and straddles boundary line between Franklin and Delaware Counties. The site is bound by Kerry Glen Subdivision to the North, the Scioto River and City of Dublin owned property to the East, Memorial Drive and Amberleigh Subdivision to the South, and Dublin Road to the west. The site is unique in that it is heavily wooded, and contains a variety of topography, including a large ravine that bisects the site. This PUD seeks to provide a variety of residential choices that will embrace the existing character, and preserve as much of the natural features as possible through the use of large lots, and smaller, clustered lots. Deer Run Preliminary Development Plan 10- 0627, /PD1 Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. General Development Standards 1) Applicability: The development will consist of three subareas (Subareas A -C), each of which is subject to the applicable standards set forth in the text. Except where defined in this text, the development shall meet the standards in the City of Dublin Code. 11) Residential Lot Types: Subarea A is the northern -most portion of the site, north of the large ravine, and is made up of Estate Lots. Subarea B is the central portion of the site, south of the large ravine, and is also made up of Estate Lots. Subarea C is the southern -most portion of the site and is made up of Cluster Lots. III) Residential Architectural Standards: A) All dwelling units shall comply with the design guidelines of the development standards in this text, except for any existing buildings or site improvements that will remain. Redevelopment or alterations to those existing elements shall be in compliance with the design guidelines of the development standards in this text. Unless otherwise specified in the submitted drawings or in this written text, the development standards of Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin Code shall apply to this subarea. B) All structures shall meet the City of Dublin Zoning Code Residential Appearance Standards, unless otherwise set forth in this text. IV) Setbacks: Setbacks from the perimeter of the PUD site shall be as follows: A) Minimum building and pavement setback from Dublin Road right -of -way shall be one hundred (100) feet. The private access and utility easement shall be permitted to encroach on this setback as shown on the plans. B) Minimum building and pavement setback from Memorial Drive right -of -way shall be one hundred (100) feet. C) The minimum building and pavement setback from all other PUD perimeter property lines shall be twenty five (25) feet. Access and utility easements shall be permitted to encroach on these setbacks, as shown on the plans. D) The existing private drive from Dublin Road, as well as its proposed extension along the northern property line, shall be permitted to encroach on these setbacks, as shown on the plans. Deer Run Preliminary Development Plan t 0- o62Z /t)Dh Preliminary Development Plan /Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. V) Graphics and Signs: A) At the time of the submission of its initial Final Development Plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission for any residential development, the developer shall present the Planning Commission with a graphics and signage plan for its review. This plan, and any future amendments thereto, shall serve as the uniform graphics and signage plan for the entire PUD both for the initial phase of residential development on the site and any phase of residential development occurring thereafter. Once the graphics and signage plan is approved as a part of the initial final development plan, its terms shall apply to all residential graphics and signage within the PUD. B) In the event that the graphics and signage plan is silent on any matter addressed by the City of Dublin Sign Code then the terms of those Code sections shall apply. VI) Landscaping Vision: Landscaping shall maintain a natural appearance along Dublin Road and Memorial Drive, in common open spaces, along the private streets in subareas A and B, and throughout undeveloped areas of the site. Subarea C may appear more formalized to complement the intended "European village" style of the architecture. More formalized landscaping may be designed to complement the individual homes in all subareas. Landscaping should be designed to complement appearance and plant material existing in the adjoining woods and natural areas. Existing trees and topography shall be preserved wherever possible. VII) Expiration of Zoning Approval: A) This PUD requests an exemption from the Dublin Zoning Code which requires the submission of a final development plan within three years of approval of this preliminary development plan and the Planned Development District designation. This preliminary development plan shall remain in effect until such time that a Final Development Plan is approved. VIII) Home Owners' Associations A) Two separate forced and funded homeowners' associations shall be established: one for Subareas A and B, and one for Subarea C. B) The associations shall own and maintain all common facilities, including but not limited to open spaces, private streets, private utilities, and access gates and signs, common area landscaping and fencing. Deer Run Preliminary Development Plan 10-0622 /W Prcliminary Development Plan / Rezmiin(� Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. IX) Public Improvements A) A four (4) foot wide concrete sidewalk will be installed per city standards within the right -of -way along the north side of Memorial Drive. The sidewalk, as shown on the plan, will tie into the existing bike path to the west, and will end at the boundary between the applicant property and City of Dublin property to the east. X) Perimeter Fencing A) The existing black, 4 -rail, wood fence along Dublin Road and Memorial Drive shall be permitted to remain and be maintained in its existing location. B) The length of black, 4 -rail, wood fencing that extends from the east boundary of the property along Memorial Drive and onto the City of Dublin property shall be removed from the City of Dublin property and relocated by the applicant at time of construction of either this development or the city park, whichever comes first. C) A survey for the final development plan shall verify any additional off -site encroachments and their correction shall be made as part of the final development plan. Deer Run Preliminary Development Plan 10 -062Z /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Subarea A: Estate Lots 1) Description: A) Subarea A shall be located on the northernmost portion of the site adjacent to Dublin Road to the east, Kerry Glen Subdivision to the north, the Scioto River to the east, and Subarea B separated by the ravine to the south. This subarea shall be approximately 18.5 acres and shall contain "Estate Lots" as described below. The subarea includes two existing single - family homes that shall be permitted to remain. II) Permitted Uses: A) Permitted uses shall include single - family detached homes, and the current use of the existing building on proposed Lot #2 as a guest lodge / clubhouse. B) Accessory Uses shall be as permitted by City of Dublin Code. III) Density, Height, Lot and /or Setback Commitments: A) The maximum number of dwelling units shall be four (4). The maximum density shall be 0.22 du /ac. B) Minimum Lot size shall be 2 acres. C) Setbacks (1) The minimum front yard setback shall be twenty -five (25) feet from the private street easement line. (2) The minimum side yard setback shall be twenty -five (25) feet from each side property line. (3) The minimum rear -yard setback shall be 30 feet from the property line. D) Encroachments into applicable setbacks shall be in accordance with the City of Dublin Code, or as outlined within this text. E) Maximum building height shall be thirty -five (35) feet. Height shall be measured from the finish grade at the front or main fagade of the house to the mean height of the roof. Architectural features that exceed this height must be compatible with the style and massing of the overall architecture of the building and shall be approved by staff. Deer Run Preliminary Development Plan 10- 0627/PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. F) There shall be only one principal use permitted on each lot, and such lot shall not be covered more than 30% by structures. G) Homes shall be permitted to have walk -out basements so as to minimize the need for extensive site grading. IV) Access, Loading, Parking and/or other Traffic - Related Commitments: A) Access (1) Access to Subarea A shall be from Dublin Road at the existing curb -cut and shall provide shared access to Subarea B. The common access easement of approximately 0.7 acres within Subarea B shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. B) Private Streets (1) All dwelling units in this subarea shall have access from a private street. (2) The existing private street width and decorative gravel surface contribute to the natural and rural character of this site. It is the intent of this plan to maintain that character by matching the existing private street as much as possible. (3) All streets constructed as a part of this subarea shall be privately owned and maintained and shall be combined access and utility easements. (4) All private street easements shall have a minimum width of fifty (50) feet. All existing private streets and driveways shall be permitted to remain. (5) The future extension of the private street shall be a minimum width of twelve (12) feet. The street shall provide a widened "bump -out' at new hydrant locations to provide a minimum width of twenty -six (26) feet. The extension of the street and any utilities shall be adjusted within the easement so as to minimize removal of trees. (6) Curbs and gutters shall not be required. (7) All private streets shall be designed per the City of Dublin engineering standards, and so as to accommodate access by emergency vehicles. Pavement surface may be asphalt top- dressed with decorative gravel to match the appearance of the existing private street. C) Existing Bridge Deer Run Preliminary Development Plan 10- 062Z /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezonhw Deer Run CStateS Memorial Dr. ,md Dublin Rd. (1) The existing bridge shall be evaluated at final development plan to verify that vehicle load limits are suitable for emergency access. Signage identifying load limits shall be posted at both entrances to the bridge. (2) No improvements, should they be necessary, shall be required until such time any new construction within Subarea A is applied for building permit. D) Sidewalks, bike paths, or leisure trails shall not be required. E) Estate Lot driveways (1) Materials shall be asphalt top- dressed with decorative gravel to match the appearance of the existing private street or the driveway materials permitted per City of Dublin Code. (2) Multiple curb -cuts may be permitted from the private street where appropriate and approved by the City. Multiple curb -cuts shall be based on safety, design aesthetics, and lot entry. (3) The existing driveways of the existing homes shall be permitted to remain. (4) This subarea shall otherwise be exempt for residential driveway code. V) Architectural Standards: A) Design Review: All homes within this subarea are envisioned to be custom homes and shall be held to a high quality of design and construction. No improvements, change, construction, addition, excavation, landscaping, tree removal, or other work or action that in any way alters the exterior appearance of the lots or common open space shall be commenced or continued without review and written approval from the Design Committee. The committee shall be appointed by the Trustees of the Association, and shall consist of at least three members. Design review procedure shall be outlined within the deed restrictions of the lots. B) Architectural Diversity: In order to ensure that there is architectural diversity, homes located on adjacent lots within Subarea A shall be required to utilize either (1) different floor plans or (2) different architectural styles. In the event that homes with the same architectural style are built on adjacent lots, then, in addition to being required to incorporate different floor plans, these homes also shall be required to use different exterior colors and materials. C) Exterior materials: (1) All buildings shall incorporate four -sided architecture. Deer Run Preliminary Development Plan 10- 062Z/PD1 Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Decr Run Estatcs Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. (2) Finish building materials shall be applied to all sides of the exteriors of all buildings. (3) Colors shall be harmonious and compatible with colors of the natural surroundings and other adjacent buildings, if any. The Design Committee shall have the sole right to approve or disapprove materials and colors, consistent with the approved development text and approved final development plan. (4) Cladding materials: The exteriors of structures in this subarea shall be constructed of brick, stone, manufactured stone, wood, stucco, cementitious siding, and other comparable materials, subject to approval by Planning (or any combination thereof). (5) Trim materials: Permitted exterior trim materials shall include wood, aluminum (for gutters and downspouts only), copper, EIFS fiber - cement products, or composite wood, products. Shutters shall be considered "trim' for purposes of this development text. (6) Roof materials: All homes shall have dimensional asphalt shingles, wood, slate, tile, metal, or copper. VI) Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space and /or Screening Commitments A) All residential landscaping shall meet the landscape requirements of the City of Dublin Zoning Code. B) Open Space: Subarea A shall contain approximately 1.2 acres of common open space, located along Dublin Road. Common Open Space shall be maintained by a forced and funded homeowners association. C) All existing trees in fair or good condition shall be preserved within the common open space, to the extent possible. Any area not occupied by trees shall be maintained as lawn, planting area for screening purposes, or as natural vegetation. D) Tree Preservation: (1) It is the intent of the developer to preserve as many trees as possible in this subarea due to the heavily wooded nature of the site. (2) A tree survey will be provided at the final development plan identifying the locations of City of Dublin designated "landmark trees" and any tree within the proposed development footprint of any site improvement. A good -faith Deer Run Preliminary Development Plan 10- 062Z /PDP Preliminary Development Plan /Rezoning Deer Run estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. effort shall be made to limit any tree removal to only those areas within the development footprint, to be identified on the final development plan. (3) The site shall meet the requirements of the City of Dublin's tree preservation and replacement ordinance, unless a waiver is approved by City Council. (4) All trees to be preserved shall be protected by tree preservation fencing in accordance with the City of Dublin's tree preservation fence details and guidelines. E) Street Trees shall not be required along any private streets. Any landscaping along the private street should maintain a natural appearance. F) Existing vegetation along the north property line shall be preserved as a landscape screen. VII) Gate and Entry Sign A) Gate (1) The access shall be permitted to have an entry security gate, allowing 24- hour emergency access, and shall be approved by Washington Township Fire Department. The existing gate shall be permitted to remain. (2) The gate shall have decorative masonry columns and wing -walls not more than six (6) feet in height. The gates shall be decorative in appearance and not more than six (6) feet in height. B) Sign. (1) Entry feature signage shall be permitted at the private drive entrance along Dublin Road. (2) The entry sign(s) may be incorporated into the gate structure indicating the development name. (3) The sign shall not exceed 20 square feet in size VIII) Model Homes A) Model homes shall not be permitted in this subarea. Deer Run Preliminary Development Plan 10 -0627 /POP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Subarea B: Estate Lots I) Description: Subarea B shall be located on the central portion of the site adjacent to Dublin Road to the east, Subarea A and the ravine to the north, the Scioto River to the east, and Subarea C to the south. This subarea shall be approximately 16.1 acres and shall contain "Estate Lots" as described below. II) Permitted Uses: A) Permitted uses shall include single - family detached homes. B) Accessory Uses shall be as permitted by City of Dublin Code, III) Density, Height, Lot and /or Setback Commitments: A) The maximum number of dwelling units shall be five (5). The maximum density shall be 0.31 du /ac. B) Minimum Lot size shall be 2 acres. C) Setbacks (1) The minimum front yard setback shall be twenty -five (25) feet from the private street easement line. (2) The minimum side yard setback shall be twenty -five (25) feet from each side property line. (3) The minimum rear -yard setback shall be 30 feet from the property line. D) Encroachments into applicable setbacks shall be in accordance with the City of Dublin Code, or as outlined within this text. E) Maximum building height shall be thirty -five (35) feet. Height shall be measured from the finish grade at the front or main fagade of the house to the mean height of the roof. Architectural features that exceed this height must be compatible with the style and massing of the overall architecture of the building and shall be approved by staff. Deer Run Preliminary Development Plan i o- o6zuPDt> Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. F) There shall be only one principal use permitted on each lot, and such lot shall not be covered more than 30% by structures. G) Homes shall be permitted to have walk -out basements so as to minimize the need for extensive site grading. IV) Access, Loading, Parking and /or other Traffic - Related Commitments: A) Access (1) Access to Subarea B shall be from Dublin Road at the existing curb -cut and shall provide shared access to Subarea A. (a) Refer to Subarea A for shared access and gate provisions. B) Private Streets (1) All dwelling units in this subarea shall have access from a private street. (2) The existing private street width and decorative gravel surface contribute to the natural and rural character of this site. It is the intent of this plan to maintain that character by matching the existing private street as much a possible. (3) All streets constructed as a part of this subarea shall be privately owned and maintained and shall be combined access and utility easements. (4) All private street easements shall have a minimum width of fifty (50) feet. All existing private streets shall be permitted to remain. (5) The proposed private street shall be a minimum width of eighteen (18) feet. The street shall be widened at hydrant locations as shown on the plan to provide a minimum width of twenty -six (26) feet. The street and any utilities shall be adjusted within the easement so as to minimize removal of trees. (6) Curbs and gutters shall not be required. (7) All private streets shall be designed per the City of Dublin engineering standards, and so as to accommodate access by emergency vehicles. Pavement surface may be asphalt top- dressed with decorative gravel to match the appearance of the existing private street. C) Sidewalks, bike paths, or leisure trails shall not be required. D) Estate Lot driveways Deer Run Preliminary Development Plan 10-062Z/1)1)1) Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. (1) Materials shall be asphalt top- dressed with decorative gravel to match the appearance of the existing private street or the driveway materials permitted per City of Dublin Code. (2) Multiple curb -cuts may be permitted from the private street where appropriate and approved by the City. Multiple curb -cuts shall be based on safety, design aesthetics, and lot entry. (3) This subarea shall otherwise be exempt for residential driveway code. V) Architectural Standards: A) Design Review: All homes within this subarea are envisioned to be custom homes and shall be held to a high quality of design and construction. No improvements, change, construction, addition, excavation, landscaping, tree removal, or other work or action that in any way alters the exterior appearance of the lots or common open space shall be commenced or continued without review and written approval from the Design Committee. The committee shall be appointed by the Trustees of the Association, and shall consist of at least three members. Design review procedure shall be outlined within the deed restrictions of the lots. B) Architectural Diversity: In order to ensure that there is architectural diversity, homes located on adjacent lots within Subarea A shall be required to utilize either (1) different floor plans or (2) different architectural styles. In the event that homes with the same architectural style are built on adjacent lots, then, in addition to being required to incorporate different floor plans, these homes also shall be required to use different exterior colors and materials. C) Exterior materials: (1) All buildings shall incorporate four -sided architecture. (2) Finish building materials shall be applied to all sides of the exteriors of all buildings. (3) Colors shall be harmonious and compatible with colors of the natural surroundings and other adjacent buildings, if any. The Design Committee shall have the sole right to approve or disapprove materials and colors, consistent with the approved development text and approved final development plan.. (4) Cladding materials: The exteriors of structures in this subarea shall be constructed of brick, stone, manufactured stone, wood, stucco, cementitious Deer Run Preliminary Development Plan 10- 0627 /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. siding, and other comparable materials, subject to approval by Planning (or any combination thereof). (5) Trim materials: Permitted exterior trim materials shall include wood, aluminum (for gutters and downspouts only), copper, EIFS, fiber - cement products, or composite wood, products. Shutters shall be considered "trim" for purposes of this development text. (6) Roof materials: All homes shall have dimensional asphalt shingles, wood, slate, tile, metal, or copper. VI) Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space and/or Screening Commitments A) All residential landscaping shall meet the landscape requirements of the City of Dublin Zoning Code. B) Open Space: Subarea B shall contain approximately 2.0 acres of common open space, located along Dublin Road. Common Open Space shall be maintained by a forced and funded homeowners association. C) Each Estate Lot within Subarea B shall contain a portion of platted tree preservation area totaling 3.8 ac. This area shall be located south of the access easement that bisects the subarea. No structures or other site improvements may be built within this area. All existing trees and topography shall be preserved. D) All existing trees in fair or good condition shall be preserved within the common open space, to the extent possible. Any area not occupied by trees shall be maintained as lawn, planting area for screening purposes, or as natural vegetation. E) Tree Preservation (1) It is the intent of the, developer to preserve as many trees as possible in this subarea due to the heavily wooded nature of the site. (2) A tree survey will be provided at the final development plan identifying the locations of City of Dublin designated "landmark trees' and any tree within the proposed development footprint of any site improvement. A good -faith effort shall be made to limit any tree removal to only those areas within the development footprint, to be identified on the final development plan. (3) The site shall meet the requirements of the City of Dublin's tree preservation and replacement ordinance, unless a waiver is approved by City Council. Deer Run Preliminary Development Plan to- 06MPUr Preliminary Development Plan /Rezoning Decr Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. (4) All trees to be preserved shall be protected by tree preservation fencing in accordance with the City of Dublin's tree preservation fence details and guidelines. F) Street Trees shall not be required along any private streets. Any landscaping along the private street should maintain a natural appearance. VII) Model Homes A) Model homes shall not be permitted in this subarea. Deer Run Preliminary Development Plan 1 o- 0622 /PI)P Preliminary Development Plan /Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Subarea C: Cluster Lots 1) Description: Subarea C shall be located in the southern portion of the development east of Dublin Road, along the north side of Memorial Drive, and west of the existing City of Dublin parkland along the Scioto River, and south of Subarea B. This subarea shall consist of approximately 17.1 acres and shall contain "Cluster Lots' as described below. II) Permitted Uses: A) Permitted uses shall include single - family detached dwellings. . B) Accessory Uses shall be as permitted by City of Dublin Code. Ill) Density, Height, Lot and /or Setback Commitments: A) The maximum number of dwelling units in Subarea C shall be thirty -seven (37). The maximum density shall be 2.2 du /ac. B) Cluster Lots shall vary in size as shown on the site plan with a minimum width of sixty (60) feet at the maximum depth of the front build zone. C) The minimum lot depth shall be of one hundred - twenty (120) feet. D) Setbacks (1) There shall be a front build zone of zero (0) feet to ten (10) feet, as measured from the private street easement line. Any portion of the structure shall be built at or within the build zone. (2) The minimum rear -yard setback shall be thirty (30) feet from the property line. (3) The minimum side yard setback shall be five (5) feet from both side property lines. (4) Minimum building separation shall be ten (10) feet. (5) The parking setback shall be zero (0) feet from the private street easement line. E) Encroachments into side yards by bay- windows, chimneys, air conditioner condensers, decks, or porches shall not be permitted. Deer Run 10- 0627, /PDP Pic minary Development Plan / Rezoning Preliminary Development Plan Decr Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. F) Encroachments up to 10 feet into the rear yard setbacks are permitted for patio, decks and fences, subject to approval by Planning. G) Maximum building height shall be thirty -five (35) feet. Height shall be measured from the finish grade at the front or main fagade of the house to the mean height of the roof. H) Lot Coverage: The maximum impervious coverage of any single lot shall not exceed 70 %. 1) Homes shall be permitted to have walk -out basements so as to minimize the need for extensive site grading. IV) Access, Loading, Parking and /or other Traffic - Related Commitments: A) All streets constructed as a part of this subarea shall be privately owned and maintained and shall be combined access and utility easements. (1) Entry Boulevard: (a) An entry boulevard shall provide access from Memorial Drive and shall be aligned to the intersection of Autumnwood Way. (b) Easement width shall be a minimum of fifty -four (54) feet. (c) Width of each drive lane on either side of the median shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) feet measured back of curb to back of curb. (d) The median shall be eight (8) feet in width measured back -of -curb to back -of -curb. B) All other private streets: (1) Easement width shall be a minimum of forty (40) feet. (2) Pavement width shall be a minimum of twenty -two (22) feet measured back of curb to back of curb. (3) The street shall be widened at hydrant locations as shown on the plan to provide a minimum width of twenty -six (26) feet back -of -curb to back -of- curb. C) Stormwater Management (1) In lieu of traditional concrete gutters, streets may utilize permeable paving in up to three (3) feet wide strips adjacent to the face of both curbs, as part of the stormwater management system. The final width, infiltration trench, Deer Run Preliminary Development Plan 10 -062L /1 1 1)1) Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. and overflow shall be sized and finalized at final engineering and shall be approved by the City of Dublin engineering staff. (2) Permeable Gutters shall be maintained regularly with routine street - sweeping to remove foreign objects that could block drainage. The use of sand as a winter street treatment should be avoided as it can clog the permeable pavers. Maintenance shall be the responsibility of the homeowner's association. D) On- street parking shall not be required. The need for on- street parking will be evaluated with the final development plan. Should on- street parking be desired, bump -outs may be provided in areas as shown on the plan to provide a minimum width of twenty -six (26) feet measured back -of -curb to back -of -curb. The number of on- street spaces will be determined with the final development plan. E) Minimum Parking: All units shall be required to have a minimum of two (2) parking spaces within a garage, and two (2) parking spaces in driveway stacking area or in an auto -court for side -load garages. F) All units in this subarea shall front a private street. G) Garages (1) Garages shall adhere to the minimum side yard and rear yard setbacks. (2) Garage elevations shall be detailed consistently with the main building fagade. (3) Front load garages shall be setback a minimum of eighteen (18) feet from the access easement line. (4) Side load garages with an auto court shall be permitted on all lots, and shall be required on lots 70 foot wide or greater. Side load garages may be used to meet the front build zone requirement. H) Driveways (1) Driveway materials shall be concrete, decorative unit pavers, or a combination thereof. Asphalt, gravel, and mulch shall be prohibited as driveway materials. (2) Driveway curb -cuts shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in width. 1) Auto - Courts Deer Run Preliminary Development Plan 10- 002Z/PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. (1) Auto courts shall be screened from the street and from the adjoining lot by a four (4) feet tall screen. Double screening and waste spaces should be avoided, and it is encouraged that the design of lots be coordinated with adjoining lots to share screening alongside lot lines. The maintenance of any screen shall be the responsibility of the lot owner on which the screen is constructed. (2) The screen may be made of a decorative masonry wall detailed to complement the main building fagade, or an evergreen hedge, and may be permitted to encroach into the front and side yard setbacks. (3) Hedge material shall be sized to reach the required height within four (4) years of installation and shall be planted within a minimum three (3) feet wide planting bed. (4) Hedge material may be used in combination with piers detailed to complement the main building fagade, and / or decorative metal fencing. (5) Screening oriented toward an adjoining lot may be located adjacent to the property line. The auto -court may be permitted to encroach into the side yard up to the screening. J) Sidewalks, bike paths, or leisure trails shall not be required along the private street. K) A four (4) foot wide pedestrian path shall be provided from the end of the eastern- most private street to the future City of Dublin park, as shown on the plan. Final path location shall be coordinated with City staff. V) Architectural Standards: A) Design Review: All homes shall be held to a high quality of design and construction. No improvements, change, construction, addition, excavation, landscaping, tree removal, or other work or action that in any way alters the exterior appearance of the lots or common open space shall be commenced or continued without review and written approval from the Design Committee. The committee shall be appointed by the Trustees of the Association, and shall consist of at least three members. Design review procedure shall be outlined within the deed restrictions of the lots. B) Architectural Design (1) Four -sided architecture shall be required on all homes, all elevations on a home shall be architecturally consistent. Deer Run Preliminary Development Plan t o- o627/PDP Preliminary Development Plait / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. (2) Front fagade: A minimum of 20% of the front fagade shall be stone or brick. Materials on the front of the house must "turn the corner" to the side elevations.. (3) A change in materials must occur in architecturally appropriate locations. (4) Exterior cladding materials: Brick, stone, manufactured stone, wood, stucco, cementitious siding, or any combination thereof. (5) Trim materials (a) Brick, stone, wood, aluminum (for gutters and downspouts only), copper, EIFS fiber - cement products, composite wood and vinyl products. Shutters shall be considered "trim ". (b) Fascias shall be a minimum of 5 -1/2 inches. (c) Windows and doors on the front and sides of the house shall incorporate trim that is architecturally appropriate. (6) Colors shall be earth -tone, or mimic natural materials. High- chroma colors are not permitted. (7) Roofs (a) Minimum pitch shall be 8 inch rise to12 inch run, Rake shall extend a minimum of 6 inches; Eaves shall be a minimum of 12 inches. (b) Permitted Materials: dimensional asphalt shingles, wood, slate (including manufactured slate products), or tile. A metal roof, such as copper, may be permitted for up to 20% of the total roof area. (8) Chimney Materials: Same as permitted Exterior cladding materials, with the exception of wood. (9) Lighting: Each house shall have a minimum of one yard -post light near the walk of the front entry, and one porch -light near the front door. (10) Front porches shall not be required. However, when included, the style of the porch must support the style of the house. Glass and screens shall be prohibited from front porches. (11) Garage Doors (a) Maximum 18 feet wide opening. (b) Doors shall include windows in the upper portion, and have simulated panel details. C) Diversity Homes located on adjacent lots shall be required to utilize different floor plans and different massing configurations. Deer Run Preliminary Development Plan 10- 062Z /1'1)1' Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Decr Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. D) Architectural Style The intended architectural style of this subarea is "Romantic Revival ". Appendix 1 Architectural Guidelines is included as a guide to illustrate common characteristics of that style. Homes should be design based on interpretation from these guidelines, and also to meet the minimum requirements in this section. VI) Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space and/or Screening Commitments A) All residential landscaping shall meet the landscape requirements of the City of Dublin Zoning Code, B) Open Space: Subarea C shall contain approximately 7.4 acres of common open space. Common open space shall be maintained by the homeowners association. (1) Common open spaces may incorporate utility easements and facilities including stormwater management facilities, such as detention, conveyance swales, or rain gardens. C) Tree Preservation (1) It is the intent of the developer to preserve as many trees as possible in this subarea due to the heavily wooded nature of the site. (2) A tree survey will be provided at the final development plan identifying the locations of City of Dublin designated "landmark trees" and any tree within the proposed development footprint of any site improvement. A good -faith effort shall be made to limit any tree removal to only those areas within the development footprint, to be identified on the final development plan. (3) The site shall meet the requirements of the City of Dublin's tree preservation and replacement ordinance, unless a waiver is approved by City Council. (4) All trees to be preserved shall be protected by tree preservation fencing in accordance with the City of Dublin's tree preservation fence details and guidelines. D) Lot Landscaping (1) Lot Trees: In the event that the required number of lot trees (as determined by the City of Dublin Code) do not fit within the front yard space of a Cluster Lot due to space limitations, then those trees shall be relocated either on the rear of the lot or elsewhere in the subarea as indicated on the Final Development Plan. Deer Run Preliminary Development Plan 10- 062Z/PUP NO Iiminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. (2) Front Yard Landscaping (a) All lots shall incorporate landscaping between any street - facing building elevation or auto -court screen and the private street back -of -curb. (b) Landscaping shall be ornamental in nature consisting of any combination of shade trees, ornamental trees, shrubs, perennials, annuals, and lawn and designed to enhance the character of the streetscape, house, and auto court screen. (c) Plantings shall not obstruct sight visibility triangles of driveways or street intersections (d) All material shall be sized, installed and maintained to City of Dublin code requirements. Maintenance shall be the responsibility of the lot owner. E) Street Trees: (1) Street Trees shall not be required along private streets. (2) The entry boulevard median shall incorporate ornamental landscaping consisting of ornamental trees, shrubs, perennials, annuals, or any combination thereof. (3) Plantings shall not obstruct sight visibility triangles of driveways or street intersections F) Permanent Wood Screening: (1) Wood screening at a height of up to four (4) feet shall be allowed to encroach 10 feet into the required rear yard setback and be located along the side property lines, provided that such screening does not extend beyond the front facade of the home. Gates may be included. It is encouraged that fencing be arranged so that adjoining lots can tie into fences along side property lines, eliminating double fences and wasted side yard space. (2) Maintenance responsibilities shall be addressed within the deed restrictions. Deer Run Preliminary Development Plan t 0- or2z /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin U. VII) Gate and Entry Sign A) Gate (1) The boulevard access shall be permitted to have a security gate for each drive lane, allowing 24 -hour emergency access, and shall be approved by Washington Township Fire Department. (2) The gate shall have decorative masonry columns and wing -walls not more than six (6) feet in height. The gates shall be decorative in appearance and not more than six (6) feet in height. B) Sign. (1) Entry feature signage shall be permitted at the private drive entrance along Memorial Drive. (2) The entry sign(s) may be incorporated into the gate structure indicating the development name. (3) The sign shall not exceed 20 square feet in size. VIII) Model Homes Model homes may be constructed and used as sales locations, but these will be typical of residential architecture planned for the subarea, and will ultimately be sold as residences. Deer Run Preliminary Development Plan 10- 0627/PDP I"elinninaiy Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. CITY OF DUBLIN. Low Use ow Long Norge Ilannhg $800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236 Phone/ 1D0: 614410-4600 faz:614- 410.4747 web Sites .dublin.oh.us Creating a Legacy PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF DISCUSSION DECEMBER 10, 2009 4. Deer Run Residential Dublin Road and Memorial Drive 09 -093CP Concept Plan Proposal: A single - family development consisting of nine estate lots and 38 cluster lots for 51.7 acres located at the northeast corner of Dublin Road and Memorial Drive. Request: Review and feedback of a concept plan under the Planned District provisions of Code Section 153. 050 Applicant: Wasatch Partners, Deer Run Land and Deer Run Associates; represented by Michael L. Close, Esq., Wiles, Boyle, Burkholder et al. Planning Contact: Jennifer M. Rauch, AICP, Planner II. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4690, jrauch @dublin.oh.us RESULT: The Commission reviewed this proposal for a single - family development consisting of nine estate lots and 38 cluster lots for 51.7 acres located at the northeast comer of Dublin Road and Memorial Drive and was generally supportive of the proposal moving forward as a formal rezoning/preliminary development plan application. Some Commissioners advised the applicant to review the setbacks along Dublin Road and ensure they are adequate. The Commission requested the applicant explore a more village -like lot arrangement for the cluster lots in an effort to preserve more of the sit's natural features. The provision of high quality design and architectural standards were also emphasized and the Commission requested these high quality standards be incorporated in the future development text. STAFF CERTIFICATION J niter M. auc , AICP Planner II 1 o- 062Z /PD1' Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Decr Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 10, 2009 — Meeting Minutes / Page 9 of 26 He said if two units per acre ould work for the app 'cant, that would be fit e` however he would not,support anything that ceeded two units per re. Warre /ishman pointed out t at there are a number advantages of havi this type of multi - fam infill, since it woul minimize access poi s on Avery Road. H said the Commission w old make sure there ' a strong condomini association and d elopment standards. added that if develo d, there would be development text th specifies certain bai ing materials and what e units would look li . Mr. Fishman aid he was not for or >ainst this project, bu o do this type of infil the two lots to the sou would he to be inc ded to create a coke ' e neighborhood with ne entrance on Avery ad. He agreed that th' proposal was not the yet. He commented at the architecture wou need more stone to with the church. M .Fishman said he was of ready to commit w ther he would suppor his project based on t e density because they ad a long way to go cixf e site plan and architecture. Ms. Amorose G omes said she It a condominium prod would fit here, but e would prefer that th be detached rather an attached condomi 'ums. She strongly be 'eved in the /Amos that provides so mu detail for the constr tion and materials, b it also comes ent standards th would govern how t development must maintained. Ms. omes said she as in favor of a singl access point on Aver Road for the entire she would e to see a provision ' r connection with th properties to the sout the nort . s. Amorose Groom - said the neighbors h• a right to expect s1 ar rear yard setbacks o his site as well as the own yards. Mr. Fishman s 'd it wo/desirabl bl to have the curb cut a 'gn with the one aeros e street at Manteo Dri . Mr. Cloould be a way to alig he access a bit better. Ms. prose Groomehat Mr. Close h received the input he eeded. She wished Mr lose the best ominded him o remain in touch w' the neighbors. Ms. morose Groomes thaents for th ' • comments. 4. Deer Run Residential Dublin Road and Memorial Drive 09 -093CP Concept Plan Chair Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this application involving a Concept Plan for a single - family development consisting of nine estate lots and 38 cluster lots on 51.7 acres located at the northeast corner of Dublin Road and Memorial Drive. Jennifer Rauch presented this Concept Plan requesting Commission review and feedback. She described the surrounding area and the multiple- parcel site located in two approved developments. She said the northernmost portion of this proposal consists of 1 l platted estate lots as part of the Deer Run Estates, platted in 1984, zoned R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. She said only two of the seven lots, have houses constructed on them. She said the southernmost portion is undeveloped and was originally part of Sections 4 and 5 of the Amberleigh North subdivision, which is located south of this site, across Memorial Drive. Ms. Rauch said in 2002, City Council approved another Preliminary Development Plan for the southern portion titled Wasatch Estates, permitting five estate lots, and a gatehouse and caretaker's quarters. 10- 0622 /PDP Preliminary Development Plan /Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 10, 2009 — Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 26 Ms. Rauch explained the proposed plan is divided into three subareas with nine estate lots located in the northern portion, divided into two subareas with the northernmost portion containing four of the proposed nine lots, accessed from the existing curb cut. She said the middle portion includes the remaining five estate lots as part of the northern portion, located south of the existing creek. She said the estate lots range between two and seven acres, depending upon their location and the topography. Ms. Rauch said the southern portion, containing 38 cluster lots located on a new cul -de -sac and curb cut within a third subarea. She said the cluster lots would utilize a new access point that aligns with Autumnwood Way as part of the Arnberleigh North subdivision. She said there are ten acres of common open space provided throughout the development, located along Memorial Drive and Dublin Road, and then a larger wooded open space area in the middle separating the cluster lots from the estate lots. She said the proposed density for the site is 0.7 dwelling units per acre, which meets the Future Land Use designation of Residential Low Density, which would permit up to 51 dwelling units, or 0.5 to one dwelling unit per acre. Ms. Rauch said the applicant has provided images from the River's Gate development as reference of what the cluster lots could look like. She said in Planning's opinion, the proposal is consistent with the recommended density of the Community Plan's Future Land Use Map, and the Land Use Principles are either met or met with modifications as outlined by Planning. She said the proposal incorporates a high - quality design, strives to preserve the natural features on the site and provides common open space. She said Planning recommends the applicant proceed with a Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan, which is the next step in the Planned District process. Ms. Rauch suggested the following three discussion points for Commission feedback: Does the Commission support Planning's analysis of the proposal and recommend the applicant move forward with a rezoning /preliminary development plan for the combination of estate and cluster lots? What design considerations should the applicant utilize to meet the Land Use Principles? Does the Commission believe the proposed architecture concept is appropriate for the development and compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods? Michael L. Close, representing the applicants, Wasatch Partners, Deer Run Land, and Deer Run Associates, said that this Concept Plan anticipated adding an additional half -acre on the northern part of the park, which is unusable because of its severe elevation. He pointed out that the area was registered as an agriculture recruitment area as a tree farm. He said the owner has planted thousands of trees, most of which will not be a problem because they are too young. He said it is a heavily wooded area, and they plan to keep the heavy forestation wherever they can. He said the area between the middle and southern sections is anticipated to be a No Disturb Zone, and through a series of deed restrictions, each of these subdivisions separately will be required to maintain those portions of the forest that they own. Mr. Close said the connectivity issues raised he did not see as being any problem. He expected that they would have to move the wooden fence on City property. Mr. Close pointed out that contrary to what the Planning Report stated, the parkland was dedicated when the property was first rezoned. 10- 062Z/PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Decr Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 10, 2009 — Meeting Minutes Page l 1 of 26 William Duecker, 8719 Glenamoy, a Kerry Glen resident, said he had no issue with this proposal, but he would like to know what would be included in the PUD. Ile said fencing or debris would flood his house, therefore he wanted it guaranteed that there would be no fencing on the northern end where the creek was located. He said he also did not want to see a chain link fence behind his house. Jerry Ellis, 10815 Edgewood Drive, a Concord Township Zoning Commissioner, said the site plan was wonderful and it was a good use of the land. He noted the southern end was at the ravine, which made it a very attractive nuisance next to the parkland. He was also concerned how to separate the proposed development from public access. Mr. Ellis requested an archeological survey of the parkland and this site to check for Indian artifacts and remains. John Ilardt said he thought this was a good plan and he was pleased. Iie encouraged the applicant to move forward with plans to rezone his property. He said although it is intended to be a gated community, he asked that when the development text is written consideration be given to how it is done, if at all. He questioned how traffic would circulate in the cul -de -sac in the middle of the southern portion of the site, and said it should carefully be considered when going forward. Mr. Close said for safety reasons, they had to satisfy the Fire Department and emergency vehicles with regard to the turn around and traffic circulation, which they will address. Todd Zimmerman said he supported the project and the proposed density. He said on the required setbacks should be maintained along Dublin Road. Warren Fishman asked if this development would be a gated community. Mr. Close said the north two subareas are proposed to be gated but he did not know if the bottom ones would be gated. Mr. Fishman confirmed there would be access to the river from the park. Mr. Close said there was public access to the park along Memorial Drive. He thought Mr. Ellis was concerned about there being river access from the park to the subdivision to the north. Mr. Close concurred with Mr. Ellis that they did not want access across the river to the north subdivision. Amy Kramb said she would like to see how there would be path connections within the proposed neighborhoods through the proposed open space. Mr. Close said there would be connectivity to Amberleigh, to the park to the east, and to the bikepath to the west, but not paths through the proposed open space area. Ile said he expected it would end up as a No Disturb Zone. Ms. Kramb confirmed that there would be no connections between the estate properties and the other properties. Kevin Walter said he was sure this will be a beautiful property with high standards and high quality, but he was concerned that it might not do the site justice. He preferred to see even more of the natural character retained with a winding road and clusters of homes in a more conservation oriented design, because of the site's topography. He said it might be an opportunity lost if something even more special is not done to preserve the site, which is one of the most beautiful sites in Dublin. Richard Taylor said this was also one of the last pieces of developable riverside property north of I -270, so it takes on special importance. Ile said he liked the north hall'of thi �' ^ ^, 10- 0622 /PDP Preliminary Development Plan /Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr, and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 10, 2009 — Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 26 not crazy about the south half because it looked like they were clear - cutting the whole area. He said River's Gate had the character of a European Village, which was stated as a goal on this site. Mr. Taylor said this layout is essentially a modified series of culs -de -sac and he did not think that achieves the village character of River's Gate or would be appropriate for this site. Mr. Taylor suggested the pond or open space around the edge of the site be transferred to the interior to save more trees, and create more of a village -like environment. He said he would like to see a substantial improvement of the layout. Mr. Taylor was concerned about the properties at both ends of the cul -de -sac because the lots were oddly placed. Mr. Taylor said his biggest concern was with the quality of the houses to be built. He said since this is going to be a PUD, the Commission had the opportunity to make sure that there were extraordinary high quality standards for the houses. He was concerned that without a very strict development text in place, these lots like many others in Dublin, will be sold to builders whose goals are quite different from the developer's original intent. Mr. Taylor said for the good of the community, this property and the existing houses he would like to see those standards maintained in whatever is built on the site. He said the best way to do that is to make sure there is a very good set of text requirements focused on architectural. Ms. Amorose Groomes said this was not one of the most beautiful pieces of property in Dublin, it was the most beautiful piece of property, developed or undeveloped. She said she would like to see tree preservation happen particularly on the northern portion of the site with high landscape standards that would deter anyone from removing the virgin forest as it stands today. She said the canyon walls will begin to be lost if the vegetation holding them up is removed. She said she would like to see strict requirements to ensure trees aren't removed, particularly on the north portion. She said she would like more setbacks on Dublin Road, which might impact one or two lots because there is a nice tree stand coming from Dublin Road and the creek washes through there. She wanted to see a little more buffer maintained on Dublin Road on the southern half of the development. Ms. Amorose Groomes ended the discussion saying this was a great proposal for this property and it was the best shot at preserving it to the extent possible. She said the only other pipedream would be if it could be given to the City as a park that everyone could enjoy. She said short of that, this was the next best thing that could be done. She confirmed that Mr. Close had received enough feedback from the Commissioners. Mr. Close thanked the Commission and said they would be back again. Ms. Amorose Groomes called a brief break at 8:41 p.m. before beginning the next case. 5. NT Q�#dPUD, Subarea 5A —,Wo�ger Marketplace — 7 -1OOAFDF /CU Z Amended Fina evelopmei Chai hris Amorose Groomes introduced this appli tion involving s ce for five tables in fr it of a tenant space f a frozen yogurt arketplace shopping nter. She swore in tho who intended to sp including the applic Sandra Leess, Menchi s Frozen Yogurt, and C' Todd Zimme an and John Hardt, o requested that this ppliea consent ite s, agreed to forego the aff presentation. 's Xoad oad PlUse a 1patio >horoger t m regard to this case representatives. 10- 062Z /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Decr Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ____ _.. Dublin City Council 17, Ordinance 93-03 ezoning Approximately 1 of Riverside Drive, from: Suburban Office and 1 it 4444 Tuller Road) cres on the North Side of ler Road, 540 Feet East Restricted Suburban Re dential District, to: SO, n District. (Case N 3- 88Z— Thomas Rezoninn -i /th erman st d that this rezoning involves single - family home, located a 444 ad, an urrently zoned R -1. The pro rty became vacant sometime go, and rty ners have now sought the re ning to accommodate busi ne use. P &Z d the change to the Suburb Office and Institutional Distri y a vote of 7 -0 r 2. This is a straight rezoni with three conditions appen One condition cause this is already in th verlay district for site plan re w no use would be the property as a comm cial use until that plan had be reviewed in the CCD. n application submit d for this. Mr. Lecklider noted that " the background materials pro ed, the future l/resntial identified this as re's tie high density. Mr. Gunderman st d that the zoning map actual) hows most of the a commercial. He called that staff felt the area s already an establish property and at single family did not seem v' le as a long -term option. residential assification may have had so advantage, but he is not ce Mr ecklider stated that another cern relates to the ac/ onditional uses within e proposed text, which could elude banks, drive - througses, restaurants and bars. D oes anyone share hi concern about those types o uses? Mr. Gunderman stated th in this case, it is a straight re re is no text. Most the surrounding prope ' s are CC. By virtue of an S istrict, there is more restricii than that of the adja nt properties. Ms. Salay ask if there are any plans for ext or changes to the building. Mr. Gunde an stated that none of the ap cations seen thus far indicate ny changes, but they a not far along in the process this point. Vo on the Ordinance: Ms. Chin t- Zuercher, yes; Mrs. Boring, 's; Mr. Kranstuber, s; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklid yes; Mayor McCash, yes. J Mayor McCash suggeste at Ordinances 95 -03, 96 -03 d 97 -03 be handled together as they are all area rez ings and one staff presentati would address all three. He asked that the Clerk ad the ordinances into the re rd. Ordinance 95.03 Establishing lin Zoning for 25 Parcels mprising an Area of Appro ately 87 Acres as A exed from Perry Township' 1961 and 1972, South of I- , West of Sawmill ad and East of the Scioto . er, to CC, Community Co ercial, or SO, Subur n Office, and Institutional ' tricts. (Case No. 03 -081 Z - D Commercial Establishing Dublin Zoning for 14 Parcels Comprising an Area of Approximately 26 Acres, as Annexed from Concord Township in 1977, East of Dublin Road and North of the Delaware County Line, to R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. (Case No. 03 -082Z- Deer Run) Ordinance 97 -03 Establishing 941in Zoning for 76 Parcels C prising an Area of Appro ' ately 133 /abli exed from Washington To ship between 1980 and 200 , East of , South of Dunleary Drive, est of the Scioto River, to 1, Restricted sidential District. (Cas o. 03 -083Z - - Bellaire Area ezoning) an stated that these ar area rezonings done as part the staff effort to lin zoning where ar s were annexed to the City not for mally rezoned gories. He displ ed a map demonstrating the ee areas. Ordinance 95 -03 involves perties being established as , with one property beina / established as SO. The all Pines property will be esta shed as SO. There were no object" s to any of these rezonings, of P &Z recommen' 10- 0627 /1 October 2 by a vot f 7 -0. Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Ordinance 96 -0 nvolves single - family homes, d will be established a <. llecr faun Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. .CITY of Detndm Divwm at X 5800 Shier -Rings toad Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 RECORD OF ACTION OCTOBER 2, 2003 wne/=. 614 - 4104600 For 614-761.6566 ebsk-www.dubru"Ohe Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1r/ 2. Area Rezoning 03 -082Z Deer Run Location: 14 parcels comprising an area of approximately 26 acres as annexed from Concord Township in 1977, east of Dublin Road, north of the Delaware County Line, and south of Muirfield Place. Request: Review and approval of an ordinance to establish the R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. Property Owners: Anthony and Michele Lowe, 10741 Dublin Road, Dublin, Ohio 43017; Lou Ann Moritz, 4900 Deer Run Drive, Dublin, Ohio 43017; Margaret Walter, 5000 Deer Run Drive, Dublin, Ohio 43017; Trang Bui, 8644 Dublin Road, Dublin, Ohio 43017; Christopher and Anita Biratsis, 8686 Dublin Road, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Anne Wanner, Planner. MOTION: To approve this area rezoning because it will apply an appropriate Dublin zoning classification, will provide for effective development administration, will maintain the established development pattern, and is consistent with the Community Plan. VOTE: 7 -0. RESULT: This area rezoning wa approved. It will be forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation. STAFF CERTIFICATION Barbara M. Clarke Planning Director 10- 062Z/PDI' Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estatcs Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — October 2, 2003 Page 5 Ms anner said one parc that is owned by ed by Dublin as p and along the river commercial zoning, ut representatives of Suburban Residen ' and zoning won e placed in the C residential applicati r 0bus was dels application. It is e boardwalkical maps i/een ty of Colut R -1, Re more appropriate It has sin She said Oree property owners ended the informatio meeting, and seve called on the phone. 's action is a hous eeping effort to avoi any future Code enfo ment problems arising township or co ty zoning. Staff reco ends approval of thi zoning. . Saneholtz made otion to approve thi amended area rezo ' because it will apply appropriate Dubl' classification, provid or effective develop nt administra tion, ma' in the established velopment pattern, is consistent with th ommunity Plan. Ms oring seconded the otion, and the vote w as follows: Mr. Ritc e, yes; Mr. Zimmerm ,yes; Mr. Sprague, s; Mr. Messineo, yes; s. Boring, yes; and . Saneholtz, yes. [Mr. erber, upon return t e meeting voted atively.] (Approved 7 .) 2. Area Rezoning 03 -082Z — Deer Run Anne Wanner showed several slides. She said this area rezoning includes 14 parcels totaling 26 acres located between Dublin Road and the Scioto River in Delaware County. Three parcels are on Dublin Road, and the remaining parcels are within Deer Run Estates, originally platted in 1984. There are two homes in Deer Run Estates on Deer Run Drive, which is private. She said Dublin R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District is proposed. Land immediately to the south was rezoned to a PUD, Planned Unit Development District last year which changed the entrance of Deer Run Drive, approximately 1,600 feet to the south. As part of that rezoning, the applicant was to file a revised plat, but it has not yet been received. She said staff has spoken with a few property owners. The informational meeting was sparsely attended. Ms. Wanner said this was a housekeeping effort and is intended to avoid any future enforcement problems arising from township or county zoning. It will establish the R -1 District, and staff recommends approval of this rezoning. [Mr. Gerber returned to the meeting at this time.] Mr. Saneholtz made a motion to approve this area rezoning because it will apply an appropriate Dublin zoning classification, provide for effective development administration, maintain the established development pattern, and is consistent with the Community Plan. Mr. Ritchie seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Messineo, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Ms. Boring, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Ritchie, yes; and Mr. Saneholtz, yes. (Approved 7 -0.) 3. ea Re/03-083 3 ellaire Area Rezo ng e Wannerat slides. She said area rezoning ivis bdions. I S estate lots at th orth end of Bell; Dublin.Roadcreage is 133 a s. Streets within th Avenue, Mast and West, erick Lane, and range in size ree acres. ud , 76 parcels /Iaire pfrive and the bdivisions inclu Court. The lot 10- 062L /PDP Preliminary Development Plan /Rezoning Deer Run 13states Memorial D. and Dublin Rd. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS — ---- Minutes _of —___ — -._.._ Dublin City Council __._._ .._. August , 2003 Page -- 9 — I{e ld 18 20 Mr. S an pointed ou ' , t — rates t that 11 elect,he ratere known fo If r the ext two years. an offer is received which will result i savings to the resident, a p posal will not be brought w ard. For gas, with fluctua g rates, the options are to I for a fixed rate that will offer price certainty or a rate tha ' simply less than the gas oo pangs rate. It is possible th another supplier may ha a lower rate, such as a fix ne -year rate. Ms. Chinnici -Zuer stated that if a resident opt in and then decided to swit , the documents indi there is a switching fee. Mr. Sloan stat that it would be in the form an early termination fee. Ty ' Ily, the fee for eariy termin on is in the range of $25. T can be negotiated with the pplier. It may sometime make sense for someone to itch, even with the $25 ead ermination fee. Many d 't understand the market an may trust the local govemm t to negotiate for them with local utilities. r. McDaniel added that, in g eral, these plans are fairly s dard. AMP Ohio represen � 30 or more other communit' s, and this is not "uncharted nitory." He noted that staff y . request emergency actin at the second reading to wai t the 30 -day waiting period, depending upon the et conditions. There will be a s nd reading /public hearing a e September 2 Council me ng. Ordinance -03 Adoptin Plan of Operation and G ernance for a Municipal( t Out) Natural Gas i� Aggre tion Program and Author' ng the City Manager to S mit Said Plan to the Pub' Utilities Commission of io. (Second reading /public aring September 2 C ncil meeting) s. Salay introduced the ordi nce. I I There will be a second r ding /public hearing at the Se ember 2 Council meeting. II ZONING Mayor McCash ed to waive the Rules of Or r to have the Clerk read the ' es only of Ordinances 93 through 97-03 and to refer em to Planning & Zoning C mission. j Ms. Chinnic uercher seconded the moti . Vote on t motion: Mr. Kranstuber, y ; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Sala y es; Mayor McCash, j yes; Mr . Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici- etcher, yes; Mr. Lecklider, y Or nance 93.03 ezoning Approximately 1. Acres, Generally on the N h Side of TWIler Road, Feet East of Riverside Dr' e, from R -1, Restricted S urban Residential District f SO, Suburban Office a Institutional District (Ca No. 03 -088Z -Thomas Re ning - 4444 Tulle, Road). ,I Ordinance 94 -03 Establishing D in Zoning for 83 Parcels mprising an Area of App r imately 142 Acres as nnexed from Per Towns p in 1961 and j� of Sawmill oad and East of the Perry iver, to R-11, Restricted S t urban70, West Resident R -2, Limited Suburban sidential, and Rd, $ubur n Residential li Distric . (Case No. 03 -080Z- CDD esidential Area Rezoning). 0 d nce 95 -03 E blishing Dublin Zoning f 25 Parcels Comprising a ea of Approximately 87 cres as Annexed from Pe Township in 1961 and 1 2, South of 1 -270, West of Sawmill Road and East o he Scloto River, to CC, C munity Commercial, an O, Suburban Office,. and I titutional Districts. (Case o. 03 -081Z -CDD Comma ial j Area Rezoning). Ordinance 96 -03 Establishing Dublin Zoning for 14 Parcels Comprising an Area of Approximately 26 Acres, as Annexed from Concord Township in 1977, East of Dublin Road and North of the Delaware County Line, to R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District (Case No. 03 -082Z - Deer Run). Ordina a 97 -03 / i2oresas sn Dun Zoning for Parcels Comprising an a of App li , Ann from shington Township betty en 1980 am Road, South of Dun ary Drive, West of the Sci o River, to R- 10- 062Z/1'DP Suburban Residential Di Ict. (Case No. 03 -083Z - laire Area Razor Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Decr Run Estates II Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. till td n1 WJ\ Division of Plunni" 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 tone/fOO: 614 -410 -4600 Fax: 614761 -6566 lab Site: w .dublio.oh.us PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION MAY 2, 2002 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 3. Final Development Plan 02- 039FDP — Wasatch Estates, Subarea B - Phase I, Lot 6 Location: 1.434 acres located on the east side of Dublin Road (SR 745), approximately 550 feet north of Memorial Drive. Existing Zoning: PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Wasatch Estates plan). Request: Review and approval of a final development plan under the provisions of Section 153.056. Proposed Use: One single- family residence containing a gatehouse /servant's quarters and related infrastructure. Applicant: Margaret M. Walter, 5000 Deer Run Drive, Dublin, Ohio 43017; represented by Michael L. Close, 115 West Main Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215 -5043. Staff Contact: Chad D. Gibson, AICP, Senior Planner. MOTION: To approve this final development plan as it is an accurate representation of the preliminary development plan, provides high - quality architecture at a residential scale, and provides for the preservation of a large portion of existing mature trees, with eight conditions: 1) That the Deer Run Estates plat be modified to reflect the proposed changes, subject to staff approval; 2) That all private drives be constructed within the 50 -foot access easement and meet all applicable engineering standards, subject to verification by the legal staff, 3) That the access onto Dublin Road must comply with the Division of Engineering Administrative Policy for Intersection Visibility Triangles; 4) That the details for the provision of water and sanitary sewer utility service to the gatehouse be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 5) That any non - customary lighting meet the Dublin Lighting Guidelines and be residential in style, subject to staff approval; 6) That any signage or entry feature(s) be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission; 7) That the site plan be modified to conform to the minimum rear yard and side yard standards within the R -1 District; and 10- 062Z /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Page I of 2 Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION MAY 2, 2002 3. Final Development Plan 02- 039FDP — Wasatch Estates, Subarea B - Phase I, Lot 6 (Continued) 8) That a forestry plan be submitted subject to staff approval. * Michael L. Close agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 7 -0. RESULT: This final development plan was approved. STAFF CERTIFICATION Barbara M. Clarke Planning Director 10- 0627. /1 PicI iminary Dcvclopment Plan / Rezoning Decr Run Istalcs Page 2 of 2 Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — May 2, 2002 Page 16 2) at all site modificatio s comply with the SO evelopment standards- 3 That the site be cone ted to City sanitary s er prior to August 31 02; 4) That the site co ly with current ligh ' g, parking, ADA, 1 scaping, and playgr nd requirements p ' r to August 31, 2002 bject to staff approv , 5) That all new encing comply with t Code; 6) That any ture expansion of a site, including but of limited to parkin , additional classr ms or students, also t Code; 7) Th proposed pavement traffic flow be reco gured to allow for ad uate circulation, ject to staff approval- 8 That the existing gr d sign and center i ntification sign not used for adverdsin purposes and that other signs comply w' Code; and 9) That new site landscaping plans be bmitted reflecting th omments in this staff port within two w ks. Mr. Zimm an seconded the m ton, and the vote w as follows: Mr. Rit ic, yes; Mr. Gerber, es; Ms. Boring, yes; r. Sprague, yes; Mr. aneholtz, no; Mr. M sineo, yes; Mr. Zi rm/rom roved -1.). r. Gerber ' n to recommend that tty Council waive the ezoning fee in this ca Mr. Ritchithe motion. Ms. B mg said this request ould be expedited. Ciarochi sa request from the r nesting Council to w ' e the fee wou ld be he The vote ws: Ms. Bor' yes; Mr. Zimme yes; Mr. Sprague yes; Mr. Saneholtz ssineo, yes; Ritchie, yes; and Mr erber. (Approved 7- . 3. Final Development Plan 02- 039FDP - Wasatch Estates, Subarea B - Phase I, Lot 6 Chad Gibson said this site is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District, as Subarea B of the Wasatch Estates Plan. That plan consists of five estate lots in Subarea A and a gatehouse with caretakers' quarters in Subarea B. This site is 1.434 acres of the overall 29 acres. Mr. Gibson showed several slides. He said the City owns 22 acres somewhat to the east for a community park. The site is Lot 6, which is located at the new shared entrance for both Wasatch Estates and Deer Run Estates. Deer Run Estates is a subdivision for 11 lots to the north that is also on a private street. This plan shows a 60 -foot building setback along Dublin Road and a connection to Deer Run Estates. Modifying that access drive will necessitate a plat revision. Mr. Gibson showed the proposed tree preservation area. A stonewall is proposed at the entryway. The road arcs to the north and will connect with Deer Run Drive. Deer Run Drive has a bridge, and its point of access to Dublin road will be removed. The new access will be to the south, connecting into Wasatch Estates. Deer Run Drive averages about 18 feet in width. The proposed private drive system is 14 feet wide, with no curb and gutter. Staff recommends that at a minimum, this new pavement width should match Deer Run Estates, or 18 feet. Modifying the Deer Run Estates plat will also be discussed this evening. Because its access point is being eliminated, and another private drive link is shown, the Deer Run Estates plat needs to be amended. The permanent records need to be updated. 10- 0622 /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Decr Run Estates Memorial Di. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — May 2, 2002 Page 17 Mr. Gibson said a letter from the applicant was distributed indicating vast numbers of trees being planted on the property. He said staff recommends a condition for a tree preservation plan. He said the Commission is to decide if what was planted offsets what is being removed. Mr. Gibson said staff recommends approval, with nine conditions: 1) That the Deer Run Estates plat be modified to reflect the proposed changes, subject to staff approval; 2) That all private drives be constructed within the 50 -foot access easement and meet all applicable engineering standards for a public street as required by the City Engineer or City Council; 3) That the access onto Dublin Road must comply with the Division of Engineering Administrative Policy for Intersection Visibility Triangles; 4) That the details for the provision of water and sanitary sewer utility service to the gatehouse be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 5) That any non - customary lighting meet the Dublin Lighting Guidelines and be residential in style, subject to staff approval; 6) That any signage or entry feature(s) be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission; 7) That the site plan be modified to conform to the minimum rear yard and side yard standards within the R -1 District; 8) That a tree survey, tree preservation plan, and tree replacement plan, be submitted subject to staff approval; and 9) That the tree replacement plan meets the requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance unless otherwise approved by City Council. Mike Close, attorney, agreed to Conditions 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Regarding Condition 1, he said Deer Run is in the R -I District, and he was not aware of any Code provision requiring the plat to be modified. He said they are required to vacate the street access, etc. He said they had vacated easements and put new easements in place. Mr. Close said private drives are not typically platted. He said they are ready for construction and would not like to be delayed. He did not know what staff meant by "replatting." He said this is a change in easements. Mr. Close requested, if Deer Run had to be replatted, that Condition 1 be modified to leave this up to the City Engineer's approval. He did not want two months of hearings on something that was already complete. Mr. Banchefsky said he saw no issue with doing that. Mr. Gibson agreed and said the City needed an accurate depiction in the file cabinet. Mr. Close agreed. Ms. Boring asked for further explanation of this. Mr. Close said Condition 1 is for property that is zoned R -1, Deer Run Estates, and not part of this application. He wanted to make sure everyone agreed that this is merely submission of a plat revision. It involves the same owners. Mr. Close said Condition 2 was unfair. He said during the rezoning, there were two arguments: the drive width and whether they needed a bikepath on the north side of Memorial Drive. He said he won the width issue and lost the bikepath issue. Now the staff wants it to be wider, at least 18 feet, and that is not fair. He said the Commission and City Council annroved this road at 10- 0622 /PDI' Pic] iminmy Development Plan / Rezoning Decr Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — May 2, 2002 Page 18 12 feet in width. He believes this was already approved, and the site is heavily wooded. A 14- foot drive is proposed. Every foot added on this roadway will cause trees to be removed. Ms. Boring quoted a condition of the December 6, 2001, Record of Action, "That all private drives, bridges, ...meet all applicable engineering standards; that all private drives meet any provisions or conditions as required by the City Engineer or City Council." Mr. Close said Internal Drives shall be private and not less than 12 feet of pavement. It is specifically addressed. He said they agreed to the 50 -foot easement. Ms. Boring and Ms. Clarke both said they were confused by this explanation. Mr. Messineo asked if "current engineering standards" were 12 feet or 18 feet in width. Ms. Clarke said they should be 28 feet wide. Mr. Close said these are not streets; they are driveways. Each only serves two or three houses. This is not a 75 -house subdivision anymore, and that is why 12 -foot drives were approved. He said fire apparatus have no problem with this width. Mr. Close said Condition 9 addresses tree preservation, and the tree replacement requirements were waived for this site in exchange for parkland. He said Condition 9 should be deleted. Mr. Close said Condition 8 requests a tree survey, preservation plan, and replacement plan. He does not think a tree survey is needed, and he is not ready to address a tree preservation plan. He said the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), at Mr. Walter's expense, developed a forestry plan for this site. The plan includes cutting dead trees, clearing brush, and planting 2,000 trees. It is being followed and should be an acceptable replacement for what is normally seen. He said they have shown their good faith that they will not just knock down trees. Chris Hermann, Myers Schmalenberger, said they are doing a tree preservation plan. They will install orange protection fencing to keep construction crews from going into certain areas. They are asking that the tree replacement plan be met by their ODNR forestry plan submittal. Mr. Close said the ODNR plan covers the entire site. The rest of the road is not ready to submit. They want to build it to the gatehouse, and then bend it to the north to join with relocated Deer Run Drive. The house will not be built right away. They want permission for the curbcut and to build the driveway. It is a very small project. The rest will come back later. Most of the ODNR plantings will go in the south part of the larger tract, not directly involved tonight. He preferred that the forestry plan be adopted. Mr. Gibson said he needed clarification for the record. It is not clear exactly what is permitted in the tree replacement area. The text did not say if owners would be allowed to cut down trees. Mr. Close said Council said that tree the replacement requirement is waived. They certainly would not take down any significant trees. Some trees will be removed for the road. Ms. Boring noted that a large historic oak was discovered when Hard Road was planned. Mr. Close said there was no historic oak here. 10- 0627/PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Decr Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — May 2, 2002 Page 19 Mr. Hermann said a tree survey was done for the eastern half of this site for a proposed cluster development for Edwards. He said this section did not have a tree survey, but ODNR walked this entire site to identify dead trees and bare spots. He said most of this area was farmed, and these are mostly new growth trees. He said the bridge is already in across the ravine, and the new construction will be outside it. The big trees do not extend beyond the bridge. Mr. Close agreed and said the big trees are primarily pole - sized. They will try to avoid any that are six inches, as per the previous text. Mr. Zimmerman asked if when the new road is connected, the current entrance will be abandoned. Mr. Close they are required to abandon that curbeut when they do this work. Ms. Clarke asked if the realignment would be shown on the Deer Run plat. Mr. Close said they did not know about this previously. They are currently doing a slight relocation, and as long as he is redoing the plat, he could replat it at the same time. Mr. Gerber asked which lot will have six employees. Mr. Close said it is in the later phase, and will be on Lot 1, 4, or 5. He said Lots 2 and 3 are too valuable because of their size. Mr. Banchefsky said the approved conditions for rezoning also indicated that private drives must meet any provisions or conditions required by the City Engineer. This would include width. Mr. Close said this was decided at the last meeting. The Commission agreed to 12 feet. It was decided in a specific discussion to accept a 12 -foot width because they are really not streets. Mr. Banchefsky said he would listen to the December 6, 2001 tape to clarify what was agreed. Mr. Saneholtz suggested the General Development Standards — C -4 precluded Conditions 8 and 9. Mr. Gibson agreed; they were listed before receiving the forestry plan. Mr. Sprague said Condition 9 should be deleted. Mr. Saneholtz asked why was a tree preservation plan needed. Mr. Gibson said more information was needed on the specific tree preservation areas. Mr. Sprague suggested rewriting Condition 8 to read: "That a forestry plan be submitted to staff approval... after tree replacement plan, or similar forestry plan." Mr. Close agreed to stake the drive and have the forester look at it. He wanted to make sure it was understood about amended Condition 2 that when they redo the Deer Run Estates, they will do the other minor replatting with it. Mr. Ritchie asked about the bikepath. Mr. Close agreed they would build it in conjunction with the remaining lots. Mr. Gibson said on average, Deer Run Drive is 18 feet. Mr. Ritchie said he agreed that the drive widths should match. 10- 062Z /PDP Preliminary Dove Iopmenl Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — May 2, 2002 Page 20 Mr. Ritchie asked if this project impacted the creek or ravine. Mr. Hammersmith said no. Mr. Ritchie asked if right -of -way to meet the Thoroughfare Plan from the preliminary development plan had been dedicated as yet. Mr. Gibson did not know. Mr. Hermann said with this plat, they would definitely dedicate the Dublin Road right -of -way. He said they did not plan to dedicate the Memorial Drive right -of -way until the next subarea plat. Mr. Messineo said an "internal driveway" could mean the pavement for the entire internal driveway, or the access to an individual house. To him an internal driveway does not stretch across 30 acres. Mr. Close said it was the same, but it just happens to be longer. Ms. Boring said that was not fair description because there were several lotsihouses on it. Mr. Saneholtz said there could be 1 I houses located on this street in the distant future. Mr. Close said it was possible, but highly unlikely. He said it is a private shared drive, not a road system. Ms. Boring said there would be some type of "social' house at which more than one or two cars would need to park when visiting it. Mr. Close said they want no relief from sub -base, base, and pavement standards. They will meet the strength standard, but it should not have to meet a width standard because it is unfair. He said both the Commission and Council okayed the 12 -foot pavement width they had requested. Ms. Boring said she did not remember the discussion at Council. The road discussion is covered in the minutes, and the condition approved was: "That all private drives meet all applicable building standards, and that all private drives meet any conditions and provisions as required by the City Engineer or City Council." This is in the conditions, as agreed upon and adopted. Mr. Close said at the December 6, 2001 Commission meeting, there was an extensive discussion about the appropriate width, but not at the at City Council hearing. It is approved at 12 feet. Ms. Clarke said at the December Commission meeting, the proposed text did reference 12 feet, and it was addressed in the staff report and in the conditions. She recalled that Mr. Close agreed to all of the conditions except the bikepath. She offered to review the recorded tape of the meeting to assure the conditions were reflected correctly. Mr. Close said he was not in the habit of making misrepresentations to anyone. He said 12 feet was agreed upon and it was what City Council passed. He said it was not fair to overrule it. Mr. Gerber recalled the December 6 discussion as to whether the streets should be private or public. He said he did not recall the width issue, but he remembered the sturdiness issue. Mr. Close said the City Engineer wanted a 24 -foot wide drive, and they are proposing 14 feet. Mr. Sprague thought there had been general agreement that this is a unique plan. He recalled one concern was the weight bearing capability of the roadway. He understood the point of making both roads the same width, but it should be as narrow as possible to save trees. 10- 062ZrnDt) Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — May 2, 2002 Page 21 Mr. Saneholtz said he was not concerned about the near term. When one family does not control the whole site in the future, it may be a problem. Ms. Clarke said the existing Deer Run Estates plat has 11 lots, with only two homes built to date. Mr. Messineo said the access road connecting to Deer Run Estates was a bigger concern than the Wasatch Estates road. He said it needed to be wider to serve those eventual 11 homes. Mr. Sprague suggested using a deed restriction. Ms. Boring said Dublin couldn't enforce them. Ms. Boring read from the Council meeting minutes: "Mr. Close agreed to sixteen conditions, but not the seventeenth condition." She said Conditions 6 and 7 addressed the roadway issues, and the development text was approved with these 16 conditions. Mr. Sprague announced that it was 11:20 p.m. He asked if there was a way to legally require the road to be widened to public specifications when a certain number of homes are built. Mr. Close said Wasatch Estates is limited to six homes, and they can do a restriction for Deer Run Estates. Mr. Saneholtz asked if there was an opposition to 18 feet of pavement. Mr. Close said yes, because of trees and the cost factor. Mr. Banchefsky said if the concern was that if there are more residents living in Deer Run Estates, that they are going to request that street become public so that they do not have to take care of it, there is a co- provision that states that if that request is made, that road has to be brought up to public standards, including subbase, construction methods, and width. Ms. Clarke thought the width issue raised by the City Engineer was that two cars cannot pass on a 14 -foot street, and all of these internal roads have to be two -way. If it were a circular path and could be restricted to one -way traffic, they could be 12 or 14 feet wide. Mr. Hermann stated Deer Run Drive is 18 feet wide at the bridge entrance, but it is 16 feet wide as it crosses the bridge. Mr. Close said that was not wide enough for two vehicles to pass. Mr. Banchefsky said he saw a conflict between the text submitted and approved conditions. The conditions of approval say "subject to City Engineer." He said the tape needed to be checked. If staff made a mistake in that condition, it will be addressed. Mr. Messineo suggested this could be approved based upon listening to the tape to determine what the City and applicant actually was agreed to in those conditions. Mr. Sprague agreed. Mr. Close said Mr. Banchefsky and he would listen to the tape to resolve the driveway width issue. Mr. Sprague suggested it be to the satisfaction of legal staff. Mr. Banchefsky agreed. Ms. Boring thought staff should also be involved. There were several suggested changes to Condition 2. Ms. Boring asked if that included listening to the previous meeting tape. Mr. Banchefsky said he would need to listen to the tape to determine this. 10 -0(YL /1 he l iminary.Devclopment Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — May 2, 2002 Page 22 Mr. Banchefsky said he understood his task was to listen to the December 6, 2001 Commission tape to see if it changed the condition of approval (Condition 2) regarding the width of the drives as part of this application tonight. With that understanding, Mr. Sprague made the motion to approve this final development plan because it is an accurate representation of the preliminary development plan, provides high - quality architecture at a residential scale, and provides for the preservation of a large portion of existing mature trees, with eight conditions: 1) That the Deer Run Estates plat be modified to reflect the proposed changes, subject to staff approval; 2) That all private drives be constructed within the 50 -foot access easement and meet all applicable engineering standards, subject to verification by the legal staff, 3) That the access onto Dublin Road must comply with the Division of Engineering Administrative Policy for Intersection Visibility Triangles; 4) That the details for the provision of water and sanitary sewer utility service to the gatehouse be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 5) That any non - customary lighting meet the Dublin Lighting Guidelines and be residential in style, subject to staff approval; 6) That any signage or entry feature(s) be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission; 7) That the site plan be modified to conform to the minimum rear yard and side yard standards within the R -1 District; and 8) That a forestry plan be submitted subject to staff approval. Mr. Close agreed to these conditions. Mr. Ritchie seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Gerber, yes; Ms. Boring, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Messineo, yes; Mr. Ritchie, yes; and Mr. Sprague, yes. (Approved 7 -0.) [By way of clarification, following the May 2, 2002 Commission meeting, Dublin's Assistant Law Director Mitch Banchefsky did listen to the tapes of the previous meetings as referenced in these minutes. He found no determination, or statement of intention, by either the Planning and Zoning Commission or the City Council, as to the width of the private internal road, also referred to as a drive or driveway throughout the discussion.] The meeting adjourned at 11:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Libby Farley (a/ Administrative Secretary Planning Division 10 -062L /PUP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Decr Run Estates Manorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Page 3 Meeting February 19, 2002 re p vie ig additional proposals at this ti He assured her that he woul eep her salon file, as from time to ti taff retains consultants for dep ent/division head earches. Mr. Kranstuber asked for er clarification regarding the end outdoor pool design process. In the Recreation inter process, he recalled that a ittee was formed that includ Council memb for selection of the architect. wants to ensure that there is no ork underway r to further public input in the cess. Mr. Me 'el responded that the timeline eviously approved by Council s cified that statT cold retain the architect for the Iect. . Hahn provided details on the ifications of the team selected this project. Staff is very confident in their capabi . es. Staff wilt seek guidance fro Council at an upcoming meeting to be sch led, and this will be followed several public input meetings regarding desi The goal is to have the pool pr am and site plan established for a July meeting of arming & Zoning Commission. Mr. Kranstuber s ested that the Parks and Recrea ' n Advisory Commission be util as well. Mr. Hahn ed that staff and the consultant I recommend a course of actio r this projec jest to modification by Comic' t the upcoming meeting. The posal ass es involvement by PRAC. . McDaniel stated that staff will istribute the timeline for the p ect to Council. Ms. Puskarcik thanked Cou members who have submitted eir biographical forts and had their photos taken. a reminded those who have not do so as soon as possible. Sturm will put another fo ' their mailboxes. Y LEGISLATION SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCES Ordinance 140-01 - An Ordinance Providing for a Change in Zoning for 30.399 Acres Located at the Northeast Corner of Dublin Road (SR 745) and Memorial Drive, From: PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Amberleigh North) To: PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Wasatch Estates -File No. 01 -081Z) Mayor McCash noted that Michael Close has signed in to testify on this rezoning. Ms. Clarke stated that within the Amberleigh North development, the northern piece of 30 acres is zoned for cluster housing and single family residences - 74 units in total. This rezoning revises that section of the PUD and creates six estate -sized lots. Planning Commission reviewed this in December of 2001 and approved the application with 17 conditions. There is an error in the Record of Action from the P &Z hearing where it states that Mr. Close agreed to the above conditions. He agreed with 16 conditions, but not the 17 condition. Condition #17 was a carryover from the Amberleigh North PUD which stipulated installation of a bikepath on the north side of Memorial Drive. Mr. Close indicated that he is unable to agree to this condition based upon the wishes of his client. This is a new layout of the PUD — there will be only one access which will serve this and the subdivision to the north, Deer Run Estates. There will also be a gatehouse constructed along Dublin Road at the new entry drive. This is a subdivision which will be constructed on a private road system. She then showed slides of the site plan for the development. .-- She noted that there have been very developments proposed in the last several years with private roads. There is a bikepath as part of the PUD which is to run from the Dublin Road bikepath over to the park. This is the condition to which the applicant objects. The proposed plan with six units will result in saving many trees compared to what would have occurred with 74 units constructed on the same site. Ms. Clarke noted that this proposal changes the preliminary development plan. The site would still be zoned PUD, but the permissible use would change substantially. The Record of Action will be corrected as previously described. There is a PUD text, a layout established, and staff recommends approval with 17 conditions. Mayor McCash asked if Mr. Close sent copies of a letter regarding the bikepath to all II members of Council. 10- 062Z /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Decr Run Lsnrtcs NIcntorial Dr. and Dublin M2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Page 4 Meetin February 19, 2002 Mr. Close confirmed that he had done so. Mayor McCash stated that the tunnel under Dublin Road is located on the north side of Memorial Drive, so the bikepath that the applicant has concerns with is one that will tie into the tunnel. Mr. Kiadra confirmed this. Mr. Reiner asked for more information about the bikepath, which appears to be the only unresolved issue. Ms. Clarke responded that she does not have a copy of the correspondence sent by Mr. Close to members of Council; she is aware only that My Close indicated in a public meeting that he would not agree to the bikepath condition. Staff's position is that a park is located immediately east of the development and a bikepath immediately west of this development. Staff believes the connection is important. Mr. Reiner asked if there is an alternate solution to accomplish this connection. Ms. Clarke stated that staff has not reviewed other options for this connection. Mayor McCash stated that the only other alternative would be to cross under Dublin Road at the tunnel, and to then cross Memorial Drive to access the south side. Mr. Reiner asked what investment the City has made with the tunnel. Ms. Grigsby stated that she estimates the cost of the tunnel as $520,000. Michael Close, 7360 Bellaire Drive Dublin representing the applicant apologized for not copying Ms. Clarke on the letter sent to Council. His client believes that the bikepath as required will not have a functional purpose. The applicant has reduced the density from 74 units to 6; reduced the five driveways to two; and there is an existing bikepath on the south side of Memorial Drive just 40 feet away which runs to the park. According to the park plan, there will be no need to cross the street again to access the north end of the park. The bridge or whatever ultimately goes across the road there will be below grade. A bikepath serves no functional purpose in this location. Ultimately, the project will include a decorative security fence along the perimeter of the property, including Memorial Drive. They would prefer not have the bikepath in this location, if possible. Council then reviewed the site plan as shown by Mr. Close. Mrs. Boring pointed out that Council is forgetting in this discussion that Memorial Drive is to be a future bridge cross connecting to the other side of the river. In walking the area, residents have commented that this bikepath will provide a safe way to cross the road to access the park. If families use the bike tunnel and upon leaving the tunnel have to cross Memorial Drive, this results in jeopardizing their safety. Mr. Close disagreed. By the time the park is built which will attract people, and by the time the bridge is built, if ever, there will be a traffic signal installed to allow safe crossing at grade. Mr. Reiner stated that he is hopeful that there is never a bridge crossing at this location. Mr. Close stated that if a bridge is not built, there will be no need for the bikepath under debate tonight. He added that the Emerald Parkway has provided traffic relief, and he doubts that there will be a need for a bridge in this location based on expected development. Mayor McCash stated that the advantage of the path along the south side of Memorial Drive is that it would allow the Amberleigh North residents to access the park. The path on the north side allows access by the Muirfield residents and River Forest residents who will use the tunnel and eliminates the need to cross Memorial Drive. His concern is that residents would at some point in the future complain about speeding issues and them request traffic calming measures to allow safe access to the park. Mr. Close suggested a condition that the bikepath be installed in the future if the Memorial (I Drive bridge is built. 10 -0622 /PUP Preliminary.Developmcnt Plan / Rezoning DecrRun Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Pa 5 Meeting February 19, 2002 Ms. Salay noted that the decision was made to install the tunnel on the north side of Memorial Drive with the anticipation that a bikepath would connect. She asked for history of this decision. Mr. Close responded that the tunnel was located on the north side because the developer agreed to provide the land for installation of the tunnel as pact of the development of Amberleigh. Ms. Clarke stated that the decision was actually driven by topography — from an engineering feasibility standpoint, this was the most workable location for a tunnel. Mr. Reiner asked why the Planning division requires two bikepaths, one on each side of the road. Ms. Clarke responded that the decision for the tunnel was made at a later date. Fifteen years ago, staff was not aware of where tunnels would be located and what the final disposition would be regarding construction of the Dublin Road bikepath. Mr. Hahn stated that he believes that the south side of Memorial Drive actually has a five - foot sidewalk, and not a true bikepath. The master plan for bikepaths called for a path on the north side of Memorial Drive. When Amberleigh was platted, the developer was required to install a sidewalk along the residential area along Memorial Drive. Mr. Kranstuber asked for his assessment of the need for this piece on the north side. Mr. Hahn stated that his recollection is that a true bikepath, eight -foot minimum width, was to be built on the north side of Memorial Drive to serve the park, whether or not there would be a bridge at this location in the future. Mr. Kranstuber asked, procedurally, how Council would delete Condition #17, if desired? r^ Mr. Smith responded that the rezoning was approved with various conditions. Council can add a condition or delete a condition by motion. Voting on the Ordinance would include all 17 conditions, unless Council approves a separate motion regarding Condition #17. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher stated that Mr. Hahn noted that a bikepath was included in the Master Plan for the north side of Memorial Drive. This path was also included in the Amberleigh plan, but at that time there was an expectation of 63 condos and 11 single - family homes. Mr. Hahn responded that from a broader plan point of view, whether or not the Memorial Drive bridge is implemented in the future, the concept of a bikepath connecting from one side of the river to the other has always been planned, The community scale park of 22 acres in this location by design will have strong linkages, whether pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicular. It was viewed as a needed amenity for this site. In terns of the quantity of residential homes, it does not have a bearing on the needed path — the path will serve a greater population than this development. The bikepath on the north side of Memorial Drive is a necessary piece of the overall bikeplan throughout the City. Mrs. Boring noted that the setback along Dublin Road for this PUD is 60 feet. Doesn't the community plan call for larger setbacks along Dublin Road? Ms. Clarke stated that, as a general rule, yes. However, the setback was one of the compromises made in discussion about the height of buildings, etc. Mr. Reiner asked about the impact the bikepath requirement on the north side will have on the client. These are huge estate lots — what is the width of the path and the setback from the curb for the path? Mr. Close responded that the path was not part of their submission — it was a condition added at the end of a long hearing at Planning Commission. There was no detail provided by staff. He noted that some of the concerns about the path relate to security. There are distinct security issues for this kind of client. The smaller setback somewhat relates to the need to have the gatehouse closer to the roadway so that it can function properly. Mayor McCash asked if the bikepath could be placed all within the existing City right -of- way. 10- 062Z /PDI' Preliminary Development Plan/ Rezoning Decr Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Pa e 6 Meetin February 19, 2002 Mr. Kindra responded that, typically, bikepaths are installed within the existing rigbt-of- way. In this case, the right -of -way is established for the wider road needed for a future bridge. There is quite a big of flexibility in layout for this bikepath due to the amount of right -of -way available. Mr. Lecklider commented that three members of Council served on Planning Commission when this case was presented in December. He does not begrudge the applicant asking for elimination of this condition; that is his right. As he recalls, however, there was extensive discussion of the condition regarding the bikepath at P &Z, and there was discussion of the security issue as well. Compromises were made on both sides in the course of the consideration, and he believes that fair consideration was given to the request for elimination of the bikepath. After review of all the facts, six members present at P &Z that evening determined that the path should remain in the plan. Mr. Kranstuber asked if the gatehouse is the only encroachment on the desired setback on scenic road. Mr. Close stated that the topography on lot 5 might impact the setback. There will be a fence around the perimeter, but no other structures encroaching. Mr. Kranstuber stated that it is difficult to complain about a development where the density has been reduced from 74 lots to 6; the school district appreciates the tower density, as density impacts the number of future students. In terms of the bikepath, he will defer to staff. For future reference, he would adhere to a larger setback requirement on a scenic road. This case is clearly the exception. Mayor McCash stated that Council has indicated that a 200 -foot setback is desirable on scenic roadways. In this case, however, the low density will provide for a more open feeling. Ms. Clarke stated that as a general recommendation, staff strives for a 200 -foot setback along scenic roadways. Mr. Lecklider stated that P &Z struggled with the setback issue as well. Hearing no amendments from Council, Mayor McCash asked the Clerk to call the roll. Vote on the Ordinance - Ms. Salay; yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. O [Hance 10-02 — An Ordina a Accepting the Annexatio of 42.387 Acres om Coacord Township, De are Couaty, to the City of blin. Ms. Grigsby stated that staf 's recommending adoption at t time. Mayor McCash noted th wo citizens have signed in to stify. Cynthia Reed. 52 0 A shire Dri Dublin stated at she attended the Delaware ounty Commissioners eating on this annex ation whe she asked that the commitm made in writing by t airfield Village Golf Club the Muirfield residents be m part of the reco rd. S has copies of the minutes of e Concord Township Trustee pril 1986 meeti that took place between John rues, attorneys, and the resid s. She had ously provided a copy to Mr. ith and to the Clerk. In 198 , airfield Village Golf ub officials met with many s ounding residents of the 42- e plot purchased from the Diocese of Columbus. They sated the residents verbally )At as long as there was a Muirfield Tournament, and would be used as a parki lot. At the time, they made several concessions in ding landscaping and installon of a tall chain link fence to block the Bogey I om using this as over p 'ng access. Recently, when r [dents heard that Muirf d was interested in selling th and to Kroger, they circulate etitimvs indicating th i opposition to any and all co ercial development on this age currently owned by e Golf Club and located alon scenic roadway. She preset to Con it The residents are d t a aman opposed to this land betng 10- 0627 /PUP preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. A] I') ueD1 BHN Divisw of Pk W" 5800 Shier -Kings Road Min, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone/f00: 614- 410.4600 Fax: 614 - 761-6566 Web Site: w .dubkahxs PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION DECEMBER 6, 2001 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 3. Revised Preliminary Development Plan 01 -081Z - Amberleigh North, Sections 4 and 5 - Wasatch Estates Location: 30.399 acres located at the northeast corner of Dublin Road (SR 745) and Memorial Drive. Existing Zoning: PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Amberleigh North Plan). Request: A revised preliminary development plan for six single - family lots with associated uses (eliminating 63 condos and 11 single- family lots) under the PUD provisions of Section 153.056. Proposed Use: Six estate lots, a private recreation facility, and a gatehouse with servants' quarters. Applicant: Margaret Walter, 5000 Deer Run Drive, Dublin, Ohio 43017; c/o Duffy Communities, LLC, 8760 Orion Place, Suite 100, Columbus, Ohio 43240; represented by Michael Close, 115 West Main Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215 -5043. Staff Contact: Chad D. Gibson, Senior Planner. MOTION: To approve this preliminary development plan because it substantially reduces gross density, provides substantial green space, preserves large stands of trees, and provides new estate -style lots for the community, with 17 conditions: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) That right -of -way be dedicated according to the Thoroughfare Plan (40 feet from centerline of Dublin Road) prior to submittal of the final development plan; That a plat be submitted at the final development plan stage reflecting a 50 -foot (minimum) easement corridor and demonstrating provisions for construction and long term maintenance, subject to staff approval; That the plans and text be revised to indicate tree preservation and/or no- disturb zones to preserve trees wherever practicable, and be submitted with the final development plan for the private road, subject to staff approval; That the site plan optimize tree preservation with the sensitive placement of private utilities; That a landscape plan, detailing any entry features, street trees, signage, etc. meeting Code be submitted with the final development plan, subject to staff approval; 10- 062Z/I'DP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Page 1 of 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION DECEMBER 6, 2001 3. Revised Preliminary Development Plan 01 -OSIZ - Amberleigh North, Sections 4 and 5 - Wasatch Estates (Continued) 6) That all private drives, bridges, culverts, etc. meet all applicable engineering standards; 7) That all private drives meet any provisions or conditions as required by the City Engineer or City Council; 8) That the site meet the provisions of the storm water waiver as approved by City Council, but not limited to, properly designed velocity controls and aesthetic storm water outlet areas; 9) That units requiring an ejector /grinder pump be identified on all subsequent plans and building permits; 10) That appropriate notes be included in all future documents prohibiting additional access to Memorial Drive; 11) That revised development standards be incorporated into the text including a 60- foot setback for Dublin Road, a 100 -foot setback for Memorial Drive, and height restrictions of 50 -feet for lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 and 35 -feet for lots 5 and 6, subject to staff approval; 12) That both gates proposed provide 24 -hour emergency access; 13) That if blasting of bedrock causes a well in the area to run dry, the developer will be responsible for supplying the affected structure(s) with water; 14) That the plat address the jurisdictional issue regarding the county line, subject to staff approval; 15) That the text be modified with regard to special "home occupation" to clarify that these only apply to one lot; 16) That the text be revised to indicate the clubhouse be used for non - commercial purposes and restricted in use to the owners in this subdivision, and that appropriate deed restrictions be applied, subject to staff approval; and 17) That a bikepath be installed along the north side of Memorial Drive. * Mike Close agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 6 -0. RESULT: This revised preliminary development plan was approved. STAFF CERTIFICATION Barbara M. Clarke Planning Director 10 -062Z /PUP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Page 2 Of 2 Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. v uvu•1 a ... ....1r., < Iu G Vlnllt,' 1_vui nls Meeting Minutes — December 6, 2001 Page 5 Xgarodcrig k noted that Sectio and 3 required all sal contracts to notify per ective homebuyers ntial bri e, and Code Enforcem t is following up on th' . Mr. e orked on emergency c boxes near the river i onegal Cliffs park wi e policost was prohibitive. he steep grade pre nts call boxes from rking. Ove Ii hrough the park we not feasible. After p development, call bo s will be recoll Dublin parks, cept Darree Fields, h e pay phones, and this a will also. Utili be buried, an f needed for security, ' ting might be added. Jefr. Eastep suggested ch rging Condition 4 by Xing "without destroyin tiny existing trees." Ms. Salay said th lan looked beautiful, d she was looking forty d to it. Mr. Gerber ag d. MXphalt Mr. Eastep wanted t ' park plan implemented soon as possible. Md Ms. Salay ho there would be adeq a parking. They did n want to see m necessary. r. Sprague complime ed Mr. Hahn and Mr, urnock on the pt tes Dubli 's greatest natural featur , the river, into a more u able form. Mr. Eastep made the otion to approve this fi develZost bee e it fulfills the origina PUD park intent meets the Community lan goals , with five conditions: 1) That each ase be submitted as Inal developior to construction, in ding gradin andscaping, lighting, it ectural elevat2) That I signage meet Code o e approved park s 3) T t the historic stone I running along the intained and estored where ))' That active elemen of the park be without destroyi any existing trees; 5) That a copy o the park master plan for the in ation of Z Fred H agreed to the ab as foil s: Mr. Gerber, ye yes d Mr. Eastep, yes. ( far from r1 phasing information Wprovided to the devel er 7s. Mr. FishmZsonded he motion, and a vote was yes; Mr. S Mr. Fishman es; Ms. Salay, as is reasonable 3. Revised Preliminary Development Plan 01 -081Z - Amberleigh North, Sections 4 and 5 - Wasatch Estates Chad Gibson presented this revised preliminary development plan for future sections of Amberleigh North. He said Section 4 is now zoned for I 1 single - family lots, and Section 5 is zoned for 63 condominiums in a cluster layout. This proposal combines both sections into five estate lots, a gatehouse with a servant's quarters, and a private recreational facility. Mr. Gibson showed several slides. He said the site contains 30 acres and is zoned PUD. The Delaware/ Franklin County line runs through this site, as does a 20 -foot sanitary sewer easement for a 36 -inch pipe. Proposed Subarea A will contain five large single - family lots, 2.5 -8.5 acres each. Subarea B contains an acre for the gatehouse and caretaker's quarters along Dublin Road. The primary access will be from Dublin Road, and the existing entry to Deer Run Estates will be abandoned and tied into this site. The proposed road is a private, loop -tvne system. A secondary 10- 062z /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. e Luuiui riumung anu 7.onmg 1-ommission Meeting Minutes - December 6, 2001 Page 6 access point is shown on Memorial Drive, which staff would like aligned with Autumn Wood Way. Regarding private streets, staff needs to point out that City Council did not support private streets for residential areas a number of times, but this is an unusual application. The plat should demonstrate phasing and what happens if only part of the private street would be built. Mr. Gibson said this is the appropriate state for submission of a tree preservation survey. Due to the limited development, the applicant would like to submit this later. Large tree no- build/no- disturb tree preservation zones could be drawn and might meet the intent of the Code. Any tree preservation waiver would need to be considered by City Council. He said Dublin generally restricts home occupations. The proposed text gives broader rights and allows up to six outside employees per lot. The maximum height in the text is 65 feet, and no side or rear yard requirements are listed. Staff would like these text issues better addressed. He noted that City Council granted a stormwater waiver in 1997. He said this proposal drops the density from 2.5 du/ac to 0.2 du/ac., and staff recommends approval with IS conditions: 1) That right -of -way be dedicated according to the Thoroughfare Plan (40 feet from centerline of Dublin Road) prior to submittal of the final development plan; 2) That a plat be submitted at the final development plan stage reflecting a 50 -foot (minimum) easement corridor and demonstrating provisions for construction and long term maintenance, subject to staff approval; 3) That the secondary access along Memorial Drive be relocated to the satisfaction of staff; 4) That the plans and text be revised to indicate tree preservation and/or no- disturb zones to preserve trees wherever practicable, subject to staff approval; 5) That the site plan optimize tree preservation with the sensitive placement of private utilities; 6) That a landscape plan, detailing any entry features, street trees, signage, etc. meeting Code be submitted with the final development plan, subject to staff approval; 7) That all private drives, bridges, culverts, etc. meet all applicable Engineering standards; 8) That all private drives meet any provisions or conditions as required by the City Engineer or City Council; 9) That the site meet the provisions of the storm water waiver as approved by City Council, including but not limited to, properly designed velocity controls and aesthetic storm water outlet areas; 10) That units requiring an ejector /grinder pump be identified on all subsequent plans and building permits; 11) That appropriate plat notes be included in all future documents prohibiting additional access to Memorial Drive; 12) That the development standards be provided with the final development plan and be described in the notes on the plat, subject to staff approval; 13) That both gates proposed provide 24 -hour emergency access; 14) That if blasting of bedrock causes a well in the area to run dry, the developer will be responsible for supplying the affected structure(s) with water; and 15) That the plat be revised to address the jurisdictional issue regarding the county line, subject to staff approval. Michael Close, representing the applicant, said he had a few exceptions to the conditions and the staff report. The private drive proposed is in a wooded area, and the wider the road is, the more trees will be harmed. He would like approval of a 12 -foot wide road, not a 24 -foot street. Also 10- 0627/PUP Preliminary Development Plan /Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. •a .-... - .... ++ • +r vva uaaaoawaa Meeting Minutes — December 6, 2001 Page 7 using public road standards for six lots is substantial. They will provide mutual cross easements for the benefit of all the owners for maintenance, etc. He agreed to all conditions except 3 and 4. He said the additional structure is a party house /private office for the handling of this family's own investments. There will not be six employees at each residence. He agreed to better define this in the text. There will be security on site, and they were concerned that the bulk of the traffic will come the principle drive, off Memorial Drive. The relocation of Deer Run Estates Drive to the top of the hill is safer and provides better sight distance to the south. Deer Run Estates currently only has two homes, and he expected only one more to be built. For security reasons, they want to offset the Memorial Drive access road to limit its visibility. Mr. Close noted that staff wants to relocate the secondary access because at some point Memorial Drive will be boulevarded with a median prohibiting left turns. He said that is fine, and they will not request a cut in the median. They understand this and agree to provide safety access all the time. They prefer an offset access, if possible. Mr. Close said they will not be ready to address tree preservation until the final development plan layout. The sewer line will restrict building farther back on these lots, and there are setback lines on the perimeter. They have concerns about Lots 1 and 2, due to topography. He said they do not intend to cut down any trees. They make the site valuable. He said he had talked to the Franklin and Delaware County auditors who indicated that there was no problem with adjusting Lot 3 to one county. The school district is the same. Mr. Close doubted that anything 65 feet high would be built. Due to the topography, a couple of houses will be higher than normal, but not the clubhouse. Mr. Eastep said he understood about the extra height requested, but thought that 50 feet would be adequate. All other residential districts use a 35 -foot maximum height. Mr. Close said they could limit it to 50 feet. Mr. Fishman still thought 50 feet was too tall and could remember no other Dublin area over 35 feet. Ms. Clarke agreed. Mr. Close said this should be considered because the number of units is being dropped from 75 units to six units, and this is different. Mr. Eastep said no one will notice the extra height at this location. Mr. Close said this will be done in an architectural manner, and it will not be seen from the roadway. Ms. Salay said these large acre estate lots are atypical and should not be limited to 35 feet. Mr. Eastep asked why was security an issue if there are gates. Mr. Close said the gate and fence will not keep out pedestrians. Mr. Eastep preferred locating the access drive where it is most practical, without removing trees. Mr. Close thought the number of trees removed would be the same at any location. There is a wrought iron fence with stone or brick pillars. Mr. Eastep said if this access can be treated as a driveway, he would be in favor of its proposed location. * Corrected by approved motion at the January 6, 2002 Commission meeting. 10 -062Z /PUP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. .� »....... .w..,.,,b ua,u c. asaaul� l.VllltlllDdlV11 Meeting Minutes — December 6, 2001 Page 8 Ms. Clarke asked if the development area on each lot would be identified with the final development plan for the road. Mr. Close said no. Ms. Clarke repeated that the only final development plan the Commission will review would concern the private street. Mr. Close said mutual cross easements will be filed with every deed. He said the next step is to get surveyors and lay out the roads. Until then, tree preservation cannot be discussed. Ms. Clarke said in a PUD, the tree preservation is really required at this stage. It was not submitted, and it may be deferred if the Commission agrees. She understands the applicant has asked for the right to submit the tree preservation data when he is ready to build the roads, based on their estimation of where they can preserve the best/most trees. Mr. Gibson asked if the gatehouse architecture would need final development plan approval, due to its 25 -foot setback which is less than Code and the Community Plan. Mr. Fishman was concerned about the 25 -foot gatehouse setback and noted that Amberleigh was required to have a 100 -foot setback. Ms. Clarke said it would be about 50 feet from the edge of the pavement. Mr. Gibson said staff was uncomfortable with the proposed height of 65 feet,. and 50 feet still seemed rather high. He noted this is an unusual site. Subarea B will have a 35 -foot height. Mr. Lecklider suggested that the height limit be 50 feet on Lots 2 and 3. Mr. Fishman agreed, based on 50 feet in the back lots and 35 feet, closer to Dublin Road. Mr. Eastep said this is the only site of its kind in Dublin. Mr. Gerber agreed and said he could support a maximum height of 50 feet. He did not think the buildings would be seen. Ms. Clarke suggested using the final development plan to raise the building height above a set level, based on road layout, house location, visibility, etc. Mr. Fishman liked this approach. Mr. Gerber suggested limiting the height to 50 feet, subject to visibility or staff approval. Mr. Close agreed to a height limit of 50 feet for Lots 4 and 5, but that the applicant could approach the Commission to raise it based of design, etc. He said Lots 1, 2, and 3 have different topography. He said an 80 -foot house would not be seen on Lot 1. Mr. Eastep asked for an increase of the proposed 25 -foot setback for the gatehouse. If it had a 60 -foot setback like the rest, it would not have to come back for approval. Mr. Fishman noted the Community Plan recommended a setback of 200 feet. Chris Hermann, of Myers Schmallenberger, said the approved setbacks for Amberleigh North were 60 feet or less. Mr. Close said a greater setback for the guardhouse is a problem. The drive alignment and the existing culvert when Deer Run Drive is relocated cause an engineering problem. Also, a guardhouse needs to be seen. After some discussion, he agreed to a 60 -foot setback for the guardhouse. A 35 -foot setback for Lots 4, 5 and 6, and no more than 50 feet on Lots 1, 2, and 3. Ms. Clarke asked if the building setback for Lot 3 could be increased to 100 feet. She said a tall house with a minimum setback along Memorial Drive would be inappropriate. 10- 0627, /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning DeerRun Estates Memorial Di. and Dublin Rd. Oubim Fiannmg and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — December 6, 2001 Page 9 Mr. Close agreed to a setback of 100 feet for Lot 3. He said he had no problem with anything with over a 35 -foot height having a setback of 100 feet, but he was concerned that the topography on Lot 5 might not provide for more than a 60 -foot setback. Mr. Fishman asked for a 60 -foot setback on Lots 5 and 6, along Dublin Road, and Mr. Close agreed. Mr. Close for a 50 -foot building height, he would provide a 100 -foot setback. If Lot 4 has a permissible height of 35 feet, the setback should remain where it is. Ms. Clarke said the 100 -foot setback would apply only from the public street, not from the private drive. Mr. Fishman said the setback should be 100 feet on Memorial Drive, and 60 feet on Dublin Road (from the proposed right -of -way). The setback for Lot 6 will be 60 feet. Mr. Close agreed. There was some additional discussion on how setbacks are measured. Ms. Clarke said the 50 -foot maximum height should apply to Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4. Mr. Close agreed, and the remaining lots would have a maximum height of 35 feet. Mr. Fishman said the record should be clear that if the private drive is ever petitioned to be a public street, it should meet all setbacks and Code. Mr. Banchefsky said Dublin has an ordinance that addresses the conversion of private streets to public. Mr. Close said the clubhouse will probably be built on either Lot 4 or 1. A clubhouse and residence will not be built on the same lot. It will be at most, a two -story structure used primarily for entertaining. It will include offices to run the family investment businesses. Mr. Close agreed to restrict use of the "clubhouse" to the described office use or perhaps to convert it to a residence in the future by the deeds. Mr. Banchefsky suggested adding a condition to require such deed restrictions, acceptable to staff. Mr. Close agreed. Mr. Close said they did not want to build the bikepath along Memorial Drive because these six residences and the private drive do not need it. They gave up far more acreage than they would have been required for greenscape. He was not willing to do the bikepath. Mr. Hammersmith said the north side bikepath provides a necessary connection to the park. Mr. Fishman said a bikepath would benefit everyone, and it was previously approved. Mr. Hahn said the bikepath would be in the right -of -way and would be part of the public improvements. Mr. Sprague asked if City Council could delete the bikepath requirement and then approve this rezoning. Mr. Close said yes. Mr. Gibson said the text permits a six -foot tall perimeter fence. He said it is proposed to be wrought iron with brick pillars. He also noted the existing final plat for the Deer Run subdivision needs to be modified because the street is moving, and its Dublin Road access is being closed. Mr. Close said that could be taken care of in the text and with the cross casements. Mr. Banchefsky said in a preliminary development plan, the applicant can accept or reject any conditions made by the Commission. He said the Code would require at least a sidewalk to be installed along the public street. Mr. Close said he could not agree to the bikepath condition. He said they would not sue the City 10- 062Z /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. "UUAI.. r iwuuug auu c.omng % -omm>s Meeting Minutes — December 6, 2001 Page 10 Mr. Lecklider made the motion to approve this preliminary development plan because it substantially reduces the gross density, provides substantial green space, preserves large stands of trees, and provides new estate -style lots for the community, with 17 conditions: 1) That right -of -way be dedicated according to the Thoroughfare Plan (40 feet from centerline of Dublin Road) prior to submittal of the final development plan; 2) That a plat be submitted at the final development plan stage reflecting a 50 -foot (minimum) easement corridor, and demonstrating provisions for construction and long term maintenance, subject to staff approval; 3) That the plans and text be revised to indicate tree preservation and/or no- disturb zones to preserve trees wherever practicable, and be submitted with the final development plan for the private road, subject to staff approval; 4) That the site plan optimize tree preservation with the sensitive placement of private utilities; 5) That a landscape plan, detailing any entry features, street trees, signage, etc. meeting Code be submitted with the final development plan, subject to staff approval; 6) That all private drives, bridges, culverts, etc. meet all applicable engineering standards; 7) That all private drives meet any provisions or conditions as required by the City Engineer or City Council; 8) That the site meet the provisions of the storm water waiver as approved by City Council, including but not limited to, properly designed velocity controls and aesthetic storm water outlet areas; 9) That units requiring an ejector /grinder pump be identified on all subsequent plans and building permits; 10) That appropriate plat notes be included in all future documents prohibiting additional access to Memorial Drive; 11) That revised development standards be incorporated into the text, including a 60 -foot setback for Dublin Road, a 100 -foot setback for Memorial Drive, and height restrictions of 50 feet for Lots 1,2,3, and 4, and 35 feet for Lots 5 and 6, subject to staff approval; 12) That both gates proposed provide 24 -hour emergency access; 13) That if blasting of bedrock causes a well in the area to run dry, the developer will be responsible for supplying the affected structure(s) with water; 14) That the plat address the jurisdictional issue regarding the county line, subject to staff approval; 15) That the text be modified with regard to special "home occupation" to clarify that these only apply to one lot; 16) That the text be revised to indicate the clubhouse be used for non - commercial purposes and restricted in use to the owners in this subdivision, and that appropriate deed restrictions be applied, subject to staff approval; and 17) That a bikepath be installed along the north side of Memorial Drive. Mr. Close agreed to the above conditions, with the exception of Condition 17, requiring a bikepath along Memorial Drive. Mr. Fishman seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: ,Mr. Eastep, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; and Mr. Lecklider, yes. (Approved 6 -0.) Mr. Sprague called a short recess before starting Case 4. l o- 0622 /PD I` Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Decr Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minnrrs ef ---- r� „�- ,-et.t•„ r� ..Pyge o Me etjrtg.__- Held November 19, 2001 Mr. ansley stated that the con does expire and the machi will not be in s ice after the end of the con Mrs. Boring stated that fro her perspective, it is not co stent with the criteria for emergency legislation. erhaps the Seven -up Com y would be agreeable to extending the curren ontract by one week. Mr. Harding ded that the vendor might be enable to a one -week /eefinR. of the current cement. There will a second reading/public heari at die December 100 Car Ordi nee 138 -01 - An Ordivanc a Property Owne , yO Petition for the i rovement of Woerner-Tem a Road and Eitermau Roa etween Certaiu ermini by Constructing, E nding, Opening, [mprovin Grading, Draining, Curbing, Landscaping an roviding Sidewalks, Biker ys and Lighting Systems and all Related Sewer d Water Utility Iin 'v m ,and Providing all Relate Work and Appurten ces, Approving and Autho ing the Execution of a Re] ed Settlement Agree ent, and Declaring an Eme ency. Mr. Adz ek in aced [he ordinance. Ms. Grigsby ted that staff requests adopt by emergency in order top vide the correct do ents [o the county in the r ed dmeframe. Previously en the City accepte the property owners' pedtio ,there was one property own who had not sign ; therefore the petition had I s than 100% support. That p perty owner has since a eed to sign, so Council must s legislation to include that operty owner in the Mr. Adamek moved to di erase with the public hearing d treat the ordinance as emergency legislation. Mc McCash second the motion. Vote on the em 'n : Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. A ek, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Chinnici -Zuer er; yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; einer, yes. Vote on the rdinanc : Mrs. Boring, yes; . Adamek, yes; Mr. Peters ,yes; Mr. Reiner, s; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, ye , . McCash, yes. OrArinance 139 -01 - An Ord! uce Amending the Annu Appropriations rdinance for the Fiscal Ye nding December 31, 2001 Mr. Adamek introduced th rdinance. Ms. Grigsby noted that ff requests that the second r ding be waived due to the need to purchase Dub ' merchandise to be sold d g the holidays. Mayor Kranstuber owed to dispense with the p is hearing. Mr. Reine the motion. Vote on ion: Mr. Reiner, yes; M . Boring, yes; Ms. Chinnici- etcher, yes; Mr. es; Mr. Adamek, y ; Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor stuber, Yes Vot on the rdinance: Mr. Pete n, yes; Mr. Adamek, yes; yor Ktanstuber, y ; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Bor' g, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuerch , yes; Mr. McCash, Ordinance 140 -01 - An Ordinance Providing for a Change in Zoning for 30.399 Acres Located at the Northeast Corner of Dublin Road (SR 745) and Memorial Drive, From: PUB, Planned Unit Development District (Amberleigb North) To: PUB, Planned Unit Development District (Wasatch Estates -File No. 01- 081Z). Mr. Adamek introduced the ordinance, Mrs. Boring moved to refer the ordinance to Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. McCash seconded the motion. Vote on the motion Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mayor Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Adamek, yes. 10- 062Z /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Decr Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin M. DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION August 19, 1999 AN OF DUBLIN so of �PI m Ra Wk Olio 43016- 112366 wXD 614- 761.6530 F=6M761.6566 e6Sde:tw.daSrmakus The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 4. Preliminary Development Plan (Finalization) Z96 -002 - Amberleigh North, Section 5 (Cluster Site) Location: 15.32 acres located on the north side of (future) Memorial Drive extended, approximately 560 feet east of Dublin Road. Existing Zoning: PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Amberleigh North Plan). Request: Finalizing the preliminary development plan as required at ,the time of rezoning under the provisions of Section 153.056, for the cluster housing site. Proposed Use: 63 condominium units. Applicant: Wes Hoag, Hoag Limited Partnership, 65 South Fifth Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215; c/o Michael Fite, Bird /Houk, 6375 Riverside Drive, Dublin, Ohio 43017. MOTION: To approve this preliminary development plan with 16 conditions: 1) That architecture, building materials, and detailing be consistent with other projects such as Weatherstone, The Mews, and The Lea, as required in 1997, subject to staff approval; 2) That the developer compensate for the removal of trees as determined by City Council; 3) That the site plan optimize tree preservation with the sensitive placement of private utilities; 4) That the tree preservation plan be modified to address short and long term tree maintenance requirements and the impact of private utilities, subject to staff approval; 5) That an easement for a street connection to Section 4 be provided, subject to staff approval, and be shown in all plans and condominium documents; Page I of 2 10- otr2Z /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial D. and Dublin Rd. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION August 19, 1999 4. Preliminary Development Plan (Finalization) Z96 -002 - Amberleigh North, Section 5 (Cluster Site) (Continued) 6) That the applicant construct a street connection (stub) to the planned road in Section 4, unless the adjacent property owner submits a letter within two weeks committing to build this stub connection if a public street is built in Section 4 and guaranteeing this commitment runs with the land; 7) That the entrance be one way and the detailed design be worked out with staff prior to submitting the final development plan; 8) That a 25 -foot or greater "no disturb" zone be established around major preserved tree stands, and around the perimeter of the entire property (except entrance) subject to review by a certified arborist; 9) That the development standards be provided with the final development plan and described in notes on the final plat, subject to staff approval; 10) That the City Engineer's requirements for private streets, utility connection, and intersection improvements be met, subject to staff approval; 11) That a five -foot sidewalk be constructed along Memorial Drive; 12) That appropriate plat notes be included in all future documents prohibiting additional access to Memorial Drive and indicating the potential for a Memorial Drive bridge, and that the dead-end be posted as a potential future extension; 13) That the stormwater outlet area be aesthetically improved and include properly designed velocity controls, subject to staff approval; 14) That units requiring an ejector /grinder pump be identified on all subsequent plans and building permits; 15) That if blasting of bedrock causes a well in the area to run dry, the developer will be responsible for connecting the affected structure(s) to public water; and 16) That a landscape plan, detailing any entry feature(s) and street trees, and sign plan meeting Code be submitted with the final development plan, subject to staff approval. * Charles Driscoll agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 7 -0. RESULT: This preliminary development plan was approved. STAFF CERTIFICATION istopher S- Hermann Planner to- o62Zmnr Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - August 19, 1999 Page 13 4. Preliminary Development Plan (Finalization) Z96 -002 - Amberleigh North, Section 5 - Cluster Site �- Chris Hermann said this application is an unusual extra step. When Amberleigh North was rezoned in 1997, the text required Section 5 to come back to the Commission and Council for review and approval of the cluster proposal. He said the zoning text permits 63 cluster homes on this site. This application is for 63 condos divided among 16 buildings on 15.32 acres. Condominium units should disturb the woods less than the "cluster" product. The rezoning noted the possibility of continuing Memorial Drive across the Scioto River. There are approximately 3,000 trees in the preservation area of Section 5. Staff would like another access point. He said the materials proposed are Hardi - plank, cultured stone, and asphalt shingles. Mr. Hermann said the density is 4.11 du /ac. The zoning text requires a project comparable to the Lea, Weatherstone, and the Mews developments of Muirfield Village. Staff recommends extending the stone watercourses around the building, using cedar shake roof or dimensional shingles, adding stone on the gable ends. And breaking up the garage doors. Mr. Hermann said the applicant will ask Council for a tree replacement fee waiver. It is estimated that the fee would be approximately $526,000 dollars for the 560 trees to be removed. They will replace 125 trees on site and pay $50,000 to the parks. Staff is recommending at least a 15 -foot no- disturb zone around the perimeter (excluding the L.. entrance). He said the stormwater detention waiver was approved for all of Amberleigh North. He said staff is in support of the development and is recommending approval with 15 conditions. 1) That architecture, building materials, and detailing be consistent with other projects such as Weatherstone, The Mews, and The Lea, as required in 1997, subject to staff approval; 2) That the developer compensate for the removal of trees as determined by City Council; 3) That the site plan optimize tree preservation with the sensitive placement of private utilities; 4) That the tree preservation plan be modified to address short and long term tree maintenance requirements and the impact of private utilities, subject to staff approval; 5) That a future street connection (stub) to the planned road to the east in Section 4 be constructed; 6) That the entrance be one way and the detailed design be worked out with staff prior to submitting the final development plan; 7) That a 15 -foot or greater "no disturb" zone be established around the perimeter of the entire property except at the entrances and around major preserved tree stands, subject to review by a certified arborist; 8) That the development standards be provided with the final development plan and described in notes on the final plat, subject to staff approval; 9) That the City Engineer's requirements for private streets, utility connection, and intersection improvements be met, subject to staff approval; 10) That a five -foot sidewalk be constructed along Memorial Drive; } 11) That appropriate plat notes be included in all future documents prohibiting additional access to Memorial Drive and indicating the potential for a Memorial Drive bridte. and that thr dead -end be posted as a potential future extension; °to 062zrnDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - August 19, 1999 Page 14 12) That the stormwater outlet area be aesthetically improved and include properly designed velocity controls, subject to staff approval; `�- 13) That units requiring an ejector /grinder pump be identified on all subsequent plans and building permits; 14) That if blasting of bedrock causes a well in the area to run dry, the developer will be responsible for connecting the affected structure(s) to public water; and' 15) That a landscape plan, detailing any entry feature(s) and street trees, and sign plan meeting Code be submitted with the final development plan, subject to staff approval. Mr. Hermann said Section 5 had a shared boundary with the future public cul de sac in Section 4. He said a crescent entrance should be one way in/one way out with a 200 -foot separation. He said Section 4 was owned by another entity. Ms. Clarke said the preliminary plat and the preliminary development plan require the road in Section 4 to be a public street. Typically, all public streets have to be extended to the far edge of the property when the land comes in for development. In this case, the property owner split the property and sold the Section 4, to a separate buyer. Mr. Sprague asked if the land on Section 4 had already been dedicated. Ms. Clarke said no. Mr. Hermann said one condition requires a minimum, 15 -foot no -build zone be placed all the way around the property. Mr. Harian said it should be at least 25 feet abutting parkland. L..� Charles Driscoll, Edwards Company, said Duffy Homes will build this project. They are currently building The Lakes at Dunmere which is similar to this project. This exterior will be upgraded. They chose the attached units to better preserve the surrounding woods. Mr. Driscoll agreed with the 15 above conditions. The only substantial issue was waiving the tree replacement fee. This site was zoned prior to passing the ordinance, and they feel enforcement would be a hardship on this project. He said their proposal was to plant 125 trees on site and donate $200 per tree removed. They feel that meets the spirit of the ordinance. Mr. Driscoll said Bob Walter owns Section 4. He does not want an entrance from this project to tie into his 15 acres. Michael Fite, Bird Houk Associates, said they are concentrating the buildings where there were fewer trees to maintain the heaviest woods. They also turned the buildings to m inimize grading. They have employed walkout basements behind the buildings to minimize fill around the trees. He presented sample boards of the grey Hardi- plank, matching shingles, and stone. Mr. Peplow asked about increasing the no- disturb zone to 25 feet, especially along the park. Mr. a Fite said only one buildings is not 25 feet off the property line. He said the building can tilt in E p slightly and there is no grading issue there. However, there is a ravine that would push most of o Q the buildings off that line. He said they also wanted to save the trees. Mr. Fite said porches were ro considered. Mr. Eastep asked if the deed restrictions could prohibit any additional building expansions, o additions, decks, porches, or patios. Mr. Fite said they could put that in the deed restrictions. Mr. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - August 19, 1999 Page 15 Eastep said this was to be a 100 percent no- build/no- disturb zone and no excavations, digging, 1 trenching or building could be done in the 25 -foot zone. Mr. Fite said they would like to see how the 25 -foot no- build/no- disturb zone would affect the two buildings. Mr. Eastep said the site was beautiful, but the concept was not pedestrian- friendly. There were no interconnected sidewalks, bikepaths, or common areas. Mr. Fite said there would be the ability to walk to the Memorial Drive sidewalks. It is difficult to make a pedestrian connection from this site to the park because it was straight down a hill. There are not usually sidewalks on private streets. Mr. Eastep asked if any of the common areas could have a pergola or gazebo so that the natural amenities could be enjoyed by all. Mr. Fite said they would consider it. Mr. Eastep asked what was planned for an entry feature. Mr. Fite said that was part of the fatal development plan submittal and it had not been decided. Mr. Eastep asked that avenues of access to the rear parkland be explored, even though it is just a chipped mulch path. It would help to preserve the natural area by designating paths. Mr. Fite said they would consider it, but it was too steep to walk down there. He said the drop was 40 feet. Mr. Eastep asked if a preliminary design for the stormwater outlet to the river is completed. Mr. Fite said it would be detailed at the time of the final development plan. Mr. Sprague asked what material would be used on the below grade walk -outs on the rear of the buildings. Mr. Fite said it would probably be Hardi -plank to the existing grade. Mr. Sprague agreed that the paths would help make the area more pedestrian - friendly. He did, however, not want a gazebo if it meant trees needed to be removed. Mr. Sprague asked for agreement on stubbing the street. Mr. Fite said yes. C Mr. Eastep did not necessarily want to see sidewalks in this development because he wanted to minimize any disturbance of the trees. However, a mulch path might make sense. Mr. Fishman made the suggestion that the Commission recommend to Council that the caliper of trees removed be replaced in the park, denying the waiver. Mr. Eastep agreed in part. Mr. Driscoll said the preliminary development plan was approved prior to the enactment of the Tree Preservation ordinance. If it had been later, the site of the parkland might have differed. Mr. Fishman said Toll Brothers at Amberleigh North had clear -cut the trees from Memorial Drive, south to their trailer on Dublin Road. Mr. Eastep said that area was not to be clear -cut. He asked if the trees would be replaced with dense pines to Memorial Drive. Ms. Clarke said it was the responsibility of the landowner, Toll Brothers, not Mr. Driscoll. Ms. Newcomb said the trees were removed for a left -turn lane. She said a buffer was planned along Dublin Road. It was an evergreen and deciduous mix, but not as dense as other sections. Mr. Fishman asked Mr. Newcomb to keep an eye on the landscaping. 10 -0622 /PUP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estatcs Mcmo ial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — August 19, 1999 Page 16 Mr. Sprague asked about the main goal of the Tree Ordinance. Ms. Newcomb said staff attempts to develop site plans that will preserve trees. The previous ordinance said trees six inches or �-- greater shall be preserved unless they were in the building footprint. The new ordinance requires replacement of larger trees that are removed. She said it was difficult on a fully wooded lot. Mr. McCash said the idea of the tree ordinance fee was to fund the planting of trees to replace those removed. He said it probably could go towards acquiring wooded parkland to preserve it. It is to minimize the number of trees cut down because of the importance the trees have, in filtration of air, aesthetics, and stormwater issues. Jeff Brown, Smith and Hale, said the Tree Preservation ordinance was enacted after this rezoning was done. Considering the ordinance, the park or development may have been located elsewhere to avoid payment of the large fee. More trees would be saved on the wooded site with the attached units. He suggested getting a waiver and planting trees back on this site and also contributing money for additional trees in the open portion of the park. Mr. McCash said Washington Township purchased a $500,000 wooded parcel in Shawan Falls in exchange for the fee waiver for their Hard Road fire station. Mr. Banchefsky said the township was exempt from Dublin's zoning. He said there was no waiver provision in the ordinance. It is a fee that Council has the inherent right to oversee. Mr. Driscoll agreed to a 25 -foot no- build /no- disturb zone around the perimeter of the property. Barb Cox said there may be some minor tree disturbance on the east property line for stormwater outlets behind the buildings. Mr. McCash asked if it would go through the existing swales. Ms. Cox said it had not been engineered. Mr. McCash noted one building sits on top of a Swale. Mr. Driscoll agreed to the 15 above conditions with a modification of Condition 7, increasing the 15 -foot no- disturb zone to 25 feet. Pat Hartman, 10791 Edgewood Drive, representing the wildlife of the area, was concerned about the removal of the trees from this area. The "park" is almost a straight cliff and not useful. She and her neighbors are also concerned with the number of units proposed and blasting. Donald Plank, attorney for Mr. Walter, said he does not oppose the project. He does oppose Condition 5 which required the stub into his property. Mr. Walter bought the property as a buffer to his home, and he does not want a private drive or a public street. Mr. Plank said Mr. Walter did not intend to develop his property soon. Mr. Hermann said the approved preliminary development plan shows a public cul-de -sac. To change this, they must come back to the Commission and Council for rezoning to amend the plan and preliminary plat. If a private drive with two lots is desired, it must come back to the Commission for a recommendation to Council. 10- 062Z /PDP Pic I iminary Development Plan /Rezoning Decr Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - August 19, 1999 Page 17 Mr. McCash suggested that Condition 5 is changed to require a bond for the stub and the street. Ms. Cox said in all subdivisions there are stubs required into empty, undeveloped lots before the " rest of the project is developed so it is ready when necessary. Ms. Clarke noted that typically residents oppose roads that are not built at the outset. Mr. Eastep suggested a condition that the Phase 4 developer construct the whole street. Mr. Banchefsky said that scenario requires an easement. Mr. Plank said the stub would not provide a connection until Mr. Walter develops his property. Ms. Cox said the boulevard design does not improve the access as a second entrance would. Mr. Lecklider said the entrance could be controlled, but he was concerned with the exit. Mr. Driscoll said the 63 -unit project would end up in a cut de sac situation regardless of the entry. Mr. Eastep noted if Mr. Walter wants to develop differently from the preliminary development plan, it requires Commission and Council approval. Mr. McCash suggested that Condition 5 read: "That an easement for a future street connection stub for the planned road to the east in Section 4 be dedicated and shown in all plats and condominium documents." If it becomes a public street as it is currently set up, Mr. Walters would build the stub. Mr. McCash said a letter from Mr. Walter to that affect will be required. ... Mr. Driscoll agreed to build the stub up to the property line if necessary. Mr. Plank wanted to know the length of the stub before making the commitment. Ms. Clarke said language was needed in the condition that said either Mr. Driscoll or the adjacent owner will build the road, the stub, and it needs to run with the land. Mr. McCash made a motion to approve this application with 16 conditions: 1) That architecture, building materials, and detailing be consistent with other projects such as Weatherstone, The Mews, and The Lea, as required in 1997, subject to staff approval; 2) That the developer compensate for the removal of trees as determined by City Council; 3) That the site plan optimize tree preservation with the sensitive placement of private utilities; 4) That the tree preservation plan be modified to address short and long term tree maintenance requirements and the impact of private utilities, subject to staff approval; 5) That an easement for a street connection to Section 4 be provided, subject to staff approval, and be shown in all plans and condominium documents; 6) That the applicant construct a street connection (stub) to the planned road in Section 4, unless the adjacent property owner submits a letter within two weeks committing to build this stub connection if a public street is built in Section 4 and guaranteeing this commitment runs with the land; ,� 7) 1 That the entrance be one way and the detailed design be worked out with staff prior to submitting the final development plan; 10- 062Z /PDP Preliminary Development Plan I Rezoning Dcer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - August 19, 1999 Page 18 8) That a 25 -foot or greater "no disturb" zone be established around major preserved tree stands, and around the perimeter of the entire property (except entrances), subject to review by a - certified arborist; 9) That the development standards be provided with the final development plan and described in notes on the final plat, subject to staff approval; 10) That the City Engineer's requirements for private streets, utility connection, and intersection improvements be met, subject to staff approval; 11) That a five -foot sidewalk be constructed along Memorial Drive; 12) That appropriate plat notes be included in all future documents prohibiting additional access to Memorial Drive and indicating the potential for a Memorial Drive bridge, and that the dead -end be posted as a potential future extension; 13) That the stormwater outlet area be aesthetically improved and include properly designed velocity controls, subject to staff approval; 14) That units requiring an ejector /grinder pump be identified on all subsequent plans and building permits; 15) That if blasting of bedrock causes a well in the area to run dry, the developer will be responsible for connecting the affected structure(s) to public water; and 16) That a landscape plan, detailing any entry feature(s) and street trees, and sign plan meeting Code be submitted with the final development plan, subject to staff approval. Mr. Eastep seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Peplow, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Harian, yes; Mr. Eastep, yes; and Mr. McCash, yes. (Approved 7-0.) Mr. Lecklider thanked everyone involved. The Commission reviewed waiving the 11 o'clock rule for the next case. All the Commissioners agreed to forego the I1 o'clock rule and hear the next case only. 5. onsideration -Revi d Final Developmen Ian 99- 058RDP - W dotte Woods, X Section I Hermann presen this reconsideration ase. It was approved e 17, 1999. Staff, residents, neighbors evelopers, and consu ' g engineers have met erous times. All p have agreed upo a stormwater manage nt plan itself. Several ' ues relating to the pre g the scenic qu ' of Riverside Drive a not resolved. MrZe ann said unresolved e" sues are left turn 1 s on Riverside Drive a bikepath on Riv Drive and the Coca ' n of the primary dete 'on basin. Wyandotte s is part of the st Quad PUD. showed slides. Wy otte Woods Boulevar ill come through the /iversiderive ily develop nt, connect into Eme Parkway. ved f 1 development plan h 7 lots. The revised n has a left turn lane cuts e rything back to the t phone poles. Trees d rock will be remov toward rive to create the basi . The top lip of the b 'n will be elevated appr rmately two outflow will be bu ' d from the detentio asin to an existin g ert underneath rive. Trees wi ave to be cleared to b the pipe. d. 10- 062Z/PDt> Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Ran Estates Memorial Dr. and Dablin Rd. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Meetin Dublin eity eouncil Meetin Mr ow noted for the record th a has already purchased t ' property and his lease fiK pired at his former location. a requested that Council to a this so that he could work with staff on som/the s. Mr. McCash stateooking for better refi ment and coordination with e Frazier property t Mr. Reiner s ed that the only scenario on r which he could vote fort ' would be if the City repla this area for commercial an a land behind this is acquit y the City. Mayor anstuber agreed. . Hide Pittaluga moved to to a this ordi/ ay 19 997. r. McCash seconded the m ion. Mr. Campbell not ed that aying this a moly result in a positive vote m him. Mayor Kranstube tated that he cannrio under which he could port this. V n - Mr. Campbell, yes; Mes; Mr. McCash, ye s. Boring, yes; . Reiner, no; Ms. IIide Pittayor Kranstuber, n . Ordinance No. 07 -97 - An Ordinance Providing for a Change in Zoning for 123.85 Acres of Land Located on the East Side of Dublin - Bellepoint Road Opposite Memorial Drive and River Forest Road, from: R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District, to: PUD, Planned Unit Development District. ( Amberleigh North) (Applicant: Amberleigh Estates Associates by Charles P. Driscoll, Vice President, 500 South Front Street, Suite 770, Col. Ohio 43215) Ms. Clarke stated that this rezoning is for 123.8 acres located immediately north of a subdivision called Amberleigh. There were two plans under consideration at the last hearing. The plan has now been established and the text has been clarified to address issues raised by Council. This is a proposal for a PUD rezoning for 198 dwelling units, which includes 135 single family homes, 63 cluster units and 28.6 acres of park. The 28.6 acres includes 12 acres to be purchased by Dublin, expanding the area along the river. She presented some slides and noted that none of the tots along the Memorial Drive extension will have their driveways on that street. They will be loaded instead from an interior street. Section 4 is actually being purchased by one of the property owners to the north, largely as a buffer. The overall density is 1.6 dwelling units per acre. Staff is recommending approval, and the Planning Commission voted unanimously in favor of this on March 20 with 17 conditions: 1) That the riverside park be enlarged to incorporate an additional half acre of land; 2) That the tree preservation plan and stone wall protection be augmented by a plan for fencing, etc.; 3) That an agreement on the proportional construction costs for Memorial Drive and appropriate plat notes be included in all future documents regarding a possible future bridge until such time as the Community Plan excludes this site as a potential bridge location; 4) That road improvements incorporate left turn lanes on all four legs of the entry intersection with Dublin Road; 5) That the developer cooperate with any needed design changes that might result from updating the Thoroughfare Plan; 6) That the cluster site be designed to maximize tree preservation to avoid buildings which straddle the county line, unless otherwise resolved by both county auditors, and to provide an appropriate edge along the park; 7) That the issue of private streets be determined by City Council as part of the future cluster design review and approval; 8) That "no parking" zones be established on one side of all streets less than 32 feet wide and be noted on the final plat; 9) That the developer present a construction plan that prevents the use of existing Amberleigh streets for construction purposes; 10) That on -site grinder pumps be indicated on future plat, plans, building permits, etc; 11) That approval of this plan be contingent on Council's favorable action on a storm c 0 V a ro a z c � F F .' o � � 9 V � o N C TWD E L o ° m ar)5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Meetin He APriI 14, 1997 Paae 7 19 water detention waiver (denial would require both site redesign and rehearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission); 12) That storm water velocity controls be employed at outlet points and that the defective storm the be located and incorporated into the new storm water management system, subject to approval by the City Engineer; 13) That in the final development plan, the developer's engineer work with the City on possible regrading of ditches and widening of shoulders along Dublin Road; 14) That entry features be maintained by the homeowners' association; and 15) That a plan which incorporates all changes as proposed be submitted prior to the City Council hearing. Ben Hale Smith and Hale 37 W Broad St representing the applicant stated they agree to all of the conditions, that they have done the things they were asked to do at the last meeting, and everything is in good order. Ms. Hide Pittaluga asked how the storm water waiver is related to approval of this rezoning. Ms. Clarke responded that if the storm water waiver is not approved by Council, it requires the applicant to rethink the proposal to show staff where detention ponds, etc. are going to be located. None of the plans considered thus far have shown a site for detention. If Council decides this is not appropriate for a waiver, then the applicant and the staff have additional work to do. Mr. Smith clarified it is unrelated to the issue of the zoning which is to be voted on at this time. Ms. Clarke stated that the proposed plan works only if there is a detention waiver. Mayor Kranstuber suggested that the staff do the presentation at this time on the storm water detention waiver. Mr. Kindra stated that staffs recommendation is to approve their request for the storm water detention waiver as outlined in the memo provided in the packet. Ms. Hide Pittaluga indicated that the storm water being done by Camp, Dresser & McKee has shown that the MORPC standards currently adhered to are somewhat substandard for some situations. Secondly, the City has yet to identify for homeowners what recourse they have in the event they are flooded out after a waiver has been granted. She is therefore hesitant to approve a storm water waiver at this time. Mr. Kindra stated that in this case, the development is fight over the river and is an appropriate place for such a waiver. This type of waiver was granted for Amberleigh and for Donegal Cliffs, subdivisions to the south. In terms of the adequacy of MORPC standards, the issue is more related to inland development and not that on the riverbank. The Code permits a waiver to be granted under certain conditions, and staff feels this is an appropriate case and there will be no liability in approving this request for waiver by the developer. Mr. Reiner asked him to clarify that in this subdivision all of the storm water is taken off 0 the streets into catch basins and those lines are run directly into the river. Mr. Kindra confirmed that this is the case. The conditions proposed by staff are: 1) that a off -site runoff be conveyed through the subdivision and properly incorporated into the ry design of storm sewers and flood routing; and 2) that receiving open channels between the subdivision and the Scioto River be properly designed to accommodate erosion and o ca velocity- mitigating measures as required by the City Engineer. 6 Y o Mr. McCash noted that the difference with this case is that the land is along the river and a n� the land slopes towards the river. The downstream liability issues faced with other storm d .o water waivers are not involved because there are no property owners between this ° "L development and the river. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of ?,f Meetin Held.. April 14, 1997 Page 8 19 Mrs. Boring indicated that she shares Ms. Hide Pittaluga's concerns because of the problems with the Wedgewood Hills development. She believes it may be appropriate to have the City's storm water consultants review each of these waiver requests. She would prefer not to waive the standards for this development. Mr. Reiner would like to see the aesthetics improved for the storm water pipe along the river. Mr. Kindra responded that Council can make this a condition and the applicant can then agree or not agree to comply. Mr. Reiner moved to add a condition that the storm water pipe along the river be aesthetically handled. Mayor Kranstuber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion - Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Hide Pittaluga, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mrs. Stillwell, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Mayor Kranstuber, yes. Ben Hale, representing the applicant agreed to this additional condition. Following further discussion, Mrs. Stillwell moved to approve the Amberleigh North storm water detention waiver, understanding that to mean waiving the on -site retention and detention with the two conditions that are listed in the staff report, and the third one added by motion of Council which addresses the aesthetics of the storm water pipe into the river. Mr. McCash seconded the motion. Yote on the motion - Mrs. Boring, yes; Mrs. Stillwell, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Ms. Hide Pittaluga, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor Kranstuber, yes. Mrs. Stillwell then moved approval of Ordinance 07 -97 subject to the conditions listed in the Record of Action for Planning and Zoning Commission dated March 20, 1997. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Vote on the ordinanc - Mr. Campbell, yes; Ms. Hide Pittaluga, yes; Mayor Kranstuber, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mrs. Stillwell, yes. Ordin ce 110.30 -97 - An Ordina a Providing for a Change i ning for 15.405 e Ac of Land Located on the S thwest Corner of Shier -Ri s Road and Wilcox ad, from: RI, Restricted I ustrial District, to: SO, Su rban Office and nstitutional District. (Wil x Place) (Amended) (Appl' nt: Luis G. Weil, Agent o behalf of Gordon F. Sc er, P.O. Box 370 Dublin, io 43017) Ms. Clarke stated that is is a rezoning application f an office park. The legal description has bee mended to 15.405 acres fro 0 acres at the time of first r ding. She then present slides to Council. A new de oper is proposing to combi several of these lots into suburban office park. The I is currently zoned RI, Rest ' led Industrial, d staff believes that suburba ice and institutional use w d substantially upgrade a overall zoning of the area. his was reviewed by Planni Commission on Marc 0 and it was approved unan' ously with 6 conditions: 1) at all site plans conform to de with respect to landscapi , lot coverage, signage d parking, and meet the Du ' Lighting guidelines; 2) That lots are combined, necessary, so buildings and rking do not encroach legal property lines; 3) That street trees be' stalled on both sides of Te ee Court and on the south Shier -Rings Road west side of Wilcox Road; 4) That a four- sidewalk be installed along th sides of Terry Lee Cou nd an eight -foot bi ath be installed south of Shi -Rings Road and west to W' ox Road; 5) That wi the development of Lots #1 ,8,9, and 10, storm water de med on parking lots mu a filtered before entering C gray Ditch or as approved b the City Engineer; 6) T mounding and additional Is scaping be planted along W' ox Road, across from th xisting residences (east of cox Road), subject to staff proval. Mr. Reiner asked if Counc' can legally bind the applican o build this project wit/the types of materials and b 'dings shown tonight Discussion followed out imposing standards that a not included in the zonin on 0 0 V _a c A a � _ o Ca ev 'o N " m = 3 o - E 00.�� t I Il 01 III Rl.IN 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, OH 43017 -1236 Phone/190: 614/761-6550 Fax: 614/761 -6506 DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD Or ACTION March 20, 1997 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action: 6. Reconsideration - Rezoning Application Z96 -002 - Preliminary Development Plan - Amberleigh North Location: 123.85 acres located on the east side of Dublin- Bellepoint Road, opposite Memorial Drive. Existing Zoning: R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. Request: Review and approval of a revised preliminary development plan under the Planned Unit Development District provisions of Section 153.056 (referred back to the Commission from City Council). Proposed Use: A development of 133 single- family lots, 63 units of cluster housing units and 28.6 acres of parkland (12 acres to be purchased by the City of Dublin). Applicant: Amberleigh Estates Associates, c/o Charles Driscoll, The Edwards Company, 500 South Front Street, Suite 770, Columbus, Ohio 43215 -7619; and property owner, Robert S. Hoag, 65 South Fifth Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215; c/o Ben W. Hale, Jr. Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Barbara M. Clarke, Planning Director.* MOTION: To approve this revised preliminary development plan because it is consistent with developments in the area and provides an excellent park opportunity, conforms to the Thoroughfare Plan and Bikepath Plan, preserves existing trees and provides an attractive landscaped buffer with 15 conditions: 1) That the riverside park be enlarged to incorporate an additional half acre of land; 2) That the tree preservation plan and stone wall protection be augmented by a plan for fencing, etc.; 3) That an agreement on the proportional construction costs for Memorial Drive and appropriate plat notes be included in all future documents regarding a possible future bridge until such time as the Community Plan excludes this site as a potential bridge location; 4) That road improvements incorporate left turn lanes on all four legs of the entry intersection with Dublin Road; 5) That the developer cooperate with any needed design changes that might result from updating the Thoroughfare Plan; 10- 062zrnnP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Page 1 of 2 Decr Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin U. DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION March 20, 1997 6. Reconsideration - Rezoning Application Z96 -002 - Preliminary Development Plan - Amberleigh North (Continued) 6) That the cluster site be designed to maximize tree preservation, to avoid buildings which straddle the county line, unless otherwise resolved by both county auditors, and to provide an appropriate edge along the park; 7) That the issue of private streets be determined by City Council as part of the future cluster design review and approval; 8) That "no parking" zones be established on one side of all streets less than 32 feet wide and be noted on the final plat; 9) That the developer present a construction plan that prevents the use of existing Amberleigh streets for construction purposes; 10) That on -site grinder pumps be indicated on future plats, plans, building permits, etc.; 1 That approval of this plan be contingent on Council's favorable action on a storm water detention waiver (denial would require both site redesign and rehearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission); 12) That storm water velocity controls be employed at outlet points and that the defective storm tile be located and incorporated into the new storm water management system, subject to approval by the City Engineer; 13) That in the final development plan, the developer's engineer work with the City on possible regrading of ditches and widening of shoulders along Dublin Road; 14) That entry features be maintained by the homeowners' association; and 15) That a plan which incorporates all changes as proposed be submitted prior to the City Council hearing. * Ben W. Hale, Jr. agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 7 -0. RESULT: The Commission's recommendation is postitive. The application will be forwarded to City Council with a recommendation of approval. This case is being scheduled for a April 14 hearing by City Council. STAFF CERTIFICATION Barbara M. Clarke Planning Director 10- 062ZmoP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Page 2 of 2 Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - March 20, 1997 Page 20 4) Y/at dimensional roofin ingles be used; 5 That all lighting be c inated with the adjacen ommercial and office es and comply with the text and Dubli fighting Guidelines, a pproved by staff; 6) That the lands, plan be revised to ' clude additional lands pe material to screen e HVAC unit to the satisfaction of s f; 7) That iss concerning fire prote ton and access for fire nd emergency vehicle meet the requi ents of the Washingt Township Fire Depar ent; 8) all Engineering Divisi requirements be met o design of public road , private drives, arking areas, public a private utilities, and st mwater management, d That all of the Chan required above be sub rtted to staff within t weeks. M/Ferrarasecon n the motion and the vo was as follows: Mr. eplow, ye s; Mr. Leck er, yeyes; Ms. /Chinnici-Z,u her, yes; Ms. Boring es; Mr. Ferrara, yes; d Mr. Hpproved 7 Muercher weHealth Care o Dublin. She encour ed the applicant to nclude the e facility ' developed and volunt rs are needed. 6. Reconsideration - Rezoning Application Z96 -002 - Preliminary Development Plan - Amberleigh North Bobbie Clarke presented this rezoning for 123 acres. It was forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation in late 1996. Council, due to changes to the park and road alignment, referred it back to the Commission for further review. Changes include reducing the plan from 204 to 196 units, increasing the overall parkland by 1.1 acre, designing Memorial Drive as an unloaded street, and using the preferred alignment for Memorial Drive. Ms. Clarke said the above items were all positive changes to the plan. However, the park along the river that the City wants to maximize, remained about the same size. Dublin will purchase 12 acres in order to produce a community -sized park. She said if the decision is made in the future, to extend Memorial Drive into a bridge, it would go through the park area. The necessary land to facilitate a bridge would be owned and controlled by Dublin. Ms. Clarke said Mr. Hale suggested a few more plan revisions this evening. An additional half - acre of land was requested by Dublin for the riverside park, and Mr. Hale submitted a drawing that would provide it. Mr. Hale also submitted a document that slightly reconfigured the entrance lots, and adds two flag - shaped lots on the north side. The staff report was based upon 196 units, and the proposal, as of this evening, is for 198 units with an additional half -acre of parkland. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked where the half -acre of park is. A drawing was distributed which showed it as a 32 -foot strip on the east side of the cluster site, reducing the cluster site by one -half acre. Ms. Clarke said the park requirement for this site with 198 lots is 13.35 acres. Ms. Boring asked if no credit were given for any additional buffering on Dublin Road, would this half -acre 10- 062Z /PDP preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run 135n1teS Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - March 20, 1997 Page 21 satisfy it. Ms. Clarke said it is close. Ms. Clarke said the park was also enlarged by creating a strip along the back of Lots 102 to 104. She said staff believes this is a good plan and is recommending approval with 12 conditions: 1) That the riverside park be enlarged to incorporate an additional half acre of land; 2) That the tree preservation plan and stone wall protection be augmented by a plan for fencing, etc. ; 3) That an agreement on the proportional construction costs for Memorial Drive and appropriate plat notes be included in all future documents regarding a possible future bridge; 4) That road improvements incorporate left turn lanes on all four legs of the entry intersection with Dublin Road; 5) That the developer cooperate with any needed design changes that might result from updating the Thoroughfare Plan; 6) That the cluster site be designed to maximize tree preservation, to avoid buildings which straddle the county line, and to provide an appropriate edge along the park; 7) That the issue of private streets be determined by City Council as part of the future cluster design review and approval; 8) That "no parking" zones be established on one side of all streets less than 32 feet wide and be noted on the final plat; 9) That the developer present a construction plan that prevents the use of existing Amberleigh streets for construction purposes; 10) That on -site grinder pumps be indicated on future plats, plans, building permits, etc.; 11) That approval of this plan be contingent on Council's favorable action on a storm water detention waiver (denial would require both site redesign and rehearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission); and 12) That storm water velocity controls be employed at outlet points and that the defective storm tile be located and incorporated into the new storm water management system, subject to approval by the City Engineer. Ms. Clarke said this plan is contingent upon favorable action on the storm water waiver. No detention has been shown in this plan, and a waiver is being sought. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher asked why Council referred this application back to the Commission. Ms. Clarke said the public hearing was confusing. The road alignment, park acreage and developer's preferred plan had been changed. Following the Commission hearing in November, the developer revised the plan to meet all of the conditions that were imposed. When those changes were made, several items became unclear such as who will pay for Memorial Drive. In the previous plan, if Dublin wanted a bridge, the city would have to install Memorial Drive. Also, there was still a 0.92 acre park deficit, and at Council, Mr. Hale said it would come from the cluster site. Ms. Clarke said the text and the plan do not state otherwise, and her conclusion is that the developer will pay for all roads, including Memorial Drive. Details still need to be resolved at the time of the final development plan. The difficult and costly part of the Memorial Drive extension if it will connect to a bridge, is the grading. An extensive cut will be needed to t o- 062ZrnoP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Mem nal Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - March 20, 1997 Page 22 maintain safe grades and to match the lower Riverside Drive elevation. She said the fair resolution would be to share in the cost of the road. Mr. Ferrara asked about the 48 -inch pipe that connected Reserve "LLL" from Muirfreld and went under the road and reappeared as Phase IV here. He asked where the water was going. Randy Bowman said it ended at a sinkhole on the Amberleigh North side. Mr. Ferrara asked if the developer participated in the bikepath tunnel. Ms. Clarke said the developer had agreed to proportional participation if others are also assessed. Ms. Boring asked if the entry feature would be maintained by the homeowners. Mr. Hale said the warranty deed will require maintenance of the entryway by the homeowners' association. Ms. Boring asked when the road cost issue would be decided. Ms. Clarke said if the developer continues with the development scheme laid out, from south to north, and if the Community Plan is finished and ready for adoption this summer, it will be clear at the end of summer. If the Thoroughfare Plan decision is clearly never to put a bridge ever at Memorial Drive, no additional note will need to be made on the final plat. If the decision is that this should at least remain in the possible future bridge consideration, then notes on the plat will be necessary to inform the buyers. Ms. Boring asked if the cost of roadways as proposed now were up to the developer. Ms. Clarke said yes. Mr. Hale said they would build the normal, 36 -foot street at grade, like a subdivision street. If there was a cost for lowering it, the City would pay for it. Ms. Boring asked if staff agreed. Ms. Clarke said while she cannot speak for the City, that is the kind of agreement entered into with other developers with similar issues. Ms. Boring said the ditches along the site needed to be addressed. She said the steep drop off is a safety issue and she believed that Council made a motion to look into it. Mr. Bowman suggested a condition stating, "That in the final development plan stage, the engineering consultants for the developer work with City engineering staff to determine the feasibility of filling ditches and widening shoulders." Mr. Hale said he would accept that condition. Ms. Boring asked what an "on -site grinder pump" is. Randy Bowman said it worked the same as a disposal in a sink to grind solid waste and ejects it through a small line into a gravity sanitary sewer. Houses closest to the river will have basements that will be lower than the sanitary sewer connection. They will need to eject their sanitary sewer flow into the public sewers, and that is the purpose of an on -site grinder pump. bO Ms. Boring asked if blasting would follow the City policy and should the residents be advised to G take well measurements or readings now. She said it needed to be addressed now. o N U Ben W. Hale, Jr., said Bob Walter intended to buy Phase IV. He said they would meet or exceed ro the park requirement. He said the original condition was that they provide an alternative that makes a bridge possible. When Dublin made up its mind about the bridge, that plan or the other drawing would be used. The one submitted at this meeting is the preferred plan. aQ N" *Italics indicate correction to minutes made by Commission vote on April 10, 1997. ° V^ _ n d ° Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - March 20, 1997 Page 23 Mr. Hale agreed with the above conditions. He asked that if both auditors agreed to adjusting the county border that buildings could be split by the county line, especially in the cluster site. Ms. Clarke that is acceptable to staff. Mr. Hale was also concerned about Condition 3. He said this development should not be burdened with notes on a plat of something that may not happen. Ms. Clarke said if the decision by City Council was to exclude a Memorial bridge from the Community Plan, no notes will be required. Without knowing the developer's time frame, the final development plan could be submitted prior to updating the Thoroughfare Plan. She said because notice has been given that there might be a bridge, all potential buyers should be exposed to that information. Mr. Hale agreed for Phases 3, 4, or 5, but not for 1 and 2. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher thought buyers needed to be informed. Ms. Clarke suggested that the words: "...unless otherwise resolved by both county auditors" be added. Mr. Hale agreed to amended Condition 6. Ms. Boring asked about the sinkhole. Mr. Hale said the sinkhole would be filled with concrete. Al Celli, 8285 Dublin Road, wanted to comment on the ditches being filled. Ms. Boring said the developer's and the City's engineers would study the situation to see if it is an ODOT qualified safety hazard. Mr. Celli said there were many trees on the scenic collector. Preserving trees might need to be balanced with safety problems. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher said City Council will accept public comments if he disagreed with the results of the study. She suggested speaking with the City Manager or Ms. Clarke. The results of the report will be reported at the time of the final development plan. Mr. Celli said Dublin Road residents were concerned that the power lines were emitting a lot of electricity. He said when the atmosphere was very saturated, a loud hum could be heard. He had been told it was a 13,500 volt line that had been there since 1975. He asked if more electricity would be pumped through there or would more lines be necessary, and if so, what is the possibility of the lines being buried. Randy Bowman said all new electrical distribution lines have to be placed underground. It is not City policy to require existing lines to be buried unless they are associated with a City project such as the Coffman Road widening. Staff does not feel this is an issue with this development. Randy Bowman suggested contacting Columbus Southern Power regarding the voltage issue. Gene Johnson, 8185 Dublin Road, said Lake Will Be Gone was a certified wetland. He said it looked like the best was done with what is given. The park is directly across from the Leatherlips actual grave. He asked if the City of Columbus owned the floodplain from O'Shaughnessy down to Griggs Dam. Janet Jordan said no. She said there were some "no -man land" areas of the park, but the City of Columbus claims nothing there. Sharon Johnson, 8185 Dublin Road, asked about the roads to service Phase V, the cluster site. Mr. Hale indicated where the access road would be. He said there would be two T- intersections. 10- 0627/rDr Prcliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Decr Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - March 20, 1997 Page 24 Ms. Clarke said the road was a final development plan issue to be reviewed later. She said the text said Phase V would be serviced by a private road system. Mr. Hale asked that Condition 3 say "...until the Community Plan decides whether there is to be a bridge, notes will be on the final plat." Ms. Boring was still concerned about resolving the blasting issue. She wanted to make sure that concerned residents be sent letters as to how they can document existing conditions. Randy Bowman said that within a certain perimeter of the blasting area there are pre -blast surveys required to be conducted by a certified consultant hired by the developer. Mr. Ferrara asked about the single access to the cluster homes. Randy Bowman said two accesses were strongly encouraged. Mr. Ferrara made the motion to approve this revised preliminary development plan because it is consistent with developments in the area and provides an excellent park opportunity, conforms to the Thoroughfare Plan and Bikepath Plan, preserves existing trees and provides an attractive landscaped buffer, with 15 conditions: 1) That the riverside park be enlarged to incorporate an additional half acre of land; 2) That the tree preservation plan and stone wall protection be augmented by a plan for fencing, etc.; 3) That an agreement on the proportional construction costs for Memorial Drive and appropriate plat notes be included in all future documents regarding a possible future bridge, or until such time that the Community Plan excludes this site as a potential bridge location; 4) That road improvements incorporate left turn lanes on all four legs of the entry intersection with Dublin Road; 5) That the developer cooperate with any needed design changes that might result from updating the Thoroughfare Plan; 6) That the cluster site be designed to maximize tree preservation, to avoid buildings which straddle the county line, unless otherwise resolved by both county auditors, and to provide an appropriate edge along the park; 7) That the issue of private streets be determined by City Council as part of the future cluster design review and approval; 8) That "no parking" zones be established on one side of all streets less than 32 feet wide and be noted on the final plat; 9) That the developer present a construction plan that prevents the use of existing Amberleigh streets for construction purposes; 10) That on -site grinder pumps be indicated on future plats, plans, building permits, etc.; 11) That approval of this plan be contingent on Council's favorable action on a storm water detention waiver (denial would require both site redesign and rehearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission); 10- o62rrnoP Preliminary DevelopincM Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estatcs Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - March 20, 1997 Page 25 12) That storm water velocity controls be employed at outlet points and that the defective storm tile be located and incorporated into the new storm water management system, subject to approval by the City Engineer; 13) That in the final development plan, the developer's engineer work with the City on possible regrading of ditches and widening of shoulders along Dublin Road; 14) That entry features be maintained by the homeowners' association; and 15) That a plan which incorporates all changes as proposed be submitted prior to the City Council hearing. Mr. Hale agreed to the above conditions. Ms. Boring seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Mr. Harian, yes; Mr. Peptow, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Ms. Boring, yes; and Mr. Ferrara, yes. (Approved 7 -0.) 7. iscussion - Thoroug re Plan Amendment illage Parkw/ Extension Due to the late hour, is discussion was pos tied without vote or 10, 1 Ms. Clarke s ' Council asked fora omm/withintentaorn Commissit meeting. 't o residents were pres Mel aver, a David Road res' ent, said he camof finding o ecause he had no kn ledge about the ead in the hose not to speak at t ' time. for its AR61 14th what was going �n Villager. He Tim Hansley sai 'ck Helwig had been as the new Develop Xnt Director and April 21Zxence Helwig was tormerl ity manager of Dayto and Elgin, Illinois. mu with large devel ment projects i/bothmmunities. MsZuercher adjZned he meeting at 11 Respectfully submitted, Libby Farley Q Administrative Secretary Planning Division had t o- 0622 /PU P Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Held . _.__Tchmary. 19.1997 . .l9 establishment. In addition, they would like to include an insurance office which is nut a permitted use. The o propert wner in this case has a multi -tenant building and would like to include office uses pdd a small retail com The maximum size of each one of those would be 1' ited to 15 percent of the crap building area. She showed slides of the area an oted that Planning Com ' ion approved the application on February 6, 1997, Mrs. Stillwell, It Mayor stuber, yes; Mr. Campbel O ' 0497 - An O ' Aul Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Boling, the City Manager to er into a Year ContraZwithth w Director. Grigsby noted tre made to the contract fo discussion at the Council ttteetinge a tenninatioa for cause Won. revising the income tax collection quent collection, and regarding paying the cost for the Law eend the National l eag of Cities conference. -.Mrs. Stillwell, yes; Mr. yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Mayor Kranstu , yet; Mrs. Boring. yes. Ordinance 97 - Ordinance Auth the City Manager to Fester into an Ertclusiwe to Sell Agreement for P6ft Drinks in City Owned Facilities. Mr. reported that the agreement opted is concept with this ordinance provi for a firm price of the prod a the 10-year period. Mr. noted Wet if the price the praluct increases ova Ole 10 years, the C' loses the ability to share in price increases. While the City is receiving up t money for this privilege, believes this is a better drat for 7 -Up Shan for the City since it is such a long- contract. Mrs. Boring coin axn presrntly, the City receives nothing for providin vending machines in ty buildings. This represents an opportunity to share ' the profile generated the machines. Mayor commented that 10 years is a long time to be 1 into a contract. He does a the up front money is adequate. The City 1 flexibility with this !� Fell " g further discussion, Mr. Campbell moved to a the ordinance indefinitely. !! .Stillwell seconded the motion. �) r. Campbell indicated that the basis for the moti to table is to allow an opportunity for staff to negotiate a shorter period of time for exclusive privilege. If staff can do so, Council could then take this off the table f a vote. jl V e on h motion - Mr. McCash, yes; M . Boring, yes; Mayor Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Mrs. Stillwell, yes_ Ordinance 07 -97 - An Ordinance Providing for a Change in Zoning for 123.85 Acres of land Located on the East Side of Dublin- Bellepoint Road, Opposite Memorial Drive and River Forest Road from: R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District to: PUD, Planned Unit Development District. INNIMM North) (Applicant: I Estates Associates by Charles P. Driscoll, Vice President, 500 South Front Street, Suite 770, Columbus, OH 43215) Registered as a proponent of the rezoning was At Celli, 8285 Dublin Road. There were no registered opponents. Ms. Clarke stated that this rezoning is for 123 acres on Dublin Road north of Donegal Cliffs subdivision. The application has been in process since late 1995. It includes 204 dwelling units, 139 single family houses, with the balance a multi- family cluster site located at the north end of the site. The most critical issue has been the location of the parkland, its size, and City participation in order to increase its size. The plan before 10- 0622 /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run EStateS Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. llcld _ Lclrruary.19. I947 _.. ... . .. 19. Council includes a 22 acre park along lite Scioto River with frontage on the Memorial Drive extension. This acreage includes 12 acres to be purchased by the City of Dublin. The parkland still does not meet the requirements as set forth by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ben Hale snre ^tine than, li= stated that they have worked with the City to resolve the desire for a larger community scale park along the river. Since approval of the concept plan for this development, Bob Walter, an adjoining property owner has indicated interest in purchasing a portion of this property in order to protect the woods. Linda Menery is present to represent Mr. Walter. Mr. Walter plans to purchase this portion of the property which will remain open space for some period of time. They are not trying to short the City on the parkland. In the Amberleigh development to the south, they received credit for the open space along Dublin Road while for this portion of Ambedeigh, they were only allowed one half credit for the setback area. Another issue to be considered is the question of the bridge location. In the study done by Doyle Clear, the recommendation is made for a four -lane divided road with no lots fronting on it. They any willing to preserve the ability for the City to do that kind of road if a bridge is determined to be needed at this location in the Community Plan process. He emphasized that they believe a four -lane toad is wrong for this site, wrong for Muirfield, and that with modest modifications, a 36-foot street could be done. Discussion followed about the need for a four -lane divided road in this location. Al Celli 8285 Dublin Road stated that he lives directly across from this project. His concerns are that the ditches along the east side of Dublin road are partially filled in and that the shoulders are made wider on the east side. There have been many accidents along Dublin -Road with the traffic increases, and he would like to see Council attach a condition to the rezoning regarding road improvements. Ms. Clarke responded that Dublin Road is a scenic collector and regrading the berms and filling ditches will substantially change the appearance of the road. It has been the City's policy to add left turn stacking lanes into new subdivisions and to shave down hills where necessary to improve site distances. Staff would recommend a complete study of this issue in view of the overall commitment to maintain Dublin Road as a scenic collector. At the time of the final development plan, the final engineering will be done and these determinations can be made. It is premature at this point to decide this matter. Mr. Kindra suggested that Council add a condition that in the final development plan stage, the engineering consultants for the developer work with City Engineering staff to determine the feasibility of filling ditches and widening shoulders as Mr. Celli has described. Ms. Hide PitWuga asked for further clarification about the parkland issue. Ms. Clarke stated that the park along the river as shown on the plan is 22 acres and the requirements are for 23 acres. Mr. Hale has tonight offered to expand the park along the western border on the cluster side, and this is acceptable to staff. His offer to sell the City the 12 acres of parkland still is open. A survey will be needed to do this. If the City purchases 12 acres, the park will be 23 acres and not 22 as shown on the plan. She clarified that the shortage is 0.92 acres and the plan as shown includes 11.08 acres for the City to purchase, Mvron Terlerkv Community plan Steering Committee and Chair of Transportation subcommittee testified that it is the Steering Committee's recommendation to keep all options available for future Councils to achieve the goals identified by citizens in community surveys. No decision has been made regarding a bridge location nor the width of a bridge. But based upon studies done with the Plan, only 400 cars a day 10 -062Z /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Dcer Run Estatcs Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Held. l9_ would conic onto Memorial Drive with a bridge. A bridge at this location would improve traffic on Glick, Brand, Dublin Road, Emerald Parkway and 1 -270_ He urged Council to keep the options open. Neil Barton 8215 Dublin Road stated that his concerns regarding Amberleigh North are with blasting which could affect foundations and wells. He would like assurance that if damages result, the party responsible will take care of it. Mr. Smith responded that the liability for the blasting damage would rest with the developer, it is not a City matter. Ms. Hide Pittaluga commented that it would be important for the residents to take measurements before any blasting is done so that they will have a verifiable measurement of before and after such blasting. Mr. Batton added that theie is a plugged drain between his property and that across the street. He would like to have that addressed during this development. Ms. Clarke stated that Condition 12 of this rezoning refers to that defective drainage tile. Mr. Campbell moved to add a condition to provide that the preparation of the engineering for the final development plan be accomplished with consultation of the City Engineer with respect to the question of the feasibility from an aesthetic and engineering standpoint for enclosing the ditches along this stretch of Dublin Road. Mayor Kranstuber seconded the motion. Vote on the motion - Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Ms. Hide Pittaluga, yes; Mrs. Stillwell, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. Discussion followed `about the need to preserve options for the future with the plan, i.e., to accommodate the bridge or wider road. Mr. Campbell commented that Council members have agreed that it is important to keep the option open regarding the bridge since the Community Plan is not complete, and that it is Council's desire to keep the road as narrow as possible in order not to create more problems. Those issues do not have to be resolved until the final development plan stage. That plan is reviewed by Planning Commission. Ms. Clarke pointed out that if the alternate plan is selected in the future, funding will (I be needed for Memorial Drive. In the plan presently before Council, the roads are I: paid for by the developer. If a bridge is added and an alternate plan is then built, the developer will be required to dedicate 80 feet of rightof -way, but the City will have a j responsibility to construct Memorial Drive. It was the consensus of Council that tonight's meeting is not the appropriate forum for I. a decision about funding for a roadway, and that the option be referred to Planning is Commission for further study and recommendation back to Council. Mrs. Stillwell moved to refer the rezoning back to Planning Commission to work out issues with regard to the alternative plans that have been presented tonight, the road issues and the park issues. Mr. Campbell seconded the motion, yg[e nn the motion - Mr. Campbell, yes; Mrs. Stillwell, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Hide Pittaluga, yes; Mayor Kranstuber, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes. Ordinance 11 5(Amended) - An Ordinanc o Amend Sections 112.15 a eq., 153.0211 ) 53.050 and 153.114(a) of the ublin Codified Ordinances it Respect Amusement Devices. Mr. chefsky noted that the'Whe "clauses have been modifi as directed by ncil at the last hearing. Also c definition of accessory definition regarding nominal alue is now included. 10- 062Z /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Meeting — --- i) ublin - City Council tvtecting1'agc _.. "�T.�C�':T:.Y laLCitrvpolnplmu . 19_ Mr. Kinds stated that t ' rovides for a temporary traffic signal in conju on with tite intersection w5 k-. Staff is requesting emergency action due to th e �- congestion in area and in order to comp"ae the work prior to Memorial �I Tourna ;I M ampbell moved to treat this as emergency legisla ' and dispense with the public caring. !E Mr. McCash seconded the motion. Vote on the motion - Mrs. Boring, yes; .Campbell, yes; Ms. Hide Pittaluga, yes' iI Mrs. Stillwell, yes; Mr. McCash, Mayor Kranstuber, yes. Mrs. Boring asked if staff had previous experience with this com y. I. Mr. Kinds stated th is tympany has wocked for the City an ff has been J satisfied with th uality as well as the timeliness of their ;I - Mrs. Stillwell, yes; Mr. Mc , yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; � Mayo sturcr, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; M ide Pittaluga, yes. Ordinance 07 -97 - An Ordinance Providing for a Change in Zoning for 123.85 Acres of Land Located on the East Side of Dublin- Bellepoint Road, Opposite Memorial Drive and River Forest Road from: R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District to: PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Amberleigh North) i The clerk noted that due to a process error, this ordinance did not have a before Council prior to Planning Commission review. However, it has been reviewed by '.� Planning Commission now; their recommendations are forthcoming; and a public I hearing before Council is tentatively scheduled for February 19. Mrs. Stillwell introduced the ordinance. 1 Mayor Kranstuber noted that it will be held over for public hearing on February 19. Mayor Kranstuber noted that the following ordinances involve construction ;I casements/appropriations. Ile moved to waive the Council casements/appropriations. Rule s of Order to read the following ordinances by number only and properly owner, to introduce the ordinances, to dispense with their public hearing, and to treat them as emergency legislation. These ordinances include Nos. 09 -97, 10 -97, 15 -97, 17 -97, 18 -97, 19 -97, 20 -97, 21- 97, 22 -97, 24 -97, 25 -97, 27 -97, 28 -97 and 29 -97. Mr. Campbell seconded the motion. Vote on the motion - Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Hide Pittaluga, yes; Mrs. Stillwell, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Kranstuber, yes. There were no property owners present who came forward to testify. The clerk then read into the record the property owners names from the ordinances. Mr. Banchefsky noted that two of the ordinances originally referenced Coffman Road and these should be revised to 'future Emerald Parkway'. It was the consensus of Council to make these revisions to Ordinance Nos. 28 -97 and 29 -97. Mr. McCash suggested that the language in the utility easements along right -of -ways be revised in the future so that tire City does not need to pay for temporary easements in these areas. Ordioanee No. 09- - An Ordinance To Appro ate A 0.046 Acre Temporar Construction merit And A 0.028 Acre F , imple Interest In Property coned By Alan m tutz And Sue A. Amstu ,Located On The West Side Coffman Roa Tare City Of Dublin, Co u O[ Franklin, State Of Ohi nuaI Appropriations Budge nd Declaring An Emergenc7 10- 062'7/1 Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Decr Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. t DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION November 14, 1996 t►P 1►1:I11JN Soo Shier lint's load pia, ON 43016 -7295 70D: 614/761.6550 Fax 614/7616506 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 3. Rezoning Application Z96 -002 - Preliminary Development Plan - Amberleigh North Location: 123.85 acres located on the east side of Dublin - Bellepoint Road, opposite Memorial Drive. Zoning: R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. Request: PUD, Planned Unit Development District. Proposed Use: A development of 140 single - family lots, 65 cluster housing units and 22 acres of parkland (12 acres to be purchased by Dublin). Applicant: Amberleigh Estates Associates, c/o Charles Driscoll, The Edwards Company, 500 South Front Street, Suite 770, Columbus, Ohio 43215 -7619; and property owner,Robert S. Hoag, 65 South Fifth Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215; c/o Ben W. Hale, Jr., 37 West Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215. MOTION: To aprove this rezoning application because it is consistent with development in the area, provides an excellent park opportunity, conforms to the Thoroughfare Plan and Bikepath Plan, preserves existing trees and provides an attractive landscaped buffer, with 14 conditions: 1) That the park land buffer be widened to include the entire bike tunnel loop as shown, and that no more than one -half of the total buffer acreage to be counted toward the park requirement; 2) That the tree preservation plan and stone wall protection be augmented by a plan for fencing, etc.; 3) That the phase lines and road alignment be redrawn to correspond with the preferred alignment prepared by Barton- Aschman; 4) That road improvements incorporate left turn lanes on all four legs of the entry intersection with Dublin Road; 5) That the developer cooperate with any needed design changes that might result from updating the Thoroughfare Plan; 6) That the cluster site be designed to maximize tree preservation, to avoid buildings which straddle the county fine, and to provide an appropriate edge along the park; 7) That the issue of private streets be determined by City Council as Dart of the future cluster design and approval; 10-062Z /POP Preliminary Development Plan /Rezoning Page I of 2 Decr Run Estates Memorial Dr. and DUblin Rd. DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION November 14, 1996 3. Rezoning Application Z96 -002 - Preliminary Development Plan - Amberleigh North (Continued) 8) That "no parking" zones be established on one side of all streets less than 32 feet wide and be noted on the final plat; 9) That the developer present a construction plan that prevents the use of existing Amberleigh subdivision streets for construction purposes; 10) That on -site grinder pumps be indicated on future plats, plans, building permits, etc. for applicable lots; 11) That approval of this plan be contingent on Council's favorable action on a storm water detention waiver (denial would require both site redesign and rehearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission); 12) That storm water velocity controls be employed at outlet points and that the defective storm the be incorporated into the new storm water management system, subject to approval by the City Engineer; 13) That prior commitments made by the applicant at previous meetings be incorporated here and be binding; and 14) That a Dublin standard eight -foot bikepath also be constructed by the applicant on the north side of Memorial Drive. * Ben W. Hale, Jr. agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 6 -0. RESULT: The Commission recommends approval of this rezoning application. It will be forwarded to City Council for scheduling with a positive recommendation. STAFF CERTIFICATION Barbara M. Clarke Planning Director 10 -062MIDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Page 2 of 2 Door Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - November 14, 1996 Page 12 Mr, asked t le this application. He said have clear direction from the mmission j and want to m e changes. He understood th o linkage should be included i is revision. Ms. C ' nici- Zuercher said that a 1.85 u /ac density and a new design w e needed. Ferrara said a more imagin ve two - family layout is needed, multi jurisdictional issues need to be addressed. =race o see if the original concept plan ' eluded two - family units alo Avery said bringing back the concept was a mute issue. Ms. Bo " g agreed. ted to make sure this appli ' n was filed in a timely man r so that staff can ld Civic Association, et Mr. Brown said he would rk with them, Lowell sel, and the Lenkers. Mr. Ferrara made the motion table this application. Fol wing a second, the vote as follows: Mr. Peplow, yes; Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Ms. ring, yes; Mr. Sutphen es; Mr. Harian, yes; and Mr. F yes. (Tabled 6 -0.) 3. Rezoning Application Z96-002 - Preliminary Development Plan - Amberleigh North Bobbie Clarke presented this rezoning application which when previously reviewed was for 184 single - family lots with 15 acres of parkland. This revised plan has 205 units and 27.5 acres of parkland, based upon the assumption that the City of Dublin will purchase 12 acres of parkland. This plan has retained 140 of the original lots and adds 10 estate lots and 65 cluster units. The Delaware County line runs east/west through the site. There is a deep ravine associated with the Deer Run. A Memorial Drive extension comes into the site and sweeps the south. The parkland has good visibility along Memorial Drive. A preferred alignment was outlined by Barton - Aschman, a consultant for Dublin, for a bridge between Memorial Drive and Stratford Drive, should Council so decide in the future. The traffic study indicates a four -lane facility is needed. The study was undertaken to determine the feasibility of a bridge. The previous plan deferred development until September 1997, but that deferral is not in this version. According to Doyle Clear, Barton Aschman, the southern corner of the cluster site would need to be involved for a bridge, plus the park. Ms. Clarke said this site is zoned R -1, Restricted Residential District, and the proposal would rezone it to PUD, Planned Unit Development District. Staff is recommending approval of the overall plan. The density has been raised, but it is still extremely low, at 1.65 du /ac. Staff is recommending approval finding this to be within the density limits and in conformance with the Thoroughfare Plan. The developer has been going through this process for approximately a year and has responded favorably to a variety of requests. Twelve conditions are recommended: t o -o62Z /PUP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - November 14, 1996 Page 13 1) That the park land buffer be widened to include the entire bike tunnel loop as shown, and that no more than one -half of the total buffer acreage to be counted toward the park requirement; 2) That the tree preservation plan and stone wall protection be augmented by a plan for fencing, etc.; 3) That the phase lines and road alignment be redrawn to correspond with the preferred alignment presented by Barton Aschman; 4) That road improvements incorporate left turn lanes on all four legs of the entry intersection with Dublin Road; 5) That the developer cooperate with any needed design changes that might result from updating the Thoroughfare Plan; 6) That the cluster site be designed to maximize tree preservation, to avoid buildings which straddle the county line, and to provide an appropriate edge along the park; 7) That the issue of private streets be determined by Council as part of the future cluster design review and approval; 8) That "no parking" zones be established on one side of all streets less than 32 feet wide and be noted on the final plat; 9) That the developer present a construction plan that prevents the use of existing Amberleigh streets for construction purposes; 10) That on -site grinder pumps be indicated on future plats, plans, building permits, etc.; 11) That approval of this plan be contingent on Council's favorable action on a storm water detention waiver (denial would require both site redesign and rehearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission); and 12) That storm water velocity controls be employed at outlet points and that the defective storm tile be located and incorporated into the new storm water management system, subject to approval by the City Engineer. Ms. Clarke said this will be a beautiful new neighborhood and it complies with all Dublin plans. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher asked where in the process the City was in purchasing the land for the park. Ms. Clarke said Council has examined this for prioritization in the next five years. Council authorized the City Manager and the Law Director to go forward with an acquisition agreement for the site. Council agreed that this was a rare opportunity to create a community scale park along the river. Ms. Clarke believed the deal was to purchase the first six acres this year and the second six acres the following year. Ms. Boring said a letter had been received from Al Celli asking the Commission to look at the safety issues of ditch enclosures and shoulders along SR 745 with this development. Randy Bowman was not aware of any consideration. Ms. Clarke said Mr. Foegler had previously responded that Dublin Road was designated as a scenic corridor and every time ditches were regraded or shoulders were provided, it substantially changed the form of the road, requiring prior community input. Ms. Boring said the point was well taken, but it would be a less offensive way of taking care of some safety issues without widening the road. 10- 062Z /PDP Prcliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr, and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - November 14, 1996 Page 14 Ms. Boring asked if there would be a bikepath along the east side. Ms. Clarke said yes and it would be installed by this developer. Mr. Sutphen asked if a ten -foot wide bikepath would work here. Ms. Clarke said there are to be public meetings scheduled through the Service Committee of Council for input. Mr. Sutphen asked if all 2,300 feet of bikepath would be completed. Ms. Clarke said they would work with the developer on that. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher said there has been some filling in done north of Emerald Parkway, north of Brand Road. Dirt has been put in on the east side of SR 745, which was very deep and where people have gone off the road. She asked if this was going to be done all along SR 745 or was it just getting rid of dirt from Emerald Parkway. Ms. Clarke and Randy Bowman did not know. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher asked that the dirt not be removed because it was a helpful safety feature. She supports safety improvement on this scenic road. Ms. Clarke said development details for the cluster site are not known. One of the peculiarities of this application is that the cluster would be subject to a later review, both by the Commission and by Council. The design should maximize preservation of the woods. Mr. Hale said they chose three signature projects, Weatherstone, The Lea at Greenstone Point, and the Mews and this cluster will have the same level of quality. Mr. Hale agreed to the conditions as listed above. He said Bob Walter will buy a portion of this property to preserve the wooded area behind his house. Mr. Hale said that the Law Director, was writing the park agreement. He said at least four members of Council strongly oppose a bridge at Memorial Drive. He said they were willing to respect the preferred alignment, but wanted a time limit. Mr. Hale suggested a date one year from now. Linda Menerey, NBBJ, said Bob Walter may have further thoughts that are not yet reflected in the plan. He has four lots that are immediately adjacent to this property. He would like three lots for his children and to do something else with the rest of the property. The two existing lots will be expanded to three. There are a total of 12 lots. Mr. Hale said when the preliminary plat comes in for review, adjustments can be made. Mr. Hale asked that Condition 3 be amended. He said the alignment presented by Barton Ashman will be respected, but they want an expiration date of September 1997 to give the City the opportunity to decide whether or not the bridge was going to be built. Mr. Sutphen asked what would happen if it became a bikepath or a pedestrian bridge. Mr. Hale said a pedestrian bridge would be aligned through the park. He said the preferred alignment would not be needed for a bikepath. Ms. Clarke agreed. Mr. Peplow asked if Council approved a bridge, would another alignment work. Ms. Clarke said it would be more difficult later, because then there would be a zoned cluster site and an arrPnrPd 10- 062Z /wn> Preliminary Development Plan / RU 011111 9 Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - November 14, 1996 Page 15 alignment for Memorial Drive. The study cautioned that there was a need to work with the developer as Memorial Drive is extended into the subdivision. The alignment is important, and the grade needs to slope down the hill gradually toward the river. The hill would need to be cut to get a good grade down to the elevation needed to meet Riverside Drive. Memorial Drive is depicted on this plan as a nice, 36 -foot wide street which is not designed for a river crossing. Ms. Boring said Mr. Hale was forcing a premature decision on the bridge. The Community Plan is studying possibilities up and down the river. Dublin wants to make sure all possibilities were not eliminated for future planning of this growing community. Mr. Hale said they are trying to sell very expensive housing, and at some point a bridge decision needed to be made. He said they would accommodate for the bridge if the decision to build it is made. It would be protected from development. Mr. Hale said they did not want to be in limbo forever. Ms. Boring asked if a solution could be made by making it parkland and the decision could be made later. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher said potential buyers want to know if a roadway would come through for the bridge and the location of it. Mr. Hale said the tots will sell for $500,000. Mr. Banchefsky said no Council or Commission decision regarding this issue, precludes the possibility that 20 to 100 years from now a future Council, would decide a bridge was needed there. It would be an eminent domain issue. Ms. Boring asked if a bridge is needed, could the cluster housing being adjusted slightly to accommodate it. Ms. Clarke said Mr. Hale agreed to Condition 3 which asked that it be reconfigured and said he would be willing to give the City one year to make the decision. She believes the traffic portion of the Community Plan is well focused and it forces the community to make more decisions about linkages, etc. She said previously residents in Amberleigh and Donegal Cliffs were upset at the prospect of a bridge on this property. Certainly these new owners will want the same information. She said Council had always been very consumer oriented. A decision will have to be made. Mr. Sutphen said this plan does everything possible to secure a bridge site. Ms. Boring asked about the ditch enclosure. Mr. Sutphen said if the ditch were filled in, some very large trees would be destroyed. Mr. Hale said they tried to heavily plant the open space as was done in Donegal Cliffs and Amberleigh. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher said much of SR 745 needed to be looked at for safety. She said there had been much erosion over the years. Ms. Boring agreed. Steve Thomas, 8351 Dublin Road, was concerned about a ten -foot wide bikepath being proposed south of Memorial Drive. He asked if the bikepath was linked to the Amberleigh development. Mr. Sutphen said Dublin had ISTEA funds for a bikepath on Dublin Road but no derision was 10- 062Zat'DP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - November 14, 1996 Page 16 made. He suggested that Mr. Thomas go to the Service Committee meeting of Council - to learn more. If it is funded by Dublin, the bikepath will be eight feet wide with a tunnel underneath Dublin Road. Mr. Peplow asked if commitments made last month were still binding on the applicant. Mr. Banchefsky said no. Mr. Peplow asked Mr. Hale to commit again to replacing wells if blasting effects them. Mr. Hale said they agreed to pick up the drainage and hook it into their drainage system. He agreed to honor any agreements previously made at the Commission meeting. Mr. Harian said this application had come a long way and looked good. Mr. Ferrara said it was a very nice package. He said the bikepath was only along SR 745 and everything interior was sidewalks, so to go from here to Muirfield you use the interior sidewalks or streets. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher said the underground tunnel would be used to come from Muirfreld. Mr. Ferrara asked about the tunnel. Mr. Hale said the City would build and pay for it. He said they agreed to accommodate it with right -of -way. Janet Jordan said there may be a bikepath along the Memorial Drive (extended). She said it would be worked on during the next phase of this development. Ms. Clarke said in a PUD it should be addressed now. Ms. Clarke suggested a bikepath connection between the park and Dublin Road. Ms. Jordan agreed. Mr. Hale said he would do an eight -foot bikepath along the north side of the street. Mr. Ferrara wanted to make sure that there was unrestricted access to the park. Ms. Jordan said she appreciated the developer's willingness to build a bikepath on the north side of the street. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher said even though it took a long time, it was a much better project today than it was a year ago. It looked terrific and she looked forward to the development. Mr. Sutphen made a motion to approve this rezoning application because it is consistent with development in the area, provides an excellent park opportunity, conforms to the Thoroughfare and Bikepath Plan, preserves existing trees and provides a perimeter buffer, with 14 conditions: 1) That the park land buffer be widened to include the entire bike tunnel loop as shown, and that no more than one -half of the total buffer acreage to be counted toward the park requirement; 2) That the tree preservation plan and stone wall protection be augmented by a plan for fencing, etc.; 3) That the phase lines and road alignment be redrawn to correspond with the preferred alignment prepared by Barton Aschman; 4) That road improvements incorporate left turn lanes on all four legs of the entry intersection with Dublin Road; 5) That the developer cooperate with any needed design changes that might result from updating the Thoroughfare Plan; 6) That the cluster site be designed to maximize tree preservation, to avoid buildings which straddle the county line, and to provide an appropriate edge along the park; 7) That the issue of private streets be determined by Council as part of the future cluster design review and approval; 10- oc2ZrnDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - November 14, 1996 Page 17 8) That "no parking" zones be established on one side of all streets less than 32 feet wide and be noted on the final plat; 9) That the developer present a construction plan that prevents the use of existing Amberleigh subdivision streets for construction purposes; 10) That on -site grinder pumps be indicated on future plats, plans, building permits, etc. for applicable lots; 11) That approval of this plan be contingent on Council's favorable action on a storm water detention waiver (denial would require both site redesign and rehearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission); 12) That storm water velocity controls be employed at outlet points and that the defective storm tile be incorporated into the new storm water management system, subject to approval by the City Engineer; 13) That prior commitments made by the applicant at previous meetings be incorporated here and be binding; and 14) That a Dublin standard eight -foot bikepath be constructed by the applicant on the north side of Memorial Drive for the park. Mr. Harian asked if Mr. Hale agreed to change the road configuration. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher said he agreed to Condition 3, but was asking for a time limit. Mr. Hale asked that Council confirm the location of the bridge there within a year. Mr. Sutphen said they should not because it sent the wrong message for the future. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher said people purchasing lots have the right to know about the bridge issue. Mr. Hale wanted to be told within a certain time whether the City was going to preserve the alignment and that the bridge was a viable alternative so they know how to develop it. Mr. Hale said Council in the near future will be in the position to say "preserve the alignment" because they think it is a viable place for a bridge. If, however, it is decided not to be viable or the alignment is not wanted, then the street will be built in accordance with this plan. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher said the intention was to preserve the alignment in case the bridge was located there. Mr. Ferrara seconded the motion and Mr. Hale agreed to the above conditions. The vote was as follows: Mr. Harian, yes; Mr. Peplow, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Ms. Boring, yes; Mr. Ferrara, yes; and Mr. Sutphen, yes. (Approved 6-0.) 4. Rezo ' g Application Z96- - Gatti Tract Lis terce presented this r est to rezone 38 acres on t west side of Avery d to PLR, tied Low Density R dential District. The L -sha site is undeveloped ith some tr along the north prope line. Surrounding properti 'elude the Dan Sherri division and e combined Dublin chools /City maintenance fa ' ties. To the west is er undevelo site. The applicant been unable to incorpora it into this plan. 10- 062Z /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dablin Rd. DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMSSION RECORD OF ACTION STi.MEMER 5, 1996 CITY OF DUBLIN p slooSbwwtoad t4osoAW.i1V/614SS0 fox 6W161.006 The planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Rezoning Application Z96 -002 - prelimlum7 Development Plan - Amberleigh North Location: 123.85 acres located on the east side of Dublin Bellepoint Road, opposite Memorial Drive and River Forest Road - Zoning: R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. Request: PUD, Planned Unit Development District. proposed Use: A development of 184 single- family lots with 15 acres of parkland. Applicant; Amberjelgh Estates Associates, do Charles Driscoll, The Edwards Company, 500 South Front Street, Suite 710, Columbus, Ohio 43215 -7619; and property owner, Robert S. Hoag, 65 South Fifth Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215; c/o Ben W. Hale, Jr., 37 West Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215. MOTION l(1: To table this rezoning application until Council has an opportunity to determine the feasibility of the parkland purchase, and the developer addresses the issues and conditions discusssed. «Ben W. Hale, Jr. agreed to tabling of this case. RESULT: This application was tabled. Page i of 2 10- 062Z/Pnr Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION SEPTEMBER S, 1996 1, Reaoahrg Application Z96 -002 - prelhnivary Development plan - Amberleigh North (Continued) MOTION #2: That a Latex from the Commission, signed by Vice Chair Dan Sutphen, be forwarded to City Council WWmmWft that the pmposod Ambe rleigh parkland be purchased by the City to create a community park. Further, the Commission recommends that Dublin purchase an easement or river side lots in the areas of those numbered 104, 105, and 106 (near ravine with aerial sewer) for possible future bridge access or at least, a bikepath crossing. Vam. 6-0. RESULT: A letter from the Commission will be sent to City Council recommending acquisition of such arras. I I' 10- 0627. /1'DP page 2 of 2 Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - September 5, 1996 Page 2 1. Rezoning Application Z96 -002 - Preliminary Development Plan - Amberleigh North Bobbie Clarke presented this rezoning to the PUD District. The case began as a concept plan for 82 acres which was not approved. The applicant was encouraged to include the entire Hoag property of 123 acres, and a revised concept plan was approved by the Commission and Council. Under the PUD regulations, approval of the concept plan authorizes the applicant to file the preliminary development plan, this rezoning application. Ms. Clarke said this is an excellent site for residential development, but staff is reluctantly recommending disapproval of the plan based mainly on park issues. She said the northern 40 acres are wooded. Several ravines run through the site, and there is a dry laid stone wall parallel to the river. The most level land area along the river is in the northeast corner of the site. It is nicely wooded, and most of it is within the floodway. The Commission discussed expansion of the area devoted to park along the river. Staff suggested a boardwalk along the river may be appropriate. The previous plan showed a parkland dedication along the river. She said " floodway" cannot be filled or built upon, but other areas within the floodplain could be filled and developed. A greenbelt along Dublin Road is shown as public parkland also. The revised plan expands the river park to over 15 acres and shows six acres to be purchased by Dublin. Ms. Clarke reviewed the previous concept plan. The legal description was expanded by 1.3 acres farther into the river. Staff suggested that Dublin purchase some park acreage in order to make th plan workable. She said a good park along the river is a necessity with this development. Staff had suggested a minimum park width of 300 feet. This proposal has 15.7 acres along the river and includes a band along the river extending south to a ravine. Ms Clarke said in approving the concept plan, one condition was that the park along the river be expanded by 5.8 acres. Staff will discuss acquisition with City Council on September 9. She said this opportunity is not likely to arise again. Land along the river is an important asset which needs to be available for the entire future population of Dublin. Ms. Clarke said the bridge timing issue was not much improved. A bridge at Memorial Drive was very unlikely, it is one of the few available locations. As the Community Plan proceeds, it should become clear if this is a viable location, if it could solve problems for future traffic. N A proposed bikepath tunnel at the north end of the site could connect this existing path which originates in Donegal Cliffs to a future path being planned for the west side of Dublin Road. The Proposal is to construct a federal standard 10 -foot wide bikepath, and tunnels would be appropriate o 0 here and at Brandonway Drive. v 0.Q y N Staff recommends disapproval because additional park acreage is needed along the river. The area a ._ = Q along Dublin Road is important as a buffer, but not necessarily as V P ° y park. Staff had recommended against crediting the buffer in Amberleigh toward the park requirement, but it was included. Staff 2 91 E a ° s Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - September 5, 1996 Page 3 feels that this application fails to meet the spirit of the parkland ordinance and is not responsive to Dublin's long-term traffic needs regarding the timing of Phase 4. The plan also needs additional tree preservation information and attention to the development standards. Ms. Clarke said staff was believes this developer can create an excellent neighborhood here. The park issue, though not the developer's fault, needs to be addressed by Council prior to rezoning approval. Depending upon the input from City Council, the plan will change. Mr. Harian asked if half credit for the buffer is a rule. Ms. Clarke said it has been the recent policy, but it is not in the Code. She said staff recommends that the floodway, the totally undevelopable land, be discounted. The floodway is a very nice piece of wooded property that will get wet from time to time, and part of it appears to be an island within the river. It is a good park acquisition, but it has no development potential, and staff believes full credit is inappropriate. Staff recommends half credit for the buffer and floodway, leaving the plan about three acres short. The conditions from the concept plan were very specific, requiring 5.8 more acres along the river. The applicant has added almost two acres. Ben W. Hale, Jr., attorney, said this plan's density is lower. He said Mr. Hoag will cooperate by selling park acres and will amend his plans to accommodate anything the City wants. He distributed a listing of other developments and their park acreage, and this plan contributes more park per lot. He believes this plan exceeds Code by 3.64 acres. Amberleigh got credit for the Dublin Road setback, and this will be similar. He said the parkland is valuable even if it is floodway and should get full credit. He said the lots behind the park will be depreciated. Mr. Hale said several City Council members indicated there was no plan for a bridge to line up with Memorial Drive. No final development plan will be fled for land north of Memorial Drive extended until September 1997, at which time the Community Plan will be done. The applicant will give a reasonable time, but wants Dublin to resolve the issue expeditiously. Mr. Hale said they used the same tree preservation plan as Wedgewood Hills. Mr. Hale said the bikepath plan submitted should conform to Dublin's plan. There will be a bikepath on both sides of Dublin Road, and a tunnel will serve a large population besides the subdivision's. The developer should not be required to participate on more than a proportional basis. The tunnel will probably be in rock and be very expensive. Ms. Boring said the parkland calculations provided for surrounding developments was not valid. Mr. Hale said Dublin's park ordinance was based on density. Ms. Clarke explained the park dedication calculation yields about one acre of parkland per 18 dwelling units. Ms. Boring asked if the plan proposed full credit for the buffer area and for all parkland. Ms. Clarke said yes. Ms. Boring could not support credit for buffers, even if occasionally it was done in the past. She said there have been complaints about giving park credit for buffers. Ms. Boring said she supported the staff's position on the parkland discussion. 10- 0622 /PDr Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - September 5, 1996 Page 4 Ms. Boring said the bridge was a Community Plan issue. She had said that 18 months applied to Phase 4 is not a reasonable timeframe, as Mr. Hale previously promised. She expected it would require 2 to 2.5 years to decide. Mr. Hale thought two to three years was unreasonable. Ms. Boring said Council was doing a stormwater study now, and they dislike detention waivers. Mr. Hale said if the waiver was not approved, lots will be removed to provide on -site detention. He said Dublin always wants wet ponds, and this site has rock which is very difficult. Ms. Boring asked about the single street access for this development. Mr. Hale said Barton - Aschman did a traffic study which shows that the Amberleigh intersection was not overburdened. The new intersection aligns with Memorial Drive and has adequate sight distance. Mr. Ferrara asked about Lots 105 and 106 with the aboveground sewer. Charles Driscoll, Multicon Builders, said the lots had been reviewed by the engineers, and the house on Lot 106 would be behind the sewer line and Lot 105 would be in front of it. Mr. Sutphen asked if Lot 105 was proposed to be parkland, where a bridge could be built in 10 -20 years. Mr. Hale said if Dublin wants a bridge there, that part of the subdivision layout will be redrawn. Mr. Sutphen said Lot 105 should be made part of the park. He did not want to leave future decision makers without alternatives. He said he had no problem with a bridge here. He suggested that a sign might be installed to publicize the future potential of a bridge here. Mr. Sutphen said Lots 171, 152, and 148 should show building pads because of the county line. Mr. Sutphen said the developer did a nice job with the trees, plantings, etc, on Amberleigh, and it should be the continued at this site. Mr. Hale said it would be similar. Randy Bowman said a traffic study addressed the question of permanent access and multiple access points onto Dublin Road. An entrance opposite Memorial Drive will help distribute the traffic. No negative effect is expected on existing intersections with Dublin Road. In terms of the phasing, there was no adverse impact on Dublin Road or at its intersections. Gene O. Johnson, 8185 Dublin Road, said the May version of the Amberleigh North plan was a rational development. He said that greenspace along Dublin Road preserves the quality of life, and he did not want it eliminated. He did not support dual bikepaths along Dublin Road or a blasted rock tunnel. He was unhappy about the plan for a federal standard bikepath along the west side of Dublin Road, crossing driveways, causing environmental problems. The qualities of the May plan had been eroded. Mr. Johnson said preserving greenspace is part of the quality of life residents enjoy. Several neighbors in the audience indicated agreement with his position. Ms. Boring said Dublin had been awarded funds for the federally funded bikepath, but Council is aware of the design issues. She said no decision has been on whether to construct a federal bikepath. She encouraged Mr. Johnson to contact the Service Committee. Mr. Johnson said there were flags in his front yard that said "centerline ". He wanted the logical extension of the Donegal Cliffs design. He said sight distances and traffic speed are problems. 10 -062Z /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Decr Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - September 5, 1996 Page 5 Al Celli, 8285 Dublin Road, wanted the bikepath on the east side. He was interested in a community Park on the river. He said additional land acquisition is encouraged. Terry Foegler urged Mr. Celli to contact Council about specific preferences in land acquisition. Mr. Celli was also concerned with Dublin Road safety and said it needs shoulders. He said the development north cannot be ignored. Mr. Foegler said the developer has minimized the access points onto Dublin Road. The cost of lowering the hump on Dublin Road was shared by the developer and Dublin to improve the sight distance at the Amberleigh entrance. It is a "scenic collector," and the actual widening of shoulders and significant improvements which would change the character. These are being examined in the Community Plan update. Neil Barton, 8215 Dublin Road, was concerned about blasting harming his well. Mr. Sutphen suggested that Mr. Barton contact engineering to have someone sample the well and do a flow test. Mr. Barton asked if he would be put on city water, and would prefer not to be. Randy Bowman said blasting is permitted generally, unless restricted by either the Commission or Council. There are guidelines for blasting, and they are in use on the Emerald Parkway project. He said the guidelines are extremely confining on the blasting activities. Mr. Sutphen did not want Mr. Barton to be without water as a result of blasting. He thought the city should extend public water to him if the well is damaged. Randy Bowman clarified that it was not automatic for City water to be provided in the case of well failure. Mr. Rauh said a condition regarding the well and the provision of water needed to be added. Mr. Barton asked to be contacted for the Service Committee hearing on the bikepath. Mr. Barton referred to the Staff Report, Page 5: "Drainage tile used to drain onto the subject site has become buried over time and is now causing a drainage problem on the west side of Dublin Road. The developer would need to located this the and incorporate it into the public storm sewer system." He asked if the tile was the one on his property. Mr. Sutphen said yes and the developer would be responsible, not Mr. Barton. Jeff Cerney, 8410 Tippermore Court, said the proposed bikepath tunnel would need an easement near his back yard and he would like the tunnel relocated to the north. Mr. Foegler said no locations for tunnels have been selected. The study points out feasible locations, goal connection points, etc. There will be public hearings on these designs. Ms. Boring encouraged the residents to contact City Council. Mr. Ferrara suggested that a notice of the Service Committee meeting concerning the bikepath be sent to the residents. t 0- 062zrnDt) Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Decr Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - September 5, 1996 Page 6 Randy Olsen, 518 Haymore Avenue South. asked for a copy of Dublin's blasting rules. Mr. Olsen also said it was not clear where the stormwater would be located. If the dry laid walls are damaged, they should be returned to their original state. Mr. Sutphen agreed. Ben Hale said the setback was not decreased. A landscape and bikepath plan will be exactly the same as to the south. He agrees that if they blast and wells go dry, the developer will drill another well or hook them up to city water. Mr. Hale said they agreed to hook the main stormwater line. Mr. Hale said if they were allowed full credit for the park by the river, they would be happy to have the setback along the road counted as half credit. Mr. Harian was concerned about park access. He suggested tabling. Mr. Ferrara agreed that half credit should be given for the setback along Dublin Road. Ms. Boring said this floodplain is unlike Scioto Park. She could not accept Mr. Hale's proposal regarding credit. She said there were also eight other bases in the staff report that needed to be considered. She said a concept plan condition was that blasting be decided at the time of rezoning. If approved, the Commission would need to include a blasting condition. Ms. Clarke said the floodway is the most protected area because it carries the rushing water during a flood. No grading or construction is allowed within the floodway, plus 20 feet on either side of it. The rest of the area that becomes inundated, but does not carry the rushing water, is less restricted. It can be filled and developed subject to FEMA and local regulations. Mr. Rauh said the Amberleigh parkland along the river appeared quite large on the plan, but not if it is under water. A golden opportunity would be missed if a large park is not acquired. Access to the park was an issue to him. He said the lower park area was not usable or accessible. He re- emphasized that Council purchase additional land. He thought Lots 105 or 106 should be acquired and reserved for a bridge of some type, and the bridge decision would take longer than July 1997. It might be a nice outlet for Amberleigh and some of Muirfield Village. Mr. Rauh said blasting needed to be addressed. Mr. Ferrara asked if there was soil or rock down by the river. Ms. Jordan said it was both. Mr. Ferrara asked if there was a substantial amount of water. Ms. Jordan said several weeks ago when a site inspection was made, the river was very low. She said there was a large amount of rock and fossils, but there was a transition point up to soil and trees. Ms. Jordan considered the rock the river bed. Ms. Clarke said it had not been staked. Mr. Hale said he would not oppose tabling. Mr. Rauh moved to table this application until Council has an opportunity to determine the feasibility of the parkland purchase, and the developer addresses the issues and conditions discussed. Ms. 10 -062Z /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Dem Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - September 5, 1996 Page 7 Boring seconded. The vote was as follows: Mr. Harian, yes; Mr. Ferrara, yes; Mr. Peplow, yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes; Ms. Boring, yes; and Mr. Rauh, yes. (Tabled 6-0.) Mr. Sutphen made a motion to send a letter to City Council, under his signature, stating that the Commission highly recommends the purchase of parkland in Amberleigh North. It would also be recommended that Lots 104 -106, or those that align with Wedgewood, be purchased for a possible future bridge and/or pedestrian or bikepath bridge. Mr. Rauh said a major parkland acquisition was appropriate because it was one of the last opportunities to get a park on the river. Mr. Ferrara agreed and said this is one of the most scenic vistas in the community. Dublin needs to strongly consider purchasing this land. Ms. Boring said there were other issues that needed addressed when the application returned. Mr. Rauh seconded the motion to send a letter to Council urging park acquisition. The vote was as follows: Mr. Harian, yes; Mr. Ferrara, yes; Mr. Peplow, yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mr. Rauh, yes; and Ms. Boring, yes. (Approved 6-0.) 2. R Wing Application - Preliminary Deydlopment Plan - Brown, atto".114, requested that this lication be tabled unt' the October meeting. Five residents attend to make comments, .Sutphen said this a problem due to no to the residents. r. Brown he would he ouId meet with then ' hbors before the Co issi review. Mr. Rau aid the staff report ad ses tabling and move table it. Mr. Peplo seconded. The vote w as follows: Mr. Ha r" , yes; Mr. Ferrara, , Mr. Peplow, yes; M . Sutphen, no; Mr. Ra , yes; and Ms. Boris o. (Motion defeated ) Mr. Sutphen sa/themmission and /aprepared for this disc sion. He said the app ' ant should have resl issues befod tabling is a tration. Mr. Sutphen aid the proposal is mu and there i k to do. Rag Mr. Rauh ade a second motion le this applica/ Peplow seconded th otion, and the vote as follows: Mr. Har r. Ferrara , yes; MPeplow, yes; Mr utphen, yes; Mr. yes; and Ms. Boring o. (Tabled 3. PSnal Develop nt Plan/Co id; De opment District Ap ' CDD96 -007 /-artm Commons - Mce Buildings -389 and 3905 Stoneridge e Lisa FierX presented the final d elopment plan for within artin Commons. The & contains three acres mu family project. Electri nsmission towers runt ice buildings along onendge Lane iately north of th artin Commons a 1004 1 o- o62Z /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD Or ACTION '('l (W ist 1;HN 5800 Shier No Road Dublin, OH 13016 -1295 we/wo: 611/161 -6550 foe 61061 -6506 July 11, 1996 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 4. Rezoning Application Z96 -002 - Preliminary Development Plan - Amberleigh North Location: 123.85 acres located on the east side of Dublin - Bellepoint Road, opposite Memorial Drive and River Forest Road. Existing Zoning: R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. Request: PUD, Planned Unit Development District. Proposed Use: A development of 184 single- family lots with 15 acres of parkland. Applicant: Amberleigh Estates Associates, c/o Charles Driscoll, The Edwards Company, 500 South Front Street, Suite 770, Columbus, Ohio 43215 -7619; and property owner, Robert S. Hoag, 65 South Fifth Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215; c/o Ben W. Hate, Jr., 37 West Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215. MOTION: To table this rezoning application as requested by the applicant. VOTE: 6 -1. RESULT: This rezoning application was tabled without discussion. STAFF CERTIFICATION Barbara M. Clarke Planning Director 10- 0622 /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Lstatcs Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - July it, 1996 Page 8 4F 4. Rezoning Application Z96 -002 - Preliminary Development Plan - Amberleigh North Ben W. Hale, Jr., attorney, requested tabling. He said the staff report indicates the application is not approvable. He wants to narrow the issues with the staff prior to Commission action. Mr. Sutphen made the motion for tabling. Mr. Rauh seconded, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Harian, yes; Mr. Ferrara, no; Mr. Peplow, yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mr. Rauh, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; and Ms. Boring, yes. (Tabled 6 -1.) 5. Plan - Bobbie yfarke presen this rezoni case. T/conce plan for 22 acres n the north side of Post oad was ap oved by the ommission cil this spring That authorized the app to file t is prelimin development oning from 1, Restricted S ential Dis ' t and Ul, Agr ultural DistricPlanned U t Development D enuested. Th main entran to the Red Trab to the of the site. She said th applicant is ng /ar re and than requir y Code, includin broad area along Po Road. Staff ' still a possibility of ev further enlarge t, to the west prope line. The si plan is gular than the h rglass shape pre ousty submitted. Buil ' gs which pre ' usly croounty lines were located. The s feels strongly that thi 68 units shout have more point of acces . Temporary a s through the park is s wn, with the tential for paccess to thew t if additional p perty is annexed. T ould assume at the propertor is develo with a compa ' le use. With perma tit access on the est end, this p s point con be downgraded o a bikepath. The site rs proxima setback o�f Post Road mutuaV acceptable I at a to two d ac. No ar considered se ly 2 feet deep with o y 600 feet of nd .4 acres of parklan Staff is still uage on how X land could be c according to Ddopted Co units per acr This deve op -e has been prand the d velc by the Commi tage. The plan has 600 -foot dng with the di oper to find oped. This 2u is west of the Plan is slat or development t plan featu s a density of 7.7 has ask that architecturoe Staff is r mending approval f this Pretimin development I) t inappropoate restric ons b- removed rom the develo e park area include least 7.4 acres; 2) That permanent, u estricted provided the adja t land dev( 3) That the buildin architecture architecture fo the site, be d adjacent to th site; access io the west subject to t of park 2 as #age and that X `nt is compati e with this materials, a well as the A with se itivity to the plan 2 c park 10- 062Z /PDP Preliminaly Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS o f Dublin City Council Meeting Page g Hel June 3 1996 18_ retuning. He elleves that higher density In the shown at APA conference was Sessions Ville tramitd involves a generous donation of arkla ton zoning. Tonlght's proposal involves cite air from some of the remaining major u Grid area as well in terms of Its location the p so Ing concept plan, and should the vmmol 'on, the risk is for the applicant. a would tonight on this proposal. 1 places can be a good thing. An ezamp K e d in Columbus which they deuribed u sldcal area near the mbar, preserve and oas ,eloped commercial land In the City. is a western boundary line of Dublin. a plan as I and Is an exceptional project. Is a non - l Plan recommend wtnethLtg erect In this e hard - pressed If a binding vo ad to be taken Mr. Adams commented that th are working to resolve the county line iu , In terms of schools, election boards, utilities, etc Mr. McCash commen there are some telephone service issues be addressed. He noted that he agrees with Joel t this concept plan - that he wants to p with caution. ' Mrs. Stillwell that she is looking at this in terms of rue. She believes that multi- family may well be tit use of this lard, after hearing the r from staff and the applicant tonight. She can live 'th multi- family at this point, although e is a need to be flexible because of the Commune Ian update in process. Slit would like assured, however, that other transitional uses are totally appropriate for this site. She is ightod with tie con of the parkland at the em and southern ends. She Pikes the village approach with iu people connectio e. not importation connections. She is not r to sign off on architects re at this concept believes the City should push its standar toward a higher level of design. Wide she mites e gate house concept and horse theme, i s similar to the New Albany theme. he eves the applicant is headed in the right direcdo .t, AkA- -j w Q pnD �.— Ms. Hide Pitialuga stated that this ' a [ project. She canoot, however, s rt approving apartments with higher density density which are en she is opposed to rapid growth and hig already in the pipeline for Dub n. She does not want to approve this prio completion of the Community Plan update. a project is very nice, but she has to er to the people she represents on these impo t issues. Mr. Adams respond a t single family would include more lots b 'ng up to the nature preserve. - this will be an adul community which will not burden the sch system. He understands that the buildings will ha to be spectacular to meet everyone s appr al. Mayor bar commented that the county line issue' not all that important to him. It would not necess' a moving the project to the east or west as a to &e project will be in Dublin Schools. Mrs. ring moved that Council approve this pl with the conditions of Plannin/Commis Ma r Krammber seconded the motion. V n - Mr. Zawaly, Yes; Mrs tillwell, yes; Ms. Hide Pittaluga, n, es; Mayor Kransmber, yes; W. Campbe , yes; Mr. McCash, yes. Mr. Campbell emphasized that the v on concept plans is non - binding. ^onceot Pia_ - Amberleigh North (Applicant: Amberleigh Estates Associates, c/o Charles Driscoll, on .fie swards Company, 500 S. Front Street, Suite 770, Columbus, OR 43215 -7619; and Robert S S. Hoag, 65 S. Fifth Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215 c/o Ben W. Hale, Jr., 37 W. Broad Street, o Columbus, OH 43215) K Ms. Clarke stated that Amberleigh North is a single - family concept plan for 122 acres located on = the east side of Dublin Road across from River Forest and across from a section of Muirfield. n. Memorial Drive would actually be continued into this site. The proposal consists of 184 single- 15. c family units with 13 acres of parkland. The position of the parkland was a major issue with Planning Commission; the issue is whether the buffer along Dublin Road should be included in the o 0 parkland calculations. The second major issue with the concept plan involved a notion within the document that there should be future Flexibility sufficient to locate a bridge over the Scioto at �, A o q Memorial Drive, if the need is determined within the Community Plan process. Planning q L Ca Commission wanted to keep this flexibility as well as notify any potential homeowners of this N _ possibility for the future. The parkland in the plan is largely located in the northeast comer of the rx o site; it is a broad area of floodplam. heavily wooded, a nice natural area. Planning Commission ° n`. Q E recommended approval of this concept plan with eight conditions: ^ 1. That the parkland dedication for this project be expanded to include an additional 4 35 arise RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS O f Dublin City Council Meeting Page 9 Meetin He lone 3 1996 19— along the Scioto River, as put of the preliminary development plan; 2. That a storm water management plan Is submitted for review with the preliminary development plan; 3. That the subdivision entry points, sight distances, street designs and grading meet the City of Dublin standards and be approved by the City Engineer; 4. Mist the applicant incorporate the clogged drainage the under Dublin Road into the public at= sewer system within this development; S. That the issue of timing for the platting of Phase 4 to be addressed at the time of zoning; 6. That the results of the traffic study, and recommendations of the City Engineer. be incorporated Into the rezoning application for this proles; 7. That a tree preservation plan for the northern portion of the site be submitted along with a "zoning application for this project; and 8. That the timing for Phase 4 construction, and a mechanism for redesign of that section, be worked out at the preliminary development plan, based on a reasonable municipal response for determining the feasibility of a bridge involving this site. Ms. Clarke noted that the Council vote on concept plans is non - binding. The density is 1.5 units per acre, which is higher than River Forest and Muirfield, but lower than Amberleigh. Lry,.,.t.< ne:�r..t the Edwe_nk Cnmoanv stated that the property owners and Bea Hale are also present tonight. This concept plan is a continuation of Ambedeigh and the price range target is 5270,000 to $700.000. He commented on the two open issues from the Planning Commission hearings. The Commission has asked them not to develop the northern 58 acres of the site until July 31, 1997 to allow the City time to evaluate the traffic studies for the area and the bridge option across the Scioto. They have agreed to cooperate and redraw their plan if the City determines a bridge is needed at this location. The second issue is the amount of park dedication. Staff has caked for 30 percent more park than the normal formula would require. They have used the same formula as the one for Ambereigh to compute the parkland and they believe staff is now changing the rules by not warning to include the buffer and the flood plain areas. Since they are at the concept plan stage, they would litre an opportunity to into with staff and work on a compromise on the parldand prior to bringing the rezoning back to the Planning Commission. They are in agreement with the other conditions. Mr. Campbell commented that the important issue for him is the land use issue, not the parkland calculation at this stage. An important feature of this plan is the opportunity for the community to have river access. He agrees with Planning Commissions request to allow the City time to come to a decision about whether a bridge is needed in this location. The major issues of concern to him are preserving the opportunity for thebridge; preserving the opportunity for the community for river access; and maintaining a relatively Iowa density consistent with the surrounding area and upscale homes. This plan seems to be a positive one for the community. Mr. Zawaly stated that he agrees with Mr. Campbell's comments except for those related to the t future bridge. He. believes it is ludicrous to think about a bridge in this area. The City needs instead to traffic externalize trac patterns and not internalize them. Efforts should instead be focused on i areas such as Home Road. The project itself is obviously a first -class project. Mrs. Boring commented that she recalls that the July, 1997 date would not give the City adequate ii time to finish the Community Plan. She recalls that Mr. Hale agreed to provide the City with more time than 18 months in terms of a deadline on the bridge location. Mr. Driscoll responded that this was another open item - to meet with staff and agree on a date on c everyone can live with. o Mrs. Boring stated that although previous Councils have allowed buffer areas to be counted as parkland, she does not agree. The most important goal to her is providing river access to the entire community. She is not willing to compromise on parkland area along the river. She agrees with E a staffs recommendation in terms of calculation of the required parkland. She is not willing to decrease the parkland requirements. gip o � Mayor Krat stuber stated that he agrees with Mr. Campbell's comments, except for the bridge issue. ro However, he does not want to leave the impression that this is a bridge site the City is considering. G o o He cannot see, under any scenario, a bridge site at Memorial Drive. He added that he agrees with a. Mrs. Boring on the importance of having access to the river. U Mr. Foeglu clarified that this site is one of a number of sites which were considered by Council U O F when a bridge location was established several years ago. A couple of members of Council wanted RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 10 1996 to establish at that time a second bridge location, but Council chose not to do so. A study has never been done to determine if there is a need for a second bridge location in Dublin. This applicant has agreed to cooperate on this issue, but this does not in any way indicate that a bridge will be located in this area. Mr. Campbell added that the traffic studies they have been shown in the Community Plan work has indicated a fairly good flow of traffic on Dublin Road. The bridge at the other end has some issues of congestion, but only at peak times. Mrs. Stillwell stated that she agrees with what has been said by other Council members. She is looking at this mainly in terms of land use, and single family makes sense. Mr. McCash stated that he is not prepared to comment on the bridge site until studies are done. There may be better sites up north, but he will reserve comment until more information is brought to Council. He would like to see more parkland and buffering along the river. He is concerned with the applicant's statement about the parkland calculation formula being different on this application from others. If the ordinance needs to be changed to include floodplains, Council should amend the ordinance. He encouraged the applicant to include more parkland along the scenic river. Mr. Zawaly moved to approve the revised Concept Plan for Amberleigh North with the eight conditions as presented by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Campbell seconded the motion. Vote on the motion Mo. Stillwell, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr_ Zawaly, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Ms. Hide Pittaluga, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Mayor Kranstuber, yes. Mrs. Stillwell, .ni 've i ee noted that: L They meet on Thursday and the agenda 'crudes the Rules of Order and o mis aneous items. 2. Transportation Task Force vacancies I be advertised and applications to be w orarded by June 14. There are also v ties on the Child Care group an e Solid Waste Advisory Committee and a aware County Planning Commiss' n alternate representative for the City. During the last Administrative Co ittee meeting, they reviewed the legi tive process that she had proposed to Council ey are working on implementing th . A suggestion was made about adding a staff p on as a legislative analyst, and this y be considered in the budget process. She is w king with Mr. Smith's firm to tour nate a breakfast meeting with the legislative del ates in mid - summer. Mr. Zawaly, Finance Art reported that they met with th finance Department to begin the review of the MSt cos mdy update on May 2, The nett eeting is set for June 12, and the agenda includes sp handed out for the A event fees and garage sale pe t signage. The department/division worksheets will Development epaRment review. He invited Council members to joi the Committee at the next meeting. use attending should bring the cost study binder for re rence. I Mayor anstuber distributed a memo from arks and Recreation division with the motion om the rkshop regarding employee discoun for the CRC and the outdoor pool. ayor Kranstubec then moved appro of the employee discounts for full -time and -time City l' of Dublin employees as contained' the memo dated June 3. Mr. Campbell seconded the mo i n. Vote on the motion - Mrs. St welt, yes; Mayor Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Zaw , yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; . McCash, yes. Mayor Kranstubec ounced that tomorrow night is the Olympic orch t attended by sever ouncil and staff representatives. Mr. Campbel noted that the upcoming P&7_ agenda includ an informal di for the M rott Hotel m Tuttle Crossing, a long -await nd much anticipa Mrs. B ng commented that it is now scheduled for rte 20 instead of Jun Mr. mpbell encouraged staff to support the effo to bring the Marriott J anquet which will be 10- 062Z /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Di. and Dublin Rd. _ . ............a n... o_ onal of rrlafnnchin buildin DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION May 2, 1996 fY OF M IIHN 5800 s> (8inp 8000 OAk OH 43016 -1236 no/100: 614/7613550 Fax: 614/7613506 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at its regular meeting: 3. Revised Concept Plan - Amberleigh North Location: 122.08 acres located on the east side of Dublin - Bellepoint Road, opposite Memorial Drive and River Forest Road. Existing Zoning: R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. Request: Review and approval of a revised concept plan under the provisions of Section 153.056. Proposed Use: A development of 184 single- family lots with 13 acres of parkland. Applicant: Amberleigh Estates Associates, c/o Charles Driscoll, The Edwards Company, 500 South Front Street, Suite 770, Columbus, Ohio 43215 -7619; and Robert S. Hoag, 65 South Fifth Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215 c/o Ben W. Hale, Jr., 37 West Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215. MOTION: To approve this revised concept plan because it is consistent with the land use and density outlined in the Community Plan, it provides additional parkland along the Scioto River and an extension of the contemporary residential character in the area with the following eight conditions: 1) That the parkland dedication for this project be expanded to include an additional 4.35 acres along the Scioto River, as part of the preliminary development plan; 2) That a storm water management plan is submitted for review with the preliminary development plan; 3) That the subdivision entry points, sight distances, street designs and grading meet the City of Dublin standards and be approved by the City Engineer; 4) That the applicant incorporate the clogged drainage tile under Dublin Road into the public storm sewer system within this development; 5) The issue of timing for the platting of Phase 4 to be addressed at the time of zoning; 6) The results of the traffic study, and recommendations of the City Engineer, be incorporated into the rezoning application for this project; Page 1 of 2 10- 0627./PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Decr Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION May 2, 1996 3. Revised Concept Plan - Amberleigh North (Coat.) 7) That a tree preservation plan for the northern portion of the site be submitted along with a rezoning application for this project; and 8) That the timing for Phase 4 construction, and a mechanism for redesign of that section, be worked out at the preliminary development plan, based on a reasonable municipal response for determining the feasibility of a bridge involving this site. t Charles Driscoll agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 5 -0. RESULT: This revised concept plan was approved. STAFF CERTIFICATION I - Page 2 of 2 10-062z /POP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 2, 1996 Page 8 l) That access permitted to artin Road tit such time as the Krier Drive connector roa as been nstructed an accepted by e City; 2) t access Martin Road a removed ce the City has pled the impro ements to 3) 41 5) 6) 7) 8) 10) 11) 12) e Krier ve connector d and the then be regrad and brought in compliance with the ublin Land Code, at t e expense of the eveloper; That th developer con ct an en onto the Krier We connector ro after the City has co pleted its co tructron of a roadway; That 1 structures setback a inimum of 30 f from the propos right-of-way of M 'n Road and er Drive all flees to preserved protected during phases of const ction, in accordance th tree prese ation stand ds outlined in the oning text; at the par d be dedi to the City by general warran deed prior to iss ing a building pe it; That site s' nage be arc tecturally integrat and in compli cc with Code; That eac arage strut a be a minimum mum 70 percent brit , subject to staff view and approv ; That 1 dumpster reening be comp ible with the a roved building aterials and lands ping, subj to staff approval; Tha the bikepath ong Martin Road, d along the w t side of the th office site, constructed con mporaneously ith the build nstruction; t private s be constructed ' compliance w' standards, as Engineer; That 20-f t wide easements be provided f r public sani develoom nt and that storm ater manage nt meet the r uii 13) Jdi ditch along the n asibte enclosed, 14) edicati on plat be tion drawings, c 15) f nal alignmentI of a building Mr. seconded the Ms. hinnici- Zuercher, Sss road through and parking lot )ved by the C/ty sewers M ments of ith , Vi the e City regraded, side of Martin oad adjacent this property proved by th City Engineer i for Counc' review after a approval of wing to th requirements fated herein; -,r Drive b approved by ity Council. as prt m, and the vgte was as fo Ms. Boring oyes; and Mr Mr. Fe yes; Mr. n, yes. pproved 5-0.) to yes; 3. Revised Concept Plan - Amberleigh North Tom Rubey presented this revised concept plan for 122 acres, located on the east side of Dublin Road across from Memorial Drive. The site plan contains a street onto Dublin Road, aligning with Memorial Drive. The northern third of this site contains a wooded area. Staff has requested a tree preservation plan for this portion of the site. Before roads and utility lines are extended, the tree preservation standards should be clear. A study done by EBC &M of the large sinkhole and the surrounding area showed this to be a safe, stable environment 10- 062Z/Pot' Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 2, 1996 Page 9 A 32 -inch sanitary sewer, parallels the Scioto River. A section of the sanitary line is exposed seven or eight feet above ground and has been placed in a rear yard. The parkland has been moved to the north. The density of this site is 1.5 du /ac. The applicant has proposed to dedicate 13 acres consisting of a 90 -foot strip along Dublin Road and 7 acres along the Scioto River. Staff recommends that only fifty percent of the buffer along Dublin Road and the area within the 100 -year floodway of the Scioto be counted toward the park requirement. Staff brought up this issue when the Amberleigh subdivision to the south was reviewed Mr. Rubey said the parkland area on the river is very scenic and a good addition to Dublin's parklands. The potential of a bridge extension over the Scioto River at Memorial Drive was previously discussed. Subarea 4, the northern third of the site, has a note saying that by July 31, 1997, the City will determine the necessity of a bridge for the extension of Memorial Drive. Staff believes this language is appropriate. This needs to be very clear to any potential owner that a bridge location was still undecided. Mr. Rubey said a bridge over the Scioto River was an issue that would be determined as an outgrowth of the Community Plan update. Mr. Rubey said all the riverside parkland was within Subarea 4. The first phase of parkland dedication, the southern portion, would contain parkland along Dublin Road as well as a portion of parkland farther north. The parkland phasing needs to be addressed at the time of rezoning. Staff has suggested that the parkland along the river have an elevated path or walking trail. Mr. Rubey said the applicant hired a traffic engineer to do a traffic impact study to be presented with the preliminary development plan. Staff is recommending approval of this concept plan, and the considerations for incorporation into the preliminary development plan are: 1) That the parkland dedication for this project be expanded to include an additional 4.35 acres along the Scioto River, as part of the preliminary development plan; 2) That a storm water management plan is submitted for review with the preliminary development plan; 3) That the subdivision entry points, sight distances, street design and grading meet the City of Dublin standards and be approved by the City Engineer; 4) That the applicant incorporate the clogged drainage tile under Dublin Road into the public storm sewer system within this development; 5) The issue of timing for the platting of Phase 4 to be addressed at the time of zoning; 6) The results of the traffic study, and recommendations of the City Engineer be incorporated into the rezoning application for this project; 7) That a tree preservation plan for the northern portion of the site be submitted along with a rezoning application for this project; and 8) That the timing for Phase 4 construction be worked out at the preliminary development plan, based on a reasonable municipal response for determining the feasibility of a bridge involving this site. t o- o62z /PI)P Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Dcer Run Gslatcs Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 2, 1996 Page 10 Mr. Harian asked about county lines. Mr. Rubey said the affected lots show where the footprint of the homes would be. This was included in the site plan submitted. Mr. Ferrara asked how this development would impact Dublin Road and if the traffic impact study been completed. Mr. Rubey said staff met with the applicant's traffic engineer to set the parameters for the study. Staff's concerns were traffic and the capacity of Dublin Road, left -turn lanes, and the appropriateness of access through Amberleigh. Mr. Rubey said showing a bridge crossing on the plan would be premature. The applicant has addressed the bridge by highlighting and postponing the platting of that northern section. Ms. Boring asked if a bridge in phase four would affect the roadway system on the southern half. Mr. Rubey said Subarea 4 with 50 acres is large enough to handle it. Ms. Boring asked if phase one of the park in would have public access. Mr. Rubey said access is not yet resolved, but there is no public street. Mr. Rauh said parking for the river park might be difficult because of the topography. He liked the elevated walkway solution, but was concerned about safety. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher asked if there were only two access points to the subdivision for 184 houses. Mr. Rubey said yes. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher said the river park would not be accessible until at least three phases are built. The dedication along Dublin Road was greenspace, but not usable parkland. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher thought a bridge in Phase 4 would destroy the greater portion of river park. Mr. Rubey said these park and bridge issues might be addressed by July 31, 1997. Staff does not feel that is enough time to resolve the bridge issue, however. Ms. Jordan said the area was heavily wooded and very naturalized. The boardwalk and a path system through it was the extent of the kind of development that is anticipated. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher said if there were a bridge, it would not be as desirable as a park. Ms. Jordan mentioned the Kiwanis's Riverway Park system under the SR 161 bridge. Mr. Rauh said it might be possible to reserve acreage now in Phases 1, 2, and 3 to use if a bridge is built. This area could be used as parkland. Ms. Clarke clarified that staff recommends that only half- credit be given for the land within the floodway. The floodplain area outside the floodway should be given full credit. Ben W. Hale, Jr., representing the applicant, said the parkland was located where the Commission asked. Mr. Hale said the parkland dedication could move south. Mr. Hale said the alignment of the streets in Phase 4 needed to be re- examined even if the decision to construct a bridge was made. 10- 0622 /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Decr Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 2, 1996 Page 11 Charles Driscoll said the river parkland was the best location because it was the only flat area. He said the EBC &M study of the sinkhole found to be a small crack which could be filled with concrete. Mr. Rauh said the applicant has made an exemplary effort to address the issues. He said the decision on the bridge location needed to be made soon. Mr. Harian liked the proposed parkland location. He asked if the applicant would be willing to extend the time frame given for Dublin to make a bridge decision. Mr. Hale said they wanted a rational date, less than three years, to use at the time of the final development plan. They would be reasonable with Dublin in setting the date. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher said residents affected by this bridge decision were not just the ones in this proposed development, but those who already live nearby. Mr. Harian asked about the discounting of acreage for parkland dedication within the floodway. Mr. Harian said it came up during the last concept plan review. Mr. Driscoll asked that it be left as an open issue to the preliminary development plan stage. He said they used the same formula as used in Amberleigh. He said Condition 1 was not acceptable to them. Mr. Ferrara said it would be improper to proceed prior to the Community Plan recommendation on the bridge issue. Mr. Hale did not want it delayed after the Community Plan was finished. Mr. Ferrara was amazed that it took 14,000 years to form the sinkhole, and it will be filled by cement in a few minutes. Ms. Boring found the sinkhole report interesting. The first report did not address the question about safety and she appreciated the second report. She said she did not like buffers used for part of parkland. She was in agreement with the bridge decision. Many studies Have said that traffic issues are the number one concern for Dublin. She said 18 months for a deadline in determining the location of the bridge was not reasonable. Mr. Hale said they would provide more time. At Celli, 8285 Dublin Road, was pleased the density was reduced to 1.5 du /ac. He said car accidents happened about once a month in front of his house and he was concerned about adding to the traffic. He said the ditches along Dublin Road were four to five feet deep. He suggested that trees along the road should be thinned. Mr. Celli was pleased to see the parkland location where it was but agreed that it should be rated as only half credit. He thought the sinkholes were a significant threat to the subdivision, especially along sewer lines. He suggested free sinkhole insurance for homeowners. Mr. Ferrara said Dublin Road had a tremendous vista and this subdivision will change it. He thought completion of the Community Plan was necessary to decide the necessity of the bridge. 10- 062z /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Decr Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - May 2, 1996 Page 12 Mr. Harian agreed that the parkland should be discounted. He said the parkland was beautiful in Phase 4. He was concerned about the timing for addressing the bridge issue. He said a timeframe should be established to be fair to the applicant. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher was pleased to see the density reduced. She was concerned that many unanswered questions were the responsibility of Dublin. A bridge decision should be made in a timely manner. She reiterated this concept plan was non- binding. Mr. Ferrara moved to approve this case because it is consistent with the land use and density in the Community Plan, provides additional parkland along the Scioto River and extends the residential character, with the following eight conditions: 1) That the parkland dedication for this project be expanded to include an additional 4.35 acres along the Scioto River, as part of the preliminary development plan; 2) That a storm water management plan is submitted for review. with the preliminary development plan; 3) That the subdivision entry points, sight distances, street designs and grading meet the City of Dublin standards and be approved by the City Engineer; 4) That the applicant incorporate the clogged drainage tile under Dublin Road into the public storm sewer system within this development; 5) The issue of timing for the platting of Phase 4 to be addressed at the time of zoning; 6) The results of the traffic study, and recommendations of the City Engineer, be incorporated into the rezoning application for this project; .) That a tree preservation plan for the northern portion of the site be submitted along with a rezoning application for this project; and 8) That the timing for Phase 4 construction, and a mechanism for redesign of that section, be worked out at the preliminary development plan, based on a reasonable municipal response for determining the feasibility of a bridge involving this site. Mr. Hale said the reconfiguration is necessary, if a bridge is included, and will follow the procedures of a revised final development plan. Ms. Boring seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Mr. Harian, .yes; Mr. Rauh, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Ms. Boring, yes; and Mr. Ferrara, yes. (Approved 5 -0.) 4. Co (site Plan - F9WIer Property - 60 /'Y Road F Maewcomb pr ted this rezoning equesti a change from -2, Limited Residenti District, to PCD, arerce istrict. The app ' t has revised opment t and plan since tlr April g. he revised text (poses four stag of developme and permitted use or each revised text also ohibits expansio of the existing idence. Staff in1 ated a meeting wi wo of the adjoiny owners the south and nor (Crook and atcher), to discus their interests an expand e -- -- -- -- 10- 002Z /PDP Prcliminary Development Nan/ Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING CON OMSION RECORD OF ACTION FEBRUARY 1 1996 '1 (if: lit BUN Sl00 Sldar Crgc tocd kkk Off 1301-1136 WIM.614/76145SO Fvc 114//61.6506 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at its regularly scheduled meeting: 2. Concept Plan - Amberleigh North Location: 82.57 acres located on the east side of Dublin- Bellepoint Road, directly north of the Amberleigh subdivision. Existing Zoning: R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. Request: Review and approval of concept plan in accordance with Section 153.056 of the Planning and Zoning Code. Proposed Use: A neighborhood of 138 single - family lots and 9.24 acres of parkland /openspace. Applicant: Amberleigh Estates Associates, c/o Charles Driscoll, The Edwards Company, 500 South Front Street, Suite 770, Columbus, Ohio 43215 -7619 and Robert S. Hoag, 65 South Fifth Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Thomas J. Rubey, Planner.* MOTION: To approve this concept plan because it is consistent with the Community Plan, affords the continuation of the Dublin Road bikepath, and is in keeping with the surrounding land uses, with the following eight conditions: 1) That the applicant proceed with a rezoning application for this site that includes a highlighted district, approximately 500 feet wide, between Dublin Road and the Scioto River, as an area that may be modified some time in the future to accommodate a bridge; 2) That the parkland dedication for this project be reconfigured to provide better access to the river, include a pathway for pedestrian access, and provide more usable parkland; 3) That the subdivision entry points, sight distances, street design and grading meet the City of Dublin standards and be approved by the City Engineer; 4) That a stormwater management plan is submitted for review; 5) That the Dublin Road bikepath be extended to the north property line of the development; 6) That the applicant incorporate the clogged drainage tile under Dublin Road into the public storm sewer system within this development; 7) That a survey be conducted indicating the tocation,'size and stability of all sinkholes and underground caverns on this site; and Page 1 of 2 10- 0627/110 Preliminary Development Plan / Rezwiing Deer Run Estatcs Memorial Dr. and Dublin lid. DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMAIISSION RECORD OF ACTION FEBRUARY 1, 1996 2. Concept Plan - Amberlelgh North (Cont -) g) That blasting be either approved or disapproved at the time of rezoning. * Charles Driscoll agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 3-4. RESULT: The motion failed. A negative recommendation on this concept plan will be forwarded to Council. STAFF CERTIFICATION 1 o- a62ziPnP Page 2 of 2 Preliminary Development Plan /Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - February 1, 1996 Page 5 Mr, uh seconded the moti and the vote was as f ows: Mr. Haria/es. r. Ferrara, yes; r. Peplow, yes; Mr. yes, Ms. Chinnici -Z richer, yes; and Ms (Appro 6 -0.) 2. Concept Plan - Amberleigh North Tom Rubey said this concept plan was tabled on December 7, 1995. Concerns expressed included the configuration of the parkland adjacent to the river, traffic on Dublin Road, and the potential for another bridge over the Scioto River. A concept plan is a non - binding vote. The 82 -acre site is proposed for 138 single - family lots and over nine acres of parkland. The site has a large sinkhole located in its center, the Scioto River along the east, and the northern property line is quite irregular. The density projected is 1.6 dwelling units per acre. Amberleigh's density is 1.82 du/ac; Donegal Cliffs is 1.97 du/ac; The Reserve is 1.3 du/ac; Muirfield Village 1.26; and River Forest is 0.5 du/ac. The plan provides for the extensions of Amberleigh Way and Memorial Drive. Mr. Rubey said the park is mostly along the river bank with a large (northern) portion within the floodplain. The cliffs are steep and access to the river is difficult. The applicant will explore a pedestrian pathway or access down to the river. There is an exposed sanitary sewer line through one of the ravines in the proposed park, about 70 feet in length and eight feet high. Perhaps, it can be fitted with a pedestrian bridge. The large sinkhole will be located in several rear yards, designated as a no -build zone. Mature trees in that area will need pruning and debris should be removed. Seven or eight lots will need grinder pumps, meeting City standards. Staff has requested the applicant to revise the river park area. Mr. Rubey said the Saperstein survey revealed that having river parks are a high priority of Dublin residents. Staff feels that this site plan, as proposed, does not meet overall park goal. Mr. Rubey said that the extension of Memorial Drive and its potential site for a bridge was a concern in December. The 1988 Community Plan noted the need for a new bridge. In 1990, after a series of public forums, a site immediately north of 1 -270 was selected. This site was considered, as were a number of others. The selected location for the bridge is part of Emerald Parkway, anticipated to be completed in 1999. An update to the 1988 Community Plan has just begun. More traffic analysis will be needed to determine if another Scioto bridge is needed. If another bridge is indicated, the potential sites from 1988 will be revisited for a appropriateness. The lot configuration as currently shown precludes a bridge over the Scioto River. The northern section would need to be completely redesigned should this side be selected for a bridge. Many decisions need to be made before even discussing a bridge in this area, but potential for a crossing should be accommodated in the concept plan. Staff is recommending approval of this application with the following six conditions: 10- 062Z /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Decr Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - February 1, 1996 Page 6 1) That the applicant proceed with a rezoning application for this site that includes a highlighted district, approximately 500 feet wide, between Dublin Road and the Scioto River, as an area that may be modified some time in the future to accommodate a bridge; 2) That the parkland dedication for this project be reconfigured to provide better access to the river and include a pathway for pedestrian access; 3) That the subdivision entry points, sight distances, street design and grading meet the City of Dublin standards and be approved by the City Engineer; 4) That a stormwater management plan is submitted for review; 5) That the Dublin Road bikepath be extended to the north property line of the development; and 6) That the applicant incorporate the clogged drainage tile under Dublin Road into the public storm sewer system within this development. Mr. Rauh asked if the northern 15 percent of the site proposed by Charles Driscoll in a letter to the Commission was the same location Staff proposed. Mr. Rubey said it was similar. Mr. Rauh understood the developer had a limited timeframe for a decision by the City. Cathy Boring asked when blasting should be addressed. Mr. Rubey said blasting and a stormwater detention waiver will be requested. The Engineering Department recently developed blasting guidelines. Randy Bowman said since the Amberleigh development, the City Engineer had met with fire officials, blasting specialists, and Dublin's Chief Building Official regarding blasting or rock excavation. The City Engineer drafted an administrative policy covering the use of explosives for rock excavation. Randy Bowman provided copies of the blasting policy to the Commission. He said modifications may be needed as experience is gained from blasting. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher said this was similar to Amberleigh, which was not permitted to blast, and the houses are closer. Randy Bowman said it was based upon the experience in the past three years with blasting versus mechanical excavation . The City Engineer feels comfortable, based on better information, with allowing controlled use of blasting. Randy Bowman said they have learned the standard practices used for safety to assure that adjacent buildings, structures, water wells, and leach fields are not damaged by the use of blasting has influenced the change. Cathy Boring said she was concerned about existing wells. Randy Bowman said many areas had utilized blasting including the Woods of Indian Run, Donegal Cliffs, etc. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher said there were no structures near Donegal Cliffs when blasting was done. Randy Bowman said the extra time experienced by the developer using mechanical rock excavation had no bearing on the City Engineer's determination. Ms. Boring asked if the City were at risk with blasting. Mitch Banchefsky said no, especially if there were reasonable standards and a bond. The City is protected by sovereign immunity, and bonding will take care of unanticipated damages. I0- 062Z /PD1) Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - February 1, 1996 Page 7 Ms. Boring asked for information on the "sinkhole ". Tom Rubey said a stormwater detention waiver was requested. The sinkhole needed to be studied before issuance of a waiver. He said the sinkhole was a natural phenomenon. John Ferrara said a sinkhole was an opening to an underground cavity and there were many in the area. They go into caverns. The sinkhole needs to be cleaned out and its capacity determined. Mr. Ferrara did not understand the logic of allowing blasting and then stopping blasting. He was concerned about permitting blasting and it may cause an influx of blasting waiver requests. Randy Bowman said the City does not have a blasting prohibition. Randy Bowman said that in Amberleigh 1, 2, and Wedgewood, blasting was prohibited as part of the rezoning conditions. Joe Harian asked if the new policy had a remedy for any resident whose structure was harmed by the blasting. Randy Bowman said yes, that a contractor would examine the area first, and may be inquired to video tape or test existing sewers, waterlines, storm sewers, etc. before the blasting is done. Test blasting will be required to determine what kind of levels of explosives produce certain types of shock patterns in the ground. The insurance and bonding requirements for blasting contractors is strict. There are prescribed methods by which they carry out their practices. The conditions are extremely controlled. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher said she was opposed to blasting and had not heard anything to change her mind. She was interested in looking at the blasting policy. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher said at the previous meeting traffic on SR 745 had been discussed. Bringing in another 100 -plus homes would increase the traffic problem on SR 745. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher asked if reducing the density or the amount of development had been considered to automatically reduce traffic. Mr. Rubey said no. Staff is proceeding with a positive recommendation for this concept plan, based upon guideline within the 1988 Community Plan, at a density of under two dwelling units per acre. Ms. Chinrici- Zuercher asked about the traffic expectations in the 1988 Community Plan. Ms. Clarke said as the Community Plan is updated, the conclusions about traffic may change. An anticipated outcome was that the limited amount of additional land within Dublin could develop at two units per acre and would absorb much of the existing excess capacity for the roadway. One of the critical issues is that the 1988 Community Plan did not anticipate the intensity of development within southern Delaware County of the last five years. The assumptions of the Plan were that the urban service area (areas with municipal water and sewers) would develop faster and at a higher intensity rate than properties in Delaware County. There have been substantial zonings granted north of Dublin since that period of time. Those new developments may change assumptions about Dublin Road in the future. The anticipation in the 1988 Community Plan was that additional development within Dublin's borders could be handled within the existing right -of- way of Dublin Road, and that it would be maintained as a two -lane road in its historic character, into the future. 10- 062Z /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Decr Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - February 1, 1996 Page 8 Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher said Dublin waited too long to update its Community Plan. All the land north will add more cars, and Dublin Road was never designed for the level of traffic which it now carries. Charles Driscoll, the applicant, said regarding the potential bridge, development will not be near Memorial Drive for at least eighteen months. They will proceed from Amberleigh and move north. Homes will average over $340,000, and they will not build more than 20 to 40 homes a year. He concurred with leaving a 500 -foot band along the north edge of the property and agreed to modify the plan if a bridge was needed. Mr. Driscoll said at Donegal Cliffs the blasting for basements was done even betwee blasting at Dublin Road. n existing houses. He was not aware of any problems. He said Emerald Parkway would also require Mr. Driscoll said the configuration of the parkland had been changed since December. They now had a 240 -foot entry into the park instead of 60 feet. They shortened the lots backing up to the river so that they could get a greater flat area to run the path from the ravine to the main river area. The only flat river frontage is at the far north end. Everywhere else has a very steep, unusable bank. There is a ravine at one end of the park and a flat wooded river at the other end, and it will be a very pleasant walk. He agreed to build the trail. The land added is the size of a football field. Mr. Driscoll agreed with all the conditions listed above. Mr. Rauh said maintaining capability for a bridge here was necessary. Mr. Peplow asked Mr. Driscoll about Condition #1 and whether it included the same area as he cited in his letter. Mr. Driscoll said they were essentially in the same area, but there is a time limit for the City to decide. The property owners and buyers should be informed. Mr. Driscoll said he presumed that the time frame would be worked out later since this was just a concept plan. Mr. Peplow asked about the 70 -foot exposure of the sanitary sewer line dedicated as part of the parkland. Mr. Driscoll said per Staff's request, they agreed to put a wood bridge across it. Ms. Boring asked if Condition #1 was addressed in the plan. Mr. Rubey said no. Ms. Boring said it was not fair to anyone if the concept plan did not indicate it. The concept plan should show that it is a self contained community in case the bridge is necessary for the Thoroughfare Plan. Mr. Rubey said the applicant would be requested to amend the site plan before it went to Council to show that highlighted area with the necessary language. Ms. Clarke said one of the biggest concerns was that a bridge was a very controversial issue in any community. A potential bridge should be noted and clearly designated as an area which might change. Ms. Boring asked if this plan included that or the reconfiguration of the parkland. Mr. Rubey said no. Ms. Boring did not like buffers being used to meet the parkland dedication. 10- 062Zn11)e Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Ran I- states Memorial Di. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - February 1, 1996 Page 9 Mr. Ferrara said the sinkhole situation needed attention. Mr. Ferrara asked that the deed restrictions regarding the dry laid stone wall be defined. Mr. Driscoll thought it was included in the plat that the stone walls could not be disturbed. Mr. Rubey said it was in the deed restrictions and it also was created as a no -build zone. Mr. Ferrara wanted them protected here also. Mr. Harian asked if the parkland behind Lots 117, 118, and 119, was accessible. Mr. Driscoll said yes, it was open and not wooded. Mr. Harian asked if there would be a tie -in or path between the two areas. Mr. Driscoll said the river and ravine would be connected with a path. Mr. Rauh suggested two years as the timeframe for a bridge decision. Mr. Driscoll said the fear of a bridge was almost as bad as having a bridge. Mr. Rauh hoped that abridge would be an amenity. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher called a five - minute recess to allow citizens to sign up to speak and review the blasting policy. The meeting reconvened at 7:55 p.m. Al Celli, 8285 Dublin Road, was concerned about Dublin Road being dangerous with big dips and deep ditches on the east side. Additional traffic will increase the number of accidents. He quoted densities of the five developments in the area and said they averaged that of the Reserve, (1.39 du /ac) which would reduce this development by 23 lots. He said that density was more appropriate. Mr. Celli said the parkland was very unsafe and too steep and suggested that the ravine not be used as part of the parkland. He would like to see a unique park. The floodplain is beautiful and the trees are large with a gentle slope north of the last property. Sharon Johnson, 8185 Dublin Road, was also concerned about traffic. She said the sinkhole study was suggested but not done eight to ten years ago. She said there were caverns large enough for children to crawl into them and they posed a threat to safety. A home could be swallowed up by a cavern. Beth Zola, 8217 Grey Abbey Court, said she supported the plan but was concerned about the potential bridge site being considered. When Amberleigh was approved, it was not discussed. She was concerned about the pollution, noise, and traffic that a bridge would produce. Adam Tzagouruis, a future Amberleigh North resident, was also concerned about the potential bridge location. He did not know that it had been decided to build a bridge at I -270. Jeffery Cadri, 5656 Keating Drive, Lot #18, Amberleigh, said at no point was the potential bridge location identified. They were lead to believe that the development north would be a continuation of the current property at Donegal Cliffs, etc. Had they known about the bridge, they might not have purchased their property. Mr. Cadri said blasting in the area would cause much damage to the homes. to -o6z PIR Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Ran Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - February 1, 1996 Page 10 Larry Holbrook, Manager, Muirfield Association, said their board of trustees were concerned about the traffic and noise impact of a bridge at Memorial Drive. He said the civic association was also concerned. Sherrie Ridenour, 8202 Grey Abbey Court, had no knowledge of a potential bridge when she built her home. She suggested the bridge be nearer Glick Road. She agreed with the concerns of the other residents. She also agreed that another bridge was necessary. Her home was near a twenty - foot cliff and she was very concerned about blasting and sinkholes. She opposed blasting at Amberleigh North. Mike Handler, Lot #64, Amberleigh, strongly opposed a bridge in this location. The I -270 location was good. He agreed that in the future there may be the need for more access across the river. He was concerned about the blasting noise. Mr. Celli said there was a cavern in the ravine south of his home large enough for children which went across the street into Amberleigh North. Blasting may open more caverns. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher said bridge site merits are not under consideration. The site was identified only as potential if a bridge was necessary. Mr. Rubey said the concept plan was non - binding and did not require the Commission to approve a similar rezoning later. The submittal requirements for a rezoning application are quite extensive. Much engineering work will be needed and the intention is to point out big areas of concern. Mitch Banchefsky said when this plan moved forward to a preliminary development plan, the rezoning phase, the City would be in a better position, to respond on the bridge issue, timing, etc. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher understood that the blasting policy set up appropriate preconditions for blasting. Mr. Banchefsky said that was correct. Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher said the blasting could be placed as a condition of rezoning. Mr. Banchefsky agreed. Balbir Kindra said during Phase 1 of Amberleigh, the constant grinding instead of blasting, caused much dirt and dust and many complaints. Mr. Kindra said the blasting noise was not constant. The blasting produced noise like firecrackers. If allowed, a pre - blasting survey would be performed with video and still cameras giving documentation. He said however, the decision " regarding blasting was up to the Commission and Council. Ms. Boring asked if a site study of sinkholes existed. Mr. Rubey said he had not found one. Mr. Sutphen thought a potential bridge site was inappropriate for single - family development. Ms. Clarke said the northern portion of the plan would need to be completely reconfigured if a Memorial Drive bridge becomes reality. She said the developer agreed. Ms. Clarke said there was no adopted plan saying a bridge was needed at this location. Additional study has beeun. 1 o- o62uhDe Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - February 1, 1996 Page 11 Mr. Peplow asked about the timeframe for a bridge decision. Ms. Clarke said the previous Community Plan did not give the sophisticated level of results expected from the new plan. In 1988, more lanes were needed across the river, but the location was not identified. The sophistication of the model now employed will identify where lanes should be considered. In several months more feedback will be available on the issue. Mr. Rauh said an option should be left open until the study is completed. He was not for or against the bridge being located there. He saw a potential bridge as a neighborhood connector. Mr. Peplow agreed. Mr. Rauh was concerned with the steep banks in the parkland. He said usable land should be dedicated. He said a study of the underground caverns was necessary. Mr. Peplow said more parkland should be added to the north where it is flatter. Mr. Sutphen said the planning for bridges tends to be a very long process. He said if this application returned, he wanted to see the original bridge study and minutes concerning the bridge location decision. Mr. Sutphen said he would not vote for blasting. He said the noise and dust would be annoying. He said all damage to the homes may not be immediately apparent. Mr. Stuphen did not like the aerial sewer within the park. More parkland is needed in a less dangerous area. If there were two park pieces dedicated, he wanted a connecting bikepath. Ms. Boring was very concerned about the sinkhole and blasting. She asked how houses could be built, not knowing the location of the caverns. It is a safety issue. The parkland must be usable and have direct access. Ms. Boring said the plan as drawn would not work. She said she could not approve a concept plan until the sinkholes and the blasting issues were addressed. Mr. Ferrara agreed. He preferred to see the steep banks as private property, to avoid liability. Mr. Harian did not think the park was on target for all the reasons covered. He said future owners should be made aware of the potential bridge site now. Mr. Ferrara does not like the City's definition of a "scenic roadway ". He feels a roadway is scenic because it has vistas and historic stone walls. When the vista disappears because of development, he no longer considered it a "scenic roadway ", but a corridor. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher agreed with the other Commissioner's concerns. Ms. Clarke said the Commission has 30 more days to review this application. 10- 0627,/PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - February 1, 1996 Page 12 Mr. Ferrara said it is difficult to change a concept plan after it had been approved. Mr. Sutphen agreed. Ms. Clarke said approval of a concept plan is authorization for the applicant to go forward with the rezoning application. Neither the City nor the applicant is bound by it. Mr. Driscoll wanted a vote to be taken so the concept plan could move on to Council. Mr. Rauh made a motion to approve this concept plan because it is consistent with the Community Plan, affords the continuation of the Dublin Road bikepath, and is in keeping with the surrounding land uses, with the following eight conditions: 1) That the applicant proceed with a rezoning application for this site that includes a highlighted district, approximately 500 feet wide, between Dublin Road and the Scioto River, as an area that may be modified some time in the future to accommodate a bridge; 2) That the parkland dedication for this project be reconfigured to provide better access to the river, include a pathway for pedestrian access, and provide more usable parkland; 3) That the subdivision entry points, sight distances, street design and grading meet the City of Dublin standards and be approved by the City Engineer; 4) That a stormwater management plan is submitted for review; 5) That the Dublin Road bikepath be extended to the north property line of the development; 6) That the applicant incorporate the clogged drainage tile under Dublin Road into the public storm sewer system within this development; 7) That a survey be conducted indicating the location, size and stability of all sinkholes and underground caverns on this site; and 8) That blasting be either approved or disapproved at the time of rezoning. Mr. Driscoll agreed to the above amended conditions. Mr. Peplow seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Mr. Harrian, yes; Mr. Sutphen, no; Mr. Rauh, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, no; Ms. Boring, no; Mr. Ferrara, no, and Mr. Peplow, yes. (Motion failed 3 -4.) Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher thanked the residents and encouraged them to continue voicing concerns. Ben W. Hale said they heard the concerns, and would return with another application that addresses them. He said they would not go to Council with this concept plan. Corridor De opment District ALcation CDD95 -0 Data Base, Inc. Ti ller Rid ntot / Y` Ken Johnsto presented this app ' lion for a two pha expansion of 3an 8, s quare foot existing da srage and office f ' tty on 1.35 acres on let Ridge Drive. case was tabled at the J 1996 meeting, a applicant could s mit architectural eleons for the second , p f the expansion. T first phase will be 000 square fee br' g the total expansio o 7,800 square feet he applicant has 10- 0622 /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Decr Run FMMCS Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION DECEMBER 7, 1995 Y OF DUBLIN rlYq ON 130164236 �1D 8411614550 F=614/1614506 The planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at its regularly scheduled meeting: 8. Concept Plan - Amberleigh North Location: 82.57 acres located on the east side of Dublin- Bellepoint Road, directly north of the Amberleigh subdivision. Existing Zoning: R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. Request: Review and approval of concept plan in accordance with Section 1181.07 of the Planning and Zoning Code. Proposed Use: A neighborhood of 138 single - family lots and 9.24 acres of parkland/openspace. Applicant: Robert S. Hoag, 65 South Fifth Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215; and Amberleigh Estates Associates, c/o Charles Driscoll, The Edwards Company, 500 South Front Street, Suite 770, Columbus, Ohio 43215-7619. Staff Contact: Thomas J. Rubey, Planner. MOTION: To table this concept plan in anticipation of getting more traffic and safety input from the developer and staff. VOTE: 5 -0. RESULT: This concept plan was tabled. The Commissioners expressed strong reservations about the roadway capacity of Dublin Road and the possibility of an additional bridge location. They requested more complete traffic data prior to making their recommendation. STAFF CERTIFICATION 0 as �. om . R bey Planner io- 062zmuR Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 7, 1995 Page 22 3) 4) 5) 7) That 25 -foot 'no -build zones be provided along the rear of lots which abut the southern park area (Lots #2 -287, and 290 -291), 10 -foot no-bu' zone be provided along the sideyards of Lo #284, 285, 94 and 95, and the no -b ' d zone on Lot #115 be enlarged from 10 to feet; That the rkepath along Tullymore Drive to rand Road be concrete additional b' easements be created between lots be ' ed along the entire Brand Road tits be installed when the streets are and 52, and 76 and 7 , and a bikepath to the east pro . , with all paths That a note be added to the pint v ing that all houses within a single county; That a buffer plan be prov' for the lots which abut and landscaping, befo final plat is submitted; That fencing ors and sideyard a� merry preliminary plats; space) shall be located Road, including requirements be proyi&d on the 8) That Blayn be renamed consistent rW Wyndham Village S on 4; 9) That a for the one -acre outparcel resolved by the appi ; 10) That floodway, floodplain, and fl way plus 20 feet info in be indicated on all p (including building permi , and lots be redrawn ' needed m accordance with regulations; 11 That all pavement, ri ghts -o ay, utilities, storm se r management, cud-de -sacs ettical alignments and street cs, including bridge across the North F rk of the Indian Run, be des to the satisfactio the City Fmgiueer; 12) That stormwate gement basins orated outside the 100 -year lain and be approved by a City Engineer; 13) That no- areas be desi along one side of all 28 -f streets, as measured back ck of curb, on all ts, plans, and building permi 14) all changes b mad o the preliminary plat to the faction of Staff prior to Ming this applica ' n for City Council consideratio and 15) That the boundaries f the electric and phone comp service providers be sh n on the final plat. David Haid, the a icant, said he accepted all 15 itions. Janet Jordan d all bikepaths located betwee ots should be installed a e same time as the streets. . Raid agreed. 4-elc rata made a motion to approve a combined rezoning ap cation and preliminary plat w above conditions. Ms. ci- Zuercher seconded motion, and the vote was as ollows: Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. plow, yes; Mr. Rauh, y s. Chinnici Zuercher, yes; Mr. Ferrara, yes; and Mr. Zawaly, yes. (Approved 6 -0.) 8. Concept Plan - Amberleigh North Tom Rubey presented this concept plan for a 138 -lot single -family development on 82.57 acres located on the east side of Dublin Road. It has 9.24 acres of park. The neighborhood will 10 -062Z /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 7, 1995 Page 23 connect to the Amberleigh subdivision to its south. The density is about 1.7 units per acre which is consistent with the surrounding new development. He presented several slides of the site, surrounding area and the proposed plan. Mr. Rubey said a concept plan was not binding on either the applicant or Dublin. He said the objective is to provide direct feedback to the developer, indicating if the proposal is on track. He said the site has rolling topography, and there is an exposed aerial sanitary sewer pipe running through one of the ravines close to the river. It is shown within the park, and staff requests that it be refitted as an elevated walkway. There is a sink hole at the center of the site, shown within several rear yards and a dry-laid stone wall paralleling the river. Memorial Drive will be extended eastward through the subdivision. Staff has requested that the road layout be reworked to more closely follow the site's topography. Street connections are provided to neighborhoods to the north and south. Park areas being set aside including a landscaped band with a bikepath along -the Dublin Road frontage and a riverfmnt area. The evergreens installed in the Dublin Road parkland will be smaller than those at Amberleigh to increase the survival rate. The city has a Dublin Road bikepath currently under design. Memorial Drive may be a good place for a tunnel. Staff is concerned about the irregularity of the north property line, and the extreme irregularity of the park shown on the Scioto River. The park has very difficult public access to the river. It also is somewhat buried inside the subdivision, having the ravine and a 30 -foot wide easement out to the street. It needs to be easier to use and a more prominent feature of the subdivision. Mr. Rubey said the developer will most likely pursue a storm water detention waiver, similar to Donegal Cliffs. The developer is requesting permission to do blasting on the site. He said that Memorial Drive was one of the potential Scioto bridge locations under consideration in 1990. A site immediately north of I -270 was selected for the bridge. Mr. Rubey said staff is recommending approval with the following conditions: 1) That the park land dedication for this project be reconfigured to provide better access for the public; 2) That the subdivision entry points, sight distances, street design and grading meet City of Dublin standards and be approved by the City Engineer; 3) That a stormwater management plan be submitted for review; 4) That the Dublin Road bikepath be extended to the north property line of the development; 5) That the dry-laid stone wall be shown on all subsequent plans for this project; 6) That language in the zoning text be added stating that the dry laid stone wall will be preserved and protected; 7) That the developer address the need for a bikepath tunnel at the intersection of Dublin Road and Memorial Drive, and the design of a pedestrian walking bridge over the elevated sanitary sewer tine, before submitting a preliminary development plan. Mr. Ferrara asked if a bikepath tunnel was a safety consideration. Mr. Rubey indicated that locations here and at Brandonway Drive are being considered 10- 062Z /PDP Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 7, 1995 Page 24 Ms. Jordan said the path may switch from side to side along Dublin Road, depending upon the design adopted, and Memorial Drive is a logical cross -over point. She said a path is expected along the west side of Dublin Road from here to Glick Road, and then a path on the south side of Glick Road, eventually forming a "U" of public bikepath around Muirfield Village. The east side of Dublin Road is not within Dublin's corporate boundaries to the north of here. Mr. Rubey said the aerial sewer is about eight feet in the air through the ravine. He compared it to the sewer at Shawan Falls. Mr. Fishman said that a tunnel will require a very wide night -of -way to accommodate the gradual slope needed for bike traffic. Ms. Clarice agreed and added that the tunnel did not have to be perpendicular to Dublin Road. Mr. Rubey said the property to the north was also owned by Mr. Hoag. It is heavily wooded and has sanitary sewer and other services available. Mr. Peplow cautioned that any landscaping installed along Dublin Road should not be too small. Mr. Rubey responded trees would be smaller to increase there survival rate. Ms. Chinnici- Atercher does not support blasting. She said no blasting was permitted in Amberleigh, to protect those in Donegal Cliffs. Now the Amberleigh homes need protection. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher was very concerned about any possibility of a river bridge connecting to Memorial Drive. She was concerned that this layout is not compatible with such a design. Mr. Rubey said this was not a condition in the staff report. Ms. Clarke said the bridge site was selected in 1990, just north of 1 -270, to relieve the SR 161 bridge. No report to date documents a need for an additional bridge, including the Thoroughfare Plan. The traffic engineering consultant for the Community Plan update is e xamining existing conditions. Within a few months, the information on east -west movement, including any need for a bridge, will be available. Staff did not believe that this application should be delayed until the Community Plan traffic study is complete. The applicant is on notice regarding the issue. Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher said the Commission has insufficient information to make its decision. She said Dublin Road is already problematic. This application has 138 additional houses, with more residential property to the north, and Dublin Road is not designed for heavy traffic. She said this application should not be hurried through the process ahead of the traffic analysis. Mr. Zawaly agreed. Mr. Ferrara agreed and added that Dublin Road is s a scenic road. Solid development will destroy the scenic nature. The traffic will escalate, and Council must decide. Mitch Banchefsky said the Commission has between 30 and 90 days to review a concept plan. Ms. Clarke said that complete traffic information will not be available within 90 days. However, response on this specific issue may be available. 10- 0627n11)t' Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Minutes - December 7, 1995 Page 25 Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher said this is not the first case that required traffic studies that the city has not yet performed. She asked if the time clock could be delayed. Mr. Banchefsky said the Code - mandated time frames are triggered by filing the application, not the availability of studies. He reminded the Commission that concept plans are non - binding. Mr. Fishman said that applicants rely on the approval of a concept plan and then spend money on engineering, etc. Mr. Fishman agreed with the Dublin Road traffic concern. Also he visited the site and found that the park is only accessible to a mountain climber due to the river bank slope. He said Lots 127 -131 should be eliminated to make the park useable. The ravine is not passable, and the developer should provide good access to the river within the proposed park. Janet Jordan said there is access to the river in Amberleigh. Mr. Rauh said he felt the Co could not act without further information. Al Celli, a resident of River Forest subdivision, said the density in River Forest is 0.5 units per acre, and this is being ignored. He asked if the legal description extends to the middle of the river. He said Dublin Road is scenic, but it is also dangerous, with some fatalities. More houses will contribute to accidents. Charlie Driscoll, the applicant, said this is a non - binding review. Next it goes to Council. Then the rezoning goes to Commission and then to Council. Also, development will start at the south end. He felt that it would take at least two to three years to develop near Memorial Drive, He felt a condition could be worded to protect the city on the bridge issue. He said that a good potential tunnel site would be about 150 feet north of Memorial Drive, at a small ravine. This is north of his site. The 90 -foot buffer area along Dublin Road should provide adequate space to build a tunnel. Regarding the park, Mr. Driscoll said it has several hundred feet of street frontage. They will add flat area beside the dry-laid stone wall. He said people will want to get to the water level, and the best access is through the northern extension shown. The Hoags have not made decisions on the disposition of the property to the north. Mr. Driscoll said he disagreed with the staff report regarding the layout. He said buyers want back yards to go down from the house, and that puts the streets at the top of the slope. Regarding blasting, Mr. Driscoll said the grinding and sawing method (instead of blasting) creates a lot of dust and lasts months longer than blasting. He said Donegal Cliffs and Woods of Indian Run were blasted, but it was prohibited at Amberleigh. Randy Bowman said engineering, building, the fire department and reputable contractors have met. The city is looking at the development of requirements to m inimize blast damage to surrounding properties. There is consensus that blasting can be successfully managed. t o- o62Z/PDl' Preliminary Development Plan /Rezoning Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - December 7, 1995 Page 26 Mr. Fishman added that the park being offered does not provide a place to play ball, etc. He also emphasized the importance of a traffic study and thought the density should be lowered. He suggested that the developer lower the density and/or increase the park. Mr. Ferrara expressed concern about the density and traffic. He made a motion to table this case in anticipation of receiving information on traffic and safety issues. Mr. Fishman seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Peplow, yes; M r. Rauh, Yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Mr. Ferrara, yes; and Mr. Zawaly, absent. (Tabled 5 -0.) 9. Zoning Z-C dment - Landscaping . Due to the late ase wa s postponed until r 14, 1995. lo.' j4r idor Development District Apoi CDD95-008 - Dublin Chris' n Church - 29oo Martin Road Due to the late hour, this case w pos tp on ed until December 14, 1995 11. Developmen - Bob Evans at Tuttle Crw^g (Tabled without vote or This case Y& tabled at the applicant's request discussion or vote. was adjourned at 12:45 p.m. said he could not attend the Respectfully Libby Division Secretary meeting. 10- 062Z /P011 Preliminary Development Plan / Reaoning Deer Run I3states Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Afinutes 349 J(rct n National Graphics Corp., Cols.. O. Form No. 109],10 H April 16, 1984 10 9� V C Five 1. Stickers for ars will be provided ( in previous years) for Chose resi his using Muirfield Dr' e. 2. "No Park' g" signs will be provi d by the Tournament Com tree to be aced in the yards of r idents on To and Ave Roads. In p vious years these yard ave often been used as turn - ar nds". 3. yor Lewis also request that Mr. Sheldon conta Mr. Adams of Muirfield, Ltd. to see . at appropriate passes issued to those residents north of G ck Road that customar it use Muirfield Drive as a route south. Vote on the Resolutio was 7 -0 for passage. Resolution No. 09 4 - Coalition Regardin Zimmer Nuclear Plant. rrst Reading. The solution was introduced y Ms. Mau zer. Mayor L rs gave some bat ground information rega ing the Resolution. T Mon[eomery ounty Prosecutor's Offi is forming a coalitio 0 act, rea and appear before the ublfc Utilities Commission in regard o the Zimmer Power Plan dilemma in two differe directions: 1. o prevent the "charge t ough" for the subseque conversion to a coal burning powe plant if that is the i ent ion of the owners with the fuel ost passed through for of only the coal conversion but als the construction up to is point of the Zimmer Power Pla . 2. To act as a co ition in the interests f the consumers served the appropri .e utilities that are t owners. Mayor Lewis sal that he was in favor o the Village joining the coalition. H no [ed chat on this dat the Franklin County Com a ioners voted in fa r o£ joining the coali on; as have ocher comma ties (aporoxim elv 64). The cost of inine the coalition is .5¢ ner capita, hick amounts to $225 f Dublin. Mr. Close mad note of the fact ac. the Office of Consu rs Council is state fun d, indirectly, thr gh the utilities' reve es. Part of their resp sibility is o osing matters such as is. As a matter of prf ipl.e, Mr. Close is pposed to this type of esolution. From time t time in the past, these types of coal t ns have served to fu rr.h political causes of those persons formi the coalitions. That y not be [rue in [his se, but Mr. Close fel that the responsibility n cases such as this i or should be, C t of the Consumers Courtpll. Approve Preliminary Plat - Fergus Property on Route 745. Mayor Lewis noted that this plat has been aooroved and recommended for aooroval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Thornton mentioned the [act that again a residential community was being built without curbs. It was noted that this will be a private, it unit subdivision, with a private road. Mrs. Headlee moved to approve the pia[ to be in compliance with the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission and that Lot #2 have access to Deer Run Drive. Mr. Amoroso seconded the motion. The vote was 7 -0 for approval. Prelimina/A,,�o,.,,,Mr. - Hanna Bills Subdivi on. Mr. Gerald Horn htioned his requeive the curb requfr ents Responding to a uestion from Mr. Horn said [h the present cut -de -sa at e end of Hanna ld remain as a urn - around. Mr. Be— said that perhap two cul -de -sacs would in order. Ms. Maurer oved for 10- 062'L /PDP Preliminary Development Plan /Itezoninc Deer Run Estates Memorial Dr. and Dublin Rd.