42-08 Ordinance (Part 1)RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Ordirzmzce No
42-08
Passed ~
AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 5.5 ACRE!
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEST BRIDGE STREET
AND ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF MONTEREY
DRIVE FROM R-2, LIMITED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAI
DISTRICT AND CC, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
(WATERFORD COMMONS -CASE NO. 07-084CP/Z).
NOW, THERE, SE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin,
State of Ohio, of the elected members concurring:
Section 1. That the following described real estate (see attached map marked Exhibit
"A") situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned PUD, Planned
Unit Development District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures
contained in Ordinance No. 21-70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances) the City
of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto.
Section 2. That application, Exhibit "B", including the list of contiguous and affected
property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
Exhibit "C", are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and
said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance therewith.
Section 3. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the
earliest period allowed bylaw.
Passed this ~ day of ~C•? , 2008.
Wl/l 1
Mayor -Presiding Officer
Attest:
Clerk of Council
ORDINANCE 42-08
ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS APPROVED BY COUNCIL ON 8-18-Q8
PASSED 7-0 WITH MODIFICATIONS TO TEXT DATED 8-78-08:
• Page 3, Section III D {Architectural Standards}: revise sentence
beginning an fifth line to read,
The architecture of the Final Development Plan shall comply with
those elevations presented to Council on August 78, 2008.
Page 4, Sectian III D 3(b)(i) (Exterior Cladding Materials): revise
sentence beginning on third line to read in part,
Individual units within a building may utilize more than this
percentage so long as the entire building in which it is located does
not exceed this threshold ...
Page 9, Sectian IV D {Architectural Standards) 3 (a} {Exterior
Cladding Materials): revise the first sentence to read,
The primary material on each building facade shall consist of brick,
brick veneer, stone, cultured stone, stone veneer, vinyl siding which
shall be limited to the pediments only, or other comparable
materials or some combination thereof.
Final text adopted by Council
8-18-2008
-' ATERFORD CONIII~TONS
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD)
August 18, 2008
I. Description:
The t~aterford Commons PUD is being created to facilitate the redevelopment of
ten parcels of real property totaling 5. ~ ~ acres that are generally located on the east and
«~~est sides of IVlonterey Drive and south of Bridge Street. This project seeks to transform a
number of properties into a vibrant new community that compliments the character of
nearby Historic Dublin. This text sets standards for the development of twenty-five {25)
townhomes that will produce residential opportunities within walking distance of
neighborhood-scale restaurants, shops, and services. It also includes a retail component
along Bridge Street and provides land for the expansion of the Dublin Cemetery.
II. Development Standards:
Unless othei-~wise specified in the submitted drawings or in this written text, the
development standards of Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin Code shall apply. Basic
development standards are compiled regarding proposed density, general site issues,
traffic, circulation, landscaping, and architecture. These component standards ensure
consistency and quality throughout the development.
III. Subarea A:
Subarea A is located on the east and west sides of Monterey Drive. This subarea
consists of 3.7 ~ acres and shall contain the residential component of the PUD.
A. Permitted Uses: Permitted uses shall include attached residential townhomes.
B. Density, Lot, and Setback Commitments:
1. Number of Units: The maximum number of dwelling units in Subarea A shall
be twenty-five {25). Individual buildings shall contain a minimum of three (3) and
a maximum of five (5} townhome units.
2. Setbacks (tVest of Monterey Drive): A minimum setback often (10) feet for
pavement and twenty-five (25) feet for buildings shall be required from all
perimeter boundaries, except that a minimum building and pavement setback of
fifteen (15) feet shall be required fiom the Monterey Drive right-of--way.
3. Setbacks (East of Monterey Drivel A minimum setback of ten (10) feet for
pavement and twenty-five (25) feet for buildings shall be required from the south
and east property lines. A minimum setback often { 10) feet for pavement and
Final text adopted by Council
8-18-2008
buildings shall be required from the north property line. A minimum building and
pavement setback of fifteen {15} feet shall be required from the Monterey Drive
right-of--way.
4. C?ther Setbacks: Due to their nature as attached townhomes, there shall be no
side yard requirement between residential units. There shall be a minimum setback
often (10) feet between buildings.
5. Encroachments: Stoops, steps, window wells, and porches on the front and side
of each unit or building shall be permitted to encroach into an applicable setback up
to five (5) feet. All other encroachments into setbacks shall be pei-~nitted in
accordance with the City of Dublin Zoning Code.
b. Lot coverage: Impervious services shall cover a maximum of seventy percent
(70%) of this subarea.
C. Access, Parking, and other Traffic-Related Commitments:
1. Parkin: An enclosed two (2) or (3) car garage shall be located to the rear of
each unit. In addition, each unit shall provide for at least two (2) off-street parking
spaces within the driveway behind the garage. A minimum of twelve (12)
additional on-street parking spaces shall be provided in the subarea.
2. Circulation: Dwellings in this subarea shall be accessed via existing Monterey
Drive. These dwellings shall be served by private drives and alleys that provide
internal circulation within the subarea and shall be subject to the following
standards:
a. Pavement width for private alleys shall be a minimum of twenty-two
(22) feet.
b. Parking shall be permitted in private alleys in designated areas.
c. Maintenance of private alleys shall be the responsibility of a forced and
funded horneo«~~ners or condominium association.
d. L7nless otherwise set forth in this text, private alleys l~~ithin this
development shall be constructed in accordance with the City of Dublin
Code and the standards established by the City of Dublin Engineer.
e. Existing public sidewalks shall be maintained or replaced as necessary
along Monterey Drive. Private t~~alks shall be provided from the front door
of each unit to connect to sidewalks along Monterey Drive where
applicable. All public sidewalks shall be constructed of concrete and in
accordance with City standards.
2
Final text adopted by Council
8-18-2008
f. The developer, through an agreement with the City's engineering staff,
shall make an equitable contribution to the construction of an off-site
bikepath to be constructed by the City to the south of the western side of
Subarea A in Monterey Park. This path is expected to sun generally from
east. to west to Corbin's Mill Road.
g. A private sidewalk shall extend both north and south from the bio basin
area on the west side of Monterey Drive to provide pedestrian access to
garages and the rear of townhome units. The southern sidewalk shall
extend beyond the private alley to the southern boundary line of this
subarea to provide pedestrian access to Monterey Park.
h. The owner of the portion of Subarea A found to the west of Monterey
Drive or the homeowners or condominium association that serves this
property shall make reasonable efforts to accommodate a pedestrian
connection to adjacent properties to the north in the event that such
properties are developed or redeveloped 1~~ith uses that are compatible to
those found in this subarea.
3. Pavement: In order to promote an environmentally friendly development,
permeable pavement shall be permitted to be utilized in private alleys, parking
areas, and on drive«-~ays serving individual units. This permeable pavement shall
be designed to meet ODOT specifications as required by the Dublin Code, provided
that it is approved by the Director of Engineering.
4. Access Gate: Agate shall be installed in Subarea A on the vehicular drive that
connects the eastern portion of Subarea A to Subarea B. This gate shall serve the
purpose of preventing commercial traffic in Subarea B from directly entering
Subarea A. The gate shall have controlled access 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to
allow only residents of the eastern portion of Subarea A to access to their units.
The gate shall be kept in good working order by the homeowners or condominium
association that serves Subarea. A and shall meet all requirements of the fire code.
D. Architectural Standards:
1. General Standards: All structures shall meet the City of Dublin Zoning Code
Residential Appearance Standards unless otherwise set forth herein. Depictions of
the architectural elevations accompany this text and are intended to provide
illustrations of the character, materials, colors, and scale of the products in the
development. The architecture of the Final Development Plan shall comply with
the elevations presented to Council on August 18, 2008. The exteriors of all
structures shall consist of high quality materials with designs that are harmonious
«~ith and complimentary to that found in Historic Dublin.
2. Building Height: Maximum building heights shall be thirty-five (35) feet as
measured per the City of Dublin Code.
Final text adopted by Council
8-18-2008
3. Exterior Cladding Materials:
a. The primary material on each building facade shall consist of brick, brick
veneer, cultured stone veneer, vinyl siding, cementitious fiberboard, or
other comparable materials, or some combination thereof. No exposed
concrete or split faced block shall be perniitted. Front or side building
facades located along the bio basin or public street or alley frontages shall
incorporate a common architectural vocabulary specific to this
development so that the similar architectural elements and details are
consistent throughout those elevations of the building.
b. The front, side, and alley-facing building facades of each of the
residential buildings in this subarea shall consist of masonry or masonry
veneer except as provided below. t~'indows, shutters, doors, roofs, trim,
and fencing shall be excluded when calculating the surface area of a
particular facade. A "building" shall be described as a linear arrangement of
living units that are connected together without any space in bet~~~•een, as
well as the garages behind such living units. Elevations are attached as
exhibits to this text which illustrate the distribution and quantities of
materials on the building facades. The maximum permissible surface area
that may contain vinyl siding for front, side, and alley building far~ades are
set forth below:
i. A maximum of thirty percent (30%) of the total sum of the
surface areas of the front and side facades of each building in this
subarea may consist of vinyl siding. Individual units within a
building may utilize more than this percentage so long as the entire
building in ti~~hich it is located does not exceed this threshold,
provided, however, that the surface area of any side facade of an
individual unit located on an alley or a public street shall contain a
maximum of thirty percent (30%) vinyl siding.
ii. A maximum of twenty-five percent (25%) of the surface area of
the rear facade of each individual garage that faces or sides on an
alley or a public street shall consist of vinyl siding.
c. t~'hen used, vinyl siding shall have a minimum thickness of 0.04& inches
with an exposure between six and one half (6 1/2) and eight (8) inches.
d. Exterior cladding materials shall be natural in appearance or of a muted
color. Examples of such colors are cream, beige, and earthtones. Where
more than one exterior cladding or trim material is used, the colors of these
materials shall be complimentary.
4
Final text adopted by Council
8-18-2008
4. Trim Materials: Permitted exterior trim materials shall include wood, EIFS,
siding manufacturer's proprietary trim products for their specific systems,
engineered trim, orfiber-cement products.
5. Roofs: Permitted rooting materials shall include dimensional asphalt shingles,
«~ood, slate, copper, standing seam metal, and/or tile.
6. Chimneys: All exterior portions of chimneys shall be finished with masonry
consisting of brick, stone, or manufactured stone.
7. Front Doors: Residential units shall utilize a variety of distinctive and
decorative front doors. Representative examples of these doors shall be presented
for revie~~~ and approval by Planning Commission ~~ ith the Final Development Plan
for this subarea..
8. Shutters: «~'here shutters are used, they must appear operational and be installed
such that, if closed, they «-~ould cover the entire windol~~ opening.
9. Columns: Where columns are used as an entry feature on a building, they must
be sized and scaled appropriately to the building architecture similar to what is
shown on the preliminary development plan.
E. Buffeiin~, Landscapvi~, Open Space, and Scree~wig C~o~mnit~nents
1. General Standards: All landscaping shall meet the requirements ofthe City of
Dublin Zoning Code unless otherwise set forth herein.
2. Open Space: Open space shall be provided in this subarea in accordance with
the approved preliminary development plan. Subarea A includes a "bio basin"
retention feature located as shown on the preliminary development plan. This bio
basin shall be maintained by a forced and funded homeowners association. The
homeowners association shall obtain advice from landscape or horticultural
professionals concerning the care, maintenance, and replacement of plant materials
located in this bio basin.
A landscape inspection will be obtained by the homeo«~~ners association ~~~ithin
three years of the installation of the bio basin, which «~ill be furnished to Planning
for evaluation. The homeowners association will continue to provide landscape
inspections every three years thereafter if requested by Planning.
3. Street Trees: Existing street trees shall be taintained and/or replaced as
necessary along Monterey Drive. All new street trees shall be a minimum of two
and one half (2 1/2} inches in caliper at installation and shall be of a species that is
approved as a part of the final development plan. Replacement street trees shall be
installed in accordance with City Code.
Final text adopted by Council
8-18-2008
4. Front Landscaping The front of each unit shall be landscaped with foundation
plantings and at least one {1) ornamental tree. Landscaping shall be consistent
andior complimentary across the front all units contained in the same building.
5. Perimeter Landscaping Due to the presence of existing vegetation, the
perimeter buffering requirements of the Dublin City Code will not be met for this
subarea. ti~Vhile strict adherence to the Code is not required, the Final Development.
Plan for this subarea shall meet the spirit and intent of the Code in this regard by
augmenting existing vegetation where practicable to achieve the Code's desired
effect. Landscaping along the eastern perimeter of Subarea A shall be provided
between applicable setbacks and the property line as detei7nined at the tune of final
development plan. The requirement to provide a buffer treatment along the shared
boundary line with Subarea C may be waived by the Plamling Commission at the
time of final development plan in the event that adequate buffering between
Subareas A and C is provided as a part of plans for the cemetery or parkland to be
found in Subarea C. Perimeter landscaping throughout the subarea shall seek to
preserve existing trees where practicable and shall include additional screening as
required by the City of Dublin Zoning Code.
6. Permanent Fences: A six (6) foot high privacy fence that is located between the
primary residential structure and its garage shall be permitted to create private
COLlrtyardS for each unit. Such fencing provided on the end of a building shall be
constructed of brick, stone, or manufactured stone that is complimentary to the
architecture of that building.
7. Permeable Materials: Permeable pavement or pavers shall be permitted for use
on patios and/or stoops associated with individual units. Samples of these materials
shall be submitted at the time of final development plan.
F. Model Homes
A maximum of one {1) townhome may be used as a model home for the purpose of
marketing and sales pursuant to Code.
I~'. Subarea B:
Subarea B is located in the northeastern portion of the PUD and south of and
adj acent to Bridge Street. This subarea consists of 1.3 ~ acres and shall contain the
commercial component of the PUD.
A. Permitted Uses:
1. Permitted uses shall include the following:
6
Final text adopted by Council
8-18-2008
a. Those uses listed in City of Dublin Zoning Code Section 153.027(A),
Neighborhood Commercial District;
b. Those uses listed in City of Dublin Zoning Code Section 153.0280),
Community Commercial District;
c. The permitted and conditional uses listed in City of Dublin Zoning Code
Section 153.036, Historic Business District, provided that the conditional
uses listed in that section are approved in accordance with Section 153.23&
d. Dry cleaning and related services; art galleries; and wine and other
specialty stores (not including liquor stores).
2. The following uses shall be excluded from the permitted uses in subsection
N(A)(1) above and shall not be pernitted in this subarea:
Motor vehicle dealers
Tire, battery and accessory dealers
Miscellaneous aircraft, marine and automotive dealers
Lumber and other building materials dealers
Heating and plumbing equipment dealers
Electrical supply stores
Farm hardt~•are and equipment stores
Hotels and motels
Rooming and boarding houses
Liquor stores
Funeral sen~ice
Sexually oriented business establishments
3. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be conditional uses in this subarea,
provided that they are approved in accordance with Section 153.236 of the City of
Dublin Code:
a. Outdoor service facilities, including, without limitation, outdoor dining
patios; and
b. Restaurants, taverns, nightclubs, lounges, and dance halls
B. Density, Lot, and Setback Commitments:
1. Density: A single structure with a maximum of twelve thousand (12,000)
square feet of gross floor area shall be permitted in this subarea. E1 maximum of
three thousand (3,000} square feet of outdoor dining patios shall be permitted in
addition to the allowable interior square footage.
2. Setbacks:
7
Final text adopted by Council
8-18-2008
a. There shall be a minimum building and pavement setback of one (1) foot.
from the Bridge Street right-of--way.
b. There shall be a minimum building and pavement setback often (10) feet
from Monterey Drive.
c. Along the eastern and southern boundaries of this subarea, there shall be a
minimum setback often (10} feet for pavement and dumpsters and a minimum
setback of t`~~enty-five (25) feet for buildings.
d. Interior lot lines within this subarea may have a zero setback for pavement
and buildings.
3. Lot coverage: There shall be a maximum lot coverage of ninety percent (90%)
in this subarea.
C. Access, Parking, and other Traffic-Related Commitments:
1. Parkin: Parking in Subarea B shall be at a minimum rate of one (1) space per
tulo hundred (200) square feet of development, regardless of use. For outdoor
dining patios, parking shall be provided at this same rate unless at the titne of Final
Development Plan for this subarea the Planning Commission approves an
alternative parking arrangement upon demonstration by the applicant that there is
provision of adequate off-site parking to serve the use through means such as the
existence of a parking agreement with a nearby property owner, the prof%ision of
valet parking, or similar alternatives.
2. Circulation: ti ehicles will access this subarea via a full movement curbcut on
Monterey Drive and a curbcut with right-in only access frorn Bridge Street. Private
drive aisles and parking lots shall be provided to provide vehicular circulation
within the subarea and shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the
following standards:
a. Maintenance of the parking lots shall be the responsibility of the
property o~~~ner.
b. Waste and refuse collection shall be provided to the rear of the building
in a dumpster that is screened in accordance with City Code.
c. The existing sidewalk shall be maintained (or replaced, if damaged
during construction) along the Bridge Street and Monterey Drive frontage.
The sidewalk shall be constructed in accordance with City standards.
3. Loading Spaces: No loading spaces shall be required in this subarea.
Final text adopted by Council
8-18-2008
4. Bridge Street Right-of-Wad The right-of-way for Bridge Street shall be tifty-
six (56) feet as measured from the centerline of right-of--way. Following the
approval of the preliminary and final development plans for this subarea, the
de~•~eloper shall dedicate the necessary right-of--way along this road to the City to
meet this requirement.
5. Traffic Si6nal: The cost of the of the design, acquisition and installation of the
proposed traffic signal at the intersection of IVlonterey Drive and Bridge Street shall
be paid for by the developer or its successors or assigns in interest unless a separate
~~~ritten agreement between the developer and the City is approved by City Council
that sets forth an alternative arrangement for the payrnent of this cost. Construction
plans for the signal installation shall be approved as part of the building permit
process for the building in Subarea B. The traffic signal shall be installed
contemporaneously with the construction of the building found in Subarea B. The
signal shall not be activated until the commercial space is fully occupied, or the
developer proves that traffic signal warrants are met prior to full occupancy of the
commercial space.
D. Architectural Standards:
1. General Standards: A depiction of the architectural scheme for Subarea B
accompanies this text and is intended to provide a general illustration of the
character, materials, colors, and scale of this project. The exterior of the structure
shall consist of high quality materials with a design that is harmonious ~~~ith and
complimentary to that found in Historic Dublin.
2. Building Height: The maximum building height shall be thirty-five (35) feet as
measured per the City of Dublin Code. The building in this subarea shall be two
(2) stories in appearance.
3. Exterior Cladding Materials:
a. The primary material on each building facade shall consist of brick, brick
veneer, stone, cultured stone, stone veneer, vinyl siding, «~hich shall be
limited to the pediments only, or other comparable materials, or some
combination thereof. No exposed concrete or split faced block shall be
permitted. Four-sided architecture shall be required so that similar
architectural design elements and details are consistent throughout all
elevations of the structure.
b. When used, vinyl siding shall have a minimum thickness of 0.046 inches
«~ith an exposure bet~i~een six and one half (6 lh) and eight (8) inches.
c. Exterior cladding materials shall be natural in appearance or of a muted
color. Examples of such colors are cream, beige, and earthtones. ~?Vhere
9
Final text adopted by Council
8-18-2008
more than one exterior cladding or trim material is used, the colors of these
materials shall be complimentary.
4. Trim Materials: Permitted exterior trim materials shall include wood, EIFS,
siding manufacturer's proprietary trim products for their specific systems,
engineered trim, or fiber-cement products.
5. Roofs: Permitted roofing materials shall include dimensional asphalt shingles,
wood, slate, copper, standing seam metal, andior tile.
6. Chimneys: All exterior portions of chimneys shall be finished with masonry
consisting of brick, stone, or manufactured stone.
E. Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space, and Screening C"ommitments
1. General Standards: All residential landscaping shall meet the requirements of
Sections 1 X3.130 through 153.148 of the City of Dublin Zoning Code, unless
other~i~ise set forth herein or approved as a part of the Final Development Plan.
2. Street Trees: Existing street trees shall be maintained and~`or replaced as
necessary along Monterey Drive and Bridge Street. All new street trees shall be a
minimum of two and one half (2 1/2) inches in caliper at installation and shall be of
a species that is approved as a part of the final development plan.
3. Perimeter Buffering: Due to the presence of existing vegetation, the perimeter
buffering requirements of the Dublin City Code will not be met for this subarea.
While strict adherence to the Code is not required, the Final Development Plan for
this subarea shall meet the spirit and intent of the Code in this regard by
augmenting existing vegetation where practicable to achieve the Code's desired
effect.
F. Graphics and Signage Conunitments
1. At the time of the submission of a Final Development Plan for this subarea, the
developer shall present the Planning Commission with a graphics and sign plan for
its review and approval. The intent ofthe plan shall be to provide standards that
allow for graphics and signs that are similar to those found in the Old Dublin Town
Center developments. The approved plan shall serve as the uniform graphics and
sign plan for the subarea. In the event that the graphics and sign plan is silent on
any matter addressed by the City of Dublin Sign Code, Sections 153.150 through
153.164, then the terms of those Code sections shall apply.
2. Each tenant shall be permitted the following signage:
a. One (1) wall sign on its storefront, which shall be defined as that facade
which faces a public right-of--way;
10
Final text adopted by Council
8-18-2008
b. One (1) double-faced hanging sign on its storefront, mounted
perpendicular to the wall. The tenant of the ~-estern end of the building in
this subarea shall be permitted an additional double-faced hanging sign on
the building facade facing Monterey Drive; and
c. One (1) wall sign or one (1) double-faced hanging sign at its rear
entrance from the parking lot found in Subarea B.
3. Appropriate square footage limitations for each sign type shall be determined at
the time of Final Development Plan.
4. Each sign shall have a total of no more than three (3} sign colors. Plaque colors
shall be low-chroma and subdued.
5. All wall mounted signs (except hanging signs} shall be externally illuminated
using the same or similar gooseneck light fixtures throughout the subarea.
G. Lighting:
1. All lighting shall be in conformance with the City of Dublin Exterior Lighting
Guidelines, except as provided for in this text. This lighting plan shall compliment
the lighting found in Historic Dublin for similar uses and shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission as part of the final development plan. Lighting shall be in
conformance with the plan that is approved as a part of the final development plan.
2. External lighting shall be cutoff type light fixtures.
3. All parking, pedestrian, and other exterior lighting shall be on poles or wall
mounted cutoff fixtures and shall be of a coordinated type and style. All light
fixtures shall be decorative in nature, residential in scale, and of a coordinating
style to the architecture of this subarea. Fixture and pole specifications shall be
included with the lighting plan that will be presented as a part of the final
development plan.
4. All light poles and standards shall be dark in color and shall be a dark brown,
black, or bronze metal.
5. Parking lot lighting shall be limited to sixteen (16) feet in height.
6. Cutoff type landscape lighting and uplighting of buildings shall be prohibited.
7. All lights shall be arranged to reflect light ati~~ay from any street or adjacent
property.
8. No colored lights shall be used to light the exterior of any building.
11
Final text adopted by Council
8-18-2008
H. Maintenance:
All buildings, structures, fences, paved areas, landscaped areas, and other
improvements shall at all times be kept in good condition and repair and with a clean and
orderly appearance. Landscaped areas shall be maintained with materials specified in the
plan and in a healthy living state, mowed, pruned, watered and otherwise maintained as
appropriate. All signage shall be kept in good repail•. Lighting, painting and associated
materials on signage shall be kept in good condition. When, and if, vacancies shall occur,
said spaces shall be maintained free of litter, dirt, and left over and/or deteriorated signage
so as to appear ready for re-rental and re-occupancy provided that nothing herein shall be
construed as interfering with the right to make reasonable repairs or alterations to said
premises.
V. Subarea C:
Subarea C is located in the eastern portion of the PUD. This subarea consists of
0.53 ~ acres and shall provide for the expansion of the existing Dublin Cemetery.
A. Pe>«nitted Uses: The follot~~ing uses shall be permitted in Subarea C:
1. Cemetery uses in conjunction with the expansion of the existing Dublin
Cemetery.
2. Parks and open space.
B. Development Standards: Development of cemetely uses shall occur in accordance
with the approved Final Development Plan for this subarea.
Applicant's Signature
Grabill Monterey PUD(;%}.txt
12
-~: ,!.~~~":11>-fED TO COUNCIL
~-~ 0~_'~-~J:~ METING ON ~~
07-084CP/Z N
City of Dublin Concept Plan/Rezoning/
Land Use and Preliminary Development Plan
Long Range Planning Waterford Commons o 200 goo
Monterey Drive and W. Bridge Street Feet
PROPOSEa SITE PLAN
- i ~
~IWIRNIION J ~ -
SiAIICi~ 1
~. ~.. ...' ! I
~. j ~
.., r
_ .. ~
07-084CP/Z
Concept Pan/Rezoning/Prelitninary
Nortrrl Development Plan
Waterford Commons
Yionterey Drive & W. Bridge Street
73l'OD_i"~~ MEETING ON~'~'Q.v
=,--
,~ -. pRI0GES1RcET - __ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - ---- - -- - - -_
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017-1006
CITY OF DUBLIN,. phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: (i14-410-4440 M e m o
TO: Members of City Council
o
I~ ROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager'". r ~'~ ~ ~ U
DATE: August 14, 2008 ~
INITIATED I3Y: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and long Range Planning
RE: Ordinance 42-08, Waterford Commons -Rezoning (Case No. 07- 084CP/Z)
Request
This is a request for the approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan to rezone
5.5-acres from R-2, Limited Suburban Residential District and CC, Community
Commercial District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District for a development that.
includes 12,000 square feet of commercial use, 25 townhouse twits, and 0.8 acre of open
space.
City Council Comments
The second reading of this ordinance was tabled at the August 4, 2008 City Council
meeting in order for the applicant to address the continued concerns by Council.
Council requested that the applicant further limit the amount of siding that could be used
on the residential units, particularly vinyl siding, that full-width shutters be used, and
appropriately sized columns be included when used as entry features.
The applicant has revised the development text (see pages 4 and 5) to further limit the
amount of vinyl to be used, require full-sized shutters that appear operable, and maintain
appropriately sized colurnns. The applicant has maintained vinyl as a permitted building
material and a sample is available for view in the Council Planning room at City Hall.
The applicant has updated the architectural elevations to reflect the modifications to the
development text.
The applicant was also asked to clarify the nature of the stone materials. The proposed
stone walls will be constructed of natural stone.
Council requested that the applicant specify funding and maintenance responsibility for
the homeowners association and to include a commitment to properly educate them
regarding upkeep for the bio-retention basin. The development text was updated (see
page. 5) to clarify these responsibilities. At Planning's request, a provision for continued
evaluation of this feature was added.
Finally, considerable discussion occurred regarding the placement of a traffic signal at
the intersection of .Monterey Drive and West Bridge Street. The attachment memo from
Engineering provides detailed information in response to these questions.
Memo to Council re Ord. 42-08 Rezoning-Waterford Commons
August 14, 2008
Page 2 of 4
Recommendation of the Planning andLoning Commission
The Planning and Zoning Commission informally reviewed this proposal at its February
7, 2008 Work Session. The Commission discussed the proposed residential density,
emphasized the need for pedestrian and vehicular connectivity, and directed the applicant
to reduce the commercial building setback. Concerns about the residential architecture
included the need to vary the design and materials for individual units and the need for
more brick and stone. It was also suggested that the garages include a variety of doors
and materials.
On May IS, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the changes to the
proposal since the Work Session, the proposed parking, perimeter buffering, architecture,
and the details of the proposed access gate. The Commissioners also requested that all
restaurants be considered conditional uses. The concept plan/rezoning/preliminary
development plan was recommended to Council for approval with 18 conditions, as
follows.
1) That the provision allowing the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve
encroachments into the right-of-way be removed from the development text;
2) That the parking for the patio areas either meet the development text yr that the
applicant identify a parking solution at the final development plan stage;
3) That the applicant demonstrate compliance with the City's Stormwater Ordinance
prior to obtaining a building permit;
4) That the proposed text be revised to include the pern~itted uses within the 1-18,
Historic Business District;
S) That the setback from the West Bridge Street right-of-way be increased to one-
foot to avoid encroachment of building footers in the right-of-way;
6) That the text be revised to indicate that the intent of the Code will be met for
perimeter buffering, that adequate screening between Subareas A and B be
provided, and that existing landscaping will be augmented to achieve the desired
effects;
7) That the text be revised to indicate the timeframe for the installation of the traffic
signal;
8) That the applicant dedicate the necessary right-of-way to meet the Thoroughfare
Plan for West Bridge Street;
9) That the development text be revised to provide information about the access
gate, including that it be maintained in good working order by the Homeowners
Association, meet the hire Code, and that the access is controlled 24/7;
l 0) That the applicant pay particular attention to provide additional architectural relief
for garages facing the northwest and southwest portion of the western Subarea A;
11) That the text be revised tv require a variety of decorative, distinctive front doors
for the residential units;
12) That the applicant maximize tree preservation along the western property line and
attempt to work with the property owner to the west to coordinate adequate
perimeter buffering;
l3) That the applicant provide a pedestrian connection to the north of the western
Subarea A should the property to the north develop;
Memo to Council re Ord. 42-08 Rezoning- Waterford Commons
August 14, 2008
Page 3 of 4
14) That the dumpster in Subarea B be relocated;
15) That the development text be revised to require all restaurants, taverns,
nightclubs, lounges, dance halls and patios require conditional use approval by the
Planning and Zoning Commission;
16) That the commercial architecture be revised to stagger or eliminate the band along
the elevations;
17) 'T'hat the development text be revised to include more detailed sign provisions
consistent with recent developments within the I-listoric District; and
18} That the one parking space in the northeast corner of Subarea B be eliminated.
Modifications to the development text and the preliminary development plan have
addressed all Conditions with the exception c:>f 3, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 16, which must be
addressed at either the final development plan or the building permit stage.
Description
The proposed plan includes three subareas and the development text and the preliminary
development plan provides an explanation of uses and development standards for each.
^ Subarea A -Residential: Subarea A includes 25 townhouses in three and five-unit
buildings with attached, rear-loaded garages on 3.7 acres, located on either side of
Monterey Drive, south of West Bridge Street. The text permits (but does not require)
permeable pavement for the private drives and parking areas. Six-foot privacy fences
are permitted to create private courtyards at the rear of each unit. End unit fences are
required to be constructed of masonry that complements the building architecture.
^ Sacbarea B - Corrtrnercial: Subarea B is cone-story commercial building with
associated parking, facing West Bridge Street on the east side of Monterey Drive, on
a 1.1-acre site. Three access points are provided; aright-in access from West Bridge
Street, a full access drive from Monterey Drive, and a gated access from Subarea A.
• Permitted Uses. The development text permits uses within the NC, Neighborhood
Commercial District; CC, Community Commercial District; the E-[S, E-listoric
Business District; and dry cleaning services, art galleries, and wine and other
specialty stores. A condition was added that restaurants, taverns, nightclubs,
lounges, dance halls and patios require conditional use approval.
• Developrraent Standards. One building with a maximum size of l 2,000 square feet
is permitted. Aone-foot setback from the West Bridge Street right-of-way is
provided to emulate the development pattern of the Historic District.
• Patios. 'Ifie development text permits up to 3,000 square feet of outdoor dining
patios located on the south, west and east sides of the building, most of which are
in the West Bridge Street right-of-way. Code requires encroachments into the
right-of-way be approved by the City Engineer and by City Council through a
right-of-way encroachment application.
^ Subarea C -Open Space: The O.S acres of Subarea C borders the east portion of
Subarea A, ad_jaccnt to the Dublin Cemetery, for either an expansion of the cemetery
ivlemo to Council re Ord. 42-0$ Rezoning -Waterford Commons
August 14, 2008
Page 4 of 4
or park/open space. The land exchange ordinance (45-U8) is on the August 18, 2UU8
Council agenda for second reading.
Recommendation
Planning reconunends Council approval of Ordinance 42-08.
CITY OF DUBLINo
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, 011 43017-1 006
Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490
TO: Members of City Council
PROM: Jane S. Brautigam~~- ~r J S
DATE: August 14, 2008
INITIATED BY: Paul A. Hammersmith, PE, Director of EngineeringlCity Engineer
Jean-Ellen Willis, PE, Engineering Manager -Transportation
R)H;: Ordinance 42-08 -Waterford Commons Rezoning
Bridge Street and Monterey Drive lntersection
Summary
Memo
Further discussion at the August 4, 2008 City Council meeting took place regarding the
signalization of Bridge Street at Monterey Drive, when Council explored more details on this
aspect of the Waterford Commons project. Several questions were raised which are addressed
below, including:
• How are signal warrants used?
• How will the signal affect traffic patterns`?
• Why not use right in/right out access at Bridge Street and Monterey Drive?
• Will there be additional signs for the school zone?
• Will there be a left turn lane on Bridge Strcet?
Traffic SiKnals
How are sig~.al warra~zts used ?
The thresholds to begin considerations for a traffic signal installation are federal standards
intended to justify the cost of the signal installation, the interruption to flow on the through
roadway, and show that minimum criteria are met before signalization occurs. If one of the eight.
criteria (also known as warrants) is met, a signal may be considered, but is not required to be
installed. Other factors, such as signal and intersection spacing are left up to engineering
judgment to determine if the location is appropriate far signal control. The eight signal warrants
arc sumrnari~.cd below:
1. Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume: Used for large volumes of intersecting traffic or where
the side street suffers excessive delay for the majority of the day. These thresholds are
based on straight line minimum traffic volumes.
2. Four-l-lour Vehicular Volume: Used where the valume of intersecting traffic is the
Memorandum to Dublin City Council Members
Waterford Commons Rezoning -Bridge Street and Monterey Drive Intersection
August 14, 2008
Page 2
principal reason to consider signal control. for heavier travel. times of the day. The side
street threshold is variable based on the major street volume. A larger major street
volume allows for a smaller side street volume and vice versa.
3. Peak Hour: Used when the side street suffers undue delay. This warrant is only to be
applied at facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short period
of time (e.g., office complexes, rnanufacturing plants, industrial complexes, etc.)
4. Pedestrian Volume: For applications where there are a high number of vehicles and
pedestrians intersecting. The threshold is 1.00 pedestrians crossing per hour.
5. School Crossing: Used where school children cross a major street. The threshold is 20
students crossing in an hour. Other remedies such as warning signs, flashers, school
speed zones, and school. crossing guards must be considered prior to signal installation.
6. Coordinated Signa( System: Used to ensure vehicles remain clustered along a corridor.
7. Crash Experience: Used where the severity and frequency of crashes could be corrected
through signalization anal minimum volume thresholds are met.
8. Roadway Network: Used to encourage concentration and organization/clusters of traffic.
The warrants are not all equally important. The first two warrants, eight-hour and four-hour
vehicular volumes hold more weight than the other warrants. This is because these warrants are
not conditioned with any other criteria. 'hhey define the balance of traffic at an intersection
where it is acceptable, based primarily on delay and safety, to stop traffic on a major road and
grant right of way to the side street.
1'he traffic impact study performed for the Waterford Commons included signal warrant analyses
for the intersection of Bridge Street and Monterey Drive. The analysis shows that one warrant,
the four-hour volume warrant, is met by a small margin and the eight-hour volume warrant is
close to being met using current traffic volumes and the addition of the estimated site trips. Six
out of eight hours meet the eight-hour volume warrant, and the other two hours arc: within 6
vehicles of meeting the minimum criteria. The retail space must be fully occupied before the
four-hour volume warrant is satisfied.
Safety and Operations
Safety is expected to improve with the installation of a signal. As is the case whenever a signal
is installed, rear-end collisions are more likely to occur. However, the frequency of angle
collisions and the severity of collisions are expected Co be reduced.
fi'ow will the signal. affect trc~c patterns?
The traffic exiting Monterey Drive will have less delay to access Bridge Street with a signal.
Without a signal at either Bridge Street or Frantz Road, Monterey Drive residents likely use the
Memorandum to Dublin City Council Members
Waterford Conunons Rezoning -Bridge Street and Monterey Drive Intersection
August 14, 2008
Page 3
Frantz Road and Monterey Drive intersection to travel west on SR 161 or north on Post Road. A
signal would ease these movements, but may also attract traffic from northbound Dublin Road
and northbound Frantz Road headed to Bridge Street.
Staff would operate the Bridge Street and Monterey Drive signal from 6:00 am through 9:00 pm
Monday through Friday in coordination with the other signals on Bridge Street, similar to the
signal at High School Road. The signal would flash red for Monterey Drive and yellow for
Bridge Street to keep traffic in a free flow condition on the major roadway during off peak hours
and weekends.
Why not z~se right in/right out access at Bridge Street and Monterey Drive?
Turn restrictions can be an effective method of improving safety. In this case, however,
restricting left turns into and oul of Monterey Drive could have a negative impact on the
neighborhood to the south. The retail component of the proposed development will generate
new traffic in this area. If drivers are not allowed to turn left onto Bridge Street, they would
likely route through the neighborhood. It would also be difficult to gain compliance on the left
turn restriction without a median on Bridge Street.
Signing and Marking
Will there be additional sig~zs for• the school zone?
The Indian Run Elementary and Sells Middle school zone on Bridge Street falls midway between
Corbin's Mill Drive and Monterey llrive on the west end and near Franklin Street on the east
end. There are overhead school speed limit flashers and driver feedback signs at each end of the
zone. There is also a flat sheet sign eastbound on Bridge Street east of Monterey Drive to
identify the school zone for traffic entering from Monterey Drive. A warning sign will also be
added on Monterey Drive in the northbound direction to give drivers advanced notice of the zone
on Bridge Street (Figure 1).
Figatire 1. School torte ahead sign
SPEED
LIMIT
O
Memorandum to Dublin City Council Members
Waterford Commons Rezoning -Bridge Street and Monterey Drive Intersection
August 14, 2008
Page 4
Will there be a left turn lane on Bridge Street?
Traffic turning onto Monterey Drive from Bridge Street will be assigned a designated left turn
lane. Phis will require restriping the existing two-way Ieft turn lane, as shown in Figure 2.
Monterey Drive will remain in its current configuration of one lane southbound and one lane
northbound for shared left and right turn movements. Vehicle detection will be provided for the
northbound traffic and the westbound left turn traffic. The through lanes do not need detection
loops as they carry the heaviest volume, and are the coordinated movement, therefore default to
green lights.
Figure 2. Lane assignments - strife westbound left turn lane
Existing Conditions Proposed
.
E~.31Ck 51 rax~~c c.
Il c.
u
~-~ ~----=- ~ l
. ,, ~-_ .
~ _,~ ~
Recommendation
Engineering concurs with the Land Use and Long Range Planning recommendation of approval
for the re-zoning for the Waterford Commons development proposal with the inclusion of
signalizing the intersection of Monterey Drive and West Bridge Street.
Dublin City Council DRAFT
August 4, 2008
POSTPONED ITEM SCHEDULED FOR SECOND READING/PUBLIC HEARING
Ordinance 42-08
Rezoning Approximately 5.5 Acres, Located on the South Side of West Bridge Street
on the East and West Sides of Monterey Drive from: R-2, Limited Suburban
Residential District and CC, Community Commercial District to: PUD, Planned Unit
Development District . (Waterford Commons -Case No. 07-084CP/Z).
This is a request for the approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan to rezone
5.5 acres from Limited Suburban Residential District and Community Commercial District
to a Planned Unit Development District. The site is comprised of 10 parcels and has
frontage on Monterey Drive and Wes# Bridge Street. This site is relatively flat with existing
two-family homes. The Dublin Cemetery is located immediately to the east. The parcel to
the north has frontage on West Bridge Street and is vacant -the former gas station site.
The proposed site plan includes 12,000 square feet of commercial space in the parcel to
the north and 25 townhomes located along Monterey Drive east and west. On May 15,
2008 the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and voted to recommend approval of
the proposed plan. The plan included the recommendations made at the February 7 work
session where significant revisions were made to the proposed plan. At the first reading,
Council had questions and comments regarding the spacing of the proposed traffic signal
along Monterey Drive at the intersection of Monterey and West Bridge Street. Council
requested staff to provide information regarding the traffic patterns along West Bridge
Street. Engineering prepared a response, which was included in Council's packet. The
existing space contains four signals between Frantz Road and High Street -
approximately 900 -1,000 feet apart. The proposal provides for a signal to be added at the
Monterey/VVest Bridge intersection, which will decrease some of the spacing to 440 or 660
feet east and west of Monterey Drive. The stacking of cars at the additional signal may
cause cars to linger a little longer along SR 161. This signal may cause drivers to utilize
the signal instead of circumventing the intersection, as they do now.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested clarification -will drivers prefer to use this signal?
Ms. Husak responded that traveling north, the distance would be shorter using West
Bridge Street.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that during the peak hours, there is difficu{ty exiting and
entering Monterey Drive at that intersection. As a result, drivers choose alternate paths to
reach controlled intersections and better access to the roadways. A signal at Monterey
Drive may attract drivers to utilize this intersection.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if more traffic would be drawn through the Waterford
neighborhood.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that it could attract more traffic through the neighborhood in
general. In addition, traffic on High Street/Dublin Road turning left to travel west on Bridge
Street may circumvent that intersection and travel Waterford Drive and Monterey Drive to
use the Monterey intersection.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired why it was not made a right in/right out only
Dublin City Council D FiA F T
August 4, 2008 Page 2
Mr. Hammersmith responded that this signal met one of eight warrants for a signal at
build-out.
Mr. Reiner inquired which of the eight warrants.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that he did not have the information in-hand, but would
forward it to Council.
Ms. Salay stated that a study has been made of the northbound High Street movements
turning west on Bridge Street. Residents have complained that the time permitted for the
turn is too short, and it can be difficult to move through the signal to travel north on Bridge
Street. However, there aren't a large number of vehicles making that movement at the
intersection.
Mr. Gerber stated that there is no left turn timed in that signal, so drivers do cut through
Waterford.
Ms. Salay stated that it is important to understand the pros and cons. Although the signal
will provide drivers better access to Bridge Street, it could also attract traffic to that signal.
If westbound traffic on SR 161 is not that great, that number would be small.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that it should be minimal.
Ms. Salay noted that past experience, Tara Hill and Avery-Muirfield being a prime
example, demonstrates that signals attract traffic.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that is true.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that one of the signal warrants was met at this
intersection. What are the tests that are made to determine that? There are four lights
within less than 3,000 feet total. It is difficult to understand the need for an additional
signal. When an intersection meets a warrant, is the City obligated to approve a signal?
Mr. Hammersmith responded that a warrant is not a test; there are State-mandated criteria
that are considered when evaluating the need for a signal. In this case, the primary
concern is the access and safety of the drivers using the intersection, recognizing that the
volume will increase with the proposed land use. Knowing that this intersection meets the
safety warrant, the City would be remiss if it chose to ignore the safety warrant and chose
not to install a method to control movement at the intersection, possibly placing drivers in
jeopardy. For that reason, staff recommends the intersection be signalized.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if a right in/right out only could be an alternative.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that it could be an alternative only with a raised median in
SR 161. Very little compliance is achieved with a right in/right out unless there is the
deterrent of a raised median to prevent left turns. Studies show that without that physical
deterrent, voluntary compliance of the motorists does not occur.
Ms. Salay inquired about the signal at High School Drive, which primarily serves the
school. It flashes during the summer. Engineering staff planned to review the need for
the flashing signal or if it needed to be cycled. She understands how it works during
school hours, but the rest of the time it seems to always be green. Is there a detector that
causes it to turn red only when there is traffic waiting?
Dublin City Council DRAFT
August 4, 2008 Page 3
Mr. Hammersmith responded that there is a loop detector on High School Drive. If a
vehicle is waiting on High School Drive, the signal is activated to turn red on SR 161.
Otherwise, it remains green.
Ms. Salay inquired if the signal activates if there is a pedestrian waiting.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that it does, except when the signal is set to flash.
Ms. Salay inquired if the signal at Monterey would operate similarly to the signal at High
School Drive. Will there be a loop detector so that if there is someone waiting on
Monterey, the light will cycle?
Mr. Hammersmith responded that is correct.
Mrs. Boring stated that could be a problem for drivers on SR 161, if they need to stop at
every light.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that the signals in the corridor continue to be synchronized.
Although the loop is provided, an immediate response may not occur. There may be
some delay to keep the synchronization and SR 161 traffic flowing. There is a balance in
the timing. What will control this corridor more than anything is the Post Road/Frantz
Road intersection. That is where the backup and queuing of westbound traffic occurs.
The Monterey signal will not aggravate the corridor traffic.
Mr. Keenan stated that without a signal at Monterey, traffic would be sent back through
Waterford.
Mr. Hammersmith concurred. They would seek alternative routes to find a controlled
access point.
Mr. Keenan noted that during the development stage, he thought the ideal solution would
be to move traffic back to Corbins Mill. The residents did not like that idea, so the
developer was asked to re-visit the plan.
Mr. Lecklider inquired where the idea for a signal at this intersection originated.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that any time a developer wants the City to consider a more
intense land use, a traffic impact study is required to look at not only the intersection in
question, but also the impact on intersections further up and down the corridor. The
intersection has to be evaluated as part of the traffic impact study.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if there would be a left turn lane onto Monterey Drive.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that there would be left and right turn lanes for traffic exiting
Monterey Drive. He is not sure is there is a left turn from SR 161 onto Monterey.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that if there is not, that will be a problem.
Ms. Salay noted that currently it is a shared turn, and that can be difficult far a driver trying
to turn left into Sells Middle School while another driver is making a left turn into the gas
station. Could the road be striped differently to solve that situation?
Mr. Hammersmith responded affirmatively.
Mrs. Boring noted that the June 16 Council minutes from the first reading of Ordinance 42-
08 were not in the packet. It is difficult to recall what was discussed at that time and how it
was addressed. She has noticed previous incidents where some of the minutes are
Dublin City Council DRAFT
August 4, 2008 Page 4
missing. She is concerned because it is important that the text reflects exactly what was
discussed in the past. Therefore, she is not comfortable with taking any action at this
point -- not until Council has addressed all items.
Ms. Husak apologized for the omission.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if staff had any further presentation.
Ms. Husak responded that there is additional informal about the bio retention basin and
the siding material that were discussed at the first reading. A change was made in the
development text to limit the amount of siding that could be used as a building material,
requesting percentages of masonry instead, depending on the elevation. More masonry
would be required on the front elevation and the elevations facing the street. A letter from
the applicant was included that explains more about the plantings and the maintenance.
Pictures were provided of the anticipated appearance at maturity.
Mr. Reiner stated that this would be a forced and funded condominium association. He
has seen similar examples of bio basins. Although they can be very attractive, they can
also become "urban blights." Hopefully, the association will have the funds to maintain
the bio basin in addition to the regular grass cutting schedule.
Ms. Husak agreed. The education component is important, and that is something that
staff will look at as this moves forward into a final development plan.
Mr. Reiner stated that he wants to make certain that the monies are available to maintain
this, since it is a major feature and a lot of drainage will be diverted into this one spot.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if it was made clear that the maintenance of the bio
basin would be the association's responsibility.
Ms. Husak responded that it was.
Mrs. Boring inquired where that is articulated. It merely states that the maintenance shalt
be done.
Ms. Husak responded that they will review the homeowner association's deed restrictions
at the final development stage. The applicant is required to submit those for review.
Mrs. Boring inquired if that requirement could be placed in the development text.
Ms. Husak responded that they could amend the text to state that the homeowners
association would be responsible for the maintenance of the bio basin.
Mrs. Boring noted that for future clarification, it will be important.
Ms. Salay stated that there is a specific requirement for triple shredded mulch. If this
basin will not work with any other mulch, this is an educational item that must be pointed
out to the contractor hired by the homeowners association to perform the maintenance.
An interesting feature of this project is the use of pervious pavers for pavement. That
should be helpful with stormwater issues. If this works well, it may be a future model for
others.
Mr. Reiner stated that he has reviewed the plant materials, some of which are more dry
based than wet based. With the variation in Ohio seasons, it would be important in the
Dublin City Council DRAFT
August 4, 2008 Page 5
final development statement to emphasize that this is highly maintained. Depending on
the season; it will be experimental to see what will survive depending on the impact of a
summer dry period or a rainy spring. He would not like the basin to become a hole with 50
percent of the vegetation dead. When seasons change, 25% of the vegetation can die. If
no effort is immediately made to restore it, it will be unsightly. Because this is such an
important feature and many of the units are centered around it, special attention should be
given to this.
Mrs. Boring inquired how that would be done.
Mr_ Reiner responded that with these types of systems, the first year or two is an
experiment. That is why it is important that the association have the funds to restore what
is needed.
Mrs. Boring inquired if he believes the text should be amended accordingly.
Mr. Reiner stated that he would speak with Ms. Husak. It is important for staff to ensure
that there are enough funds available for restoration. The basins have so many variables,
depending on the weather conditions, that many of them are not successful. The entire
plant list may eventually need to be changed to fit the site. It is very important that occurs
in the event the first efforts are not successful.
Mr. Lecklider inquired about the text in regard to the use of vinyl. In the course of the
Ballantrae development, there was considerable discussion regarding a minimum
standard for the use of vinyl. Does staff recall the minimum acceptable thickness
identified for that development?
Ms. Husak responded that it was .44 inches.
Ms. Salay noted that it was also limited to areas high up on the structures -- areas of the
home that would be difficult to maintain otherwise. Below that height, hardiplank or
another product was used that required painting.
Mrs. Boring stated that in layman's terms, that would translate to trim work.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if there was one phase in the plan that was not limited similarly.
Ms. Husak responded that the homes along Bally Court were the ones that were permitted
to use that material entirely.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if that was white vinyl.
Ms. Salay responded that it was for the plantation-style homes.
Mr. Lecklider responded that this seems to be consistent with the existing plans.
Mr. Lecklider stated that the Planning and Zoning minutes indicate discussion that
restaurants and similar uses should be conditional uses. The text was amended to
include this. In light of past experience, is there a need to define "restaurant" more
specifically as "sit-down" as opposed to "take out" only?
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if an ice cream shop would be excluded.
Mr. Lecklider responded that he does not necessarily want to exclude an ice cream shop
or a coffee shop. He is referring to a pizza take-out shop. He requested Legal staffs
opinion.
Mr. Smith responded that it is Legal's opinion that fast food is a "place and get" order.
Pizza is not considered fast food. There is abundant case law supporting that
Dublin City Council DRAFT
August 4, 2008 Page 6
interpretation. Defining a restaurant as a sit-down establishment means identifying all the
exceptions to that -such as an ice cream parlor or coffee shop. Beginning to identify
exceptions is problematic -there can be many and it is difficult to do.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if this could be limited by excluding a use that involves delivery.
Businesses that are open to midnight on weekdays and later on weekends create traffic
that can be a conflict with residential use. He is posing the question, but does not
necessarily have a strong opinion about this.
Ms. Salay stated that perhaps the cost of rent would determine that this might not be the
best location for a pizza delivery.
Mr. Lecklider responded that it could be worth paying the high rent to achieve the visibility.
Ms. Salay stated that she agrees there is the potential for conflict, but it might be best left
to the Planning Commission. Otherwise, it could mean that each restaurant would have to
go before the Commission and prove that they are able to locate there.
Mr. Smith responded that is correct and to attempt to legislate it tonight would be difficult.
It is preferable to wait until the use is proposed and allow the Planning Commission to
decide. It would be best to leave the text as it is currently drafted.
Mr. Reiner inquired what tree spacing exists for the tree plantings along Monterey Drive.
The trees seem be placed fairly far apart.
Linda Menerey, EMH&T, landscape architect, stated that there are existing trees on
Monterey Drive. The spacing should be similar to that which exists. The trees that are
removed will be replaced.
Mr. Reiner responded that the existing trees are not identified on the plan. That is the
reason it appears sparse.
Ms. Salay inquired if they would have to meet the Code requirements for street tree
spacing.
Ms. Menerey responded that is correct. They wil! work with the City Forester regarding
tree replacements.
Ms. Husak stated is correct. They work with the Forester, as well, for species selection.
This is a final development plan detail. The Preliminary Plan provides preliminary sites
only.
Mr. Keenan inquired how traffic entering the school zone to make left and right turns onto
Bridge Street would be aware that they are within a school zone.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that both ends of the school zone are marked. Sometimes
intermediate signs are placed on side streets to make drivers aware that they are
approaching a school zone. Something similar was done on Tara Hitl Drive several years
ago.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this is a major issue in Mayor's Court. A large
number of tickets are given to motorists exiting Monterey Drive. The zone actually begins
before the Monterey Drive entrance/exit, so motorists are unaware they are within the
zone. Therefore, it is essential that a sign be placed on Monterey Drive.
Mr. Hammersmith responded that was their intent to do so.
Dublin City Council DRAFT
August 4, 2008 Page 7
Glen Dugger, Smith & Hale, 37 W. Broad Street, stated he represents the applicant, Mr.
Grabill. He wanted to note that there is a requirement for a forced and funded
homeowners association within the text that relates to maintenance of the alleys. It does
not specifically state that the association would maintain the detention area, but it could
easily be added.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher thanked Mr. Dugger for pointing that out. Who was anticipated
to maintain the basin area?
Mr. Dugger responded that it was expected that the homeowners association would do so,
even though that was not stated. He noted that the reference in the text is on page 2, Item
C, Paragraph 2C, which states "maintenance of private alleys shall be the responsibility of
a forced and funded homeowners association..." They will make the maintenance of the
bio basin the responsibility of the homeowners association, as well. That is in the
additional attachments to the text.
Ms. Menerey noted that it is in the June 23rd letter also included in the packet.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the language needs to be included in the proposed
development text.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called for citizen comments.
Holly Tuite, 280 Old Spring Lane, stated that she and her husband are co-presidents of
the Waterford Village Civic Association. This development will add additional traffic in the
neighborhood, and they are definitely in support of the proposed traffic signal at the north
end of Monterey Drive. They are concerned about the existing signal at Bridge and High
Streets. During peak hours, there are delays at that light, and northbound traffic on High
has been backing up past Waterford Drive. If the drivers would come up to Waterford
Drive, try to make a right and come out at the light onto Monterey Drive, that is definitely a
concern. A park is located there with many small children. They have been told that the
City does not prefer the use of speed bumps for traffic calming. They do have existing
speed bumps that begin at the south end of Monterey and continue up Monterey Drive.
The speed bumps on Monterey are not the same width as those required on Tara Hill
Drive for the type of traffic calming that was done there. It is their hope that the City would
consider installing speed bumps, continuing them from Waterford down to the north end of
Monterey, making them significant, similar to the ones on Martin Road. Those speed
bumps have been successful, deterring much traffic from Martin Road. They are a
residential community versus a business district. In regard to a right in/righ# out, during
the last two years, the City replaced the curbs along Bridge Street. When they did so,
they installed a right in, right out sign on Monterey Drive. It was not enforced and there
was no compliance. In regard to the school zone, there is no sign on Monterey Drive
regarding the school zone, and it would be greatly appreciated if a sign would be installed
immediately. She provided copies of several resident emails to Council.
Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road, stated that he is not a resident of the Waterford
Village area. On page 34, page 9, under "Review of Preliminary Development Plan
criteria" is this quotation: "The relationship of buildings and structures to each other and
Dublin City Council DRAFT
August 4, 2008 Page 8
other facilities provide for the coordination and integration of this development within the
PUD and the larger community and maintain the image of Dublin as a quality community."
What constitutes a quality community, and what is dictating the criteria? It is elusive to
him. He wonders to what extent the community as a whole is hostage to the Building
Code, which requires, for example, specific materials, colors and dimensions. To what
extent might that be hostage to developers who have figured out a formula for buildings
that will be approved. The bitter battles of the past do not seem to occur now, perhaps
because they have figured out a formula that the City will approve.
[The Clerk provided copies of the June 16 Council meeting minutes to Council.]
Vice Mayor Boring stated that Council now has the minutes, which need to be included in
the entire record. On page 11 of those minutes, it is stated that: "Mr. Hale responded that
they could devise some language to address this by the final hearing," in response to the
question of what assurance could be given that the results would not be a predominantly
vinyl project. Has this been addressed?
Mr. Dugger responded that on page 4 of the revised text of June 23`d, there was extensive
additional language concerning the exterior cladding materials.
Vice Mayor Boring stated that she sees references to certain percentages of materials,
and the thickness of the vinyl, but it does not appear to limit the use of vinyl.
Mr. Dugger responded that the issue was addressed by specifying what the masonry
component would be in Items #2, #3 and #4. The methodology was to take the building
elevations that they had and roughly calculate the quantity of the masonry component and
the vinyl cladding component. They also provided detailed building elevations.
Vice Mayor stated that she is concerned that it is not part of the text.
Mr. Dugger stated that the text indicates that, "The text includes not only the text, but also
the building architecture and plans that are being provided as well." His understanding
was that during the final development plan review, the Commission will review the
preliminary development plan and the final development plan to see that they are
consistent.
Mr. Gerber noted that whatever warranties or commitments may have been made during
the rezoning process should also be reflected. With respect to the vinyl, it appears that a
certain percentage is specified for masonry, but there could still be a rather large presence
of vinyl siding, according to the text.
Mr. Lecklider stated that he raised this question at the last meeting. This text, as he reads
it, seems to allow for vinyl on each and every unit. That wasn't his expectation. In raising
the point, his hope was to see vinyl limited to a certain percentage of units and certainly
not the majority of units.
Mr. Gerber added that his expectation was that vinyl would be limited to trim only, not as it
relates to siding and other elements.
Dublin City Council DRAFT
August 4, 2008 Page 9
Mr. Lecklider stated that, recalling the earlier reference to Ballantrae development, he
wouldn't necessarily be opposed to more than one unit being entirely vinyl, apart from the
trim. However, the text seems to allow the use of vinyl on every unit - a percentage
greater than would be needed for the trim only.
Mr. Gerber added that his perception was the same -that there is more vinyl than was
expected.
Ms. Salay stated that in Ballantrae there was one theme community where vinyl siding
was permitted, but that does not apply to this development. Otherwise, the gables and
trim could be vinyl, due to maintenance issues. For the siding look, hardiplank was
required. She had asked, and someone confirmed, that the cost of a very high quality
vinyl product and hardiplank is about the same. That being the case, she would prefer
hardiplank due to its advantages in appearance and longevity. She believes that there
was an agreement to that by Mr. Hale or the developer's representative at that time.
Mr. Dugger responded that he was not present, so he is not aware of that history. One of
the partners on this project is one of this community's largest manufacturers of the vinyl
siding product. As a matter of propriety, they are not permitted to say they will not use
their product on this project. Ms. Menerey indicates that Mr. Hale mentioned that
previously.
Ms. Salay recalled that Mr. Hale did mention that at the previous hearing.
Mr. Dugger responded that is probably the reason the text is written as it is. A significant
component of the ownership of this project going forward is the manufacturer's vinyl
siding, so rather than limiting the amount of vinyl, the text specifies the amount of masonry
that is on the building elevations attached to the text as part of the text.
Mr. Reiner stated that in the text it states; "60% of the surface area of the front fagade of
each buildirg." In the elevations, the buildings facing Monterey Drive are shown as
masonry. The other elevations become vinyl. What is Council's intent? Do they want all
of the elevations to be masonry, except for the dormers and upper angles of the roof?
Mr. Dugger stated that with one of partners being a manufacturer of vinyl siding, the
anticipation was that this project would be price competitive. From an architectural
standpoint, it needed some level of diversity, rather than masonry all the way across. The
idea, as he understands it, was that there would be a mix of the masonry and vinyl siding
across those units.
Vice Mayor Boring stated that the issue isn't so much with the siding as with the material
and longevity of it.
Mr. Dugger responded that is the reason they specified the vinyl thickness component.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that there are some text changes that have been agreed
upon tonight. Is it Council's desire to vote on this rezoning tonight or to request those
changes be made before Council votes?
Ms. Salay stated that the concerns she expressed at the first reading have been
addressed. The text regarding vinyl does specify 6-1/2 inches and 8 inches of exposure,
Dublin City Council DRAFT
August 4, 2008 Page 10
which is another high quality appearance aspect of vinyl siding. She would be comfortable
voting tonight.
Mr. Reiner stated that at the June 16 meeting, he inquired about the use of limestone and
applied stone. The response was that this development would include both. He assumes
these buildings are done in applied stone. Where is actual limestone applied to the
buildings?
Mr. Dugger indicated he does not know.
Ms. Husak stated that the assumption was that it would be applied stone.
Mr. Dugger stated that he believes that is a detail that could be taken care of in the final
development plan. That item is clearly not articulated in the text.
Mr. Reiner stated that another item that is very important and was discussed at the first
reading is the scale of the columns. In the illustration, is the depiction of the columns in
correct proportion to the facade of the buildings? He hopes that they are. The other issue
is with the shutters. There have been previous debates regarding their thickness and the
need to avoid "a flat piece of vinyl screwed to the structure." If that has not been resolved,
that needs to be resolved by the final development plan.
Ms. Salay inquired if that wouldn't be achieved by requirement of a full width shutter.
There is some verbiage to the effect that if it was in fact an operational shutter, it would
close to completely cover the window. That could be included in the text.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Mr. Reiner has asked Ms. Husak to have it included
in the text.
Mr. Dugger stated that he believes the building elevations do show an architecturally
appropriate shutter.
Mr. Reiner stated that the question is what is appropriate. There have been so many
inappropriate shutters applied in the City. When visiting Franklin, Tennessee, Council
viewed what they believe is an appropriate shutter.
Mr. Gerber stated that in the last few years, the Planning and Zoning Commission has
steered away from the use of vinyl as a primary siding material. When he first read this,
he did not see the language that has been added to the text that c-arifies to what extent
natural materials will be used versus vinyl. Theoretically, some of the buildings could be
up to 80% vinyl at this point, and that is too much. This is a great project, which would be
nice for the community. However, there is proof that vinyl does not wear well, and he
would have a difficult time supporting this for that reason. If the developer agrees to re-
adjust this in the final development plan to limit the vinyl to a smaller percentage, he would
agree. As it stands now, he cannot support it.
Mr. Dugger stated that he wasn't involved with drafting the language in reference to vinyl,
and he does not have the ability to change it.
Mr, Lecklider referred to page 12 of the minutes where he asked Mr. Hale for assurance of
diversity with respect to exterior materials. His response was that "the building detail
would be provided with the final development plan, and buyers would not have choices in
exteriors." His concern was that if the vinyl option was a less expensive option, that is
Dublin City Council DRAFT
August 4, 2008 Page 11
where they would scale back, as opposed to using masonry. He asked Ms. Husak about
her understanding of Mr. Hale's response. What would Planning expect to see at the final
development stage?
Ms. Husak responded that as Mr. Gerber pointed out, there is currently nothing that would
prevent the applicant from using vinyl in every instance that a siding material is permitted.
The percentages that he has worked out do indicate the potential that the more interior
buildings could have a small amount of masonry and the majority of the material could be
vinyl. With this text, anything on the elevations that appears to be siding could potentially
be vinyl. Whether the Planning and Zoning Commission would support that during the
final development review is the question.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired what discussions staff had with the applicant about the
use of vinyl, as vinyl is not a product that is to be used extensively in Dublin.
Ms. Husak responded that with the assurances that the applicant made regarding the
specific vinyl material that would be used, and the experience with the Ballantrae project,
staff felt comfortable that, at least visually, it would not be distinguishable from the
hardiplank.
Mr. Lecklider stated that diversity formulas have been used with previous cases. He does
not have a problem with one or more units in this development being all vinyl, but he
would like to see some limitation. He would be disappointed if he saw up to 40% vinyl on
each and every unit. That is not what he wanted or what he believes Council wanted to
achieve.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that as Ms. Husak has said, as the text is currently written,
a greater amount of vinyl than that could result. Is there language she would propose that
could address the issue Mr. Lecklider has brought up?
Ms. Husak responded that language could be used to state that if siding is used, only 50%
of it could be vinyl, or whatever percentage Council prefers.
Mr. Dugger stated that he is not comfortable crafting language from the podium. The
attachments to this show that there is diversity between the units. Some have a high
percent of masonry and a low percentage of vinyl, and others are the reverse. A minimum
requirement has been specified in the text for the exterior surface of the front facade
buildings. He would be more comfortable stating that the buildings will appear as they are
depicted, and that is what is trying to be achieved -that type of diversity among the
individual buildings. For the record, the Planning Commission would be welt within their
right to reject any building presented as all masonry or all vinyl, as the building elevation
shown in the plan contains both.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Council can either vote on this as it is or postpone it
and request the staff to work with the developer to change the text.
Ms. Husak stated that they would be happy to have the architect involved, as well.
Dublin City Council DRAFT
August 4, 2008 Page 12
Mr. Lecklider stated that for the record and for the developer's benefit, in looking at the
same page --the south elevation of the north Monterey townhomes, that elevation is
acceptable to him. There appear to be a couple of stone elevations and a couple of brick
elevations, and the others appear to be either vinyl or hardiplank. This is the type of
diversity he was hoping for, but the text seems to allow something different than is shown
here.
Ms. Salay stated that she had the same concern in regard to percentages. The left
building appears to be 60% vinyl and 40% masonry.
Vice Mayor Boring stated that she can see that if this is done in hardiplank, it will look
great, but if it is done in vinyl, it may not, because several things can occur. The
renderings may be nice, but it is the text that matters. She agrees with Mr. Gerber -they
have worked hard to achieve a really good look, and this is a developer who does a nice
job. However, the housing market is uncertain right now, and the text lacks the guarantee
that the product will match the visual depiction. It is essential to make sure that everything
is detailed in the text. Then, whether it takes 10 years or two years to develop, the
product will match the expectation.
Mr. Gerber noted that in the final analysis, the text does control.
Mr. Gerber moved to postpone Ordinance 42-08 to allow staff to work out the details as
directed by Council.
Mr. Dugger stated that, for the record, he does not consent.
Vice Mayor Boring seconded the motion.
Ms. Salay stated that the motion is somewhat nebulous. Does anyone have some
percentages to offer staff?
Mr. Reiner stated that could be achieved by staff working with the architect to revise the
percentages to match the elevations of all the buildings as drawn out. He does appreciate
the more expensive garage doors shown on the drawings, and he does expect those to
appear on the project itself.
Ms. Salay inquired if he is satisfied with the rendering.
Mr. Reiner responded that there may need to be some designations as to what is really
brick and what is stone. The drawings give the impression that there are hard surface
elevations on the majority of the units, but perhaps the rest of the project is different.
Ms. Salay stated that she believes this elevation is pleasing, and if the text matches that
elevation per the Planning staff, she would be satisfied.
Vote on the motion: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Vice Mayor
Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes.
Ms. Salay inquired if the staff and applicant are clear on what Council would like to see
Dublin City Council DRAFT
August 4, 2008 Page 13
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Council has been very comprehensive in this
discussion. The June 16`h minutes should be reviewed, as well. At that meeting, Mr. Hale
made some promises and expectations that need to be seen in print.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since August 4, 2008 CC Meeting
WATERFORD COMMONS
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT llISTRICT (PUD)
August 18, 2008
I. Description:
The Waterford Commons PUD is being created to facilitate the redevelopment of
ten parcels of real property totaling 5.5 y acres that are generally located on the east and
west sides of Monterey Drive and south of Bridge Street. This project seeks to transform
a number of properties into a vibrant new community that compliments the character of
nearby Historic Dublin. "I~his text sets standards for the development oftwenty-five (25)
townhomes that will produce residential opportunities within walking distance of
neighborhood-scale restaurants, shops, and services. It also includes a retail component
along Bridge Street and provides land for the expansion of the Dublin Cemetery.
II. Development Standards:
Unless otherwise specified in the submitted drawings or in this written text, the
development standards of Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin Cade shall apply. Basic
development standards are compiled regarding proposed density, general site issues,
traffic, circulation, landscaping, and architecture. These component standards ensure
consistency and quality throughout the development.
III. Subarea A•
Subarea A is located on the east and west sides of Monterey Drive. This subarea
consists of 3.7 ~ acres and shall contain the residential component of the PUD.
A. Permitted Uses: Permitted uses shall include attached residential townhomes.
B. Density, I.at, and Setback Commitments:
1. Number of Units: The maximum number of dwelling units in Subarea A shall
be twenty-five (25). Individual buildings shall contain a minimum of three (3)
and a maximum of five (5) towrzhome units.
2. Setbacks (West of Monterey Drive): A minimum setback of ten (10) feet for
pavement and twenty-five (25) feet for buildings shalt be required from all
perimeter boundaries, except that a minimum building and pavement setback of
fifteen (15) feet shall be required from the Monterey Drive right-of=way.
3. Setbacks (East of Monterey Drive): A minimum setback often (10) feet for
pavement and twenty-five (25) feet for buildings shall be required from the south
and east property lines. A minimum setback often (10) feet for pavement and
auG ~ 8,2008 DEVELOPMENT TEXT ~ ~ ~,`; '"`~~~'~ ~ ~ `-`' ~" ~~"`'i``'ll.
I FOR MEETING ON `~~.~~
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since August 4, 2008 CC Meeting
buildings shall be required from the north property line. A minimum building and
pavement setback of fifteen (15) feet shall be required from the Monterey Drive
right-of--way.
4. Other Setbacks: Due to their nature as attached townhomes, there shall be no
side yard requirement between residential units. There shall be a minimum
setback often (10) feet between buildings.
5. Encroachments: Stoops, steps, window wells, and porches on the front and
side of each unit or building shall be permitted to encroach into an applicable
setback up to five (5) feet. All other encroachments into setbacks shall be
permitted in accordance with the City of Dublin Zoning Code.
6. Lot coverage: Impervious services shall cover a maximum of seventy percent
(70%) of this subarea.
C. Access, Parking, and other Traffic-Related Commitments:
1. Parkin: An enclosed two (2) or (3) car garage shall be located to the rear of
each unit. In addition, each unit shall provide for at least two (2) off-street
parking spaces within the driveway behind the garage. A minimum of twelve
(12) additional on-street parking spaces shall be provided in the subarea.
2. Circulation: Dwellings in this subarea shall be accessed via existing Monterey
Drive. These dwellings shall be served by private drives and alleys that provide
internal circulation within the subarea and shall be subject to the following
standards:
a. Pavement width for private alleys shall be a minimum of twenty-two
(22) feet.
b. Parking shall be permitted in private alleys in designated areas.
c. Maintenance of private alleys shall be the responsibility of a forced and
funded homeowners or condominium association.
d. Unless otherwise set forth in this text, private alleys within this
development shall be constructed in accordance with the City of Dublin
Code and the standards established by the City of Dublin Engineer.
e. Existing public sidewalks shall be maintained or replaced as necessary
along Monterey Drive. Private walks shall he provided from the front
door of each unit to connect to sidewalks along Monterey Drive where
applicable. All public sidewalks shall be constructed of concrete and in
accordance with City standards.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT' TEX"I'
Revised since August 4, 2UU8 CC Meeting
£ The developer, through an agreement with the City's engineering staff,
shall make an equitable contribution to the construction of an ofl=site
bikepath to be constructed by the City to the south of the western side of
Subarea A in Monterey Park. This path is expected to rtul generally from
cast to west to Corbin's Mill Road.
g. A private sidewalk shall extend both north and south from the bio basin
area on the west side of Monterey Drive to provide pedestrian access to
garages and the rear of townhome units. The southern sidewalk shall
extend beyond the private alley to the southern boundary line of this
subarea to prvvide pedestrian access to Monterey Park.
h. The owner of the portion of Subarea A found to the west of Monterey
Drive or the homeowners or condominium association that serves this
property shall make reasonable efforts to accommodate a pedestrian
connection to adjacent properties to the north in the event that such
properties are developed or redeveloped with uses that are compatible to
those found in this subarea.
3. Pavement: In order to promote an environmentally friendly development,
permeable pavement shall be permitted to be utilized in private alleys, parking
areas, and on driveways serving individual units. This permeable pavement shall
be designed to meet ODOT specifications as required by the Dublin Code,
provided that it is approved by the Director of Engineering.
4. Access Gate: Agate shall be installed in Subarea A on the vehicular drive that
connects the eastern portion of Subarea A tv Subarea B. This gate shall serve the
purpose of preventing commercial traffic in Subarea B from directly entering
Subarea A. The gate shall have controlled access 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
to allow only residents of the eastern portion of Subarea A to access to their units.
The gate shall be kept in good working order by the homeowners or condominium
association that serves Subarea A and shall meet all requirements of the fire code.
ll. Architectural Standards:
1. General Standards: All structures shall meet the City of Dublin Zoning Code
Residential Appearance Standards unless otherwise set forth herein. Depictions
of the architectural elevations accompany this text and are intended to prvvide
illustrations of the character, materials, colors, and scale of the products in the
development. The architecture of the Pinal Development Plan shall comply with
these elevations. 1`he exteriors of all structures shall consist of high quality
materials with designs that are harmonious with and complimentary to that found
in I-Iistoric Dublin.
2. Building 1-~ei~ Maximum building heights shall be thirty-five (35) feet as
measured per the City of Dublin Code.
PROPOSED DEVELOPiVIENT TEXT
Revised since August 4, 2008 CC Meeting
3. Exterior Cladding Materials:
a. The primary material on each building facade shall consist of brick,
brick veneer, cultured stone veneer, vinyl siding, cementitious fiberboard,
or other comparable materials, or some combination thereof. No exposed
concrete or split faced block shall be permitted. front or side buildin~~
facades located along, the bio basin or public street or alley frontages shall
incorporate a common architectural vocabulary specific to this
development so that the similar architectural elements and details are
consistent tlu-ou~hout those elevations of the building.
b. "I'he front. side, and alley-facing_building fa~:ades of each of the
residential buildings in this subarea shall consist of masonry or masonn~
veneer except as~rovidcd belo~~~. Windows, shutters, doors. roofs, trim.
and fencint; shall be excluded when calculating the surface area of a
particular facade. A "building" shall be described as a linear arrangement
of living units that are connected together without any space in between,
as well as the garages behind such living units. Elevations are attached as
exhibits to this text which illustrate the distribution and quantities of
materials on the buildine facades. "fhc maximum permissible surface area
that may contain vim~l siding for (i•ont. side, and alley building facades are
set forth below:
i. A maximum of thirty percent (3U%) of the total sum of the
surface areas of the front and side facades of each buildin ~ in this
subarea may consist oi'vinvl siding. (ndividual units within a
buildins~ may utilir_.e more t111rt this percentage so Iona as the entire
building in which it is located meets this threshold, provided,
ho~~~cver, that the surface area of any side facade of an individual
unit located on an alley or a public street shall contain a maximum
of thirty percent (~0%) vinyl siding.
ii. n maximum of tweet •-live percent (25%) of the surface area of
the rear facade of each individual Jt, iraae that faces or sides on an
aUey or a public street shall consist ul~ vinyl siding.
c. When used, vinyl siding shalt have a minimum thickness of 0.046
inches with an exposure between six and one half (6 '/_) and eight (8)
inches.
d. Exterior cladding materials shall be natuxal in appearance or of a muted
color. Examples of such colors are cream, beige, and earthtones. Where
more than one exterior cladding or trim material is used, the colors of
these materials shall be complimentary.
PROPOSF,D DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since August 4, 2008 CC Meeting
4. Trim Materials: Permitted exterior trim materials shall include wood, EIFS,
siding manufacturer's proprietary trim products for their specific systems,
engineered trim, or fiber-cement products.
5. Roofs: Permitted roofing materials shall include dimensional asphalt shingles,
wood, slate, copper, standing seam metal, and/or tile.
6. Chimneys: All exterior portions of chimneys shall be finished with masonry
consisting of brick, stone, or manufactured stone.
7. Front Doors: Residential units shall utilize a variety of distinctive and
decorative front doors. Representative examples of these doors shall be presented
for review and approval by Planning Commission with the Final Development
Plan for this subarea.
8. Shutters: Where shutters are used theY~ must appear operational and be
installed such that if closed. they would cover the entire window opening.
9. Colunuls: Where columns. are_used as an entry feature on a huildin~, they
E. Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space, and Screening Commitments
1. General Standards: All landscaping shall meet the requirements of the City of
Dublin Toning Code unless otherwise set forth herein.
2. Open Space: Open space shall be provided in this subarea in accordance with
the approved preliminary development plan. Subarea A includes a "bio basin"
materials located in this bio basin.
inspections every three nears thereafter if rectucsted by I'lannin~.
3. Street Trees: Existing street trees shall be maintained and/or replaced as ,
necessary along Monterey Drive. All new street trees shall be a minimum of two
and one half (2 1/2) inches in caliper at installation and shall be of a species that is
approved as a part of the final development plan. Replacement street trees shall
be installed in accordance with City Code. .
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since August 4, 2008 CC Meeting
4. Front Landscaping: The front of each unit shall be landscaped with foundation
plantings and at least one (1) ornamental tree. Landscaping shall be consistent
and/or complimentary across the front all units contained in the same building.
5. Perimeter Landscaping: Due to the presence of existing vegetation, the
perimeter buffering requirements of the Dublin City Code will not be met for this
subarea. While strict adherence to the Code is not required, the 1~'inal
Development Plan for this subarea shall meet the spirit and intent of the Code in
this regard by augmenting existing vegetation where practicable to achieve the
Code's desired effect. Landscaping along the eastern perimeter of Subarea A
shall be provided between applicable setbacks and the property line as determined
at the time of final development plan. The requirement to provide a buffer
treatment along the shared boundary line with Subarea C may be waived by the
Planning Commission at the time of final development plan in the event that
adequate buffering between Subareas A and C is provided as a part of plans for
the cemetery or parkland to be found in Subarea C. Perimeter landscaping
throughout the subarea shall seek to preserve existing trees where practicable and
shall include additional screening as required by the City of Dublin Zoning Code.
6. Permanent Fences: A six (6) foot high privacy fence that is located between
the primary residential structure and its garage shall be permitted to create private
courtyards for each unit. Such fencing provided on the end of a building shall be
constructed of brick, stone, or manufactured stone that is complimentary to the
architecture of that building.
7. Permeable Materials: Permeable pavement or pavers shall be permitted for use
on patios and/or stoops associated with individual units. Samples of these
materials shall be submitted at the time of final development plan.
G. Model Homes
A maximum of one (1) townhome may be used as a model home fox the purpose
of marketing and sales pursuant to Code c°~'-~a~.
IV. Subarea B:
Subarea B is located in the northeastern portion of the PUD and south of and
adjacent to Bridge Street. This subarea consists of 1.3 ~~ acres and shall contain the
commercial component of the PUD.
A. Permitted L"ses:
1. Permitted uses shall include the following:
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT' TF,XT
Revised since August 4, 2008 CC Meeting
a. Those uses listed in City of Dublin Zoning Code Section 153.027(A),
Neighborhood Commercial District;
b. Those uses listed in City of Dublin Zoning Code Section 153.028(A),
Community Commercial District;
c. The permitted and conditional uses listed in City of Dublin Zoning
Code Section 153.036, Historic Business District, provided that the
conditional uses listed in that section are approved in accordance with
Section 153.236
d. Dry cleaning and related services; art galleries; and wine and other
specialty stores (not including liquor stores).
2. The following uses shall be excluded from the permitted uses in subsection
IV(A)(1) above and shall not be permitted in this subarea:
Motor vehicle dealers
Tire, battery and accessory dealers
Miscellaneous aircraft, marine and automotive dealers
Lumber and other building materials dealers
Heating and plumbing equipment dealers
Electrical supply stores
Farm hardware and equipment stores
Hotels and motels
Rooming and boarding houses
Liquor stores
Funeral service
Sexually oriented business establishments
3. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be conditional uses in this
subarea, provided that they are approved in accordance with Section 153.236 of
the City of Dublin Code:
a. Outdoor service facilities, including, without limitation, outdoor dining
patios; and
b. Kestaurants, taverns, nightclubs, lounges, and dance halls
B. Density, Lot, and Setback Commitments:
1. Densit A single structure with a maximum of twelve thousand (12,000)
square feet of gross floor area shall be permitted in this subarea. A maximum of
three thousand (3,000) square feet of outdoor dining patios shall be permitted in
addition to the allowable interior square footage.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since August 4, 2008 CC Meeting
2. Setbacks:
a. There shall be a minimum building and pavement setback of one (1) foot
from the Bridge Street right-of-way.
b. There shall be a minimum building and pavement setback of ten (10) feet
from Monterey Drive.
c. Along the eastern and southern boundaries of this subarea; there shall be a
minimum setback often (10) feet for pavement and dumpsters and a minimum
setback of twenty-five (25) feet for buildings.
d. Interior lot lines within this subarea may have a zero setback for pavement
and buildings.
3. Lot covera~ There shall be a maxim~un lot coverage of ninety percent (90%)
in this subarea.
C. Access, Parking, and other Traffic-Related Commitments:
1. Parking: Parking in Subarea B shall be at a minimum rate of one (])space per
two hundred (200) square feet of development, regardless of use. For outdoor
dining patios, parking shall be provided at this same rate unless at the time of
Final Development Plan for this subarea the Planning Commission approves an
alternative parking arrangement upon demonstration by the applicant that there is
provision of adequate off-site parking to serve the use through means such as the
existence of a parking agreement with a nearby property owner, the provision or
valet parking, or similar alternatives.
2. Circulation: Vehicles will access this subarea via a full movement curbcut on
Monterey Drive aild a curbcut with right-in only access from Bridge Street.
Private drive aisles and parking lots shall be provided to provide vehicular
circulation within the subarea and shall be constructed and maintained in
accordance with the following standards:
a. Maintenance of the parking lots shall be the responsibility of the
property owner.
b. Waste and refuse collection shall be provided to the rear of the building
in a dumpster that is screened in accordance with City Code.
c. The existing sidewalk shall be maintained (or replaced, if damaged
during construction) along the Bridge Street and Monterey Drive frontage.
The sidewalk shall be constructed in accordance with City standards.
3. Loading Spaces: No loading spaces shall be required in this subarea.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since August 4, 2008 CC Meeting
4. Bridge Street Right-of=Way: The right-of-way for Bridge Street shall be fifty-
six (56) feet as measured from the centerline of right-of--way. Following the
approval of the preliminary and f nal development plans for this subarea, the
developer shall dedicate the necessary right-of--way along this road to the City to
meet this requirement.
5. Traffic Signal: The cost of the of the design, acquisition and installation of the
proposed traffic signal at the intersection of Monterey Drive and Bridge Street
shall be paid for by the developer or its successors or assigns in interest unless a
separate written agreement between the developer and the City is approved by
City Council that sets forth an alternative arrangement for the payment of this
cost. Construction plans for the signal installation shall be approved as part of the
building permit process for the building in Subarea B. The traffic signal shall be
installed contemporaneously with the construction of the building found in
Subarea B. The signal shall not be activated until the commercial space is fully
occupied, or the developer proves that traffic signal warrants axe met prior to full
occupancy of the commercial space.
D. Architectural Standards:
1. General Standards: A depiction of the architectural scheme for Subarea B
accompanies this text and is intended to provide a general illustration of the
character, materials, colors, and scale of this ,project. The exterior of the structure
shall consist of high quality materials with a design that is harmonious with and
complimentary to that found in Historic Dublin.
2. Building Height: "I'hc maximum building height shall be thirty-five (35) feet
as measured per the City of Dublin Code. The building in this subarea shall be
two (2) stories in appearance.
3. >/xterior Cladding Materials:
a. The primary material on each building facade shall consist of brick,
brick veneer, stone, cultured stone, stone veneer, vinyl siding,
cementitious fiberboard, or other comparable materials, or some
combination thereof No exposed concrete or split faced block shall be
permitted. Four-sided architecture shall be required so that similar
architectural design elements and details are consistent throughout all
elevations of the structure.
b. When used, vinyl siding shall have a minimum thickness of 0.046
inches with an exposure between six and one half (6 ''/2) and eight (8)
inches.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since August 4, 2008 CC Meeting
c. Exterior cladding materials shall be natural in appearance or of a muted
color. Examples of such colors are white, cream, beige, and earthtones.
Where more than one exterior cladding or trim material is used, the colors
of these materials shall be complimentary.
4. Trim Materials: Permitted exterior trim materials shall include wood, EIFS,
siding manufacturer's proprietary trim products for their speci£c systems,
engineered trim, or fiber-cement products.
5. Roofs: Permitted roofing materials shall include dimensional asphalt shingles,
wood, slate, copper, standing seam metal, and/or tile.
6. Chimneys: All cxtcrior portions of chimneys shall be fmished with masonry
consisting of brick, stone, or manufactured stone.
E. Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space, and Screening Commitments
1. General Standards: AlI residential landscaping shall meet the requirements of
Sections 153.130 through 153.148 of the City of Dublin Toning Code, unless
otherwise set forth herein or approved as a part of the Final Development Plan.
2. Street 'frees: Existing street trees shall be maintained and/or replaced as
necessary along Monterey Iarive and Bridge Street. All new street trees shall be a
minimum of two and one half (2 1/2) inches in caliper at installation and shall be
of a species that is approved as a part of the final development plan.
3. Perimeter Buffering: Due to the presence of existing vegetation, the perimeter
buffering requirements of the Dublin City Code will not be met for this subarea.
While strict adherence to the Code is not required, the Final Development Plan for
this subarea shall meet the spirit and intent of the Code in this regard by
augmenting existing vegetation where practicable to achieve the Code's desired
effect.
F. Graphics and Signage Commitments
1. At the time of the submission of a Final Development Plan for this subarea, the
developer shall present the Planning Commission with a graphics and sign plan
for its review and approval. The intent of the plan shall be to provide standards
that allow for graphics and signs that are similar to those found in the Old Dublin
Town Center developments. The approved plan shall serve as the uniform
graphics and sign plan for the subarea. In the event that the graphics and sign
plan is silent on any matter addressed by the City of Dublin Sign Code, Sections
153.1 SO through 153.164, then the terms of those Code sections shall apply.
2. Each tenant shall be permitted the following signage:
10
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since Augusi 4, 2008 C;C Meeting
a. One (l) wall sign on its storefront, which shall be defined as that
fa4ade which faces a public right-of-way;
b. One (1) double-faced hanging sign on its storefront, mounted
perpendicular to the wall. The tenant of the western end of the building in
this subarea shall be permitted an additional double-faced hanging sign on
the building facade facing Monterey Drive; and
c. One (1) wall sign or one (1}double-faced hanging sign at its rear
entrance from the parking lot found in Subarea B.
3. Appropriate square footage limitations for each sign type shall be determined
at the time of Final Development Plan.
4. Each sign shall have a total of no more than three {3) sign colors. Plaque
colors shall be low-chroma and subdued.
5. All wail mounted signs (except hanging signs) shall be externally illuminated
using the same or similar gooseneck light fixtures throughout the subarea.
G. Lighting:
1. All lighting shall be in conformance with the City of llublin Exterior Lighting
Guidelines, except as provided for in this text. This lighting plan shall compliment
the lighting found in I-Iistoric llublin for similar uses and shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission as part of the final development plan. Lighting shall be in
conformance with the plan that is approved as a part of the final development
plan.
2. External lighting shall be cutoff type light fixtures.
3. All parking, pedestrian., and other exterior lighting shall be on poles or wall
mounted cutoff fixtures and shall be of a coordinated type and style. All light
fixtures shall be decorative in nature, residential in scale, and of a coordinating
style to the architecture of this subarea. fixture and pole specifications shall be
included with the lighting plan that will be presented as a part of the final
development plan.
4. All light poles and standards shall be dark in color and shall be a dark brown,
black, or bronze metal.
5. Parking lot lighting shall be limited to sixteen (16) feet in height.
6. Cutoff type landscape lighting and uplighting of buildings shall be prohibited
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since August 4, 2008 CC Meeting
7. All lights shall be arranged to reflect light away fTOm any street or adjacent
property.
8. No colored lights shall be used to light the exterior of any building.
H. Maintenance:
All buildings, structures, fences, paved areas, landscaped areas, and other
improvements shall at all times be kept in good condition and repair and with a clean and
orderly appearance. Landscaped areas shall be maintained with materials specified in the
plan and in a healthy living state, mowed, pruned, watered and otherwise maintained as
appropriate. All signage shall be kept in good repair. Lighting, painting and associated
materials on signage shall be kept in good condition. When, and if, vacancies shall
occur, said spaces shall be maintained free of lister, dirt, and left over and/or deteriorated
signage so as to appear ready for re-rental and re-occupancy provided that nothing herein
shall be construed as interfering with the right to make reasonable repairs or alterations to
said premises.
V. Subarea C:
Subarea C is located in the eastern portion of the POD. This subarea consists of
0.53 t acres and shall provide for the expansion of the existing Dublin Cemetery.
A. Permitted Uses: "1'he following uses shall be permitted in Subarea C:
1. Cemetery uses in conjunction with the expansion of the existing Dublin
Cemetery.
2. Parks and open space.
B. Development Standards: Development of cemetery uses shall occur in accordance
with the approved Final Development Plan for this subarea.
Grabill Monterey PLID(6).txt
12
- ~• , - - ~- - =~- is
~ 'M -" ~ BRIDGE STREET
~ ;, ~
~
m~ I
` ,,~ ir^
~
~-
~~
h^ i
;R1 ~' I
I
~~ _~
~ _
p
.. ~,- w
i T~
I t°'- ~
li.
u
i..
GRABILL
~~: u.u rn u v
GLAVAN ~ FHti~ AACHIiECiS INC
.. r.
-~
j~' "~; I I
' Id
- MARATHON ~''
STATION ~ ~ I I I
1 I ~~
I I r ~
~ I
~. -j I I I I ~# T. I
:~, ~.., r. Owr-w:-~ r' I I .. I ~'" I SUNOCO I
f. ,
"'~ ~±~~r ~' I ~ i ~ `' 4~~'- ~i GAS STATION I
,
n, I I I
~~~ ~ ~` ~~~ _~~< <~ ;~i B.esi~en?ial(Y~est~ - - -~ ~
4 ~ I I ±2.5 Acres ~
M - II I
~ - ~i.~ it ~ ~ I I I t~ I r
! S
I _ ~L
w
a ~ QUILT ~ ~ ~'~ ~ _ ~ ! - _ _ I
~~ SHOP ~ ' _ ~
„~ ! I 1
_ ~ ~' I
''~%: I ~ ~ . ~ ~'- ~ l
}'w - f~ ) i ~' ~~
' ~ ~ ~ I ~ .~.1,.~ ~ ~ I
.. ~' __ ., I __ ~~
~~~ I
- ,,
MOON I _ I ~ I .~ ~ ~'.' I ,1-
I~ I I
Y 1 I I I I I;d I
~~!'Y ~rY' I~ I I ~ ~ Irk I ~+ I
I ~,' I
----------- - }~~~I~ ~ ~ ~
I
`,
~, ~~ MOPITEREY ,f: ll"~~'
.q I ; If,
' I I •; ~
~ ~ - I,~ r1S tY:. ~~ I I I~J,~~
-WATERFORD (;OMMONS-
DU3UN903i10 '
Ord. 42-08 Waterford Commons
i Qb
fNl
n'' COMMERCIAL ,~
l` oe,RrEl t1,z eC
-J- ~
s4.5 Acres
~~' ~ ~ .,
' 1,~.: ~,
••~1~ ~ '~':~
`~.~ r
IL ~ 1 ~' ~
,~~ :ir ~1
. sy~ .1 r~ r
`i .~ • ~ ~.
r'~ t t ;':~fi;
~ q y
~~.~~~ ~ ~
7 ~ ~ ~• fi
f `~r~ ~ '- ~i~
:~~ ,~
r ~~' ~ f V S K
~. c~ ~ ` 1
c~,~ ~L
"~, ~`
r a q r ~ ~ • ,`~
1,
:~..~ :.
sf
` :;
°~ i~~T~,•~_
7: ~; '
~' ~~~
f~~.„,1g1~isMIT'P~DTOCrJUiQQ!;,,;I~~L Y~~2BQ~ ~ ~'
T-31'~~QR MEETING OP1 ~'1 r uua~IN " `~'~
Clir~
LAND USE &
LONGNpNr,F a!aNNING
LOCATION MAP:
Nof to Scole
ArMfkaM Daro
Pionnag 8lonhg Commissbn Secreinrv Data
Approval
PPonnng Conmdsinn _ -_ -.- -Dom _ _ .. _.
canN oaia
%~
/ ,~,
~'
~a
3
~i
~- I
0
O
~
~
~ Z
Q
J
Z
O
O ~ Z
a
U-- ~ 0
~
~ w
W
~ ~
~ w
~
~
O .
~_ r
~
Q
Z
~
U ~
~
W
J
~
~ o a
}
U
PRELIMINARY
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN
REGIONAL MAP
GRABILL
~c o ~t ra v s
RIAt f~iAT f' ~FR~'It:F1
ir~N. HACnrpl lb W a'm 6III/N. ~z.
FnpYm4•!/~eyon • Rvn%• S:vn!.ttl
S1W ~... AOm! kioY Ca~dn U %OH
kr~v n~lrl~tt n~nS.m
. C rn A r i
iMR plT.~~~3 ilYA
%Y'1D !Me Ip:l~ 1JI
Riv6l..
Ii~'•fti
IP: !!p
A]VglG
u•ofm.
c.... ~„~ .:..,
m sx
-I
~.;
wn
1 10
,~~ ,;,R,. ~ ,,,:,.,~ -,,~
REGIONAL MAP: Ord. 42-08 Waterford Commons
1 "=300'
1
~ p
'' /.
r:
'r TI
,;
~s
` V ~ J ~.
~~ ~ ~ ~~ r ~. j ~ i/~
\ r- ~( J~I' .~. ' r ail r
! r+
`~ I 1 ~~
R ~~:
.. 1 S ~~'. .yam. ~~!
11f ~ w. ~
iii~~1 y~~ Y
~~s'
. ~' I' L- ~ : ~ : . r ~
a _IN~...
- `,,..;
•'w
. .
,- r
4 I
I •!
SCatf r . ~
/^M~ 11
~~ 1 i~••W I r~ y
' ~~ t ~ r d~
i
i! 1, •~
! ~~ ~. ~~ '4 ~'~~~/ ,.
• ~~yr'c~. '~
~~ ~~. a"+ :~ ,.11', . ~.
~'~'4
1~ ~ ~ '
.. - ~: y'
~,. ~~
1
I ~ ~ A
~r 1 I .~
.1
{
~
~'~
~ :
,.,
.
1' r kr•
f,
,i7 .,
)
rV~
~ .
,
li~
n, ~. ~ • ~~
{ ~ ~
f'
~
~~
t ~~ ~
1
r/l 1 • ~'
;~~
• j,
ti i
,,
n
N
Q
~
<
A I
~
OWNERS
i
I. City of Dublin (Old Duke Gas Stolion~
2. David Monns ir.
3. David Manes Tr.
4. David Manes Tr.
S. David Monns Tr.
6. David Monns Tr.
7. David Manes Tr.
8. David Manes Tr.
9. GrabiV & Ca., llC.
10. Grabill 6 Co.. LLC.
t^
v
' } Q
7
O O
'1
{.1.. ~
0
~ w
W ~ °
~-
O .
~ >'
~
Q
z
Q o ~
>
v J
"'
> Q Q
U
PRELIMINARY
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN
AREA PLAN
GRABILL
$CC a N C A M1 Y
0.i'{; {S'fAT! \f 0.VII.15
Frpttl NECM1r+nr )bTDtl",~ 4111M ).r
F~'MIrSWhrC.1.R:r.AI1.:(M".1'I
:W1 HM ALn)~ kaJ l,Lr4,l M UJ%
. n14fv
x C Y 1 F r V )
wl! _ _ xa is ue
Ilil~^
ICTi(Q IMM Wln,~pr
~rru~
n,ii ~
- --
n.n/a
trul,c sun
ao o
~ n
~ eo I»
~
i t >
r,cC
O ,..•
2,10
0
t
~
0
~
~ z
Q
J
Z C
~
0
O
~ Z
a
LL. ._
-
~[
0
J
C W
W
LLf ~ u. o
O
C ?~
~
Q
Z
Q
~ U
~
w
~
J
o ~.
U
PRELIMINARY
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN
VICINITY MAP
96
Ord. 42-08 Waterford Commons
GRA.BILL
kEAS ES fAIE ~ES\'IGEf
Iwxa Yscmwtlgrto'4!tr~l',Itm.-0Y
Frq'wen •lv:apl • M1rrcn.kWltt
%Ol M1n Apo'i loot. CY.+~bn Ox BAH
~~I!S.fX Mi'iIt3M'0
4~ EC M X M . '
ar wrnuane
re:.vn E'ru wlum3o
nYsEU
r; ~
>I~,SF`
t..• i 3('. nl'
I~ o Si ~J~ :(9
/~ v6!i
I ! ~ 310
MGIgF'ce.na(~ _ ,.,.
,; yl
NOTES:
1. ALL EXISTING HOUSES AND DRIVES TO BE
DEMOLISHED AND REMOVED,
2. All UTILITIES ARE CURRENTLY IN PLACE
AND SHAH BE RELOCATED AND
EXTENDED AS NECCESSARY,
3. SITE IS FLAT WITH A TOTAI EIEVAT10NAl
DIFFERENCE OF ±8' ACROSS ± 57T FROM
WEST TO EAST. MESS THAN 2% SLOPE)
4. EXISTING PERIMETER TREES AND
VEGETATION IN GOOD HEAITH SHAH BE
MAINTAINED,
0
s
0
~
~
~ z
Q
~ Z c a
o o ~
~ ~ d
~
Y
~ w
w
W ~ 6
~- ~
~
O
.~ Y
Q
z
Q
U o =
w
0 0.
~-.
U
PRELIMINARY
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN
E
e
3
97
Ord. 42- 08 Waterford Commons
\~y',' I
V A~..
.~II``1,,
11
!'~(
~.I ~ / ,. ,t~ .
y,~q, ty 1 i
~~„w.~~ _
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
..t:~ ,
GRABILL
$(co.NCntiv
CEAI t5 (~\1'~_f'F 1t'I(:F\
~.- , . ~ ~ ,un•kw.~in
1<il .• 1t~~ ,ow: ~..cnhc UN 4031
1, 1111ib
M C 4 ~ %Y1 t I
Jnlt_ .VpPO q Zt1i
iF~IS:J. _ PP9P IP11/7IX!
Ff~.StC
~ 'M1FC
i(r3
canw~: tcus
(!) 4110
6
Site Statistics
Subareo'A" (Townhomes): YJ.B Acres
EosJ: ~ i .3 Acres
Wesl: t2.5 Acres
Subareo'8" 1Commercidl: 1.10 Acres
Subarea'C': 0.60 Acres
iolol Sile Acreage: i5.5 Acres
Legend:
Suboreo'A" ~iovmhomesj: I I
Subareo'B" ~Commwcial); Lcc 111
Subarea "C" : u
Q
.C Z
Q Q
. Q
N
t ~
H
O ~ W
O
~ ~
~ Q
~ >
W
~ U
lL w
O
O ~
~ Q
Q
~ Z
_
~U °~
~ W
~~
,~
U
SUBAREA PLAN
GRABILL
8(l: O N P A V Y
aca~ wrnreseavirvs
GIAVAN FEHER ARCNRECTS INC
Ord. 42-08 Waterford Commons
rMn +aaitsm
nevn enw.wi~xan
crntm y,.,,..~nrae
t~um~
uruo
4(•,;~6.
ow,n~cscmF
1~~-~
~ _- -'
,.,+a
//'AII~ '
f ,) 5,10
w~u+~. u.~t~ao ,~,.,,,,,
i
a
>,
P
0
2
A
3
y
99
Ord. 42-08 Waterford Commons
SITE DATA
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL SITE AAEA: }4.2 Ac.
UNI1S (WEST AND EA51):
TYPE A TOWNHOMES (2 CAR GARAGE) 1 I du
TYPE 8 TOWNHOME$ (2 CAR GARAGE) 8 du
TYPECTOwNHOAAES_(3G(+RGARAGEJ _ bdU
lOUI TOWNHOMES 25 du
PARKING SPACES REO D (2.S SPS PER UNIi~ 63
PARKING SPACES PROVIDED: 129
(d) 3 CAR GARAGE UNITS 18
DRVEWAYS 18
(19)2CARGARAGES 38
DRIVEWAYS 38
GUEST PARKING SPACES 1 ]
(Gross) }5.9 du(Ac
TQTAL DENSITY: jNgi o~2..m@teryl t4,~~u/j~c
OPENSIACEIROYIDED !0.8A[.
WEST OF MONTEREY: !0, 3 Ac.
A>.A SUiWJUIWM7[i BVI N01 wCWUIxG INf 60 W'r(
WA:[11~ fXN'fl AtA 1()tlfn (r ONNEGIN(: i0 fM1NIkRF1 /Mtl
EASTOFMONTEREY:c6a;MtAr }U S AC.
O/EN SPACEREOUTAED: !IA6AC.
4.37 K .C2 = 0.087 Ac. }
.055 K 25 -1.375 Ac. }
AESIDEMIAL -ARCEL (WESn
SITE AREA }2S AC.
uNlTS:
TYPEA TOWNHOMES (2 CAR GARAGE) 8 du
TYPE B fOWNHOMES f2 CAR GARAGE] 4 du
TYPE C TgwNHOMES_[3 CAR GARAGE) 4 du
TOTAi fOWNHOMES 16 du
PARKING SPACES REO'D (2.5 SPS PER UN11J 40
PARKING SPACES PROVIDED: 80
X413 CAR GARAGE UNITS 12
DRIVEWAYS I2
(12)2CARGARAGES 24
DRIVEWAYS 24
GUEST PARKING SPACES 8
DENSRY: 6.4 du/Ac
AESIDENTAI tMRCEI (EAST)
511E AREA (GROSS }i.7 Ac.
SIZE AREA (NE1J ! 1.2 Ac.
UNITS:
1YPE A TOW NHOMES (2 CAR GARAGEI 3 du
TYPE 8 TOWNHOMES (2 CAR GARAGEI 4 du
TYPE C i0WNh1O/w1E$ j3.CAR GAR.AGE L ~ dV
TOTAL TOWNHOMFS 9 du
PARKING SPACES REO'D (2.5 SPS PER UNR) 23
PARKING SPACES PROVIDED: 49
(2) 3 CAR GARAGE UNffS d
DRIVEWAYS 6
(7) 2 CAR GARAGES 14
ORNEWAYS 14
GUESTPARKINGSPACES 9
(Gross) ! 5.2 duMc
DENSTY: (Nel of Cemetery) ! 7.5 dulAc
COMMERCIAL MRCEL
Sf1E AREA !1.3 Ac.
MAKIMUMSOUAREFOOTAGE !12,ODOS.F.
PARKING SPACES PROVIDED ! 71
69 (9><I9 SPACES)
2 (HANDICAP ACCESSIELE SPACES)
~ ONE WAY 1 DO NOT ENTER SIGN
(LOCATED IN THE COMMERCIAL PARCEL)
~ Z
Q Q Q
~
,^
v I ~
^'
LL ~ ~ Z
° ~ W
o ~ o
0 w
W ti O
<
O D Q
~ Z
3U~~
W
~ !X
~ ~
U
SITE PLAN
GRABILL
&coxvnvr
usl fa:vl ,rnrl~fr
GtAVAN FEHER ARCHITECTS INC
E~ r,~::-o. ,~~~~~.~s,a'rra nc.
ylplfars • Fuwrm • Mn~n ~ Ynlb
Yn iw. A1~ eooe c.~av ut aw
na. xlm.n r~lnms
N c N f+ r
6111 MpfF 1126
HY110. fe14. Aptll2f~
IhMEO. R.M-. r4f b `101
ttvN6
aEwE6:
EEVOED:
rrnEu
,. ~.1
'•..~
~
a o a
s m
,
0
61
•'.~uYn7.:ey~,w,~ JJIr n7(TrTU7<tO. Rwi~Oi PFfl.PnwevY ~7[rv'flOPenFl1 MN\700+?GP91F[f.t~FVfv CwC 07'FIt 3VRVEY> ~xe.£•'3:%K:a1~P 7•}y^~~1A, 70~a Sr lSi:vB; :ASIieVEi P!FRVM~.E}(5; ~r'?COe ctS:.^,:'h!~ PtJlf[U B~E~'dlll+WI. K097:15~73 PMT
~' ! ~'~ ~r ---7•-~~• t
' ~ ' \ ~ ~• ~1 ;•
P \ ~
Vtf ~ ~ ~ L ~ ^ r
i ` 7 ( ~ I I
\ ^` l
rv I r
,' ...856 ``f~ ~~ I ~ ;-1 \~
.~ •~ ..
rl -•_.. _.~..~
... - .
0
n
a
N
O
Ci' !"'
(~ O
F-i O
t-h
O
~i
a
C~
O
N
I
f t
r
I ~
r
1
F
I
I ~
i f
i t ~
EE`~Sa rra~ga ppoSS epp pp' Rq.RR ~k ke.F eA~f~R.ftSSAAge fre,, ce'~ff'~ oe AAevpp.. E3~~opp ~pp,GG .66 c~,e p~R«>. a fella po p°o~3ge++£`vFe,''aRRp"oRR~nee4'~g°oR ~~'"e'ga;Ae.-.e at6+s2:~Re ¢~P=,+ -ppefv epoPS ~A++~ S422 peefv~7~e++pv Ro R'~"4o++e Pe"s=,a po o.a$Coab'oepeSoea~
E924A3~[4~ii 70. f:fl~R4i'fi a'B GA E$E~6A~~~A~'A~~.i ~2AflAALA&iAli$il'~p~l AAi d2A¢~i Afl9~diiA~~Q~~~A~~i 3.'0.s.~~'k¢t'.AAd A&'0.A ~Ai ~Yi A~fi 0.fl3f.~P.$fi~.~4iA ~i ~~.9 ~'~$li~i~~~~1J
too ~
~~
:i~
~~ t ~a~s
-an t~?
'I
" i? - -=
~~ ~ ~~ ~
~ c WATERFORD
D
m
T
Z p
n
~ ~~ ~rn
~" COMMONS
m.
'° y
.,
=
rn
rnZ
c O City of Dublin .Franklin County .Ohio
ter' m rn PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
y'oa° oe,Z.i:~3`."`eoveveo'°. ~evo.>~o~~d..oo~o _:~aP,o-f',~:#Is>eaoooooo oae~o~vaan"L>..°.~":°:e o ~~vo6=,tl.,= ve.d.vy,evoo~e6eoe'e5'~eGaegeeso'B ebebe
~g~e.g~fti?~~€~~~ix£e~~~E~~~a~aiYii~ii~~~~~~~Yi~f's~~Y~F~f~~i~~1~P~~€~~d€~~€ii~~~~a~£i~@~~P~€~~€~~a:i~'iY~i:giC:~s~~~~~~~$~;~ii~~:~Fie~~~~~SYa
2
i
2
d
. ~ _~_ .. .__. __, __- -- --- - ----I ..._-- ---- .. --- - ..__
.. _. _ _ _~~ __.._ __ __. .. _ _ _I __ .__ _. - ___. __ RIGNf IN ONI `~ _ _
„~ __ h. J I i ~ I .~,
r ~~ I I ~I ~ ~ ~ ;~ I
i ,~
I ~~ ~ 1 I \ - ~ ~ ~ I
.I + ~ ` it
os}- 11 I ~ ~ 1 ,~ -~- - ~ ~~ o
I I ,II ~ t
i.
I
it 2, .g~ ~ , , ~ ~_ - ~ i ,i ~ ~ ~ '~ d I~ ~~~-;. ~_' ~.t,
'~';~ I ; c I l~ '~ ~ SUNUCO ;' w°r ~ '' 1
l
ao ' f,
J ~ ~ . as ~ ~ ~'~ -~~ - ~ r_,_~_l: n~4FR',~,~p~ l ~n
I i ~ t 87 ~ ~ I 1 ~ IT 2i ~. ,r. _A _I I _.~
_ _ X11 __
X19 ~ ~ - _, I ,~ _ ~,_~~ 2 _._
J I 7~~ 28 I -' -- fi
II
II 2
~. ! ~_
~!
,h ~~, .I_-: __
I' i '= -
I Ao
I ' ~ -~
0 I
~,, ~~
I
'~ ~ ~ _,..
_~'- ~ ~~
t/
. •l ~ ~ 218 -
' 21$°12 _ ~ ~ ~ I
I~ _ I
i ~ ~ - ~- •-
~ 1 I ~ I
I
3 t~' '}a
- I 7.8' ~ •~
h ~ 25 I__._ ____ ~_ I
W ~2 { 423 ~'~ ~ \I I
8,9
.2
II I ~I V''Yl ~~f'NfVII!]:~ RQ
I • i
~,
1
-E
C~i~bE'E
CI(( 7r ~
101
Ord. 42-08 Waterfozd Commons
NOTES:
-Easement information obtained from tifle work and Dublin
Heights Subdivision, Plai Book 24 Pg.1.
Easements ore Platted and contained with electric faciNties,
Release of easements to be granted by the City of Dublin and
ell utility providers.
Platted easements
X Trees to be removed
TREE REMOVAL SUMMARY
Total Trees Rarnoved: 9h
total Inr.hes Removed: 1,514
~
_ -'7
Z
Q O
~ Q
n
~ .
~ Z
0 o w
0
u..
~ c
~ 0
J
~ 0 w
w ~ LL o
~-- O ,~
~
Q
Q ~ Z
U °
3 Q W
~ ~
~
U
TREE REMOVAL
PLAN
ia1P.N01M
GRABILL
Eg[C U St P A N Y
REAI. ESTATE SE0.vlGES
PAHMfDBM
GIAVAN fENER ARCHITECTS INC
nrr.nnu
1
UAIC__ r: ~,I\'1008
V
BFYtllD. Bp'b
lyli.7(p
P:l',::~ Hk +M 1D 71D7
IEYkD
m
:(wn~
~.,anklonYi rcw. GRnlnt Xnt[
u ;n .o w
aiii
~1a 10;
i ;y.~a;
an17~~jr~r[/ .. 1 \
",iFG I I , I ,
%
J
BRIDGE STREET
;~
__
..
~
_
~~+t*'
~
--
--
'
~
QCs'
~ -
•_ _ ~
~-___ ~_ ~
~
- _ ~
1 ~ --
_ __ " ~cr~'
- --- ~~
~ I
1
~
' I'
~
~
I
I
~
1, l
1
I I
I I ~ ~
~ 1
I
l l
I~ i e_I j. ~I
~~~~ ;I
' I I!
v,
v
i
---
~~ _ I
Ir
i '
I I ~ 1~ ~
I`
~ I
I I I ~' ~
I ~ ~ ~
'
~ rKn
' ~6 tam`,
\
'
~
~I ~
~
! I I Wnt sw
I ~ ~
~
'----,
I ,
I~
~ I ~ I,
I I
~ i
I I ~~ I ~
_.-
--- ~ 1 I
I ! I I
I,i 1~ I ~,
.. I' v~
- ~-~~ ~~,
1 --------! ~
~~t_ _ _ _ _ )~ ~
_
~ ~
~ I I I
~ r ' I Sunoco ixN1 ~ ' ; ' .
I ~ f I
_,
~ I I i j I
I Gas Station
I
~
l _ I
-
-_ ~ I I I ~~ ~ I L~
~ ~
~.
• 2if
- -- - - _- --- Inl ~° , ~
~ ~ I •. _ ~
( ~ ~~ 14st.
h
~ I
i 1. II
~ r
~ ~
- -
:
- ' ~ I I x -
'
~~
- - tTf, --- -
f ~ ~ I
~ ,~ ~ ~ _ - ~
1 I' I i
. ... -
(~~
_ I
I
~ I I I I _
1
- _ - '
'
~ L
_
'~
r> _
.~J ~
~ , l ~ I
l r ~ I;
I-- j
1 _
~ 1 i
~ j
i
~ _~
~
~ J _~ ~ ~ ' I 85fl
1
~ ' f ,65,0
•efin
I
i
~ m
I 1
-- --~
i _"
.
'__
)
~ 1~
I ~
I _ ~
I
~~~ I
`.
fhIWO
~ ar ~
F
1'. ~ I,1
~ h I ~ I ~,; Inv, 611.1!
I
' ' I
~
1 nu~I I
-~-
~
{ I 1
- - -
- - -
~ ( I
_ ~
1 ~ - d
~
-
: ~ I of SM.Y
~ t ~ ~, e•in 1 nro.l
:r °"
~: ~ ' WTI
~ Cemetery
Cit
f D
bli
~ _
_
.
1' ~
~~ 'P~ro; .~,
_- ~ ~
~
II ~ y o
n
u
.E _ _ . ,
6onrtxrolle~:« \ g'Ss re"., stn
~~! ~~~
~~~i
--
%''` /
I
'
Rup s. 1~5 0
b`Wa. Fre 101h0Mk95
~
„
.
N ~ r
- - ~ .I I i'I'
'I a
W01.OdnI I.I
1
t
I
' I
~
~ ~F
~ I
I
r s I'
~; '
5 ~ i F
; ', I 'd'Sw. Ser_ ' 111
k
$ I
1
-.,~, I
I
/"'
'
.
~ ~ I
a 'I hrpl
'
i°
I' ~
%
`
1
~
: ~ i I
rF
n ~
mess _~ ~~ ~ I'j ;
«r.es7 ~ I ' I r
ti;
~~ - ~ (
' ~
~
~ m
noa. ~n
' rc o
,
' i I
I - I ~I ~I
\ I r I~f U
_. ' ~
~ tol
-ef1AM aM,10F- r ~ ~ •I.~
I
~'
~
`
I+ t
I 1
\
~ I I
J
I l; l ' I! enOten ti
IY I
1
I
41 ~
`
III, \ \ I
(p3'~ l ~ n7xP4 -
I r I I
~ .-.r I I '\ ~ ._ "'r J
•/
J .
,.
~~ ~ , r
~6~•„~ ~oni~~Y~ii~
3 e+61. F.N
- \ ~ n Po be Rekz01rK11 , _
;,I
.. _
860 -.
'
~ I
~r
~
I l I~
Monterey ~ ~ ' ~ ~ 1
I ,
Park ~ ~ f ! I ~ , I ~
1 1
1
102
Ord. 42-08 Waterford Commons
Stormwater Management
Condos
ine devsgnrtwnl k ova 5 Dees, ihaefaro. wotarproYN conhok must bs
sxovduO h~.ut p~ovid¢ vakmeconhd wieM presc bes the use of one of the
'agnvirq BMP s:
Poafs
Dry basins
Cnnslruclod vmllonds
¢aelembn
teen ROOK
TredevelnprV.mlpmposes!ouselwoSMPY.biaelennor.uMaabosW. Rlb
bbreten'icn aee as shown v,~ cOPt~t Sheel Y~ow Irar IPOi~tCMr open:pott
crCC en the WOSr side Of Mcnlaey nAVP, an0 roOFd'an fmm IhP. rnii:fenfia!
buildings. Shretmall ord ootanoH hom the gaotlss vdl rol6oin!o the
dOrefengon basin
Jn¢rrmardw of he devebpm mrtlOnnp Oeimanvemenls cr 0ee0sl
side d Ma1.cley ~vr wH JIW2e p¢nious pOVemEnl'0 itae nm0lf:n 0
subnaNCCS drne sloragn byor m01 w¢; ho motlao0 m o Ory DusY1 faw0la
quollN Pulpcses. 'ne ;lane stodge Ayer w. vary:n Ire'eynofs hen I I"to J6'
ovn¢ca by o I-7setlrg bed o! 318" stone pOVetl ritn 3.1 S bACk pcvea,
sperlf~ce7y:n0 Wleak Eco~oplllOCk. the store slomge !aye a dase:oyer wtl
be dlafdo by o nsMoK of JnOOt dtaro to o COnvnal Oulbl Pw! wW contra
Iha pcOk Inw ~Ote belOre Oisd,aging 10 On elisting 5fa'm sera sKleT ebng
M.On10(Oy.'~.r'Ve.
ins bn;n:Qy¢I al stone wa7 on ortlenoin by o pe^neoVe geclexlire (obit t7wt
vd:0e0w vn. la t000t5 twl not mC Frci i't/[bY. ~"c r0lcawticr h4hohon
ocaa ve9 rat he modeled ro ke canservolHe, any ~fiOmMan h,al Goes occur
wdl Do eC`nktlCfed 0 bOnUs
fit sWCh,rm OapublVN o! Ihn povemenr sndbn wN de anoryeed to mCel
OCA1 eaWVOIP,rIt slroclual !equiremcnk. Porvioa purer ryslems ae able In
isOnaa heavy IooOS one rove been used ~ inalsMo:OppFcOPOns.
Relotl
fie refd: devsbpmenl wJ:nrlol a Slu!mla:h unaaground OolenCOn syilem
la JOb0lh waterqupity a+d delenticn, Ire Slaimerr sys!em hc;d
(Nel!rohnenl tleN[¢ la 5¢d411¢n! 4Md 15 darrosed 010 padui Stag
bClrom whbn aomoles'mRllalbn, fho sys'.Om w~F ttlmlcllaJVnM;m lne
pcrk'rtJ bi ns shown. $incs lne comme!vid lxojectkpodrlc brga
tleVaOpmsnl ova S Dour, wore CuOYty voMme aowtlown w^s De repJveO
u^s;s n vcnonre is oblohrd m hit slln k nlbulary to v irh a0a shnOm, the
fdolo tiva
Wafer Service
n matter meta vn7 bs mNOlhd perCary of Caumlwc slondads to seMce Ilro
rns:da l'a pa¢on Of the davsbpmenl Apnvote wore Sefvke wil be requvsd
1o rmc the P bit R/W of Mun'r!ey OMB ro 1MnCe ire urtils on IhBwes', vtto
OI MOnIaOy Dnue, the 5110 of the mohlYrr0lop aW rwlerlave Yr11o 0e
dnlam:nea.
A s¢poro'e s6wso w1tl be htldled far M+e tetsB bulrbng with o mmlamela.
nn nd68ond 16e hyfNonl k tx4g atldnd on Iho west sWe of the oevelopmonl
pa the s'vs DepaAmenh fie hytkonl W Ee serricdtl by 0 seporWr 6'fop olf
u''ha molnYnovrot¢dine obrp Monterey prve, fie IoG'ee wPo be for fire
protnc!ian aNy
Sanitary Service
Each b~a'ag wilMveore sanibrysrlNca, InrbullcAngs on lM: wmsi sNeW
Monraey Drive w1N nocn lave o lop onfolhe exisAng sorttary sewn) rbe. A
maltJinee6le.'SSnnis plmsned to serbco Nst Bvne bxdrgs an Inn end side of
Man76BY oNe.
U~ CtOSS~gS
Mommey Dfnn is s[r-0duled b bor¢poved N irt1B, IncrclorC open tot Of 1f0
sonllory a0ssing os we! os the Mro water Nne cros,ailps d pefertrd if d1e
repovmg con be dearyed unPo the uWNimgrovomenlsan iMaRnd.
LEGEND
,~~w~~~WS~~ r~w,~.,~
5701111f¢W¢r -Sl
forvlaryfewn -so ~.,,..,,.
~r.~
Waia Line -w w
0
.C
/^ O
V J ~
~ ~ 0
O O
.~
Y
nC
W ~-
~.
O
Q ~
~U °
0
U
SITE UTILITY
PLAN
mruso»:
GlA4AN FE4ER AflCNIiECTS INC
.ur.nce,
L', A .,U] 87
InryM 1 -' I I
s: r r.
0.1~k 6y11F..W
A1f910 I.hY bllr, ][dl
nnNO .ana ,N:n x. m
SIVtt!¢
iYa[d
GEr Y.d:
~tl
-
m
Xulx
,.~~, .u_.,..,~~ GW.i!rCSC 1(-
x ~ vo
I y
DHi~
8l0
xnhuv
z
3
LEGEND:
PERVIOUS PAVEMENT SECTION
•AF new povement lobe Uru1ock EcaOptilock Pavers a opprovea
equivolent,
II~'~ `~
I
~' .. ~1 -~
.~n~~~ ~~; P T~ ~ el ~ ~,
.I
.: ~~ ~ ~~
~,~ y i
A ~ ~ Y` r
1 J r~ t~ 1 r ~ I
:~ S~
f ~ a r~; r f '.
~'~%~ .,, i I r,
PERVIOUS PAVEMENT
NO SCALE
Q
L
O
,^
v
/ T
7
L~
0 0 ~
~ ~
w ~
~ 0 ~~
D
Q
~ U °
0
u
SITE GRADING
PLAN
N(I~iEO i~
GLAVAN FENER AgCHRECiS INC
RlbrR 4Mk~M l1 ',ttA
R(N1F0. AaW. AMr Axtl
FI mFtr
AENSF-
. ...,,
e) M
~
~
E~) 9110
103
Ord. 42-08 Waterford Commons
rrhhetl Grade tlevoNcn a House fG=
xxr.>f
ffnWl~ed Ffoa flevolbn of HOUSe fF=
pk)IX k
PmposeO POrrneadlePwemeM CXXXI
w)SlaaeeBed VKCX~X0~1
Prgwsea Stlevgit / Pnlb
0
Q 0
~ ~
~ Z ~
O~U
LL ~
< ~
~ ~
0
W ~ ri
~ 0 .~
Q
~U °
BIO-RETENTION
PLANTING PLAN
S
PLANT LEGEND
Acer Rubrum
Red Maple
Betula nigra
River Birch
Amelanchier x grondiftora'Autumn Brilliance'
Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry
Magnolio stellata'Royal Star'
Royal Star Magnolio
O Existing Tree
Ilexglabra'Densa' i~`
; Helio sishelionthoides'Venus'
Densa Compact Inkbelry ~'
~ Venup Folse SunBower
ViburnumMlobum'Bafley'
compoct Americon Cranbe Coreopsisverticillata'Moonbeom'
rry _ Moonbeam Coreopsis
j "~ Physocorpus opulifolius'Summer Wine'
~ ~ lobelia cardinalis
v Summer Wine Ninebark «
. ,
Red Cardinol flower
\
\i ilex verlicillafo
lnkberry
n Iris versicolor
Blue Flag Iris
Comus sericea
R
d
i I„~`i}`~Fi
~3~
~ Echinacea purperea
P
l
C
fl
e
os
erpogwood ;
; urp
ower
e
one
r- ~
Alchemilla mollls'Auslese' '. \\
\ ~ Sedum specfabile'Autumn Joy'
Autumn Joy Sedum
'
~ Lody's Mantle
wv
~vv Astilbe'RedSentinel' !''~~"`~"~~. Osmundocinnamomea
;"'° `
~._,.
"""
Red Sentinel Ashlbe Cinnamon Fern
_,c4$
°~ ~
~ Ccrex morrowii'Ice Dance Juniperus hor.zontolis'Blue Chip'
slue Chip Juniper
$
i1-~ ice Dance Sedge
104
Ord. 42-08 Waterford Commons
m.~~~
GRABILL
8(CD M PANY
AEAL ESTATG SfAVICk;f
I.B4FJ6Y.
GIAVAN fEHrR ARCHIiECiS INC
,,
fnpMa f ~:1
T.1C0 r'u «K~fi
new ~ ~ i.~
~~ ~ u ~ M v ,
o.ic e,MCeu.m
IlNttO AMA' Apll..xm
-into
etvnm
N::~,
noun
to _ a
t-T-~ GPnMlC Y.Mf:
m_ aT
110
0
U
I ~ ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOfING
BRICK VENEER
€.(` ;~ I CEDAR SIDING
CULIUREDSIONE
~ ~ ~~ ~ Pki4ACY FENCING
L III IIII SfANDINGSFAMMETALROC
EAST ELEVATION OF TOWNHOMES GRABILL
ILOpY,ING WES1 ACROSS MO^RFREYJ
l "I "I °'I WATERFORD COMMONS i OWNHOMES ON MONTEREY DRIVE ~_' C D M P A N Y
GLAVAN FEHER ARCHITECTS INC DU3l~l Q~OHIO REAL ESTATE SERVICES
Ord. 42-08 Waterford Commons
ASPHAU SHINGLE ROOFING
~:n BRICK VEN[ER
CEDAR SIDING
CULTURED STONE
PRIVACY FENCING
II U~1LL~ STANDING SEAM METAL ROi
~I
-~
uI uI al
GIAVAN FEHER ARCHITECTS INC
50UTH ELEVATION OF NORTH MONTEREY "OWNHOME$
WATERFORD COMMONS TOWNHOMES ON MONTEREY DRIVE
DUBLIN, OHIO
~~~.b
Ord. 42-08 Waterford Commons
GRABILL
C O M P A N Y
REAL ESTA?8 SF.RVIC,ES
~~~ ,~
_~
--~ U __ /
ASPHAl15HINGlEROOflNG
BRICK VENEER
CEDARSIGNG
CUL7UREOSiONE
I~ I I I i l l l l PRIVACY FENCING
STANDING SEAM METAL ROC
Cj
NORTH ELEVATION OF NORTH TOWNHOMES! GARAGES GRABILL
(SOUTH TOWNHOME EIEVAlIONS SIMILAR loppnsile hardy
f "I "I "j WATERFORD COMMONS TOWNHOMES ON MONTEREY DRIVE &_C O M P A N Y
DUBLIN, OHIO REAL ESTATE SERVICES
GIAVAN FEHER ARCHITECTS INC ,0~,0
Ord. 42-08 Waterford Commons
ASPHAITSFNNGlEROUFMlG
hi" BRICK VENEER
~._~ CEDAR SIOING
CULIURE0510NE
RRIVACY FENGNG
~~ STANDING SEAM MEIAI RUUFlNG
'\
~ gal ,7 «I
GLAVAN FEHER ARCHITECTS INC
WEST ELEVATION OF MONTEREY TOWNHOMES
WATERFORD COMMONS TOWNHOMES ON MONTEREY DRIVE
DUBL'I'N, EO~HIO
AP~ t O 4T"
Ord. 42-08 Waterford Commons
GQ~RABILL
p(,COM PANY
REAL ESTATE SEAVICGS
ASPHALT SHINGLEROOEING
~~ BRICK VENEER
CEDAR SIDING
CUWREDSiONE
CI~(.-T_I PRIVACYFENCRJG
STANDING SEAM MEIAI ROOERJG
_-~
^. ~I
!~
I
I
I
~.~II
d: :131 WI
GIAVAN FEFiER ARCHITECTS INC
U
--~
RETAIL/ COMMERCIAL
ELEVATIONS
WATERFORD COMMONS RETAIL
DUBLIN, OHIO
~~Q ~
Ord. 42-08 Waterford Commons
GRABILL
&C Q M P A N Y
REAL £S7ATE SERVICES
WI911[vNbl t0VM11N'~IIGv
~F~;~ ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING
~':~- BRICK VENEER
CEDAR SIDING
~ CULfUREDSfONE
I '"1_ ~~~ - -`~~'
GLAVAN FEHER ARCHITECTS INC
RETAIL/ COMMERCIAL
ELEVATIONS
WATERFORD COMMONS RETAIL
DUBLIN, OHIO
~~~
Ord. 42-OS Waterford Commons
GRABILL
t~!COM PANY
REAL ESTATB S8RVICFS
W91~IIIEVAIµY, FA71Fl(VAgfll
GLAVAN FEHER ARCHITECTS INC
TOWNHOMES
ILOOKMG NORlHWES! PROLt ~tONfEREYI
WATERFOjj~~pp COMMONS
DUB~IblOH10
Ord. 42-08 water€ord Commons
GRABILL
&COMPANY
REAL ESTATE SERVICES
TOWNhIOMES
Il00KiNG SOU7NWB' FROnn MONTEREYI
WA?ERFCR COMMONS
DUES' 2OHI0
GLAVAN FEHER ARCHITECTS INC OTd. 42 -08 Wa~B~ord COIttICtOriS
GRABILL
C O M P A N Y
REAL ESTATE SERVICES
6LAVAN FEHER ARCHITECT$ INC
RETAIL CENTER
ILOOK!NG SOU?HERS? FROM INTERSEC110N OF BRIDGE AND MON?EREYI
WATERFO OMMONb
DUI HIO
Ord. 42-08 Wa~e~ford Commons
GRA.BILL
C U M P A V Y
REAL ESTATE SERVICES
SECOND RE DING - .JULY 1, 2008
NE~~~/REVISED DOCUI~JENTS
FOLLO«'ED BY FIRST RE_~DINU DOCUII~IENTS OF JUNE 16,2008
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
~~,.
O>•dincrncc No.
42-08
Passed ~D
AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 5.5 ACRES
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEST BRIDGE STREET
AND ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF MONTEREY
DRIVE FROM R-2, LIMITED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT AND CC, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
(WATERFORD COMMONS -CASE NO. 07-084CP/Z).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin,
State of Ohio, of the elected members concurring:
Section 1. That the following described real estate (see attached map marked Exhibit
"A") situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned PUD, Planned
Unit Development District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures
contained in Ordinance No. 21-70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances) the City
of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto.
Section 2. That application, Exhibit "B", including the list of contiguous and affected
property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
Exhibit "C", are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and
said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance therewith.
Section 3. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the
earliest period allowed by law.
Passed this day of , 2008.
Mayor -Presiding Officer
Attest:
Clerk of Council
CITY OF DUBLIlV_
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017-1090
Phone: G14-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490
TO: Members of City Council
FROivI: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager ~or~ j S t3
DATE: July 31, 2008
Memo
INITIATED BY: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning
RE: Ordinance 42-08, Waterford Commons -Rezoning (Case No. 07- 084CP/Z)
Request
This is a request for the approval of a rezoninglpreliminary development plan to rezone 5.5 acres
from R-2, Limited Suburban Residential District and CC, Community Commercial District to
PUD, Planned Unit Development District for a development that includes 12,000 square feet of
commercial use, 25 townhouse units, and 0.8 acre of open space.
City Council First Reading Comments
This ordinance was introduced at the June 16, 2008 City Council meeting. Council members
questioned the spacing of the proposed traffic signal in relation to existing signals along West
Bridge Street. More information regarding the traffic patterns along this corridor was requested.
(Attached is a memo from Engineering responding to Council's concerns.) Members of Council
were also interested in the functionality, plant selection and maintenance of the proposed bio-
retention basin in the residential part of the project. The applicant has provided additional
information regarding this feature, including photographs ofestablished bio-retention basins and
a concept of potential plant selections.
Regarding the proposed residential architecture, Council encouraged the applicant to limit the
amount of siding that could be used. The development text has been revised to require greater
percentages of masonry, depending on the location of the building and the architectural
elevation.
Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission
The Planning and Zoning Commission informally reviewed this proposal at its February 7, 2008
Work Session. The Commission discussed the proposed residential density, Emphasized the need
for pedestrian and vehicular connectivity, and directed the applicant to reduce the commercial
building setback. Concerns about the residential architecture included the need to vary the design
and materials for individual units and the need for more brick and stone. It was also suggested
that the garages include a variety of doors and materials.
On May 15, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the changes to the proposal
subsequent to the Work Session, the proposed parking, perimeter buffering, architecture, and the
details of the proposed access gate. The Commissioners also requested that all restaurants be
AUG 4, 2008 2ND READING TABLED ,~~ `~,~ ~,3MITTED TO CoUrtciL
1 73~`oc6, ;.~ MEETING vi~l.._ 'L~
Ord. 42-08 Waterford Commons
Memo to Council re Ord. 42-08 Rezoning -Waterford Commons
July 31, 2008
Page 2 of 3
considered conditional uses. The concept plan/rezoning/preliminary development plan was
recommended to Council for approval with 18 conditions, as follows:
I) That the provision allowing the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve
encroachments into the right-of--way be removed from the development text;
2) That the parking for the patio areas either meet the development text or that the applicant
identify a parking solution at the final development plan stage;
3) That the applicant demonstrate compliance with the City's Stormwater Ordinance, prior
to obtaining a building permit;
4) That the proposed text be revised to include the permitted used within the HB, Historic
Business District;
S) That the setback from the West Bridge Street right-of--way be increased to one-foot .to
avoid encroachments of building footers in the right-of--way;
6) That the text be revised to indicate that the intent of the Code will be met for perimeter
buffering, that adequate screening between Subareas A and B be provided, and that
existing landscaping will be augmented to achieve the desired effects;
7} That the text be revised to indicate the tirneframe for the installation of the traffic signal;
8) That the applicant dedicate the necessary right-of--way to meet the Thoroughfare Plan for
West Bridge Street;
9} That the development text be revised to provide information about the access gate,
including that it be maintained in good working order by the Homeowners Association,
meet the Fire Code, and that the access is controlled 24/7;
10) That the applicant pay particular attention to provide additional architectural relief for
garages facing the northwest and southwest portion of the western Subarea A;
11} That the text be revised to require a variety of decorative, distinctive front doors for the
residential units;
12) That the applicant maximize tree preservation along the western property line and attempt
to work with the property owner to the west to cooxdinate adequate perimeter buffering;
13) That the applicant provide a pedestrian connection to the north of the western Subarea A
should the property to the north develop;
14) That the dumpster in Subarea B be relocated;
15) That the development text be revised to require all restaurants, taverns, nightclubs,
lounges, dance halls and patios require conditional use approval by the Planning and
Zoning Commission;
16) That the commercial architecture be revised to stagger or eliminate the band along the
elevations;
17) That the development text be revised to include more detailed sign provisions consistent
with recent developments within the Historic District; and
18) That the one parking space in the northeast corner of Subarea B be eliminated.
The applicant has addressed all Conditions with the exception of 3, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 16 by
modifying the development text and the preliminary development plan. Remaining conditions
must be addressed at either the final development plan or the building permit stage.
2
Ord. 42-08 Waterford Commons
Memo to Council re Ord. 42-08 Rezoning -Waterford Commons
July 31, 2008
Page 3 of 3
Description
The proposed plan includes three subareas, and the development text and the preliminary
development plan provides an explanation of uses and basic development standards for each
subarea. '
^ Subarea A -Residential: Subarea A includes 25 townhouses in three and five-unit buildings
with attached, rear-loaded garages on 3.7 acres located on either side of Monterey Drive,
south of West Bridge Street. The text permits {but does not require) permeable pavement for
the private drives and parking azeas. Six-foot privacy fences are permitted to create private
courtyards at the rear of each unit. End unit fences are required to be constructed of masonry
that complements the building architecture.
^ Subarea B -Commercial: Subarea B is cone-story commexcial building with associated
parking, facing West Bridge Street on the east side of Monterey Drive, on a 1.1-acre site.
Three access points are provided; aright-in access from West Bridge Street, a full access
drive from Monterey Drive, and a gated access from Subarea A.
Permitted Uses. The development text permits uses within the NC, Neighborhood
Commercial District, CC, Community Commercial District, the HB, Historic Business
District and dry cleaning services, art galleries, and wine and other specialty stores. A
condition was added that restaurants, taverns, nightclubs, lounges, dance halls and patios
will require conditional use approval.
Development Standards. One building with a maximum size of 12,000 square feet ~ is
permitted. Aone-foot setback from the West Bridge Street right-of--way is intended to
emulate the development pattern of the Historic District.
Patios. The development text permits up to 3,000 square feet of outdoor dining patios
located on the south, west and east sides of the building, most of which are in the West
Bridge Street right-of--way. Code requires encroachments into the right-of--way be
approved by the City Engineer and by City Council through aright-of--way encroachment
application.
• Subarea C - t?pen Space: The 0.5 acres of Subarea C borders the east portion of Subarea A,
adjacent to the Dublin Cemetery, for either an expansion of the Dublin cemetery or open
space. The land exchange legislation {Ordinance 45-08} is on the July 1, 2008 Council
agenda foz introduction/fust reading.
)Eteconntnendation
Planning recommends Council approval of Ordinance 42-08.
3
Ord. 42-08 Waterford Commons
CTfY OF DUBLIN.
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017-1090
Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-4 ] 0-4490
TO: Members of City Council
FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager~.~d 7~
DATE: July 31, 2008
Memo
INITIATED BY: Paul A. Hammersmith, PE, Director of Engineering/City Engineer
Jean-EIlen Willis, PE, Engineering Manager -Transportation
Summary
RE: Engineering Comments re Ordinance 42-08 -Waterford Commons Rezoning
With the proposed development of Waterford Commons, installation of a traffic signal can be
considered at the intersection of SR 161 & Monterey Drive. As discussed at the City Cauncil meeting
on June 16, 2008, there are many factors to consider along SR l61 prior to operating a signal at this
intersection.
Monterey Drive Considerations:
The traffic exiting Monterey Drive will experience less delay in accessing SR 161 with a signal.
Without a signal at either of the Monterey Drive intersections with SR 161 or Frantz Road, drivers may
use the Manterey Drive/Frantz Road intersection to travel north on Frantz Road and west on SR 161 or
north on Post Road and avoid the Monterey Drive/SR 161 intersection. A signal would ease these two
movements, but could also attract traffic from northbound Dublin Road via Waterford Drive and
northbound Frantz Road. The traffic impact study performed for this site shows that one of the eight
signal warrants is met by a small margin, and another is close to being met using current traffic volumes
on Monterey Drive and trips generated by fully occupied retail space. Only one of the eight warrants
must be satisfied to consider the use of a signal for heightened intersection traffic control.
Intersection Spacing Considerations:
The proximity of the school zone for Indian Run Elementary and Sells Middle Schools could impact the
operation of SR 161 with a new signal at Monterey Drive. A signal, in addition to the overhead school
speed limit flashers and driver feedback signs at each end of the school zone, would add to the amount
of indications a driver must recognize and obey along SR 161. As is the case whenever a signal is
installed, rear-end collisions will likely increase.
The existing traffic signal to the west at Corbin's Mill Drive/Shawan Falls Drive and to the east at High
School Road are in close proximity, 660 feet and 440 feet respectively, to the proposed signal location
and would limit the length of the back-to-back left turn lanes on SR 161 for Monterey Drive and High
School Road. An additional signal will also add delay for evening drivers on SR 161.
Recommendation
Engineering staff concurs with the Land Use & Long Range Planning recommendation of approval of
Ordinance 42-OS for the rezoning for the Waterford Commons Development proposal.
,,. , ,~ ~ :~~~I~PCq'1'U CC,llpl .IL
4 ~-3~` ~ . : MCETING CJi ; O.r "1."~~
Ord. 42-08 Waterford Cottunorrs
Dublin City Council
June 16, 2008 Page 8
Ms. Grigsby st ed that for salt, there only a few suppliers. he individuals at the
online aucti have knowledge of m y bidders and informs n to share. At staff I I,
they are are of those the City h done business with i e past who would lik
continu o do business throng is process.
Mr erber stated that the currents indicate ther is apre-qualification cess and that
me municipalities act ly charge a fee for the individuals who are i erested in
submitting quotes onl e. It seems that there a safeguards in place
Mr. Keenan aske if there are other ven rs who run online auc ' ns.
Ms. Grigsby r onded that there are I~ ely others. The comp y identified is one th t
staff resear ed and obtained infor lion about, including r erence checks from o er
cities and ompanies who have u d them. If the progra is not successful with is
comps ,staff can look at othe
Mr. enan would be interes din seeing this proce from beginning to co letion for
o project versus approv g it for all projects.
r. Gerber suggested t ' may be a good proje for the Finance Com ee to review.
Mr. Keenan agreed.
Mayor Chinnici- ercher suggested that ouncil give permissio or staff to do the salt
with this proc sand report back to C ncil about how the thr shold was established e
response re eived, and the outcom .
Ms. Gr' sby pointed out that L al staff has advised th the Code must be a nded in
orde o use this process.
M . Brautigam stated that ouncil needs to amen the Code to allow the ocess, with the
nderstanding that only a salt bid will be don ith this process. Afte eporting back to
Council about the sal id experience, Counc' can give direction abo using the process
in the future or, if satisfied, can repeal a ordinance.
Mr. Smith res nded that the ordinan could be amended a econd reading to restr'
the use oft process to the salt bi .Council does not se completely comforts with
this new ocess, based on toni 's comments.
Mr G er stated that it does t make sense to appr e a Code amendment iven the
unc ainty Council has exp ssed.
M .Smith responded that Bally, this cannot be ne -even on a trial b s -without
mending the Code.
Mr. Gerber sugge d that Council amend a Code to allow this cess, with the
provision it only used for the salt pur ase.
Mr. Lecklid noted that he is comf able with what staff h presented and their
represen lions of reporting bac o Council. Any Coun ~ member can raise th otential
for rep I at some point, if ne ssary.
or Chinnici-Zuercher greed, adding that ve good records should kept about how
e threshold is establi ed and about the enti process. There have een challenges in
recent times with co ty decisions in regard bidding. For this res n, it is good for the
documentation to every thorough.
Mr. Keenan sta d that he is somewha eluctant to relinquish t s authority without bet r
understandin the process.
There w' be a second reading/ blic hearing at the Jul 1 Council meeting.
Ordinance 42-08
Rezoning Approximately 5.5 Acres, Located on the South Side of West Bridge Street
on the East and West Sides of Monterey Drive from: R-2, Limited Suburban
Residential District and CC, Community Commercial District to: PUD, Planned Unit
Development District . (Waterford Commons -Case No. 07-084CP/Z).
Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance.
Dublin City Council
June 16, 2008 Page 9
Ms. Husak noted that this proposal rezones 5.5 acres comprised of 10 parcels. She
described the site and surrounding properties. There are existing two-family dwellings on
the site and vacant land at the corner of Monterey and West Bridge. The site is relatively
flat with mature trees along the perimeter and center of the site. The Dublin Cemetery is
located immediately to the east.
1. The site plan includes 12,000 square feet of commercial space along Bridge
Street and 25 townhome units. There is .8 acres of open space provided.
2. Planning Commission reviewed the proposal on February 7 at a work session and
a revised plan at the May 15 meeting. They recommended approval to City
Council at that time.
3. She described the proposal in the context of the Historic District Area Plan.
4. There are three subareas proposed and the development text and preliminary
development plan provide an explanation of the uses and basic development
standards for each of the subareas.
5. Subarea A is the largest and accommodates 25 townhome units on 3.7 acres-
There are nine proposed on the east side of Monterey and 16 on the west side of
Monterey. It is one unit less than what was proposed at the February 7 work
session.
6. Subarea B has frontage along West Bridge and includes approximately 1.3 acres.
The preliminary development plan indicates a 12,000 square foot commercial
building oriented toward West Bridge Street to the north. There is parking to the
east and to the south of that subarea.
7. Subarea C is a .5 acre site immediately adjacent to the cemetery. The
development text permits this area to be used as either open space or an
expansion of the current Dublin Cemetery.
8. She shared a site plan with more details. The townhome units are all accessed
by rear-loaded garages which are served by an internal access drive. There is
access to those drives from Monterey and also to the north from Subarea B.
9. There are internal pedestrian paths included in this proposal and there are
sidewa{ks currently existing on both Monterey and West Bridge. There is a
pedestrian connection proposed to a path to the south that exists within Monterey
Park.
10. The Commission had some concerns about pedestrian connectivity to the north
and there is a condition 13 that would enable a pedestrian path to the north if that
site were developed. The location of that would be determined as part of the
development for the parcel to the north.
11. For the Subarea B, there are three access points proposed: full access from
Monterey Drive; a right in only from West Bridge; and limited access to the south
to Subarea A. The plan shows a gate that will restrict access for all but
emergency vehicles or residents of that subarea.
12. In order to address Condition 9 from P&Z, the applicant has included in the
development text additional information about the gate. the maintenance and the
working order, and the 24/7 controlled access.
13. The development text permits uses in the CC and Neighborhood Commercial of
the zoning code. It was also amended to include the Historic District permitted
uses. Based on discussion at P&Z, all restaurants. taverns, lounges, dance halls
and patios require conditional use approval by the Planning Commission.
14. The proposal for Subarea B also includes 3,000 square feet of patio space.
Some of these are located in the right-of-way, which will require encroachment
approval from City Council.
15. Parking for the subarea is provided as one space per 200 square feet of building.
Excluding the patios, this would provide 60 spaces for this development. The
plan can accommodate 70. One space was removed in the northeastern corner,
based on a condition from P&Z. The dumpster location was changed as well.
16. The preliminary development plan includes fairly detailed architectural elevations
for both the residential and commercial subareas. The primary building materials
are brick; stone and siding. The colors proposed are generally muted to match
what exists in the Waterford Village neighborhood to the south.
17. The Commission also had concerns about how the garages and sides of the units
will appear and asked that the applicant pay particular attention to that at the final
development plan stage.
Dublin City Council
June 16, 2008 Page 10
18. There are privacy fences proposed between the garages and the main building to
enclose the patio areas located within them.
19. The Commission also had concerns about the garage elevations and breaking
them up. The applicant has proposed cupolas and more decorative garage doors
to make them more interesting.
20. She shared views/renderings of what the buildings could look like. The applicant
also included some relief in the roof lines in response to a request at the work
session.
21. For the commercial architecture, the development text requires a building that
appears to be two-story, with architecture reminiscent of the Historic District. The
commercial elevations maintain the two-story appearance for the majority of the
building. They include varied roof lines and differing materials. There are
building materials on all sides repeated as well as the fenestration.
Planning has reviewed this proposal based on the review criteria for the
rezoning/preliminary development plan. In staffs opinion, almost all of the criteria can be
met with conditions. The open space requirement has been met, and it is consistent with
the land use principles and the Historic Dublin Area Plan. Planning and the Planning &
Zoning Commission recommend approval with the 18 conditions summarized in the
materials. Many of the conditions have been satisfied, while the remaining ones will be
monitored at either the building permitting stage or final development plan stage.
Mr. Reiner asked why the applicant did not do a full two-story building.
Ms. Husak responded that the main concern is the parking. There was initially 16,000
square feet proposed. Having enough parking on the site was a main concern and
resulted in reduction of the square footage.
Mr. Reiner commented regarding the residential component. The scale of the porches is
well done in relationship to the structures. He is hopeful that the staff will ensure that on
the elevations done by the architect.
Ms. Husak noted that the Commission had an additional concern regarding decorative
front doors and the desire to have a variety versus repetitive doors.
Mr. Reiner commented that staff should ensure that the scale does not shrink on these
important features.
Ms. Salay asked why the Planning Commission wanted restaurants to be a conditional
use for this project.
Ms. Husak responded that the initial discussion focused on parking- The rate of parking is
somewhat less than Code typically requires. By making them a conditional use, it wou-d
trigger an automatic review of valet options or alternative parking options. The language
used is straight from the Code. Another discussion also related to noise levels or odors
that could result from restaurant uses.
Ms. Salay noted that both vinyl siding and hardiplank are options. Is the developer
resistant to keeping this as only hardiplank? The costs of higher grade vinyl are very
comparable to hardiplank.
Ms. Husak stated that staff has encouraged the applicant to use the higher quality, thicker
vinyl products.
Ms. Salay added that the vinyl option is in the text, but she would prefer to limit this to
hardiplank.
Ms. Salay asked about the bio-retention basin and its appearance. It appears as a nice
perennial bed, and she is not certain how that will work with the retention basin. Is it a
depressed area?
Ms. Husak responded affirmatively. This is an educational process for staff as well, and
will be considered with the final development plan. Staff can provide additional
information at the second reading.
Ms. Salay responded that photos would be very helpful for the bio-retention basin.
Ms. Salay requested that staff be prepared to address the signal at Monterey Drive at the
next hearing. There is a fair amount of support of that concept in the neighborhood, but
she is also aware the signals can draw traffic as well. She is interested in the traffic
impacts of that in view of the commercial areas that surround Waterford Village. Perhaps
discussion of some potential future plans for 161 and Bridge Street throughout the entire
Dublin City Council
June 16, 2008 Page 11
area -from Frantz Road east through the Historic District -could take place. She is
interested in learning how all of that will work together in the District.
Mr. Keenan noted that he is interested in information about the spacing issues regarding
traffic signals -the one at Kroger and at the school. It appears to be very close. He
assumes a warrant would be required to install a signal at Monterey. He would like
information about the traffic numbers in that area. Most importantly, he is interested in
how signal spacing information for signals and how it would impact traffic along the
corridor, especially with the school zone.
Ms. Husak responded that Planning will work with Engineering to provide additional
information on these matters.
Mr. Gerber stated that he agrees with Ms. Salay in the desire to better understand how all
of that traffic will flow. A little further to the east are shops where pedestrian crossings for
161 have been requested. As more mass comes to Historic Dublin, the traffic -both
vehicular and pedestrian -will have to be closely monitored. In addition, will this project
result in additional cemetery space?
Ms, Husak responded that the Law Director can respond to this.
Mr, Smith stated that a land exchange proposal wilt be brought to Council on July 13' as
previously discussed. The City will obtain land to add on to the cemetery or to keep as
green space in exchange for the commercial land, with monies owed to the City. A first
reading will take place of this legislation on July 15t.
Ben Hale attorney and Linda Menerv. EMH&T, representing the applicant came forward
to testify.
Mr. Hale noted that at the next meeting, they will bring their traffic engineer. They did a
traffic study, and the signal wilt be warranted once this project is built. At the previous
meetings, the neighborhoods have been strongly supportive of the signal. He commented
as follows:
1. The City owns part of this land and the commercial portion of the project cannot
move forward unless Council agrees to do the land exchange.
2. He noted that infill sites are challenging, in terms of providing buyers with
desirable units, while addressing issues such as stormwater. The engineer can
attend the public hearing, if Council desires, to provide information about some of
the innovations they are implementing with this project.
Edward Feher Glavin Feher Architects. 2 Miranova Place. Columbus explained that in
developing the architecture, they have studied the state of buildings in the Historic District
and the Waterford area, taken the scale of those buildings, breaking down multiple unit
buildings as much a possible, and breaking the facades down to appear as individual
townhomes. A lot of attention is paid to front entries to each townhome, making them a
little different, yet with unity across the project. Muted earth tones will be used,
predominately brick and stone on the facades. The roof lines are staggered. For the
commercial building, they struggled with what the market can bear and what the site can
park. There may be some retailers who can use a loft space. They looked closely at
Town Center I, which has a nice scale. They are using the same eave heights and some
of the same window elevation head heights to carry that look further to the west.
Mr. Reiner stated that the explanation of parking suffices for him_ There has been
discussion of town centers with residential units above, and that is why he raised this
issue. He was somewhat surprised that the elevations were shrunk. They have done a
nice job with breaking up the roof lines for the rest of the units.
Mr. Lecklider stated that he not per se opposed to the use of vinyl. It was allowed in some
portions of Ballantrae, and his recollection is that the result was a similar appearance to
hardiplank. In reviewing the text where it indicates vinyl is allowed, there does not seem
to be a percentage limitation. What assurance can be given that the result will not be a
predominantly vinyl project?
Mr. Hale responded that they could devise some language to address this by the final
hearing.
Council Members were in agreement with this request.
Dublin City Council
June 16, 2008 Page 12
Mr. Reiner asked if the stone would be limestone or applied stone.
Mr. Feher responded it would include both.
Mr. Reiner asked about the bio-detention system, Will the down spouts from all the units
and the hard surface areas drain into this system?
Ms. Menery, EMH&T stated that the alley is actually permeable pavers. There is storage
underneath. Into the rear permeable pavement will betaken the downspouts; lawn and
sidewalk, all of which will drain into the bio-basin. It is a relatively new concept, and is a
scaled-down version from the one being built in Tartan. There is an amended soil
installed, and the stormwater is retained in that storage area for 24 hours and dissipates.
There is a detailed landscape plan provided. It is intended to appear as an English
garden, which will serve as the centerpiece of this development.
Mr. Reiner asked if the grades will be set so that the permeable pavers sheet in a certain
direction in order to have aback-up in the case of malfunctions of the system.
Ms. Menery responded that this is a more detailed question for the engineer who will be
present at the next hearing.
Mr. Reiner stated that the Engineering indicates that this relatively contained flower bed
will be able to hold the drainage.
Ms. Menery responded that they will hold the drainage from the front yards. The back
area will hold the other drainage.
Mr. Reiner suggested that they check the plant list to determine if they can retain this
volume of moisture.
Ms. Menery agreed that more work is needed on these elements.
Mr. Lecklider asked how the text ensures diversity in terms of exterior materials. What wilE
happen if all the buyers want brick or all stone?
Mr. Hale responded that they talked extensively at the Planning Commission about the
exteriors. This discussion will continue at the final development plan stage. They will
have building detail at the final development plan, and buyers will not have choices in
exteriors. They will only have options for the interiors. These will be very nice units, and
with options will bring the price point to $400,000 and up. They will provide detail on
percentages of brick and stone.
Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that this is a very exciting project and an area which
is in need of a new entry. She is certain that the Waterford area, the Schools and Historic
Dublin will be delighted with this entrance area. She suggested that the applicant work
with staff to address the issues raised tonight prior to the second reading on July 1.
There wilt be a second readinglpublic hearing at the July 1$` Council meeting
lpproximatefy 1.48 Acres Lo ed on the North Side
tely 500 Feet West of M~ rial Drive to Amend a Pry
ied Unit Development. ' ublin Learning Academy - C
introduced the ordin ce. /
Mr. Langworthy stated t ' ~s a proposed.development for a Dublin Learning Academy,
located just north of morial Drive with access from omdale Drive.
1. Two pha of the previously approved d opment of four phases have b~,e~fS
2: T purpose of the rezoning is to .daycare as a permitted use an o approve
e construction of a playgroup f 3,600 square feet.
The playground equipment ors as' indicated in the text will rowns and
greens, which is gener what is required in Dublin.
4. Portions of the prop ed fencing connect to an existin tone wall, as shown on
the slides. The ce is four feet in height of wrou iron with black matte finish.
5. The criteria the rezoning and preliminary d opment plan have all been me
with one ndition requested, that an acce easement be provided for the v nt
parc o the east.
y hinnici-Zuercher asked about t distance of the playground to orial Drive.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since Jnne 16, 2008 CC Meeting
WATERFORD COMMONS
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD)
June 23, 2008
I. Description:
The Waterford Commons PUD is being created to facilitate the redevelopment of
ten parcels of real property totaling 5.5 ± acres that are generally located on the east and
west sides of Monterey Drive and south of Bridge Street. This project seeks to transform
a number of properties into a vibrant new community that compliments the character of
nearby Historic Dublin. This text sets standards for the development of twenty-five (25)
townhomes that will produce residential opportunities within walking distance of
neighborhood-scale restaurants, shops, and services. It also includes a retail component
along Bridge Street and provides land for the expansion of the Dublin Cemetery.
II. Development Standards:
Unless otherwise specified in the submitted drawintrs or in this written text, the
development standards of Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin Code shall apply. Basic
development standards are compiled regarding proposed density, general site issues,
traffic, circulation, landscaping, and architecture. These component standards ensure
consistency and quality throughout the development.
III. Subarea A:
Subarea A is located on the east and west sides of Monterey Drive. This subarea
consists of 3.7 ± acres and shall contain the residential component of the PUD.
A. Permitted Uses: Permitted uses shall include attached residential townhomes.
B. Density, Lot, and Setback Commitments:
1. Number of Units: The maximum number of dwelling units in Subarea A shall
be twenty-five (25). Individual buildings shall contain a minimum of three (3)
and a maximum of five (5) townhome units.
2. Setbacks (West of Monterey Drive): A minimum setback of ten (10) feet for
pavement and twenty-five (25) feet for buildings shall be required from all
perimeter boundaries, except that a minimum building and pavement setback of
fifteen (15) feet shall be required from the Monterey Drive right-of-way.
3. Setbacks (East of Monterey Drive): A minimum setback of ten (10) feet for
pavement and twenty-five (25) feet for buildings shall be required from the south
and east property lines. A minimum setback of ten (10) feet for pavement and
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since June 16, 2008 CC Meeting
buildings shall be required from the north property line. A minimum building and
pavement setback of fifteen (15) feet shall be required from the Monterey Drive
right-of-way.
4. Other Setbacks: Due to their nature as attached townhomes, there shall be no
side yard requirement between residential units. There shall be a minimum
setback of ten (10) feet between buildings.
5. Encroachments: Stoops, steps, window wells, and porches on the front and
side of each unit or buildintr shall be permitted to encroach into an applicable
setback up to five (5) feet. All other encroachments into setbacks shall be
permitted in accordance with the City of Dublin Zoning Code.
6. Lot coveraee: Impervious services shall cover a maximum of seventy percent
(70%) of this subarea.
C. Access, Parking, and other Traffic-Related Commitments:
1. Parkintr: An enclosed two (2) or (3) car garage shall be located to the rear of
each unit. In addition, each unit shall provide for at least two (2) off-street
parking spaces within the driveway behind the garage. A minimum of twelve
(12) additional on-street parking spaces shall be provided in the subarea.
2. Circulation: Dwellings in this subarea shall be accessed via existing Monterey
Drive. These dwellings shall be served by private drives and alleys that provide
internal circulation within the subarea and shall be subject to the followintr
standards:
a. Pavement width for private alleys shall be a minimum of twenty-two
(22) feet.
b. Parking shall be permitted in private alleys in designated areas.
c. Maintenance of private alleys shall be the responsibility of a forced and
funded homeowners or condominium association.
d. Unless otherwise set forth in this text, private alleys within this
development shall be constructed in accordance with the City of Dublin
Code and the standards established by the City of Dublin Engineer.
e. Existing public sidewalks shall be maintained or replaced as necessary
along Monterey Drive. Private walks shall be provided from the front
door of each unit to connect to sidewalks along Monterey Drive where
applicable. All public sidewalks shall be constructed of concrete and in
accordance with City standards.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since June 16, 2008 CC Meeting
f. The developer. through an agreement with the City's engineering staff,
shall make an equitable contribution to the construction of an off-site
bikepath to be constructed by the City to the south of the western side of
Subarea A in Monterey Park. This path is expected to run generally from
east to west to Corbin's Mill Road.
g. A private sidewalk shall extend both north and south from the bio basin
area on the west side of Monterey Drive to provide pedestrian access to
garages and the rear of townhome units. The southern sidewallc shall
extend beyond the private alley to the southern boundary line of this
subarea to provide pedestrian access to Monterey Park.
h. The owner of the portion of Subarea A found to the west of Monterey
Drive or the homeowners or condominium association that serves this
property shall make reasonable efforts to accommodate a pedestrian
connection to adjacent properties to the north in the event that such
properties are developed or redeveloped with uses that are compatible to
those found in this subarea.
3. Pavement: In order to promote an environmentally friendly development,
permeable pavement shall be permitted to be utilized in private alleys, parking
areas, and on driveways serving individual units. This permeable pavement shall
be designed to meet ODOT specifications as required by the Dublin Code,
provided that it is approved by the Director of Engineering.
4. Access Gate: Agate shall be installed in Subarea A on the vehicular drive that
connects the eastern portion of Subarea A to Subarea B. This gate shall serve the
purpose of preventing commercial traffic in Subarea B from. directly entering
Subarea A. The gate shall have controlled access 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
to allow only residents of the eastern portion of Subarea A to access to their units.
The gate shall be kept in good working order by the homeowners or condominium
association that serves Subarea A and shall meet all requirements of the fire code.
D. Architectural Standards:
1. General Standards: All structures shall meet the City of Dublin Zoning Code
Residential Appearance Standards unless otherwise set forth herein. Depictions
of the architectural scheme accompany this text and are intended to provide
general illustrations of the character, materials, colors, and scale of the products in
the development. The exteriors of all structures shall consist of high quality
materials with designs that are harmonious with and complimentary to that found
in Historic Dublin.
2. Building Height: Maximum building heights shall be thirty-five (35) feet as
measured per the City of Dublin Code.
3
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since June 16, 2008 CC Meetin;
3. Exterior Cladding Materials:
a. The primary material on each building facade shall consist of brick,
brick veneer, stone, cultured stone, stone veneer, vinyl siding,
cementitious fiberboard, or other comparable materials, or some
combination thereof. No exposed concrete or split faced block shall be
permitted. Four-sided architecture shall be required so that similar
architectural design elements and details are consistent throughout all
elevations of the structure.
b. The facades of each of the residential buildings in this subarea shall
consist of a minimum surface area of masonry or masonry veneer as
provided below. Windows. shutters. doors, roofs. trim, and fencing shall
be excluded when calculating the surface area of a particular facade.
i. At least sixthpercent (60%) of the surface area of the front
facade of each building in this subarea shall consist of masonry or
masonry veneer. Individual units may utilize less than this
minimum percentage so long as the entire building in which it is
located meets this threshold.
ii. At least twenty_percent (20%) of the surface area of the rear
facade of each garage building that is located to the west of
Monterey Drive shall consist of masonry or masonry veneer.
Individual garage units may utilize less than this minimum
percentage so long as the entire building in which it is included
meets this threshold.
iii. At least thirtypercent (30%) of the surface area of the rear
facade of each Garage building that is located to the east of
Monterey Drive shall consist of masonry or masonry veneer.
Individual garage units may utilize less than this minimum
percentage so long as the entire building in which it is included
meets this threshold.
iv. At least twenty-five percent (25%) of the surface area of the
side/end facades of each building in this subarea shall consist of
masonry or masonry veneer.
c. When used. vinyl siding shall have a minimum thickness of 0.046
inches with an exposure between six and one half (6'/a) and eight (8)
inches.
d. Exterior cladding materials shall be natural in appearance or of a muted
color. Examples of such colors are white, cream, beige, and earthtones.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since June 16, 2008 CC Meeting
Where more than one exterior cladding or trim material is used, the colors
of these materials shall be complimentary.
4. Trim Materials: Permitted exterior trim materials shall include wood.
aluminum (for gutters and downspouts only), EIFS, copper, or fiber-cement
products.
5. Roofs: Permitted roofing materials shall include dimensional asphalt shingles,
wood, slate, copper, standing seam metal, and/or tile.
6. Chimneys: All exterior portions of chimneys shall be finished with masonry
consisting of brick, stone, or manufactured stone.
7. Front Doors: Residential units shall utilize a variety of distinctive and
decorative front doors. Representative examples of these doors shall be presented
for review and approval by Planning Commission with the Final Development
Plan for this subarea.
E. Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space, and Screening Commitments
1. General Standards: All landscaping shall meet the requirements of the City of
Dublin Zoning Code unless otherwise set forth herein.
2. Open Space: Open space shall be provided in this subarea in accordance with
the approved preliminary development plan.
3. Street Trees: Existing street trees shall be maintained and/or replaced as
necessary along Monterey Drive. All new street trees shall be a minimum of two
and one half (2 1/2) inches in caliper at installation and shall be of a species that is
approved as a part of the final development plan. Replacement street trees shall
be installed in accordance with City Code.
4. Front Landscaping: The front of each unit shall be landscaped with foundation
plantings and at least one (1) ornamental tree. Landscaping shall be consistent
and/or complimentary across the front all units contained in the same building.
5. Perimeter Landscapine: Due to the presence of existing vegetation, the
perimeter buffering requirements of the Dublin City Code will not be met for this
subarea. While strict adherence to the Code is not required, the Final
Development Plan for this subarea shall meet the spirit and intent of the Code in
this regard by augmenting existing vegetation where practicable to achieve the
Code's desired effect. Landscaping along the eastern perimeter of Subarea A
shall be provided between applicable setbacks and the property line as determined
at the time of final development plan. The requirement to provide a buffer
treatment along the shared boundary line with Subarea C may be waived by the
Planning Commission at the time of final development plan in the event that
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since June 16, 2008 CC Meeting
adequate buffering between Subareas A and C is provided as a part of plans for
the cemetery or parkland to be found in Subarea C. Perimeter landscaping
throughout the subarea shall seek to preserve existing trees where practicable and
shall include additional screening as required by the City of Dublin Zoning Code.
6. Permanent Fences: A six (6) foot high privacy fence that is located between
the primary residential structure and its garage shall be perntted to create private
courtyards for each unit. Such fencing provided on the end of a building shall be
constructed of brick. stone, or manufactured stone that is complimentary to the
architecture of that building.
7. Permeable Materials: Permeable pavement or pavers shall be permitted for use
on patios and/or stoops associated with individual units. Samples of these
materials shall be submitted at the time of final development plan.
G. Model Homes
A maximum of one (1) townhome may be used as a model home for the purpose
of marketing and sales pursuant to Code Section 153.098.
IV. Subarea B:
Subarea B is located in the northeastern portion of the PUD and south of and
adjacent to Bridge Street. This subarea consists of 1.3 ± acres and shall contain the
commercial component of the PUD.
A. Permitted Uses:
1. Permitted uses shall include the following:
a. Those uses listed in City of Dublin Zoning Code Section 153.027(A),
Neighborhood Commercial District;
b. Those uses listed in City of Dublin Zoning Code Section 153.028(A),
Community Commercial District;
c. The permitted and conditional uses listed in City of Dublin Zoning
Code Section 153.036, Historic Business District, provided that the
conditional uses listed in that section are approved in accordance with
Section 153.236
d. Dry cleaning and related services; art galleries; and wine and other
specialty stores (not including liquor stores).
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since June 16, 2008 CC Meeting
2. The following uses shall be excluded from the permitted uses in subsection
IV(A)(1) above and shall not be permitted in this subarea:
Motor vehicle dealers
Tire, battery and accessory dealers
Miscellaneous aircraft, marine and automotive dealers
Lumber and other building materials dealers
Heating and plumbing equipment dealers
Electrical supply stores
Farm hardware and equipment stores
Hotels and motels
Rooming and boarding houses
Liquor stores
Funeral service
Sexually oriented business establishments
3. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be conditional uses in this
subarea, provided that they are approved in accordance with Section 153.236 of
the City of Dublin Code:
a. Outdoor service facilities, including, without limitation, outdoor dining
patios: and
b. Restaurants, taverns, nightclubs, lounges, and dance halls
B. Density, Lot, and Setback Commitments:
I . Density: A single structure with a maximum of twelve thousand (12,000)
square feet of gross floor area shall be permitted in this subarea. A maximum of
three thousand (3,000) square feet of outdoor dining patios shall be permitted in
addition to the allowable interior square footage.
2. Setbacks:
a. There shall be a minimum building and pavement setback of one (1) foot
from the Bridge Street right-of-way.
b. There shall be a minimum building and pavement setback of ten (10) feet
from Monterey Drive.
c. Along the eastern and southern boundaries of this subarea, there shall be a
minimum setback of ten (10) feet for pavement and dumpsters and a minimum
setback of twenty-five (25) feet for buildings.
d. Interior lot lines within this subarea may have a zero setback for pavement
and buildings.
7
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since June 16, 2008 CC Meeting
3. Lot coverage: There shall be a maximum lot coverage of ninety percent (90%)
in this subarea.
C. Access, Parking, and other Traffic-Related Commitments:
1. Parking: Parking in Subarea B shall be at a minimum rate of one (1) space per
two hundred (200) square feet of development, regardless of use. For outdoor
dining patios, parking shall be provided at this same rate unless at the time of
Final Development Plan for this subarea the Planning Commission approves an
alternative parking arrangement upon demonstration by the applicant that there is
provision of adequate off-site parking to serve the use through means such as the
existence of a parking agreement with a nearby property owner, the provision of
valet parking, or similar alternatives.
2. Circulation: Vehicles will access this subarea via a full movement curbcut on
Monterey Drive and a curbcut with right-in only access from Bridge Street.
Private drive aisles and parking lots shall be provided to provide vehicular
circulation within the subarea and shall be constmcted and maintained in
accordance with the following standards:
a. Maintenance of the parking lots shall be the responsibility of the
property owner.
b. Waste and refuse collection shall be provided to the rear of the building
in a dumpster that is screened in accordance with City Code.
c. The existing sidewalk shall be maintained (or replaced, if damaged
during construction) along the Bridge Street and Monterey Drive frontage.
The sidewalk shall be constructed in accordance with City standards.
3. Loadin Spaces: No loading spaces shall be required in this subarea.
4. Bridge Street Right-of-Way: The right-of--way for Bridge Street shall be fifty-
six (56) feet as measured from the centerline of right-of-way. Following the
approval of the preliminary and final development plans for this subarea, the
developer shall dedicate the necessary right-of-way along this road to the City to
meet this requirement.
5. Traffic Signal: The cost of the of the design. acquisition and installation of the
proposed traffic signal at the intersection of Monterey Drive and Bridge Street
shall be paid for by the developer or its successors or assigns in interest unless a
separate written agreement between the developer and the City is approved by
City Council that sets forth an alternative arrangement for the payment of this
cost. Construction plans for the signal installation shall be approved as part of the
building permit process for the building in Subarea B. The traffic signal shall be
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since June 16, 2008 CC Meeting
installed contemporaneously with the construction of the building found in
Subarea B. The signal shall not be activated until the commercial space is fully
occupied, or the developer proves that traffic signal warrants are met prior to full
occupancy of the commercial space.
D. Architectural Standards:
1. General Standards: A depiction of the architectural scheme for Subarea B
accompanies this text and is intended to provide a general illustration of the
character, materials, colors, and scale of this project. The exterior of the structure
shall consist of high quality materials with a design that is harmonious with and
complimentary to that found in Historic Dublin.
2. Buildine Height: The maximum building height shall be thirty-five (35) feet
as measured per the City of Dublin Code. The building in this subarea shall be
two (2) stories in appearance.
3. Exterior Cladding Materials:
a. The primary material on each building facade shall consist of brick,
brick veneer, stone, cultured stone, stone veneer, vinyl siding,
cementitious fiberboard, or other comparable materials, or some
combination thereof. No exposed concrete or split faced block shall be
permitted. Four-sided architecture shall be required so that similar
architectural design elements and details are consistent throughout all
elevations of the structure.
b. When used, vinyl siding shall have a minimum thickness of 0.046
inches with an exposure between six and one half (6 t/z) and eight (8)
inches.
c. Exterior cladding materials shall be natural in appearance or of a muted
color. Examples of such colors are white, cream, beige, and earthtones.
Where more than one exterior cladding or trim material is used, the colors
of these materials shall be complimentary.
4. Trim Materials: Permitted exterior trim materials shall include wood,
aluminum (for gutters and downspouts only). EIFS, copper, orfiber-cement
products.
5. Roofs: Permitted roofing materials shall include dimensional asphalt shingles,
wood, slate, copper, standing seam metal, and/or tile.
6. Chimneys: All exterior portions of chimneys shall be finished with masonry
consisting of brick, stone, or manufactured stone.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since June 16, 2008 CC Meeting
E. Buffering, Landscaping, Open Space, and Screening Commitments
1. General Standards: All residential landscaping shall meet the requirements of
Sections 153.130 through 153.148 of the City of Dublin Zoning Code, unless
otherwise set forth herein or approved as a part of the Final Development Plan.
2. Street Trees: Existing street trees shall be maintained and/or replaced as
necessary along Monterey Drive and Bridge Street. All new street trees shall be a
minimum of two and one half (2 1/2) inches in caliper at installation and shall be
of a species that is approved as a part of the final development plan.
3. Perimeter BufferinG: Due to the presence of existing vegetation, the perimeter
buffering requirements of the Dublin City Code will not be met for this subarea.
While strict adherence to the Code is not required, the Final Development Plan for
this subarea shall meet the spirit and intent of the Code in this regard by
augmenting existing vegetation where practicable to achieve the Code's desired
effect.
F. Graphics and Signage Commitments
1. At the time of the submission of a Final Development Plan for this subarea, the
developer shall present the Planning Commission with a Graphics and sign plan
for its review and approval. The intent of the plan shall be to provide standards
that allow for graphics and signs that are similar to those found in the Old Dublin
Town Center developments. The approved plan shall serve as the uniform
graphics and sign plan for the subarea. In the event that the graphics and sign
plan is silent on any matter addressed by the City of Dublin Sign Code, Sections
153.150 through 153.164, then the terms of those Code sections shall apply.
2. Each tenant shall be pernutted the followinG signage:
a. One (1) wall sign on its storefront, which shall be defined as that
facade which faces a public right-of-way:
b. One (1) double-faced hanging sign on its storefront, mounted
perpendicular to the wall. The tenant of the western end of the building in
this subarea shall be pernutted an additional double-faced hanging sign on
the building fapade facing Monterey Drive: and
c. One (1) wall sign or one (1) double-faced hanging sign at its rear
entrance from the parking lot found in Subarea B.
3. Appropriate square footage limitations for each sign type shall be determined
at the time of Final Development Plan.
10
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since June 16, 2008 CC Meeting
4. Each sign shall have a total of no more than three (3) sign colors. Plaque
colors shall be low-chroma and subdued.
5. All wall mounted signs (except hanging signs) shall be externally illuminated
using the same or similar gooseneck light fixtures throughout the subarea.
G. Lighting:
1. All lighting shall be in conformance with the City of Dublin Exterior Lighting
Guidelines, except as provided for in this text. This lighting plan shall compliment
the lighting found in Historic Dublin for similar uses and shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission as part of the final development plan. Lighting shall be in
conformance with the plan that is approved as a part of the final development
plan.
2. External lighting shall be cutoff type light fixtures.
3. All parking, pedestrian, and other exterior lighting shall be on poles or wall
mounted cutoff fixtures and shall be of a coordinated type and style. All light
fixtures shall be decorative in nature, residential in scale, and of a coordinating
style to the architecture of this subarea. Fixture and pole specifications shall be
included with the lighting plan that will be presented as a part of the final
development plan.
4. All light poles and standards shall be dark in color and shall be a dark brown,
black, or bronze metal.
5. Parking lot lighting shall be limited to sixteen (16) feet in height.
6. Cutoff type landscape lighting and uplighting of buildings shall be prohibited.
7. All lights shall be arranged to reflect light away from any street or adjacent
property.
8. No colored lights shall be used to light the exterior of any building.
H. Maintenance:
All buildings, structures, fences, paved areas, landscaped areas, and other
improvements shall at all times be kept in good condition and repair and with a clean and
orderly appearance. Landscaped areas shall be maintained with materials specified in the
plan and in a healthy living state, mowed, pruned, watered and otherwise maintained as
appropriate. All signage shall be kept in good repair. Lighting, painting and associated
materials on signage shall be kept in good condition. When, and if, vacancies shall
occur, said spaces shall be maintained free of litter, dirt. and left over and/or deteriorated
11
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since Jane 16, 2008 CC Meefina
signage so as to appear ready forre-rental and re-occupancy provided that nothing herein
shall be construed as interfering with the right to make reasonable repairs or alterations to
said premises.
V. Subarea C:
Subarea C is located in the eastern portion of the PUD. This subarea consists of
0.53 ± acres and shall provide for the expansion of the existing Dublin Cemetery.
A. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in Subarea C:
1. Cemetery uses in conjunction with the expansion of the existing Dublin
Cemetery.
2. Parks and open space.
B. Development Standards: Development of cemetery uses shall occur in accordance
with the approved Final Development Plan for this subarea.
Grabill Monterey PUD(~.txt
12
Evans. Mechwan, Hamblefon & rlton, inc.
Encinecrs, Surveyors, planners. Scienists
MEMO
Date: June 23, 2008
To: Claudia Husak
From: Linda Menerey _ ~~
Subject: Waterford Bio Basin
Copies: Smith and Hale, Pat Grabill
Claudia;
On behalf of City Council, you have asked for addifiona[ information on the functionality and
maintenance of the proposed Bio-Basin.
Since we are at fhe Preliminary Development Plan stage of this project, the information we are
providing [s in "general terms" with specifics to be determined at Fina[ Development Plan/Final
~ngtneering.
Funcfionalify of tfie Basin:
From an engineering stand point, the bia=basin will serve both a d@teation and water quefity
fuitctioit. the saurtyard walks and Itlwri area as welt as a portion of the roo#s will drain to the
bio-basin. Downspouts wil) "daylight" at various laeafions along the edge of the bdsM.
The preliminary design of the bio-basin is slightly oversized. As we get into more detail we may
"tweak" the sub surface storage area, however, the intent is to still have an "English Garden
look", similar in size fo what is indicated on the plans.
The sub surface of the bio-basin is approximately 3.5 feet in depth. The bottom layer contains
stone, a middle soil layer is predominately sand mixed with soil and compost. The upper layer Es
approximately 3 Inches of triple shredded hardwood mulch. Only this type of mulch should be
used as others may "float" and do not provide the organic content needed.
The surface of the bio-basin is slightly depressed as you move toward the center, with the surface
functioning as the storage area for storm water. Due to the high amount of sand in the soil
mixture, water will filter through the mulch, to the sandy soil and into the stone rather quickly.
Coupled with the size of the basin, it is anticipated that only rainfall events of one half to one inch
ar greater will create ponding in the tenter of the basin. This ponding will generally last 72 hours
and typically less.
n!coccr cf axc-_d~nce. k:oou-o'io~ !oraxc.IL=nc2.
5500 tiew Albcny RoaC. Columbus. CH 43054 . phone bi 4.7?5.45J' ~ ptlx 514.775.-0800
cu -soz . c:::r.:ra;: , mcTroxs<. ¢ororo
emntcor.:
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & iiifon. Inc.
Engineer. Surveyors, Planners. Scientists
For #his reason, plant materials that tolerate more drought like conditions have been selected for
the interior of the basin- On the perimeter of the basin, where the downspouts daylight, there will
be a more consistent moisture content from the lighter rain events which may never reach the
center of the basin. We have placed dry laid stones in these areas to help with erosion control.
Plantings that prefer some moisture are planted in these areas.
Maintenance of the Bio-$asin:
Maintenance of the basin will be the responsibility of the condominium owner's association.
Generally, the maintenance of the basin will be similar to that of the perennial garden in your
yard. Annually, mulch will need to be added to maintain the 3" depth. The garden will need to
6e kepi free of weeds and trash. Typically, as with our own gardens, perennials may need to be
thinned or replaced and shrubs pruned.
a'egacy c`. axoeden<a. A repo?oaoc `c' excellence,
5500 New nbany RocJ, CCI'JT:bUS, OH 43054 • ?hone 6I4.775.4SC0 • Fcr. 614.775.48CC
cane>; ~~M-~o~;.':,r.:-.:ari:•crmo:.c
emht.com
I~w •p M. Ir.Ce. elwe. •v4nn bvl<dun
~ t~'neeenee~n Lid CW.u:pe•
~
J
.
~N
E
o
lD
e
,... tle, a e
.
m n
e
..~
I ~--- _ ® ..,.wn... Hart
I~-
I I
}
f
f
\`
f 1
/~
~~ M.ly+ia R
-~ •~M
.-~
J
YL CO•e>rh
n•
f / e ~. a ~a...o
INS[e~ebwer
l
~ .e.•.~~.<.,.~
~
'
Y t«~cK;
®
`w~•e.LSln~~
.
i I ec.R«•,.-
n.w
Da
n
I
m
I 1
~ YIDery y a
I
I I , O
NnYa
I I I vH
wuylw^cn
~.~
1. µY.. enbNt>••-.•vr.
W~CI~o xYOV true C,b
~~ -uec z'..1~..1h'
... _. ,. ...•bt lean
.... _.... .. ~., <<teJq
0
0 ~
N a
OO ~
~/ C
d
111 ~-
I- O c
a =°
~ U °
0
U
BIO-RETENTION
PLANTING
- 'CONCEPT
GUVAN FEMER ARCMIIlC.IS INC
~.~ •
• ~•-~
~'~~-t•~--1
~Q~~
0
D ~
~ a
~ Z
OO ~
~ ~
0
w ~ LL
p C
Q
U o
0
U
M.np, (we Hotter N,n/ w.l{~_
' ;- _ -r
6
,ry.arN V, _ -
, eNM ,kn. arm NfrAY,f• rmh„ 4 rl lwn, Ier q"e.M Y
ppM•,ra~ b,r rMaN ew val / M H.u!N ,r.nan rp+vre, aw +i AnA
,~hncwf br[rN ,•H^ Nx rev m, rl H ref WV rn w paw
uP ~.Sw:r<ela.rl - nr arm +u w w _.,...rw.. rw.. ~N/.y ,rrN .ra.pgr. p
+[r>.Q'N,kalWf- bar o/ae+d ..eyb vMhRn NaP.e le Aan /M rlNegr,~
,., »N D, ,:,~, ~.~ (fir Pia ~rl. re MI. r.,re~ ... ~,r.
Daub CekArn o-0waleD /~.c [ nr pdfrNl.b+ Tr fue
»N N r'»H fa rwn<,r <kY oV l,l Parklaf ae rN FMNP.~ mrm'.hp.
SI+rHt~ ~: ) y,rl•;:. _ 11~['L~^_YS'K~.r.LLi19
1MN M+N nI mrd rM Da Nx<e DMar
~'~ _ -~ ~ N h!a/.xr Iv v NDfn DI;-e MU,a
1 ~ Sme flee De ASM C!J (/h, e~Neb r
~'~~-i-_-_ -` r! ofN foerl„vl,enr .•a ,w .~M
t' MSrtfN y fee Gr • ,r.n r.N ~~ ~
V-w.rr,w Ayv --L_ Iwn• n~ San HfI f rr• I.''1
InI ,Ia»a Ihav, me .meter/'^../ ..cD n r/w
r^rr,lr re NJ C>'rl.+n rH.wM fx'r~•i lr+,
.. r„ ,.~»-sr.fr Pa. ,vr D. cNlw.e wrllwi .•I.. r-. r Nlv. aa.
w. a.r Yvmm
6rfCM KrTa AIY]'a
N.r el pr NN I, N• D:.wlnNw h,rr YN Dr rpHre,N la pw,.-~l ra.ivr o.e
r ,M~ arae d PrIbNN me ones a Mxv,r^ Amax N 6 h nr[ e+e b h of ~q
v rnI fwbl wps.M Dl IM 0.r'p+ fnpNw, 1Ar P6r »M b
~ V r
'
k
a .r w Avn P~r ~ Ik^ oaPaf N,e avlNr e/ Mr rc/ c /n9 eN.
`
`
` <av0
r
aDNp ~tp fort /N>, n.r pales e/ Pa pC, n ,aNp Nlo+O fM
,c psrlNq DN
OL P.AV IK: IL
LwtiAtiY1
_
J
Ymr - Tr ,m,>er »Y• n/ r+. Nne r+Y Nr e.+n• r•
P,v NaIN m
~
la Ww
w...a r.raN
~e/rwrp r Hw r
•
r ~ • r
(•lCrKr(_S3/yi'Yyy:{f - M 1•rr•s ^./ :+r ,w tmr fl [ Y -.. /. r r far T^<
4' r
M .rn
avrad b.'m f+M ve I kafi/ f hrM[ In/ra •r 1. m^rw ~N
malm
. mf IYr,I ONr-r.l MI - IDe wr.frrd~uN py NN no.r o wa+el e+.mN~ w-pev /a ar.. er a
- ra+y vv~l »N N Na-.P»re lq reTpn rb/ e•d a+r/ ps.tarx a ~'vvf~ of /r rM w+N-faN p}r, IDe PYr »w N ro4 ~~r•'Iw'N a'rC pile, e
Anrnaa M 6'arrly or.f [a.NM ME1 r w'Hgll l,r,a r M rYl h A»
rN-t•Phn Tr grafpfkn r+nY mNr ASIY CJJ (IF,~ epel~< col, pV~!•ja .na
1LN ~^h:. ilnV Cetcn [wrwrrM e ~ ead eMn , r I
n n . qa.•f Mr.ar.<n p f.a hvr
n
e
~1De ew.q wN aN err aMl N bN o/ ruae ,Amax reolx M.N p rIM. m.erie/ Wlh1
- /Dr Y+drJ•vN rN »pr d:a<Arpr la w rnYfNp Ovhrgr alalwrt
Im. Ne error met A,+N De r,.ied •nN le~ye./np J INI ,ere/
!r n
rAa
5+ /
l
m
H
s
N
fh
W
~~5~'C1'aLFfC7
~
~
r~-u
~vn.
p+r•
l.wwr.
o
pbr
a N<n o
+
mN la y
+
e n.
npiwN rN m/e »ea Mw a M Nln1w 33 q+e Q ~
rr
µ
e/ N ••la+'N avry [url M1lin W lM w141 Mif kr v,r N e
N
rrwam.n}4 rrN •N ml[ YM ,ar ter Mthvlr N~H>m/ [mlml In meal Nanl aa.fD 1<W^n! can
a.y N' 4br/ w .- ua
le, »Y b Mrf.d•N,wr a rlrl^lerw ~ mmr~ V/r+ 0. C M
f~r
~wv
rv
^
+mh
M •
h
-
C'
w
-
N
f.
r
.,
r
i
r
•r •
•/ Ir
l•
r
Nnf+}plvi rr Aar, of Inr lFrehnlif DaM CNYrY rxnN rnafln elm am nnv/[
M [mHxfa »ar lrcl,dY rwlr Ir w,Pmriw !nf%.« Ntia Dnr,p ru,f.vrl%n
u
M Crs~++ Cwprar pf nA-I pj . . „a c_
w<hp ,MrM'f D/cr.
N
a
~
I. N r<.v+w w>fN r~rl
h.^ e.+n wra i<
a N,N ! opNep to
>~
o c
Cw'r:Ni.. nfmla<r b,« fJ
/
2 wNwwnl a
,IwN br (J
rNlc,r e/ ur>rsrh end cMro~lr %J
S Hxwn,.rl N mphwM fN m:. /iJ
G rwlo5' qo.w .s,qr m> rM (Nr apid arrlM m ,nwf I)
a r.wnr ., br !n rsdkrD' 1
~,m, Pferr~.,`w:Y ynrrhe
s . akne. PmINq .npfvwl /Ne ameuxr NPr - D/ ermer
Sm+dn v, IM rq, ,n4 wN ,ea rn N N wMNIN Ip~ w~NN mwp+ v/ T v /v
fro:rm p/ e:a.'mre, <a,. r .ne•r of lM ,.
S-pX'p+ Dfxa,l
4"teDtr ryv~rtr . ~ a~rl nepN Vr"a"D NM'd~i.+iwr1 pI wnbl n Nrllw
wv.mN rH+r ~!!. N elv Pecm/ror M ,N >mmshp c r Np n
rbr, Im r'ernnvnarlr%:aa lL.atlNpN>.+w/J er hvfeaN ..in v ,<w:^Wr fMr ,a- tar/
r,IN `1+-~ml prv la v//-aeraaf + IM:
.tile 4[ef c helm l~xwm mD eo ~ aQ/M .o-rl/DVa+MN Ge<anr~IN
ptr~rml~ NA..; Ae, Dr ~» ~h ~ [irho f:fe Mmx c~G/,'Nry 4 ol.N (P fM
„~INq m mil;.: o
_ r•Or creu~q+Irro,Nrml .JD ra./ lNrx n•a» rrae of m r{N~pirrl
Cn+~pgclave TmN'alb+ - nxlM ara, rl ID, Nrr vl Mr pbmNCkn N/:R
,+N N •r a-h.rd /Ir v Onto v/ of haN IS hNra // whp ar<v'x /nr
rmeref mNr N ra. hlurore N+< nr rmn-/rd d/,dhq m ,NSnchr
n ml mD 4rrN etc •pn~H Se, _ T; a<IN.Ny NPIR
- hM fo Pk+amn b N n„Nwe> ,Y mN N Nwx/rN
q+0 rnr milh~r mrrn! »r N clp+ wawN ro Nr +l Wrp%q m0 <aso<Lbn
- Ti ,.yNwN aaa »ac Dr pb:N N mr:ILW a/lt nern 6iNNKIN/ Il hrnaJ ,~
Dwih 5^N w~oTml +a Dr a,N fe p'xr ve, ea ~m9 er w>v;, ~r rob-lLyd
- TINT me r+alye a•1 !l/~ a,
yprr ~IN'+ Nn Ihp nrdL nrmd IPnil»I:,f rN ~dlrp APR 1Vdetbgdf
aanlra!/r ronpan~twa sa~+' ~vl !r ~arC la Nrlre Nllrh~.
p - ra.-I ^,IN b. »n:/ tar dmr .•+w[e/mr Nit P•r:rTma a/ mp..eare
a lM,.:,n.-. r mmr~j sN r• yM, (er am.,J ,o- pnr~p ,N[:r<ara., aumue
prla le [ewPNr:m s.<:lmw np41~'flrl Wv.w
PRELIMINARY
BIO-RETENTION
DETAIL -__-- --
GIAVAN fE~E.Q AIICHIIECIS INC
.ww~®
.~~~ , ,
.LL, :3-°
~~
~~~~
FIRST READING - .TUNE 16, 2008
DOCUMENTS IN SECOND PDF