42-08 Ordinance (Part 2)FIRST RE<4DING - .TUNE 16, 2448
DOCUA-LENTS
CITY OF DUBLIN..
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017
Phone: 614-410-4400 • Fax: 614-410-4490
TO: Members of City Council
FROM: Jane S. Brautigarn, City Manager~~~. ~S~
DATE: June 12, 2008
INITIATED BY: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning
RE: Ordinance 42-08, Waterford Commons -Rezoning (Case No. 07-084CP/Z)
emo
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 units, and 0.8 acre of open space.
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 building setback
of the commercial area. 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 solutions, 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 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 uses within the HB, Historic
Business District;
5) 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 effect;
7) That the text be revised to indicate the timeframe for the installation of the traffic signal;
Ordinance 42-08 Rezoning -Waterford Commons
June 12, 2008
Page 2 of 3
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 coordinate 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 to obtain 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 comer of Subarea B be eliminated.
The applicant has addressed Conditions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, I5, 17, and 18 by modifying the
development text and the preliminary development plan. All remaining conditions must be
addressed at either the final development plan or the building permitting stage.
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 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.
• Subarea B -Commercial: Subarea B is aone-story commercial building with associated
parking, facing West Bridge Street on the east side of Monterey Drive, on a L1-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.
Ordinance 42-08 Rezoning -Waterford Commons
June 12, 2008
Page 3 of 3
o Permitted Uses. The development text permits uses within the NC, Neighborhood
Commercial District, CC, Community Commercial District, and dry cleaning services, art
galleries, and wine and other specialty stores. A condition was added that patios and
restaurants will require conditional use approval.
o Development Stmzdards. 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.
o 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 -Open Space: The 0.5 acres of Subarea C borders the east portion of Subazea A,
adjacent to the Dublin Cemetery, for either an expansion of the Dublin cemetery or open
space. The Law Director continues to work with the applicant on a development agreement
that includes addressing land exchange issues.
Recommendation
Planning recommends Council approval of Ordinance 42-08 at the second reading/public hearing
on July 1, 2008.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
llavton Leeal Blank, Inc. Form No. 30013
42-08
Orrlriuurce Nn. Passed _ _'~~
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 Dublin
Land Use and
Long Range Planning
07-a84CPlZ
Concept PlanlRezoning!
Pre{iminary Development Plan
Waterford Commons
nterey Drive and W Bridge Street
N
0 200 400
Feet
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
--~
.~ "' -+~ BRIDGESiREET
'' ~ ~ l j i 1' ~ ,'~ ~,
1MARATHON ~ ~
STATION ~ 1 ~ __1 ~ I I, ."'- '~ H
;... j ~ ~ . ~ $uNOCO (I ~ ~ r~.D~
f ' r~ GA$ $iATION i i ,' a u°~..~ f I
~ ',_ f • ~ P ` COMMERCIAL ~
J .a , ~ 'I ~-`K~~~~` ~ ~ Q PARCEL i1.3AC Q I ~
w., ~r.v. w. ~ Dncirinnfinl fWntfl '
,~J
\~f. ~ J ~f
f, ,l ..K~
{, '~
• ' f •1.~.
~ r
r ~•~
07-084CPIZ
Concept Pan/Rezoning/Preliminary
NORTH Development Plan
Waterford Commons
Monterey Drive & W. Bridge Street
Land Use and
Long Range Planning
5800 Shier-Rings Road
Dubrtn. Ohb 116-1236
Phonel TOD: 61441 D-4500
Fax: 614410.4747
Web Sile: vrvnv tlubf'n.oh.us
January 2007
EXHIBIT "B"
REZONING APPLICATION
(Code Section 153.234)
TO EXPIRE
ORDINANCE NUMBER
42-og
CITY COUNCIL (FIRST READING) clc..•v.- IG , ,Zoos
CITY COUNCIL (PUBLIC HEARING)
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
NOTE: All applications are reviewed by Land Use and Long Range Planning for completeness prior to being processed.
Applications that are incomplete will not be accepted. Applicants are encouraged to contact Land Use and Long Range
Planning for assistance and to discuss the rezoning process, and if needed, to make an appointment for apre-submittal
review prior to submitting a formal application.
I. PLEASE CHECK THE TYPE OF APPLICATION:
® Preliminary Development Plan (Section 163.053)
^ Other (Please Describe)
II. PROPERTY INFORMATION: This section must be completed.
Property Address: 49 Monterey Dr.
Tax ID/Par e N t~er{1fj3-000211 273-000214 273-000217
273-~aO~L~~ ~~ _nnn~t~ ~~z_nnn~is ~~ _ n Parcel size (Acres): 5.43±
Existing Land UselDevelopment: Res idential;vacant
Proposed Land use/Development Townhomes; Commercial; Cemetery
Existing Zoning District: R-Z; CC Requested Zoning District: PUD Total Acres to be Rezoned: 5.43±
III. REZONING STATEMENT: Please attach separate sheets (8.5 X 11) to the back of this application with your responses to the
foNowing sections.
A. Please briefly explain the proposed rezoning and development:
Please see attached statement
B. Briefly state how the proposed rezon(ng and development relates to the existing and potential firture land use character of the
vicinity:
Please see attached statement
C. Briefly state how the proposed rezoning and development relates to the Duhlin Community Plan and, H applicable, how the proposed
rezoning meets the Criteria for Planned Districts [Section 153.052(B)j:
Please see attached statement
D. Briefly address how the proposed rezoning and development meet the review criteria for Preliminary Oovolopment Plan approval by
the Planning and Zoning Commission as stated In [Section 153.055(A)) {SEE ATTACHMENT A):
Please see attached statement ;, -.r.;;•;
Page 1 of 5 ~ f~ C ~ 1~1 ~
~/~ ~,
~~ ~U
Y, cP/-~
Has a previous application to rezone the property been denied by City Council within the last twelve months? ^ Yes ®No
If yes, Ilst when and state the basis for reconsideretlon as noted by Section 153.234{A)(3): ,
IV. PLEASE SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING FOR INITIAL STAFF REVIEW: Please submit large (z4x3s) and small (11X17} sets of
plans. Please make sure all plans are stapled and collated. Large plans should also be fokfed. Staff may later request plans that incorporate review
comments Fourteen (14) additional copies of revised submittals are required for the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing.
^ TWO (2) ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATIONS AND THIRTEEN (13) COPIES Please notarize agent authorization, if
necessary.
^ FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
^ FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF A TAX PARCEL ID MAP indicating property owners and parcel numbers for all parcels within 500 FEET of
the site (Maximum Size 11X17}. Please contact Land Use and Long Range Planning if you need assistance.
^ FOURTEEN {14) COPIES OF A LIST OF CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET of the perimeter of the property
based on the County Auditor's current tax list, including parse! number, owner name (not Mortgage Company or Tax Service), and address
(Maximum Size 11X17). It is the policy of the City of Dublin to notify surrounding property owners of pending applications under public
review. Please contad Land Use and Long Range Planning if you need assistance.
^ FOURTEEN (14) COPIES OF THE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
^ FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) COPIES OF SCALED SITEISTAKING PLANS SHOWING:
a. North arrow and bar scale.
b. Location, size and dimensions of all existing and proposed conditions and strudures (significant natural features, landscaping,
strudures, additions, decks, access ways, parking).
c. Proposed Uses (Regional transportation system, densities, number of dwellings, building/unit types, square footages, parking,
open space, etc.).
d. Size of the site in acreslsquare feet.
e. All property lines, setbacks, street centerlines, rights-of-way, easements, and other information related to the site.
f. Existing and proposed zoning district boundaries.
g. Use of land and location of structures on adjacent properties.
^ IF APPLICABLE, FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING SCALED
PLANS:
a. Grading Ptan.
b. Landscaping Plan.
c. Lighting Plan.
d. Utility andlor Stormwater Plan.
e. Tree Survey, Tree Preservation and Tree Replacement Plans
^ IF APPLICABLE, FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) artd FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) SCALED, ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS
with proposed colors and materials noted.
^ IF APPLICABLE, FOURTEEN (14) SMALL (11X17) and FOURTEEN (14) LARGE (24X36) COPIES OF SCALED DRAWINGS
SHOWING:
a. Location of signs and sign type (wall, ground, projecting, or window).
b. Sign dimensions, including letter sizes and proposed distance from sign to grade.
c. Copy layout and lettering styles (fonts) of signage.
d. Materials and manufadurer to be used in fabrication.
e. Total area of sign face (including frame)
f. Type of illumination
^ MATERIAUCOLOR SAMPLES (swatches, photos, plans, or produd specifications). Include manufadurer name and product number.
Page 2 of 5
~ t~
~f
1
-r ,~
C17 ~C.~'~{Cr~/~
V. CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER(S): This Section must be completed. Please attach additional ~haats n r,nnrlorl
*see attached list
Name(IndtviduarorOrganizatton): Grabill & Company, LLC et.al of property owners
iNailingAddress: 109 South High St.
(street, city, state, zip code) Dublin, OH 43017
DaytlmeTelephone: (614) 389-0721 Fax:
Email or Alternate Contact Information:
VI. APPLICANT: Please complete if applicable. This is the person(s) who (s requesting the zone change If different than the property
ownor(s).
Mama: Grabill & Company, LLC
Organization (owner, Developer, Contractor, etc.): c/o Pat Grabill
MailingAddress: 109 South High St.
(Street, City, State, zip Code) Dublin. OH 43017
Daytime Telephone: (614) 389-0721 Fax:
Email orAiternate Contact Information:
VII. REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF OWNER/APPLICANT: Please complete if applicable. This is the primary contact person who will
receive correspondence regarding this application. If needed, attach additional sheets for multiple representatives.
blame: Glen A. Dugger and Aaron L. Underhill, attorneys
Organization: Smith and Hale LLC
Mailing Address: 37 W. Broad St., Ste. 725
(street, City, State, zip Code) Columbus OH 43215
Daytime Telephone: (614) 221-4255 Fax: (614) 221-4409
Email or Alternate Contactlnformation: aunderhill@Smithandhale.COm
~` q IaF~ j '`):
Page 3 of S ~ r^ ~`) - ~.~ 7 - L) ~~ C l~~
~, r
VIII. AUTHORIZATION FOR OWNER'S APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE(S): If the applicant is not the property owner, this
section must be completed and notarized.
Grabill & Compatt~. LI,C .the owner, hereby authorize
the a t rnrnP3r ca; rh sm; rh and Hale Lr C to act as my applicanUrepresentative{s}
in all matters pertaining to the processing and approval of this application, including modttying the project. I agree to be bound by ag
representations and agreements made by the designated representative.
Signature of Current Property Owner: $3r;
Subscribed,a/n~d~swom to before me this
State of /~l././,J
~c! -'~
County of
day of
Notary Public ~ ~/„~.=!'.G~~1~~~~/l-//2f ~/
REBECCA B. GllfERBA, Notan~ Put>~ic
In and fix the Stele d Olio
(~ICommltslarExpirafs~Q„.~.~~ ~-
IX. AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROPERTY: Site visits to the property by Ctty representatives are essential to process this
application. The OwnerlApplicant, as notarized below, hereby authorizes City representatives to visit, photograph and post a notice on the
property descNbed in this application.
X. UTILITY DISCLAIMER: The City of The OwnerlApplicant acknowledges the approval of this request for rezoning by the Dublin
Planning and Zoning Commission and/ar Dublin City Council does rtot constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of
Dublin will bs able to provide essential services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by said OwnerlApplicant
XI. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT: This section must be completed and notarized.
I Aaron T.. tindPrhi 11 ~ a rnrn Y ,the owner or authorized representative, have
read and understand the contents of this application. The information contained In this application, attached exhibits and other
Infomratlon submitted is complete and in all respects true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signature of applicant or authorized representative: /
$Y ~ L~ IN t~.`~
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~~~ day of r~ ~ ~l
state of V'I 1,111,, II
County of ~ ~~`~1,1~11>^I Notary Pubtlc {
NDTE: THE OWNER, OR NOTED REPRESENTATIVE IF APPLICABLE, YNLL RECEIVE A
.~
Date: /
NATALIE C. PATRICK
Notary Public, State of Ohio
~i)i Commisaicn F.xaires D9-04-t0
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Amount Received: p0
moo' Application No:
07-0~4 P8Z Date{s}:
S-/5 -08 PiiZ Action:
iQ ved
Receipt No: ~~$ D Mt9feETRB: Q~t. Date Received: p I_ O7 Received By: C~
Type of Request: r~C~p,~rn ! ~/`G~/YY7• c~/~~ h~+eh~ ~lQ~
r
;
N,~E, W {Circle} Side of: 1 ~~ Qt t° S ~~ ',
~
I
7
Nearest Intersection: ~^ /,~
t7Y1 ,i=C-
Distance from Nearest intersection: D r
Page 4 of 5
~" A ~ !~ t~
:rt.~, ~;.~~f
~~~~ r~~ l~l ~` i
:~IU 7 ~~~~~°~~
VIII. AUTHORIZATION FOR OWNER'S APPLICANTlREPRESENTATIVE(S): If the applicant is not the property owner, this
section must be completed and notarized. !!. ~/- ~ ) ~ (~
I ~iDtZ S . L~Stp~.~.m - ~trt11 y 1 r'' 11101>(1CkG *~2.~ ~' -'t'~! t~ lhJ~ i Il, the owner, hereby authorize
- ~t] ~ ~ S f U i~ SfY~ ti-Y~ ~ t'f0~~~ L,1_.. ~ to act as my applicant/representatlve(s)
In all matters pertaining to a processing and approval of this application, including modlfyfng the project I agree to be bound by all
representations and agreements made by the designated representative.
Signature of Current Property Owne~~_, 5 ~ I Date: f' zC~/ Q 8
Subscribed and sworn to before me this _~1 ~ day of
State of ~~~~~
/, / ,~fft1AL~
County of /' ~/~ IC../ 1~/~ Not
.~
IX. AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROPf?~
applicaton. The Owner/Applicant, as notarized below,
property described in this appllcat(on.
;'20 ~~_
Notary PubOc - State of Ohio
My Commission Expires May 19, 200
to the property by Clty representatives are essential to process this
os City representatives to visit, photograph and post a notice on the
X. UTILITY DISCLAIMER: The City of The OwnerlAppllcant acknowledges the approval of this request for rezoning by the Dublin
Planning and Zoning Commission andlor Dublin City Council does not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of
Dublin will be able to provide essential services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by said OwnerlApplicant
I ,the owner or authorized repreaentatlve, have
read and understand the contents of this application. The Information contained in this application, attached exhibits and other
Information submitted Is complete and In ail respects true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signature of applicant or authorized representative:
Date:
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
State of
County of
Notary
day of
20
NOTE: 7HE OWNER, OR NOTED REPRESENTATIVE IF APPLICABLE, WILL RECEIVE A FACSIMILE CONFIRMING RECEIPT OF THIS APPLICATION
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Amount Received: Application No: P&Z Date(s): P8Z Action:
Receipt No: MIS Fee No: Date Received: Received By:
Type of Requsat:
N, S, E, W (Circle) Side of:
Nearest Intersection:
Distance from Nearest Intersection:
Page 4 of 5
ATTACHMENT A: PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA
§ 153.055 PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA.
(A) Preliminary development plan. In the review of proposed planned developments, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council shall determine whether or not the preliminary development plan complies with the following criteria. In the event the Planning
and Zoning Commission determines that the proposed preliminary development plan does not comply with a preponderance of these
criteria, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall disapprove the application:
(i) The proposed development is consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable standards of the Zoning Cade;
(2) The proposed development is In conformity with Community Plan, Thoroughfare Pian, Bikeway Plan, and other adopted plans or
portions thereof as they may apply and wilt not unreasonably burden the existing street network;
(3) The proposod development advances the general welfare of the city and immediate vicinity and will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of the surrounding areas;
(4) The proposed uses are appropriately located in the city sv that the use and value of property within and adjacent to the area will
be safeguarded;
(5) Proposed residential development will have sutflelertt open space areas that meet the objectives of the Community Plan;
(6) The proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and protects the natural resources of the
site;
(7) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided;
(8) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide Ingress and egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on the sur-
rounding public streets and to maximize public safety and to accommodate adequate pedestrian and bike circulation systems so that
the proposed development provides for a safe, convenient and non-conflicting circulation system for motorists, bicyclists and pedes-
trians;
(9) The relationship of bulldings and structures to each other and to such other facilities provides for the coordination and integration
of this development within the PD and the larger community and maintains the image of Dubtln as a quality community;
(10) The density, building gross floor area, building heights, setbacks, distances between bulldings and structures, yard space, design
and layout of open space systems and parking areas, traffic accessibility and other elements having a bearing on the overall accept-
ablllty of the development plans contribute to the orderly development of land within the city;
(11) Adequate provision is made for store drainage within and through the site so as to maintain, as far as practicable, usual and
normal swales, water courses and drainage areas;
(12) The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed development justify any deviation from the standard devel-
opment regulations included in the Zoning Code or Subdivision Regulation, and that any such deviations are consistent with the intent
of the Planned Development District regulations;
(13) The proposed building design meets or exceeds the quality of the building designs in the surrounding area and all applicable
appearance standards of the city;
(14) The proposed phasing of development is appropriate for the existing and proposed infrastructure and Is sufficiently coordinated
among the various phases to ultimately yield the intended overall development;
(15) The proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing or planned public improvements and not impair the exfating
public service system for the area;
{16) The applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service
the new development.
Page 5 of 5 ~1 ~ , _ ~iG ;~j~ C
i ., a., 1v W ' : ~
WATERFORD COMMONS PUD
Statement of Development's Relation to Community Plan and Criteria for Planned Districts
The City of Dublin has adopted the following criteria to be considered while the
Community Plan update process is being undertaken. Below is a summary of how these criteria
are being met by the proposed Waterford Commons development:
1) High quality design for all uses, recognizing density has important economic
implications, but is essentially an outcome not a determinant of creating a quality place.
The proposed development seeks to provide architecture that is complimentary to the
architectural theme that exists throughout Old Dublin. The development will continue the high
level of architectural quality that is expected in the vicinity and will utilize materials and styling
that make for a seamless transition between uses. The site design takes into account the unique
location of the property between a major thoroughfare on the north and residential uses to the
south. Plans for the commercial portion of the development are responsive to commercial
projects found to the east along Bridge Street while residential uses are provided to transition into
the existing neighborhood..
2) Creating places to live that have a stronger pedestrian environment, connections to
convenient services, and are conducive to multigenerational living and social interaction.
The Waterford Commons PUD fulfills a need to provide residential opportunities in the
Old Dublin area as a means to enhance the vibrancy of the area. Residents of the PUD will have
easy pedestrian access to nearby existing shops and restaurants.
3) Creating places with integrated uses that are distinctive, sustainable and contribute to
increasing the City's overall vitality.
The proposed development creates commercial and residential uses that conform to the
general character of the area. At the same time, these uses will be distinctive enough to have their
own character and identity. The extensive of the types of uses that are found in Old Dublin will
assist in sustaining the vitality of the area.
4) Providing some retail services in closer proximity to residential areas as an important
amenity to residents. The design considerations are very important.
Retail services in this development will be found adjacent to the proposed residential
uses. When combined with existing uses found in the vicinity, residents will enjoy many
opportunities to frequent retail establishments within walking distance of their homes.
5) Creating a wider range of housing choice in the community, as well as in new
neighborhoods.
This development will clearly expand the residential choices for citizens of the
community. It will serve a market that desires urban living in an area that generally caters to
suburban development. Therefore, the PUD represents an opportunity to present a new housing
choice to the community.
~-;..rd ~~~~~ ZrJ7~~J~~~~~~~
c; ; ,
b) Preserving the rural character of certain areas of the community, including the
appearance of roads, as well as the landscape.
Not applicable.
7) Developing streets that create an attractive public realm and make exceptional places for
people.
No new public streets will be created in this development.
8) Creating better connected places, in part, to improve the function of the street network
and also to better serve neighborhoods.
See responses to Numbers 2 and 7 above.
9) Creating streets that contribute to the character of the communih and move a more
reasonable level of traffic.
The PUD wilt utilize existing streets to provide connectivity to Bridge Street. The traffic
study calls for the eventual warranting of a traffic signal at the intersection of Monterey Drive and
Bridge Street; which will improve the efficiency of vehicular circulation both for this PUD and
surrounding neighborhoods.
10) Providing opportunities to walk and bike throughout the community.
Sidewalks will be provided so as to promote pedestrian foot and bicycle traffic.
Connections to paths and sidewalks on adjacent properties will be provided to reduce the
need for visitors to or users of the site to use automobiles for travel to nearby uses.
Review of Preliminary Development Plan_Criteria
F,ach of the review criteria of Section 153.055 of the City of Dublin Code
addressed below. The proposed development meets a preponderance of the review
criteria and therefore should be approved-
1) The proposed development is consistent with the purpose, intent, and applicable
standards of the zoning code.
The proposed development meets the purpose, intent, and applicable standards of
the zoning code. The applicant is proposing uses that aze consistent vrith the cturent
underlying zoning of the property. The commercial portion of the PUD lies on property
currently zoned CC, Community Commercial. The residential portion of the PUD Lies on
property currently zoned R-2; Limited Suburban Residential. The applicant seeks
additional density in this application in order to permit the redevelopment of this site in
an economic sense. The requested density also will permit development that will extend
the character of Old Dublin to the east.
2) The proposed development is in conformity with the Community Plan,
Thoroughfare Plan, Bikeway Plan, and other adopted plans or portions thereof as
they may apply and will not unreasonably burden the existing street nerivork.
The development conforms to the recommendations of all relevant plans. The
project utilizes the existing public street system in the area.
3) The proposed development advances the general welfare of the city and
immediate vicinity and will not impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of the surrounding areas.
The Waterford Commons PUD advances the general welfare by providing
replacing aging residential units with upscale townhomes that are appropriate in this area
of the community. At the same time, it provides for commercial development along
Bridge Street in a manner that is consistent with that found in Old Dublin.
4) The proposed uses are appropriately located in the city so that the use and value
of property within and adjacent to the area will be safeguarded.
The proposed uses will have a positive impact on this area of the city. The high
quality of building and site aesthetics will represent a significant improvement over
existing conditions.
5) Proposed residential development will have sufficient open space areas that meet
the objectives of the Community Plan.
Waterford Commons is not a traditional sort of residential development due to the
fact that it is a redevelopment project occurring in an urban setting. As such, it does not
meet the open space requirements that generally attach to greenfield developments.
However, high-quality landscaping and a bio-retention basin vzll compliment the urban
feel of the residential project. The project also includes green space to be utilized for the
expansion of the Dublin Cemetery.
b) The proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural
features and protects the natural resources of the site.
The subject property has very fe~v natural resources to protect. However, the
provision of land for cemetery uses respects the city's need for such lands and therefore
protects and enhances a precious commodity.
7) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and/or necessary facilities
have been or are being provided.
The accompanying plans demonstrate that the site has easy access to the road
svstem in the area and that there is access to all necessary utilities. Drainage and
retention shall be provided in accordance with the attached plans.
8) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress
designed to minimize traffic congestion on the surrounding public streets and to
maximize public safety and to accommodate adequate pedestrian and bike
circulation systems so that the proposed development provides for a safe,
convenient, and non-conflicting circulation system for motorists, bicyclists and
pedestrians.
The development is designed to ensure that vehicular and pedestrian access is
provided in an efficient and effective manner that ties into the existing transportation
system in the area. A traffic study has been completed and addresses these concerns.
9) The relationship of buildings and structures to each other and to other facilities
provides for the coordination and integration of this development Fvithin the PUD
and the larger community and maintains the image of Dublin as a quality
community.
The proposed development seeks to provide architecture that is complimentary to
the architectural theme that is found throughout Old Dublin. The development will
continue the high level of architectural quality that is expected in the vicinity.
10) The density, building gross floor area, building heights, setbacks, distances
between buildings and structures, yard space, design and layout of open space
systems and parking areas, traffic accessibility and other elements having a bearing
on the overall acceptability of the development plans contribute to the orderly
development of land within the city.
The site plan and associated development standards provide for the orderly
development of the site. The locations of buildings and parking are the result of careful
planning and are designed to promote efficiency of vehicular and pedestrian movement
and to provide for appropriate layouts of interior spaces.
11) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site so as
to maintain, as far as practicable, usual and normal swales, watercourses, and
drainage areas.
The accompanying plans illustrate how storm drainage will be handled on the site.
12) The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed
development justify any deviation from the standard development regulations
included in the Zoning Cade or Subdivision Regulation, and that any such
deviations are consistent with the intent of the Planned Development District
regulations.
The development in most respects meets or exceeds the applicable requirements
of the Zoning Code and other relevant documents. Any deviations from these standards
are justified based on the site's status as an infill redevelopment site.
13) The proposed building design meets or exceeds the quality of the building
designs in the surraunding area and ali applicable appearance standards of the city.
The proposed building design incorporates high quality materials that have come
to be an expectation in Dublin. The architectural theme and building design recognize
the nature of azchitectural design in nearby Old Dublin and seek to provide an appearance
that is complimentary to that area of town.
14) The proposed phasing of development is appropriate for the existing and
proposed infrastructure and is sufficiently coordinated among the various phases to
ultimately yield the intended overall development.
Phasing will be determined at the time of final development plan approval.
li) The proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing or planned
public improvements and not impair the existing public service system for the area.
The proposed development will be served by existing and future road and utility
improvements from the surrounding area.
16) The applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the
Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service the new development.
Not applicable.
e • o
JOSEPH W. TESTA
~.- e
`"- "~ ~ e FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITOR
°a~~--;
MAP ID: au DATE: 4/12/06
-
l ~ ~.. ~ gg 1
~. ul vuxt++c
~ ~+ ..
ARKIYG
DA1iXSYG - _ __
....-.., PAkKIk 1
~~' ~ PMKING .._
• ~.
V OAAKIPoG ; ~~.~
DaRKIKG
;.~"~"....a ~ Eu
;JX:E
RKING Oletsr+ ~~:
I
m
~.• r ,
^~
r ,~..
~x ~
'J'~' ` r
- D~p
, ~~~ \ _
1
r~i+
~ Wdw~.. y 1
a~~ ` ~
\ e
~p
.~f' \ /
~ ~ s4G~ r~
Fa~
~
'1 f
u
a
~aaKmlc
~ ~E ~
' ~_
1
DiW1eING.
~~_~
11 t
Lr
°~
l
Disclaimer
This map is prepared for the real property inventory within this county. It is compiled fro i~
survey plats, and other public records and data. Users of this map are notified that the pubrr~~~~~ v
information sources should be consulted for verification of the information contained on this map. The
county and the mapping companies assume no legal responsibilities for the information contain~Yi]~n this ~.
Please notify the Fzanklin County GIS Division of any discrepancies. G1TY OF OUgLtF~
Real Estatel.l~t~~
WATERFORD COMMONS PUD
PARCELS INCLUDED IN PLAN
Owner
Grabill & Company, LLC
David J. & Dorothy M. Manny, Trustees
City of Dublin
Grabill ib(onterey Ownership Listdoc (7/31/07) (alu)
Number
273-000212
273-000213
273-000209
273-000210
273-000211
273-000214
273-000215
273-000216
273-000217
273-000208
FILE COPY
RECEIVED
~,uG 12001
CITY OF DUBLIN
~~~) LASE &
_. ArEG~uC~G
C~7- r
• Grabilll & Company, LLC Smith and Hale
07-084CP Waterford Comrnons c/o Pat Grabill c/o Aaron linderhill & Ben Hate
Monterey Drive and W. Bridge St. 109 S. High Street 37 W Broad Street, Ste. 725
Dublin, OH 43017 Columbus, OH 43214
• David & Dorothy Manns,
Trustees SPV-Bridge LL'C Board of Education
PO Box 115 42 Woodcroft Trail, Suite B Dublin City Schools
Dublin, OH 43017-0015 Dayton, OH 45430 7030 Coffman Road
Dublin, OH 43017
Merlin D. & Cynthia K. Moon Kevin & Karen O'Connor William G. Robson
64 Corbins Mill Drive 8388 5ommerset Way 215 W. Bridge Street
Dublin, OH 433017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017
Dublin Plaza LP
Pat Osborn c/o Key Bank Real Estate David D. Poplar
73 Monterey Drive Attn: Servicing Dept. 278 Clover Court
Dublin, OH 43017 911 Main Street, Suite 1500 Dublin, OH 43017
Kansas City, MO 64105
Dennis & Carol Muchnicki Donald & Tamara Wisler Douglas & Judith Martin
270 Clover Court 254 Clover Court 262 Clover Court
Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017
Alan Tuiie Steve Thomas
280 Oid Spring Lane 238 Clover Court
Dublin; OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017
4 Parcels East of D'Ionterey
owned by Manns and others
1.922 ACRES
Situsted in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Dublin, located in Virginia
Military Survey Number 2512, being part of Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 of that subdivision entitled
"Dublin Heights Subdivision" of record in Plat Book 24, Page 47 as conveyed to David J. Manns
Tr. By deed of record in Instrument Numl)er 200504190073188 and Grabill and Company, LLC
by deeds of record in Instrument Number 204704090061022 and Instrument Number
200704090061024 (all references refer to the records of the Recorder's Office, Franklin County,
Ohio) and being described as follows:
Beginning, for reference, at a northwesterly comer of Lot 4 as conveyed to City of
Dublin by deed of record in Instrument Number 200509230199442, being the southerly right-of-
way line of Bridge Street and the easterly right-of--way line of Monterey Drive;
thence South 04° 53' 08" West, with said easterly right-of--way line, a distance of 120.94
fcet to a point;
thence South 04° 48' 04" West, continuing with said easterlyright-of--way line, a distance
of 80.28 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence North 89° 11' 18" East, with the southerly line of said Lot 4, a distance of 120.03
feet to a point;
thence North 82° 32' 43" East, gartly with the southerly line of said Lot 4 and the
southerly line Lot 5 as conveyed to David J. Manns, Tr., a distance of 116.35 feet to a point in a
westerly line of that tract as conveyed to Village of Dublin by deed of record in Deed Book
3510, Page 982;
thence South OS° 2I' 36" West, with said westerly lint, a distance of 374.82 feet to a
point in a northeasterly corner of that tract as conveyed to the Village of Dublin by deed of
record in Deed Book 3571, Page 642;
thence North 89° 40' 48" West, with a northerly line of said Village of Dublin tract, a
distance of 230.21 feet to a point in the easterly right-of--way line of said Monterey Drive;
thence North 04° 48' 04" East, with said easterly right-of--way line, a distance of 356.35
fcet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINIv-ING, and containing 1.922 acres of land, more or less.
This description was prepared from record information only and should be used for
zoning purposes only.
EVANS, MECIIWART, HAMBLETON, & TILTON, INC.
FI~.~ ~0~~''
REC f IV ED
AUG 120b7
~lTy OF DUBLIN
tON6 RANGE PLANNING
o7-aoyc~~
4 Parcels West of Monterey
owned by Manes
2.458 ACRES
Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, Ciiy of Dublin, located in Virginia
Military Survey Number 2512, being all of Lots 10, 11, 12, and 13 of that subdivision entitled
"Dublin Heights Subdivision" of record in Plat Book 24, Page 47 as conveyed to David J. Manes
Tr. By deed of record in Instnunent Number 200504190073188 (all references refer to the
records of the Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio) and being described as follows:
Beginning, for reference, at a northeasterly comer of Lot 3 of said "Dublin Heights
Subdivision" as conveyed to SPV-Bridge, LLC by deed of record in Instnunent Number
200402180034828, being the southerlyright-of--way line of Bridge Street and the westerlyright-
of-way line of Monterey Drive;
thence South OS° 08' S 1" West, with said westerly right-of--way line, a distance of 121.49
feet to a point;
thence South 04° 56' 35" West, continuing with said westerly right-of--way line, a
distance of 79.29 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGII~II`~NG;
thence South 04° 56' 35" West, staying with said westerlyright-of--way line, a distance of
358.43 feet to a point in a southeasterly comer of said Lot 10;
thence South 89° 55' 24" West, with the southerly lint of said Lot 10, a distance of
299.18 feet to a southwesterly corner of said Lot 10;
thence North 04° 45' 14" East, with a westerly line of said Lots 10, 11, 12, and 13, a
distance of 358.54 feet to a southwesterly comer of that tract as conveyed to Dorothy M. Manes
Tr., by decd of record in Instmment Number 199905050113961;
ihence North 89° 57' 43" East, with the southerly lint of said Dorothy M. Manes Tr., and
said SPV-Bridge, LLC tract, a distance of 300.35 fees to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING
and containing 2.458 acres of land, more or less.
This description was prepared from record information only and should be used fnr
zoning purposes only.
EVANS, MECHtiVART, HAMBLETON, & TILTON, INC.
., ~~P~
._ C~~~E~
R~
~~G 12aa~
C1~Y t)F BSE &
IAMB ~ plA~/11i1N~G
Ip~GR ~1C~~~t_T"
~.
2 Parccels owned by
City of D«blin and
Manes along Bridge Street
1.106 ACRES
Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Dublin, located in Virginia
Military Survey Number 2512, being alI of Lots 4 and 5 of that subdivision entitled "Dublin
Heights Subdivision" of record in Plat Book 24, Pagc 47 as conveyed to City of Dublin by deed
ofrecord in Instrument Number 200509230199442, and David J. Manes Tr. By deed of record in
Instrument Number 2005041 90073 1 88 (all references refer to the records of the Recorder's
Office, Franklin County, Ohio} and being described as~follows:
BEGINNING at a northwesterly comer of said Lot 4, being the southerly right-of--way
line of Bridge Street.and the easterly right-of--way line of Monterey Drive;
thence North 88° 58' S9" East, with a northerly line of said Lot 4, a distance of 84.51
feet to a point;
thence North 76° 55' 15" East, continuing with said northerly Iine, a distance of 50.82
feet to a point set at a northwesterly comer of said Lot S;
thence North 84° 29' S0" East, with a northerly tine of said Lot 5, a distance of 104.28
feet to a point at a northeasterly comer of that tract as conveyed to Village of Dublin by deed of
record in Decd Book 3510, Page 986;
thence South OS° 22' 28" West, with a westerly line of said Village of Dublin, a distance
of 144.13 feet to a point;
thence South 05° 21' 36" West, continuing with said westerly line, a distance of 63.48
feet to a southeasterly comer of said Lot 5;
thence South 82° 32' 43"West, with the northerly line of Lot 6 as conveyed to David J.
Manes Tr., a distance of 116.35
thence South 39° I1' 18" West, continuing with said northerly line, a distance of 120.03
feet to a southwesterly comer of said Lot 4, being the easterly right-of--way line of said Monterey
Drive;
thence Norih 04° 48' 04" East, with said easterly right-of--way line, a distance of 80.28
feet to a point;
thence North 04° 53' 08" East, continuing with said easterly right-of--way, a distance of
120.94 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing 1.106 acres of land, more or less.
This description was prepared from record information only and should be used for
zoning purposes only.
EVANS, MECHWART, IIAMBLETON, & TILTON, INC.
FILE COPY
RE~EIU'~ED
AUG 1 ?007
CITY OF DUBLIN
LAND USE &
LONG RANGE PLANNING
07=o~~cP
OWNER AUTHORIZATION
I, David J. or Dorothy M. iVlanns, Trustees, as the owner of the real property
known as Franklin County Parcel Identification Numbers 273-000209, 273-000210, 273-
000211, 273-000214, 273-000215, 273-000216, and 273-000217, which are generally
located both east and west of Monterey Drive and south of Bridge Street in Dublin, Ohio
(the "Property"), hereby grants to the attorneys at the law firm of Smith & Hale LLC (the
"Agents") permission and authority to act as my representative in all matters pertaining to
the rezoning of and development plan approval process for said Property in accordance
with all requirements of the City of Dublin, Ohio or any other applicable authority. I
agree to be bound by all representations and aereements made by the Agents in this
regard.
By: _,x ~ ~ /~~ ~ ~~ ~c P
Print Name: ~G veG~ ~ a H ~ S
Title: ~ / ~~ f e ~
STATE OF OHIO
COL`NTY OF FRA\~I,I\: SS
Before me, a Notary Public, personally came David J. or Dorothy M. itiianns,
Trustee, who acknowledged the foregoing Authorization as his/her voluntary acts and
deeds.
In witness whereof I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed my seal on
this _~ day of G .vS'~ , 2007.
J
~,
ll~ J f/~i
\''cri1aIr-v Public
S t~)~~ 04 Ol~,y
~'-t'TV f!'~ P~t- I~f~'~ ~ ~Y<
~O,~P^.iAL~.ge9` .
,~.: Y".
y1..
it
-...rr ~~o;:
`~..;9Fc CP ~.•'
OWNER AUTHORIZATION
I, David 3. or Dorothy M. Manns, Trustees, as the owner of the real property
known as Franklin County Parcel Identification Numbers 273-000209, 2 7 3-000210, 273-
000211; 273-000214, 273-000215, 27 3-0002 1 6, and 273-000217; which are generally
located both east and west of b4onterey Drive and south of Bridge Street in Dublin, Ohio
(the "Property"}, hereby grants to the attorneys at the law firm of Smith & Hale LLC (the
"Agents") permission and authority to act as my representative in all matters pertaining to
the rezoning of and development plan approval process for said Property in accordance
with alt requirements of the City of Dublin, Ohio or any other applicable authority. I
agree to be bound by all representations and agreements made by the Agents in this
regard.
`" ?
Print Name: ii ~ ~-h~ ~~sr~nc
Title: / /u S9"e~
STATE OF OHIO
COUNTY OF FRANKLLN: SS
Before me, a Notary Public, personally came David J. or Dorothy b1. Manns,
Trustee, who acknowledged the foregoing Authorization as hislher voluntary acts and
deeds.
In witness whey°of, I hate hereunto subscribed my name and affixed my seal on
this _~ day of= .i5~ _, 2007. .
~Otary' Pt:b1lC •~p41q~S~q
~q-4-f~..I ~•~.• c'on-..
:```t~~ QF O~+pr1
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since May I5, 2008 PZC Meeting
WATERFORD COMMONS
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD)
June 9, 2008
I. Description:
The Waterford Commons PUD is being created to facilitate the redevelopment of
ten parcels of real property totaling 5.5 f 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. Develoument Standards:
Unless otherwise specified in the submitted drawings or in this written text, the
development standards of Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin Code shall apply. 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 t 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 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 from the Monterey Drive right-of--way.
3. Setbacks (East of Monterey Drive): A minimum setback often (10) feet for
pavement acrd 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
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since May 15, 2008 PZC Meeting
buildings shall be required from the north property line. A minimum building and
pavement setback of fifteen (I S) 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. Parking: 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 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
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since May I5, 2008 PZC 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 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 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. Buildin¢ Height: Maximum building heights shall bethirty-five (35) feet as
measured per the City of Dublin Code.
3
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since May 15, 2008 PZC Meeting
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 %i) 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, 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. Onen 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 I/2) inches in caliper at installation and shall be of a species that is
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since May 1 S, 2008 PZC Meering
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 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 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
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 shall be permitted to
create private courtyards for each unit that are located between the primary
residential structures and their garages. 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 maybe used as a model home for the purpose
of marketing and sales pursuant to Code Section 153.098.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since May 15, 2008 PZC Meeting
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 t 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;
o, 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
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since May 15, 2008 PZC Meeting
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. 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 often (10) feet for pavement and dumpsters and a minimum
setback oftwenty-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
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 constructed and maintained in
accordance with the following standards:
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since May 15, 2008 PZC Meeting
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.
4. Bridge Street Right-of-Way: The right-of-way for Bridge Street shall be fifty-
six (56) feet as measured from the centerline ofright-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
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. 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,
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since May 15, 2008 PZC Meeting
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.
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, 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.
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
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since May 15, 2008 PZC Meeting
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 permitted the following signage:
a. One (1) wall sign on its storefront, which shall be defined as that
fapade 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 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.
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
10
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since May 15, 2008 PZC Meeting
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
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 t 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.
11
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
Revised since May 15, 2008 PZC Meeting
Grabill Monterey PUD(4).Ixt
12
I I 1~ if i ~('I'.j I ~:
Land Use and
long Rdnye Monninq
5800 Steer-RirgS Rcx~d
Oub~~n ph~o 4:!016-1236
~hcxx!/ TDD: b 14•a IO~db(YJ
fnn: b 14•+!0.4141
Web $I!e: www.dublin.oh.us
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
MAY 15, 2008
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
2. Waterford Commons Monterey Drive and West Bridge Street
07-084CP/Z Concept PIan/Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan
Proposal
Request:
Applicant:
Planning Contact:
Contact Information:
A development that includes 25 townhouse units and
approximately 12,000 square feet of commercial space located
south of West Bridge Street, on the east and west sides of
Monterey Street.
Review and approval of a concept plan
development plan under the Planned D
Section 153.050.
Grabill & Company; represented by
Underhill, Smith and Hale, I,LC.
Claudia D. IIusak, AICP, Planner II.
(614) 410-4675, chusak@dublin.oh.us.
and rezoning/preliminary
strict provisions of Code
Ben Halc and Aaron
MOTION: To approve this Concept Plan/Re~oning/Preliminary Development Plan because
the proposal is compatible with the development pattern in this area as depicted on the Historic
District Area Plan, meets the criteria set forth in Code Section i 53.050 and the ten Land Use
Principles with 18 conditions:
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 or that the applicant
identify a parking solution at the final development plan stage;
3) That the applicant demonstrate compliance with the City's 5tormwater 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;
5) 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) 'T'hat 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 effect;
Page 1 of 2
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
MAY 15, 2008
2. Waterford Commons Monterey Drive and 'Vest Bridge Street
07-084CP/Z Concept P1anBezoning/Preliminary Development Plan
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 Pian 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 2417;
t0) That the applicant pay particular attention to provide additional architectural relief for
garages facing the northwest and southwest portion of the western Subarea A;
1l) 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 coordinate 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, dancehalls 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 inchide more detailed sign provisions consistent
vvdth recent developments within the Historic District; and
18} That the one parking space in the northeast corner of Subazea B be eliminated.
Ben W. Hale, Jr. agreed to the above conditions.
VOTF,: 7 - 0.
RESULT: This Concept Plan/Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan was approved. It
will be forwazded to City Council with a positive recommendation.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Claudia D. Husak, A1CY
Planner II
Page 2 of 2
D ~~~~ Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
May 15; 2008 -Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 2b
Administrative Btt9iiitess
Todd Zimmer i called the meetin o order, as previousl scheduled at 7:00 Other
Commissio embers present wer amen Fishman, Chr' Amorose Groomes, to Freimann,
Ted San oltz, Kevin Walter nd Richard Taylor. ity representatives eluded: Steve
Lang rthy, Claudia Hus an Phillabaum, Jetu ' er Rauch, Justin Go win, Kristin Yorko,
Fr Hahn, Alan Perkins ara Ott, Jennifer Rea r, and Libby Farley. r. Zimmerman led
ledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Zimmerm requested that the do mcnts be accepted i the record. The do ments were
unanimous accepted into the rec . (Approved 7 - 0.)
Ad istrative Report
udia Husak pointc ut that corresponde e regarding Case 2 and updated inform on
regarding Cases 1 a 6 had been placed c the dais for review. to added that an ex ple of
an application t' eIine had been att ed to the Adminis tive Report. Mr.l~ merman
deferred the t' eIine discussion tot end of the meeting.
Case der
M immerman polled t Commissioner
r. Walter pulled C >; Ms. Amorose
Cases 2 and 3 for scussion. Case 8 wa
the case order the published Agend~
1. /Oak Park Residen ' 1
/ 07-OOIFD.P/FP
Todd Zimmerman ced those i;
applicant, Christ er "1'. Cline, B
pointed out t t the one condition
been elit ated since a No-Distu~
g the cases eligibl or the Consent Agen
pulled Case 6; d Mr. Zimmerman led
i prior to th meeting. [The minu reflect
Mitchell-Dewitt a yland Croy Road
Final Dev opment Plan/Final at
o this case includin ity representatives d the
d, Herbert & Marti nc., under oath. Cl is Husak
ing a No-BuildL e listed in the Plann' g Report had
had been prov' ed on the plat.
NI ton and Vote:
r. Zimmerman mad motion to approve t ' ~ application without nditions and Ms. A rose
Groomes seconde The vote was as Mows: Mr. Taylor es; Mr. Saneholtz, ~ es; Ms.
Amorose Gro ies, yes; Mr. Walte , yes; Mr. Freimaim es; Mr. Fishman, s; and Mr.
Zimmerma ,yes. (Approved 7 -
2. Waterford Commons Monterey Drive and West Bridge Street
07-084CP/Z Concept Plan/Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan
Claudia Husak presented this Concept Plan/Re~oning/Preliminary Development Plan application
- a request to rezone 5.5-acres from Limited Suburban Residential District and Community
Commercial District to a Planned I1nit Development District. She described the uses
surrounding the site. She said this site is included in the Historic District Area plan, which
stipulates additional housing options and commercial uses for this area. Ms. Husak described the
proposal and how it relates to the Area Plan. She stated that the provision of internal connections
provides a clear and physical connection that is desired in the Plan and the proposed design also
emphasizes the ease of pedestrian movements and connectivity to surrounding sites. She said the
~p~ ~. Dublin Planning and %oning Commission
,f,~'~ ~ ~I May l 5, 20Q8 -Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 26
site consists of ten parcels and two-existing family residential units. Ms. Husak said the site is
relatively flat and mature trees are located throughout and along the sides.
Ms. Husak said that the proposal had been revised since the Commission last saw it at the
February 7. 2008 Work Session when the Commission expressed concerns about density and
requested increased pedestrian connectivity between the site and the adjacent parcels and also
encouraged the use of greater architectural detail.
Ms. Husak explained that Subarea A includes 16 townhomes on the west side and nine on the
cast side of Monterey Drive. She added that one townhouse was removed from the previous
proposal which was located on the east side of this subarea. She said that the townhouses within
this Subarea all include rear loaded garages, are accessed from Monterey Drive, and have an
internal drive around the rear of the garages. Ms. Husak said the townhouses include a courtyard
area between the main building and the garages and six-foot fences are permitted in the
development text along the rear of each courtyard area to provide additional privacy.
Ms. Husak presented elevations of the residential architecture. She said the revised preliminary
development plan included detailed architectural elevations. She said the new elevations show
the buildings being broken up more and a significant extra amount of stone and brick was added
since the Commission previously saw them. Ms. Husak said that at the Work Session the
rooflines and the material changes were discussed. The applicant has decided to keep some
architectural integrity by changing some of the heights of the roofs, but consistently show the
roof material as dimensional shingle. She said the monotony of garages were also previously
discussed at the Work Session and she said that the garages have been changed considerably
with more decorative doors, cupolas, gabled roofs, and masonry bases.
Ms. I-Iusak said this proposed plan provides 128 parking spaces, which is in excess of the spaces
required by Code. There are parking spaces shown along the sides of the residential units for
potential visitors, but Planning is somewhat concerned that there are too many parking spaces
provided for the residential subarea and is recommending that those 17 spaces be eliminated.
Ms. Husak said pedestrian paths are indicated throughout the interior of the subarea, along the
bio-retention basin going out to the public sidewalk along Monterey Drive and to the south
linking to a partial sidewalk that is currently located within Monterey Park.
Ms. Husak described Subarea B, which had frontage on West Bridge Street and contained
approximately 1.1 acre. She said a 12,000-square-foot commercial building was proposed with
patio spaces. She described the parking layout to the south and east of the proposed building. She
said there is a proposed full service access point off Monterey Drive, aright-in access point off
west Bridge Street, and an access point to the south that connects to Subarea A. She said limited
access to Subarea A is indicated on the preliminary development plan showing a gate that would
restrict access during certain hours, but additional information has not been provided regarding
its purpose or any operation or maintenance stipulations. Ms. Husak said Planning recommends
that the gate be removed.
Ms. Husak said the development text for Subarea B lists permitted uses in the Neighborhood
Commercial District and in the Community Commercial District of the 7_oning Code with some
exceptions and additions. She said Planning thought the Historic Business would be appropriate
Dublin Planning and Toning Commission
~~ ~ ~ May I5, 2008 -- Mccting Minutes
Page 4 of 26
had it had appropriate uses for this commercial area and should probably be permitted here as
well.
Ms. Husak pointed out that 3,000 square feet of patio area are indicated on the proposed plan on
the north, west, and south sides, and a small area on the east side. She said the patios will require
conditional use approval by the Commission, as does all outdoor dining within the City of
Dublin. She said because the building is located on the right-of--way line, some of the patio
spaces, particularly to the north are located within the right-of--way. She said Code requires that
City Council approve right-of--way encroachment, and this proposed development text said that
the Commission could approve them, so Planning is recommending that be taken out of the
development text.
Ms. Husak said parking spaces provided for this proposal are at a rate of one space for every 200
feet of square footage, regardless of use. She said the development text also excludes the patio
spaces, since it is not required that the parking spaces be provided for the patios. She said
Planning prefers that parking spaces are provided for the patios, which would be approximately
1 S parking spaces.
Ms. Husak presented commercial elevations. She said the proposed development text requires
the appearance of a two-story building, and portions of the building have that appearance. It also
requires architecture that is similar to what is found in the Historic District. Ms. Husak said at
the Work Session, some of the Commissioners were concerned that existing architecture would
be duplicated. She said the applicant has revised certain elements that make the architecture
continuously interesting, but not make it look like a copy of what is already found in the Historic
District.
Ms. IIusak said the building materials in Subarea B include standing seam, wood shake, and
dimensional asphalt shingles on the roofs to make the architecture reminiscent of and
complementary to the Historic District. She said the signs proposed would be generally
externally illuminated plaques, similar to what is found in Town Center I, which has worked
well.
Ms. 1-Iusak said Subarea C, south of Subarea B and east of Subarea A was approximately 0.5-
acre which the development text indicates could either be used for a cemetery expansion or open
space for this development.
Ms. Husak said the review criteria were evaluated by Planning for this application. She said it
was Planning's opinion that the Parks and Open Space criteria have been met and that all the
other criteria may be met with conditions which are detailed in the Planning Report. She said
also consulted were the Land Use Principles and the Historic Dublin Area Plan, and the
connectivity principle may be met with a condition. She said all other applicable criteria have
been met, so Planning is recommending approval of this request with the following ten
conditions as listed in the Planning Report:
1) That the provision allowing the Planning and "Coning Commission to approve encroachments
into the right-of--way be removed from the development text;
2) That the parking spaces along the drives serving the residential units be removed;
3) That the patio areas either meet the development text or that the applicant identify a parking
solution at the final development plan stage;
Dublin Planning and Toning Commission
-®- ~ May 15, 2008 -Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 26
4) That the applicant demonstrate compliance with the City's Stormwater Ordinance, prior to
obtaining a building permit;
5) That the proposed text be revised to include the permitted used within the HB, Historic
Business District;
6) 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;
7) That the text be revised to indicate that the intent of the Code will be met for perimeter
buffering and that existing landscaping will be augmented to achieve the desire effect;
8) That the text be revised to indicate the timeframe for the installation of the traffic signal;
9) That the applicant dedicate the necessary right-of--way to meet the Thoroughfare Plan for
West Bridge Street; and
10) That the access gate between the residential and commercial subareas be removed.
Ben W. Hale, Jr., Smith and Hale, representing the applicant, The Grabill Company said
regarding Condition 2, they thought that there should be additional parking that is not in a
driveway or garage, but some spaces could be eliminated.
Linda Menerey, EMH&T, said they could drop two on the west and two on the east or a
combination of that. She said they are worried about not having any extra spaces outside of the
driveway or on Monterey Drive.
Mr. Hale referred to Condition 10 and said they would like to have it amended or eliminated. He
said they would commit to a timed automated gate that would be open during the day and closed
at night, maintained by the homeowners association. He said they do not want the commercial
traffic to mix in the residential alley in the evening and they are trying to avoid resident
concerns.
Mr. Hale said they were considering having permeable surfaces that the storm drainage will go
through. He said they have discussed with the EPA about how they work and the applicant
believes they have a tentative approval. I-Ie said they tried after the last meeting to look through
the record and the concerns the Commission had. He said they hoped they had successfully
accomplished wrhat the Commission asked to be done.
Ed Feher, Glavin Feher Architects, Inc., said they did considerable work on the exterior massing.
He said the townhomes' facades have been modulated and the ridgelines have been adjusted
which provided a better way to transition, change in bearing exterior planting material -siding
vs. cultured stone vs. brick. They have mixed all those together, used the offsets in the
foundation and exterior walls, modulating them. Mr. Feher said they introduced a 1'/z-story
townhome to get the ridgeline to break. He said a muted, earthtone color scheme is proposed.
He said two of the three buildings on the east side of on Monterey Drive have a similar technique
incorporated with a 1'/2-story townhome. Mr. Hale added that to address the Commission's
concern about how long the buildings were, they dropped a unit and there are now three, three-
family units and more end units.
Mr. Freimann asked if the original 5.2 du/ac density had been reduced. Ms. Husak said the
residential subarea density was now 4.6 du/ac.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Conunission
May 15, 2008 -Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 26
Mr. Feher said for the retail area, they did a massive overhaul on the building to make it look
even more broken down than previously shown. He said they tried to integrate more two-story
appearance as requested, but they were set up to market the buildings either way. He said by
using a variety of materials, modulating the facade so the materials could be broken down,
introducing a variety of roofing materials with a lot of variation in the roof lines as well to
silhouette the building. Mr. Feher said they also did a better job in the site plan of transitioning
around the comer and making it a four-sided statement in the architecture. He said all of the
facades were treated with the same care. He asked that the Commissioners be cognizant that
there was a small area in the south facade that they have to integrate utility functions such as
electric and gas into because these are commercial retail spaces that need places for meters and
electric transformers, etc.
Mr. Zimmerman requested those wishing to speak in regards to this case to come forward.
Kevin O'Connor, owner of Red Rooster Quilts, 48 Corbins Mill Drive expressed concern about
the proposed lower number of parking spaces in the commercial district. He read that Code
required 140 parking spaces for Subarea B, the commercial area. Ms. Husak confirmed that
would be the requirement if the site was parked to the Zoning Code, one space per 150 square
feet, which resulted in 144 spaces. Mr. O'Connor said that they have submitted plans to the
Building Department fora 1,800-square-foot expansion and he is concerned that the Waterford
Commons proposal will result in his property being an overflow parking lot for the commercial
area. He asked if in the Area Plan, the parcels were attached or separate. Ms. Husak said the
parcel to the north was not included in this application. He said they would end up with too few
parking spaces in two locations, and people will use his lot to park in the evening which he did
not want to happen. He said he had trouble now with teenagers parking and hanging out in the
woods. He said the parking was his main concern.
Mr. O'Connor said his second concern is that right now, between 5 and 7 p.m. traffic on Bridge
Street backs up past Corbin's Mill and to the rear of the Dublin Plaza entrance. He said there
had been discussion as part of this development to put a traffic light at this location. Mr.
O'Connor said he understood from Engineering that the distance between a traffic light at
Monterey Drive and the one at the school would be a distance closer than recommended.
Ms. Husak referred Mr. O'Connor's technical concern to Engineering. However, she said
included in the proposed plan is a traffic light at the intersection of Monterey Drive and West
Bridge Street.
Mr. O'Connor said the traffic light at Monterey Drive will make the traffic situation worse when
there are not enough parking spaces, and cars are being parked on the street because not enough
spaces were left in the development. He said the traffic would impact his business and
employees adversely, because there will be three hours a day, five days a week when no one
would be able to get into his store. Mr. O'Connor was very concerned that if there were not
enough parking spaces, they have to ga somewhere or else these commercial units will not
survive.
Mr. O'Connor mentioned that he had lighting in his parking lot, and he vas concemed that when
this development is built, people would complain because his lights were shining in the
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
~n ~- = = May 15, 2008 -Meeting Minutes
Y'~ '~ ., Page 7 of 26
6'"':" 1 ~
residential windows. He asked that when this development is planned, that be considered from a
landscaping point of view to block the lights shining into the residential units.
Holly Tuite, 280 Old Spring T,ane, a co-president of the Waterford Village Civic Association,
said they would love to have a traffic light at the intersection. She said they have cut through
traffic that comes through now to avoid Corbin's Mill. She said it was frustrating for them
because they could not make a left turn going out of there between 5 and 7 p.m. She said
sometimes, when coming up from SR 161 from Historic Dublin, you can not make a left turn
into the neighborhood and she thought a traffic lighting would be wonderful to have there.
Ms. Tuite, said in defense of the proposed gate, she definitely could sec a use for it. She said
they had driven by the cemetery late at night and early in the morning and she has had to call the
police to report that there were cars in the back of the cemetery. She saw a need for a gate there
to protect these residents, if it was just going to be a drive through down into their garages and
their driveways to protect them from that afterhours activity.
Steve 'T'homas, 238 Clover Court pointed out the nearby residents cancems regarding the existing
duplexes. IIe said if this development does not go forward, he would recommend starting
eminent domain conversation to take the junk out of the neighborhood. Mr. Thomas provided
photos of the yards he discussed. He said it was very unlike Dublin and totally out of context.
Mr. Thomas said he would go before City Council because it needed to be fixed.
Dennis Muchnicki, 270 Clover Court, said the existing homes Monterey Drive did not bother
him. He said he did not see much effort to preserve the existing trees on this proposed plan. He
read from the plan: Existing trees are to be maintained or replaced. He said several of the trees
were going to be cut down, and he did not see that consistent with what he heard at the concept
meeting when they said they were going to make tree preservation a priority. He said he did not
consider saving two trees out of maybe 25 trees was consistent with the commitment made by
the developer at the concept meeting in February which was to "maintain the existing trees." Mr.
Muchnicki, said this proposed plan was not consistent with the commitment to maintain the tree
canopy which he thought was a critical component of the mood present going into Waterford
Village, one of the oldest subdivisions that has mature trees in Dublin. He said he did not want
to see 2.5-inch caliper trees and he thought it was really a startling and striking disconnect with
what is there. He said something better needed to be done to address the wholesale cutting down
of a large number of trees. He said the architecture was fine.
Subarea AWest - DiSCUSSI~n
Mr. Walter recalled that at the Work Session, the Commissioners discussed the change of
elevation on the roofline, as well as the variation of the building relief. He said although he
appreciated that they did do that, he did not see enough of it. He asked if there was a way to
further pull out the relief a little. I Ie noted that the roofline was broken and he asked what the
depth of the relief shown was. Mr. Fehcr said it was between four and six feet. Mr. Walter said
it did not seem to be enough relief, on the front.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there would be any elevation change between the two separate
drives. Ms. Menerey said the only delineation would be the change in color and paver. She said
they are using that area for the pervious pavement and so they needed to keep the whole area
open underneath with how it was constructed.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
May l 5, 2008 -Meeting Minutes
-~ Page 8 of 26
dpi` 3 i. y`'-1 i1
Mr. Walter said he was not in favor of the removal of the parking in the area, although he
appreciated the residents' concerns about having parking on Monterey Drive and the amount of
traffic that will come through there. E-Ie said he was concerned that there was a lot of asphalt.
Ms. Menerey said it would not be asphalt; it will all be varied colored pavers in that impervious
area, even on the drive aisles. She said they did not want to pick the specific colors or design at
this level. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that it would be similar with the concrete unit
pavers in appearance. Mr. Walter said he would like to see a significant color and design
variations in the concrete pavers. Ms. Menerey agreed at the final development plan stage, they
would bring samples of the concrete pavers.
Mr. Walter confirmed that he was not in favor of reducing the number of parking spaces.
Richard Taylor asked what the concern of Planning was with the excess parking spaces. Ms.
Husak said particularly on the west side is a substantial tree row, so that was one of those
instances where it could potentially save some trees if those spaces were eliminated. She added
that the amount of parking spaces proposed seemed excessive to Planning.
Mr. Taylor said he saw it as screened parking and it would significantly improve what could be a
worsening traffic situation by having parking in this Subarea. He asked if the other
Commissioners had concerns about the relief of the buildings. Mr. Zimmerman said he was
comfortable with how they were proposed today.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she thought it was a marked improvement over what they had
previously seen. She said her only concern now was in regards to the architecture. She asked
the applicant to make sure that there will be adequate relief for the vistas in the first portion of
garages, coming from the south. She said they were not provided with any renderings showing
any of the garage portions.
Mr. Hale said they intended to detail the garages and roofs and understood the concern. Ms.
Amorose Groomes said she was looking for mare of a rendering of what we have -what it
would look like with materials and things on it. 1•Ic said regarding the trees, if they get in there,
they could always propose at the final development plan stage that all those spaces not be
constructed. He said if there is a tree that could be saved by removing a parking space on the
west border, they would do that.
Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that the proposed impervious pavement was three feet and not
three inches deep. Mr. Hale said they had to have the same concern about damaging roots with
this system as they would with asphalt, so if there was a tree there worth saving, they would do
so.
Mr. Taylor said his concern was if they moved the buildings farther apart, areas of the building
without windows exposed. He said it could aetuaily make it worse if they go too far. Mr. Walter
said he was contemplating shifting that building to the south, and adding a window on the bump-
outs.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was not in favor of losing any of the proposed parking spaces
because she would like to see Monterey Drive Frith a two-hour limit or metered parking in order
Dublin Flanning and Zoning Commission
/"-~ May 15, 2008 -Meeting Minutes
~°"~ ~ Page 9 of 26
to get the cars off the street so that the residents who live there are not parking on the street, and
those parking spots would be available to others who visit the park or the shops in that area. She
repeated that she was in favor of keeping as many parking spaces as can be allowed, with the
intention of freeing up Monterey Drive and really precluding residents from parking there. She
said there would not be overnight parking available. Ms. Amoroso Groomes said if what they
painted in the Community Plan would come to fruition that would be very valuable parking.
Ms. Husak said she would definitely want to talk to Dublin's traffic engineers as to how the
parking would work and perhaps it could be picked up at the final development plan stage.
Ms. Amoroso Groomes said she would like Engineering to meter the parking spaces on
Monterey Drive because she wanted to keep cars from parking on the street overnight or
extended periods of time. Mr. Langworthy said that would ultimately be a Council decision.
Ms. Amoroso Groomes said someone needs to bring it to Council's attention.
Mr. Feher pointed out that each of these condominiums were set up so that two cars could be
parked in the garage and two outside the garage, still having full emergency access in the drive
aisle behind.
Mr. Saneholtz said he thought it was logical to have some parking on the west side for the units
on the western half of the larger parcel, simply because he did not think everyone wants their
guests having to park in the back of their residentiai unit. IIe said those units are not really
served by any nearby parking, if there are no western parking spaces, so he was in favor of
maintaining the proposed parking.
Mr. Saneholtz referred to the uniqueness of the garage doors and facades and the work the
applicants have done to improve that. He thanked them because this was a vast improvement
over what the Commission initially saw. He said he really appreciated the fact that the
applicants listened and came back with some reaction to it.
Mr. Saneholtz said when the Commission went to Franklin, Tennessee they saw a very unique
development, where the difference in the front doors of the units gave the neighborhood a real
home-to-home feel, rather than an apartment unit-to-apartment unit feel with the same boring
metal doors. He encouraged the applicant to do the same on~the front facade with the doors as
they did on the garage doors. He said he appreciated the relief on the buildings.
Ms. Husak suggested regarding the door discussion, that they could revise the text to require
decorative front doors. Mr. Hale agreed to that being another condition. Mr. Fishman clarified
that each door had to be distinctive and different.
Mr. Fishman echoed Ms. Amoroso Groomes comments about parking on Monterey Drive. Elite
Freimann agreed that extra parking spaces were needed for safety issues. He did not want to see
people stopping cars in the middle of driveway. He said he definitely liked the additional
parking spaces for parties and everything else. He encouraged the applicant to as they are siting
the parking spaces locations to make sure that they maximize the parking spaces and the number
of trees preserved.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
"~ ~ May 15, 2008 -Meeting Minutes
' ~`..; Page 10 of 26
Mr. Taylor asked if there was any kind of screening of the parking area on the far west side,
where cars will be parked along the edge. Ms. Menerey said they would use the existing
vegetation, and then bring the rest of it up to Code. Ms. Husak said Condition 7 addressed that.
She said Code requires perimeter buffering between residential and commercial uses so the quilt
shop on the northern corner and Sunoco station to the north are commercial uses and the Code
required perimeter buffering is pretty difficult to achieve when there are existing trees in the area
that are to be preserved because Code requires asix-foot tall mound, fence, or shrubs. She said it
is hard to do that with existing trees.
Ms. Amorose Groomes recalled a fence mentioned during the work session. Ms. Husak said
Planning suggested that the existing landscaping be augmented to achieve some buffering, but it
may not be able to meet Code. She did not recall a fence being proposed.
Mr. Taylor noted that there was aten-foot setback to the pavement off the property line, so there
was room to do something there. He asked Mr. O'Connor, the quilt shop owner, to describe
where on his property he was planning to put an 1,800-square-foot addition. Mr. O'Connor
pointed to the area and said they plan to keep the parking area in the rear, adding more parking.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked about the existing drive-thru. Mr. O'Connor said they had
converted the drive-thru for a classroom.
Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that Mr. O'Connor would probably be required to do the
same landscape screening that this applicant will have to do. Mr. O'Connor said they did not
have to do any screening because it already existed. He said they were not asking for any zoning
changes, they are only striping existing pavement. Mr. Fishman asked if the drive-thru would be
removed. Mr. O'Connor said part of it would go away and the building will extend out.
Mr. Walter confirmed that Mr. O'Connor's property was straight-zoned and it would go through
the building permit process only. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if the entire property would be
brought up to Code at that time. Ms. Husak clarified that if the expansion is more than 25 percent
the site must be brought up to Code.
Mr. O'Connor confirmed that there was no fence existing, but one would be important to him as
a property owner to prevent cut-through traffic.
Mr. Walter asked if the applicant could be asked to work in conjunction with Planning and the
adjacent properties to provide as much screening as possible so that should his property have to
come up to Code and that buffer get impacted, that it marry nicely with this particular property.
Mr. Zimmerman agreed with the Commissioners regarding leaving the parking to the west, no
matter how it has to be staggered to save the best of the existing trees. He confirmed that there
would be no parking on the internal drive area because it was not wide enough.
Mr. O'Connor again asked if a fence was being proposed. Ms. Husak responded that Planning
did not find anything about a fence mentioned in the December 2007 Commission minutes.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she would like to sec in a Condition about tree preservation and the
west property line treatment to provide some screening that might prevent foot traffic from
crossing.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
May 15, 2008 -Meeting Minutes
Page 11 of 26
Mr. Saneholtz asked why was it they wanted to prevent foot traffic and when they were trying to
create a more pedestrian-friendly community why would they want artificial barriers to
pedestrian traffic. Ms. Amorose Groomes said they did not want to prcvent pedestrian traffic,
only for it to go in the safest places and through the back of a parking lot to back of a parking
might not be the most appropriate when there is a walkway that runs through Monterey Park, just
immediately to the south that is a safe, paved, delineated, public walkway that will go to the
same place on Corbin's Mill, across from the shopping center.
Mr. Saneholtz asked if six-foot stockade type or split rail fencing was being encouraged. He said
he cringed at the idea of some large barrier being built between the properties. Ms. Amorose
Groomes suggested it could be done through a landscape buffer and would not be fencing. She
said she did not know that it was the safest route to use an alley and come out into another alley
to SR 161. Mr. Saneholtz agreed with Ms. Amorose Groomes; however he said he really wanted
to be careful not to create "islands" inside of fences. Mr. Walter agreed with Mr. Saneholtz that
creating an island by fencing around it probably was not what they wanted to do in that area.
Mr. Taylor said his concern was not with the foot traffic, but from Mr. O'Connor's property
looking back toward this west side and if all those parking spaces stayed and were all filled, it
would look like a car lot, with headlights facing his property.
Mr. Saneholtz pointed out that Mr. O'Connor was already looking across a parking lot -his own.
He said there was no way that that would infringe upon his visuals in any distinct way.
Mr. Walter said they should work with staff to put appropriate buffering in place. Ms. Husak
said she thought that would work the best, because Planning is still concerned about fencing and
the location with the trees. Shc said another thing that potentially could be considered is
requiring a pedestrian connection to the north, should that site develop in the future. Mr. Walter
said he thought that was awell-founded condition.
Mr. Frcimann asked if there was any hope of keeping any of the large stately trees like those
numbered 231, 233, 238, and 234. Ms. Menercy said she thought they could work on saving the
perimeter trees, but because it is so urban, they could not save those trees inside the core of this.
Subarea AEast -Discussion
Mr. Frcimann suggested instead of a timed gate, some type of sensor card system could be used
by the nine residents. Mr. Hale said they assumed that the residents would have a card, but they
thought the gate could be left open in the day and at night, the residents could use their cards.
Mr. Freimann said if people were not wanted in the residents at night, they would not want them
back there during the day. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked what purpose anyone would have to
drive behind those condos to exit. Mr. 1-Iale said when Planning did not want the gate, the
applicant suggested it could be left open during the day and closed at night. He said he was sure
Mr. Grabill, the applicant would be happier if the residents just had cards.
Ms. Amorose Groomes and Mr. Walter asked if the necessity for the gate was for fire purposes
to have egress and ingress. Fire Marshall Alan Perkins indicated that was correct. Ms. Amorose
Groomes said she did not support the gate being left open for any longer than it had to be. Mr.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
May 15, 2008 -Meeting Minutes
Page 12 of 26
Saneholz agreed. Mr. Freimann supported the gate, but did not want it to be open during the day.
Mr. Walter confirmed that the gate would be owned, operated, and maintained by. the
homeowners association.
Mr. Walter asked if it could be specified that that reserve fund be established by the homeowners
association to cover the maintenance of the gate. He expressed concern that in the future, the
gate would become dysfunctional and there would be a lot of expense in maintaining the road,
landscaping, and that the gate might fall by the wayside.
Steve Langworthy said the Commission could not specify that there be a reserve fund for the
gate maintenance, but it could it could say that the responsibility for the maintenance is for the
homeowners association, just to make it clear between the commercial and residential areas, and
the applicant would have the reserve fund as a deed restriction. He clarified that how the gate
was maintained and where the money came from was up to them.
Mr. Hale suggested a condition that it be in their text that the homeowners association has the
duty to maintain the gate in good working order. He said if they do not, it would be a zoning
violation. Mr. Langworthy agreed that could be enforced by the City. Mr. Walter said that was
what he would like to see. Mr. Walter added that it should be more clearly specified the good
working order portion and the type of gate, hours of operation being a 24-hour controlled access
gate.
Ms. Menerey verified that it was the desire of the Commission that the gate be restricted 24/7.
Mr. Walter asked if there were any fire/safety implications regarding the gate being closed all the
time. Marshall Perkins said because the drive aisle behind the townhouse is a fire apparatus
access drive, access to the commercial site would be required. He said gates of this type are
more problematic for maintenance purposes in the winter when there is snow plowed into the
drive aisle.
Mr. Freimann asked for further explanation regarding the arrangement made between the owner
of the far eastern half-acre and the City. Mr. Hale explained that the applicant is still working on
the City contract, but essentially, the City's property is worth more than the applicant's, so the
City's half-acre is going to be traded for the frontage property, plus a difference between the two
values. He said the new City property was going to be integrated into the cemetery.
Mr. Freirnann asked what would happen if City Council did not agree to make the trade of
property, and the applicant still owned the half-acre. Mr. Hale said they could not develop this
project.
Mr. Walter said at the final development stage he would like to see renderings of what the rear of
the garages and buildings look like from the cemetery.
Mr. Zimmerman confirmed that the Commissioners agreed to leave the nine parking spaces on
the east side as was done on the west side and in effect eliminate Condition 2.
Mr. Walter asked if the parcels would be combined. Ms. Menerey clarified that they would do a
lot combination and then a lot re-plat because the line separation of the commercial and the
cemetery/condos is different than the rear of those existing Lines right now.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
May 15, 2008 -Meeting Minutes
- Page 13 of 26
Mr. Walter noted that there was no screening now for the northern boundary of the eastern edge,
between the commercial subarea and Subarea A. Ms. Menercy said they would do screening
there and it would be shown on the landscape plan at the final development plan stage. Mr.
Walter asked it be included in Condition 7 so that it is not missed.
Subarea BCommercial -Discussion
Mr. Saneholtz referred to the dumpster positioned at the southeast corner and asked there be an
attempt to find another location for it. Ms. Menercy agreed to do so.
Mr. Saneholtz noted that on the northeast end of the building, there was a patio that now went
into the existing right-of--way. Mr. Walter said the section on the far eastern edge, but not the
whole building, should be dropped back to let that patio come behind the right-of--way.
Mr. Saneholtc asked if only one sign on the front, north side of the building was proposed per
Code. Ms. Husak did not think so, she said the Town Center I plan that this development is
modeled after also had signs on the rear elevations per their text. Mr. Saneholtz said he did not
see sign provisions within the proposed text, so he encouraged the applicant to include more
detail.
Aaron Underhill, Smith and Hale, representing the applicant, said the way the sign provisions
were written was general and they included the intent that they wanted to meet the Town Center
standards. He said when he looked at that text; there were only pictures of those and no real
written standards. Mr. Saneholtz strongly encouraged that it be in the text with no uncertainly.
Mr. Saneholtzr. clarified with Mr. Hale that there was no possibility of ever having a drive thru
accommodated on this property.
Mr. Fishman was concerned about parking for restaurants and bars. Mr. Hale said to get the
patios in the right-of--way; they had to go to City Council to get an encroachment approved to do
them. He said although they could be permitted, there could not be a restaurant on this site
without resolving the valet problem. He said they did not want to give up the ability to have a
restaurant.
Mr. Walter suggested that the text permitted uses include under conditional uses, "outdoor patio,
and a definition of "restaurant." Ms. Husak asked if they wanted to do that in order to get the one
space per 50 spaces. Mr. Walter said no, they wanted that so that they come for a conditional use
and that valet or a shared parking arrangement with another facility be a part of that conditional
use. I-Ie asked that a definition of a restaurant be included.
Mr. Hale said he did not want to have to do that for a coffee shop. Mr. Saneholtz said that was
not what he was saying. He said let the Code dictate that. Mr. Hale doubted the Code said a
coffee shop needs one to 50. Ms. Husak said 1 to 50 per Code is required for restaurant, tavern,
nightclub, lounge, or dance hall use. Mr. Walter said to stick with that. Ms. Husak thought it
would include coffee shops as well as fast food and sandwich shops. Mr. Saneholtz said if it was
a coffee shop, they would have to come in for a conditional use. He said a Tim Horton's or
Starbucks could generate a lot of traffic and they will be not only underparked, but he was not
sure this was an appropriate site for a lot of in and out traffic.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
May 15, 2008 -Meeting Minutes
_, Page 14 of 26
Mr. Langworthy suggested having nothing to do with the parking, and just say those uses listed
in the Code must apply for Conditional Uses. Mr. Walter and Mr. Sancholtz said they were fine
with that.
Mr. Taylor noted that all the patios delineated but one would have to be approved as conditional
uses, and asked if that would he done as individual tenants occupied those spaces. Mr. Hale said
the patios were representative samples. He said there was no way they would do all of those.
Mr. Taylor asked if a different color of paving would be used to delineate those. Mr. Hale
clarified that it was just a graphic representation of where they might be.
Ms. Menerey shared that the applicant was very interested in gelling a nice sit down restaurant.
Shc said it alarmed her a little on behalf of Mr. Grabill about the parking. She said the thought
was if this was in the Historic District, as Mr. Hale said, they deal with it with valet and other
ways. Mr. Zimmerman said that was fine. Ms. Menerey said dealing with it in that regards,
saying that they will come back with a solution like that, but if they want to do it as a conditional
use that is the Commission's decision. Mr. Walter said there was nothing else to compel the
applicant to solve the parking problem unless it is a conditional use.
Mr. Walter pointed out that if the patio shown on the plan in the right-of--way is not setback it
can be expected that they will not get it.
Mr. Walter was concerned about the building architecture, although it was a marked
improvement over what they had before, the white banding underneath the sign is a little heavy
and seemed massive particularly on the two-story structure. Mr. Taylor said that it appeared that
the goal was to make this look like a series of building that were put in over time, and the band
does tend to tie them all together. He said something that allowed them to be stand-alone and
appear a little more as separate buildings would be preferable.
Mr. Walter pointed out that the roofline had been made higher, but there was a very steep gable
angle on the edge. He asked that a treatment be put on the side of the gable to make it look less
stark. Mr. Feher agreed to do that.
Mr. Taylor said it would be nice to have some flexibility and a little differentiation on the signs,
still meeting the Code just as on the architecture of the buildings themselves. Mr. Hale said they
would love that. Mr. Feher said each bracketed sign could be rectangular, oval, circular, or
square shaped.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said the Historic District sign principles were wanted to be carried which
would unfortunately; make them all need to be made somewhat consistent with a minimal
deviation. She said all the signs that would come through the SR 161 corridor through the
Historic District would match with what was in Town Center I and lI and BriHi. Mr. Walter
clarified that the sign package needs to be consistent with what was approved by the
flrchitectural Review Board.
Ms. Husak suggested a condition to address the Commissioners' discussion about the
architecture.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
May 15; 2004 -Meeting iVlinutes
~~ :.y 3 Page i5 ot26
Mr. Gimmerman referred to the first two parking spaces coming off Bridge Street (the right-in)
and said he would like to see them eliminated because when a car comes off Bridge Street and
someone is backing out they are a hazard. He said it was too short of a run coming off a major
road. Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that there was good visibility from the location of those
two parking spaces and suggested it might be appropriate for the dumpster location.
Mr. Walter suggested that only one of the parking spaces be eliminated. Mr.Limmerman
requested that the condition include that the parking space to the north be eliminated and that the
dumpster location be worked out with Planning.
Mr. Hale requested that the record be made clear that what they were talking about in Condition
15 was that a parking plan needed to be submitted. Mr. Saneholtz did not want an applicant to
think 20 years from now that they could put restaurants on this property as long as they take care
of parking and they create other issues that the Commission is not presently aware of.
Jennifer Readier said if something is required to be approved as a conditional use, there is a
specific set of criteria in the Code that delineates what has to be examined for a conditional use.
She said it would be virtually impossible to limit the purview of a conditional use review when
there is a set of criteria in the Code that has to be examined when approving a conditional use.
She clarified that it just should be said it was a conditional use.
Motion and Vote
Mr. Zimmerman made a motion, seconded by Ms. Amorose Groomes, to approve this Concept
Plan/Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan because the proposal is compatible with the
development pattern in this area as depicted on the Historic District Area Plan, meets the criteria
set forth in Code Section 153.050 and the ten Land Use Principles with the with 18 conditions as
previously read into the record and listed below:
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 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;
~) 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 effect;
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 Fire Code, and that the access is controlled 24/7;
10) That the applicant pay particular attention to provide additional azchitectural relief for
garages facing the northwest and southwest portion of the western Subarea A;
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
~ ::~, May I5, 2008 -Meeting Minutes
a ~ ~ Page 16 of 26
11) That the text be revised to require a variety of decorative, distinctive fiont 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;
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, dancehalls 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;
l7) 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.
Mr. Hale agreed to all of the above 18 conditions.
The vote was as follows: Mr. Taylor, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr.
Walter, yes; Mr. Freimann, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; and Mr. Zimmerman, yes. (Approved 7 - 0.}
Mr. Zimmerman called a 10-minute recess at 9:10 p.m. before starting the next case.
3. Tutt}ENorth -IGS
vlr. 7jrE-merman poIied
co ent case.
Jim Houk, Bird uk Collaborative,
three conditio but requested an ~
regarding th use of additional e rg}
alternativ energy sources they
develo ent text. Mr. Ho exnlaine
~i'r. Saneholtz said echnology ~
other alternative e rgy sources.
Mr. Freim said the architect ,
fantastic. e asked if the ap 'car
for the onstruction of the ase I
pro sed number
s. Amorose Gr.
eliminate some o
over Code, but
Ms. Rauch ggc
's asked if a
excess park:
must meet t
the additi
include 1~ auage that would
details t~which will be revi~
that no nrese'fitation was neededif'or this
;presenting IGS, st ed that the applic t agreed to the
~itional modifica ' n to the propose development text
sources. He s ~d the applicant is dying other possi
would lik to include this an option withi the
that this as very important their client.
~esifhe City should cot}rsfder the use of win~urbines and
rendering provid' g a view of the bt ' ding from I-270 ~ s
was comforta e with the number parking spaces n ded
evelopmen Mr. Houk said th were comfortable rth the
:ondi ' n was needed in se there was a ch ge of use to
ig. . Langworthy s cd a development ould always be
oft of Condition 4
w the use of ad '
for approval a e
'hat the develops t text be revised to
tonal alternative e rgy saving devices, the
f nal dcvclopme plan stage.
PLANNING REPORT
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 15, 2008
SECTION I -CASE INFORMATION:
2. Waterford Commons Monterey Drive and West Bridge Street
07-084CP1Z Concept Plan/Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan
Proposal: A development Lhat includes 25 townhouse units and
approximately I2,000 square feet of commercial space
located south of West Bridge Street, on the east and west
sides of Monterey Street.
Request: Review and approval of a concept plan and
rezoning/preliminazy development plan under the Planned
District provisions of Code Section 153.050.
Applicant: Grabill & Company; represented by Ben Hale and Aazon
Underhill, Smith and Hale, LLC.
Planning Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II.
Contact Information: (614) 410-4675, chusak@dublin.oh.us.
Case Summary
This proposal is a request for review and approval of a concept plan and 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 squaze feet of commercial
use. 25 townhouse units, and 0.8 acre of open space. It is Planning's opinion that the
proposed use is compatible and fits with the character of the azea and approval of this
request is recommended.
Work Session Update
The Planning and Zoning Commission informally reviewed this proposal at the February
7, 2008 work session and provided feedback regarding the residential density of the site,
vehicular and pedestrian access, the azchitectural design and materials of the proposed
buildings, and the consistency of the proposal with the Historic District Area Plan.
The Commission expressed concern about the proposed density of both the commercial
and residential portions of the proposed PUD. Generally, the Commission found that a
development of high quality, particulazly architecturally may warrant density in excess of
five dwelling units per acre; as required in the Community Plan. The Commission
requested increased pedestrian connectivity between the site and the adjacent parcels and
Planning and Zoning Commission
Yay I5, 2008 -Planning Repoli
Case No. 07-084CP/Z
Page 2 of 12
the applicant has provided a pedestrian connection to the Monterey Park to the south.
The location of the commercia] building has been moved farther north, closer to the
property line along West Bridge Street to be more consistent with the Historic Dublin
Area Plan. The Commissioners also encouraged the use of greater architectural detail,
which has been accomplished with the increased use of stone and brick and modifications
to the garage elevations.
Site Description
Location
The site is located on the south side of West Bridge Street, at the intersection with
Monterey Drive. Monterey Drive runs through the center of the site, dividing it into two
sections. Road frontage for this site includes 235 feet of along West Bridge Street and
approximately 550 feet along Monterey Drive.
Site Character
The site consists of 10 separate parcels, two of which are located along West Bridge
Street and are zoned CC, while the remaining eight parcels are zoned R-2. The site is
relatively flat with a slight slope toward the east. The southem portion of the site is
currently developed with eight duplex residences located along both sides of Monterey
Drive and the northem portion of the site is vacant. There are a number of significant
trees located within the site and along the western and southern property boundaries.
Surrounding Zoning and Uses
The Dublin Cemetery is located along the eastern and southem boundary of the proposed
development and is zoned R-2. An existing gas station; zoned CC is located on the
southwest corner of W"est Bridge Street and Monterey Drive. Monterey Park is located to
the south of the proposed development as part of the Waterford V"iliage PUD and to the
west aze residential and commercial uses. Sells 1~Iiddle School and Indian Run
Elementary School aze located on the north side of West Bridge Street, both are zoned
HR, Historic Residential District.
PIan Description
Overview
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 Ablest -Residential:
o Layout. Subazea A includes 2.5 acre on the west side of Monterey Drive. The
preliminary deve]opment plan indicates 16 townhouses with attached, reaz-loaded
garages located generally along the northern and southem boundaries of this
subarea. The individual residential units will be accommodated within three- and
five-unit buildings.
o Access. Two access points aze indicated off Monterey Drive, one to the north and
one to the south. The two access points will be connected by a private, circular
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 15, 2008 -Planning Report
Caze V o. 07-084CP2
Pzge 3 of 12
drive that provides access to the drivewa}-s and provided for additional parking
along the west side.
Amenities. A bio-retention basin with extensive landscaping is proposed in the
center of this subarea. The basin is surrounded by a wallting path and each
townhome includes a pathway leading to this path. Additional pedestrian
connectivity is provided toward all directions off the path surrounding the basin.
The connection to the south is proposed to lead to Monterey Park, connecting to
the existing partial path. The test also permits permeable pavement to be used for
the private drives and parking areas. According to the proposed development text;
the front of each unit must be landscaped with foundation plantings and an
ornamental tree. Privacy fences at a height of six feet are permitted in the
development text to create private courtyards at the rear of each unit. Each end
unit fence a>ill be required to be constructed of masonry to complement the
building architecture.
Development Standards. The text limits the maximum number of units per
building to five. The text requires a 25-foot building setback and a 10-foot
pavement setback from all perimeter boundaries, except fora 15-foot setback
requirement for buildings and pavement from Monterey Drive. No setback is
required between the residential units; however a 10-foot separation must be
maintained between each building. The text permits stoops, steps, window wells
and porches to encroach into the front and side yard setback. Lot coverage is not
permitted to exceed 70 percent within the residential subarea.
Subarea AEast -Residential:
o Layout. Subarea A includes 1.2 acres on the east side of Monterey Drive. The
preliminary development plan indicates 9 townhouses with attached, rear-Loaded
garages located north to south in the center of this subarea. The individual
residential units will be accommodated within three-unit buildings.
o Access. One access point is indicated off Monterey Drive to the south, which
aligns with the access point to the west. The access point will be connected by a
private drive that runs north providing access to the driveways and to Subarea B
to the north. Additional parking is indicated along the east side.
o Development Standards. The text requires a 25-foot building setback and a 10-
foot pavement setback from the south and east property lines. A 10-foot setback
for both buildings and pavement is required from the northern property line and a
25-foot setback is required for buildings and pavement from Monterey Drive. All
other development standards are the same as they are for the eastern portion of the
residential subarea.
o Amenities. Each of the townhomes includes a pedestrian walk to the sidewalk
along Monterey Drive and permeable pavement for the private drives and parking
areas. The landscape amenities for the front of each unit are the same for both
sides of the residential subareas.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Mxy ] 5, 2003 -Planning Report
Case Fo. W-C84CP/Z
Paa° 4 of ]2
• Subarea B -Commercial:
o Layout. Subarea B is located on the east side of Monterey' Drive, has frontage
along Nest Bridge Street and contains 1.1 acres. The preliminary development
plan indicates cone-story commercial building oriented towazd Nest Bridge
Street with pazking to the south and east.
o access. Three access points aze indicated to serve this Subazea. Aright-in access
point will be permitted off tiVest Bridge Street, approximately 180 feet east of the
intersection with Monterey Drive. Six parking spaces are shown along the east
side of this one-way drive. A second, full access point is provided off Monterey
Drive in the southwestern portion of this Subazea. Limited access is indicated on
the preliminazy development plan from Subazea A to the south. The plan shows a
gate that will restrict access during certain hours. No additional information
reearding the purpose of this gate or operational and maintenance information is
provided and Planning recommends that this gate be removed.
o Permitted Uses. The development text permits uses within the NC, Neighborhood
Commercial District, CC, Community Commercial District, and dry cleaning
services; art galleries, and wine and other specialty stores. The text excludes
liquor stores, vehicle and automotive accessory dealers. other equipment sales,
hotels, motels, funeral homes and other uses not typical found in small,
neighborhood serving retail centers. The development text does not include the
permitted uses within the Historic Business District; however, they may be
appropriate considering the location of this Subarea. The text should be revised to
include the permitted uses within the HB District.
o Development Standards. The text limits this Subarea to one building with a
maximum size of 12,000 squaze feet. The text permits a zero setback from the
Nest Bridge Street right-of--way, which emulates the development pattern of the
Historic District. The setback should be increased to one-foot to avoid footer
encroachments in the right-of--way. A 10-foot setback requirement for buildings
and pavement from Monterey Drive is included in the text. Setbacks along the
eastern and southern boundaries of this Subarea are 10 feet for pavement and
refuse containers and 25 feet for buildings. The lot coverage for this Subarea may
not exceed 90 percent.
o Patios. The proposed development text permits up to 3,000 squaze feet of outdoor
dining patios, which must be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission
through a conditional use. The preliminary development plan indicates patio
spaces located south, west and east of the building. Due to the building location
and the proposed right-of--way, a majority of the patios are located within the
right-of--way. Code requires encroachments into the right-of--way be approved by
the City Engineer and by City Council with aright-of--way encroachment
application. The proposed development text states that with the approval of this
PUD, City Council delegates its authority to grant right-of--way encroachments to
the Planning and Zoning Commission. This provision is not appropriate and
should be eliminated from the development text.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May I5, 2D08 -Planning Report
Case No. 07-OS4CPfL
Page 5 of 12
• Subarea C -Open Space:
o Layout. Subarea C is south of Subarea B and east of Subarea A. This 0.5-acre
Subarea is immediately adjacent to the Dublin Cemetery. The development text
permits an expansion of the Dublin cemetery or open space for this Subazea.
Architecture
General Standards: The proposed development text requires adherence to the
Residential Appearance Code unless other requirements are stipulated within the text.
High quality materials are required and the designs should be harmonious with and
complementary to architecture within the Historic District with building height
limited to 35 feet. Permitted materials include brick, stone, vinyl and cementitious
siding for facades and wood; aluminum, EIFS, copper and Hardi-plank for trim.
Roofing material may be dimensional asphalt shingles, wood, slate, copper, standing
seam metal and tile. All chimneys must be finished with masonry.
• Subarea,4:
o Main Buildings. The preliminary development plan includes detailed architectural
elevations. which have been revised since the work session discussion. The
Commissioners requested greater architectural detail, including additional stone
and brick and residents requested building materials in more subdued colors. The
elevations to provide additional elements of brick and stone for the side of
building facing the rights-of--way and the front of units interior to the site. While
some Commissioners requested that the roof materials be varied, the applicant is
concerned about architectural integrity and the roof materials were kept consistent
for all residential units indicated on the plans as dimensional shingle. However,
some of the roof heights are more varied than in the previous elevations and some
gable elements and gabled windows are provided.
o Garages. Concerns were also raised regarding the monotony of the garage
elevations. The garage elevations were revised considerably and now include
decorative doors, gabled roofs, a masonry base, small windows and cupolas.
® Subarea B: The development text requires the appearance of a two-story building
with azchitecture similar to what is found in the Historic District. Some
Commissioners were concerned at the work session that the building will look too
much like structures within the District, rather than maintaining a unique character.
The commercial building elevations maintain the two-story appearance for the
majority of the building. The building includes vazied rooflines with differing
materials, including standing seam, wood shake and dimensional asphalt shingles.
Articulated fenestration is provided on all sides of the building as are the building
materials. While the architecture is reminiscent of that of the Historic District, it also
complements the residential architecture.
Parking.
• Subarea A -Residential: Code requires 2.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit for a
total of 63 spaces for this proposal, which can include spaces within the garages.
The proposed development text requires 62 parking spaces in addition to gazage
spaces. The proposed plan provides 56 spaces within the garages and 72 spaces
Planning and Zoning Commission
,Utay 15, 2008 -Planning Rcport
Case Vo. 07-084CP/Z
Pagc 6 of 12
outside for a total of 128 spaces. Generally, it appeazs that there are too many parking
spaces provided for this Subazea and the applicant should consider eliminating the
pazallel spaces along the drives.
Subarea B -Commercial: Code requires one parking space for every 150 square feet
of shopping center use, plus one space per every 50 square feet of restaurant patio
space. According to Code, this development requires 140 pazking spaces. The
proposed development text requires that this Subarea provide one parking space for
every 200 squaze feet regazdless of use and excludes the patios from any pazking
requirements. According to this provision, the proposal requires 60 parking spaces.
The preliminary development plan indicates the provision of 71 parking spaces within
the parking lot. On-street parking is permitted along Monterey Drive south of this
Subarea. Considering the development's urban location and close proximity to the
Historic District; the reduced parking requirements may be appropriate. However,
Planning is concerned about the elimination of a parking requirement for the patio
areas. The patio areas should also meet the development text or the applicant must
identify a more creative parking solution at the final development plan stage.
Traffic Impact Study
The applicant has submitted a traffic impact study (TIS) for review and Engineering is
continuing to work with the applicant to finalize this report. The TIS is showing that a
traffic signal is warranted at the intersection of West Bridge Street and Monterey Drive.
The applicant will be required to install the signal and the development text includes this
requirement. The text should also include a timeframe for the signal installation, subject
to approval by Engineering. The TIS shows the signal should be installed when the retail
section of the site is fully occupied and not any sooner unless traffic volumes are proven
to meet the signal warrants.
Pedestrian ~?ccess
The plan provides for pedestrian access points to the sidewalks along Monterey Drive
from the interior of the site. All existing pedestrian paths should be maintained in place
with any construction damage to be repaired by the applicant. A pedestrian connection to
partial path within Monterey Park is proposed by the applicant. The timing of an
extension of the path within the park to Corbins Mill by the City is currently not known.
The proposed development text requires that the applicant contribute funds for this
installation.
Utilities
There is a 12-inch water line on the east side of Monterey Drive that can be tapped for
both the commercial and residential portions of this project. There is an eight-inch sewer
that runs north on the west side of Monterey Drive and then toms east to run along the
northern property line of the proposed residential portion of the site. Both the residential
and commercial portions of the project should utilize this existing mainline. The
applicant has requested to open cut Monterey Drive to install their water service. Open
cutting is typically not permitted, however the City has determined that Monterey Drive
Planning and Zoning Commission
May I5, 2008 -Planning Report
Case No. 07-084CP/Z
Page 7 of I2
is to he resurfaced in 2008 and as long as deemed acceptable, the City will hold off on
resurfacing the road as to allow the open cutting.
Stormwater Management
Preliminary calculations were not submitted to the City; however, a brief description of
the Stormwater management is shown on the site utility plan. Final calculations will be
required at the building permit stage. Engineering agrees w2th the use of pavers on the
site, but the applicant's engineer will be required to demonstrate compliance with the
City's Stormwater Ordinance prior to obtaining a building permit.
Right-of-Way Dedication
The Thoroughfaze Plan requires 60 feet ofright-of--way for Monterey Drive and the entire
length of the existing roadway has 50-feet of way of right-of--way. ~o additionaI right-of
way dedication will be required as part of this project. The Thoroughfae Plan requires
112 feet of right-of--way for Nest Bridge Street and the preliminary development plan
does not clearly or accurately depict the right-of--way lines. The applicant shall dedicate
the necessary right of way to meet the Thoroughfare Plan, 56 feet from the centerline of
right-of--way.
LaruZscaping
The proposed development text requires that landscaping be provided in accordance with
the Zoning Code unless the text stipulates other requirements. The existing street trees
along Monterey Drive will be maintained or replaced and all new street trees will meet
Code. The text includes exceptions for perimeter buffering along the shared boundary
Line with Subazea C to be approved by the Commission at the final development plan
stage. Considering the intended preservation of existing trees along the boundaries of the
site, strict adherence to the Code required perimeter buffering may be difficult to achieve
along other property boundaries. The text should indicate that the intent of the Code will
be met for perimeter buffering and that existing landscaping will be augmented to
achieve the desire effect.
Tree Preservation
Code requires any trees removed that are greater than six inches in diameter, and
considered in good or fair condition be replaced inch-for-inch. A tree survey has been
provided and details regarding the quantity and caliper amount of the trees to be removed
must be provided at the fmal development plan stage. This should also take into account
concerns by Planning that grading and construction activities will require additional trees
to be removed.
Open Space
Code requires 1.46 acres of open space for this development, which is in excess of the
maximum of 25 percent of the site area to be provided. The plans indicate a provision of
0.8 acre of open space. The proposed development text states that the open space
requirement shall be met with the amount indicated on the preliminary development plan.
This provision seems appropriate as the site is relatively small and in a more urban area
Planning and Zoning Commission
May I5, 2008 -Planning Report
Case No. 07-084CP/Z,
Page 8 of 12
than typical subdivisions. Ylonterev Park is located immediately south of the site, which
will serve the future residents.
SECTION II -REVIEW STArDARDS
Concept PIan/Rezoning/Pretiminary Development Plan
The purpose of the PUD process is to encourage imaginative architectural design and
proper site planning in a coordinated and comprehensive manner, consistent with
accepted land planning, landscape architecture, and engineering principles. The PUD
process can consist of up to three basic stages:
1) Concept Ptan (Staff, Commission, and/or City Council review and
comment);
2) Zonin; Amendment Request (Preliminary Development Plan;
Commission recommends and City Council approves/denies); and
3) Final Development Plan (Commission approves/denies).
The general intent of the preliminazy development plan (rezoning) stage is to determine
the general layout and specific zoning standazds that will guide development. The
Planning and Zoning Commission must review and make a recommendation on this
preliminary development plan (rezoning) request. The application will then be returned
to City Council for a public hearing and final vote. Atwo-thirds vote of City Council is
required to override a negative recommendation by the Commission. If approved; the
rezoning will become effective 30 days following the Council vote. Additionally, all
portions of the development will require final development plan approval by the
Commission prior to construction.
Evaluation and Recommendation based on Preliminary Development Plan Criteria
Section 153.050 of the 'Coning Code identifies criteria for the review and approval for a
Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan. Following is an evaluation by Planning based
on those criteria. The criteria are arranged in the following categories and may be in a
different order than listed in the Code:
Adopted Policies and Plans (Criteria 1, 2, 3, and 4) The proposed development is
consistent with the Dvblin Zaning Code; is in conformity with the Community Plan;
advances the general welfare of the City: and the proposed uses are appropriately
located in the City so that the use and value of property within and adjacent to the area
will be safeguarded
Criteria may be met with conditions: The proposal is largely consistent with
the recommendations of the Community Plan and the requirements of the Zoning
Code. In Planning's opinion, this project will enhance the area and benefit the
surrounding neighborhoods.
The text provision allowing the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve
encroachments into the right-of--way does not meet City policies or the Code. The
provision should be eliminated from the text (Condition nl).
Planning and Zoning Commission
V1ay I5, 2008 -Planning Repoli
Case No. Oi-OS~CP2
Page 9 of :2
The plan provides 65 pazking spaces in excess of Code requirements for the
residential areas. Planning is concemed about this additional pavement and the
general overparking of this area. The parking spaces along the drives seeing the
residential units should be removed (Condition #2).
Planning is concemed about the elimination of a parking requirement for the patio
aeeas for the commercial use. The patio areas should either meet the development
text or the applicant must identify a parking solution at the fmal development plan
stage (Condition #3).
Parks and Open Space (Criteria 5 and 6) The proposed residential development will have
.sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives of the Community Plan; and the
proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and
protects the natural resources of the site.
Criteria met: The proposal includes open space which will be sufficient to serve
the 25 residential units. The provision of a retention basin with high-quality
landscaping provides a unioue amenity not typically found in the community.
Traffic, Utilities and Stormwater Management (Criteria ?, $ and ll) Adequate utilities,
access roads, drainage, retention and/or necessary facilities have been or are being
provided,' and adequate measures have been or will be taken to minimize traffic
congestion on the surrounding public streets and to maximize public safety and to
accommodate adequate pedestrian and bike circulation systems so that the proposed
development provides for a safe, convenient and non-conflicting circulation system for
motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians; and adequate provision is made for storm drainage
within and through the site so as to maintain, as far as practicable, usual and normal
swales, water courses arsd drainage areas.
Criteria may be met with conditon: The site will have access to adequate
utilities. A signal will be provided at the intersection of West Bridge Street and
Monterey Drive. Pedestrian and vehicular connectivity is included with this
proposal.
The applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with the City's
Stormwater Ordinance prior to obtaining a building permit (Condition 4).
Development Standards (Criteria 9, and 1 D) The relationship of buildings and structures
provides for the coordination and integration of this development to the community and
maintains the image of Dublin as a quality community; and the development standards,
and the design and layout of the open space systems and parking areas, h•aff c
accessibility and other elements contribute to the orderly development of land within the
City.
Criteria may be met with conditions: The proposed plans contribute to the
orderly development of this site, including proposed use, setbacks, and density.
The plans also indicate adequate provisions pedestrian access.
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 15, 2008 -Planning Report
Caze No. 07-084CP/Z
Page 10 of 12
W1ule the list of permitted uses is appropriate for the neighborhood-scale
commercial development, the proposed text should also include the permitted
used w2thin the HB, Historic Business District (Condition #5).
While emulating the development pattern of the Historic District, the zero setback
from the West Bridge Street right-of--way, should be increased to one-foot to
avoid encroachments of building footers in the right-of--way (Condition #6).
Design Standards {12, and 13) The design, .rite arrangement, and anticipated benef is of
the proposed development justify any deviation from the standard development
regulations included in the Code or• the Subdivision Regulations; are consistent with the
intent of the Planned Development District regulations; and the proposed building design
meets or exceeds the quality of the building designs in the surrounding area and all
applicable appearance standards of the City.
Criteria may be met with condition: The development text outlines all
applicable development standards for this project. The proposal complies with the
text requirements of high-quality; four-side architecture Gvhich complements the
Historic District.
Planning is concerned that strict adherence to the Code requirements for perimeter
buffering may interfere with the preservation of existing trees. The text should
indicate that the intent of the Code will be met for perimeter buffering and that
existing landscaping will be augmented to achieve the desire effect (Condition
if7).
Infrastructure (Criteria 14, IS and 16) The proposed phasing of development is
appropriate for the existing and proposed infrastructure and is sufficiently coordinated
among the various phases io ultimately yield the intended overall development: the
proposed development can fie adequately serviced by existing or planned public
improvements,' and the applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are
consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are suffzcient to service the new development.
Criteria may be met with condifions: There are adequate services in place for
the proposed development. The proposed development includes the provision of
a traffic signal at the intersection of West Bridge Street and Monterey Drive. The
development text should indicate the timeframe for this installation (Condition
#8).
The plans do rot accurately reflect the right-of--way and the applicant must
dedicate the necessary right-of--way to meet the Thoroughfare Plan, 56 feet from
the centerline ofright-of--way (Condition #9).
Planning and Zoning Commission
may 15, 2008 -Planning Report
Case No. 07-084CPlZ
Page I1 of 12
Community Plan:
Historic Dublin Area Plan
The Historic Dublin Area Plan identifies revitalization of the areas along Monterey Drive
with additional housing options and commercial uses that front onto VV'est Bridge Street.
As part of an urban village, buildings should address the street and residential uses should
have cleaz physical design connection with adjacent commercial uses in a seamless
manner. Site design should not take on the appearance of parceled; suburban
development. Appropriately sized alleys aze intended for rear access to enhance the
pedestrian focus and the design of all street elements. All design should emphasize ease
of movement for pedestrian in all directions. Development of this azea should also be
coordinated with future development to the west to maintain the urban feel of
architectural space; pedestrian areas and streetscapes.
Area Plan is met: The proposed plans provide an additional housing options and
commercial uses in the locations indicated within the azea plan. The provision of
the internal vehicular connection provides the clear, physical relationship desired.
The proposed design emphasizes ease of pedestrian movement within the site and
to the surrounding areas.
Land Use Principles
puality and Character (Principles 1; 6, 7, and 9): High quality design for all uses,
recognising density has important economic implications, but is essentially an outcome
not a determinant of creating a qualify place; preserving the rural character of certain
areas of [he community, including the appearance of roads, as well as the landscape;
developing streets that create an altr•active public realm and make exceptional places for
people; and creating streets that contribute to the character of the community and move a
more reasonable level of traffic.
Land Use Principles are met: The proposed development creates a high quality
development that emulates the character within the Historic Dublin and creates an
attractive public realm by providing outdoor gathering areas.
Connectivity (Principles 2, 8 and 10): Creating places to live that have a stronger
pedestrian environment, connections to convenient services, and are conducive to multi-
generafional living and social interaction; creating better connected. places, in part, to
improve the function of the street nerivork and also to better serve neighborhoods; and
providing opportunities to walk and bike throughout the community.
Land Use Principles may be met with condition: The plan offers an additional
housing type for the Historic Dublin area and conveniently located commercial
services through pedestrian and vehicular connections.
Planning is concerned that limiting the access between the residential and
commercial area with a gate does not meet the intent of the connectivity that is
desired within the Community Plan. Planning recommends that the proposed gate
be removed (Condition # 10).
Planning and Zoning Commission
May 15, ?003 -Planning Report
Case tio. 0'-084CP/Z
Page 12 of 12
Integration (Principles 3, 4, and ~j: Creating places with integrated uses that are
distinctive, sustainable and contribute to increasing the City's overall vitality; providing
some retail services in closer proximity to residential areas as an important amenity to
residents; and creating a wider range of housing choice in the community; as well as in
new neighborhoods.
Land Use Principles are met: By connecting the commercial and residential
areas; the proposed plan provides a development of integrating uses. The
neighborhood scale of the commercial component provides a service not currently
available to existing residents.
SECTION III -PLANNING OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION: Approval.
Concept P1anlRezoninglPreliminary Development Plan
In Planning's opinion, this proposal complies with the rezoning/preliminary development
plan criteria and the existing development standards within the azea. Approval with 10
conditions is recommended.
Conditions:
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 spaces along the drives serving the residential units be removed;
3) That the patio areas either meet the development text or that the applicant identify
a pazking solution at the final development plan stage;
4) That the applicant demonstrate compliance with the City's Stormwater Ordinance,
prior to obtaining a building permit;
5) That the proposed text be revised to include the permitted used within the HB,
Historic Business District;
6) 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;
7} That the text be revised to indicate that the intent of the Code will be met for
perimeter buffering and that existing landscaping will be augmented to achieve
the desire effect;
3) That the text be revised to indicate the timeframe for the installation of the traffic
signal;
9} That the applicant dedicate the necessary right-of--way to meet the Thoroughfaze
Plan for W"est Bridge Street; and
10) That the access gate between the residential and commercial subareas be
removed.
Development Context
Waterford Commons
PROPOSED SUBAREA PLAN
a7-asacP~z
Concept PanlRezoning/Preliminary
Development Plan
Waterford Commons
Monterey Drive & W. Bridge Street
Subarea •~- (rownhomas): U
Subareo "B" (Commerclaq: (~'~
Suboreo'C" : ll~~l I
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ELEVATIONS
East. Elevation
North Elevation
South Elevation
West Elevation
07-084CP/Z
Concept Pan/Rezoning/Preliminary
Development Plan
Waterford Commons
Monterey Drive & W. Bridge Street
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL ELEVATIONS
West Elevation
'~'.
r,
South Elevation
North Elevation
07-084CP/Z
Concept Pan/Rezoning/Preliminary
Development Plan
Waterford Commons
Monterey Drive & W. Bridge Street
East Elevation
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT
WATERFORD COM1l~IONS
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD)
April 30, 2068
I. Description:
The }~~aterford Commons PliD is being created to facilitate the redevelopment of
ten parcels of real property totaling d.> t 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
alonm Bridge Street and provides land for the expansion of the Dublin Cemetery.
II. Development Standards:
liniess otherwise specified in the submitted drawings or in this written text, the
development standards of Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin Code shall apply. 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 t acres and shall contain the residential component of the PliD.
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 shalt contain a minimum of three (3)
and a maximum of five (~) townhome units.
2. Setbacks (West of Monterey Drive): A minimum setback often (10) feet for
pavement and twenty-five (25) feet for buildings shat] be required from all
perimeter boundaries. except that a mirimurn building and pavement setback of
f fteen (1 S) feet shall be required from the Monterey Drive right-of--way.
;. 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
07-084CP/Z
Concept Pan/Rezoning/Preliminary
Development Plan
Waterford Commons
Monterey Drive & W. Bridge Street
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. Parkine: 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 vrithin 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 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.
07-084CF(Z
Concept Pan/Rezoning/Preliminary
Development Plazr
Waterford Commons
Monterey Drive & W. Bridge Street
£ 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 sidewalk shall
extend beyond the private alley to the southern boundary line of this
subarea to provide pedestrian access to Monterey Park.
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. Traffic Sienal: The cost of the traffic signal that is to be installed at the
intersection of Monterey Drive and Bridge Street shall be paid 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.
P. 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. Buildine Height: Maximum building heights shall be thirty-five (3~} feet as
measured per the City of Dublin Code.
3. Exterior Claddine 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. ~1o 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.
07-084CP/Z
Concept Pan/Rezoning/Preliminary
Development Plan
Waterford Commons
Monterey Drive & W. Bridge Street
b. When used; vinyl siding shall have a minimum thickness of 0.046
inches with an exposure between six and one half (6 ''/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, or fiber-cement
products.
5. Roofs: Permitted roofing materials shall include dimensional asphalt shingles;
wood, slate, copper, standing seam metal, and/or tile.
fi. 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 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 shal] 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 Landscaping: 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
07-084CP/Z
Concept Pan/Rezoning/Preliminary
4 Development Plan
Waterford Commons
Monterey Drive & W. Bridge Street
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 shall be permitted to
create private courtyards for each unit that are located between the primary
residential stnictures and their garages. 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. Sarnpies 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),
Neiehborhood Commercial District:
b. Those uses listed in City of Dublin Zoning Code Section 153.028(A),
Community Commercial District;
c. 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 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
07-084CP/Z
Concept Pan/Rezoning/Preliminary
Development Plan
Waterford Commons
Monterey Drive & W. Bridge Street
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: Outdoor service facilities, including; without limitation,
outdoor dining patios, shall be allowed in Subarea B as a conditional use,
provided that such use is approved in accordance with City of Dublin Code
Section 153.236.
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. 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 shaI] be no minimum building and pavement setback 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
minimurn 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.
3. Encroachments:
a. Encroachments into applicable setbacks along Monterey Drive and
Bridge Street shall be permitted in accordance with the City of Dublin
Code, with the exception that no encroachments shall be permitted into the
setback on the eastern houndary of Subarea B.
b. When outdoor dining patios are Located to the front of the building in
this subarea, such patios may encroach into The Bridge Street right-of--way.
Through its approval of this PUD, City Council delegates its authority to
allow such encroachments into the right-of--way to the Planning and
07-084CP/Z
Concept Pan/Rezoning/Preliminary
Development Plan
Waterford Commons
Monterey Drive & W. Bridge Street
Zoning Commission as a part of its review and approval of the final
development plan for this subarea.
4. 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
two hundred (200) square feet of development, regardless of use. Square footage
for outdoor dining patios shall not be considered when calculating the required
parking in this subarea.
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 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 sha13 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.
4. Bridge Street Riaht-of-Wav: The right-of-way for Bridge Street shall be fifty-
six (56} feet as measured from the centerline. Following the approval of the
preliminary and final development plans for this subarea, the developer shalt
dedicate the necessary right-of--way along this road to the City to meet this
requirement.
5. Traffic Signal: The cost of the traffrc signal that is to be installed at the
intersection of Monterey Drive and Bridge Street shall be paid 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.
07-084CP/Z
Concept PanBezoninglPreliminary
Development Plan
Waterford Commons
Monterey Drive & W. Bridge Street
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: 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 (Z) 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 beriveen sis and one half {6 Yz) 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, 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 ofbrick, stone, or manufactured stone.
0~-084CP/Z
Concept Pan/Rezoning/Preliminary
Development Plan
Waterford Commons
Monterey Drive & W. Bridge Street
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 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.
F. Graphics and Signage Commitments
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 plan shall 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 Coda
sections shall apply.
G. Lighting:
1. All lighting shall be in conformance with the City of Ihiblin 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 ofbuildings shall be prohibited.
07-084CP/Z
Concept Pan/Rezoning/Preliminary
Development Plan
Waterford Commons
Monterey Drive & W. Bridge Street
7. All lights shall be arranged to reflect light away from any street or adjacent
property.
3. 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. Vdhen, 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 PLID. 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.
07-084CP/Z
Concept Pan/RezoninglPreliminary
10 Development Plan
Waterford Commons
Monterey Drive & W. Bridge Street
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
WORKSESSION
RECORD OF DISCUSSION
FEBRUARY 7, 2008
CTTY OF DUBLiN_
laed Use and
loy Range Pla~eug
5809 $hier,0'ngs Rood
WbGo, Oh7o 4 391 6-12 3 6
Phone:614-010-0600
Fax 674-0104747
Web Sde: www.duhlinoh.ot
2. Waterford Commons Monterey Drive and West fridge Street
Application No. 07-084CP/Z Concept PlanlRezonidglPreliminary Development
Proposal: A mixed-use development that includes 26 townhouse units and
approximately 16,000 squaze feet of commercial space located
south of West Bridge Street, on the east and west sides of
Monterey Street.
Request: Informal review of a concept plan and rezoning/preliminary
development plan under the Planned District provisions of Code
Section 153.050.
Applicant: Grabill & Company; represented by Ben Hale and Aaron
Underhill, Smith and Hale.
Planning Contact: Abby Scott, PIanner.
Contact Information: (614) 410-4654, ascott@dublin.oh.us.
RESULT: The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the proposed density of the site
and agreed that the density could slightly exceed the Community Plan's recommendation if a
higher degree of architectural detail was incorporated in to the plan. The Commission
emphasized the need for pedestrian and vehicular connectivity throughout the site and asked that
the design of these connections anticipate future development. The applicant was also directed
to reduce the building setbacks from the rights-of--way. Concerns about the residential
azchitectur included the need to vary the individual units by changing the design and materials
from unit to unit. It was recommended that a variety of gazage doors and materials be
incorporated into the design of the garages and driveway areas. The Commission also expressed
their desire to see more brick and stone incorporated in to the overall design.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Abby ,Cott
Planner
07-084CP/7,
Concept Pan/Rezoning/PreIiminary
Development Plan
Waterford Commons
Monterey Drive & tiV. Bridge Street
Planning and Zoning Commission
Feb[vary 7, 2008 -Minutes
Page 3 of 17
Mr. Langworthy , plained that there wa another category inclu c that allowed some ~s
inside some o re uses. He said this vv a separate use catego ,that is only in the high nsity
POD and thought it appropriate o have it come before e Commission. Mr. ~ merman
agreed 4r. Langworthy pro ed the Commissioners final copy of the C`O regulations
wh ~ Citv Councit finishes tr work on it.
Mr. Langworthy ask that Commission me ers let Planning know t . e-mail if they wanted
copy of the new ommunity Pian in a 3- ~ tg binder or as a boun opy. He said periodi y,
there might b additions/amendments.
Mr. Z~ rmerman pointed out t anew list of contact i nnation and an additi al reading had
b ~ distributed tonight for acement in the Commi tuners' green hinders.
[The minutes refle~cYflre order ofthe publish~d`agenda.]
1. umbus Dance Arts -V' age Square 6502-6504 Ri side Drive
Application No. 07-I CU/CDD Conditi a} Use/Corridor Deve pment District
. Zimmerman swore i those who intended t speak in regard to thi case, including the
anvlicant, Sohn Town. ~d. He noted that this v • s a Consent Item witho conditions. ,
Motion and V e
Mr. Zinun nan made a motion to prove this Conditional se/Comdor Devclopn t District
appIic n without conditions. s Amorose Groomes conded the motion. T e vote was as
foil vs: Mr. Freimann, y Mr. Walter, yes; M . Saneholtz, yes; Mr. -shoran, yes; Ms.
morose Groomes, yes rd Mr. Zimmerman, ye . (Approved 6 - 0.)
h Planning Report./ /
W SESSION
Zunnrerman explaine tat the work session is new procedure for the mmission and that
the fotlovving five ca s are all work sessio items. He said tha lannin~ will make a
presentation, the a scant will speak, and t n the pubic will have i opportunity Yo comment.
He said the Co nission will not vote o work session items an all comments are informal and
2. Waterford Commons Monterey Drive and West fridge Street
Application No. 07-084CPIZ Concept Plan/Rezoning/Pretiminary Development
WORK SESSION
Abby Scott presented this request for an informal review and preliminary comments on a
Concept Plan and Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan application to change the zoning
districts from CC, Community Commercial and R-2, Limited Suburban Residential to PUD,
Planned Unit Development. She described the site location and details of the proposed
development.
07-084CP/Z
Concept Pan/Rezoning/Preliminary
Development Plan
baterford Commons
Monterey Drive & W. Bridge Street
Planning and Zoning Commission
Febn~ary 7, 2008 -Minutes
Page 4 of 17
Ms. Scott said Planning had identified four points as issues for the Commission to discuss and
provide input to the applicant. [The discussion and the Commissioners' input follow.each topic
provided.]
Mr. Zimmerman explained that this site does not sit in the Architectural Review District and will
therefore not be reviewed by the Architectural Review Boazd. The intent of the Historic District
Area Plan is to extend the development patterns of the Historic District to this development and
this is in the Commission's purview.
Mr. Zimmerman requested that the Cormmissioners address each discussion point in order before
providing additional input.
Ben Hale, Jr., representing the applicant, Pat Grabill, said part of the property in this application
is City-owned. He indicated that the surrounding neighbors seemed to be in support of this
development.
Linda Menerey, EMH&T described the layout of the proposed multi-family and commercial
development.
Edward Feher, Glavin Feher Architects, Inc., said if there was a desire, the commercial building
setback on Bridge Street could be reduced. He said the architecture vas simple in that they
vaned the elevations, similar to what had been done on Town Center I and IL He said there
would be a mixture of brick, shingle siding, and lapped siding. He said there is about 4,000-
square-feet of office space. iv1r. Feher said there is a variety of roof materials proposed to go
with the variety of buildings. He said there could be standing seam and simulated slate roofs.
Mr. Feher said the residential buildings have a variety of elevations, but still maintain some
continuity across all of the units. He said they tried to pick up some of the Greek
RevivallColonial Revival-style existing within the area. He said they like to call the storm water
detention instead, an English garden. He said the buildings are two-story and are a classic took.
Mr. Hale pointed out that brick pavers are proposed for the alley drives which can clean and
store water under them.
Mr. Zimmerman explained that the Commission was trying to get more of an overview of this
proposal tonight. Mr. Walter requested that since the site layout and architectural details are
understood that the Commission discussion and feedback begin now.
Patrick Grabill said based on meetings with the residents in the past, he understood there was a
strong desire to maintain Monterey Drive where it was and to keep the building height at hvo
stories. This would provide an acceptable entrance to Waterford Village, clean up the
streetscape, and make it compatible with houses behind it. He said he had heard from earlier
discussions with Planning that buildings should face the street. He hoped, from an environmental
standpoint, that they would be a little flexible in approaching this because the end product will be
superior to what they are trying to do for stormwater. He said the azea does not currently have
any stormwater detention.
07-084CPlZ
Concept Pan/Rezoning/Preliminary
Development Plan
Waterford Commons
Monterey Drive & W. Bridge Street
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 7, 2008 -Minutes
Page 5 of 17
Dennis Muchnicki, 270 Clover Court said this was better than the original proposal. However,
he was still concerned about the traffic impact the commercial and residential units will have on
Monterey Drive. He said some action vas necessary to address exiting Monterey Drive onto
Bridge Street. He said the design did not address that Waterford Village was a 30-year old
subdivision with a mature 40-foot tree canopy.
Mr. Zimmerman explained that this was literally the first stage of the process and those issues
have not yet had the opportunity to be addressed. However, he said those were excellent
observations.
Flite Freimann asked how often the residents walked to surrounding restaurants or Kroger. Mr.
Muchnicki said he often wallced and enjoyed the mature trees.
Mr. Grabill said the traffic study included a traffic light at Monterey Drive. He said a tree study
already had been done and they were trying to preserve as much of the canopy as possible.
Aldan Tuite, 280 Old Spring Lane, a co-president of the Waterford Village Civic Association
said that his group had raised the same concerns as Mr. Muchnicki had about traffic impact and
tree preservation. He said he thought this plan Looked great, but he was not speaking for the
entire community.
Steve Thomas, 238 Clover Court; endorsed this proposed development and the traffic light
Mr. Zimmerman asked that the Commission discussion begin.
Is .he Commission sup/~ortive of ehc- nronosed densuv of ~.9 r1u!ac :vhich e_rceedr tJ:e Co~nmunitf~
Plan recomn¢endation by 0.9 du/ac?
Mr. Zimmerman said in his opinion, it was up to five dwelling units per acre. He said he would
not support over five dwelling units per acre.
Mr. Saneholtz said he would entertain over fio~e dwelling units per acre for this plan, but it was
an issue of quality. He said he would much rather see a higher quality product here with an extra
unit per acre than having to scale down the properties and the quality of the property in any way
to make it economically feasible. He said it was an issue of the aesthetics and the density was
less of an issue for him. He said this present plan aesthetically did not offend him, but he did
think there were things that needed to be done to the rear of these buildings to make it more of a
neighborhood and less of an `apartment complex.' He suggested a variation on the main
entrance and garage doors.
Mr. Walter said he was not opposed Yo the density. He said the parcel on the west was laid out
well. He said the density went away because of the east/west orientation of the buildings. He
said he had a problem with the east side, because it was not sensitive to the cemetery. He
suggested breaking it up into three buildings and varying one back a little and dropping the
density just a little bit.
07-084CP/Z
Concept PanJRezoning/Prelitninary
Development Plan
Waterford Commons
Monterey Drive & W. Bridge Street
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 7, 2008 -Minutes
Page 6 of 17
Mr. Saneholtz expected implications around what is ultimately decided with the commercial
building. He said he would rather not see any parking to the east of the building from Bridge
Street. He suggested the building be narrowed and moved closer to the road, with the pazking lot
behind the building. Mr. Walter said the commercial building is important because of the vista
from the cemetery and SR 161 and what is done with it will be important.
Mr. Fishman said he agreed with Mr. Zimmerman that the Community Plan said five units per
acre. He suggested the problem might be that too many units are being crowded in. He noted
that there were four parking spaces per unit shown on the plan, two in the garage and two
outside. He asked if these were apartments or condos. He asked where extra parking for visitors
would be located.
Mr. Freimann had no density comments.
Chris Amorose Groomes said she would like to see the density hover around five dwelling units
per acre. She said it looked tight and she would like to see it broken up a bit.
Does the proposed plan provide adenuate pedestrian rand vehicular connectivity between the
convnercial and residential uses?. ~ls mt infll development. does the nronosed nlar: create a
stran~physical connection between the commercial and residential uses and the Historic
District as a whole?
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she had no vehicular or pedestrian connectivity issues. She said the
traffic light and the study would be interesting to see because they were safety concerns.
Mr. Walter asked if there was an objection to a right inlright out at the side. Ms. Scott said
Engineering objected primarily based on the distance to Monterey Drive. Mr. Walter asked
about a right out. Kristin Yorko said Engineering's concern was Bridge Street traffic congestion.
She said it is hoped that if there is a traffic signal at Monterey Drive, a right in might be a
possibility, but a right out will cause Bridge Street traffic to stow down. She said by closing the
access point, it will increase the warrants for a signal at Ivfocrterey Drive.
Mr. Saneholtz encouraged the applicant to provide a bike or pedestrian path from the south and
west sides of this site. Ms. Menerey said a sidewalk existed on the east side and there is a path
by the tennis courts that did not connect to the west. Ms. Amorose Groomes said it did connect
to Corbin's Iv1il1, immediately south of the park.
Mr. Zimmerman noted that 50 parking spaces were provided for the commercial parcel, but the
required spaces were 90. He asked where the other 40 parking spaces would be located. He
said this was a hard development to get in and out of now. 14Ir. Fishman echoed that the parking
situation needed to be solved.
Mr. Freimann said he did not see the pedestrian connections working with this additional traffic
moving back and forth across Monterey Drive. He said Planning needs to address how these
people will move across the street from these places.
07-084CP/Z
Concept Pan/Rezoning/Preliminary
Development Plan
Waterford Commons
Monterey Drive & W. Bridge Street
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 7, 2008 -Minutes
Page 7 of 17
Mr. Saneholtz said he would like to see the pedestrian connectivity improved and enhanced
Do the nronored building setbacl~s meetth_e_ititeta ofthe Histw'ic District.9rea Plan?
Ms. Amorose Groomes recalled that the Commission discussed building setbacks extensively
when updating the Community Plan and that they established the setbacks to bring things closer
to the road, to give more of an urban-type feel. She said she thought this plan accomplished
what the Conunission wanted.
Mr. Saneholtz said he thought it would look a little unusual initially, but if they are going to
really try to carry out the Community Plan to allow this to setback is defeating the purpose. He
encouraged moving the building toward the road, similar to existing buildings, lengthening them
along West Bridge Street, and getting rid of the access drive.
Mr. Zimmerman echoed Mr. Saneholtz comments.
Mr. Walter agreed that it would look odd until something was developed to the west and there
was some continuity. He said the only sensitivity needed vas in regards to the mass of the
building in relation to the cemetery. He said it needed tapered. He said he was fine with the
setback.
Mr. Saneholtz agreed with Mr. Walter and said the east and west ends of that building will be
very visible architecturally to motorists and will be very crucial.
Mr. Fishman echoed the other Commissioners' comments about the setbacks.
Is the proposed commercial amt residential architechu'e appropriate for this area n; Dublin
considering the proximity to the Historic District?
Mr. Fishman said he thought the commercial development with some improved materials is
great. He said since the condos would be so dense, it would be important to see a lot of stone
and brick and great architecture.
Mr. Waller said he was disappointed with the architecture. He said the commercial area was
more of the same as Town Center I and II and it will cause a very homogenous-looking
downtown. He concurred that the architecture near the cemetery with stone walls, with a 40-year
ald subdivision to the south, Iooked too new.
Ms. Amorose Groomes echoed Mr. Walter's comments. She said she was concerned about the
entryway into the parking garages where she would like to see something more creative and not
mulch islands that become unsightly. She wanted to see something more visually interesting
than what has been seen from this kind of entrance in the past.
Mr. Saneholtz said he agreed with Ms. Amorose Groomes. He said the arched windows were a
nice touch. He said he could tolerate the backs of the buildings being homogenous if something
07-084CP/Z
Concept Pan/Rezoning/Preliminary
Development Plan
Waterford Commons
Monterey Drive & W. Bridge Street
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 1, 2008 -Minutes
Page 8 of 17
of interest was done with the garages to provide variation. He recalled townhomes at Franklin,
Tennessee had different, distinct, very ornate doors which made a neat streetscape.
Ivu. Walter said his only concern about the rear elevation of the east set of buildings was the
impact on the cemetery and the historic church, and he would not want to see a wall of gazages.
Mr. Fishman said the Historic District azchitecture should be matched rather than the 30-year old
subdivision. He said seeing the rows of siding against the cemetery were disturbing.
Mr. Saneholtz reiterated that he believed it was worth more density to get a real interesting and
quality project here.
Mr. Freimann said he liked most of what he saw and thought it was very interesting. He
suggested different roof materials to help the buildings not look like apartments.
Mr. Grabill did not disagree, but said he did not want the 26 units to look hodge-podge. He said
they would try to do something more with the gazages because they will be visible and it would
be more economically feasible that using different roofs. He said if plans with the City regarding
the cemetery come to fruition, screening maybe possible.
Mr. Zimmerman echoed the previous comments about the proposed architecture. He said he
would like io see full brick or stone on the ends of the buildings to hide the mass.
Mr. Zimmerman asked if 26 units could gay for the maintenance of the water retention system.
Ms. Amoroso Groomes said it depended upon the depth and how it was planted, but typically,
water features are not expensive to maintain.
Mr. Muchnicki suggested that the use of a white color should be minimized or muted because it
does not fit well with the neighborhood.
3. Thoma 'ohler PCD -Tut Time 6365 Em ald Parkway
App ' ~ation No. 08-007A ' P Amended Final veiopment Plan
WORK SESSION
Ciaud'~ Husak presented th' request for an info ral review of an am ded final developme
pla application for the r 'ocation of the entry. gn and changes to thA tayground equipmer and
"gout. She said the nm~ission had appr red a final develop rt plan to construct 0,500
square-foot daycar wilding and associ cd site imorovemen . on August 7, 200? She said
AEP.had recce - located a utility b in the previously proved sign locatio and this is a
proposal to ~ ve that sign to the pposite side of the e ry drive. She said e applicant also
wishes re ' e the layout of the layground to officio ly utilize the space rd add playground
Husak suggested tJz~ following two poinJ,a'of discussion for Co)~nission input:
07-084CPlZ
Concept Pan/Rezoning/Preliminazy
Development Plan
Waterford Commons
Monterey Drive & W. Bridge Street
1 ~`
;l ~
~f - ~
1 ~ l~ ~
`~ i •-
a--, I ,
.r I
. I .
~'~ ~ ' - , ~ ~, I ''1
~~
1 ,~ ~
~ ~ -'~ ~ ~
1 ~ . - ~~
_ __
~, '~~~.~
`~ ~ 1 z ~; I
;~ , f
~ ~ f ~C+ ~I
~ i. ~,
~ ~' _ °"
~•,. , ~ I ~: .I i
,I
~~ - -- .I
,..I,. ~ ~ ' rri # I
Iii
~ Z
' ti ~_ nl
~ ~ ~ I .i~ ~ .~ _'. - 1. f
~I I: _~ 'f
I f
M I ~ 1','' ~• ..
.l, ~ I
~~.,
'~ I I I , ~
I
' ~ ~, ~
'-~.~ ~ I ---- , --~-_ .-_ ___ I
.I I
_ ~"' _ _ ~* BRIDGE STREET _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _
... IJ ~ _
r• ~ ~,.
I ~ - ~ ~~ ~~
~~ ~ J - ~ ~
~.
~s
~' i
1 _
p ti. .,. -
I ~Lj I -. I ( 'I
i J,l I _~ ~ ---~ ~'I
SUNOCO s~ I ~~~ `~~
I R'~ ~ I ~ G sate 7F~ -
~ ~ ~~ ~.I- GA5 STATION ~ , ec~~ I ~~
-- •{ ;~" I COMMERCIAL I
~~. ~ ~ h
V ~ ~` ~ ~ ~ PARCEL ±l .3 AC ~ I ~ ,~,
a{
_ 1 ~I
--- 1 ----- ~ - - '' -'
tS NySw;Sity^Ct _ 1-^^II I _ ~~~
_l -- ''n^, ] l;~.y.~~, I^ I> ii,F 4f'/."If Sf16AC1~ ~ _ .~~ I tl I _ ~
--~-
_ ` ~ ~~h~; I~ R~sidenbal(4~es1( __ L~___,.__ .
- - , , ±_25 Acres ! IQ h,,~ ~.~,.. ~ _ ~~ - - -
II _ , ~
I . - ,,
~I I ~ Re ide lia a~l ' P: t ~~.
i i ~ ~ .~ ~~
r ~ ~ ~ , , -:~ ~ ~•~
_~ i ~ ~ .~
I I ~ '~ ~~~
cTRABILL
GIAVAN °'i~IER ARCHITECTS ~^+C
WATERFORD COMMONS
UUBUN, OHIO `~~
.~
~~
~ ~;
,,
~ , `~a,:.
•~..1
~a
Tel,
~l
~f 11
:.~
,tJk•<
.. 't~
Q i1
~e.
II ~y
,
.. ,'f ~~ I( i.,
h
(~
J '
i j
' ~. ~,',',. ~ j
~
~~ I~I 1~
~
1
~ ~ .~
I I
, .
t0.5 Acres ~ F
CEMETERY ''
N
~
;. ~~~. CITY OF DUBLIN ~
„
I _~ _
~. ,~, .
«
'
dr,
f i ,
,
1
~
~
K{,,
f I
I
I
. I' yy
a j~+ I
Tj~~''rr.+: ~
~~ . , ~ ~ .
~ ,;. ,t
,. ~
.,
`~ •a n~
Y
, ~I! j,1l~11~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~,fkF1 tp, ~ ~ .: 'p,.
1
I M
~,) ~ 't~ ~i iT p~
, i r ~~
-T. t ~' 4 ~~~.~ - ~
~ •~-' _...__ a _
~.1~?~rol; MF~I_rlrv~ otv ~;~j~,, _~~~~ ,SAY 3 Q ~p ., ~,..,.
~) ~ ~~/~
`CIYr ur u~UN
LAND USE 8
LONG RANGE PLANNING
FJM N .
~c.~` CY 5 ~~T.
~~:., LL' ~m i It ~ I
i ~~ i : i ~ ~: ,T.
~ ~ ~ '~.~
~, ~. ~,.
r' '~ i .I~';~'~ --d
., ~ ~
i ~ r °~ cx'~ ~ .
:r' ~~ it
GRA131LL
~.~
~,..;~,~
~ T ~~~~ I ~ ~ 4~•
~.:
F Nr
/ ~A i
rr,- i
r ~
WATERFORD COMMONS
DUBLIN, OHIO `~~
GtAVAN'EHf.R ARCHITECTS wC
V
L
O
~
.~ Z
~
O
O
~ Z
~ ~ 0
~ O w
W ~ LL °
i-
O .
c ~
~
a
z
Q
U °J
~ o~
U
LOCATION MAP:
Not to Scale
Rar:pbia~9 Commuim Seaelay f;plp
Apptovol
PlannYg COmmisilm pule
,~
/~
REGIONAL MAP:
1 "=300'
PRELIMINARY
DEVELOPMENT
~; ~~~ PLAN
~-'~ ~ -
,`
REGIONAL MAP
I GRABILL
11 AI I.f IAl'1 ~i N1'll l ~
J
..
C.-,n-. H1i,w,yi,~Mr4~'U~4111~~~,M
bpiesl•LNeyJn•R1'NNrt ~$C! AE
Il~w AEOM 9tot GInCM1IM ~Gfl
mun m~e
~jpn1 u c u . s v i
NEVdfp RoF1o ~. MI11 T~
Rf MN/ Yelb'uay:G >'AI
xfY6®.
PFWEO
~~
GRANOC AHk
~Irrt~i~-'__"~
~~~
`«/ 1 10
~'
Y '~
.i, ~~
i i!
i
11.+ ~:A ,~ ..~~
4•.
r ~'~ / •r
} r N ~
/••
i' /,
PPRxwr ~ '~~
.PL~
~
~: i
- arwP
4 '
.`
~'
4
.
A~~ . ~
~
I, ,
'~a' ~ r
~.~ :~s COLUME
~+.. •\
1 J,
~
~ 1.5
~a !•~ !
.
' .
~f t ~.'~~y' ~ r'•t,
.;sue-N 1!' „' ~- ~ ,~ .•'~'~~;
~~ ~ ~•' a,~ j ~ 1w~
~, is ~'. ,' ~'~ ,
~~ • ~ ME1R0 pt N. ; j .~;i
1•k\'-:~ Imo' r r: ~~.
:.. .N ~
:. • :.,
.. • , ';
. ... .; ~ f
,, . ~ ,,
ME1R '' ~ ,j
•p~
--.1
~~
^+~ •~s ' 7
~~ ~~
~ ~ '..'t.S?'.
ail ,'~• Y./~ ~.J `•n ~•
r~/ Q
1,
n \\11.. ~ '~'` ~t,.~ t~j, 111,•._ n ~~ ~.. ~-• ~
r~. t~ ,.,,. INDIAf~ RUN ~ . ' ~ ~., ~~~~ T ~ ~ . ' r~ • ~~ ~ `~ ~ ~
ELEMENTERV- 7~ +~~,~ 'rY m o* , , ~ ' ` ~ ~
.~•.. = ~ l SCHOOL ?~+ ~~` ,~t „r ~ A ~'~ ,"~~ ~ v O d
i a f~41 s 1 '
~ J...w r JON~J SEU.S . ice' "21 I• ~ i+ '~ .'' _ • ~ ~,
f N~IDDLtSCHO~L- !„ ~ ~ ,~'~~.~ BRIDGESiR~ETyy "' U
1 ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~~~ . :.. .~ •1
I ~j , ~•-•~~r
;;, .SUNOCO GAS ~.o , , 1 4 ~ `~~ !'.,, ..., _ ~ } ~ ~. ~
STATION 4i~ j I •;. ~ ~;y:~ ~'!, ~ ~ ~~ ~1
~w
~- ~ `~ ~ .L~ '~ ~ ' v',f' ' " - , ' PRELIMINARY
tl• ~ :Ifs ~ - ; ~ ~4~e. ; ~T'a^ ;"'. ,,., ' • ~ ~ y'~ ~~~ DEVELOPMENT
~"',' ~ snE ~ cnY of ~uei1N ~ "; ~'. • ~~ ~ PLAN
~EyIE1E~Y~. ~
A~ONTE~EY PARK r ~ ^~ , N ~ ~ Iz -
14~H~.,_~ ~ `, -~m ? f. AREA PLAN
. _ , w~ Y ply ' ~ ~ ~ ~ 1
V r - ,\6 ,~. i r
• ~ ~ , ,r t. ,~r+. , stir ~ • ,~~. GRABILL
~ i ~ Y.. .,, , , rr1~.. ~ • ~ I_ a ,i 1• n ~ s
~ _ pp ~ 1
ti ~ FT • '•11•' ( ~ .t'.• ~~ 411111\11 \Ik\I~1\
,
ti r',~1 1 p;~41'~" ,~
~ '
~~~
'r.'.j.5'~_ r•i•
y.
OWNERS
__ 1, Cily of Dublin )Old
2. Dov~d Mains L.
- ~ Duke Gus Slolbn)
(
I S. Dovid Monns b,
4. Dovid MN1nf ir.
~
~ ~ I~ ~2~ S, povid Manns Tr.
~l
~
b. Dovid Mavu Tr.
~
7. Dovid Monns lr.
`
G ~ f 7 0. Dovid Monns Tr.
~ ~ 9. Grobill d Co.. LLC.
i
~
i-.n I
~ n 10. Glutiol 8 Co„LLC.
~r~~~di ~~ ~ ,~
tti'N° I ~6~ ~w I
I
seeLe. r • mr
0
0
~
~
.~ z
~
tY Z ~ z
0 0 ~ 4
~. ._
~ o
J
~ w
W
~ ~
~ o
~
o .
~ }
Q
Z
~
Q o ~
~ U J
~
o ~.
U
PRELIMINARY
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN
VICINITY MAP
GRABILL
n , ,~ „ ~~ A ~~~ ,~
~I„ I,.,...III,,, I,
CAII
_
it4e Aol it X1L
1(YSHt
OfY61J
fY~^KI 1<41
100 D f0 '0C 7J0
/~ I,,,~
f ') 310
IJASH n•~
~ \, r ~
' F~~'' ~
F
ICE6U10-mG
~ i.`
~
,~ ~
;
~~
I I
,. --
.. ~ ?"
•~ ~
T q}r
~i
.,
ow • _
PUD
~;
1
~., PARt ~ tit°_
blrC^6J9llN ~ _ -
J.. • \~ _ X11
~~ ~ 11
~~.~ '. ~
r-, :. ,
i= ;a
_~r ~
1
BRIDGE ST
]. ~~ ~"~' brt i~
4~ ~
~.
~'
15 ` I yt I ~ ~ i
~~.',~..4~ R_2 ,~::,.~
:,1,
tJ.~
IIJDIAN RUN
iIEMENIARY
SCHOOI
T
s
~R NOTES.
j • I I, ALL EXISTING HOUSES AND DRIVES TO BE
DEMOLISHED AND REMOVED.
~,~ 2. AlL UTILITIES ARE CURRENTLY IN PLACE
AND SHAH BE RELOCATED AND
EXTENDEC AS NF.CCFSSARY.
3. SITE .S FLAT WITH A 10TAL ELEVATIONAL
~~' DIFFERENCE OF±B' ACROSS t 571' FROM
" WEST TO EAST. MESS THAN 2%SIOPE)
I~1 ~-'
" ~' 4. EXISTING PERIMETER TREES AND
~. ~ VEGETATION IN G000 HEALTH SHAH BE
,~ MAINTAINED.
0
0 0
~ ~ g
~ d
O p ~ ~
~~
~ a
~
~ C
a
w
W ~ ~- °
~ .
O ~ ~
~
Q
z
~ ~
~
U
W
~
J
3 ~ d
+-
U
P RELIMINA RY
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
Gp~RABILL
(; L. O N P A K Y
KI ,~ ~.I111 4IIYII II
MM'.
rcvxi
nm~
It~tV
tl Y]!
KYJ
fl wr
n raw
O
O
D Nxn
~w
Mu I] i.O
u;le
xxaa
~ ~nt C
M~_k.n~E
~n n v o~ i»
(' i 410
Site Statistics
Suboreo "A" ~townhomes~: i3J Acres
Eosi: X1.2 Acres
west: t2.5 Acres Q
Subareo'9" 1Commerciap: 1.3D Arres O Q
Subareo"C": O.SOACres Q
N ~
~ J
d.
TotolSitoACreoge: tS.SAcres
~ } ~
Z ~ W
0 ~ ~
0
legend: ~ o
~
~ W
Suborea "A" ~Tawnhamesl: I
I
J ~ Q W
Subarea'8" ~Commerclat~: _
W
~
lL
~' .C Q'
Subaeo"C": ~ ~ 0 ~
~ Q
Z
~U °~
0 J
w
I } ~
U
SUBAREA PLAN
GRABILL
8(C O M P A N Y
REAL kSTAI k SER1'ICkA
GtAVAN FEHER ARCNRECTS INC
•e.Neo~•
~'i •1 '~•
-, ,z,.,p;~,,,~.
~~f~1
wmuna
_ Mb Nr11704
~ N,.xm~
rtvc®. r~ _~.B.tiA
~r.,~~
o~
.,,.:,_
'~ ~~
('
L 510
,. ,„
.,.. ,.
SITE DATA
TOTAL RESIDENTIAl511E AREA: 34.2 Ac. ~_
UNiTS IWEST AND EASiJ: L Z
ttPE A TOWNHOMES (2 CAR GARAGE} 1 1 du O Q
TYPE B TOWNHOMES 12 CAR GARAGE) B du ,J
ttPE C TOWNHOMES 3(~YC ,Q ~A AGE 6 du ~ /~ Q,
iOTAITOWNHOMES 25 du Y ~ } F„
PARKING SPADES REW'D (2.5 SPS PER UNIT) 63 ~ Z ~ W
PARKING SPACES PROVIDED: 129
16j 3 CAR GARAGE UNBS 18 ~ ~ ~ Ll.
DRIVEWAYS 18
119] 2 CAR GARAGES 36 [ O
DRIVEWAYS 38 V... Y W
GUESiPARKINGSPACES 17
(Gross) 35.9 dulAC ~ ~ W
IOIMDEN311Y;(Nel~lC_~meleryJ ;6,BQp/Ac W ~ ~ Q
OPEN SPACE PROVIDE 30.8 Ac. ~ O ~ ~
WEST OF MONTEREY: 30.3 Ac. •- Q
nkfn st4AaMUrwwirrOr NtlwrrG wF 6rob~sa.
r,nusiorroern~osanN~eowrecurrc+or.ormarrnna ~ Z
FAST OF MONTEREY: cErnEVY9tY 305 Ac. ( 1 [~
OPEN SPACE REQUIRED: 31.46 Ac. ~ v ~ J
4.37 X G2 = O.C87 Ac. ! W
.055 X 25 =1.375 Ac. ! ~_ ~
fi.
RESIDENiIAL PAACEt (WEST) U
SITE AREA 32.5 Ac.
UNfiS:
TYPE A TOWNHOMES (2 CAR GARAGE) 8 tlU
fYPEBTOWNHOMES(2CARGARAGE) 4du
TYPE C TOWNHOMES 13 CAR GARAG~J 4 ~~
TOTAL TOWNHOMES 16 du
PARKING SPACES REQ'0 (2.5 SPS PER UNIiJ 40
PARKING SPACES PROVIDED: 80
iaJ3cARGARAGEUNrs iz SITE PLAN
DRIVEWAYS 12
112! 2 CAR GARAGES 24
DRIVEWAYS 24
GUESIPARKINGSPACE$ 8
DENSITY: 6.4du/Ac Ci~ILL
AESiDENTAI PARCEL (EAST) BC C U M Y A N Y
SffEARFA(GROSSJ 31JAc, I m.unranueri~r,
SITE AREA (NEij 31.2 Ac. I
UNITS:
TYPEATOWNHOMES(2CARGARAGEI 3du "f°"""'
iYPE B TOWNHOMES (2 CAR GARAGEI 4du
ttPE C tOWNHOME513 CAR GA_RnGEJ 2.du GIAVAN PEHER ARCHtTEC15 INC
TOTAL TOWNHOMES 9 du
PARKING SPACES REW'D (2.5 SPS PER UNRJ 23 I
PARKING SPACES PROVIDED: 49
(2j 3 CAR GARAGE UNfiS 6 "'
DRIVEWAYS 6
(7J2CARGARAGES 14
DRIVEWAYS 14
GUEST PARKING SPACES 9 1•~ ^° -,~ ~~=-~+~' =~'T~~ ~K
Flq"rn • SsrtR+:. rmmn • Scla~lstl
Sfl0 Nwr 1Mri Roca C3mde ON 0061
(GrOSSj 35.2 dU/AC ~nanieai r~,ir~
DENSITY: (Nel of Cemetery] 31.5 dulAc " ` ~ " F _-~
COMMEACIAI PARCEL
SfiE AREA 31.3 Ac.
MAXIMUM SWUARE FOOTAGE 312.000 S.F, 4i ; in
T~•a~ xrwb;ari~ mx
PARKNNG SPACES PROVIDED i 70 N~rS xKC a,x xvi
68 (4x19 SPACES] ~ •
2 (HANDICAP ACCES5181E SPACES]
- ONE WAY / DO NOT ENTER SIGN
(LOCATED IN THE COMMERCIAL PARCEL) ~~~1
0 o x m x:
IEEr=`~f--i.~i--i
Es
~.~
Q 610
.. ~_ ~ ~ rr~
~..- 1 1T1 _
!
~
~~~
~ __ ! .r-
F I
' j
a
- - ''
~
~ ~a
I
~
i..
`
.--_ = - - --
d
b F
'~
~ •-
~I
It
A
7,
: 1
! ~'.
- - -- •-----f"'
~:
: -- - -- -- ~ I
n , ~ ; "'"ti I U
I
_ I--
~
}
1;
~ ~/
I 1 1
.' ,
,.
~I
'•~
'
r. ~ . f
.N.~
•
t .
fi60
\ ~\
''~ 1
~ I
I I ~ ~~ ~~ I
i ~
i ,, ~ V1i
I~ ,--~ ' i
f I' I ~
I I~ I ~ ~ ~ I
I I I I ~ I
~ ~ -- 11 ~~~ 1 l
I ~ I ~, ; ~~
I I ~ I I
~ I
~I
4~9 ~
..
II
I I
I I O
.I
I I 413
1,0 I I
II +
II
~,.
--..;
..
I.
..
II 0
I
217 } 21fi ~ •~
I ~ 115
I
I ~,
16 12~ ~
((~~ 1~ I ~ 7 ;1
213'^•20 I 4lU~ t
I I
I I
~ 21 I_ 1 +
I I y~h~f
I Ilti 1~ ~ 4 '" ' 1;,5
I
850
E
vTMi.• OYI [wl
tr/
,ia W it v~a.•I a0 Owe
.„ ry;a.ry IIO W
11o W
loo W r. W
10 la 1
10
W 1
0 4r
li
W 110 W
+~xi
6
Irp
MI
1r n~~s•~ a0
r
naw Il0 ••
vnm p
K/ p;y
4r as r..
~ yMr„r 0 oor
Ik im 10
10 W
lM I10 W
a0 r
ne
e
r!0
'"'
la 1<
ac
mM~..o•
rte
;.
w k9 W
>a
.~
r..
»
;: ~.
°" ~8
,1
..w~ ue aa1
119
ae Ow
o.1
ao,.w
~.,H wo
xe
a
ue
l1
na
a/
UI
'1
w+
11 rw
a1
HI
1 W
~+
m1
Io
ie
or
o.
,.
n. ~,
~r n
n1
11 ar
la
aw
Ivr„«,.
ti:..m a1
a1
~~ ne
'<
11p
m
nl
ne
n1
ax
ua
na
4
~i- 111
uv
~
~
~
xw1 1a
10
w~
rvw
o.r
O
.C
O Z
Q
Q
N Q.
7 ~-
~
W
° I~
o ~ o
'"'
~ J
W
~ ~ w
W C W
~- O c
~ ~
Q
Q ~ Z
U °
~ ~ W
•4-~
U
EXISTING SITE
W/TREE SURVEY
GRABILL
~lCcor~ rawv
h[AL f:.faT[ Sf ~~'I CIt
vn1~:-~c~
GIAVAN FFHER ARCNITECTS INC
wn rocn a xa
ua~epn hk y a.Xp1
Ilr `r.M te'M put x %Of
Po~M IMM1Rl{
4:ti(.~,1
x:vrto
Inver
710
t
F
u
~~ t
f
RIGIIl IN ONCI
4
E
NOTES:
-Easement Information obtained from title work and Dubl(n
Heights Subdivision. Plat Boo1~ 24 Pg, 7,
- Easements are i'lotled and contained with electric facilities.
Release of easements to be granted by the Gty cf Uublin and
all utility providers.
"Icitad easements
X T~ccs to ~~e rarnovar.
0
Q Z
Q
Q .
~ ~
~
Z -
~ ~
W
O
~
C 0
J
~ W
W ~ ~' ~
~"' O ~ Q
Q ~ Z
U ° ~
~ ~ W
~
+- ~
~
U
TREE REMOVAL
PLAN
GRA-BILL
&cu~urnvr
R:AI U'f.STC SC Yl1CE5
h
m
Tpta! Trees Removed: 96
Tolol Incr`,es kemoved: 1,574
r!f!e~!J!r
GLAVAN ~ENF4 ARCHITECTS INC
o+m ~ erw
a<~"~
Ai~S!q. Ten nm`-~~in
av~o
PR'-'f~
ttvs!o,
wuKCSCw
;,~ ~
,~~,
Ja10'
0
w~,,, !,~.. . .
BRIDGE STREET
Fes- - - - - -
tl~
Stormwater Management
condos
iho tlevoWpmed h arer S oaes. IhHetae, wolet aspiry canhoh muss be
proddod Iro] govide vo'axne caard wisldt pescnbes the use of ono of Iha
foiowing AMP'c
Panels
Dry Dosins
Caulnrcled wellads
Akrelenli0n
GC¢rl Roofs
The deveiapmenl geposes to use hra AMP's. o'grnlorlicnond sk1' Dosku. Re
Neeelaslbn aeo as shown w~i cdecl them PpW Iwm the inlef« open s{soce
aeo an rye west vela of Manlney pMc and rool aafro 6om the r¢s¢fenliol
widings Slraal runoff and roof Nno!I tram lne paopes wi nol Na'n so the
Uioreleni•al basin.
Ilse romoodur al the doreiopnanl lnduoinp the inporemeNS on ih eosl
sde otMOnlaey Cdve wi uliire porvlous pavement to sloe Knoll ~n o
r„USUlacc ilone slaoge layer Ihal wq be mcdekd os a dry bmin la wafer
quairy pulpcses. fin slono st«opo loya wi vary M Ittickhoss 6cm I1' to A6'
ovrmaid by a', ~7 tellrtD tows n131A'slaws paved wftts 3 IS Mkk pnrers.
specitK.oty hie Unbct Scoopllbck. the clone slaoge IaYer a hose bYaf w11
OB drai'180 by a MMtxk of undo tlrtlh3lo a common w11E1 Thal wii Conhol
the petlk Aow rota bclae dhchorgnp to an edsirsp sloml sews system obnp
Monterey DiNe.
the hose byd of done vAl be urdeAdn W c permanDle geole~l3e latric IRaI
wY slaw woler l0 pass DVI rot Hw Wer sit/cWy. !ho role a' w1JCn hfilolbn
actors wF not Uu modeled lobe cansBnaliVe. ony In(i!ronon IMI does OccuY
w? ae considered a Uarus
Plo shuc+aol oapob0ily of the pavemerl sea6onw8. be arolzBd fo meal
ODOI epNvolenl sliucluv rcp„iomarls, eeniaus pavtt syslams a8 ebb to
horde heavy bads o^d (rove Deco sncd n nduslbal appkahbas.
RQ!pll
iM reloi devebpment wB lnA~ oSlamlecn Nderyound CetenhUn slslem
to do both woler GuaiN and dolonsgn fioSlormixhsytlem hoso
paheolmenl device la sedmem ands conbased al o paamsfolre
bolEOm wNchpomoles ~fllraYOn, fiesyilem wi bB inlaflod vAlhh the
poising la+os ihcwn. Sine Nle commercbl aalecl d pal of a IapBr
CevBlopmanl over S oaes. wola Qupiry vo4me aowdown w7 berequ'red
uriess o vonance a oblaUsed m the sic is In W lory to a ~m odor shoam IDe
Scblo Rive
Wglty Sarvict',
A mmta nwYer vAl be hslabd pe City of Columbus s!ondards losanre Iha
relidenlla pylion al the devNOprgn!. AprNalo woler service wtl b¢!equked
to atosl'M pubYC R/W of MCnI@rey Dm'B IO sBfNC! Inc urV150n the wes19d6
al Mcrlerey DtNe. Iha sic of the mdd'no lap ord meter t+ove yet to be
delerminetl.
An otld!iorol fie hyarom h being adCed on the west rde of Inc development
per 111e Ne OepadmBnl. the hyaonl wA be conked by o!epotate d" IaD off
al!M ma'rlinswalertne monp MmlaBy Qire Thalnp lie wilW la (ve
poleclian unry
Sapilar ervl~e
Focn Innldrp wi0 hdv0 one Sordory service. iho Widkps On Ina wesl5idt of
Monla¢y OM'c wd nnch Isore a lop alto Ina erESing sorilory sews inc. A
mo+Ycse exlensan a pknrled to service the bvoe Duidngs on the coil s"rJe of
Madauypiva
MonlereY taveeschxnnad to be rapovea m 2IX19, Inniclae open eu! of the
sonilay nolting a we7 as In0 two W¢Ie( 6M arp$7iflps is pelBnetl tl UI¢
ropovinp cos be tleloyed unti the utdry hnpovemenls ore gsrlated
LEGEND
r>m..~..~ <~..,.~ ~ r,.,~M~w1
Slam $ewd -k.
tr wa.v~
Sontary kwer -k+ -
Wnler line -w ` o+,r~w
0
L
0 0
~ ~
00 ~
C
N
I..L C
W ~ L
O j
~U o
'i--
U
SITE UTILITY
PLAN
rNrAxD ra
GpC~RABILL
LL 1'11NPA N1'
MI AI 1.11.111 11 A1'li I t
wwuECn.
GLAYAN FEHER ARCHRFCTS INC
(.1rn, Mtt'mv1.~4;n~0'tki~ 6 try1. vc
Fngkws • knrya+ • Rmrars • S~
591 N.w ADVM boG Cdnba al 1p41
eu~nmu~ sa uwsae
wn
Afl4(p, caM~aps +l Tb1
amsio w;vv aeno xoe
m'acu e~,~ w„xxa
SCrBEa
aewr+[ scNi
Q 8 I (]
4711i.1•Cr ~l+r.. r ~ .
LEGEND
fnAfted Gude devoXon of HOUSO FG°
z>tx x
"nnld~ed Hoa EbROlon of House if=
%%
A.%
~a61e Pavemanl
Wopof pe p
p
W
!'Y~/YI
8 X6X Xd
ll
Proposed SAOwat lPOlb~ ~~
_~
.~
O
7N
L~
00 ~
.~
~Y
a
w~
F- 0 ,~
Q '°
~U o
0
U
PERVIOUS PAVEMENT SECTION
~Atl new povanent lobo Unibck Eco-0pfdock hovers a approved
equivolent.
PERVIOUS PAVEMENT
SITE GRADING
PLAN
GRABILL
I{(~ a ~I i' , $ ,
Wiwi nu~i,
GLAVAN FEHER ARCHITECTS INC
,.C; ..,
R
~,
-~,VD
.,.D <
RfYgID. Relq- ~b _.!
xtwtD _ _ _
RfV6HY _
n..~zJ
i_o
9 10
,_ ,
a'' ~ r
';~ :~ ,~ ~ ,.r i; ~ ..~
~ ~~ /~ .
~; ; ,
A B A
:~ ~
• ~ I Dry laKl Stone
•i ~• ~ WalYJng Ptlih
.~ -
Beneb
-~
..: : ;/
I ~ I I I I I ~-Bunch
1
C ,l ~ li ~ ~ 1
~
I g i`l f
A A
A
PLANT LEGEND
Ilex g!abro Densa' Helicpsis hefanthoides'Venus'
Acer Rubrum Densa Compact Inkberry Venus False Sunflower
Red Maple
Viburnum trilobum'Bailey'
Coreapsis verficillata'Moonbeom'
compocl American Cranberry Moonbeam Coreopsis
Physocarpus apulffolius'Summer Wine' lobelia cardinalis
Belula nigra
_ Summer Wine Ninebark
Red Cardinol flower
River Birch
Ilex verticillata Iris versicolor
Amelanchier x grandiflora 'Autumn Brilliance' Inkberry Blue Flag Iris
-
Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry
Corms sercea
Echinaceo purperea
Redosier Dogwood ntfl Purple Conelbwer
Magnolia stellota'Royal Slar' Alchemilla mollis'Auslese' Sedum spectobile'Autumn Joy'
Rayol Slor Magnolia
~adys Manre Autumn Joy Sedum
Asfilbe'Red Sentinel' Osmundo cinnamomea
v Red Sentinel Asfilbe Cinnamon Fern
Existing Tree n '~"-`~ Carex morrowii'Ice Dance' ~ Juniperus horizontais'B!ue Chip'
B!
Chi
J
i
~_._ __~ Ice Dance Sedge
un
uc
p
per
0
0
V / ~,
O O
C
Q/ ~ ~
L1J ~ ~'
0 ~_
~
Q
~ U °
a
}
U
BIO-RETE NTION
PLANTING PLAN
GIAVAN FEHFR ARCNfiECTS INC
n.m ~nxa
~nsFn ~>s yai i~xm
~ w,ue. +.n a Aoe
s:
m+~ao
N.,~-
n~~~,~.
~~ - - -~
1010
uQlli[I[~p.~gtYA(f
l~' f 1 .. \i ~~ ..
}3ci1~ .~ :. ._
GLAVAN =f:HER ARCHITECTS INC
TOWNNOMES
(LOOKING NU~iHWESi fFO~Vi ~NONiEFf-YI
WATERFORD COMMONS
DJBJn, OHIO
l..- I -~i; rryJ
GRABILL
C O M P A N Y
REAL ESTAT[ SERVICES
GLAVAN FEHEK ARCHITECTS INC
TOWNHOMES
~LOOKIntG;pU71iWFSi FeO~H r~tOn~TEREYI
WATERFORD COMMONS
DUBLIN, OHIO
n,~a _~~ 'ace
'C ,
~~~~~
\_': _.
'1 ;` ~
~\ ~ rte``
GRABILL
~[C O M P A N Y
RCAL ES'CA'PE SERVICES
ASYHALf SHINGIE k00FING
6RICK VENEER
CEDAR SIDING
CUITURFDSIONF
~II YR'VACY FENCING
® SfANDWGSEAMMEP
I ° I "I "I
GLAVAN FEHER ARCHITECTS UJC
SOUTI I fl NATION OF NORTI I MON~LREY (OWNI TOMES
WATERFORD COMMONS TOWNHOMES ON MONTEREY DRIVE
DUBLIN, OFIIO
,~;~ ~a ~
GRABILL
C O M P A N Y
R F.AS. ESTATE ti3RVICES
~~~"z i~I~,P ASPNAIT SNINGIF ROOFlN
9RICK vfNEER
ctynks~iNc
CULNRFDS?ONE
~. .I PRIVACY FENCRJG
StANOFN^v SEAM METAL ROOFING
~~ ~
EAST ELEVATION OF TOWNHOM_S ~~~~~
ILCOKiNG wE.SI ACRCSSMON1EkEY1
p~ ~ WA?ERFORD COMMONS TOWNHOMES ON MONTEREY DRIVE & C 0 M P A N Y
CUBLIN, OHIO RL'AL CSTATC SERVICES
GIAVAN ~ _~IER ARCHITECTS INC .r~x~~ ~+~
~!V I I _--
ASPHAIi SHINGLE ROOfRJG
BRICK VENEER
O CEDAR$IDING
CULLUkED$IGNE
PkNACY FFNGNG
SUNDWG SEAM MELAL ROOFlNG
NORTH ELEVATION OF NORTH TOWNIiOMES/GARAGES GRABILL
ISUUIIt IOWNHOMF ELEVATIONS SIM:I AR ~opposNc nontlJ)
I `I nl °'I WATERFORD COMMONS TOWNHOMFS ON MONTEREY DRIVE $C C 0 M P h N Y
DUBLIN, OHIO REAL ESTATE SERVICES
GLAVAN ~EHER ARCHITECTS INC ~~~~~^~~
ASPHAl15HINGLEk00FMG
BRICK VENEER
I^ 1 CEDAR SIDWG
CULNREU SIONE
PRIVACY FENCING
STANDING SEAM METAI ROOFlNG
WEST ELEVATION OF MONTEREY TOWNHOMES ~~TT
{LOOKING EAST ACROSS MGNIbtEYJ 1 L
I 'I "I "I WATERFORD COMMONS TOWNHOMES ON MONTEREY DRIV= ~' C 0 M P A N Y
DUBLIN, OHIO REAL GSTATL 58RVICRti
GLAVAN FEHER ARCHITECTS IIJC ~°~~ ~~
RCTAII CENTER
jl OC',Q~~G S0U1H[A51 fROM INfER5ECI~0N OF NHIDGF AND td0N1EREY)
WATERFORD COMMONS
DUBLIN, OHIO
GLAVAN ~Ei~'~ER ARCHITECTS INC ~-~~~~~ -~+
GRABILL
BtCOMPANY
AEAL ESTAT~SflAVICLS
ASPHALfSNINGLE
BRICKV6NEER
r-~ CmAR SIDING
,',~ CUl1UkED S10NF
J
xdttx HEVUpx
E III dal
GLAVAN FEHFR ARCHITECTS INC
RFiAII/COMMERCIAL
ELEVATIONS
WATERFORD COMMONS RETAIL
DUBLh~~, OFIIO
prix IL'.fW
GRABILL
C O M P A N Y
RL•AL ESTATE SERVICES
ASRHALI SHINGLE ROGFWG
3RICK vENEER
I i CC~,pAR SB>ING
CUIfURED $fGNc
RRNACYFENCWG
STANDING SEA1.1 MF1A1. RGpFWG
I XI "1
GLAVAN FEH(:R ARCHITECTS 1NC
RETAIL/ COMMERCIAL
ELEVATIONS
WATERFORD COMMONS RETAIL
~uauN, oHlo
GRABILL
C O M P A N Y
AGAL ESTATH SLRVICGS
NFii @EV~R1V 9WiNRfVRIW