Ordinance 14-12RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Davmn L Bla Inc.
Ordinance Na
14 -12
ormNe.._0043
Passed 20
AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 18.5
ACRES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BRAND
ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF COVENTRY
WOODS DRIVE FROM RAND R -1 TO PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (WELLINGTON RESERVE
PUD) TO ESTABLISH A 28 LOT SINGLE - FAMILY
DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND 3.6
ACRES OF OPEN SPACE. (CASE 08- 038Z /PDP /PP)
N HEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin,
of its elected members concurring, that:
Section 1. The following described real estate, (see attached legal
description), 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 . The application, including the list of contiguous and affected
property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning
Commission, are all incorporated into and made an official part of this
Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance
there within.
Section 3 . This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the
earliest period allowed by law.
Passed this day of A ou 2012.
�Z��g ypv'"'
Mayor - Pres ing Officer
ATTEST:
Clerk of Council
ORDINANCE 14- 12— WELLINGTON RESERVE PUD—
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS APPENDED BY COUNCIL ON 3 -26 -12
11. That a temporary metal or wood construction fence be installed around the critical root zone of
Tree #740.
12. That the applicant work with Engineering to install, if deemed appropriate, a wood guard rail
along the Brand Road frontage.
13. That the applicant work with adjacent property owners to address their drainage issues.
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Prkway * City of Dublin Phone: 614 - 410.4400 • Fax: - 4490 43017-1090
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager
Date: March 22, 2012
Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning
Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II
Memo
Re: Ordinance 14 -12 - Rezoning Approximately 18.5 Acres, Located on the North
Side of Brand Road, Approximately 700 Feet West of Coventry Woods Drive
from R and R -1 to Planned Unit Development District (Wellington Reserve
PUD) to Establish a 28 -Lot Single - Family Detached Residential Development
and 3.6 Acres of Open Space. (Case 08- 038Z /PDP /PP)
Summary
Ordinance 14 -12 was introduced at the March 12, 2012 City Council meeting. Due to concerns
raised by adjacent residents, Council had questions regarding tree preservation, drainage,
roadway alignment, and HOA maintenance responsibilities. Engineering staff has prepared a
separate memo and exhibits addressing drainage (see attached), and this memo will provide
additional information on the other concerns.
The applicant has revised the development text to address issues discussed at the first reading.
In addition, the preliminary development plan was revised to move the cul -de -sac bulb and
Wellington Reserve Drive approximately 10 feet to the west to increase the lot depth for lots
adjacent to those in Wellington Place to be the same as approved at the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Roadway Alignment
The preliminary development plan reviewed at the first reading of this ordinance centered the
cul -de -sac bulb in the northern portion of the site as well as the road leading north to the cul-
de -sac. This design placed the road closer to the eastern property line and reduced the lot
depth for the lots adjacent to the Wellington Place subdivision by 5 to 9 feet. Based on
concerns by adjacent residents, the plan was revised for the second reading to move the cul-
de -sac bulb and the roadway to the west to increase the lot depths to what they were as
approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
At the first reading, an adjacent resident to the north suggested moving the cul -de -sac farther
south to create a larger rear yard for Lots 16 through 18 to allow an extensive tree preservation
zone along those three lots (see attachment). The applicant has worked with Engineering to
design a cul -de -sac to meet the required City standards and changing its location or shape
would create awkwardly shaped -lots that would not meet the development text for lot width
and force home undesirable house locations.
Tree Preservation and Replacement
The applicants have made changes to the proposed development text to require a 40 -foot tree
Memo re. Ordinance 14 -12 Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat
Wellington Reserve PUD
March 22, 2012
Page 2 of 4
preservation zone (instead of the tree enhancement zone previously in place) along lots in the
northern portion of the site that have significant vegetation. The applicant has identified the
appropriate location of the tree preservation zone along the rear of Lots 17 and 18, as those
lots have the most significant tree stands. The preliminary plat also shows this zone.
The text has also been updated to require a temporary metal or wood fence at a minimum
height of four feet be installed along the borders of the tree preservation zone during
construction and until its removal is permitted by the City Forester.
The development text now contains a definition for the tree preservation zone, which prohibits
any structures to be located within the zone or any work performed in the zone that would alter
or damage its natural state, but allows the removal of dead, decayed, or noxious landscape
material.
Staff has revisited the site and confirmed the health of the large beech tree in the northern
portion. Tree #740 was measured at 29 inches and is in good condition. The tree is located
approximately 10 feet outside the tree preservation zone and should also be protected with the
temporary metal or wood fence during construction. The applicant has also provided an aerial
view of the northern portion of the site that illustrates that the woods in this area are not as
numerous or substantial as the ones in Wellington Park.
Tree preservation and replacement information is required with the final development plan. The
preliminary development plan contains a preliminary tree survey that identifies all trees six
inches or greater in diameter and their health (Preliminary Development Plan, pages 5 through
7; a large copy of this plan will be placed in the Council Planning room). The applicant has
provided an illustrative master plan of the development that shows in light green the trees that
may be preserved depending on final home locations as well as potential numbers and locations
of replacement trees. This illustrative master plan is not based on a detailed tree survey and
replacement plan as required at the final development plan stage and is only intended to
illustrate the tree replacement intent of the development.
The applicant, as requested at the first reading, has modified the proposed development text to
reflect the typical tree waiver requirement of tree - for -tree replacement for trees measuring six
inches and up to 24 inches in good or fair condition and inch - for -inch replacement for trees 24
inches and above in good or fair condition.
Perimeter Landscape Buffer
A perimeter landscape buffer is required within the rear setback on all lots. Some residents
were concerned at the first reading that existing trees would be removed and replaced with
other plant material to meet this buffer requirement. The text states that the buffer may consist
of existing vegetation and requires the incorporation of existing trees and vegetation. Areas of
preserved trees and vegetation can be deemed to meet the opacity requirement, but may be
supplemented with other plantings.
At the final development plan, Planning will work with the applicant to identify trees to be
preserved and incorporated into the buffer as well as specific areas where additional plant
Memo re. Ordinance 14 -12 Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat
Wellington Reserve PUD
March 22, 2012
Page 3 of 4
material for buffering is appropriate. As a response to concerns raised at the first reading, the
applicants created an illustration showing potential designs for the buffer along the rear of three
sample lots with varying numbers of existing trees incorporated into the buffer.
HOA Maintenance
The development text was updated to clearly state that the homeowners association is
responsible for the maintenance of the dedicated right -of -way of the potential future extension
of Ballybridge Drive to the west. The text also requires that the potential street extension be
noted on the final plat and on the property title of the two adjacent lots. A sign is also required
to be placed and maintained by the HOA.
As proposed in the development text and preliminary development plan, the open space areas
within Wellington Reserve will be low- maintenance woodland areas, which is a different design
from what is present within the open space areas of neighboring subdivisions. It is staff's
expectation that once the Brand Road setback open space is established and the maintenance
responsibility turned over to the homeowners from the developer, ongoing maintenance will be
lower than what other HOAs experience. We have included information from Ordinance No.
82 -02 that related to the request for relief from maintenance requirements associated with The
Meadows of Wyndham Village.
Other
The development text does not permit rear - loaded garages. This language was changed since
review at the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Recommendation
Planning recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 14 -12 at the second reading /public
hearing on March 26, 2012 with the 10 conditions approved at the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommendation and the following additional condition:
11) That a temporary metal or wood construction fence be installed around the critical root
zone of Tree #740 outside the tree protection zone.
Planning and Zoning Commission Conditions
1) That the developer be required to notify the future property owners in the northern part
of this site regarding the possible future road extension;
2) That the development text be modified to clarify that the proposed landscape buffer
planted within the tree enhancement zone of Lots 1 through 18 will be installed by the
developer and maintained by the individual homeowners;
3) That, if deemed appropriate by the City Engineer, in lieu of constructing the multi -use
path along Brand Road, the applicant be required to contribute financially to the City's
Brand Road multi -use path installation;
4) That the applicant be required to install an off -site left turn lane from Brand Road to
Wellington Reserve Drive as recommended by the traffic study, to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer;
Memo re. Ordinance 14 -12 Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat
Wellington Reserve PUD
March 22, 2012
Page 4 of 4
5) That the development text be revised to duplicate the fence restrictions of the
surrounding neighborhoods;
6) That the development text and plans be updated to indicate "multi -use paths" instead of
bikepaths;
7) That the tree replacement language in the development text be revised to require inch -
for -inch replacement for trees 12 inches and greater;
8) That the text clarify that any supplemental plantings within the Tree Enhancement Zone
shall not be counted toward required replacement trees;
9) That the details of plantings within the proposed Landscape Buffer be reviewed and
approved at the final development plan stage to ensure existing trees are preserved
where possible and incorporated into the buffer; and
10) That the developer work with the residents to the south of the proposed access point to
provide a landscape screen, subject to approval by Planning.
Preliminary Development Plan
WE LLI NGTON RESERVE
Dublin O h i o
Land Owner.
Developer:
Legal
Land Planning/
Landscape Architecture:
Engineering:
CASTO
Davidson Phillips
Smith and Hale
The EDGE Group
EMH &T
191 West Nationwide Blvd., Suite 200
4020 Venture Ct. Suite D
37 W Broad St, Ste 725
1400 Goodale Blvd., Suite 100
5500 New Albany Road
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Columbus, OH 43228
Columbus, OH 43215
Columbus, OH 43212
Columbus, OH 43054
Phone_ (614) 777 -9325
Phone_ (614) 221 -4255
Phone_ (614) 486 -3343
Phone_ (614) 775 -4710
Phone: (614) 744 -2008
Contact Charles Ruma
Contact Jack Reynolds
Contact Greg Chillog
Contact Linda Menery
Contact: Justin Bird
Approved. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission, January 5, 1011
5ubmittak Dublin City Council, March 16, 2072
WELLINGTON RESERVE
SECTION I —
Development Overview
I. LOCATION AND SIZE
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND CHARACTER
III. EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USES
IV. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
V. PROVISION OF UTILITIES
VI. ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
Table of Contents
SECTION II —
Development Standards
SECTION III —
Exhibits
DO -1
I.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
DS -1
PDP -1
REGIONAL CONTEXT MAP
DO -1
II.
PERMITTED USES
DS -1
PDP -2
VICINITY MAP
DO -1
III.
DENSITY
DS -1
PDP -3
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
DO -1
IV.
LOT STANDARDS
DS -1
PDP -4
BOUNDARY MAP /SURVEY
DO -1
V.
STREET ACCESS AND /OR
DS -1
PDP -5
EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP
DO -2
IMPROVEMENTS
PDP -6
TREE SURVEY LIST
VI.
STREET STANDARDS
DS -1
PDP -7
TREE SURVEY LIST & ANALYSIS
VII.
UTILITIES
DS -1
1/3
TITLE SHEET & INDIX MAP
VIII.
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
DS -1
2/3
PRELIMINARY PLAT
IX.
TREE PRESERVATION, REMOVAL
DS -2
3/3
UTILITY /GRADING PLAN
AND REPLACEMENT
X.
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
DS -2
XI.
ARCHITECTURE
DS -2
XII.
LANDSCAPING
DS -3
XIII.
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
DS -4
SECTION I-
Development Overview
WELLINGTON RESERVE
Location and Size
• The site is located completely within the City of Dublin and Franklin
County.
• The 18.584± acre site is located on the north side of Brand Road,
approximately 730' east of the intersection of Coffman Road and
Brand Road, immediately west of the Wellington Woods subdivision.
The property is one of several remaining parcels along Brand Road
that are undeveloped between the Wellington Woods subdivision and
the Brandon subdivision.
• There is approximately 950' of frontage along Brand Road.
• The site measures approximately 1,500' at its deepest point.
II. Existing Conditions and Character
• The site is L- shaped with a large portion of the site in woods, the
balance being grassed and meadows. Tree rows and brush line the
perimeter of the property. Substantial portions of the trees on this site
are overgrown with vines or are vine damaged.
• 921 trees exist on the site, 71 of those are landmark trees. Of the 921
trees, 241 (26 %) are in poor condition, 28 (12 %) of those are
landmark trees in poor condition.
• The site is located in the North Fork Indian Run Watershed. The site
generally drains from west to east. The site is located entirely out of
the 100 year floodplain.
• The site is generally flat; there are no steep slopes on the site.
• No buildings exist on the site.
III. Existing and Proposed Land Uses
• The Dublin Community Plan - Existing Land Use Map designates the
site as "undeveloped."
• Surrounding land uses include: single - family detached residential
(Wellington Place, Brandon, Coventry Woods, Asherton of Dublin)
private institutional (Berean Bible Church, Dublin Baptist Church),
public institutional (Bailey Elemetary School), parks (Wellington
Park, Brandon Park), and residential and institutional uses in
surrounding unincorporated areas.
• Proposed uses are residential, open space and parks.
• The proposal is to develop the tract with 28 single - family lots for a
gross density of 1.50 units per acre.
IV. Parks and Open Space
• A total of 3.5± acres ( ±18.8 %) will remain free of development and
will include the required Brand Road setback and the stormwater
management facilities.
• The open space areas will be owned by the City of Dublin and
maintained by a private home owners association.
V. Provision of Utilities
General
• All utilities, including sanitary sewer, water, telephone, electric, and
gas, are available at this site.
• All utilities will be designed and constructed to meet the standards
established by the City of Dublin Engineer.
• A comprehensive storm water management system will meet City of
Dublin design criteria.
• All utilities shall be placed in appropriate locations on the lots that
will best preserve the existing trees in good or fair condition.
Sanitary Sewer
• Sanitary sewer service to Wellington Reserve will be provided from
two locations.
The northern portion of the proposed development will be service
from an existing 8 -inch line that is located between 2lots on
Kilbrittan Lane in the Wellington Place Development Section 2,
backing to proposed lot 11.
Although a second line is stubbed to the proposed development from
Section 2 at the western end of Ballybridge Drive, the depth of this
sewer is not adequate to serve the remaining southern portion of the
proposed development. Therefore, a manhole will be cast in place on
the existing 10 -inch sanitary sewer located at the northwest corner of
the intersection of Coventry Woods Drive and Brand Road and an 8-
inch line will be extended 500 -feet to the Wellington Reserve site.
This sewer extension will occur through property owned by the City
of Dublin and appropriate easements will be placed on the easement
as required by the City of Columbus.
• Sanitary lines will be sized and located to accommodate future
development of the undeveloped property to the west.
Development Overview
Water
• An existing 16 -inch water main along the south side of Brand Road
should be adequate to provide service to this site.
• Public water mains will be constructed along the proposed roadways
within the development.
• An 8 -inch water main stubbed at the end of Ballybridge Drive will be
tied into the new public system which will aid in service to this site.
• Water lines will be sized and located to accommodate future
development of the undeveloped property to the west.
Storm Water - Existing
• The site drains from west to east to existing storm sewer inlets that
were installed with the Wellington Place Development.
• 4 acres of offsite area drains from the west across the site to the storm
sewer inlets mentioned above.
• The predominant soil type is Blount, a Type C soil, corresponding to
a pre - developed runoff curve number of 70.
Storm Water -Post Developed
• In the post - development condition the site drainage will be handled
by two separate stormwater management systems. One system will be
considered the "clean water system" and will accept drainage from
pervious areas such as rear yards, side yards and the offsite 4 acres
mentioned above. The other system will be the "developed area
system." It will accept drainage from impervious areas such as
roadways, driveways, roofs, and sidewalks and some back yard
drainage.
In regards to the "clean water system" the offsite 4 acres tributary to
proposed lots 21 and 22 along with vegetated back yard and side yard
areas are being collected and discharged to an existing 24 -inch storm
sewer located between 2 existing lots along Kilbrittan Lane in the
Wellington Place Development (backing to proposed lots 9 and 10.)
The storm sewer system is considered a "clean water system" in light
of the fact that only wooded or open space areas are being collected
by the storm sewer system; therefore detention and water quality are
not being provided for these vegetated areas.
The "developed area system" will be directed to a dry basin with a
wet micro -pool on the east side of the entry drive. The total
developed tributary area to the basin is approximately 13.2 acres with
a composite runoff curve number of 83. The 1 -year pre - developed
runoff volume is 0.339 ac-ft for the pre - developed 13.2 acres of
drainage area and the 1 -year post - developed runoff volume increases
to 0.895 ac-ft, an increase of 164% resulting in a 25 -year critical
storm. The allowable release rate based on the City of Dublin
stormwater master plan for the 1 -year event is 0.1 cfs /acre; therefore
the allowable release for the 25 -year event is 1.32 cfs. The 100 -year
DO -1
WELLINGTON RESERVE
event allowable release is 0.5 cfs /acre for a total allowable of 6.60 cfs.
The outlet of the basin drains to a 21 -inch storm sewer which ties into
the existing 21 -inch storm sewer in Wellington Place. The proposed
21 -inch has available capacity for the 100 -year event. Please note, the
site is located in the North Fork Indian Run Watershed. Water quality
is provided by the use of a dry basin per Ohio EPA and City of Dublin
requirements. The outlet for the basin will be a three -stage outlet,
with the first stage providing the required 48 hour water quality
drawdown. The second stage controls the 25- yearevent, and the third
stage the 100 -year event. The required storage to meet all of these
requirements is 2.9 ac-ft.
VI. Access and Circulation
• Vehicular access to the site will be from a single access point on
Brand Road and from the existing Ballybridge Drive.
• Wellington Reserve Drive will extend from Brand Road to the
northern end of the site.
• Ballybridge Drive will be extended from the stub at the eastern
property line to Wellington Reserve Drive.
• A street stub will be provided to the property west of the site.
Development Overview
SECTION II-
Development Standards
WELLINGTON RESERVE
I. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Basic development standards are addressed in this text regarding proposed
density, general site issues, traffic, circulation, landscaping, and architecture.
These component standards ensure consistency and quality throughout the
development. Unless otherwise specified in the submitted drawings or in this
written text, the development standards of Chapter 152 and 153 of the City of
Dublin Code shall apply.
II. PERMITTED USES
Permitted uses shall include the following:
A. Single- family detachedhomes.
B. Open spaces and related park features.
III. DENSITY
A maximum of 28 residential homes shall be permitted in this PUD.
IV. LOT STANDARDS
Single - family homes in this development will be constructed on traditional lots
with fee simple ownership. Specific lot standards shall apply to each of these
development types:
A. Fee simple lots
1. Lot Size
a. Lot Area: 12,600 square feet minimum
b. Lot Width at the building line: 90 feet minimum
c. Lot Depth: 140 feet minimum
2. Lot Setbacks
a. Front yard: There shall be a Build -Zone of 10 feet starting at 20
feet from the right-of-way line or as shown on the approved
preliminary plat. Homes must be located within the Build -Zone,
which will allow flexibility in staggering of the homes along the
street frontage. The requirements of the Subdivision Regulations
Chapter 152.019(C)(6) shall not be applicable to this
development.
b. Rear yard: There shall be a minimum rear yard setback of 30 or
40 feet as indicated on the preliminary plat.
c. Side yard: There shall be a minimum side yard of 6 feet for
buildings, provided, however, that there shall be a minimum of
14' total side yard per lot.
d. Brand Road: There shall be a minimum scenic setback of 100
feet from Brand Road, as measured from the proposed right -of-
way. Detention, landscaping, multi -use path, open space, park
amenities and an entry feature may be located within this setback
to enhance the rural character of the Brand Road corridor.
3. Lot Coverage
The maximum lot coverage shall be 45 %.
V. STREET ACCESS AND /OR IMPROVEMENTS
A. Access
1. Brand Road:
a. A new intersection shall be provided.
2. Ballybridge Drive:
a. Ballybridge Drive shall be extended west to Wellington Reserve
Drive.
3. Adjacent Properties:
a. Right -of -way shall be dedicated for a potential future street
extension to the property immediately west of the site.
Construction of the street pavement and extension of utilities may
occur in the future.
b. Notation of the potential for future street extension shall be made
on the preliminary and final plats and the title of the two adjacent
lots.
c. Signage identifying the potential for future street extension shall
be installed and maintained by the HOA
VI. STREET STANDARDS
A. Public Streets
1. Right -of -Way Width: 50 feet minimum
Development Standards
2. Pavement Width: 28 feet minimum for the Ballybridge Drive
extension and for all other public streets, as
measured back -of -curb to back -of -curb
3. Drive Lanes: Two (2)
4. Parking Lanes: Parking shall be permitted on one side of
public streets internal to the PUD opposite
the waterline and hydrants.
5. Tree Lawn: May vary based on existing vegetation, but
shall in no case be less than 7 feet in width.
6. Sidewalk: 4 feet wide minimum; sidewalks shall be
concrete. No sidewalk is required where it
does not front a single family lot.
7. Multi -use path: 8 feet wide minimum; multi-use paths shall
be constructed of concrete when located in
front of lots and of asphalt when located
elsewhere.
B. Private Sidewalks
1. A minimum 3 -foot wide sidewalk shall be required for every residence.
This private side walk shall extend from the front door to the driveway,
where applicable, as the driveway may abut the front door.
VII. UTILITIES
A. Design and Construction
1. All utilities shall be designed and constructed to meet the standards
established by the City of Dublin Engineer.
B. Location
1. All utilities shall be placed in appropriate locations on the individual
home lots that will best preserve the existing trees in good or fair
condition.
VIII. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
A. Design and Construction
1. A comprehensive storm water management system shall be
developed, following the City of Dublin storm water management
policies.
DS -1
WELLINGTON RESERVE
2. Stormwater management in the post development condition is
anticipated to be handled by two separate systems: a "clean water
system" to accept drainage from pervious rear and side yard and a
"developed area system" to accept impervious areas such as
roadways, sidewalks, driveways, roofs and some back yard drainage.
a. The "clean water system" will accept a portion of the offsite
drainage from the west and on site drainage collected in side and
rear yards which will then be discharged to a rear yard catch
basin. Because these areas are wooded and/or open space and
will remain so, detention and water quality will not be provided
for these areas.
b. The "developed area system" shall be generally located along
Brand Road to include both dry basins and a wet micro -pool.
IX. TREE PRESERVATION, REMOVALAND REPLACEMENT
A. Tree Preservation
1. It is the intent of the developer to preserve as many good and fair
condition trees as possible on site. A good faith effort will be made to
preserve existing trees in good and fair condition where appropriate.
Any trees 6 inches of caliper or greater in good or fair condition
removed during development of the site or home lots shall be
accounted for on the Tree Replacement Plan.
B. Tree Preservation Zone
1. A 40' wide tree preservation zone shall be established at the rear of
lots with significant mature tree stands along the northern most
property line and shall be indicated on the preliminary and final plats.
2. A temporary metal or wood construction fence, minimum 4' in
height, shall be installed around the perimeter of the tree preservation
zone prior to any construction activities. The fence location shall be
indicated on the final development plan and shall remain in place until
occupancy has been granted or as otherwise approved by the City
Forester for lots 17 and 18, as indicated on the preliminary plat.
3. No building, structure, fence, patio, recreational or athletic facility, or
any other improvement of any kind may placed temporarily or
permanently upon, in or under the area designated hereon as a "Tree
Preservation Zone" nor shall any work be performed thereon which
would alter the natural state of the zone or damage any of the trees or
vegetation therein, except as specifically permitted at the final
development plan stage to meet the intent of the perimeter landscape
buffer requirement.
4. Disturbance of any part of the zone by maintenance shall be restored
as nearly as practicable to the original condition. No tree or vegetation
may be removed from the zone except for the removal of dead,
diseased, decayed, or noxious trees and other vegetation or as may be
required for conservation or aesthetic purposes or in keeping with
good forest management practices.
C. Tree Replacement Plan
1. If approved by City Council, tree replacement shall be as outlined
below.
a. Existing trees removed that measure 6 inches and up to, but not
including 24 inches in caliper, in good or fair condition, shall be
replaced tree for tree, one replacement tree for every tree
removed in good or fair condition.
b. Replacement trees shall have a minimum caliper size of 2 /z
inches and may include evergreen species.
c. Existing trees in good or fair condition, removed that measure 24
inches and greater in caliper shall be replaced "inch per inch ",
one replacement inch for every inch removed in good or fair
condition.
d. The master developer shall be responsible for the replacement of
all subject trees affected due to the development of the site.
e. All site required tree replacement must be completed prior to the
issuance of the first building permit or within 6 months, due to
unfavorable weather conditions.
I. All individual lot tree replacement must be completed prior to
issuance of an occupancy permit or within 6 months, due to
unfavorable weather conditions.
D. Tree Enhancement Zone
1. A tree enhancement zone is an area identified on the subdivision plat
for reforestation or naturalization with deciduous or evergreen
replacement trees, where appropriate, in order to augment, re-
establish or create a tree row buffer between adjoining lots.
2. In addition to replacement trees, supplemental plantings including,
but not limited to, ornamental trees, deciduous and evergreen shrubs,
ornamental grasses, groundcovers and fine or rough turf are permitted
to be planted in tree enhancement zones. These supplemental
plantings shall not be utilized to meet tree replacement requirements.
3. Trees or other vegetation may be removed in any tree enhancement
zone in order to install or maintain utilities and drainage facilities.
4. Dead, diseased, decayed or noxious trees or other vegetation may be
removed from tree enhancement zones as required for conservation or
Development Standards
aesthetic purposes or in keeping with good forest management
practices.
5. Trees measuring 6 inches and greater in caliper are subject to the tree
replacement plan as approved in the development text.
6. A 30' or 40' wide Tree Enhancement Zone shall be located at the rear
of all lots in areas outside of tree preservation zones and shall be
indicated on the preliminary and final plats.
7. An area designated as a tree enhancement zone is not precluded from
any use or activity that would otherwise be permitted in a rear yard
setback.
X. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
The open space will meet that required under Code. The code required open
space shall be dedicated to the City. These open space areas may contain a
mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs to enhance the rural
character of the area. All open space areas shall be maintained by a forced and
funded homeowners association.
XI. ARCHITECTURE
A. General Character
1. The character of the development shall be 1 and 2 story single - family
homes with a variety of 2 or 3 car garages that will mimic the quality
of the surrounding homes in adjacent neighborhoods and will adhere
to the City of Dublin Residential Appearance Standards Code.
B. Permitted Building Height
Maximum of 35', as measured per the Dublin Code.
C. Permitted Exterior Materials
1. Cladding Materials.
a. The exterior cladding of all structures shall be finished using all
natural materials, including brick, stone, manufactured stone,
wood, stucco, fiber -cement siding products or any combination
thereof.
2. Trim Materials.
a. Wood, vinyl, aluminum, EIFS, copper or fiber -cement products.
Shutters shall be considered as trim for the purpose of meeting
the Residential Appearance Code requirements
DS -2
WELLINGTON RESERVE
3. Roofing Materials.
a. Dimensional asphalt shingles, wood, slate, concrete, tile or metal.
D. Permitted Exterior Colors
1. Cladding Colors.
a. Natural earth tones and/or warm neutral colors, including white.
b. High - chroma colors are not permitted.
2. Trim Colors.
a. Natural earth tones and/or warm neutral colors, including white.
b. Complementary or contrasting to siding color.
3. Roofing Colors.
a. Roofing colors shall be from the color range of natural materials:
such as, but not limited to wood shakes and black.
b. High - chroma colors are not permitted.
E. Architectural Elements
1. Four -sided Architecture
a. Similar architectural design elements and details shall be
consistent throughout all elevations of the structure.
b. Dublin Residential Appearance Code will be adhered to
throughout the entire subdivision unless otherwise stated herein.
2. Chimneys
a. "Cantilevered" or "through- the -wall" chimneys are not permitted.
b. All chimneys shall be built on an integral foundation.
c. All exterior portions of chimney shall be finished masonry,
consisting of brick, stone, and/or manufactured stone.
3. Garages
a. All single - family dwellings shall have an attached or detached
garage of sufficient size to accommodate a minimum 2 standard
sized automobiles, side by side.
b. Side loaded garages are encouraged.
c. In those instances where a garage is utilized and an auto
courtyard is created in the front of the house; a minimum 30"
high wall or hedge shall be installed to provide a partial visual
buffer along the entire length of the court pavement.
d. In those instances where a side loaded garage is utilized, a
minimum 36" height, 75% opacity hedge shall be installed along
the entire length of driveway pavement so as to prevent headlight
pollution into the rear of neighboring properties.
F. Architectural Diversity
1. The same or similar front elevations shall not be repeated within:
a. Two lots on either side of subject lot.
b. Three lots directly across the street from subject lot.
c. Any lot on a cul- de-sac bulb.
2. Corner lots apply to both streets on which the home is situated.
G. Lot Diversity Matrix
Subject Influenced
Lot # Lot #
1
2,3
2
1,3,4
3
1,2,4,5
4
2,3,5,6
5
3,4,6,7
6
4, 5, 7, 8, 27, 28
7
5, 6, 8, 9, 26, 27, 28
8
6, 7, 9, 10, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
9
7, 8, 10, 11, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27
10
8, 9, 11, 12, 22, 23, 24, 25
11
9, 10, 12, 13, 21, 22, 23
12
10, 11, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22
13
11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21
14
12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21
15
13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19,20
16
14, 15, 17, 18, 19,20
17
14, 15, 16, 18, 19,20
18
14, 15, 16, 17, 19,20
19
14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21
20
13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22
21
12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 22, 23
22
11, 12, 13, 20, 21, 23, 24
23
10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 24, 25
24
9, 10, 11, 22, 23, 25, 26
25
8, 9, 10, 23, 24, 26, 27
26
7, 8, 9, 24, 25, 27, 28
Development Standards
27 6, 7, 8, 25, 26, 28
28 6, 7, 8, 26, 27
H. Plan Approval
1. The Master Developer shall retain the right of individual plan
approval for all single family homes within the subdivision.
XII. LANDSCAPING
A. Entry Features
1. Entry features shall include integrated project signage, landscaping,
and irrigation.
2. Final location, design, and standards for entry features and related
landscaping and signage details shall be presented and approved
during the Final Development Plan phase.
3. All entry features will be owned and maintained by the homeowners
association.
B. Street Trees
1. Street trees will be installed in accordance with the City of Dublin
Code. Final location shall be determined by the City Forester.
C. Fencing
1. No fencing shall be permitted unless it is decorative in nature and
does not enclose an area.
2. Fencing around pools shall be permitted that conforms to the
requirements in the governing building code.
D. Future Street Extension Right -of -Way
1. The HOA shall provide landscape maintenance of the right -of -way
dedicated for the potential future street extension to the property west
of the site. This shall include mowing and sign maintenance.
E. Cul -de -Sac Islands
1. Cul- de-sac islands shall be landscaped with lawn and/or plant
material and maintained by the HOA.
2. Any lawn and/or plant material located within an island shall be
maintained by the HOA.
DS -3
WELLINGTON RESERVE Development Standards
F. Brand Road Landscape Treatment
homeowners association, which will be formed prior to any lots being sold.
Homeowners association responsibilities shall be detailed within Declarations
1. A roadway landscape treatment shall be installed in the setback along
of Covenants and Restrictions as approved by the City of Dublin before being
Brand Road.
duly recorded in the office of the Franklin County Recorder. These
Declarations of Covenants and Restrictions shall run with the land and shall
2. Plantings shall create a natural woodland effect and may consist of
include, without limitation, the requirements imposed upon the homeowners
deciduous trees and shrubs, ornamental trees, perennials or any
association in this text.
combination thereof. This effect shall be installed across the Brand
Road frontage in both retention and non - retention areas, to create a
consistent appearance and disguise the presence of a stormwater
management area.
3. Dry portions of the stormwater basins located within the Brand Road
setback shall be landscaped as a rain garden to create a natural
woodland character. Water tolerant meadow grasses, perennials,
shrubs and trees shall be planted in a natural manner as to continue
the woodland character occurring within the Brand Road setback and
to diminish the appearance of a basin.
4. Any trees, 2 1 /2" in caliper and larger, planted in this treatment, shall
count toward the required number of replacement trees.
5. Earth mounding maybe used provided it does not disrupt the master
drainage plan or the critical root zone of trees to be preserved.
6. Pedestrian pathways, multi -use paths, water features and pond access
will be provided in this treatment.
G. Perimeter Landscape Buffer
1. A landscape buffer shall be installed by the developer and maintained
per plan by the individual homeowners in the rear setback, on all lots.
Design and details of the proposed buffer plantings shall be reviewed
and approved at the final development plan stage.
2. The buffer may consist of existing vegetation, deciduous or evergreen
trees and/or deciduous or evergreen shrubs. The design of the buffer
shall incorporate and preserve existing trees and vegetation where
possible, while striving to achieve seventy -five (75) percent opacity
from 0 to 6' in height after four growing seasons. Areas of preserved
trees and vegetation shall be deemed to meet opacity requirements,
but may be supplemented with other plantings that do not require the
removal of vegetation to install.
3. Deciduous and evergreen trees installed in this buffer planting shall
qualify as replacement trees, if they are 2 1 /2" caliper minimum.
X111. HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
All residential property owners located within the Wellington Reserve PUD
shall be required to join and maintain membership in a forced and funded
DS -4
SECTION III-
Exhibits
,�a •.. '�} �F <s , t�.�.�rr• 1�� I .. �M1r_ ..
g � 7f a
. � Kd Y 9 . � ` ' Ir '1r1�� �.• D In ,. nd.. v'„�".: i�i
! w�
V
1 4 ,
r -
1IDID�bbb I fff `` ♦ . ,( Ilc „I ldlL'dr ,'
r- ilk
ACK
A ll
A is
rA
' MNN4v •a. r. � 1� 7{'�����i:� '.� � r_>i I' _' 4 ” y'r$y' .:i,
� � � ;�•r a '... 75�
S•. 1�
cilr [ �� �J. • - •. •� �1 ` V� r
L 1.
PL
QU
.`` � .fit �4 � ' ��Y d,,♦ .' f � � __ _ y �'
�a,. ���.n.e.- ..in..1"ret'�' ��i� _ I ". o -v � �i ;�� ��� �� {. �' 1y��� � 7`,'' , � i ��� �� � '�� T ✓� 111111
r
"a
ZONING OIdWO P110N
18.584AW85
Situated In the Sbte of Ohio, County m Franklin, Cry m Dublin, lomkd In Mlglns
Military Survey No. 2543, and being all ofthe 12.584aoetractmme ea CF
Band LLC by dead of record In Instrument Num11er200202140017366, andtle
6 acre Vad conveyed b CF Brand LLC by dead Of record! in Instrument Number
200201090009109, (all generates .rend the recortls of the Recorder's Office, Fanklin
County, Ohio) and being more p bularly descrbed as folkas:
Beginning .trite northwesterly comer of Wellington Place Section 1', as daliravmd
In Plat Book 79, Page 67, being In the southely line of "Bandon SeNOn 3',
as delineated in Plat Book 6% PI 0,
Thence South W 10' 50' West a distance of 1153Mman, to part,
Thence NoTh 89° all 36' East, a distance of 579.8 feet ma point;
Thence South W Sal 42'West,a distance of 367.11 feet To a local
Thence South 89° 12' 50' West, a distance of 577.18feak W poun
Thence North 00° 10' Sl East a distance of 7.75 feet nd a Nunn in be ceMedlre
of Brand Base;
Thence North 77° 02' 10 West, a distance Of 209.01 feat gal carmalre,to
B
Thence
Thence North W 49' 21' West, a distance Of 189.95 feat gal carmalre,b
B
Thence
Thence North 01° 30' 21 West, a distance of 1392.0 fcet, to point;
Thence North 85° 04' 39' East, a distance Of 184Mfed, ba point;
Thence North 85° 12' 58' East a distance of 247.51 feet tithe Foiaaf Beginning.
Containing 18.584 acres of land, more arias.
This desription Is for tuning puracres only, and Is not to be used fordeadginger.
EVANS, MECHWAer, NAMBLETON STILTON, INC.
I
� � 2
/ � I
r
5
� I
T I
I I
1
I
I
I
I I
i
ti
i
L —J
I
I
L_
I - �
I �
I I
� i I
I r __J I
L_J
I
` - I I IL fJ I I I
I I
IIIIII�� 7 I I
l J r� J
FIL __J 1
I
I I
- -� r J
r — �
_ —y L,
Y
I I
I
I
I I
- -� r i
L
� y1 4�4 H
7392.67
W21'W
4
ez
o/
1w
00
7.75'_ --"
I
u I
rj I
i I
0' 30' MY 120• NOM
:
02
?O
m�
00
O
It Z
52
W
C
W
W
Z
0
z
Z
J
J
I
a
W
0
Z IA
O
M
a�
Wore
1 DT
101
I PDP I
EX KATESEIRIDGE COURT � \� EX KIL13kiWAN LAKE
L Z _ J 1
l I
I
I
L I
I
I I
I �-
I I -
1 ,
I L_
L - r J -/
I I
I I
�l I
` I 1
i� I
I
T T T
L_ L L____
___
i00° O'50'W I 1753.85' I
i}ll H
ILZr �I
LEGEND r -_� - -� __ I �6�§nA 0.45 I E, ° 8
I MIC L16 JCESPH J.B
+m EXISTING TREE - 6 TO 24' CALIPER SIZE JAA G. susnn E. L
R q _
HAND
nw EXISTING TREE - +24' CALIPER SIZE -
--
OVERLAND ROW
I
– J
-- -____. RIDGE/DRAINAGE DMDE
L I
L L__J
cm:
W
02
Ir
– h e
f - -, w Illl Jp 1 O �� Z
I o - -�s >
L
KAT 6BRIDGE WuRT I I A Qq) T IEX. LBRITTM E�
I f
-T
� I B
,wrnss �
%B. r j _ L ` JJ� r i_ s --
I crmHw a. ��Z � ���"– �` — z r F Z I � r – Zr �- -, _ �� -- �-- -- Q
,� I �_f L _ L_ � IJIL�_�JI �0.5 b �� 1 i t
i / �� L J 3' I _ a�
di r __J L� -- L___J ___ 1 � y x CIA
ti _J Z_ I � jig I I d O
Ex 18• Ev TC X T ANRICNY W.B MICHAEL B.B JA8 ANRB b� r ` ! Y Z
-TJ I Sbn. Ez hr-854M FREGERICKJ.B KA8 MPAKEB HAMSA CATHERINE E. JENNIPERA CILIA C. VI AL ® L ® Q 1 i
an
L_ J SCMII =TTJ. 1 KATARINAM SUSAN 8. N8. PERRVMNJ EMBMINGER WGUEZ CH W — �d - - 1 J O O
JEF BERNELEE P. P TTA a m A J WIN— J 1 J J 1 J
0 � e b a X�
1 R +R H .50% 0 0
w D
'I C E 1-7% // a s 0 oA Os� S G" oa la 9 ! (y J 7.7s% i O
1 a of 1 0 1
-1 " ° \ o � – - - -- V
§ o I OE °
O / / so
I I EG A o i Ate! o� / a a i A \ _ wi 1G
_ F y m 0 GI OA O 00 Q A ® 100 O O g$ i
-- 0 ® of A o
Go 0 o i I: s 1 a y ° - a A !�'A GO 1 e \ o f W
ag o! 10 1 0 60 A i
A o O ! 1 a O:
o " 2 I 9T
I , I G ER AF 44 a O �O 6 E i 90 a 1 1 ! o 0 a 1 A o � M I N
MT
I Gi A a A o GO a s 1'o! § !® 333 H
Io gCDg ® ON _ 8
® 1 ® § €W3
D I i Is 9 1 q '
- �-- -� -e a oloA' o ® o Eo11ga A i bo of
J
I I I u4G E 10 z@ -o O o OA G a i I A A I i .� a I V�
L'– b 02 aaj a O oa0 o G ! ,( DL I o l �• r_
_ cp (J O 9 a G O O G`O V I
ao o . a 0 0: IO o ! ! I � � rJ
1 0 of
l0 10 I Oi O /
A - ON No - 01 p I _ E O A
E EWN .s p 102'o QoR OA 1'
i0 a OA 0 O I� O R I q OA 10 – -- I
AO Ao A O l0 1 g 0 �II 0
AO 480E i0 FDJ Q'b R �CWYn u IRRRR4 N 'RSr_ ( n
r AO O w 1n,,WTa ,INP
1 HA M. rc AGIVBJM R I DRAINAGE JERRY G.B PEPHS.III
pGHN.FME
n n � IRM PDP
a, Brc SBA IZB• NORTH 5
TREE 5URVEY L15T
#
COMMON NAME
OBH
"Na .
#
COMMON NAME
aBH
CON,.
#
COMMON NAME
Vi
CON,.
#
COMMON NAME
OBH
OONa.
#
COMMON NAME
OBH
OONO.
# COMMON NAME
OBH
GONO.
g2Z
Honeylocusk
20.0
Good
119
Sugar Maple
24.0
Fair
256
Cherry
10.0
Fair
352
Hackberry
12.0
Good
Abe
Hackberry
60
Goad
5B5 Walnut
9.0
Poor
" u
2
Haneylocust
120
Good
120
Haneylocust
200
Poor
25
Silver Maple
25.0
Fair
555
Bouelder
14.0
Fall
469
Beech
10.0
Good
51 Hackberry
240
Fair
3
Haneylowsk
10.0
Good
121
Sugar Maple
200
Good
238
Hackberry
1.0
Fair
354
Hackberry
10.0
Good
410
Cherry
60
Fao-
Bar Epoch
6.0
boo.
4
Honeylawsk
120
Good
122
Haneylocust
6O
Poor
239
Walnut
180
Poor
355
Cherry
80
Poor
411
Pm oak
161
Poor
Sea Hackberry
80
Poor
5
Elm
80
Pall
123
Haneylocust
100
Poor
240
Yialnut
ISO
Fair
556
Elm
Ica
Poor
412
Hackberry
10.0
Good
5H9 Beach
5.0
Good
6
Honeylocuat
180
Good
124
Cherry
130
Poor
241
511ver Maple
300
Poor
551
Cherry
15.0
Poor
415
Elm
60
Goad
Spa Beach
6.0
Good
1
Green Ash
120
Poor
125
Sugar Maple
1.0
Good
242
511ver Maple
24.0
Poor
35B
Beech
100
Good
414
Sugar Maples
50
Good
591 Hackbcrry
18.0
Good
B
Honeyloaost
10.0
Fair
126
51 Maple
25.0
Fair
243
5Weetbay Magnolia
13.0
Poor
551
Gherry
60
Poor
415
Hackberry
12.0
Gaad
592 Hackberry
SO
Good
9
Haneylowsk
10.0
Fair
121
Haneylocust
200
Poor
244
Silver Maple
360
Poor
360
cherry
12.0
Poor
41b
5u9ar Maple
240
dead
593 Hackberry
BO
Per
10
Hackberry
10.0
Gootl
1EB
5u9ar Maple
80
Good
245
Silver Maple
24.0
Poor
361
Cherry
15.0
Falr
411
Hackberry
80
Good
544 Walnut
lea
Good
Haneylocust
100
Poor
129
Hackberry
220
Good
246
Osage Orange
100
Poor
362
Cherry
150
Poor
415
BeecM1
60
Good
515 Beach
100
Fair
12
Haneylocust
100
Poor
130
Honeylooust
lea
Poor
241
Walnut
180
Fair
363
Beach
1.0
Good
419
Beech
60
Good
596 5ugar Maple
0.0
Fair
13
Elm
6.0
Fair
131
Haneylocust
19.0
Fair
245
511ver Maple
10.0
Poor
364
Beech
60
Good
480
Beech
300
Poor
591 Basch
BO
Pair
14
Hackberry
5.0
Fair
152
Hackberry
100
Good
249
511ver Maple
250
Good
365
cherry
60
Poor
481
Hackberry
8a
Good
595 Green Ash
6.0
Poor
15 Honeylawsk 10.0 Poor 133 Elm 50 Good 250 5Waekgum 12.0 Poor 366 Beech 1.0 Fall 482 Beech 60 Good 599 Cherry 18.0 Poor
16
Haneylowsk
10
Poor
134
Haneylocust
60
Fair
251
Si
12.0
Poor
361
Bbadh
150
Gaad
453
Green Ash
ISO
Poor
600 BeecM1
10
bond
11
Haneylowsk
10
Fair
135
Elm
11.0
Good
252
Cherry
130
Poor
365
Beech
90
Good
464
5oech
360
Poor
601 Beach
0.0
Fair
16
Haneylocust
100
matr
136
Cherry
90
Poor
253
cherry
21.0
Poor
369
Cherry
10
Fair
485
Hackberry
80
Poor
602 Beach
100
Good
P
Honeylocuat
12a
For
131
Haneylocust
9.e
Good
254
Green Ash
9.0
Poor
510
Beech
60
Good
456
Beech
60
Good
603 BeecM1
15.0
Fair
20
Honeylocusk
5.0
Poor
15B
sugar Maple
55.0
Poor
255
Cherry
80
Poor
311
S.Igar Maplo
21.0
Good
461
Beech
60
Poor
614 Beech
BO
Good
21
Hackberry
10
Good
139
Gherry
100
Poor
256
cherry
GO
Poor
312
Hocklwrry
BO
Good
485
Beech
211
Good
605 Beach
120
Good
22
5ugar Maple
10
Good
140
Elm
60
Good
251
Cherry
12.0
Poor
515
Gherry
211
Good
459
cherry
1.0
Good
606 Boxeldar
100
Poor
W
23
24
Haneylowsk
Elm
5.0
6.0
Fair
Pear
141
142
cherry
Elm
80
1.0
Poor
Fair
255
259
Elm
Elm
60
10
Poor
Poor
514
Cherry
200
Fall
490
Boxalder
60
Fair
601 @each
130
Good
ZZ >
25
Haneylocus t
120
Poor
145
Haneylocust
1 0
Poor
260
cherry
10
Poor
515
316
Elm
Cherry
60
ISO
Fear
Poor
491
4q2
W.olnuk
Ybinuk
10.0
1.0
Fair
Good
605 Walnut
609 Elm
120
10
Good
6aad
III S
W
26
5ugar Maple
60
Good
144
Haneylocust
1.0
Fair
261
Cherry
60
Fair
511
Cherry
120
Poor
A5
Beech
6a
Good
610 Cherry
10
Fair
F CCCC
21
Honeylocusk
6.0
Poor
145
Sugar Maple
100
Good
262
Cherry
10.0
Poor
519
Cherry
210
Poor
494
Beech
60
Good
611 Hackborry
0.0
Good
=O W
29
Haneylocust
120
Poor
146
Is
150
Good
263
Gherry
120
Poor
319
Cherry
100
Poor
495
Hackborry
12.0
Good
612 Hackbcrry
B.O
Good
W
29
Cherry
15.0
Poor
141
Honeylooust
80
Poor
264
Cherry
14.0
Fair
Sea
Apple
150
Poor
446
Beech
60
Good
613 Hackberry
60
Pair
Z�
Z
30
Haneylocust
80
Fair
145
Haneylocust
10.0
Good
265
Cherr y
10.0
Fall,
381
551
Beech
15.0
Good
491
Beech
60
Good
614 Hackberry
lea
Good
0 O
31
Ch y
Ie.O
Poor
149
5u Maple
gar p
12.0
Good
266
Gherry
120
Fair
382
Chair,
Poor
490
Beech
10.0
Good
615 Beech
100
Good
00 r O DU 2 O
32
Honeylocusk
10.0
Poor
ISO
sugar Maple
IOC
Good
261
cherry
ISO
Poor
Sea
Cherry
390
Poor
4q9
cherry
60
Good
be Hackberry
100
Good
LL)-
55
Haneylocust
10.0
Poor
151
5ugar Maple
1.0
Good
265
Cherry
21.0
Poor
384
Gharry
1.0
Good
5a0
Beech
120
Goad
611 Hackborry
100
Fair
O z
34
Honeylawsk
10.0
Fair
152
Haneylocust
100
Poor
269
Cherry
120
Poor
555
Beech
50.0
Good
501
Ylalnuk
60
Good
615 Elm
240
Poor
r Z
35
Honeylawsk
10.0
Poor
153
5ugar Maple
210
Good
210
Gherr y
14.e
Fall,
See
Beech
60
Good
502
Hackberr 9
10.0
Poor
619 Beech
180
bond
C -
36
Hone locust
Y
60
Pao-
154
Hackberr Y
80
Fair
2 11
Cherry
12.0
Fair
561
Birch
160
Good
503
Beech
10.0
Good
620 Hackberry
6.0
Good
U J
91
5ugar Maple
60
Good
155
Haneylocust
Good
212
Cherr,
Y
100
Poor
9BB
Birch
BO
Pool,
°A4
Beech
111
Good
621 Hackberr y
6.0
Fea
J
38
Honc locust
y
8.0
Poor
I56
Hackb erry
0
IB.O
15.
Good
213
Hackberry
ISO
Good
3B9
Birch
60
Poor
505
Beech
15.0
Gaad
622 Hackborry
6.0
Goad
6
39
5ugar Maple
6.0
Good
151
Hackberry
60
Good
214
cherry
10.0
Poor
390
Birch
150
Poor
506
5ugar Maple
60
Fair
623 5ugar Maple
20.0
Good
90
Haneylocust
90
Poor
ISB
5ugar Maple
100
Good
215
Hackborry
12.0
Fair
391
Birch
Be
Good
501
Hackborry
10.0
Fair
624 Hackbcrry
6.0
Poor
41
5ugar Maples
6.0
Good
159
Hackberry
12.0
Good
216
Cherry
12.0
Poor
5q2
Hackberry
60
Good
°A6
Beech
200
Good
625 5ugar Maple
180
Per
42
Elm
90
Poor
160
Hackberry
160
Good
211
CheY rr
GO
Poor
393
Hackborry
0
Fall,
SOP
5u Maple
gar p
160
Good
626 Edison
32.0
Good
43
5u Maple
Bar P
100
Good
161
Hone locust
Y
140
Goad
219
Green Ash
10.0
Poor
394
Hocklwrry
1
Good
510
cherry
60
Fall,
a
621 Bach
100
Good
44
5ugar Maple
0
1
Good
162
Hackberry
Goad
219
Hack Y berr
11.0
Fall,
395
ac
Hkb y
err
80
BO
Poo-
511
Hack y berr
15.0
Good
625 Hackbcrr y
6.0
Good
45
Honeylocusk
120
Fair
165
Sherry
do
20
Poor
Cherr,
Y
100
Poor
396
Bosch
AV
Poor
512
Hackberr
0
Good
629 Beech
BO
Good
46
gar Made
Su le
6.0
Good
164
5u gar Map
p
200
Fall,
Eel
261
51 Maple
200
Good
5q1
0
Fall
513
R amat
6 0
Good
63e Beach
Good
41
sugar Maple
Good
165
Hackberry
0
G ood
2B2
Cherry
6 .0
Poor
3q3
Hackberr y
ocd
6
Good
514
1 1 00
Good
631 Beach
5.0
B.O
Good
40
Honeylask
w
10.
Fall,
166
€m
6
l
G ood
ood
295
Sugar Maple
24.8
Good
399
Hi
50 O
B m
Fall,
515
Cherr
cherr
y
10.0
Poor
632 Hackbcrr 9
B. 0
Good
49
Elm
.
Do
Poor
161
Ell
I 100
Fair
254
204
Gherry
q.0
Fall,
40
55-1
300
Poll,
516
Sliver Maple
110
Fair
633 Elm
Good
50
5ugar Maple
10
Good
168
auger Maple
200
Fair
205
c
100
Good
401 1
Beach
IOC
Good
511
10
Fall,
654 Walnut
Ic a
Good
51
Honeylocuat
60
Poor
Ibq
Bouelder
60
Good
206
cherrherry y
201
Fall,
402
Beach
21.0
Good
515
S., Sugar Maple
5 0
Good
655 Cherry
6.0
Fall,
52
cherry
90
Poor
110
Boxalder
60
Good
251
Elml
50
Good
403
ac y
Hkberr
ILO
Good
519
ack
Hberry
6
6C
Good
636 Cherry
240
Poor
53
Cherry
B.
Poor
111
Cherry
Poor
20B
chair,
13.0
Good
404
Hackberry
60
Good
521
H ackberr Y
6a
Poor
631 Hackberr y
60
Fao-
r
54
55
Haneylow sk
Maple
1 0
60
Poor
112
cherry
1Fair
12 0
Fa
261
Cherry
140
Good
405
Ch err y
IOC
Fall,
521
Hackberry
ba
Fair
630 Beach
6.0
Good
(n
56
5ugar
5ugar Maple
100
Good
Good
115
Cherry
BO
Fall,
290
cherry
0
Good
406
Cherry
Good
522
6a
Good
639 cucumber Magnolia
150
Good
114
Hackberry
50
Good
291
Cherry
21 0
Goad
401
BeecM1
45
Fall,
523
Beach Beech
60
Good
640 el,
6.0
Fair
J
51
5ugar Mae
pl
6.0
Good
115
Hackber ry
60
G ood
2q2
Red Maple
6aad
406
Nut
6 0
60
Poor
524
Hackberry
Good
Y$dIn t
641 Walnu
Fair
W
59
sugar MCI
6.
116
Hackberry
240
G
Good
2q3
Gchoir, choir,
22
22 0
Good
419
NL
al,
6a
Poor
525
5ugar Maple
Ica
100
Good
642 Hackbcrr ,
y
.r
DO
W >
Sq
Honeylocusk
55.0
Fair
Fall,
111
Hackberry
A0
Good
2q4
Cherry
y
550
Poor
410
Beech
50.0
Poo
526
Hai
6a
Fair
643 Hackberry
120
Per
P Pair
W
60
Haneylow sk
B.O
Poor
115
H ackberry
26.0
Good
2q5
cherry
340
Poor
411
Bee
100
r
Paor
521
Hackberr 9
ba
Fall,
644 Hackberr y
12a
Good
61
62
y
Hone lMpl
Maple
120
100
Fall,
119
Hackberr y
80
Good
296
Gherr Y
ICO
Poor
412
Beec h
6a
Good
529
Hackberry mold -stem
10.0
Goad
645 Hackberry
Ica
Good
r
63
5ugar a e
5ugar Maple
60
Good
Good
IBC
IBI
Mulberry
Haneylocust
59.0
12.0
GaaQ
Good
2q
Cherry
CO 1
Fall,
413
Cherry
Good
52q
Hackberr Y
10.0
Good
646 Hackberr 9
120
Good
li
64
Su Ma I
Good
Hackberr,
29B 5
Cherry
12.0
Good
414
Elm
ea
Poor
530
Hborry
ack
9.0
Good
641 Hackberry
6.0
Good
65
gal, p e
sugar Maple
6. 9
&.0
Good
163 183
Hackberry
0
6 0
6
Go
G ood
299
Hackerr y
b
0
Good
Gd
415
Cherr y
le
180
Fall,
531
Hackberry
60
Good
640 Elm
6.0
Good
N
66
Elm
0
Fall,
I54
Cherry
Poor
Maple
0
80
Good
416
rr Maple
0
Good
532
Hackberr,
Y
60
Good
649 Hackbcrr, 9
100
6aad
Su Mope
6.
6.0
Good
IBS
Hackberr
Ic
100
Goad
5 0
501 1
Apple Apple
80
Poor
411
Cherry
9.0
Fall,
553
Hackberry
120
Fair
650 Hackberry
100
Per
69
be
Hackbcrry
60
Fall,
IB6
Srabae
100
Fail-
302
Su gar Maple
120
Fall,
410
Ghar ,
ry
11
Poor
554
Cherry
1.0
Fair
651 Hackberry
Ica
Fair
69
Maple
8Maples
ppl
503
Chery r mulkl -skem
300
Fool,
419
Walnuk
.0
130
Good
535
Cher
y
10.0
Fall,
652 Elm
6.0
Poor
10
5ugar
5ugar Maple
0
60
Good
Good
166
185
Ma
Gross, Green Ash
30.0
200
Fall,
Poor
304
0
Fall,
421
Green Ash
lea
Poor
536
Cherry
Poor
653 Hackberry
5.0
Fall,
11
gal P
Su Ma Ie
Good
Hone locust
Y
2aa
Fair
305
chat
Cherry
1 120
Poor
4
Cherry
Fall,
531
Hackberr y
ba
80
bond
654 Green Ash
B.O
Poor
d
ea 530 Hackberr 120 Good 655 Red Oak 240 6aad
12 sugar Maple 10.0 Good I91 Haneylocust 0 Fall, 306 Birch 9.0 Fall, 42E 2 HI 60 Good y
10. MC 656 Maple 120
13
Hackborry
120
Good
111
Su Ma le
Maple
50
Good
O
Birch
0.0
Fool,
423
Elm
O
Poor
539
12.0
poor
5u g P
651 Walnut
Good
Poor
w�
14
15
Hackbcrry
Su Ma le
60
ba
Food
Fall,
or
q.0
9.0
Good
BOB 3rch
309 5 B
cherry
80
60
Fa ir
Fair
424
425
Elm
Hkb arry
oo
GO
1
Poor
Good
540
B 41
Cherry
Elm
10
15
Poor
Poor
65B Eager Maple
I a
Ica
Poor
o.
16
Hackberry y
Good
193
ME
poor
Pear
130
Poor
310
Birch
10.0
Fall,
426
Hackberr
a
GO
Good
542
Hackb y
12.0
Good
659 sugar Maple
15.0
Good
T
5ugar Maple
650
15
Good
194
195
cherry
Hackberr y
15.0
Poor
Fall,
311
Birch
120
Pa ir
421
Y
Cherry
I
100
Poor
543
Hackberr
12.0
Goad
660 5u of Ma p le
1 20
Poor
19
Elm
6.0
Fall,
116
EIm
40 0
40
Poor
312
Birch
10.0
Poor
420
Hackborry
Good
544
Hackberry
60
Good
e
661 Cherry
Fall,
UJ
19
5u MCI Ma
0
Good
Pear
Poor
515
10.0
Poor
429
Hackberry
5 0
BO
Good
545
Cherry
12.0
Fair
662 cherry
aI
BO
Poor
BO
5ugar Maples
10 10 .0
Good
190
ME
Crabapple
lea
10.0
Poor
314
cher
Cherry
Fair
430
Hackberry
60
Good
5461m
B41
Elm
100
1
Pao-
Poor
663 Hackberry
664 BeecM1
6.0
100
Good
Good
5
01
Mulberry
I00
Good
5
80
Good
315
Birch
Il
100
Fair
431
Beech
8a
Good
548
Hackberry
9.0
665 Blkkernut dwry
Hl
10.0
6aad
�
62
Su ar Media
60
6aad
20 20
a
O
Good
516
Cherry
0
Fall,
452
Beech
Good
541
Hackberry mulCl -stem
21.0
Good
Good
666 Beech
120
Good
s J
Q� �
63
5ugar Maple
Good
gel 1
Find
Pne
100
IG
Fair
0
5 .0
Poor
433
Beech
ea O
Good
661
5.0
94
5ugar Maple
IV
100
Good
202
Mubarry
60
Pool,
SO
319
Gherry
Cher
Ch
80
Poor
434
Beech
8a
Good
550
551
Elml
Cherry
5.0
60
Pool,
Poor
Beech
bed Hackberry
la
Good
Good
p
hill!� i
BS
5ugar Maple
6.e
Good
205
Hackberry
60
Good
SIP
Birch
5.0
Poor
435
Hal
IOC
Good
552
Hackberry
100
Fair
b69 Beech
100
Good
56
sugar Maple
6.0
Good
204
Pear
12.0
Poor
320
51rch
10.0
Poor
436
Hackberry
100
Falr
51 Hackborry 0.0 Good 205 Spruce 12.0 Poor 321 Cherry 100 Poor 431 Green Ash 15.0 Poor 553 Hackberry Ica ..ad 610 Hackberry 60 Good
Be
51 Maple
B.O
Good
2065
ppru a
200
Poor
322
51rch
10.0
Fair
436
5oech
60
Good
554
Hackberry multi -stem
250
Good
611 Hackberry
61
Good
69
Cherry
120
Fair
201
Ybinut
160
Poor
325
Cherry
10.0
poor
439
Basch
360
Poor
555
Hackberry
50
Good
612 Cherry
100
Good
90
Sugar Maple
10.0
Good
2005ppru
a
25.0
Poor
324
cherry
120
Poor
440
Beech
60
Good
556
Hackberry
80
Good
613 Walnut
15.0
Good
91
Hackberry
10.0
Good
289
Sherry
290
PBaf
325
cherry
0.0
Fall,
441
Beech
60
Good
551
Hackberry multl-skem
12.0
Good
614 Hackbcrry
100
6aad
92
Hackberr y
6.0
Good
210
Hackborry
9.0
Good
326
Cherry
0.0
Fair
442
Hackberry
6a
Good
559
Elm
80
Good
615 El Hickory
300
Good
95
Hackborry
6.0
Good
211
Sugar Maple
30.0
Good
321
cherry
80
Poor
443
Hackberry
150
Good
SEA
cherry
60
Poor
616 Em
60
Poor
94
Hackbcrry
6.0
Good
212
5ugar Maple
240
Poor
329
Gharry
0.0
Poor
444
Cherry
60
Poor
560
Hackberry
12.0
Good
611 Eecch
6.0
Good
95
Hackberry
50
Good
213
Aalnutl
80
Fair
52q
Cherry
60
Fair
445
BeecM1
60
Good
Bel
Beach
11.0
Good
619 Elml
5.0
Fear
96
Hackberry
60
Good
214
AdInuk
15.0
Fair
330
Cherr y
80
Fair
446
Spear
2C
Good
5£2
Gherr,
y
80
Poor
619 Beach
6BO Bml
100
60
6aad
Per
91
Hackbemy
6.e
G ood
215
IB.O
Fair
Fo
331
Cherry
8 0
Poor
441
Beech
100
Pool,
565
Hai
10
..ad
Hackberry
6.0
Good
216
YlaI nut
50.0
Goof
552
Cherry
y
0
Poor
440
Beer
200
Fair
564
Hackberr
24.0
Good
bel Walnut
BO
Good
100
10
Hackberr y
6.0
Good
211
Hackberry
12.0
Good
333
Cherry
I 1 50
Good
449
BeeaM1
36 a
Fair
erry
Hackby
60
Fair
652 Beech
6.0
Good
101
Hackborry
6.0
Good
21Si
S Maple
Good
334
cherry
12 0
Gaod
450
Elm
61
Good
566
See
561
Hackberry
Elm
60
10.0
Fall-
poor
6B3 Green Ash
6B4
100
1 50
Poor
Poo-
102
Hackberry
6.0
Good
219 q
cherry
lea
180
Poor
3355
agar Maple
12 0
Good
451
Hackberry
60
Good
Sea
5oech
210
Good
Cherry
6B5 Su Maple
Ica
Good
103
H ackberry
60
Good
221
Hackborr y
1 20
Good
336
Elm
0
Poor
452
Hak y
6O
Gee Hai
gal, pe
Q
104
Hackberr y
60
Good
221
Hackberry
150
GaaQ
331
Cherry
10 olsarc
10.0
Poor
453
Elm
BO
Poor
569
511
Ha
Hackberr
& a
ba
..ad
Fall,
686 Elm
6.1
Good
�
115
Hackberry
6.0
band
222
Gradappla
12.0
Poor
330
Su Ma Icl
gar p
40
Fall,
454
Elm
60
Poor
ST
y
Cher,
10.0
Fall,
6B1 Hackberr y
600 Walnuk
6.0
10.0
Good
Good
106
Hackbe rr y
6.0
Good
223
Crabapple
12.0
Poor
339
Elm
80
Poor
455
Elm
60
Good
rc
101
Hackberry
6.0
Good
224
Cherry
160
Poor
341
cherry
I5.1
Pool,
456
ckberry Ha
110
Good
512
513
Cherr,
y
Hai
60
60
Poor
Fair
6B9 Elm
b90
6.0
6aad
°
100
Hackborry
6.0
Good
225
Silver Maple
36a
..ad
341
Poor
451
Green Psh
6C
Paor
514
Hackbcrr
Beech
691
240
6.0
Good
1ckbcrry
09
Ha
11.0
Fail-
226
Gherry
12.0
Poor
342
Elm
Elm
60
ba
Goof
450
Elm
60
Fall,
y
Food
Beech
Good
110
Hackberry
150
Fair
221
chair,
100
Poor
343
Hackberr y
80
Good
459
Elm
60
Good
515
Hackberry
80
GO
Fall,
612 Hackberry
6.0
Good
a
III
Hone 9 locust
GO
Good
229
Padbud
21 O
Pao-
344
cherry
0.0
Poor
460
Hackberry
60
Good
516
ST
Hackberry
Hackberr,
60
60
Fall,
Good
613 Hackberry
614
6.0
Good
12
1
Hackberry
140
Fair
22q
Mulberr Y
210
Poor
545
Cherry
51.0
Fair
461
Hackberr,
Y
60
Good
510
y
Hackberr,
Good
Basch
695
240
15.0
Good
13
5ugar Maple
Ile
Good
231
Cherry
y
100
Poor
346
Cherry
0.0
Fair
462
Bozelder
6a
Far
519
y
Hackberry
60
60
Good
Beech
696 Beach
10.0
Good
Good
114
Hackberr 9
110
Good
251
Sherry
Poor
341
cherry
6a
Fair
465
Elm
ba
Good
560
Beech
ba
Good
691 Hackbcrr
6.0
115
5u9ar Ma
140
Fair
232
Cherr Y
24
Poor
34g
Su al, Maple
9 P
IB.1
Poor
464
Hackberry
60
Poor
591
Hackberry
6a
Fair
y
696 Hackberry
100
6aad
Good
ppp
IIb
Hone lowsk
9
34.0
Poor
233
esoge orange
10
Fair
Sha bark Hlckor
9 9
10.0
Goad
465
Hackberry
Good
582
Hackberry
60
Fall-
699 Hackberry
60
Good
111
Hackberr
y
120
Good
254
Cherry
46
46.0
Poor
350
Hackberr,
y
IBC
Good
466
Hackbcrry
24 0
240
Good
5B3
Beech
60
Good
111
115
Hone locust
9
360
Fair
235
chair,
230
Fall,
351
Hai
60
Good
461
Elm
60
Good
5g4
Elm
60
Fao-
Beech
101 Beach
241
20.0
Poor
Good
C
y
TREE SURVEY L15T
TREE COUNT 5e 5-Ell
COMMON NAME
GBH
GONE.
b
COMMON NAME
GBH
GONG.
Apple
i
Beech
1
z
Beech
I5.0
Good
5 19
Shagbark Hickory
240
aod
B irch
21
21
v
1 0
105
rry
60
Good
2
der
F
Fair
BR c
iernut Hkory
2
104 4
Beach h
60
bond
D B21 1
Elm
Elm
60
ba
Pear
er
12
'105
Basch
I5.0
Good
822
Elm
10
Poor
Cherry e
ChCrab.
106
Beach
15.0
Good
823
Boxalder
100
Poor
Crab app le
4
4
705
Beech
150
Poor
824
Hackberry
100
Good
Oummber Magnolia
1
OP
Basc
120
025
Green Ash
400
Poor
dogwood
2
T
Beach h
6.0
See
Good
B26
Hackbarry
100
Goad
Elm
14
710
110
Beech
0
Good
525
Hackberry
120
Goad
Green Ash
29
511
B r
6
Goad
828
Geen AS
r
Ie0
Poor
Hackbarry
260
512
B each
I 0
10 ch
Good
529
Green
15.0
Poor
Hancylacusi
6B
11
Be
Beach
240
Good
E Aah
Ash
1.0
Pa
Mulberry
5
514 4
Beech
Goad
Sal 851
Ellm m
IBC
Far ir
Fears Orange
2
515
Basch
&.0
Good
852
Graen AsM1
100
Paor
Pear
3
T 20. 6 Beach 20.0 Falr 5 Elm 100 Fair Pln Oak 1
515
Beech
80
hood
5 534 4
Graen Ash
100
Poor
I
715
Beech
l ac
Poor
855
Green Ash
100
P aor
Red
Rod Maple
1
519
Sugar Maple
5
50
Good
556
Crean AsM1
200
Paor
Red Oak
1
Sugar Maple
BO
B55
Hal
Fair
2
1 2
521 1
Beach
6.0
Food
See
BEE
Grecn Ash
100
Poor
5rageo
Shagbark Hickory
3
2
Beach
Fair
839
Elm
90
Good
5 Maple
10
725
B
12
840
ao
Hkberry
80
Goad
5 p"c pruca
6
W
524 4
Beach each
Do BO
See Food
041
Hackberry
Good
Sugar Maple
tbay Magnolia
I
ZZq
525
728
Beach
Hackberry
60
6.0
F-
Goad
542
043
Cherry
Hackbarry
Do BO
10
Peer
Good
Brao 5weetgum
1
S III
C W
l25
arF
Poor
B44
Hancylacusi
5.
Fair
Nbinut
32
Q N
l2B
Ch
Cherry
Do
BO
Food
845
Honaylocust
bO
Fair
0 W
129
Beech
Ica
band
846
Haneylacuat
80
Fair
TOTAL
921
a W
750
Green Ash
15.0
Fear
845
Honeylocusi
80
Fair
m Z
151
Sugar Maples
160
Good
54B
849
01rch
Birch
60
130
Good
2 Q
132
Beach
50
Poor
Good
783
Elm
60
Pair
550
Birch
1.0
Good
IC H
154
Sugar Maple
120
Goad
851
Honeylocusi
12.0
Good
O z w
155
5ugar Maple
6.0
Good
552
Honeylocusi
BO
Goad
Z
156
Boach
6.0
Good
059
Honaylocust
60
Good
U
755
Hackberry
6.0
Feed
854
Honaylocust
loo
Food
TREE COUNT 5Y 51ZE AND CONDITION
J
J
LED
Beech
IHO
hood
855
Honaylocust
100
Good
W
759
Cherry
240
Fear
856
Haneylacuat
100
baad
d
140
Beech
40.0
Food
551
Hackberry
9.0
Good
TOTAL 6000
FAIR POOR
141
Beech
60
Pair
855
5oxelder
11.0
Good
142
Beach
6.0
Falr
559
Elm
BO
Fair
I TO 12"
Fa 525
154 141
145
Boach
120
Good
B60
cherry
1.0
Good
12" TO IB"
165 55
56 49
144
Beach
120
bead
561
Elm
60
Pair
18" 10 24"
84 4C
21 25
145
Beach
100
Falr
862
Cherry mult1 -atam
25.0
Poor
24'Y
71 29
14 25
146
Boach
6.0
Good
565
Ohorry
19.0
Poor
745
Hackei
1O
Ter
564
Honaylocust
15.0
Fair
TOTAL TREE5
921 475
205 241
748
Beech
120
baad
565
Cherry
10
Poor
149
Hackbarry
100
Good
566
Green Aar
11.0
Poor
750
Bcachl
BO
Fall
567
Hackborry
220
Goad
151
Beech
BOO
Food
56B
Hackborry
60
Good
152
Beech
15o
Poor
B69
Hackbarry
60
Good
755
Beech
100
Fall
510
Hackbarry
60
Good
154
Shagbark Hickory
120
Food
811
Hackberry
60
Fair
JN
155
Hackbarr y
100
bead
512
Elm
50
Good
N
156
Beach
50.0
Fair
815
Elm
60
Good
151
Walnut
120
5ood
514
Beach
25.0
Fair
W`
755
Walnut
100
Fear
515
Birch
10 0
Good
J
159
Walnut
15.0
Good
alb
Elm
6a
Poor
/
160
Beach
300
bead
817
Dogrvood
60
Good
c Q
761
Beach
6.0
Good
515
Cherry
60
Fair
= �l
L
162
Boach
50.0
Falr
ale
Sugar Maple
60
Good
165
Hackei
6.0
Food
550
Elm
60
Food
LA Q
164
Hackbarry
60
bead
561
Elm
60
Good
W
165
Hackberry
120
aimed
582
Elm
6a
Gaad
c a
LU
166
Beach
6.0
5ood
555
B54
cherry
eharry
12.0
1.0
Poor
Poor
767
Hackberry
120
Good
`y
16B
Elm
210
Poor
565
Elm
60
Good
l69
Hackei
130
Tel,
556
Cherry
100
Poor
110
Hackbarry
120
Dead
58l
Cherry
12.0
Fair
TI
Beach
50
Good
BBB
cherry
1.0
Poor
a
112 5oxeldar 120 Fall 589 Hackbarry 60 Good
775
Hack'cerry
6.0
Fall
590
Cherry
1.0
Fair
114
115
Hackbarry
Hackberry
6.0
6.0
Falr
Food
591
B92
Cherry
Mulberry
110
15.0
Poor
Poor
Q.
116
Hackbarry
90
Dead
893
cherry
90
Fair
W1 ,A
717
Beach
240
Falr
094
Hackbarry
ba
Good
a
118
Groan Ash
100
Poor
595
Hackbarry
9.0
Fair
�; E
119
Hackberry
6.0
Good
596
Malnut
50
Fair
E
150
Ell
60
Fa1r
591
B96
Hackborry
Hackbarry
60
60
Fair
Fair
r^
5
181
Hackbarry
10
Pair
9
4
182
Hackberry
10
Fair
099
9OO
Walnut
Cherry
60
6a
Good
Good
Q� ��a
753
Hackberry
1O
Poor
901
Cherry
8O
Poor
754
Hackberry
100
Good
902
Sugar Maple
12.0
Good
10i 3 $9
185
156
Ell
Hackberry
2.0
50
Poor
Good
905
Elm
80
Good
6
757 Hackberry 60 Fa1r 1045ugor Maple 60 Good
788
Hackbarry
50
Dead
905
5ugar Maple
6a
baad
189
Hackberry
60
baad
9O6
Cherry
7.0
Fair
79O
5ugar Maple
19.0
Good
901
cherry
150
Good
791
Hackberry
BO
Good
908
Chair,
6a
Fair
192
Hackbarry
6.0
Good
909
Hancylacusi
12.0
Good
793
Beach
60
Fair
910
Sugar Maple
60
Good
794
Hackloorry
80
Good
911
Hackberry
BO
Goad
195
Hackberry
ea
Good
912
Hackborry
9.0
Good
l96
Hackberry
8a
Good
915
Elm
1.0
Poor
797
Hackberry
BO
Good
914
Walnut
60
Pair
195
Hackbarry
6.0
Good
915
Hackberry
6a
Gaad
l99
Hackberry
BO
Food
916
Hackbarry
6a
Good
800
Hai
50
Dead
911
Hackberry
80
Good
801
Hackberry
80
baad
915
Hackbarry
BO
Good
502
Hackberry
Ica
Goad
919
Hackbarry
100
Good
505
Hackberry
15.0
Good
920
Hackbarry
80
Good
504
Hack'cerry
20.0
Good
921
Hackberry
10
Good
505
Hackbarry
6.0
Falr
rc
DOD
Hackberry
6.0
Food
801
Hackbarry
120
Dead
p
808 Hackberry 100 Good
Doi
Hackbarry
120
Good
2
510
Hackberry
8a
Good
511 Hackaiirry 9.0 Good
512
Hackbarry
15.0
Good
515
Hackberry
6.0
Food
514 Cherry 60 Poor
515
Ell
6.0
Fall
PDP
816
Hackberry
BO
Good
517 Haokberry 10.0 bead
515
Hackbarry
50.0
Good
7
CITY OF
DUBLIN
CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR
WELLINGTON RESERVE
H
2012
LOCATION MAP
Not to 511/e
uLl�lLlp li'
®. 561NfC6
1- ®o-]4LH fylj�elGlk
REGIONAL CONTEXT MAP 00 00 800
51011 1' - 400' SCALE La FEET
'rl Qw
a
�
W
o w
VI
EXISTING: R & R -I
PROPOSED: PUD
�
W
a Z
?o
X
mw
owo
RIGHT OF WAY: +2.61 ACRES
NUMBER OF LOTS: 28
O 0 a
DENSITY:
or
H
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Q
C7
Gros ±1 50 DU /ACRES
>
Z
TITLE SHEET &INDEX MAP l
PRELIMINARY PLAT 2
w
J
UTILITY /GRADING PLAN 3
m
a
OPEN SPACE /RECREATION FACILITIES
REGIONAL CONTEXT MAP 00 00 800
51011 1' - 400' SCALE La FEET
'rl Qw
DEVELOPMENT DATA
W
ZONING
EXISTING: R & R -I
PROPOSED: PUD
w W
a Z
GROSS AREA 118.584 ACRES
H H
F
RIGHT OF WAY: +2.61 ACRES
NUMBER OF LOTS: 28
DENSITY:
Gros ±1 50 DU /ACRES
Net ±1 J5 DU/ACRES
OPEN SPACE /RECREATION FACILITIES
Required: ±121 ACRES
eta
0.02 X 18.584 - 0.37 ACRES (OPEN SPACES
0.3 X 28 - 0.84 ACRES (OPEN SPACE)
Planning Commi4ion Approval Date:
Date
`0
Council Approval Dote:
D
Date
Director, Land Use and Long Range Planning Date
Costo, Property Owner Date
SHEET
REGIONAL CONTEXT MAP 00 00 800
51011 1' - 400' SCALE La FEET
t
1
MOHPMMAO
gGRBFMEHRIZI
l
80GAR
J.
SUSAN E.
mMrlLEalr
6
L =23243
•
T= 146.84
y �-I
C� Z '43 "
40'TREEENH
R 165.00 --
R= 185.00
0
40
Y I
M ,
REAR YARC
- -
I MEND
ENHANCEMEN EMENT
TREE PRESERVATION
ONE
ZO
_.� m
$a9
REARYARO SETBACK
$
15
r GRETE GOW
I
16
60 0 6D 120
murlL Eaxr
- -� —'
oo� F
SCALE M FEET
g � b
z�
r
d
GEORGETT
wLESMr
z
J
--
VE "C"
,98o
AC.
r
_
I a-a
-- - 7
0
J -
ROGER W.B
U
Wy
DEBRAJ.
REEVEG
why
q
-• Y
3g
� aRn
17 �
w1
L - -J+ dug Ni
IF
a
Rz
GREMW
Tw
aLISAE.
'91
I nnDREws
+p
m
/
18
IT
s
19
ED%N J. a
ERI E.
THOMAS 9
m
4e.00'
O O
8,55 21.00
Ladder Truck feet
Width 8.00
Track 8.00
Lack to Lack Tim, 8.0
Steering Angle 33.3
CA DATA
J.
SUSAN E.
R -, 50.00
6
L =23243
mMrILESIIr
T= 146.84
y �-I
C� Z '43 "
R 165.00 --
R= 185.00
0
= 258.02'
Y I
M ,
T= 1 fi3.84'
W
9 W
I MEND
26
TREE PRESERVATION
ONE
ZO
22
$a9
25
� z
, I
I
Ia
60 0 6D 120
murlL Eaxr
- -� —'
oo� F
SCALE M FEET
g � b
F - - - -
I I
�1
- EX
KATESBRIDGE COURT 1
\ � � � IX. KILBRITTAN LgryE
CYN B.
SNIDER V \7 I�
� / r FL_ TRUSTEES j -I � JII T 1 FF F }L I
L - -
L -- ' L I - - -�� I zJ 1 1 I
FREDERICK J. FRANKAa MGNANATH MICNAELS.a L ` - --
/ WILLMMB MARKE.B PAWNISWAMV MAN 8. JENNIFERA JAe JAGANRa
JEFFREY5.8 ERNELEE P. 3CA , EATARIWIM. SUSAN B. SItMDN S. HAMSAVENI LANDIS ENSMINGER MM C. VIJAYA L.
PAGNATTA
McpDNALp GOOD WU JURgS VENUGOPAL ROORIGUEZ CHITTIPRDLU
soo• D•sD"w
,I KEnwETHa 1153.85'
CHRRTINE A — -- — BO'
- -_ - -- — — 91 115' iu
NTZONE/ aa•Ma EaMr - -- — - - - - --
K u
14 13 a 12 a RI 11 g 1 W 10 $ 9 m 6 o
20'1 Z ONE N
xa Nn FnMr
7 mk
RESERVE "A"
t1.8AC.
145'
w
[1 A
/ C
145'
2
/
ads /
s'
3 g R
B
i
45' N
$ wI
4
5
2. L..
m
L - -J
71'
9Mil
Ac. a 1IL
a
6
bs
a a
W
J.
SUSAN E.
HANDLER
6
� - 1
mMrILESIIr
w
ZO
y �-I
I/ C
MLLTJNaE
A FA D
0
.
Y I
M ,
\
W
9 W
c6
E
26
20 a
ZO
22
$a9
25
� z
W
_
7
^ av
Ia
B I
l
murlL Eaxr
i
oo� F
wi
NE
g � b
z�
r
d
c
wLESMr
z
--
VE "C"
,98o
AC.
r
_
I a-a
-- - 7
0
_
Ac. a 1IL
a
6
bs
a a
W
1' 99 9D W I 9P 1 91' w 189' 1,11 INS P BEPOBEOr MOEwOD! — yyELLIN �
RVE _C OURT — _ - �, \V"
J.
SUSAN E.
HANDLER
M RIHY
� - 1
mMrILESIIr
w
ZO
I/ C
MLLTJNaE
A FA D
Pia
.
Y I
M ,
20'30' BUILD ZONE
c6
E
26
20 a
21
22
$a9
25
26
W
_
7
^ av
Ia
B I
l
murlL Eaxr
31 YARD S
TREE NHANCEMENTZ
wi
NE
g � b
z�
r
d
LF
wLESMr
I e
D
--
VE "C"
,98o
AC.
r
_
I a-a
-- - 7
0
_
z g
Wy
1' 99 9D W I 9P 1 91' w 189' 1,11 INS P BEPOBEOr MOEwOD! — yyELLIN �
RVE _C OURT — _ - �, \V"
- NOM071"W Wmnln9Mn T9MRNP it CPry9rttlon Una _
4.0 AC.
OFF -SITE
DRAINAGE JERRY G. a MPASHA M. SPEARS, III
r -T--
Y
:HET
2
3
III -I! l
MK:HAEL18 JOESPH
JANETp.
J.
SUSAN E.
HANDLER
M RIHY
� - 1
mMrILESIIr
w
ZO
l / )�LLI2y
L T
s L 9s0
MLLTJNaE
A FA D
munLEaxr
20'30' BUILD ZONE
26
20 a
21
22
23 a 24
`
25
26
W
_
7
^ av
Ia
murlL Eaxr
31 YARD S
TREE NHANCEMENTZ
wi
NE
mUTL.
z�
r
d
LF
wLESMr
- NOM071"W Wmnln9Mn T9MRNP it CPry9rttlon Una _
4.0 AC.
OFF -SITE
DRAINAGE JERRY G. a MPASHA M. SPEARS, III
r -T--
Y
:HET
2
3
III -I! l
MK:HAEL18 JOESPH
JANETp.
J.
SUSAN E.
HANDLER
M RIHY
� - 1
I I a
l / )�LLI2y
L T
s L 9s0
r �
1 tl
J 4 aY
LF
�
I e
D
--
,98o
_
I a-a
z g
Wy
3g
w1
L - -J+ dug Ni
IF
a
Rz
z
- - 13PUT - - - -
NOTE. Grading shown Is
based en Auditor's
Topography and is
subject to change upon
completion of final
engineering plans.
4 0
> r > y g
Plat SAN ITARY SE
50IrE
"ga � @
EXTENSION
r =ee9.9
9P
999 . BYtO CRV
SAN
E
-
_
- IX. BRAN ROAD
_ Ex M.E a HW Foci •W.M. Ex RAV \
ONq. ENV.
6
f T-
, S9n.
60 a Ea 120
SCALE IN FEET
- - - -
�� el
I
LT
L__ I
KA I G
� TESBRIDGE COURT
IF LBRITTAN E�
y
--
Y GSNIDE Z y_L l __
SNIDER, �- I � � I Z
i a �Y �� eee. �
TRU81EE8 L 1 �
- \ I wt9 aea.9 �� J I j w0.9 _ _ _' s s
\ / EIl § 99a0 r 989.0 0.51
5 i L19' f r - -� ��_ -J Z l- L - - - -� L-_
i d E5 I aTC BBB 96 _J
Ij \ 91m. -� I Et irn•BN.fi2 FNEGERKMJ.a
J KAS �/Itty Md_ MARI(E6 PALWI AMY &tUW B. MNNI�FE JA9
\ 9 ��I SCARIkTfJ. KATARINA M. SU£1N 8. - I- HAMBA
��EFFREYS, a ERNEEE P. GpD A pgGNAA GN B. LNDI3 EMSMINGER 5 I ECIW
J VENUGOPAL U GRIE
00 � E9.9'BMb la; E9.9 4•
KEN T9 as.' 12•STM . 1 0 .58% O '.Inv881
O IXELL
' GHRI TWE I -- - -- a3 a3 2' S1M 3 � E%. � 6 1' IX
S R -- -- - _
- -� 4P TREE LWMT 40'TREEENH NT ZONE/ , E� 1T 8TM _ 3s r 4 If
R RYARD SETBACK/ ETBACK/ R Rve E BACK /�/ N� 0 O 0
15 V
REPA 16/ / 14 8 13 o e ° 0 0
THE sA FGE /� .3 Iz �q$� 11 °�� W� 10 ` 0
EoR 0 1 'Ah 898 8959 i�' 850 E R FGE �R @FGE ° o E�
o'o 0 / ® 0 894 s4�
- 0 � � V 0
0 �.1
t 8 0 a 6 °0 894.5 20 70' BUILD 2 ° ° ° O ® O
a TRFE P RE9ERYR TI 13 tlV11L E8
$y W 1z
u o.w% _ WELLIN
31 � .0
IN 0
"� iC TL 17 1 W O90' 18 SrM 98 .
I m ANO
L- + • 0� FGE um F E � ,a 20' GILD ZONE
�_ 0 0 �9j�F �' 0890.00 rFA� 88 .2 1895 0 FGE/
8 0
I� 9 o 0 0�0 o ce9�.� om 20 f' �2 0 � 2 a 2
$, _
, 19 0 0 0
E� G ,1ffE PI�B�ntl 9(P' 0 ° ° � /
li _ J I ARD SET W
TH / az0 0 ® O a, 0 - ILEa9r REE N NCEMEMZ NE
12• (ryy 1Y 8TM TM q 9 1Y
.\ O O 80 E%901.6 EKB01. EK95AY IXB6p of DUb9in 39 EIL 995.0 ER. T
L
_ } I L L � I II
min Lla JOESPHJ.d
Dl &I ®F TC 680 G0
TG. 9USgN E. r, Ex. inv�M.45
I I ww �CwRmv 'v
C
�/ J99 PR.'P
I� 1
I II
sl ay /
-- v =�b T7 m
fu � a
_ _ v � G
° J 0 K'E
rc
L II m
s
_ n
w
� I
PE
a9 S
z �
$ o
F gg J Q
- 3
wz.0
IW N $ O
cI Row N7� ~� L I Go -s �\
E9. B• IkBeeE 1 -J ��o � 5\ �'"m -J I $ I � I� �
m l2 ERRYnMe Ervl ( s (
w ) c a
/
0 ca 70� 6I
8
FGE
8968 895.0
N O 0
1s 89 0 & O
I�I 8'5 Q / Oa
O9 12 Y
F�E VOU
OW � a PRCPOEE '96 �/
-0
z
I
895.8
g a
T"
25
26
0 m
2 MW TwmWO
¢ MGHAIAMAG / I 4.G ACS
AGNSFME -rA- 6FR =SITE
j DRAINAGE JERRY o.a 9�VRSHA M. aPERR9, 111
�4'9T -
> O FGE \ FGE
D y 895.7 895.0
W W O
27 6 - � �
/
O a
1
L9WL IX •� 3fi .5 IXW4.1 / �
+ �4
�I
W
38'7Q[YII
i
z
I
J
1 I
I
0 m
W
�
z
ooh
0
i
u w_
ce C
titi
H
� E
w
a9
I
J
1 I
I
W V
W b x
G �
F
w
� EY
{
� E
/
a9
�" (
J
OF
Y
4
�
m
n
I r
\
\
F'-
9Rar
3
SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL BY ADJACENT RESIDENT 94,'v✓t *i
SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL BY ADJACENT RESIDENT OP
18 17
16
q, 0
CA
19 0
F21
Qa
O El
O El
O
Z
Al .-
14 s
167-
O
O
10 O
�❑ I O
6
a . 4 . - -1.. 2 c
----------
b 1 04 AG
0 S i x.4 1) AC. W• I BASIN
DRY BASIN
BOB
ADJACENT RESIDENT CORRESPONDENCE
March 10, 2012
From: vreeves3 @columbus.rr.com>
To: < aclarke@dublin .oh.us>, <jbeal@dublin.oh.us>
Date: 3/10/2012 5:33 PM
Subject: Contact Dublin City Council
Date: Mar 10,12
Time 03:57:30 PM
Topic: Ordinance 14 -12
Comments: In reference to an e-mail response from Sara Ott, Senior Project Manager for the City, to my e -mail sent to City Council on 3/7/12,
we appreciate Sara's response to our concerns. While she did respond to our concerns, she did not address them by offering a reasonable,
thoughtful solution in accordance with Dublin Zoning Code 153.140 which states: "conserve and protect to the greatest extent possible the city's
existing trees, wooded areas ... to protect and promote the use of existing vegetation as noise and visual buffers; to preserve and enhance nesting
areas for birds and other wildlife and to preserve movement corridors for wildlife..."
Under the current proposal, a Tree Preservation Zone of 40 Feet off the rear property lines for lots 16, 17, and 18 will allow the developer to take
out all of the 66 trees which have a circumference of greater than 12" from 40 feet to 80 feet.
While we understand that the tree survey requires a different standard of measurement (diameter at 4.5 feet above ground) than the one we used,
Sara's statement that "Planning also noted that your description of tree sizes is somewhat exaggerated from that documented in the survey" was
unfounded and unprofessional. We spent a total of five hours marking off the area in question and measuring the affected trees. Planning's tree
survey did not use the same standard of measurement that we used. It would be impossible for Planning to make ajudgment about the accuracy
of our survey. The important issue is that the proper care to protect the large mature trees within this additional 40 foot deep area is not being
observed, especially when there are other options available to the City and the developer. During the Planning process, the developer originally
planned an additional lot to the east of lot number 1. This lot was eliminated during the approval process for other cons!
iderations. Additionally, Sara indicated in her response that our solution to adding an additional lot immediately to the south of lot 28 was not
available because the rear of the lot would only allow for 60 feet of width in order to keep it outside of the Brand Road 100 foot setback. That is
probably true. However, the front of the lot would be in excess of 90 feet wide, the house would fit on the lot and still meet front and side yard
setbacks, and there is no requirement for all lots to be a rectangle, (lot #6 is a pie shape which is narrower in the rear than front). The new lot 29
could be placed without intruding into the 100 foot Brand Road setback, and still meet all City zoning requirements. It spears that Planning is
not willing to go the extra mile in order to attempt to justify Planning's approval of the plan instead of giving proper weight to Zoning Section
153.140 as quoted above. We urge City Council to review our proposals which would still provide the!
developer with substantially the same amount of profit from th!
e development and would also come much closer to meeting the the stated goals behind existing City Code requirement 153.140. Thank you
for your consideration.
Contact All Members: Yes
Would You Like A Response ?: No
Name: Roger Reeves
Address: 5149 Reddington Court
City -State -Zip: Dublin, Ohio 43017
Phone 614-353-1967
Email: rreeves3 @columbus.rr.com
IdentiPIC selected: dublin
STAFF RESPONSE TO ADJACENT RESIDENT
March 9, 2012
Page 1 of 2
Dear Mr. Reeves,
Thank you for your inquiry regarding Ordinance 14 -12, Wellington Reserve. City Council received your
message. After reviewing your inquiry, I thought it would be helpful to provide you the following
information and some feedback on the suggestions you made regarding the proposed development. This
information was prepared for you with the assistance of Planning staff. This ordinance is scheduled for
first reading by City Council at its March 12, 2012 meeting, beginning at 7:00 pm, at City Hall, 5200
Emerald Parkway and you are welcome to attend.
Regarding your comment on creating a Tree "Preservation" Zone, currently the homes in Wellington
Reserve are required to be located within a "Build- Zone" between 20 to 30 feet from the right -of -way.
This means that a portion of the house must be located within this stated setback, leaving a larger rear
yard area. The development requirements also require a minimum lot depth of 140 feet. The average
dimension of a home within this subdivision may be between 65 and 75 feet. This leaves approximately
60 -70 feet of distance from the back of the average home to the rear lot line. If an 80 foot preservation
zone was put in place, this would cause the lots to not be able to meet the development text requirement
for lot depth and could greatly restrict the usability of these lots for typical backyard amenities.
The 60 -70 feet from the Wellington Homes to the rear lot line would be generally equivalent to the rear
yard setbacks of your home on Reddington Court, and would provide a distance of 120 feet or more
between the homes of Wellington and your neighbors' homes. In measuring from lot 17 to your home,
the distance is approximately 150 feet.
Planning staff has indicated that changing the nature of this area between the two subdivisions from the
Enhancement Zone to a Preservation Zone for lots 16 -18 is appropriate. However, they also recommend
that the opacity requirement of 75% remain. The development text was changed specifically at the
request of the Planning and Zoning Commission to read:
"The buffer may consist of existing vegetation, deciduous or evergreen trees and /or
deciduous or evergreen shrubs. The design of the buffer shall incorporate and
preserve existing trees and vegetation where possible, while striving to achieve 75
percent opacity after two growing seasons. Areas of preserved trees and vegetation
shall be deemed to meet opacity requirements, but may be supplemented with
other plantings that do not require the removal of vegetation to install."
This requirement should be beneficial to adjacent property owners as it will provide additional screening
in areas with little or no existing vegetation. The reconfiguration also caused lots 16 -18 to be located at
the end of a cul -de -sac, rather than a future through street. It is likely that the additional privacy
afforded to these lots will contribute appropriately to their value more than increasing a buffer.
Planning also noted that the your description of tree sizes is somewhat exaggerated from what is
documented in the tree survey. Perhaps you used a different means to measure the trees than the City
standard outlined in the Zoning Code. Zoning Code requires measurement of trees using DBH (Diameter
at Breast Height), which measures the diameter of the tree 4.5 feet from its base, and is not a
measurement of the circumference. The tree survey shows about 50 trees in the 40 foot Tree
Enhancement Zone. There are an additional 26 trees between the 40 foot and the proposed 80 foot zone.
Of these, five meet or exceed a 12 inch diameter (20 inches, two at 12 inches, 40 inches, and 24 inches).
The 40 inch is a Beech tree in good condition.
While we understand that eliminating lot 17 would certainly protect you, it would cause the applicant to
lose the value of this lot without the ability to make it up in another location, as suggested.
STAFF RESPONSE TO ADJACENT RESIDENT
March 9, 2012
Page 2 of 2
Finally, the purpose for the delay of this project from the last Council agenda was to allow the redesign of
the subdivision to permit an extension of Ballybridge Drive to the west property line of Wellington
Reserve. This, along with the creation of a permanent cul -de -sac in the north portion of this project,
caused the lot lines along the west property line to shift farther south, closer to the Brand Road setback.
Lot 28, the lot closest to Brand Road, is now approximately 60 feet from the Brand Road setback, from
the edge of the west property line. An additional lot in the redesigned configuration as suggested would
intrude into the Brand Road setback.
The Planning and Zoning Commission, and City staff, worked diligently with this property owner, who was
willing to make significant changes that were designed to protect adjacent homes. As the Commission
noted, these lots are generally equivalent to, or larger than, those on adjacent subdivisions, and sufficient
buffers and planting areas have been provided to enhance not only the Wellington lots, but those of
adjacent properties as well.
Thank you,
Sara
Sara Ott
Senior Project Manager
City of Dublin
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway
Dublin, Ohio 43017
phone 614 410.4400
direct 614 410.4448
soft @dublin.oh.us
www.dublinohiousa.gov
www.twitter.com /dublinohio
www.facebook.com /dublinohio
ADJACENT RESIDENT CORRESPONDENCE
March 7, 2012
Page 1 of 2
rreeves3 (ocolumbus.rr.com> 3/7/2012 9:29 AM >>>
Date: Mar 07,12
Time: 08:59:36 AM
Topic: Ordinance 14 -12
Comments: Concerning Ordinance 14 -12 to be read /introduced on 3/12/12, the plan approved
by Planning and Zoning for Wellington Reserve currently calls for 28 single family lots.
Specifically, the plan provides for, among other things, a 40 foor Tree Enhancement Zone at
the northern boundary of the property within lots 16, 17, and 18. These homes to be
constructed are projected to be set back approximately 120 feet, 75 feet, and 110 feet from the
rear of the structure to the rear property line, respectively.
Wthin each of these three lots, the area outside of the 40 foot Tree Enhancement Zone, from 40
feet to 80 feet off the rear lot lines contains a total of 66 trees which are in excess of 12" in
circumference. Lots 18 and 17 combined, contain 63 of this size tree within this are, with 32
trees being larger than 24 ". The largest of these 32 trees are: two at 32 ", three at 33 two at
34 ", and one at 36 ", 38 ", 40 ", 43 ", 44 ", 45 ", 50 ", 53 ", 56" 60 ", 63 ", 65 ", 67 ", and 91 ".
Lot 16 only has three trees larger than 12" within this 40 feet to 80 feet area, and their sizes are
39 ", 44 ", and 53 ".
The adjacent property owners in the Brandon Subdivision are unanimous in their opposition to
this proposed development as currently proposed in two specific aspects. We are opposed to
the 40 Foot Tree Enhancement Zone across the rear property lines for Lots 16, 17, and 18, and
respectfully request that this be modified in two ways: 1) that the Enhancement Zone be
changed to a Preservaton Zone and the 75 % opacity requirement be eliminated; and 2) that the
40 Foot Tree Preservation Zone be expanded by an additional 40 Feet in depth, resulting in an
80 Foot Tree Preservation Zone across the rear of proposed Lots 16, 17, and 18.
Under the currently approved Development Plan, the developer would have the freedom to,
and by necessity, would in all liklihood, remove all existing trees within the 40 Foot Zone
which would otherwise prevent new plantings of Evergreen trees to meet the 75% opacity
requirement from growing successfully. For this reason, a change from Tree Enhancement to
Tree preservation, and elimination of the 75% opacity requirement is essential to the protection
of the numerous existing healthy, mature trees within the 40 Foot Zone.
The expansion of the 40 Foot Tree Enhancement Zone to an 80 Foot Tree Preservation Zone
would also protect the 66 trees larger than 12 ", and more specifically, the 35 trees ranging in
size from 24" to 91 ". Allowing these trees to betaken down when they could easily be
preserved without reducing the bnumber and size of building lots to be developed is
unreasonable, and irresponsible.
In order to allow for the expansion of the 40 Foot deep Tree Preservation Zone to an 80 Foot
ADJACENT RESIDENT CORRESPONDENCE
March 7, 2012
Page 2 of 2
Tree Preservation Zone, and to maintain the same number of building lots to be developed, the
following changes to the Development Plan could be made:
1) Make the entire lot 17 a Tree Preservation Zone and expand the Tree Preservation Zone
across the back of lots 16 and 18 from 40 feet deep to 80 feet deep. On lots 16 and 18, the
house footprint is 120 feet and 110 feet respectively, from the rear property line, and would be
40 feet and 30 feet, respectively, from the new 80 Foot Tree Preservation Zone. This would
still allow plenty of room for patios, porches, or other improvements off of the back of these
two homes.
2) Replace the "no build" lot 17 with a new 90 foot wide building lot 929 immediately to the
south of the present lot 28. This area is currently open space but the new lot would still be
well outside of the required 100 feet setback from Brand Road.
3) If there are concerns about the sight lines from Brand Road to the future side elevation of
the home which would be built on the new lot 29, require the developer to plant Evergreens for
75% opacity along the southern edge of the new lot 29, screening the side of it from Brand
Road. There would be no additional cost to the developer as these trees would have previously
been planted on lots 16 through 18 in the previous Tree Enhancement Zone, which would now
be a Tree Preservation Zone.
By providing for these few relatively minor changes to the Development Approval, City
Council would preserve a substantial number of large, mature trees (35 trees larger than 24 ")
which would enhance the proposed development, as well as maintain a wider buffer between
the existing Brandon homes and the new Wellington Reserve homes. This would also have a
relatively small adverse economic effect on the developer as it would not reduce the number of
lots, and could potentially increase the value of lots 16 and 18 due to the Preservation Zone
between the two lots, and the preservation of mature trees to the rear of the lots. None of these
changes have any adverse affect on the existing homes in neighboring Wellington Place.
Thank you for your consideration of these proposals.
Roger Reeves
Brandon Homeowners representative
Contact All Members: Yes
Would You Like A Response ?: Yes
Name: Roger Reeves
Address: 5149 Reddington Court
City -State -Zip: Dublin, Ohio 43017
Phone: 614 - 353 -1967
�. tti �► WELLINGTON
KATESBRIDGE LN.
RESERVE
w.vti�r'
dt
~ REDINGTON CT ` �R
>'
WELLINGTON .' ,� {, �'` 4 o`-
., . PARK
6� k r}
` - 1 ,i7��..,- - mac ``
w
s ir D Y P , Nell
iron" ka 4e `'��.. 4,
LEGEND
0 EXISTING TREE
PROPOSED REPLACEMENT TREE - DECIDUOUS
PROPOSED REPLACEMENT TREE - EVERGREEN 1
PROPSOED STREET TREE
PROPSOED ORNAMENTAL TREE
r
r
NOTE:
The u ose of this drawing is to illustrate the relationship of the development design intent to the existing conditions both on and off of the site. The home footprints, driveway locations and orientations
P rP 9 P P g 9 tP � aY
removed and preserved trees and proposed landscaping are representative of a good faith eff ort to represent buildout based on the standards contained within the preliminary development plan and
preliminary plat. Replacement tree locations and quantities as well as a final scenic setback landscape treatment will be presented for approval atthe Fiaal Development Plan phase. Final home locations, sizes,
driveway orrientation and landscaping will be finalized as part of the building permit phase.
EX. #CAT SBRIDGE WUR
n
I' C3� 0
L
LU
0
i
� k
0
V A
1
1162 1 W'6
0' 30' 60' 120' NORTH
_ - = I C -- 1 1 1�
EX. KILBRITTAN LANE
i I
M I
11
.IS t Z+
r
z
Q
LLJ
Q
LLJ
Q
Ln
WELLINGTON RESERVE ■ Prepared for Casto
,'~
LEGEND
EXISTING TREE
PROPOSED REPLACEMENT TREE — DECIDUOUS
r� PROPOSED REPLACEMENT TREE — EVERGREEN
PROPOOED STREET TREE
® PROPOOED ORNAMENTAL TREE
r vl AL I%
I � I
I I I
I
I
I
I
I
J JI i
�I JI
I I I
I
I I i
I �
I
BUILD ZONE BUILD ZONE BUILD ZONE
i I
0' 5' 10' 20' NORTH
z
Q
Lu
U
z
O
u
r vol
W
m
r vol
rvol
W
W
r
WELLINGTON RESERVE ■ Prepared for Casto
CITY OF DUBLIN
To:
From:
Initiated by:
Date:
Re:
Department of Service
6351 Shier -Rings Road, Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1243
Phone: 614-410-4750 Fax: 614-761-6512
All Members Dublin City Council
Marsha Grigsby, Interim City Manager/Director of Finance
Dana L. McDaniel, Assistant City Manager/Director of Service
May 30, 2002
Request from Meadows at Wyndham Village Homeowners Association
Attached please find Ordinance #82 -02 providing maintenance to the Meadows at Wyndham
Village Homeowners Association (the Association). The Community Services Advisory
Commission (CSAC) recommended providing relief to the Association to reduce its maintenance
costs. Council concurred with CSAC's recommendation and requested staff work with the
Association to determine a solution that would provide the authorized level of relief.
Staff met with the Association's trustees and negotiated the provisions incorporated in Ordinance
82 -02. Questions regarding the Ordinance or the services to be provided may be addressed to Dana
McDaniel at work: 410 -4751 or mobile: 206 -3311.
WANI r
T: \r rdOANAIMEM05 \COUNCIL \Wyndham Village Request 053002.doc
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Ordinance No. 82 -02 . 1 ._ Passed
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE AT
THE MEADOWS OF WYNDHAM VILLAGE
WHEREAS, the Meadows at Wyndham Village Homeowners Association (the Association)
requested City Council to provide some type of relief from the maintenance of reserves dedicated
during the development process; and
WHEREAS, the Association expressed concerns that their maintenance cost per home was
significantly higher than that for other homeowners associations; and
WHEREAS, providing such relief would lower the overall cost to members of the Association;
and
WHEREAS, City Council requested the Community Services Advisory Commission (CSAC)
review the request and make a recommendation; and
WHEREAS, CSAC recommended that the City establish a lower limit to the ratio of
homeowners to acres maintained by homeowners' associations of 36 to 1; and
WHEREAS, CSAC, based on its recommended ratio of homeowners to acres maintained,
recommended some type of relief be granted to the Association; and
WHEREAS, City Council concurs with CSAC's recommendation that certain relief is
warranted; and
WHEREAS, City staff has negotiated with the Association and agreed upon a solution to provide
the level of relief authorized by City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio,
of the elected members concurring that:
Section 1.
The City of Dublin will provide turf management consisting of weed control, fertilizing and
mowing of reserve "A" and the area north of the bike path and south of Brand Road along the
frontage of the Meadows at Wyndham Village (Attachment "A ").
Section 2
The City of Dublin will provide mulch and maintenance of all street trees within this area.
Section 3
The Meadows at Wyndham Village will continue to provide all landscaping, turf management,
tree maintenance, and any other maintenance except as otherwise specified above for all areas
for which the Homeowners Association has responsibility.
Section 4
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force on the earliest date permitted by law.
Passed this day of 1 2002
Mayor - Presiding Officer
ATTEST:
Clerk of Council
Attachment A
Hatched area:
• City to provide turf management (i.e., fertilize, weed control and mowing).
• City to mulch street trees along Brand Road only.
CITY OF DUBLIN
Department of Service
6351 Shier -Rings Road • Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1243
Phone: 614 -761 -6570 Fax: 614-761-6512
To: Marsha Grigsby, Acting City Manager/Director of Finance
From: Dana L. McDaniel, Assistant City Manager /Director of Service
Date: May 22, 2002
Re: Bishop's Run and Crossing Homeowner Association Analysis
Memo
In listening to Council's discussion regarding Bishop's Run and Crossing, I thought it important
to conduct a quick assessment of the Community Services Advisory Commission's (CSAC)
recommendation in relation to these developments. Likewise Council Member Lecklider called
me Tuesday, May 21, desiring the same analysis.
Bishop's Run
7.64 acres of "Park" x 30% (mowable) = 2.30 acres
# of households = 56
.05 acres per home (mowable)
24 homes to 1 acre (mowable)
7 homes to 1 acre (all acres)
Bishop's Crossing
5.5 acres of "Park" x 30% (mowable) = 1.65 acres
# of households = 113
.02 acres per home (mowable)
68 homes to 1 acre (mowable)
20 homes to 1 acre (all acres)
Meadows at Wyndham Villaee
1.61 acres X 60% (mowable) =.97 acres
# of households = 30
.04 acres per home (mowable)
30 homes to 1 acre (mowable)
19 homes to 1 acre (all acres)
CSAC recommendation 36 homes to 1 acre (all acres)
Bishop's Run and Crossing
13.14 acres of "Park"
3.95 acres (mowable)
# of households = 169
.08 acres per home (mowable)
43 homes to 1 acre (mowable)
13 homes to 1 acre (all)
Potential Cost
$3,343 /acre /year (turf maintenance) x 3.95 acres = $13,205
$13,205 /year _ 169 households = S78 /year
Note: 36:1 ratio homeowners pay about S93 /year
54:1 ratio homeowners pay about $62 /year
Note: Reserves to be maintained by homeowners of Bishop's Run and Crossing consist of
extensive landscaping. According to the Concept Plan this landscape consists of low
maintenance plantings (i.e., grasses, wildflowers and trees). The above costs do not include
landscape /entry way maintenance costs. It is only a comparison of mowing costs as a common
denominator.
Conclusion:
It appears that taken individually, neither Bishop's Run nor Crossing would meet the
recommended home to acre ratio (36:1) using "all acres" to meet the recommendations of the
CSAC. Considered together, as agreed to at the May 20, 2002 Council meeting, a ratio of 43
homes to 1 acre for mowable acres exceeds the 36:1 ratio, however the all acres ratio 13:1 does
not. It is feasible this homeowners' association, even combined, may experience difficulty in
keeping homeowner association fees reasonable. The reasonableness of their fees will depend on
how low maintenance the landscaped areas can be.
As Council pointed out, it is imperative that a good education effort be provided to potential
buyers. The Division of Community Relations and I have briefly discussed a possible brochure
to be sent out through realtors and model homes. This will likely be developed and distributed
by August.
Thank you.
DLM /tb
E6vord\DARA \MEMOS\CITYMGR \Bishop Run Crossing HOA I do
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council I I Page 11 Meeting
April 22, 2002
which is contrary to the City's policy. This type of development should not exist in the
City of Dublin.
Mayor McCash noted that this Council should not question a previous Council's action.
Mayor McCash moved to approve the final plat as submitted.
Ms. Salay seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr.
Reiner, no; Mr. Kranstuber, no.
Motion carried.
Recommendation from Community Services Advisory Commission Regarding the
Meadows at Wvndham Village Homeowners Association Request for Assistance with
Maintenance of Reserve Areas
Mr. McDaniel stated the property owners have requested relief from the requirement that
their homeowners association maintain certain reserves that are owned by the City of
approximately 1.614 acres. The property owners are paying high homeowner association
fees in order to meet the expense of maintenance of that property. The Community
Services Advisory Commission (CSAC) reviewed their request. They met with members
of the community, reviewed their requirements, fee structure and budget, and conducted a
survey of other homeowner associations. The CSAC memo addresses the ratio of
households to amount of acreage to be maintained. To create equity, they created a
benchmark, which is 36 homes per acre of land maintained. CSAC believes that an
inequity exists in the ratio of houses to reserves maintained by the Meadows at Wyndham
Village compared to other homeowner associations in Dublin. They are paying at a rate
more than twice that of a comparable situation, i.e. Wellington. By comparison, 130
Wellington residents maintain 3.5 acres of City -owned reserves at a cost of $145 per
household, whereas the 30 property owners in Meadows at Wyndham Village maintain
1.614 acres at a cost of $456 per household. Staff recommends that the City reduce the
inequity for those homeowners by providing 100% of the maintenance and charging back
a portion of the cost to the homeowners.
Mayor McCash inquired if homeowner associations typically maintain their entryway
features and common areas within the cul -de -sacs.
Mr. McDaniel confirmed that is the requirement. Wellington subdivision is the closest
comparison, as it also has a large greenspace owned by the City near their entry on Brand
Road, which they are required to maintain. He noted that CSAC recommends that in the
future, the City consider a benchmark for new developments. If the ratio begins to drop
below the 36 houses per acre in a development, the City should seriously consider whether
that maintenance should be required of the homeowners association. The benchmark
could be set even higher than that, perhaps at 54 homes /acre.
Mayor McCash inquired if the problem occurs when the amount of parkland dedicated is
over one acre.
Mr. McDaniel agreed that the trend has been to require more greenspace dedication, while
at the same time handing over more responsibility for the maintenance of that land, City
land, to the homeowners associations. If it is a parkland reserve or dedication, the City
maintains it, but other setbacks, which can be considered an enhancement to that
neighborhood, are considered the neighborhood's responsibility. However, a fair
benchmark should be adopted.
Mayor McCash stated that in situations where the City gains more open space, the City
should not delegate more maintenance to the homeowners in that neighborhood. Another
consideration would be to upgrade the Code standard.
Mr. McDaniel noted, for accuracy's sake, that there are reserves of approximately 14
acres that other associations are required to maintain. However, most of that is wooded
and requires minimal maintenance.
Mayor McCash stated that this may be a policy decision, which requires a legal opinion.
If a minimum amount of open space is required of a development, but the City gains more
open space dedication with another development, is it appropriate to charge the
homeowners for maintenance of more than the minimum? Is it appropriate to include that
additional space in the ratio calculation?
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Page 12 Meeting
April 22, 2002
Mr. Lecklider stated that he would prefer that the City subsidize a portion of the
maintenance of the greenspace, rather than reduce the amount of open space dedication.
He noted that there are two reserves - one fronts Brand Road, and the other reserve is east
of the subdivision. The larger one, along Brand Road, provides the City a setback
consistent with the significant setback all along Brand Road. That setback contains a
meandering bikepath, which is used by the public. The second setback is more internal to
the subdivision.
Mayor McCash stated that the policy decision should consider equity to the homeowner
association, but also consistency in quality of maintenance.
Mr. McDaniel stated that it would be wise to remember that the City's action could be
precedent- setting. However, he is presently unaware of any other association where the
ratio begins to approach the inequity of this one. These homeowners will still pay a fee
higher than most of the other homeowners in the City.
Mayor McCash inquired if staff or legal staff could establish a list of criteria for future
applications.
Ms. Clarke stated that the type of scenario experienced with The Meadows of Wyndham
occurs when the subdivision has a substantially greater property width to depth ratio than
is normal. This particular subdivision is the most shallow along Brand Road. She noted
that Planning staff is aware of the parkland to be dedicated when a property is being
rezoned. That information can be provided to Council at that time, along with the
density, right -of -way, length of cul -de -sac, and other empirical facts. The information
can also provide the expected number of houses to maintain the suggested open space.
Mayor McCash stated that would make sense for future subdivisions. However, are
guidelines needed to address requests from existing homeowner associations, should they
be brought forward?
Mr. Lecklider recommended that a threshold ratio be set and future applications be
considered on a case -by -case basis.
Mr. Reiner stated that he supports the suggested remedy for this case. However, there is
a cost to own a home in Dublin in view of the commitment to open space. He does not
endorse the City accepting the responsibility of maintaining all the larger setbacks. That
is part of the responsibility assumed by the individual developments.
Mayor McCash stated that all of this land is public, dedicated open space.
Ms. Salay stated that the difficulty is in differentiating between the private open space, the
common areas and public open space. If there is a bikepath through the area, and the
homeowners association has no control over who comes onto that open space, it is a
public park area. She is not comfortable with requiring a few citizens to bear the cost of
maintaining an area used by the general public. If it is private open space for use by that
development, it is acceptable to require them to maintain whatever they have chosen to
buy. A resident of Heather Glen North stated that in order to contain the cost of
maintenance of the open space, the homeowners had discussed not using a property
maintenance company, but instead taking turns to mow the property themselves.
However, the question of liability arises if a licensed, bonded company is not performing
the work.
Ms. Readler stated that the City maintains liability insurance on City -owned property.
Many of the homeowner associations carry insurance on the City -owned properties. She
is not sure in the case described whose insurance would pay if a claim were filed.
Mr. McDaniel stated that there is a recreational users law, which may protect the
association and /or City. That law holds the individual responsible, if he /she enters the
greenspace of their own choice.
Mr. Kranstuber stated that the law would not apply to a maintenance worker. The
homeowner associations should carry liability insurance on the property.
Ms. Salay inquired if it would be necessary for the association to carry coverage on City -
owned land.
Mr. Kranstuber stated that both entities should carry coverage in case of a lawsuit.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Page 13 Meeting 11
April 22, 2002
Mr. Kranstuber noted a reference on page six that "....the City should continue to
maintain responsibility for all stormwater systems /structures in all arrangements....," is
that the City's present policy?
Mr. McDaniel responded that is the City's current practice.
Mr. Kranstuber inquired if that would apply to commercial properties.
Mr. McDaniel responded that it would not - only to residential.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if that would also include retention basins.
Mr. McDaniel stated that retention basins would also be included.
Mr. Lecklider stated that in Wyndham Village, there are two retention basins at the
entrance. There is a reserve behind the southernmost retention basin. The homeowners
association does not have responsibility for maintaining any of that area, other than the
entry itself. The City maintains all of that open space.
Mr. McDaniel stated that the City does not maintain every retention basin. Some are
maintained by condominium associations, and in some of the older subdivisions with
primarily private streets, the homeowners association takes care of the retention basins.
Mr. Reiner inquired if most homeowner associations have the option of placing a lien on a
property if the property owner is negligent in association fees.
Mr. McDaniel stated the associations have varying practices. The difficulties encountered
by homeowners associations in collecting the fees, however, is the reason the City should
ensure that the fees are equitable.
Discussion continued regarding the need for information for members of new homeowner
associations.
Ms. Salay inquired for what period of time the City has been requiring forced and funded
homeowner associations.
Ms. Clarke stated the Code does not require them. In the last few years, the requirement
has been included in the negotiation process with the developer. Typically, the developer
has no objection to the requirement.
Mayor McCash suggested that CSAC consider the option of developing a brochure for
new homeowner associations, which could include the recommendation to obtain liability
insurance.
Mayor McCash invited public comment.
Richard Belville Trustee and Treasurer of The Meadows of Wyndham Village
Homeowners Association, distributed a page which indicates the impact of grounds
maintenance on their association's budget. Currently, their budget for grounds care is
$8,634. Their maintenance is extremely basic - no sprinkler system, no electrical system
to light the entrance way. However, currently, the assessment for ground care and
insurance to a homeowner is $228, which is 2.5 x the average assessment of $117. The
CSAC recommendation based on 36 homeowners /acre suggests a City share of $2,600.
The cost per homeowner would thereby be reduced from $228 to $219, which is still
nearly twice the average amount of $117. He pointed out that CSAC had suggested two
options for Council's consideration. On page two of the recommendation, CSAC
suggested a second ratio be considered, 54 homeowners per acre. If that option were
approved, the City would assume a share of $3,900. That would bring the assessment for
the individual homeowner down to $175.00, which is still 1.5 x the average fee paid by
members of other homeowner association. He requested that Council consider that
option.
Mr. Lecklider asked Mr. Belville if the area of the two reserves in that subdivision are in
fact .593 acres and 1.021 acres. He inquired which area is along Brand Road.
Mr. Belville responded that both reserves are located along Brand Road. A third reserve
is floodplain and is parkland dedication; it is maintained by the City. The first two
reserves are part of the 200 -ft setback along Brand Road.
Mayor Kranstuber stated that CSAC's recommendation is to approve the 36 -1 ratio. Mr.
Belville's request is that Council consider the 54 -1 ratio. CSAC's survey indicates that
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council Page 14 Meeting
April 22, 2002
only three homeowner associations currently have a lower than 54 -1 ratio. He asked that
Mr. McDaniel attempt to secure this information from the remaining homeowner
associations.
Mr. McDaniel will obtain the information, if possible.
Mr. Lecklider asked for clarification of the recommendation.
Mr. McDaniel stated that the recommendation is to grant The Meadows of Wyndham
Village relief for the cost of maintenance of the open areas at a ratio of 36 to 1, which
amounts to $2,600. Mr. Belville has requested the relief be granted at a ratio of 54 to 1.
CSAC also requests that the approved ratio be adopted into a policy that would be applied
to future developments.
Mayor McCash stated that Council does not have sufficient information to decide which
ratio to adopt for future developments.
Mr. Reiner suggested adopting the CSAC recommendation for The Meadows of
Wyndham tonight to provide immediate relief for the 2002 mowing season. Adoption of a
ratio for a City policy could be deferred until the additional information is provided.
Mr. Kranstuber moved approval of the CSAC recommendation.
Mr. Reiner seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mayor McCash, yes; Mr.
Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Salay, yes.
Recommendation from Community Services Advisory Commission Regarding
Proposed Noise Ordinance Amendments
Mr. McDaniel stated that the affected residents presented their case to CSAC, and CSAC
recommends a three -step response, as noted in their memo of April 18. There is
additional research to do regarding the reciprocal enforcement agreement, such as
Westerville has with Columbus. The City of Dublin presently does not have such
agreements. CSAC recommends agreements with all neighboring jurisdictions --
Shawnee Hills, Hilliard, Norwich Township, etc.
Mr. Reiner inquired if this would preclude a "Polaris" problem.
Mr. McDaniel stated that this constitutes an effort to do so.
Ms. Salay inquired about the terms of the reciprocal agreements. Would Dublin police
be empowered to respond to an offending business in the neighboring jurisdiction and
enforce Dublin's noise ordinance against that property owner?
Mr. McDaniel stated that is correct. Dublin's Code Enforcement Officer will coordinate
efforts with the other jurisdictions' Code Enforcement, Police and Legal departments, as
well as talking to the property owner.
Mayor McCash moved to adopt CSAC's recommendation regarding noise restrictions, as
noted in their memo dated April 18, 2002.
Ms. Salay seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms.
Salay, yes; Mayor McCash, yes.
Recommendation from Finance Committee Regarding Hotel /Motel Tax Grant
Application from Ohio FC Soccer Nike Challenge
Mr. Kranstuber stated that the Finance Committee met earlier this evening to review this
application. The application of FC Soccer meets the bed tax grant application criteria.
The event fills the local hotels during what is typically a slow business month. Their
request is for $25,000. However, on April 29, the Finance Committee will consider
eight additional applications for bed tax funds, with requests totaling $131,000. Only
$70,000 is available in the bed tax fund; therefore, the Committee recommends
approving a grant to Ohio FC Soccer of $10,000.00. Much of that amount would go to
cover the cost of City services.
Mr. Kranstuber moved to approve a grant of $10,000 to the FC Soccer Club, per the
recommendation of the Finance Committee.
Mr. Reiner seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion Mr. Reiner, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr.
Kranstuber, yes; Mayor McCash, yes.
CSAC 3/12/02
Page 4 of 37
Mr. Roth noted Martin Road residents were pursuing the current process to have traffic calming
devices installed on their road.
Mr. Breseman asked if there was a specific incident that caused this topic to rise again.
Mr. Roth noted the strength of the current policy. He felt Council made the right decision in
referring such issues to a Commission because it was hard for Council to make good policy
decisions on the fly. The Commission could devote time to studying the issue then make a
recommendation to Council.
VIII. Meadows at Wyndham Village Homeowners Request -Council Assianment (12/10/01)
Mr. McDaniel introduced Mr. Combs from the Division of Planning. He then distributed and
reviewed a draft memo he had compiled on behalf of the Commission. The draft memo was an
attempt to get the background concerns and ideas discussed on paper. He noted there were areas
of the memo the Commission still needed to fill -in and invited comments /revisions to any
portion of the memo. He said he had circulated the memo to key staff members but had not yet
received any comments. (A copy of the draft memo is attached and incorporated herein.)
Mr. Hogan inquired why the City would subsidize 100% in option A of the memo.
Mr. McDaniel explained a situation along Brand Road where the City desired to have a similar
appearance in two adjacent reserves. He said charging the HOA's for reimbursement would
avoid having to change the deeds, plats, etc. and simplify the legal processes.
Mr. Suguness inquired what the City would do if a HOA refused to make the reimbursement.
Mr. McDaniel said he would have to have the legal staff review this, but he felt the City could
assess the property owner (i.e. HOA).
Mr. Merritt suggested the City issue a check to the HOA rather than providing the servicing and
seeking reimbursement from the HOA.
Mr. Pagnard felt the City would not have as much control if it chose to pay the HOA. For
example, the City may not be able to control the plants installed, the cost of the company
contracted, etc.
Mr. McDaniel said an agreement could be structured to limit the cost, type of work, etc.
Mr. Pagnard noted the legal opinions and attached to the memo and that legal staff seemed to
have some concerns.
Mr. McDaniel concurred and said that all staff members involved in the review of this issue had
expressed concern regarding establishing a precedent. He thought any recommendation in favor
of "relief' should be stated in terms of an existing inequity.
CSAC 3/12102
Page 5 of 37
Mr. Stoycheff inquired if the City was to assume 100% of the responsibility for the maintenance
of these areas would taxes have to be increased.
Mr. McDaniel said he could not answer that specifically, but that if the City assumed all
responsibility for all areas City -wide there would be significant impact on the Operating Budget.
Mr. Joseph replied the taxes would not have to be increased but the City would not be able to
continue to install $6 million landscaping projects, bridges, skate parks, and the like.
Mr. Pagnard said that if recommendation was limited to that proposed by Mr. McDaniel there
should be relatively little impact on the budget. He inquired if the Commission was comfortable
with the draft recommendation.
Mr. Merritt said he would prefer to review the proposal in more detail.
Mr. Suguness concurred.
Mr. Pagnard inquired if the Division of Planning had a formal response to the draft compiled by
Mr. McDaniel.
Mr. McDaniel said he had not received a response yet.
Mr. Roth referenced previous discussions regarding the establishment of a formula to determine
the amount of area a homeowner's association should maintain. He noted a subcommittee had
been requested but did not meet. He felt it was important to identify how many "exception" cases
were likely to arise based upon a formula. He suggested including this information in the
recommendation and then letting Council decide where the line (the formula) should be set.
Mr. McDaniel noted he initially tried to work a formula but had eventually decided not to
because of the difficulty in determining a mathematical point for each HOA when each one is so
unique and has different features. A formula would not likely hold up unless a "common
denominator" is established.
Mr. Roth suggested only including the acreage to be manicured/mowed. Plantings, etc. would be
up to the HOA.
Mr. Breseman inquired about reserve areas that are heavily treed when a windstorm blows
several trees down.
Mr. Roth said that if it was a "natural" area then they should be left in the natural (i.e., down)
state. In landscaped areas the trees would have to be removed.
Mr. Joseph noted questions regarding the provision of insurance had been previously raised but
he missed the last meeting. He inquired if there had been further discussion.
CSAC 3/12/02
Page 6 of 37
Mr. McDaniel replied that the City did have certain immunities from liability. He said the City
could not carry the HOA as "an additional insured." He could not recall the exact discussion but
it was included in the minutes.
Mr. Smith said he did not believe the City's immunity could "carry over" to the HOA, but legal
staff could look into this issue.
Mr. Bruening said he felt it was awkward for the private entity to insure a public property.
Mr. Pagnard inquired if the City could facilitate an "insurance pool" for the HOA's.
Mr. McDaniel said he could check on this. He noted that the argument could be made that these
were public areas and therefore the City's insurance /immunities covered them as long as the
HOA was not negligent. However, the "boards" of each HOA wouldn't likely feel comfortable
with this.
Mr. Pagnard inquired if the Commission had any questions for Mr. Combs.
Mr. Suguness felt the subcommittee needed to meet to determine the formula to be
recommended.
The Commission determined the subcommittee would be comprised of Mr. Roth, Mr. Stoycheff,
and Mr. Hogan.
Staff reminded the Commission of the need to advertise the meeting, etc. if more than 3 members
would be participating in the meeting.
The subcommittee determined it would meet March 21 at 7:00 p.m. and would e -mail
questions /comments to the rest of the Commission after the meeting.
Mr. Pagnard noted Council had not set a deadline for the Committee's recommendation and
inquired if the Commission wanted to hold an additional meeting in March.
The Committee determined Spring Break and the Easter holiday would conflict with scheduling
any additional meetings. The Commission would meet as scheduled in April.
Mr. Pagnard thanked Mr. McDaniel for compiling the Commission's comments into the draft
recommendation and commended him.
Mr. Joseph said the Commission needed to consider increasing the "split" proposed in the draft
recommendation to further reduce the HOA fees. He also felt language establishing a distinction
between "owner frontage" and property maintained by the City that is for the benefit of the
community as a whole should be eliminated as the HOA entrances were for the benefit of the
whole community.
CSAC 3/12/02
Page 7 of 37
Mr. Pagnard inquired if there were any other comments regarding this issue. He invited the
public participants to remain for the rest of the meeting or the Commission could break for a few
minutes if they chose to leave.
Mr. Pagnard noted he had mixed emotions regarding this issue. He understood their concern
regarding the fees they pay, but felt the requirement was clearly stated in the deeds and they
should have been aware of it.
Mr. Breseman inquired if the requirement could at some future point be reversed and homes
located in areas currently designated as reserves.
Mr. Merritt suggested the location of homes in reserve areas be included in the recommendation.
Mr. Roth noted he understood that large green spaces beautify the entire community, but
primarily they benefit the neighborhoods in which they are located. Having a consistent policy
would help. How many homes does it take to support one acre of landscape?
Mr. McDaniel noted that any formula developed should consider the cost per acre for
maintenance, but this cost would be dependent on the types of amenities included in the
landscape. A cost per acre for mowing (only) could be provided.
Mr. Roth said he felt the formula should be for mowing only, not the plantings, etc.
IX. New Business /Round Table
None.
X. Next Meeting
The next meeting of the Commission will be:
April 9, 2002 at 7. 00 p.m.
In Meeting Room #1, Dublin Community Recreation Center, 5600 Post Road
VIII. Adjournment:
Mr. Stoycheff moved to adjourn.
Mr. Pagnard seconded the motion.
The vote was 7 -0 in favor of adjournment.
CSAC 3/12/02
Page 8 of 37
F, 13M
CG
M
-L
v
<
C.
i
Lx
C"
rr
r3o
ON
I
p `, ... ��4
�
`T
V I
�_
Department of Service
6351 Shier -Rings Road, Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1243
Phone: 614- 761 -6570 Fax: 614- 761 -6512
CITY OF DUBLIN
CSAC 3/12/02
Page 9 of 37
To: All Members Dublin City Council
From: Community Services Advisory Commission
Initiated by: Dana McDaniel, Assistant City Manager/Director of Service
Date: March 12, 2002
Re: Recommendation for Regarding Meadows at Wyndham Village Home Owners
Association
RECOMMENDATION
At it's December 10, 2001 meeting, City Council referred to the Community Services Advisory
Commission (CSAC) the Meadows at Wyndham Village's request for the City to provide
assistance with maintenance of its Reserves "A" and `B ". The CSAC has met three times to hear
the request and related issues/ information from the Meadows at Wyndham Village and other
members of the public. Representatives of the Wellington Civic Association were the only other
members of the public to attend.
The City of Dublin requires developers to dedicate certain common areas as open and green
space in subdivisions. This is related to the "Green Space Ordinance" and to set back
requirements. Dublin can take title to this property and mandate that maintenance be performed
by the developer, and, subsequently, by the homeowners association. Dublin has also practiced
deeding this land ultimately to the homeowners association, hence, requiring the association to
provide perpetual maintenance. These arrangements are memorialized in zoning documents and
plats. Mandatory participation in the homeowners association and association fees are required
in the deeds. The practice of requiring maintenance by the Home Owner's Association is two
fold: 1) These reserves are viewed as an amenity to the community as a whole, but are most
beneficial to the enhancement of the immediate neighborhood and ultimately to the
neighborhood's individual property values. 2) Each neighborhood will have its own preferences
as to the type, amount and expense of its own entryway, to include entry features and reserve
areas. A review of the Master Property Listing shows a wide variety of arrangements throughout
the City of Dublin and its subdivisions. Requirements vary regarding amount of reserves and
requirements for maintenance. This is a result of the "negotiation process" between staff, the
developer, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and Council. While the requirement to form a
Homeowners' Association appears to be consistent, the fees to support the various arrangements
differ.
To gain a better understanding of the broader situation, a survey was conducted (attached). The
results demonstrate a wide variety of maintenance costs and fees. This survey is not all-
CSAC 3/12/02
Page 10 of 37
inclusive since not all Homeowners' Associations responded. The following summarizes the
"average" in comparison to the Meadows at Wyndham Village:
Question
Average
Meadows at Wyndham
Village
# of Homes
161
30
Annual Dues
$116.73
$456.00
Total Budget
$14,421
$13,680 100% payin
% of Budget for maintenance
65%
62.8%
$ Value of budget for
$9,637
$8,600
maintenance
% of Budget for
18%
improvements
$ Value of budget for
$1,668
improvements
% of Budget for social
5%
activities
$ of budget for social
$867
activities
Acres owned by City /Mnt by
3.5
HOA
Acres owned by HOA/Mnt by
2.9
HOA
Total acres maintained by
1.35
HOA
Other
Property Mngmnt: $3,500
(Note)
Insurance: $525 (Note
Note: Property management fees were not found to be paid by similar Homeowner Associations.
Insurance costs are similar to those paid by Wellington Homeowners Association.
MEADOWS AT WYNDHAM VILLAGE & WELLINGTON
RECOMMENDATIONS
Attached are the recommendations of the MCWV and Wellington. In summary they
recommend:
Dublin assumes responsibility for maintenance of two reserve areas currently maintained by
Meadows at Wyndham Village HOA. Estimated cost to assume maintenance = $8,295
(contracted)
2. Dublin assume responsibility to enforce restrictions of record (maintenance, architectural
standards etc.)
3. Reevaluate and change process for negotiation of such spaces.
CSAC 3/12/02
Page I I of 37
4. Residents to be affected should be involved in negotiating process.
5. Reduce tension among neighbors.
CSAC ASSUMPTION
1. City does not want to create a situation that would invite all homeowners' association to
pursue relief from stated responsibilities.
OPTIONS FOR MEADOWS AT WYNDHAM VILLAGE
1. Do nothing. Per Legal Staff, "the requirement for homeowner association maintenance
of common areas dedicated to Dublin is a valid, legally enforceable requirement.
However, there are several ways in which that requirement can be mitigated if it is the
desire of the City to do so ".
2. Reduce perceived /actual inequity. One could argue that an inequity exists in the ratio of
houses to reserves maintained by the Meadows at Wyndham Village compared to other
similar associations in Dublin. By comparison, the Meadows at Wyndham Village
homeowners are paying at a rate more than twice that of a comparable situation, i.e.
Wellington. By comparison, 130 Wellington residents maintain 3.5 acres of City owned
reserves at a cost of $145 per household, whereas, the 30 Meadows at Wyndham Village
homeowners maintain 1.614 acres at a cost of $456 per household. The City, in whole or
in part, could reduce the "inequity" of the cost to the Meadows at Wyndham Village
homeowners by:
a. Providing 100% maintenance of reserves and charge back the homeowner
Association for a portion of the cost. For example, the City could assume 50% of the
cost and collect the other 50% from the homeowners' Association. The residual cost
to the household would then be based on a revised Meadows at Wyndham Village
fee, which may be more comparable to similar situations:
The desire to maintain a property management company and insurance is the
Association's decision. It is possible that a lower fee would be more tolerable and
homeowners will be more likely to pay. Therefore, the "tension" among neighbors
and the need for legal services and property management service could be reduced or
Meadows Responsibility
City Responsibilit
50% of Maintenance
$4,150
$4,150
Insurance
$525
Property Management
$3,500
Fee/home
$272
Fee /home w /out Property
Manag ement
$155
The desire to maintain a property management company and insurance is the
Association's decision. It is possible that a lower fee would be more tolerable and
homeowners will be more likely to pay. Therefore, the "tension" among neighbors
and the need for legal services and property management service could be reduced or
CSAC 3/12/02
Page 12 of 37
eliminated. The $155 to $272 fee would be more comparable to other similar
situations.
b. City provides 100% of maintenance. If the City provided 100% of the maintenance
of the reserve areas with no expectation to recover any costs from the homeowners'
association, association fees would be very minimal. The only requirement then may
be that the homeowners maintain their entry sign. Fees under this scenario would
likely drop to $25 to $50 per household.
If option 2.a or 2.b is selected, the Meadows at Wyndham Village and the City of Dublin
should execute an Agreement to memorialize the arrangement. From a legal perspective,
"2.a." would not require a change to the deeds or zoning documents as the Association would
be providing maintenance via the City. It is likely that "2.b." will require some action in
order to relieve the Association from this responsibility (see legal opinion attached).
FUTURE OPTIONS
The CSAC recommends Council continue to secure green spaces and setbacks. Dublin is unique
and uniquely successful in obtaining green spaces for its current and future residents. The City
should continue this practice to the best of its ability. However, the CSAC recommends avoiding
similar situations in the future. CSAC recommends staff, Planning & Zoning Commission and
Council consider the following when reviewing /negotiating similar situations in the future:
1. Consider deeding the reserves to the homeowners' association. According to Legal Staff,
"In situations where the City does not wish to acquire common areas in subdivisions for
park space, the City does not have to take ownership of these common areas. Instead, the
zoning documents could provide for a mandatory homeowners association, which would
own and maintain the common areas once it is established. Until that point, the
developer would take full ownership and maintenance responsibilities ". The City of
Dublin has practiced this on several occasions.
2. If the City desires to not deed reserves to Homeowners Associations it should closely
monitor developments wherein there is a small ratio of homes to reserves to be
maintained by the homeowners' association. As part of the review process, staff should
estimate the potential cost/ fee per household for the association to maintain reserves.
Once these are determined, the staff, Planning & Zoning Commission and Council should
consider whether such costs /fees are sustainable. If not, then actions should be taken to
mitigate or reduce costs, i.e. require the developer to install landscaping that minimizes
maintenance; focus on setting aside wood lots which require minimal maintenance
(already a practice); maximize water features; deny the development; package reserves
with adjacent development to spread the burden; etc.
3. The City should continue to retain responsibility for all storm water systems /structures in
all arrangements. This would ensure the proper functioning and maintenance of the
storm water system.
CSAC 3/12/02
Page 13 of 37
The CSAC appreciates the opportunity to assist City Council and looks forward to any additional
needs regarding this matter or any other.
Please address questions to any member of CSAC or CSAC's liaison Dana McDaniel.
Thank you.
CSAC /tb
Attachments: Meadows at Wyndham & Wellington Recommendations
Summary of Homeowner Association Survey
Master Property List (modified), subdivisions only
Legal Opinion, dated February 15, 2002
Legal Opinion, dated March 8, 2002
Td ,&DANANEMOS \CON+CIUCSAC Homwwn<rs Assoc Rccommcndaiion 0302.doc
CSAC 3/12/02
Page 14 of 37
Meadows at Wyndham & Wellington Recommendations
January 29,2002
Recommendation
The Wellington Place Homeowners' Association requests that the City of Dublin assume
responsibility for maintenance of city -owned reserve areas currently maintained by the
Homeowners' Association (HOA). This would include Dublin insuring the property, including
the reserve areas and entranceway, and indemnifying the HOA from any liability. The HOA will
continue maintaining the immediate neighborhood entrance area (i.e., stone /cement walls,
signage, lighting, and flower beds).
Justification for this Recommendation
1. Affected neighborhoods have assumed responsibility for maintaining city -owned reserve areas
without any involvement or impact on the negotiations between Dublin's Planning and Zoning
Department and the subdivision developer.
2. Collection of exorbitant association dues by appointed trustees is straining relationships
between neighbors. In an effort to ease this dubious collection task, some associations have hired
a management flfm to collect the dues. This further exacerbates the problem, as the cost to hire
the management company increases the already -high association dues.
3. HOAs currently focus on tasks that are overwhelming and financially burdensome.
Neighborhood residents should focus on the beautification of their own personal property and
work with the City to generate ideas on beautifying surrounding public green space.
4. As Dublin strives for consistency and continuity in its ongoing Community Plan, having each
neighborhood maintain its well- exposed reserve areas will most likely result in deviation from
the City's goals.
S. As the reserve areas currently maintained by the homeowners' associations are city -owned and
publicly accessible, the associations have no say as to whom has access to these areas. Hence,
the associations' maintenance of this property implies a false sense of control and ownership. The
responsibility for maintaining these areas should not be placed on the associations, since they do
not own the property or have control over who uses it.
('SAC 3/12/02
Page 15 of37
Number of homes in association
Homeowner Association Dues /Fees
Homeowner Association Total Budget
Percent of budget used for maintenance
Dollar value of budget used for maintenance
Percent of budget used for improvements
Dollar value of budget used for improvements
Percent of budget used for social activities
Dollar value of budget used for social activities
Ilemingway Civ Assoc Be llaire- Limer Coventry Woods Civic Asso
Done gal Cliffs
li a+vk's Nest Homeowners Asso
410 40 157
248
200
$7.00 $100.00
$75.00
$100.00
$15,700
$17,998
$20,000
80%
60%
50%
$12,560
$10,855
$10,000
10%
16%
Do you experience difficulty in collecting fees /dues No
$1,570
$2,814
Yes
10%
6%
10%
$1,570
$1,133
$2,000
Acres Owned by the City /Maintained by the
Association
Acres Owned & Maintained by the Association
Total Acres Maintained by the Association. 0.00 0.00 0.00
Description of maintenance responsibilities Upkeep of entryway: planting, Mowing both entrances, lighting, Fall & Spring
trimming, lights cleanup, street signs, flowers
0.47
0.47 0.00
Fence reapair along Dublin Road; light Maint. Of 3 entrances and numerous
bulbs at entrances; lanscapint - mowing, lanscaped islands in courts
pruning, weeding
Do you contract maintenance No
Yes
Yes
Yes
If yes, what is contracted
Landscape Maint.
Lansacapint, mowing, pruning, weeding,
Mowing, mulching, etc.
etc.
Is all maintenance performed voluntarily Yes
No
No
No
If not, please describe
Sonic contracted out
Landscaping contracted
Too large a task
Do you experience difficulty in collecting fees /dues No
Yes
Yes
Yes
If yes, please describe
Send out yealy statements in Feb.; afeter several
9 households refuse to pay; send notices
Approx 20% come in late after numerous
requests place liens on those properties that have
through mail; is there anything City can do
requests; newlsetter notices, letters and
not paid; usually 1 -2 per year.
to help enforce?
phone calls are made to collect.
CSAC 3/12/02
Page 16 of 37
Do you experience difficulty in collecting fees /dues Yes
If yes, please describe In 2000 collected 110 out of 310; in
2001 collected 150; Utilize
newsletter (also translated into
Japanese) and reminder signs.
Yes Yes Yes Yes
A small percentage has been a All but 3 paid; trustees contacted Send several letters; filed loins; 95% have paid; send repeated
problem; send reminder letters, these 3 and they paid. certified letters notices; final action is lien.
then follow up letter, then if
necessary a lien on the property
(have only had to do once).
Wellington Place Ilomcowncrs
Ileather Glen Civic Assoc.
The Reserve Homeowners Assoc.
Assoc.
Trin ity Park
131 istol Common Association
Number of homes in association
310
65
130
89
180
Homeowner Association Dues /Fees
$35.00
$250.00
$145.00
$50.00
$12.50
Homeowner Association Total Budget
$4,000
$20,000
$21,000
$2,250
Percent of budget used for maintenance
50%
63%
88%
50%
Dollar value of budget used for maintenance
$2,000
$12,500
$18,421
$1,125
Percent of budget used for improvements
50%
13%
0%
50%
Dollar value of budget used for improvements
$2,000
$2,500
$0
$1,125
Percent of budget used for social activities
0%
3%
0%
Dollar value of budget used for social activities
$0
$500
$0
Acres Owned by the City /Maintained by the Association
3.50
Acres Owned & Maintained by the Association
0.98
7.24
Total Acres Maintained by the Association.
0.98
7.24
3.50
0.00
0.00
Description of maintenance responsibilities
Landscaping & maim Of 4 stone
Mowing, fertilizing, herbiciding,
4 acres of common grounds at front
Common areas; 2 entry ways;
Fencing; lighting, signage
monument areas and 3 islands
mulching, pruning, weeding,
entrance and 2 strips of land one on
signage; mowing; weeding;
flowers, tree removal /replacement
each side of Coventry Wood Drive,
trimming; fertilizing; mulching for
Maint. Includes mowing, edging,
entryway and 5 islands.
mulching, fertilization, runing,
weeding and insect control; spring
and fall clean up; maintenance of
irrigation system. insurance in case
of liability attributed to neglected
maintenance.
Do you contract maintenance
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
If yes, what is contracted
Mowing; Spring & Pall weeding,
All duties
All maint.
Mowing, fertilizing
As needed: fence repairs; sign
mulching, etc,
repairs; electrical repta is of lighting
Is all maintenance pot fomrcd voluntarily
No
N/A
No
have Saturday cleanup days
Bulb replacement is voluntary
If not, please describe
The City has requested some work
Maint. Contracted
because Dominion Homes, MI
Homes, Rockford Homes did not
finish monument areas as designed.
Do you experience difficulty in collecting fees /dues Yes
If yes, please describe In 2000 collected 110 out of 310; in
2001 collected 150; Utilize
newsletter (also translated into
Japanese) and reminder signs.
Yes Yes Yes Yes
A small percentage has been a All but 3 paid; trustees contacted Send several letters; filed loins; 95% have paid; send repeated
problem; send reminder letters, these 3 and they paid. certified letters notices; final action is lien.
then follow up letter, then if
necessary a lien on the property
(have only had to do once).
CSAC 3/12/02
Page 17 of 37
Llewellyn Farms Civic
Woods of Indian
Mcadows at Wyndham
Brighton Park
Average
Treetops at I3randi Unit
River Forest Association
A ssociation
Run
Villa.g response)
(no res Eonse
C ivic Assoc.
Owners Assoc.
Number of homes in association
114
180
96
30
73
161
88
Homeowner Association Dues /Fees
$12.00
$40.00
$120.00
$456.00
$60.00
$107.88
$1,860.00
Homeowner Association Total Budget
No set budget
$5,000
$13,680
$14,421
$146,365
Percent of budget used for maintenance
70°%
40%
65%
27%
Dollar value of budget used for maintenance
$2,500
$9,637
$38,924
Percent of budget used for improvements
10%
30%
18%
29%
Dollar value of budget used for improvements
$1,500
$1,668
$43,122
Percent of budget used for social activities
20%
20%
5%
1 %
Dollar value of budget used for social activities
$1,000
$867
$1,500
Acres Owned by the City /Maintained by the Association
0.33
1.61
0.96
3.50
Acres Owned & Maintained by the Association
0.17
2.90
Total Acres Maintained by the Association.
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.61
0.96
1.35
Description of maintenance responsibilities
Entrance upkeep; new
Entrance ways; repari
18 acres, 7 signs, mowing,
plantings; trimming trees; fall
fences; mow; lights for
aeration, fertilizing,
cleanup; perineal upkeep;
entrance ways; plants, etc.;
pruning /trimming
raking stone maintenance
take care of park; clean
butterfly garden; water
plants
Do you contract maintenance
No
Yes
If yes, what is contracted
All needs
Most, except mulching and
Yes
Is all maintenance performed voluntarily
edging
If not, please describe
Do you experience difficulty in collecting fees /dues
Yes
Yes
No
If yes, please describe
Not written into deeds; very
Not all willing to pay;
difficult - old neighborhood;
can't enforce - is strichy
self stamped envelopes helped
voluntary.
last year.
Other Comments
IIOA secured
HOA secured additional
HOA secured
additional
easement from residents to
additional
easement from
maintain.
casement from
Each condo is a
residents to
residents to
combination of private &
maintain. .55-.60
maintain.
common property; private
per square foot
property is maintained by
owner.
CSAC 3/12/02
Page 18 of 37
CITY OF DUBLIN
MASTER PROPERTY LISTING WITH ADDRESSES
Note: Under the "Deed" column, an "X" denotes that the Department of Finance has a deed on -file for the property. The absence of an "X" denotes that the property has not yet
been deeded to the City (at the date of this report)
City
Owned;
RESERVES/
Maintenance
TRANSFER IIA
City Owned;
City IIA Owned &
DESCRIPTION SEC.
PHASE PARKLAND
OTHER
ADDRESS
ACREAGE
PARCEL NO.
Responsibility
DEED
DATE Formed?
HA Maintained
Maintained Maintained
Donated City Parkland
Creensnace Ordinance:
Amberleigh I
I A
entry feature
8200 Amberleigh Way
0.566
273 -7114
HA
X
12/27/1994
0.566
Amberleigh I
I B
entry feature
8201 Amberleigh Way
0.365
273 -7115
HA
X
12/27/1994
0.365
Amberleigh I
I C
park (abuts Reserve D)
4825 Avondale Ridge Drive
0.270
273 -7116
City
X
12/27/1994
0.270
Amberleigh 2
1 D
park w /river access
8100 Carrigan Ridge Court
3.873
273 -7529
City
X
9/20/1995
3.873
Amberleigh 2
I E
entry feature
8060 Dublin- Belle poi Ro ad
1.391
273 -7530
IIA
X
9/20/1995
1.391
SUBTOTAL
6.465
2.322
4.143 0.000
entry (along Dublin
Amberleigh North I
- A
Road)
8170 Dublin Road
0.706
273 -9946
IIA
X
3/16/1999
0.706
Amberleigh North 2 & 3
- -
park w /river access
Vista Ridge Drive
11.073
273 -9963
City
X
12/31/1998
11.073
SUBTOTAL
11,779
0.706
11.073 0
Balgriffin I
- A
park
5720 Norn Street
11.494
274 -153
City
X
10/15/1996
11.494
Balgriffin I
B
park
5715 Norn Street
1.104
274-154
City
X
10/15/1996
1.104
�. 'y�,'a+'J"`''"�". s^r^-
,4.,�:: ✓.r*:="
i . �.
•�•-lv My. rx. .s.+ > n'�'�
..
i's..,;,. -v,�
✓ ;� s
nr a a � r
-z
-°r'rn �• x h ..4:: x ;-
y*a.+:. ssp--
rs , r r
�'� a > a <
ffin'z r, C "' `
al gn - 1 ,`..,
r,., ,. - ,,:,,�avateFdetentlon
bawn?.
-, ,-.3=;
5707.Wilctix Road. , ,,,:;
w�0;IJ84
...., <ro
a.` '. +..:.�,
to
( "C" not
SUBTOTAL
12.598
included)
0
12.598 0
Ballantrae I
I A
pan k
1.473
274 -425
IIA
X
12/19/2001
1.473
Ballantrae I
I B
entry area
0.127
274 -426
IIA
X
12/19/2001
0.127
Ballantrae I
1 C
landscape island
0.424
274 -427
HA
X
12/19/2001
0.424
Ballantrae 2
1 F
informal lanscape
10.763
274 -552
HA
X
12/19/2001
10.763
Ballantrae 2
1 G
landscape island
0.121
274 -553
HA
X
12/19/2001
0.121
CSAC 3/12/02
Page 19 of 37
Balla tit ae
2
3
H landscape island
0.325
274 -638
HA
X
12/19/2001
0.325
Ballantrae
2
3
1 landscape island
0.819
274 -639
HA
X
12/19/2001
0.819
Ballantrae
2
4
1 landscape island
0.176
274 -449
HA
X
12/19/2001
0.176
Ballantrae
2
5
K circle
0.01
274 -654
HA
X
12/19/2001
0.01
SUB TOTAL
B
open space
4751 Brand Road
14.238
273 - 3198 -2
City
X
5/6/1987
14.238
0
0
SUB TOTAL
Belvedere
Belvedere
Belvedere
Belvedere
Belvedere
I -
I -
I -
2 -
2 -
A
B
C
D
B
entrance
entrance
park
park (drainage)
park
0.53
0.647
0.56
1.775
6.312
7.853
pending
pending
pending
pending
pending
HA
HA
City
City
City
pending
pending
pending
pending
pending
0
0.647
0.56
0
1.775
6.312
7.853
0.53
SUB TOTAL
17.147
L207
15.94
0
Brandon
I I
A
open space
6.021
273 - 3197 -4
City
X
5/6/1987
6.021
Brandon
I I
B
open space
4751 Brand Road
4.920
273 - 3198 -2
City
X
5/6/1987
4.920
Brandon
2 1
C
open space
2.903
273 - 3790 -6
City
X
5/6/1987
2.903
Brandon
3 -
park
park/wooded park
18.502
273 - 3996 -9
City
X
8/25/1987
18.502
273-581/273 -
Brandon
3 -
park
wooded park
13.000
616
City
X
12/30/1993
13.000
273-
9716/273-
deeded
Brandon
4 -
D
entrance feature
4845 Brandonway Drive Bast
0.540
9717
HA
to HA
0.540
off Dublin Rd.
Brandon
4 -
B
stormwater dry basin
4912 AppleCross Drive
0.351
273 - 5137 -3
City
X
9/8/1992
0.351
Brandon
4 -
F
open space
7834 Brandonway Drive
0.197
273 - 5138 -6
City
X
9/8/1992
0.197
Brandon Village
- _
A
wooded park
1.439
273 - 4182 -5
City
X
2/9/1988
1.439
SUB TOTAL
47.873
0.000
47.333
0.540
Brighton Park I - A park 5750 Richgrove Lane 2.247 273 -6515 City X 3/9/1995 1247
CSAC 3/12/02
Page 20 of 37
Brighton Park I -
Brighton Park I -
SUBTOTAL
Brighton Woods - -
Bristol Commons I -
Bristol Commons I
Bristol Commons 3 -
Bristol Commons 3 -
SUB TOTAL.
Campden Lakes I -
Campden Lakes I
B stonnwatet management Wilcox Road
ditch (wet)
C stormwater management Baybrook Lane
0.582
0.410
Hedgerow (Old Wilcox
HA
IIA
N/A
ROW)
3.239
Bike path along
N/A
southside
-
Tennis Courts
5619 Brighton Lane
entrance feature and
IIA
A
park
5604 Bristol Parkway
273 -10403
(with historical barn)
X
7/7/2000
entrance feature and
273 -10404
B
storm-
5591 Bristol Parkway
4.240
water wet pond
City
C
parcel between Woods
6.500
273 -6336
of Dublin subdivision
X
D
parcel between Woods
(Ownership
of Dublin subdivision
0.582
0.410
273 -6516
273 -6517
HA
IIA
X
X
3/9/1995
41711998
3.239
0.000
HA
IIA
1.314
273 -10403
City
X
7/7/2000
273 -10404
X
7/7/2000
4.240
273 -6335
City
X
12/27/1994
6.500
273 -6336
City
X
12/27/1994
(Ownership
conveyed to
N/A
the nearest
Owner
lot owner of
Woods of
Dublin subd.)
(Ownership
conveyedto
N/A
the nearest
Owner
lot owner of
Woods of
Dublin subd.)
12.054
273 -9315
(prior 215-
8100 Campdcn Lakcs Blvd 7.754 1232)
8101 Campden Lakes Blvd 0.872
HA X 1/20/1997
per
Randy
Bowma
IIA n
0.582
0.410
0.992 2.247 0.000
1.314
4.240
6.500
0.000 12.054 0.000
7.754
0.872
Campden Lakes I
Campden Lakes I
Campden Lakes I
Campden Lakes I
Campden Lakes I
8109 Campden Lakes Blvd
8110 Campden Lakes Blvd
8125 Campden Lakes Blvd
8225 Winchcombe Drive
8250 Campden I-akes Blvd
0.728 I I A
0.883 - IIA
9.901 - HA
273 -9320
(prior 215-
2.263 1237) HA
0.297 - HA
on 4 -24-
97,
these
deeded
to
IIonic-
owner's
Assoc.
X 1/20/1997
deeded
to HA
2.263
CSAC 3/12/02
Page 21 of 37
0.728
0.883
9.901
0.297
SUBTOTAL 22.698 �- 10.017 0 12.681
these)
Coventry Woods
- -
A
wooded park
7199 Coventry Woods Drive
3.484
273 -4718
City
X
12/27/1994
3.484
Coventry Woods
- -
B
park
7199 Coventry Woods Drive
0.333
273 -4719
City
X
12/27/1994
0.333
Coventry Woods
2 -
C
wooded park
7199 Coventry Woods Drive
1.706
273 -5559
City
X
12/27/1994
1.706
Coventry Woods
2 -
D
wooded park (gully)
7175 Dublin Road
0.184
273 -5560
City
X
12/27/1994
0.184
Coventry Woods
2 -
E
open space
7215 Dublin Road
0.899
273 -5561
City
X
12/27/1994
0.899
Coventry Woods
3 -
P
wooded park
7199 Coventry Woods Drive
3.360
273 -6684
City
X
12/27/1994
3.360
Brand Rd. booster
deeded
Donegal Cliffs
6 -
E
street island
0.233
Coventry Woods
- -
-
station
6 _ -
1700
273 -5072
City
X
6/22/1989
2.700
Entry features
Not dedicated
HA
N/A
SUBTOTAL
12.666
0.000 12.666 0.000
deeded
Donegal Cliffs
1 -
A
entrance feature
0.060
HA
to HA
0.060
deeded
Donegal Cliffs
I -
B
entrance feature
0.060
HA
to HA
0.060
deeded
Donegal Cliffs
6 -
C
entrance feature
0.060
HA
to HA
0.060
deeded
Donegal Cliffs
6 -
D
entrance feature
0.060
HA
to I4A
0.060
deeded
Donegal Cliffs
6 -
E
street island
0.233
HA
to HA
0.233
Donegal Cliffs
6 _ -
I
pm with tennis courts 4460 Done Cliffs Drive
10.095 273- 4244 -3
City
X 12/13/1989
10.095
SUBTOTAL
Dublinshirc
Dublinshirc,
Dublinshire
Dublinshire
Dublinshire
Dublinshire
Dublinshire
Dublinshire
Dublinshire
Dublinshirc
Dublinshire
Dublinshire
Dublinshire
Dublinshirc
Dublinshire
SUB TOTAL.
2
2
3
4 1
4 1
4 2
5 3
5 3
5 3
5 4
6
6
Farlington Village I -
A
open space
City
B
stormwatcr dry basin/
1.001
273 -4939
open space
X
C
open space /park
273 - 4940 -6
park
open space /park
4/11/1989
A
stomwater dry basin/
City
X
open space
1113
A
open space
6081 Round Tower Lane
B
entrance feature/
273 -6412
City
bikeway underpass
2/13/1996
C
open space
7749 Muirfield Drive
D
open space
6092 Brigids Close Drive
8
entrance feature/ storm-
6024 Brigids Close Drive
water dry basin /open
273 -7302
City
Space
11/10/1994
park
open space
City
F
open space
1.835
H
bikeway underpass/
7702 Muirfield Drive
8/22/1994
open space
G
open space
7602 Muirfield Drive
2.062
273 -6593
5660 Dublinshire Drive
park
park/school /municipal
(DMP)
273 -6794
Deal site
X
A park 5660 Dublinshire Drive
(no entry feature)
10.568
4.335
273 - 4429 -0
City
X
4/11/1989
1.001
273 -4939
City
X
4/11/1989
7.710
273 - 4940 -6
City
X
4/11/1989
4.740
273 -386 -6
City
X
4/11/1989
1113
273 -6274
City
X
5/20/1994
5.731
273 -6412
City
X
2/13/1996
0.211
273 -6413
LIA
X
2/13/1996
City
1.344
273 -7302
City
X
11/10/1994
0.446
273 -7061
City
X
9/1/1994
1.835
273 -7062
HA -ent
X
8/22/1994
City
2.062
273 -6593
City
X
7/14/1993
3.794
273 -6794
City
X
6/23/1995
0.284
273 -7139
City
X
10/31/1994
0.391
273 -7138
City
X
10/31/1994
26.789
273- 4183 -3
City
X
10/27/1987
62.786
2.744 273 - 3020 -8 City X 1/28/1987
CSAC 3/12/02
Page 22 of 37
0.000 10.095 0.473
4.335
1.001
7.710
4.740
2.113
5.731
0,211
1.344
0.446
1.835
0.000
2.062
3.794
0.284
0.391
26.789
2.046 60.740 0.000
2.744
L550
Gordon Farms - - - park - Franklin County 3.250 273 -9357 City X 9/25/1997 3.250
Gordon Farms - - - park - Franklin County 0.339 273 -9359 City X 9/25/1997 0.339
39-
Gordon Farms - - - park -Union County 1
1.550 0002004.200 C
City X 9/25/1997 L
CSAC 3/12/02
Page 23 of 37
Gordon Farms - -
- park - Franklin County
1.227
273-9358
City
X
9/25/1997
1.227
Gordon Farms - -
- park - Franklin County
0.116
273 -9360
City
X
9/25/1997
0.116
Gordon Farms - -
- park- Franklin County
0.594
273 -9361
City
X
9/25/1997
0.594
X
10/30/1996
0.406
39-
D
7459 Muirfield Drive 7459 Muirfield Drive
1.949
273 -8026
Gordon ]'arms - -
- park -Union County
0.325
0002004.100
City
X
9/25/1997
0.325
273 -10284
Enny fea ture Not dedicated
X
4/27/2000
HA
Hawk's Nest 2 3
F
Brand /Avery Road Brand /Avery Road
SUB TO'T'AL
273 -10285
7.401
X
4/27/2000
0.492
0 7.401 0
Hawk's Nest 1 I
A
5975 Brand Road 5975 Brand Road
6.167
273 -8023
City
X
10/30/1996
6.167
Hawk's Nest I I
B
7700 Kestrel Way West 7700 Kestrel Way Way
3.557
273 -8024
City
X
10/30/1996
3.557
Hawk's Nest I I
C
6155 Hawks Nest Drive 6155 Hawks Nest Drive
0.406
273 -8025
City
X
10/30/1996
0.406
Hawk's Nest I I
D
7459 Muirfield Drive 7459 Muirfield Drive
1.949
273 -8026
City
X
10/30/1996
1.949
1- lawk's Nest 2 3
E
Brand /Avery Road Brand /Avery Road
6.245
273 -10284
City
X
4/27/2000
6145
Hawk's Nest 2 3
F
Brand /Avery Road Brand /Avery Road
0.492
273 -10285
City
X
4/27/2000
0.492
Entrance features
1.590
5940 Innovation Court
HA
273 -9431
City
1.590
SUBTOTAL
20.406
1.590 18.816 0.000
Heather Glen
Heather Glen
Heather Glen
Heather Glen
North
Heather Glen
North
Heather Glen
North
Heather Glen
South
Heather Glen
South
SUBTOTAL
Hemingway
Village W.
4.522
7.137
6.801
4.800
0.602
0.375
0.900
0.000 24.279 0.977
1.957
park/open
I - park
space /wooded park
6000 Heather Glen Blvd
4.522
273 -7007
City
X
11/30/1994
park /open
2 - park
space /wooded park
6000 Heather Glen Blvd
7.137
273 -7006
City
X
11/30/1994
park/open
3 1 & 2 park
space /wooded park
6000 Heather Glen Blvd
6.801
273 -4508
City
X
11/30/1994
park plus PARK FEE
- - A
(wet pond)
5940 Innovation Court
4.800
273 -9431
City
X
11/4/1997
deeded
- - B
park/buffer
0.602
-
HA
to II.A.
deeded
- - C
park/buffer
0.375
-
HA
to H.A.
- - A
park /entrance
5750 Norn Street
0.900
273 -9779
City
X
8/21/1998
- - B
park/entrance
5745 Norn Street
0.119
273 -9780
City
X
8/21/1998
25.256
2 - A
open space
1.957
273 -2702
City (1.557)
X
6/25/1993
see Ord. 42-
94
4.522
7.137
6.801
4.800
0.602
0.375
0.900
0.000 24.279 0.977
1.957
CSAC 3/12/02
Page 24 of 37
SUB TOTAL 5.660
0.000 5.660 0.000
Llewellyn Fat ins
W. - - A park 4850 Tuttle Crossing Blvd 8.800 273 - 2898 -8 City X 5/2/1989 8.800
Entry Feature Not Dedicated IIA
SUB TOTAL 8.800 City 0.000 8.800 0.000
__
_
&ury Features Not ded icated
IIA
SUB TOTAL
1.957
0.000
1.957 0.000
Indian Run
Meadows
I I
A
wooded park /open space
3.362
273- 2226(2)
City
X
10/21/1985
3.362
Indian Run
Meadows
1 2
park
wooded park/open space
0.152
273 -412 -0
City
X
10/9/1987
0.152
Indian Run
Meadows
1 2
A
wooded park/open space
2.163
273 -2614
City
X
10/21/1985
2.163
Indian Run
Meadows
3 -
A
open space /park
2.684
273- 3069 -5
City
X
1/28/1987
2.684
Indian Run
Meadows
4 -
A
park 6675 Fallen Timbers
6.645
273- 3442 -4
City
X
6/24/1988
6.645
Indian Run
Meadows
5 -
B
park 6675 Fallen Timbers
5.000
273 - 3598 -3
City
X
10/9/1987
5.000
Indina Run
Meadows
5 -
-
stormwater dry basin
1.650
273 - 3601 -5
City
X
10/9/1987
1.650
Entry Features Not dedicated
IIA
SUB TOTAL
21.656
0.000
21.656 0.000
Kendall Ridge
I -
A
entrance feature & pond 6225 Kendall Ridge
4.113
274 -226
City
X
6/10/1999
4.113
(B & C plus $51,750 in
Kendall Ridge
2 -
B
fees)
4.261
274 -287
City
X
3/2/2000
4.261
Kendall Ridge
2 -
C
(Maintained by 11A)
0.312
274 -288
IIA
X
3/2/2000
0.312
Entrance Sign
HA
SUB TOTAL
8.686
0.312
8.374 0.000
Killilea
I -
-
25% of 5.45 acres
1.360
273 -9434
City
X
9/4/1997
1.360
Killilea
2 -
-
park
4.300
273 -10206
City
X
2/3/2000
4.300
5.45 acres (not city) &
cul -de -sac island
IIA
Entry Feature
14 A
SUB TOTAL 5.660
0.000 5.660 0.000
Llewellyn Fat ins
W. - - A park 4850 Tuttle Crossing Blvd 8.800 273 - 2898 -8 City X 5/2/1989 8.800
Entry Feature Not Dedicated IIA
SUB TOTAL 8.800 City 0.000 8.800 0.000
CSAC 3/12/02
Page 25 of 37
Lowell "Dace I -
A
open space
1.047
273 -4483
City
X
5/2/1989
1.047
Lowell Trace I -
B
street island
0.075
273 -4484
City
X
5/2/1989
0.075
deeded
open space /park -lied
The Reserve 1 -
B
entrance feature/
1.125 -
HA
to HA
Lowell Trace I -
C
Trabue
3.306
273 -4485
City
X
5/2/1989
3.306
Lowell Trace 2 -
A
open space -Red Trabue
0.850
273 - 5324 -2
City
X
12/29/1989
0.850
2.206 -
HA
wooded park -Red
2.206
Lowell Trace 2 -
C
Trabue
4.185
273 -421 -1
City
X
4/21/1989
4.185
Lowell Trace 3 -
A
open space
0.640
273 -5319
City
X
12/29/1989
0.640
street island
0.306 -
park/wooded park -Red
to HA
0.306
Lowell Trace - -
-
Trabue
21.024
273 -369 -2
City
X
1/4/1988
21.024
park/wooded park -Red
Lowell Trace - -
-
Trabue
6.153
273 -5027
City
X
4/21/1989
6.153
park/wooded park -Red
Lowell Trace - -
-
Trabue
2.677
273 - 3963 -9
City
X
7/1/1987
2.677
park/wooded park -Red
Lowell Trace - -
-
Trabue
1.311
273 - 3964 -7
City
X
7/1/1987
1.311
park/wooded park -Red
Lowell Trace - -
-
Trabue
1.275
273- 3960 -5
City
X
7/1/1987
1.275
park/wooded park -Red
Lowell Trace - -
-
Trabue
4.689
273 - 3961 -3
City
X
7/1/1987
4.689
park/wooded park -Red
Lowell Trace - -
-
Trabue
4.295
273 - 3962 -1
City
X
7/1/1987
4.295
Lowell Trace - -
-
park/wooded park
8.853
273- 4076 -9
City
X
1/22/1991
8.853
Entrance Features
HA
SUBTOTAL 60.380 0.000 60.380 0.000
Martin Commons - - - greenspace 2.340 273 -9721 City X 4/7/1998 2340
SUB TOTAL 2.340 2.340
deeded
The Reserve 1 -
A
entrance feature
0.558 -
HA
to IIA
0.558
deeded
The Reserve 1 -
B
entrance feature/
1.125 -
HA
to HA
L 125
open space
deeded
The Reserve 2 -
C
wooded park
2.206 -
HA
to HA
2.206
deeded
The Reserve 2 -
D
wooded park
3.049 -
I to
to HA
1049
deeded
The Reserve 2 -
E
street island
0.306 -
HA
to HA
0.306
SUB TOTAL.
Sandy Corners - -
SUB TOTAL
Sycamore Ridge
SUB TOTAL
Shannon Glen
1 &2
Shannon Glen
1 &2
Shannon Glen
3
Shannon Glen
4
Shannon Glen
4
Shannon Glen
4
!.Y�J711L�yYsT
Sheffield Place I -
SUBTOTAL
Trinity Park I -
Trinity Park I -
park (plus fee in lieu 5788 Sandy Rings Lane
of parkland)
- park (plus fee in lieu
7.244
3.755 273 -9742 City X 6/9/1998
HA
3.755
273 -9322
(prior 215-
3.5 1239) City X 8/6/1996
HE
B maint. By H.A. 6555 Camden Row Road
1.318
273 -7821 IIA
X
11/29/1996
C maint. By H.A. 8001 Townsend Road
1.383
273 -7822 HA
X
11/29/1996
M 8191 Shannon Glen Blvd
#
14.128
273 -10028
X
11/03/99
(dropped to
- open space (possible
1.73
R /W)
0.417
273 -10314
X
4/18/2000
H s f
0.104
273 -10315
X
4/18/2000
0
273 -10316
X
4/18/2000
18.094
A stonnwater wet 7402 Coventry Woods Drive
po / entry feature
2.126
273 -6888
HA X 9/20/1995
2.126
- park 5719 Sandymount Drive
4.754
273 -6991
City X 9/20/1995
273 -8120
(dropped to
- open space (possible
1.73
R /W)
City X 12/20/1996
CSAC 3/12/02
Page 26 of 37
0.000 0.000 7.244
3.755
3.755
3.5
3.5
1.318
1.383
3.439 0 0
2.126
2.126
4.754
1.73
CSAC 3/12/02
Page 27 of 37
future ROW)
SUBTOTAL
Waterford Village - 3
Waterford Village - 3
Waterford Village - 6
Waterford Village - 6
SUBTOTAL
lot I
park
lot 3
park
A
firemen's access
B
stomrwater dry basin/
X
open space
0.144
Entry Feature?
6.484
3.922
273 -986 -3
City
X
7/6/1982
1.700
273 -988 -9
City
X
6/1/1978
0.144
273 - 1678(5)
City
platted
6/9/1982
0.485
273 -1679
City
X
6/9/1982
6.251
0 6.484 0
3.922
1.700
0.144
0.485
273 -9246
(prior 215
0.000 6.251 0.000
Wcdgewood Hills I
- A
Park
4630 Club Road
5.789
1162)
City
X
7/23/1996
5.789
273 -9247
(prior 215 -
Wedgewood Hills 1
- B
Park
4550 Satterton Circle
0.605
1163)
City
X
7/23/1996
0.605
273 -9248
(prior 215 -
Wedgewood Hills I
- C
Park
Satterton Circle
3.389
1164)
City
X
7/23/1996
3.389
No entry features
SUB TOTAL
9.783
0.000 9.783 0.000
Wellington Place I
- A
open space abuts
7467 Coventry Woods Drive
5.755
273 -6954
City
X
9/20/1995
5.755
Brandon Park
Wellingoon Place I
- B
entry feature/
7391 Coventry Woods Drive
2.207
273 -6955
}IA
X
9/20/1995
2.207
stormwater wet pond
City
0.000
SUB TOTAL
7.962
2.207 5.755 0.000
Westbury I
- A
wet basin
7770 Wareham Drive
1026
273 -9955
X
1/28/00
(total acreage
to be
Westbury 2 - B 7799 Wareham Drive 0.037 273 -10078 X 2/16 /2000
CSAC 3/12/02
Page 28 of 37
Westbury
3 1 C
Westbury
3 1 D
Westbury
3 2 E
Westbury
4 1 P
Westbrry
4 1 G
Westbury
4 1 H
Westbury
4 2 1
Westbury
5 - J
Westbury
5 - K
SUB TOTAL
18.750
X
X
X
X
X
X
N/A
X
X
X
0.000 3.142 0.000
Wexford Estates I - A entrance feature 6242 Manteo Drive 0.617 273 -6580 HA X 11/30/1992 0.617
Wexford Estates I - B entrance feature 6241 Manteo Drive 0.445 273 -6581 14A X 11/30/1992 0.445
Land
Wexford Estates I - C open space 7243 Tullymore Drive 0.076 C ity 'swap" 0.076
SUBTOTAL 1.138 1.062 0.076 0.000
Wexford Woods -
- A
entrance feature
6238 Wexford Woods Drive
0.220
273 - 5291 -3
I4A
X
2/4/1992 0.220
Wexford Woods -
- B
entrance feature
6239 Wexford Woods Drive
0.207
273 - 5292 -1
HA
X
2/4/1992 0.207
Wexford Woods -
- C
wooded park
Wexford Woods Drive
0.226
273 - 5293 -9
City Park
X
2/4/1992 0.226
Wexford Woods -
- D
wooded park
Wexford Woods Drive
1,459
273 - 5294 -7
City Park
X
2/4/1992 1.459
Woods of Dublin 2 -
D
wooded park
Rushwood Drive 2.572 273 -3638
City
X 7/18/1990 2.572
Woods of Dublin 3 -
E
wooded nark
SUB TOTAL
City
X 7/18/1990 1,104
2.112
0.427 1.685 0.000
Brand Road
Brand Road
2.587
0.555
3.031
0.627
3.599
0.305
1.501
0.907
0.701
3.179
273 -10145
40-
0029004.045
273 -10146
40-
0029004.043
40-
0029004.50
273 - 010376
deeded to
Edwards
273 - 010302
273 - 010504
273 - 010505
2/16/2000
4/5/2001
1/28/00
4/5/2001
4/19/2001
4/26/2001
4/26/2001
4/26/2001
4/26/2001
2.587
0.555
Access to Edwards
Parcel
deeded
Woods of Dublin I -
A
entrance feature
0.470 -
HA
to HA 0.470
deeded
Woods of Dublin I -
B
entrance feature
0.869 -
HA
to HA 0.869
deeded
Woods of Dublin 2 -
C
wooded park
4.269 -
HA
to HA 4.269
Woods of Dublin 2 -
D
wooded park
Rushwood Drive 2.572 273 -3638
City
X 7/18/1990 2.572
Woods of Dublin 3 -
E
wooded nark
Rushwood Drive 1.104 273 -3994
City
X 7/18/1990 1,104
Brand Road
Brand Road
2.587
0.555
3.031
0.627
3.599
0.305
1.501
0.907
0.701
3.179
273 -10145
40-
0029004.045
273 -10146
40-
0029004.043
40-
0029004.50
273 - 010376
deeded to
Edwards
273 - 010302
273 - 010504
273 - 010505
2/16/2000
4/5/2001
1/28/00
4/5/2001
4/19/2001
4/26/2001
4/26/2001
4/26/2001
4/26/2001
2.587
0.555
Access to Edwards
Parcel
CSAC 3/12/02
Page 29 of 37
SUBTOTAL 9,284
0.000 1676 5.608
Woods of Indian
Run I - park wooded park 5218 Forest Run Drive 6.330 273 -6083 City X 6/14/1995 6.330
Entry Feature HA
SUBTOTAL 6.330
6.330
Wyandotte
Woods 1 A Maintained by Ii.A. 4430 Wyandotte Woods Drive 2.433 273 -10447 HA X 12/8/2000 2.433
Wyandotte
Woods 1 B Maintained by H.A. 4435 Wyandotte Woods Drive 5.409 273 -10448 HA X 12/8/2000 5.409
Wyandotte
Woods 2 1 C Maintained by H.A. 14.525 IIA pending 14.525
22.367 22.367 0.000 0.000
Wyndham Village 1 - A entrance feature /park/ 7499 Avery Road 6.213 273 -5898 City X 12/30/1994 6.213
stormwater wet pond
Wyndham Village I - B entrance feature /park 7475 Avery Road 2.602 273 -5899 City X 12130/1994 2.602
stormwater wet pond
Wyndham Village 1 - C wooded park 7475 Tullymore Drive 4.205 273 -5900 City X 12/30/1994 4.205
Wyndham Village i Lot 85 demolished house 0.450 273 -5897 City X 12/30/1994 0.450
W ndham Village 4 s.:"I' �,-w 7580 Tull more Drive 5.666 273 -8060 City X 11/29/1996 5.666
x: t
Wyndham Village 5 w C 'Tiaznib C} ,w�33 7882 Wiltshire Drive 2.172 273 -9468 City X 11/21/1997 2,172
Wyndham Village 6 2 .3.-`7042 Violet Veil Court 1.882 273 -9747
�," ' a "" Ag a tt a„�'r X 7/14/1998
Wyndham Village 6 2 „B`, :�q °` (;...7010 Violet Veil Court 3.762 273 -9748 X 7/14/1998
Wyndham Village 6 2 zsx ` t� a a * 5 39 -00
W
Y r C yt?, � � 7009 Violet Veil Court 1.297 2003.029 X 8/7/1998
- Entry Features HA
SUB TOTAL 29.863 1.614 21308 0.000
TOTALS 552.226 66.672 420.297 28.053
CSAC 3/12/02
Page 31 of 37
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dana McDaniel
Assistant City Manager/Director of Service
FROM: Stephen J. Smith, Law Director
Mitchell H. Banchefsky, Assistant Law Director
Jennifer Dutey Readler
DATE: February 15, 2002
RE: Maintenance of Common Areas by Homeowners Associations
Introduction
The City of Dublin ( "Dublin ") currently requires developers to dedicate certain common areas as open and
green space in subdivisions. Dublin takes title to this property, but mandates that maintenance be performed by the
developer and, subsequently, by the homeowners association. This is provided for in the zoning documents and plats.
Mandatory participation in the homeowners association and association fees are required in the deeds. The Meadows
at Wyndham Village Homeowners Association ( "Wyndham Village ") is asking Dublin to assume the maintenance and
insurance for two reserve areas (Reserves A and B) in the subdivision that were dedicated to the City. The primary
reason behind this request is the amount of the Association assessment, which the Wyndham Village residents argue is
more significant than other Association assessments within the City. Several issues have been raised regarding the
Reserve maintenance requirements.
Issues
Is the Zoning /Plat Requirement for Homeowners Associations to Maintain Common Areas in the
Subdivision that were Dedicated to the Citv of Dublin an Unreasonable Assessment or Tax?
Can the Citv of Dublin Enforce the Current Requirement That Homeowners Associations Maintain
Dedicated Property?
What Methods Can Be Used to Remove the Plat and Deed Restrictions if That Course of Action is
Desired?
What Do Other Cities Require with Regard to Maintenance of Common Areas?
Legal Analysis
Is the Zoning /Plat Requirement for Homeowners Associations to Maintain Common Areas in the
Subdivision that were Dedicated to the City of Dublin an Unreasonable Assessment or Tax?
Very little case law exists discussing homeowners associations and there is no State of Ohio law
requiring homeowners associations to be formed. However, when the deed or plat requires the formation
of or participation in a homeowners association, the association must be formed, and a court has the
power to enforce any such provision if a person who has standing brings the action.
CSAC 3/12/02
Page 32 of 37
Typically, homeowners associations are formed in planned unit developments (PUDs). The
development, design and engineering of a PUD are subject to extensive local regulation. For the
developer, the emphasis is on obtaining local plan and plat approvals and on the preparation of essentially
nonstatutory real estate documentation. In PUDs the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions provides
the method for establishing architectural and use restrictions to govern the development.
Wyndham Village contends that, because Dublin mandated dedication of the Reserves and
homeowner association maintenance of the Reserves in the zoning process, the assessments necessary for
the maintenance of the Reserves are "taxes." Special assessments may be levied on real property, and in a
general sense, an assessment is a tax. However, the distinction generally recognized is that an assessment
is based upon special benefits peculiar to the property or person charged therewith, while taxes are levied
without reference to special benefit and without discrimination upon all persons and property alike for
general public purposes.'
The prohibition under Section 19, Article I of the Ohio Constitution against the taking of private
property for public use without just compensation has no application to assessments not in excess of the
special benefits accruing to the party from the improvement, but an assessment in excess of the value of
the property after the improvement contravenes the provisions as well as that of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.' Although the Ohio Revised Code does not define the
general term "taxation" the courts have generally adopted the theory that taxation is an enforced
contribution from, or general burden imposed upon, persons and property for the purpose of supporting
the government and meeting public expenses.' The Reserves at issue are already exempted from property
taxes, so the homeowners associations are already benefited to a certain extent. The dues the property
owners pay to the homeowners associations would not fit within the general definition of "taxation"
because Dublin is not supported by the dues. The dues go solely to the maintenance of areas that directly
benefit the member homeowners and to social events for the members.
A special benefit has been construed to be a benefit above and beyond that enjoyed in common
with the public at large and consistent in the potential or actual added use or enjoyment of the property. It
is not limited to an increase in market value.' While in a general sense special assessments are taxes
imposed under the taxing power rather than the power of eminent domain, they are not taxes within the
meaning of Section 2, Article XII of the Ohio Constitution, requiring uniformity, although they are
subject to the same principle of uniformity of appointment.'
While no Ohio case could be located that addresses this issue, other states, to a certain extent, have
addressed related issues. For example, in the case of Briarcliffe Lakeside Townhouse Owners Association
v. Wheaton, 170 I11. App.3d 244 (1988), a homeowners association sued the city to repair erosion
damages on the shores of two lakes that were part of an easement granted to the city by the developers of
the property around the lakes. The Illinois appellate court ruled in favor of the city. The court noted that
a declaration of covenants for the subdivision forced the homeowners association to maintain the common
areas, including the lakes. Representatives for both the city and the developer testified that the intent of
Ohio Municipal Law, Gothennan and Babbitt.
Norwood v. Baker, 172 U.S. 269 (1898).
3 In re Kastelic's Estate, 3 Ohio Op. 164 (C.P. 1935)
' Dmnar Realty Co. v. Cleveland, 143 Ohio St. 469 (1944).
5 Youngstown V. Fishel, 89 Ohio St. 247 (1914).
CSAC 3/12/02
Page 33 of 37
the documents was to absolve the city from any responsibility for maintaining the lakes, even though they
were deeded to the city as easements. According to certain city employees, the lakes were amenities for
which the lot owners were to be responsible and it was not contemplated that the lakes would be the
obligation of the city. The court was satisfied that the parties had clearly delineated that the lakes would
be the responsibility of the homeowners association. As a result, summary judgment was granted to the
city. Similarly, in the Wyndham Village situation, the Reserves are amenities directly benefiting the
Wyndham Village residents and not Dublin residents in general. Clearly, the City should not have an
obligation to spend public money on the maintenance of areas that confer private benefits.
Further, a court in Mississippi found that homeowners association fees are not a municipal
assessment. Specifically, in the case of Edwards v. Bridgetown Community Association, 486 So.2d 1235,
the homeowners association members raised the issue as to whether the dues of the property association
constitute "assessments." According to the court, because the association was not a municipality of the
state, the dues to the homeowners association were not an assessment. In the Wyndham Village situation,
even though the zoning documents speak to the formation of a homeowners association, it is the
individual deeds that create the relationship between the Association and the residents. The $456
assessment figure is created by Wyndham Village, not the City of Dublin. There appear to be some ways
to reduce this figure, such as releasing the management company and soliciting bids for the maintenance
of the Reserves to ensure that the best price is obtained. Wyndham Village could also explore the
possibility of joining with another homeowners association in the City to obtain economies of scale.
Wyndham Village further contends that all Association fees must be uniform throughout the City.
Since Dublin itself is not imposing the fees directly, there is no such requirement. The amount of a
homeowners association assessment can depend on many things including the size of the subdivision, the
amount of common areas that must be maintained and the services provided by the Association.
Consequently, it is virtually impossible to mandate uniform assessments throughout the City.
would
These other associations could argue thee "due pros
maintenance responsibilities, as with Wyndham Villa
acts to prohibit a municipality from taking actions th
public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. Ifr
the common areas, it would have to delineate a ration
Can the Citv of Dublin Enforce the Current Requirement That Homeowners Associations Maintain
Dedicated property?
The City would be able to enforce a deed restriction in which the City is expressly made a party.
The City would also be able to enforce a restriction if the restriction was created as a condition of some
action by the City, such as a rezoning. Finally, the City has the power to seek judicial remedies for any
action or inaction that results in a violation of any of the City's Ordinances.
This would be determined on a case by case basis by examining a specific set of deed restrictions.
CSAC 3/12/02
Page 34 of 37
Methods for Removing Homeowner Association Maintenance Requirements in Plats and
Deeds
The homeowner association maintenance requirement is found in various documents. The
question has been asked, if City Council decides to modify the manner in which common areas are
maintained, how would the current restrictions noted on the plat and in the deed be removed.
Plat Restriction Removal
As to the plat requirements that the associations maintain the common areas, the Ohio Revised
Code, §711.17 to §711.27, details the procedure to alter or vacate a plat map.
According to O.R.C. §711.17, "[u]pon the application of two thirds of the proprietors of land
described in a plat of a municipal corporation, the court of common pleas may alter or vacate the plat of
any such municipal corporation, addition thereto, or parts thereof, within the county." According to
O.R.C. 711.18, "[i]n order to vacate the plat map, the applicants must file a petition in writing, and must
give thirty days notice by publication in a newspaper published in and of general circulation in the
county." According to O.R.C. 711.20, the proceedings for vacating or altering a plat shall be recorded by
the clerk of the court of common pleas. A copy of such record shall be made and certified, under the seal
of the court, by the clerk, and shall be deposited by the parties applying for such vacation or alteration,
within thirty days after such certification with the county recorder, who shall record it.
Deed Restriction Removal
There are several methods, under Ohio law, where landowners who are subject to restrictive
covenants (and/or deed restrictions) can terminate, modify, or not enforce the covenants through
expressed terms or through the conduct of the landowners involved. Some of the more common methods
to terminate, modify, or not enforce a covenant include: by the terms of the covenant, by a release or
agreement to modify or terminate; waiver or abandonment; estoppel (violation by other landowners),
laches and delay.'
It is important to note that the covenant often defines the terms and/or timeframe for how and
when the landowners may terminate the restrictive covenant! For example, the covenant may state that if
the restriction can be modified by a majority vote or that the restrictive covenant will automatically
terminate after twenty (20) years. Any covenant or agreement in deeds, land contracts, and any other
instruments or conveyance by which real estate or any interest therein is conveyed by the developer or by
a new community authority to any person or entity whereby such person or entity agrees to pay a
community development charge is deemed to be a covenant that "runs with the land." After an instrument
containing such covenant is duly recorded, it is binding on behalf of and enforceable by the authority
against each such person or entity and all successors and assigns of the property conveyed by the
instrument. The authority is specifically given the power to enforce such covenants by any and all
appropriate means, but it may waive, reduce, or terminate any charge to the extent not needed, the
procedure for which may be provided in the covenant.
' This is a non - exclusive list. There are several other less common methods where the nature of the covenant changes. For
example, the covenant may no longer be enforceable if the property is rezoned, taken by eminent domain, or merges with
another property that is subject to the same restrictive covenant, etc.
s 10 Ohio Jur.3d §399.
CSAC 3/12/02
Page 35 of 37
In a release or agreement to modify or terminate the covenant, the release or agreement will be
effective if joined by all interested parties. However, the covenant will not be discharged by an
agreement that is made by less than all of the interested parties.' Stated another way, one landowner in a
restricted subdivision cannot modify the restriction without the concurrence of all others. This may be a
difficult method of terminating the covenant if multiple landowners are involved. And before a restrictive
covenant can be said to be waived by agreement there must be an intention to waive the covenant, and the
waiver must be founded upon a consideration as is required for any contract."
In waiver or abandonment, property owners otherwise entitled to enforce a covenant or
agreement, may waive their right to enforce restrictions through their conduct. For example, where a
substantial number of residents install basketball hoops in violation of a restrictive covenant to that effect,
the character of the community has been substantial altered as to render the restriction valueless to
remaining landowners. Therefore, the remaining landowners implicitly have waived the restriction and
lose any rights to enforce the restrictive covenant.
In estoppel (violation by others), lathes or delay, the conduct of the parties involved can amount
to the termination of the covenant. In estoppel (violation by others), a court can consider the
circumstances and determine whether the numerous violations of the covenant by other landowners serves
as a defense to a landowner attempting to enforce a restrictive covenant against another landowner. 13
Similarly, if a landowner violates the covenant herself, she will not have standing in equity to compel
neighboring lot owners to comply with the covenant. 14 In lathes or delay, the right to enjoin a violation
of a restrictive covenant may be lost by reason of a landowner's delay in addressing the violation.
As exhibited above, once a restrictive covenant is entered into by landowners, it can often times be
difficult to remove such a restriction.
Rezoning
It should also be noted that if the homeowners association maintenance requirement is found in
certain zoning documents, such as in the rezoning text or as a condition of rezoning, a new rezoning may
be needed to fully eliminate the maintenance requirement, if that is the City's desired course of conduct.
Survey of Other Municipalities
Westerville Gahanna Worthine_ton Revnoldsbu Columbus
r
' Sheibley v. Yonker (Wood County 1989), 1989 Ohio App. LEXIS 3269, *7.
° 20 Am. Jur.2d §236.
Linwood Park Co. v Van Dusen (1900), 63 Ohio St. 183.
12 Landen Farm Community Services Assn v. Schube (Warren County 1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 231.
' Romig v. Modest (Montgomery County 1956), 102 Ohio App. 225.
14 Northwest Boulevard C. v. Clark (Franklin County 1927), 6 O.L. Abs. 20.
CSAC 3/12/02
Page 36 of 37
Is the formation
Typically no (when
No
No
No
No
of a homeowners
streets are public and
association
run throughout
required?
subdivision); but a
homeowners
association may be
required where the
subdivision wants to
retain private or
common areas.
Who takes
No, but Westerville
Negotiated in
Not
No, only
If in right of
ownership of
gets proper assurances
the process, but
required,
right of way
way the land is
these common
through homeowners
usually deeded
only right of
items.
deeded over to
areas?
association that the
over to the city.
way items.
the city;
areas will be
common areas
maintained.
in a
subdivision are
retained by the
owner.
Who undertakes
Homeowners
If deeded over
Homeowners
the maintenance
Association
to the city, it
association is
responsibilities?
will be the
responsible.
city's
responsibility.
Conclusion
The requirement for homeowner association maintenance of common areas dedicated to Dublin is
a valid, legally enforceable requirement. However, there are several ways in which that requirement can
be mitigated if it is the desire of the City to do so. The City should be aware, however, that any exception
to this maintenance requirement will likely be followed by further requests for exception. As a result, the
City could be faced with substantial expenses and time - consuming maintenance responsibilities for areas
of land that primarily benefit individual landowners.
Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any further questions.
CSAC 3/12/02
Page 37 of 37
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dana McDaniel
Assistant City Manager/Director of Service
FROM: Stephen J. Smith, Law Director
Jennifer Dutey Readler
DATE: March 8, 2002
RE: Maintenance and Ownership of Common Areas by Homeowners Associations
The City of Dublin ( "Dublin ") currently requires developers to dedicate certain common areas as open and
green space in subdivisions. Dublin takes title to this property, but mandates that maintenance be performed by the
developer and, subsequently, by the homeowners association. This is provided for in the zoning documents and plats.
Mandatory participation in the homeowners association and association fees are required in the deeds. The Meadows
at Wyndham Village Homeowners Association ( "Wyndham Village ") is asking Dublin to assume the maintenance and
insurance for two reserve areas (Reserves A and B) in the subdivision that were dedicated to the City. The primary
reason behind this request is the amount of the Association assessment, which the Wyndham Village residents argue is
more significant than other Association assessments within the City.
Possible courses of action are currently being drafted for Council's consideration. You asked whether the City
may require a homeowners association be formed and that the association then take responsibility for maintaining all
common areas. The common areas would not be owned by the City in this scenario. Instead, they would be owned by
the developer and then the homeowners association.
In situations where the City does not wish to acquire common areas in subdivisions for park space,
the City does not have to take ownership of these common areas. Instead, the zoning documents
could provide for a mandatory homeowners association, which would own and maintain the
common areas once it is established. Until that point, the developer would take full ownership and
maintenance responsibilities.
Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you would like us to investigate further options for
dealing with this situation.
Anne Clarke - January 29.doc
Page 1
CITY OF DUBLIN
Community Services Advisory Commission
January 29, 2001
7:00 p.m.
Agenda
I. Call to Order - Dave Pagnard [2 minutes]
II. Introduction of Commission and Staff members
III. Public Comments on Items Not on the Agenda [10 minutes]
IV. Approval of Minutes of December 11, 2001 meeting [5 minutes]
V. Wyndham Village Homeowners Request - Council Assignment (12110/01)
A. Representatives of the Meadows at Wyndham Village to state their request and
explain the background and reasons for the request.
B. Planning Division staff to explain normal procedures /requirements and provide any
history pertinent to this situation.
C. Fred Hahn, the Director of Grounds & Facilities, to offer his perspective and
anticipated impacts should the City assume responsibility for maintaining these areas.
D. Legal staff to provide results of research into other municipalities and enforceability
of existing requirements.
E. Results of the survey of other homeowners associations and the inventory/audit of
"green space" to be conducted by staff
F. Other staff reports (if any)
G. Comments from other Homeowner Association representatives.
VI. New business/Round Table 115 minutes]
VII. Next meeting:
• February 12, 2002 7:00 p.m.
VIII. Adjournment
The meeting will be held in:
Council Chambers, Dublin Municipal Building, 5200 Emerald Parkway
Atten RSVP's
Will Attend
Will Not Attend
Tom Merritt 11/28/01
Dave Pa and 12/6/01
Ross Breseman 12/6/01
Barry Burton 12/6/01
CSAC 1/29102
Page I of 10
Community Services Advisory Commission
January 29, 2002
CITY OF DUBLIN Minutes
Commission members present: Dave Pagnard, Chris Hogan, Tom Merritt, Randy Roth and
Sugu Suguness.
Staff members present: Dana McDaniel and Jennifer Readler (Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn).
Public participants present: A Guest Sign -in Sheet reflecting the names of the public
participants is attached and incorporated herein.
I. Call to Order
Mr. Pagnard called the meeting to order.
II. Swear -in New Members
Commission members Christopher Hogan and Randy Roth were sworn -in.
III. Public Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
None.
IV. Approval of Minutes
The Commission approved the minutes of the December 22, 2001 meeting as submitted.
V. Introductions /Purpose of the Commission
Each Commission member and staff member introduced him/her self.
Mr. McDaniel explained the background of the request received from the Meadows at Wyndham
Village Homeowners Association. He said staff was preparing a list of City -owned property and
was conducting a survey of other homeowners associations.
Mr. Pagnard explained the purpose of the Commission and reviewed the assignment from
Council as described in the December 10, 2001 Council Actions (excerpt attached and
incorporated herein).
VI Wvndham Village Homeowners Request - Council Assignment (12/10/01)
Mr. Belville introduced himself as the treasurer of the Meadows at Wyndham Village
Homeowners Association. He distributed handouts and gave a presentation regarding the
Association's request (copy attached and incorporated herein).
Mr. Hogan inquired how the number of homes in the Meadows at Wyndham Village compared
to other homeowners associations.
Mr. McDaniel replied staff was surveying other homeowner associations to determine this.
CSAC 1129/02
Page 2 of 10
Mr. Pagnard asked about the relation of reserves to parkland
Mr. Roth inquired who monitors storm water systems.
Mr. Pagnard inquired if the Meadows at Wyndham Village was ever considered to be a part of
Wyndham.
Mr. Joseph stated the Meadows were intended to be a part of Wyndham. He then asked at what
point did the City begin transferring responsibility for maintenance.
Mr. McDaniel replied that there was point several years ago in which the transfers started taking
place because they were seen as amenities /enhancements to the immediate property values and
residents would maintain them because they would want to influence the appearance.
Mr. Belville said the Meadows request was to gain relief from maintaining the reserves.
Mr. Bruning distributed copies of the association's recommendation (attached and incorporated
herein).
Mr. Joseph said there had been a lack of information provided by the builders /realtors to the
homebuyers about the Association's responsibilities and related fees. He noted the tensions
between neighbors due to the collection of the fees. He felt the City should assume responsibility
for City -owned lands since other people access the lands the same as they do parks. He felt the
City had a propensity to spend dollars on other amenities /maintenance elsewhere (i.e., Muirfield-
Glick, Avery Road interchange, Skate Park).
Mr. Pagnard inquired if there were other situations similar to this one either in Dublin or other
cities.
Mr. Roth inquired why the reserves are deeded to the City as opposed to the associations. He felt
negotiations as to responsibilities should take place up front and inquired what direction could be
given to P &Z /staff in negotiating these situations.
Mr. Bruning inquired why staff initially rejected the Association's request the preceding June.
Mr. McDaniel explained the background of the request and staff's position for a policy direction,
i.e., approved plattes and P &Z negotiation. He said the initial request was from an individual
(not the association). The association subsequently submitted a formal request to Council. Staff
strongly feels the request constitutes a policy change, which would have to be directed by
Council.
Mr. Belville said that he could then take the policy statement back to the association to address.
Mr. Merritt noted his desire for more background and said he would like to understand the more
legal aspects of the issues.
CSAC 1/29/02
Page 3 of 10
Ms. Readler said legal staff had prepared one response (previously supplied to the Commission
and incorporated in the December 11 minutes). She said other information was being assessed
and would be formally submitted to the Commission later.
Dana inquired as to the insurance the Association carries for liabilities.
Wellington pays S1,043 per year and the Meadows pays $525 per year.
Mr. Merritt expressed appreciation to the association for attending and noted the need for
information being prepared by staff (i.e., survey of other associations, legal information, risk
management information).
Mr. Pagnard requested the Planning staff provide a historic perspective of the Meadows at
Wyndham Village.
VII. New Business /Round Table
None.
VIII. Next Meeting
The next meeting of the Commission will be:
February 12, 2002 at 7:00 p.n:.
In Council Chambers, Dublin Municipal Building, 5200 Emerald Parkway
VIII. Adiournment:
Mr. Merritt moved to adjourn.
Mr. Suguness second the motion.
The vote was 5 -0 in favor of adjournment.
CSAC 1/29/02
Page 4 of 10
T
N
O
U�
N
.r
z
H
W
W
U
Q
U
S
i
�
va
J
r
o
N
?
N
b,
V
3
�
r
m
t�
r
Z
CSAC 1/29/02
Page 5 of 10
(Excerpt)
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL — MONDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2001
• Consensus of Council to proceed with Phase I of government television channel at a
cost of $4,500. An appropriations ordinance will be brought to Council to effect this.
• Motion carried 6 -0 to refer to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission the
issue raised by a resident regarding the possibility of a separate level of teen fees for
the Rec Center.
• Consensus of Council to schedule joint meeting with Planning & Zoning Commission
regarding the Unified Development Code on Thursday, January 24 at 6:30 p.m. in
Council Chambers.
• Legal dept. to review plat issues for Avery Square Shopping Center re left turn onto
Avery- Muirfield.
OF INTEREST
• Dublin Skate Park dedication scheduled for Wednesday, December 19 at 4 p.m.
• The next regularly scheduled Council meeting is scheduled for Monday, January 7, 2002 at 7
p.m. in Council Chambers.
• Motion carried 6 -0 to refer to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission the
proposal from the Dublin Soccer League and the Mid -Ohio Select Soccer re Darree
Fields Expansion.
CSAC 1/29/02
Page 6 of 10
Index
A. Background — Brief Summary of Current Declaration & Final
Plat, and Code of Regulations which establish
B. To fulfill above responsibilities, HOA trustees actions
taken
C. Problems
D. Proposed Changes/ Remedies
A. Background — Brief Summary of "Declaration & Final Plat," and "Code
of Regulations" (legal documents establishing Meadows at Wyndham
Village and recorded on Franklin County records) which establish
1. Maintenance standards
2. Architectural Standards
3. Use Restrictions
4. Easements and Licenses
5. Three Reserves owned by Dublin, with two to be maintained by Home
Owners Association (HOA)
6. Establishment of HOA
a. To enforce all restrictions of record (1,2, 3, 4 above)
b. To collect funds and assure maintenance of reserves (5 above)
c. To operate HOA per requirements of Declaration & Code of Regulations
CSAC 1/29/02
Page 7 of 10
B. To fulfill above responsibilities, HOA trustees have
1. Contracted with professional management firm to
a. Obtain competitive bids for insurance and grounds care of two reserves
b. Establish contracts
1) Document requirements to assure satisfactory completion of work
2) Insure adequate liability coverage by contactors to avoid HOA liability to
contractors doing work on reserves
c. Follow -up with contractors to assure satisfactory completion of work
d. Collect homeowners fees and pay bills
1) Budget
2) Distribute vouchers to homeowners for payment
3) Follow -up letter for late payments
4) Collection / deposit of payments & late charges
5) Payment of HOA bills
6) Accounting system for quarterly reporting of financial status
7) Supplied fidelity bond to HOA
e. Gain access to legal assistance
1) Liens — warning letter and placement of liens
2.) Release of liens
3. Sheriffs sale appropriate actions —sometimes short deadline
f. Operate Architectural Review board
1. Receive requests and initial review
a) Approve if routine
b) Refer others to HOA Trustees
2. Grounds care of two (2) reserves maintained by HOA (70% of budget) includes
a. Weekly mowing, edging and cleanup (30 times per year)
b. Installation and fluffing of mulch
c. Edging and periodic weeding of beds
d. Application of fertilizers, pre- emergence & grub control chemicals
e. Trimming / replacement of trees, shrubs, flowers
- - - continued ---
CSAC 1/29/02
Page 8 or 10
B. To fulfill above responsibilities, HOA trustees have -continued
3. Secured insurance coverage ( * required by declaration)
a. General liability coverage for injury on reserves owned by Dublin, but
maintained by HOA
1). Deemed risk for reserves maintained by HOA
b. General liability coverage for HOA meetings *
1) HOA Meetings at Deer Run School
c. Fidelity bond coverage for all board members and employees of HOA
responsible for handling funds *
d. Officer & trustee indemnification against claims, liabilities, expenses, legal
fees incurred as result of being officer / trustee *
1). Disgruntled homeowner suits for actions taken such as
a) Architectural review board actions
b) Enforcement of declaration & final plat requirements
2. Suit against trustees & HOA as result of injury in reserves maintained
by HOA
e. Property damage for stone entrance sign *
CSAC 1/29/02
Page 9 of 10
= 71=1
• Homeowners fees unfairly high compared to neighboring Dublin developments
Only 30 homeowners in development to share costs
An analysis of neighboring homeowners associations indicates Meadows at
Wyndham Village Homeowners fees to meet declaration and final plat
requirements are unfairly high
D. Proposed Changes / Remedies
• Recommended changes in approach
1. Dublin assume responsibility for maintenance of two reserve areas currently
maintained by Meadows HOA in addition to one reserve area already
maintained by Dublin
2. Dublin assume responsibility to enforce restrictions of record (Section A above)
From a broader perspective, the Dublin system for establishing HOA appears flawed
1. There are three stakeholders in the process; Builder, Dublin and
Homeowners, but Homeowners are not represented in the negotiation
process
2. This results in establishment of:
a. Complex legal documents which few homeowners understand
b. Inequity in required HOA assessments
c. Uneven enforcement of restrictions of record
We recommend that the process be reevaluated / changed.
• The Officers of the Meadows at Wyndham Village Homeowners Association look
forward to working with CSAC to evaluate the above issues and achieving resolution of our
Meadows problems prior to the beginning of our budget cycle in October.
January 29,2002
Acres
Acres
Maintained per
Acres
Maintained
homeowner
Maintained
Home
per
as % of
HOA Fees
HOA Association
by HOA
Owners
homeowner
Meadows
peryear
Hawk's Nest "
1.589
208
0.0076
14.2%
$50
Meadows @
Wyndham Village
1.614
30
0.0538
100.0%
$456
Westbury
5.010
290
0.0173
32.1%
$150
Entrance
$20
Wyndham Vill age
only
330
1 optional
D. Proposed Changes / Remedies
• Recommended changes in approach
1. Dublin assume responsibility for maintenance of two reserve areas currently
maintained by Meadows HOA in addition to one reserve area already
maintained by Dublin
2. Dublin assume responsibility to enforce restrictions of record (Section A above)
From a broader perspective, the Dublin system for establishing HOA appears flawed
1. There are three stakeholders in the process; Builder, Dublin and
Homeowners, but Homeowners are not represented in the negotiation
process
2. This results in establishment of:
a. Complex legal documents which few homeowners understand
b. Inequity in required HOA assessments
c. Uneven enforcement of restrictions of record
We recommend that the process be reevaluated / changed.
• The Officers of the Meadows at Wyndham Village Homeowners Association look
forward to working with CSAC to evaluate the above issues and achieving resolution of our
Meadows problems prior to the beginning of our budget cycle in October.
January 29,2002
CSAC 1/29/02
Page 10 of IQ
Recommendation
The Wellington Place Homeowners' Association requests that the City of Dublin assume
responsibility for maintenance of city -owned reserve areas currently maintained by the
Homeowners' Association (HOA). This would include Dublin insuring the property, including
the reserve areas and entranceway, and indemnifying the HOA from any liability. The HOA will
continue maintaining the immediate neighborhood entrance area (i.e., stone /cement walls,
signage, lighting, and flower beds).
Justification for this Recommendation
1. Affected neighborhoods have assumed responsibility for maintaining city -owned reserve areas
without any involvement or impact on the negotiations between Dublin's Planning and Zoning
Department and the subdivision developer.
2. Collection of exorbitant association dues by appointed trustees is straining relationships
between neighbors. In an effort to ease this dubious collection task, some associations have hired
a management flfm to collect the dues. This further exacerbates the problem, as the cost to hire
the management company increases the already -high association dues.
3. HOAs currently focus on tasks that are overwhelming and financially burdensome.
Neighborhood residents should focus on the beautification of their own personal property and
work with the City to generate ideas on beautifying surrounding public green space.
4. As Dublin strives for consistency and continuity in its ongoing Community Plan, having each
neighborhood maintain its well- exposed reserve areas will most likely result in deviation from
the City's goals.
5. As the reserve areas currently maintained by the homeowners' associations are city -owned and
publicly accessible, the associations have no say as to whom has access to these areas. Hence,
the associations' maintenance of this property implies a false sense of control and ownership. The
responsibility for maintaining these areas should not be placed on the associations, since they do
not own the property or have control over who uses it.
Anne Clarke - December 11.doc
CSAC 12/11/01
Page I of IG
CITY of Dunctn Community Services Advisory Commission
December 11, 2001
Minutes
Commission members present: Dave Pagnard, Tom Merritt, Jim Stoycheff and Sugu Suguness.
Staff members present: Dana McDaniel, and Tammy Brown
Public participants present: A Guest Sign -in Sheet reflecting the names of the public
participants (a group of Worthington Kilbourne students) is attached and incorporated herein.
I. Call to Order
Mr. Pagnard called the meeting to order.
II. Public Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
None.
III. Approval of Minutes
Mr. Stoycheff moved to adopt the minutes of the November 13, 2001 meeting as submitted.
Mr. Merritt second the motion.
The vote was 4 -0 in favor of adopting the minutes of the November 13, 2001 meeting as
submitted.
IV. Introductions /Purpose of the Commission
The students from Worthington Kilbourne High School explained their class project and
requirement to attend public meetings of local governmental agencies.
Mr. Pagnard explained the purpose of the Commission.
V. Wyndham Villaae Homeowners Request - Council Assignment (12/10/01)
Mr. McDaniel distributed a copy of the memo to Council in which the request from the Meadows
at Wyndham Village was described (copy attached and incorporated herein). He explained the
history of the request from the Meadows at Wyndham Village and listed similar requests
received by the City in recent years. He explained that the planning process often involves
stipulations for the creation of a homeowners association and certain maintenance
responsibilities. The developer usually incorporates these requirements into the plat/deed. Any
decisions or actions /remedies offered could potentially become precedent setting. He
Anne Clarke - December 11.doc
CSAC 12/11/01
Page 2 of 16
recommended the Commission
1. Determine how the Meadows at Wyndham Village Homeowners Association budget is
structured? Why are they insuring property owned by the City and which the City
insures? Why do they employ a property management company (this seems to be unique
and staff has not found any other Associations employing a management company)?
2. Survey other homeowners associations to determine the level of responsibility; the
fees /dues paid by members; how their budgets are structured; and how many homes are
included in the association?
3. Invite homeowners associations to attend a meeting.
Mr. Merritt inquired if the City Code requires the establishment of homeowners associations
Mr. McDaniel replied it is usually a development requirement. The requirement for the "reserve"
to be maintained by the association is included in the plat. The deeds then require membership
in the association. He noted the legal staff opinion incorporated in the report to Council.
Mr. Merritt related his experience and involvement with two homeowners associations. He noted
that if the requirements are stated in the legal documents (plats and deeds) then it appears to be
an issue between the associations and the homeowners.
Mr. Suguness also related his experience, especially as a past president of a homeowners
association. He said many people do not realize the requirements included in the deeds to their
homes.
Mr. Pagnard concurred and noted that many homeowners also don't understand that if they fail to
meet the requirements and the area is not maintained it will effect (lower) their property values.
He also noted the features and required level of maintenance for different areas could make it
difficult to determine a "standard" cost for homeowners.
Mr. Merritt concurred and noted that establishing a "basic level" of maintenance may be difficult,
especially considering zoning changes that have occurred through time as developments were
constructed.
Mr. McDaniel agreed and said that the Director of Grounds & Facilities had indicated there are
many developments that have not received their approvals and that involve large setback areas.
Maintenance of these areas is likely to be costly.
Mr. Pagnard inquired if the City was interested in taking over the maintenance of the areas and
then assessing the property owners for the cost.
Mr. McDaniel said that was an option and was the one the Meadows at Wyndham Village had
originally suggested. He displayed a map of the Meadows at Wyndham Village area. He noted
the amount of area involved and then mentioned the vast acreage that would be involved City-
wide should this be the remedy enacted. He felt it would be very difficult to administer,
especially considering varying expectation levels and costs for specific areas.
Anne C;arke - December 11.doc
CSAC 12/11/01
Page 3 of 16
Mr. Merritt inquired if the City had a list of homeowners associations
Mr. McDaniel replied the City does have a list. He said the City also has a map depicting the
inventory of "green space," however, he felt the map needed some verification and auditing. The
exact level of responsibility for each area also needs determined and more clearly stated.
Mr. Stoycheff inquired as to the number of similar requests the City had received.
Mr. McDaniel said he had been involved in three (Heather Glen, Shannon Park, and Wellington)
situations of similar nature. The Law Director had indicated his staff had also received similar
requests, but Mr. McDaniel was not sure of the number.
Mr. Pagnard asked if Council had requested the Commission's recommendation by a certain date.
Mr. McDaniel replied that the Meadows at Wyndham Village wanted a quick response, however,
the individuals to whom he had spoken understood that the process might take a while. Council
had not established a deadline but there were questions raised by members that he felt might
indicate Council would like a recommendation sooner than later.
A discussion followed in which the Commission determined the following timeline for
submission of its recommendation.
1. The Commission would like staff to survey homeowners associations and determine the
answers to the questions raised by Mr. McDaniel in his summary (above). The
Commission would also like representatives of the Division of Planning, the Director of
Law Office, and the Director of Grounds & Facilities to attend the January meeting. The
Commission requested staff invite representatives of the Meadows at Wyndham Village
homeowners association to attend the January meeting. Other homeowners associations
should be invited to attend either the January or February (preferably the February)
meeting. Because of the quantity of information requested the Commission felt it should
move its January meeting to January 22. (Note: After the meeting it was determined that
because January 21 is a holiday Council will meet on January 22, thus the Commission
would need to select another January date.)
2. At the February 12 meeting the Commission would receive information that may be
requested as a result of the January meeting and would begin drafting its
recommendation.
3. The Commission would finalize its recommendation at the March 12th meeting and
forward it to Council for the March 18" Council meeting.
Mr. Pagnard inquired if staff had researched similar requirements in other municipalities. He
requested legal staff be prepared to respond to this at the January meeting. He also inquired if the
City can take action should an association fail to meet its requirements.
Mr. McDaniel said that through the "noxious weeds" ordinance the City could mow an area and
then assess the association the same as it would a private property owner.
Anne Clatke - Dedember I I.doc
Page 4
CSAC 12/11101
Page 4 of 16
The Commission determined the agenda for the January meeting should include:
1. Representatives of the Meadows at
the background and reasons for the request.
2. Planning Division staff to explain
history pertinent to this situation.
Wyndham Village to state their request and explain
normal procedures /requirements and provide any
3. Fred Hahn, the Director of Grounds & Facilities, to offer his perspective and anticipated
impacts should the City assume responsibility for maintaining these areas.
4. Legal staff to provide results of research into other municipalities and enforceability of
existing requirements.
5. Results of the survey of other homeowners associations and the inventory/audit of "green
space" to be conducted by staff.
VI. Commission's Annual Review of List of Topics of Interest
The Commission decided to defer this discussion until after its recommendation to Council
regarding the Meadows at Wyndham Village request. The discussion will be included on either
the March or April agenda.
VII. Staff Reports - Status of Vicious Dog Ordinance
Mr. Pagnard reported he had attended the Council meeting. Council adopted the Commission's
recommendation and instructed legal staff to proceed with preparing the legislation. Council will
then consider the legislation at the January meetings.
VIII. New BusinesslRound Table
Mr. Pagnard inquired if there was any change to the status of electric aggregation.
Mr. McDaniel said there was no change. However, he noted the City will most likely pursue
natural gas aggregation in 2002 and the process would be the same as that for electric. The
Commission would most likely be asked to conduct the process.
IX. Next Meeting
The next meeting of the Commission will be:
January 29, 2002 at 7:OOp.m.
In Council Chambers, Dublin Municipal Building, 5200 Emerald Parkway
VIII. Adiournment:
Mr. Stoycheff moved to adjourn.
Mr. Suguness second the motion.
The vote was 4 -0 in favor of adjournment.
111111C ul�f KC - UC l I IUCI i I.uuI
CSAC 12/11101
Page 5 of 16
Cs AC.
sz(I k-) -T
Ma/\
C- Mn� L-
/�� / /�O/
s 4-cr �--
A - b1bzass/As-<� - 7 -7t iz
C- J'1hIlX 'i'�L✓iN �uI.N GI l/Vi/1C»y�� !✓^"""�""�-
a,��e��5��o�f�trnail,co� �1Kt -ts
t)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council — Meeting
Held
December 10, 2001
Mayor Kranstuber called the Dublin City Council meeting of December 10, 2001 to order
at 7:00 p.m.
Ms. Chinn ici-Zuercher led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call
Council members present were: Mayor Kranstuber, Vice Mayor Adamek, Mrs. Boring,
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, Mr. McCash, Mr. Peterson and Mr. Reiner.
Staff members present were: Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Ciarochi, Mr. Smith, Mr. McDaniel, Ms.
Clarke, Mr. Kindra, Mr. Harding, Ms. Crandall, Ms. Puskarcik, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Halm,
Ms. Hoyle, Mr. Price and Mr. Husenitza.
Special Recognition
Mayor Kranstuber recognized the Dublin Coffman High School Women's Varsity Soccer
Team, who recently won the 2001 State championship, achieving Dublin Cof man's first
state title in girls' soccer, and ending the season with a 22 -1 record.
Approval of Minutes
Mayor Kranstuber moved approval of the November 19, 2001 Council meeting minutes as
submitted.
Mr. Adamek seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion — Mr. Adamek, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring,
yes; Mayor Kranstuber, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher, yes.
Correspondence
The Clerk reported that a Notice to Legislative Authority was sent regarding a new liquor
permit for Pegasus Holding Company, located on Perimeter Loop Road.
There was no objection to the issuance of this permit.
Citizen Comments
Darnita Bradley, representing Columbus Gas of Ohio 200 Civic Center Drive Columbus,
43215 introduced herself and stated that if Council has any issues regarding Columbus
Gas, she would be happy to respond to them.
Mayor Kranstuber noted that several citizens have registered to speak on an issue related
to The Meadows of WyndhamVillage. He requested that Mr. McDaniel present a
preliminary report for clarification of the issue prior to public comments.
Mr. McDaniel stated that representatives of The Meadows of Wyndham Village recently
contacted the City and requested relief from the cost of the maintenance of their reserve
areas A and B. Through deed restrictions and dedicated greenspace during development,
many homeowner associations are responsible for maintenance of the dedicated areas.
However, there are only 30 homes in this homeowner association. Due to the several
acres of property that must be maintained, the association fees for these homeowners
appear to be high. Staff is conducting a cost comparison of homeowner association fees.
At this time, staff recommends referring the request to the Community Services Advisory
Commission for study. He has had several discussions with Mr. Belville and Mr. Joseph,
and they are aware of staff's recommendation. However, they may like to offer some
additional comments tonight.
Richard Belville. 7951 Townsend Road stated that he serves as Treasurer of The
Meadows of Wyndham Village Homeowners Association, an association of 30 homes.
Although they have selected the low bidder to perform the grounds maintenance, the
homeowners' assessment for The Meadows of Wyndham Village is three times that of
Westbury, nine times that of Hawks Nest, and 22 times that of Wyndham Village — the
adjoining developments. The major difference is the high number of acres of reserve to be
maintained by a small number of homeowners. For two of the adjoining developments, he
obtained plats of the developments and performed an analysis. The ratio of acres
maintained by the homeowners associations compared to the number of homeowners
revealed that homeowners of The Meadows of Wyndham Village are required to maintain
three times as much reserve area as homeowners in Westbury and seven times as much
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of
Held
- -- Dublin City- Council — - - .- - - - - -- -Page 2 .. -.- .Meeting
December 10, 2001
reserve area as homeowners in Hawk's Nest. Therefore, the homeowners of The
Meadows of Wyndham Village respectfully request that Council take action to provide
relief to those homeowners. In response to Mayor Kranstuber's inquiry, Mr. Belville
stated that they would welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue in more detail with the
Community Services Commission, if Council refers the issue for study.
Mayor Kranstuber moved to refer study of the issue to the Community Services Advisory
Commission to develop a recommendation for Council.
Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher seconded the motion.
Mrs. Boring inquired why this subdivision has so much more greenspace proportionately
than the other subdivisions.
Ms. Clarke responded that the developer probably intended to develop Wyndham and The
Meadows of Wyndham simultaneously, but was unable to obtain approval at the same
time. Although it is a much smaller tract of ground, it has the same responsibility as the
other subdivisions for maintenance of the buffer setback from the arterial road.
Proportionately, the homeowners of The Meadows of Wyndham do have more frontage
than do the homeowners in the other subdivisions.
Mrs. Boring inquired if the City is a landowner in the subdivision, wouldn't the City then
be required to pay association dues /fees?
Ms. Clarke responded that the City is not a member of the association, which would
include voting rights, etc. and is not assessed association fees. She added that, in her
experience, any landowner who is a party to deed restrictions must pay association fees. It
would seem that if the City wants its land taken care of, it should be responsible for some
of the costs.
Mr. Smith stated that the Legal staff would review the subject.
Ms. Grigsby stated that one reason the reserve is in the City's name is that the City is
exempt from property taxes. If that land were titled to the association, there would also
be property taxes for which the association would be responsible. Therefore, many of the
entrances to subdivisions are owned by the City, which eliminates the burden of property
taxes on that land, but the land is maintained by the homeowner associations.
Mr. McCash stated that he believed a similar request for assistance with maintenance costs
had recently been granted to another homeowner association.
Mr. McDaniel responded that these requests are received frequently. Due to the fact that
Council action could be precedent setting, he would advise a commission study to allow
the opportunity for a wider perspective.
Mr. McCash stated that the particular issue he recalls is the Glick - Muirfield intersection
agreement, which provides that the City maintain the landscaping.
Mr. Ciarochi responded that the Muirfield Association has maintained an extensive area at
significant expense. Consequently, a 15 plus year agreement was developed, under which
the association continues to maintain City right -of -way, and the City pays them a fee of
$2,000 - S3,000 /year.
Mr. McCash inquired about the timing of the Commission's study of the issue.
Mr. McDaniel responded that it would be scheduled for a January meeting.
Mrs. Boring noted that one of the homeowners in The Meadows of Wyndham Village
Association had observed that their association fee appeared to function as a tax, since
maintenance of the City's land was all that was accomplished with the fee. She requested
that a member of the Law Director's office attend the Commission meeting to assure that
the legal concerns are addressed.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of -- Dublin City Council - -- -- - - - - -_ -Page 3 -- Meeting
Held
December 10, 2001
Mr. Smith stated that his office is studying this issue. They have received two similar
inquiries from other associations.
Mrs. Boring requested that those associations also be notified of this meeting.
Mr. McCash requested that after their initial meeting, the Community Services Advisory
Council (CSAC) notify Council of their anticipated timing for a recommendation.
Ms. Chinnici - Zuercher stated the greater part of homeowner association fees is dedicated
to maintenance of the common areas, so it would be wise to notify all the associations of
the CSAC meeting.
Mr. McDaniel stated that he would do so.
Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher stated that bidding the work to obtain the lowest cost, as The
Meadows has done, is also advisable.
Mr. McDaniel responded that he has advised several associations accordingly, but is
unsure if they followed the advice. Perhaps the City's discussion will also facilitate that
interest or even the process.
Don Josh, 7914 Wiltshire Drive stated that he is president of the Board of Trustees for
The Meadows of Wyndham Village. He stated that in principle, they are not opposed to
maintenance of the adjacent common areas. The problem they have is that their fees must
be higher than the normal association fee in order to do so. He suggested that it would be
advisable for CSAC to also address the process by which association fees are set. If there
are no guidelines within the Planning and Zoning process, the situation will occur
repeatedly. There should be guidelines established to ensure fairness of the fees.
Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mayor
Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Adamek, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher, yes.
Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road, stated that he has three issues to address:
1. At the last Council meeting, he had stated that he believed that the pedestrian
bikeway under construction through his property had been placed deeper on his
property than the plans had indicated. He is concerned that he unintentionally
inferred that the project was not being properly supervised to have allowed that to
occur. In fact, Mr. Tennyson, who has overseen the project, was very careful in
fixing the center stakes before any construction began. In addition, he has also
corrected another error. A deviation in the path causing it to run between two of
his big trees has now been corrected so that it runs straight and outside of those
trees. He apologized if, in any way, Mr. Tennyson was affected by his negligent
comments.
He would also like to include Mr. Peterson in his former invitation to Mr. Adamek
to join the "podium philosophers" in raising and clarifying issues to Council.
He noted that over the last few years, he has raised a concern over Section 3.06D
in the Revised Charter of the City. He considers it a serious setback to many years
of struggle to constitutionally open up all issues to the public. In a situation of
suspicion and fear, it can put many citizens at risk, particularly if decisions
regarding those under suspicion are made in private.
Staff Comments
Mr. McDaniel
1. Referred to a memo provided in Council packets on the Darree Fields expansion
proposal by Dublin Soccer League (DSL) and Mid -Ohio Soccer League (MOSL).
They propose that funds be pooled to expand the soccer fields at Darree, in
exchange for the use of some of those fields for tournaments. He requested that
the proposal also be referred to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
(PRAC) to study and develop a recommendation.
CITY OF DUBLIN
Department of Service
6351 Shier -Rings Road - Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1243
Phone: 614 -761 -6570 Fax: 614- 761 -6512
Memo
To: All Members Dublin City Council
From: Timothy C. Hansley, City Manager
Initiated by: Dana L. McDaniel, Assistant City Manager/Director of Service
Date: December 5, 2001
Re: Meadows at Wyndham Village Homeowners' Association
Issue
In recent months the Meadows at Wyndham Village Homeowners' Association has requested the
City of Dublin to provide assistance in the maintenance of Reserve Areas "A" and "B." Attached are
initial letters from Louretta Belville dated April 4, 2001 and May 9, 2001. Also attached is a letter
to Ms. Belville from Dana McDaniel dated June 18, 2001. The most recent letter from Donald
Joseph dated August 3, 2001 is also attached.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council refer this issue to its Community Services Advisory Commission for
further study and recommendation. It is imperative that this issue is fully assessed given its
precedent setting nature. As staff has mentioned, other issues of maintenance by Homeowner's
Associations have been raised in recent years. Further study may include a survey of Homeowner's
Associations to understand how much responsibility, cost, fees, ratio of homes to costs /fees etc.
Additionally, a dialogue could be opened up to discuss the options of joint bidding, purchasing etc.
among Homeowner's Associations. This issue lends itself to the type of task the Commission was
created to perform. Some key questions for the Commission may include:
1. Are costs as low as they can be?
2. What, generally, are other Associations' responsibilities, costs, and fees?
3. Is the ratio of homes to reserve size fair?
4. What are the broader implications of altering the maintenance responsibilities?
5. What options or courses of action are available to Council?
Background
The Meadows at Wyndham Village (Wyndham Village, Section 5) is located along the south side
of Brand Road. The subdivision has 30 single- family homes. Reserves "A" and "B," which border
the frontage along Brand Road, are required by covenant of property deeds and as noted on the plat
to be maintained by the homeowners' association. The City of Dublin owns both Reserves "A" and
"B." Combined the reserves total 1.614 acres.
The Meadows at Wyndham Village does have a homeowners' association and has maintained the
reserves the last two years. Currently, the homeowners' association is charging $456 per year in
association fees. Per Mr. Joseph all funds collected are used for maintenance of the reserves. Mr.
Joseph takes the position that association fees City -wide are not uniform and that fees for the
maintenance of such reserves, when owned by the City are "taxes." Mr. Joseph requests relief by:
1. Requesting the City assume the cost of maintenance for Reserves "A" and "B" including
lawn care, plantings, and trees excluding the subdivision entry sign at the comer of Brand
Road and Townsend Rive.
2. The City of Dublin immediately assume the cost of insurance for Reserves "A" and "B"
excluding the subdivision entry sign in Reserve "A."
Closing
Staff looks forward to Council's guidance on this matter.
DLM /tb
C: Don Joseph (without attachments)
Richard Belville (without attachments)
\\DUBLINDATA PER_SERVER\PERWER \BROwTL\ word\ DANA\ MEMOS \COWCIL\wyndham Village Request,dec
luV4•.N
August 31, 20011
OCT 9 2001
DEPT. OF:SERVICF
Mr. Tim Hansley
City Manager
Dublin Municipal Building
5200 Emerald Parkway
Dublin, OH 43017 -1006
Dear Mr. Hansley:
7914 Wiltshire Drive
Dublin, Ott 43016
Phone: (614)873 -2254
Email: djoscph2 @columbus.rr.com
Association
I am the President of the Meadows at Wyndham Village Homeowners Association. I am writing to
you to explain a prroNem that the City of Dublin has created for our Association and to request the
City's help in rectifying the situation.
Background
The Meadows at Wyndham Village is located on the south side of Brand Road, approximately 'A mile
west of Avery Road (see plat book 87 page 76). The subdivision is comprised of 30 single family
homes built by M/I Schottenstein and Virginia Homes. The community has 3 reserve areas, "A" and
"B" which border Brand Road and "C" which borders a branch of the Indian Run.
By the original zoning agreement with M/I Schottenstein, these reserve areas were deeded to the City
of Dublin. Additionally, as part of the agreement, the covenants of our property deeds required that
the owners of the properties within the subdivision form a "homeowner's association" for the purpose
of maintaining reserves "A" and `B ". The maintenance of reserve "C" is handled by the City of
Dublin since it is part of the Indian Run flood plain and storm water drainage system.
The homeowner's association was formed in December 1999 and has, as required by the property
deed covenants, made assessments against the owners of each of the subdivisions 30 properties for
the maintenance of the front public reserves. Based on multiple competitive bids obtained for
insurance and lawn services for the last two years and the need to collect and administer this money,
assessments to each property owner have been $456 per year. While we have attempted to reduce
this amount, because of our small subdivision size, we have been unable to bring costs down. All
monies collected are used for the maintenance of the reserves, i.e. there is no neighborhood "social"
function funded by the above money.
Because the property assessments collected by the Homeowners Association are used for the sole
purpose of maintaining the reserves and because these reserves are public property, the assessments
are, in fact, property taxes. Additionally, because the City of Dublin originally caused the
assessments to be levied on the properties through the zoning process, the City of Dublin is
responsible for the size of the assessments being levied.
Now, the size of the assessments is not a problem in and of itself if the assessments are uniform
throughout the city. However, the fact is that these assessments are not uniform or consistent through
the City and, as far as i can determine, are arbitrarily applied. Some neighborhoods have small fees
of $50 or less while others have no assessments even though there are public reserves adjacent to
their subdivisions.
August 31, 2001
Page 2
The lack of uniformity and consistency in the assessment of these "taxes" on the homeowners of the
Meadows at Wyndham Village is what is at the core of our complaint.
Proposed Remedy
On behalf of the Homeowner's Association, I hereby request the following actions be taken by the
City to rectify the above mentioned situation:
I. The City of Dublin immediately assume the cost of maintenance for Reserves "A" and `B"
including lawn care and plantings /trees excluding the subdivision sign located at the corner of
Brand Road and Townsend Drive.
2. The City of Dublin immediately assume the cost of insurance for Reserves "A" and "B"
excluding the subdivision sign in Reserve "A ".
The Trustees would like to resolve this matter as quickly as possible. Therefore, at your earliest
convenience, I request a meeting be set up between the City and representatives of the Trustees to
discuss the above proposal.
You may reach me at the above phone number or email or at my work number (614) 790 -3112. We
look forward to your timely response to the above proposal. Thank you for your time and
consideration.
Sincerely,
Donald . Josep
President, Meadows at R'yndham Village Homeowner's Association
Cc: Dana L. McDaniel, Assistant City Manager /Director of Services
The Honorable Cathy Boring, Dublin City Councilwoman
J. Richard Belville, Treasurer — MW VHOA Trustees
Ronald Emerson, Secretary — MW VHOA Trustees
Louretta G. Bclvilic
7951 Townscnd Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016 -3464
June 18, 2001
Dear Ms. Belville:
Thank you for your letter dated April 4, 2001 and for our phone conversation of June 12. I enjoyed our
(AP, t)Y PITI.i\ conversation and greatly appreciated hearing your insight on the matter of homeo��ner association
6351 Shier Rings Road rcsponsibilitics and that of the Meadows at Wyndham Village.
Dublin, OH 43011 -1243 As y
Fax: 614/7 ou mention in your letter the Meadows at Wyndham Village is responsible to maintain the mo
Phone F: 614/761 -6512 61 -6510 re as a ran oa have reviewed plat documents and confirmed this responsibility.
serve areas Brand Rd. I hid the
fax
As you know the City has an ageressiye green space Ordinance, stort water regulations and is typically
successful at getting such lands as the trserye areas set aside. Typically, these reserve areas serve as an
cr,inancemer.t to the specific development. The Homeowners Association maintains them to the level that
it feels best enhances its development and property values. The City does not desire to take responsibilir
for the general maintenance of reserve areas stipulated to be maintained by the Homeowners Association
as recorded.
In regards to the 5465 per year fee, this rate is a higher rate than I have seen with several other
associations with which I have worked. I do know of an association who started this high, then lowered
their fee to 5250 per year. Homeowner Association fees, in my experience, ran_e in Dublin from S50
per year to the 5465 per year you pay.
You expressed a particular concert with MrI not informing homeowners of the requirements. I kill
forward your correspondence to our Planning Division to see if its staff can perhaps discuss this issue
with M /I, since they have routine contact with M /I. I noted you also sent your letter to M/L If Al l
responds to you as to what nti,ht have happened, please let me know. I will likewise relay any
information I receive from M/I to you. Hopefully, 141 will tell buyers about such obligations in the
future.
Your perspective regarding the City's involvement, i.e. special assessment, is interesting. I will copy the
City Manager on this correspondence, who may in turn forward it to City Council. Co may choose
to have the City Law Director review this perspective.
As we discussed, there may be sonic ways to cut down on the overall cost, i.e. partner with Wyndharn
Village Homeowners Association to perhaps get a better deal from a maintenance company. Try to find
a wav to avoid usirn a management company. I ant not familiar with any homeowner association that,
uses a professional management company. Typically, this is all done voluntarily. Such management
companies are common in condominium developments. A reduction in the rate, however it is achieved,
map make it more palatable for homeowners to pay.
hibc 1 ha%c not committed to anything here, I will be happy to discuss or brainstorm onions. I can a',se
d: contact in: for outer homeowners associations, if needed. I will keep you informed a_
to any tin, trier discussions at staff level or by Cite Council on this or any related
Again, thank you for the letter and it was an pleasure speaking with you.
Sincerely,
l5/C�l" !�
Dana L. McDaniel
Assistant City Manager'Director of Sery ice
DL:NI to
C: Timothy C. Hansley, City Nlanager w/ attachment (Belville letter)
Frank Cinrochi, Assistant City Mana,er'Director of Development w' atta nt
Marsha Gri,sby, Assistant City \tanager Director of Finance w -' artachmec:
Clad Gibson, Active Director or Planning v. attachment
G a:v Gunderan, Assistant Director of Plammn;! %%/ itachm-rit
/illile UldIKB - UdGUIIIDtll I L.000
I aUc i i
CSAC 12/11/01
Pale I I of 16
MRS. J. RICHARD DCLVILLE I
7931 T.' N-ESO R04D
DUaUH 490th
J
/
..
Louretta G. Belville - telephone 614 - 873 -0292
7951 Townse;ad Road - Dublin, OH 43016 -8464
April 4, 2001
To: City of Dublin Town Manager
Manager of Legal Dept. -M /I Schottenstein Homes, Inc.
Betty Montgomery; Ohio Attorney General (for info only)
I am a homeowner in Meadows at Wyndham Village, Dublin. I have a background in
title insurance, banking, other legal, and long -time home ownership (including
condos). Therefore, I thoroughly understand the following situations:
M/I created Meadows at Wyndham Village Association to govern its 30 properties and
the extra land considered common areas. Dublin required that all common areas be
deeded to them. The 30 homeowners are required by legal documents, recorded in
Franklin County, to maintain the common areas.
This particular arrangement has unfortunate results and some kind of change is
necessary to correct it. Therefore, I am requesting your assistance in salting the
matter.
To comply with the legal documents (Declaration, Bylaws), our village has three
Trustees and an outside management firm.
The annual fees per household (to cover maintenance of common areas) are $456
because of: _ '
1. Only 30 households to support expenses for lawn care, legal, management,
insurance.
2. Management firm is necessary.
3. Insurance, including liability, is required and is costly.
The total expenses equal $12,650 per year.
All the homeowners feel extremely opposed to such high fees and want some form of
relief now.
Already, there have been serious and unfortunate results from this arrangement:
1. The real estate closing firm sent the Declaration, etc., to homeowners after
the closing and some persons did not recognize that. These legal
documents should become part of each closing together with a special
verbal or written outline to homeowners that they are legally required to pay
homeowner's fees to support their neighborhood. Also, there have been
confusing statements relating to M/I salesmen not correctly handling such
information.
2. Our group of 30 households has had one homeowner who never paid
anything and also indulges in harassing and threatening -type telephone
calls to Trustees and the management firm. Another homeowner has a
bankruptcy sale forthcoming in April. A third one is also delinquent.
April 4, 2001 Page 1 of 2
The State of Ohio cannot afford to permit the establishment of such homeowner
associations. In general, there is no governmental oversight and it is definitely time for
a change. Beth condos and homeowner groups are involved in criminal or borderline
criminal incidents, From time to time, there's fraud, embezzlement, and abusive
conduct toward neighbors and /or Trustees, etc.
Homeowners, generally, are not qualified to govern according to the established legal
documents:
a. Some are first time homeowners
b. Some cannot communicate well — foreign nationality
c. Homeowners move — not a stable governing situation
d. Homeowners do not have a legal background to understand the legal
requirements
My suggestion is as follows:
Since the City of Dublin is the legal owner of the common areas of our village (and the
City of Dublin is the source of various maintenance requirements), the Declaration anc
Bylaws should be removed from Franklin County records and replaced by some other
system such as a Special Assessment for maintenance against our 30 lots:
1. Currently, we pay a very high real estate tax on each lot.
2. Dublin already has a lawn maintenance service and management system for
parks and other areas and should be able to supply this service more efficiently
than our small group.
3. Dublin already has the proper types of insurance (liability, etc.)
4. Dublin has the authority to enforce certain maintenance rules.
5. Dublin has a city attorney and police force to help solve unusual circumstances.
6. l am sure our 30 homeowners would be satisfied to pay Dublin a Special
Assessment, for example, which could relieve the tremendous financial burden
and quarrelsome situations caused by the present arrangement.
7. For example, if our homeowners were to pay $150 per year Special
Assessment that would equal $4500 to cover Dublin's lawn care of our common
areas. Also, the Special Assessment would be of record and regardless of who
occupied one of our houses the Special Assessment would be satisfied legally.
I would greatly appreciate both Dublin's and M /1's consideration of this information as
soon as possible and look forward to your reply. How should this be handled?
Sincerely,
Louretta G. 13elville
April 4, 2001 Page 2 of 2
Anne Clarke - December 11.doc
Page 14
CSAC 12/11/01
Page 14 of 16
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dana McDaniel
Director of Service
FROM: Stephen J. Smith, Law Director
Mitchell H. Banchefsky, Assistant Law Director
Jennifer Dutey Readier
DATE: December 19, 2001
RE: Condominium and Homeowners Associations
Issues
Can the City of Dublin enforce the formation of homeowners /condominium associations if it is
required by the plat deed or similar conveyance?
If such an association becomes defunct how can the City require the maintenance
responsibilities be carried out?
Short Answers
A. The City could possibly enforce the formation of homeowners /condominium
associations if it is required by the plat, deed, or similar conveyance as long as the
City is a party to the instrument or the City is given the right under a specific
Revised Code provision, as is the case with condominium associations.
B. The most effective way to force the homeowners /condominium association to act
would most likely be for the City to send a letter to the affected landowners
informing them of their obligations and informing them that the City will not take
responsibility for maintenance and other functions that are the obligations of the
association.
Legal Analysis
Formation of Condominium /Homeowners Associations
The Ohio Revised Code specifies the manner in which condominium associations must
be formed. Under Ohio law, every condominium property must be administered by a unit
owners association.' Until the association is established, the developer must act in all instances
where action of the association or its officers is authorized or required by law or the declaration.'
When units controlling at least twenty -five percent of the common areas have been sold, unit
owners other than the developer must elect at least twenty -five percent of the association board.
The developer's control of the owners association ends and the unit owners are entitled to elect
the entire board three years after the formation of the owners association or thirty days after the
sale of seventy -five percent of the condominium instruments, whichever comes first.'
Consequently, it appears clear that at least with respect to condominium units, unit owners
associations must be formed.
' 5311.08.
2 531 1.08(C).
3 R.C. 5311.08(D).
Anne Clarke - December 11.doc
Page 1
CsnC 12/11/01
Page 15 of 16
The question as to whether subdivision homeowners associations must be formed is not
quite as clear. There is no state law requiring such associations to be formed. However, when
the deed or plat requires the formation of or participation in a homeowners association, the
association must be formed, and a court has the power to enforce any such provision if a person
who has standing brings the action. It may be difficult for the City to show standing. The more
practical course of action would be for the City to refuse to undertake the obligations of the
association, thereby compelling the formation of the association.
Forcing Homeowners /Condominium Associations to Perform Maintenance Functions if
Thev Go Defunct.
1. Condominium Associations
The Revised Code explicitly provides that a condominium association can be sued as a
separate legal entity in any action regarding the common areas and facilities or to any right, duty,
or obligation possessed or imposed upon the unit owners association, by statute or otherwise .°
With regard to condominium associations, all unit tenants and owners must comply with all
covenants, conditions, and restrictions set forth in the deed and violations of these restrictions
shall be grounds for actions for damages or injunctive relief, or both, brought by the unit owners
association, by a unit owner, or by both.' This statute would seem to limit actions against the
condominium association to unit owners only.
However, another section of the Revised Code regarding condominium associations
would seem to allow a third party, such as the City of Dublin, to sue the association. Ohio
Revised Code Section 5311.23 states that 1a] declarant, developer, agent, unit owner, or any
person entitled to occupy a unit of a condominium property is liable in a civil action for damages
caused to any person by his failure to comply with any lawful provision of the condominium
instruments. Any interested person may commence an action for a declaratory judgment to
determine his legal relations under the condominium instruments or to obtain an
injunction against a declarant, developer, agent, unit owner, or person entitled to occupy a
unit who refuses to comply, or threatens to refuse to comply, with a provision of the
instruments. The lawful provisions of the condominium instruments may, if necessary to carry
out their purposes, be enforced against the condominium property or any person who owns or has
previously owned any interest in the condominium property." This section would seem to permit
an interested party to file a lawsuit against the unit owners when a condominium association is
not formed. If the City was interested in filing such a lawsuit, it would need to file an action for
declaratory judgment so that a judge could decide whether the City has such a relationship with
the development that it can institute a lawsuit. The success of such an action is doubtful, but is
an alternative for the City to consider.
2. Homeowners Associations
As a general rule, the City would be unable to maintain an action requiring a homeowners
association to form and comply with deed restrictions, such as maintenance regulations. It would
' R.C. 5311.20.
' R.C. 5311.19.
Anne Clarke - December 11.doc
rage Ib
CSAC 12111/01
Pace 16 of 16
be difficult for the City to show that it has standing, which means that it is in fact injured by the
failure of the homeowners association to form and comply with the deed restrictions. While the
City may feel obligated to perform routine maintenance functions on behalf of the citizens who
live in the residential development, it would appear that it would be under no obligation to do so
if the deed or plat has provided that such maintenance functions shall be conducted by a
homeowners association. The best course of action for the City would be to send a letter to the
residents in the subdivision informing them that they are obligated to form a homeowners
association and that the association, not the City, is responsible for all maintenance functions. If
the City refuses to act on such maintenance issues, and tells the citizens that it is their obligation
to take care of the issues through a homeowners association, it is likely the citizens would feel
the pressure to form the association as required under the deed restrictions.
However, there are situations in which the City would be able to enforce a deed or plat
restriction. First, the City would be able to enforce a deed restriction in which the City is
expressly made a party.' Second, the City would be able to enforce a restriction if the restriction
was created as a condition of some action by the City, such as a rezoning. Finally, the City has
the power to seek judicial remedies for any action or inaction that results in a violation of any of
the City's Ordinances
IV. Conclusion
The City may have the power to require the formation of homeowners /condominium
associations if it is required by the plat, deed, or similar conveyance as long as the City is a party
to the instrument or the City has rights under a specific Revised Code provision. If a
homeowners or condominium association becomes defunct orjust fails to perform the required
maintenance, the City may be able to intervene through judicial proceedings and require the
maintenance be completed. However, rather than become involved in what is primarily a private
contract, the City could simply inform the homeowners /condominium owners of their obligations
and refuse to perform the routine maintenance that is the responsibility of the association.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
6 This would be determined on a case by case basis by examining a specific set of deed restrictions.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dana McDaniel
Director of Service
FROM: Stephen J. Smith, Law Director
Mitchell H. Banchefsky, Assistant Law Director
Jennifer Dutey Readier
DATE: June 12, 2001
RE: Condominium and Homeowners Associations
I. Issues
A. Can the City of Dublin enforce the formation of homeowners /condominium
associations if it is required by the plat, deed, or similar conveyance?
B. If such an association becomes defunct, how can the City require the maintenance
responsibilities be carried out?
II. Short Answers
A. The City could possibly enforce the formation of homeowners /condominium
associations if it is required by the plat, deed, or similar conveyance as long as the
City is a party to the instrument or the City is given the right under a specific
Revised Code provision, as is the case with condominium associations.
B. The most effective way to force the homeowners /condominium association to act
would most likely be for the City to send a letter to the affected landowners
informing them of their obligations and informing them that the City will not take
responsibility for maintenance and other functions that are the obligations of the
association.
(HWV4436 i }
III. Legal Analysis
A. Formation of Condominium /Homeowners Associations
The Ohio Revised Code specifies the manner in which condominium associations must
be formed. Under Ohio law, every condominium property must be administered by a unit
owners association.' Until the association is established, the developer must act in all instances
where action of the association or its officers is authorized or required by law or the declaration.
When units controlling at least twenty -five percent of the common areas have been sold, unit
owners other than the developer must elect at least twenty -five percent of the association board.
The developers control of the owners association ends and the unit owners are entitled to elect
the entire board three years after the formation of the owners association or thirty days after the
sale of seventy -five percent of the condominium instruments, whichever comes first.
Consequently, it appears clear that at least with respect to condominium units, unit owners
associations must be formed.
The question as to whether subdivision homeowners associations must be formed is not
quite as clear. There is no state law requiring such associations to be formed. However, when
the deed or plat requires the formation of or participation in a homeowners association, the
association must be formed, and a court has the power to enforce any such provision if a person
who has standing brings the action. It may be difficult for the City to show standing. The more
practical course of action would be for the City to refuse to undertake the obligations of the
association, thereby compelling the formation of the association.
S. Forcing Homeowners /Condominium Associations to Perform Maintenance
Functions if They Go Defunct.
1. Condominium Associations
The Revised Code explicitly provides that a condominium association can be sued as a
separate legal entity in any action regarding the common areas and facilities or to any right, duty,
or obligation possessed or imposed upon the unit owners association, by statute or otherwise.
With regard to condominium associations, all unit tenants and owners must comply with all
covenants, conditions, and restrictions set forth in the deed and violations of these restrictions
shall be grounds for actions for damages or injunctive relief, or both, brought by the unit owners
association, by a unit owner, or by both. This statute would seem to limit actions against the
condominium association to unit owners only.
' 5311.08.
' 5311.05(C).
R.C. 5311.20.
s R.C. 5311.19
(1109:1311 1 12
However, another section of the Revised Code regarding condominium associations
would seem to allow a third party, such as the City of Dublin, to sue the association. Ohio
Revised Code Section 5311.23 states that "[a] declarant, developer, agent, unit owner, or any
person entitled to occupy a unit of a condominium property is liable in a civil action for damages
caused to any person by his failure to comply with any lawful provision of the condominium
instruments. Any interested person may commence an action for a declaratory judgment to
determine his legal relations under the condominium instruments or to obtain an
injunction against a declarant, developer, agent, unit owner, or person entitled to occupy a
unit who refuses to comply, or threatens to refuse to comply, with a provision of the
instruments. The lawful provisions of the condominium instruments may, if necessary to carry
out their purposes, be enforced against the condominium property or any person who owns or
has previously owned any interest in the condominium property." This section would seem to
permit an interested party to file a lawsuit against the unit owners when a condominium
association is not formed. If the City was interested in filing such a lawsuit, it would need to file
an action for declaratory judgment so that a judge could decide whether the City has such a
relationship with the development that it can institute a lawsuit. The success of such an action is
doubtful, but is an alternative for the City to consider.
2. Homeowners Associations
As a general rule, the City would be unable to maintain an action requiring a homeowners
association to form and comply with deed restrictions, such as maintenance regulations. It would
be difficult for the City to show that it has standing, which means that it is in fact injured by the
failure of the homeowners association to form and comply with the deed restrictions. While the
City may feel obligated to perform routine maintenance functions on behalf of the citizens who
live in the residential development, it would appear that it would be under no obligation to do so
if the deed or plat has provided that such maintenance functions shall be conducted by a
homeowners association. The best course of action for the City would be to send a letter to the
residents in the subdivision informing them that they are obligated to form a homeowners
association and that the association, not the City, is responsible for all maintenance functions. If
the City refuses to act on such maintenance issues, and tells the citizens that it is their obligation
to take care of the issues through a homeowners association, it is likely the citizens would feel
the pressure to form the association as required under the deed restrictions.
However, there are situations in which the City would be able to enforce a deed or plat
restriction. First, the City would be able to enforce a deed restriction in which the City is
expressly made a party. Second, the City would be able to enforce a restriction if the restriction
was created as a condition of some action by the City, such as a rezoning. Finally, the City has
the power to seek judicial remedies for any action or inaction that results in a violation of any of
the City's Ordinances
This would be determined on a case by case basis by examining a specific set of deed restrictions.
JHU)9443O 1 z3
Office of the City Manager
5200 Prkway* City of Dublin Phone: 614 - 1 410.4 0 • Fax: 14 - 1 0 -449 0 43017-1090
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Paul A. Hammersmith, PE, Director of Engineering /City Engineer
Date: March 22, 2012
Initiated By: Paul A. Hammersmith, PE, Director of Engineering /City Engineer
C. Aaron Stanford, PE, Civil Engineer
Memo
Re: Wellington Reserve PUD Storm Water Management Follow -Up Information
Summary
At the March 12, 2012 City Council meeting, a request for review and approval of a rezoning with
preliminary development plan for the Wellington Reserve PUD was considered (Ordinance No. 14-
12). In the course of public comment, concerns were expressed by residents of the adjacent
neighborhood regarding the existing storm water drainage, and the potential for the proposed
development to aggravate the existing conditions.
Background
Residents have contacted City staff to raise awareness of an existing storm water drainage issue
located along the western border of the Wellington Place Subdivision. Staff has visited the site and
found that currently, during and after heavy rainfall events, there is an area of ponding water that
occurs near a rear yard catch basin. This is partly attributed to the limited number of rear yard
catch basins located along this boundary and the approximate 8 acres of undeveloped land that
drains from the west to this area.
The Wellington Reserve proposal includes the construction of the public improvements, including
public storm sewer, storm sewer structures, and storm water management facilities. Almost all of
the offsite area that drains toward Wellington Place will be routed through the proposed storm
water management system in the new development or connected to the existing storm water
system. The detention basins in the proposed development will then detain the water for the
required period of time and release the storm water, at a controlled rate, through the public storm
water management system.
The developer of Wellington Reserve is required to submit a subdivision bond, equal to the value
of the public improvements to be constructed, to the City prior to and through the duration of
subdivision construction. The City will assign an Engineering Project Inspector to this project that
is responsible to ensure that the public improvements are installed in accordance with the
approved construction plans. Because of these safeguards and this standardized process, staff
believes it is not necessary to require a separate escrow account to cover any potential issues that
may arise from the project construction.
Recommendation
Staff believes the existing storm water drainage issues and concerns will be eliminated with the
installation of the proposed storm sewer system by Wellington Reserve. A final storm water report
Memo re: Wellington Reserve PUD Storm Water Management Follow -Up Information
March 22, 2012
Page 2 of 2
will be submitted with the final development plan. Engineering staff will give additional attention to
the storm water management in the area adjacent to Welling Place to ensure the system will
function as intended and improve the existing conditions. The developer has expressed the
willingness to work with the existing residents to facilitate any other drainage improvements that
may be necessary. Staff will support these efforts and work with both to encourage this
cooperation.
IV. Conclusion
The City may have the power to require the formation of homeowners /condominium
associations if it is required by the plat, deed, or similar conveyance as long as the City is a party
to the instrument or the City has rights under a specific Revised Code provision. If a
homeowners or condominium association becomes defunct or just fails to perform the required
maintenance, the City may be able to intervene through judicial proceedings and require the
maintenance be completed. However, rather than become involved in what is primarily a private
contract, the City could simply inform the homeowners /condominium owners of their obligations
and refuse to perform the routine maintenance that is the responsibility of the association.
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
µHW94436 1 14
Office of the City Manager
5200 Prkway* City of Dublin Phone: 614 - 1 410.4 0 • Fax: 14 - 1 0 -449 0 43017-1090
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Paul A. Hammersmith, PE, Director of Engineering /City Engineer
Date: March 22, 2012
Initiated By: Paul A. Hammersmith, PE, Director of Engineering /City Engineer
C. Aaron Stanford, PE, Civil Engineer
Memo
Re: Wellington Reserve PUD Storm Water Management Follow -Up Information
Summary
At the March 12, 2012 City Council meeting, a request for review and approval of a rezoning with
preliminary development plan for the Wellington Reserve PUD was considered (Ordinance No. 14-
12). In the course of public comment, concerns were expressed by residents of the adjacent
neighborhood regarding the existing storm water drainage, and the potential for the proposed
development to aggravate the existing conditions.
Background
Residents have contacted City staff to raise awareness of an existing storm water drainage issue
located along the western border of the Wellington Place Subdivision. Staff has visited the site and
found that currently, during and after heavy rainfall events, there is an area of ponding water that
occurs near a rear yard catch basin. This is partly attributed to the limited number of rear yard
catch basins located along this boundary and the approximate 8 acres of undeveloped land that
drains from the west to this area.
The Wellington Reserve proposal includes the construction of the public improvements, including
public storm sewer, storm sewer structures, and storm water management facilities. Almost all of
the offsite area that drains toward Wellington Place will be routed through the proposed storm
water management system in the new development or connected to the existing storm water
system. The detention basins in the proposed development will then detain the water for the
required period of time and release the storm water, at a controlled rate, through the public storm
water management system.
The developer of Wellington Reserve is required to submit a subdivision bond, equal to the value
of the public improvements to be constructed, to the City prior to and through the duration of
subdivision construction. The City will assign an Engineering Project Inspector to this project that
is responsible to ensure that the public improvements are installed in accordance with the
approved construction plans. Because of these safeguards and this standardized process, staff
believes it is not necessary to require a separate escrow account to cover any potential issues that
may arise from the project construction.
Recommendation
Staff believes the existing storm water drainage issues and concerns will be eliminated with the
installation of the proposed storm sewer system by Wellington Reserve. A final storm water report
Memo re: Wellington Reserve PUD Storm Water Management Follow -Up Information
March 22, 2012
Page 2 of 2
will be submitted with the final development plan. Engineering staff will give additional attention to
the storm water management in the area adjacent to Welling Place to ensure the system will
function as intended and improve the existing conditions. The developer has expressed the
willingness to work with the existing residents to facilitate any other drainage improvements that
may be necessary. Staff will support these efforts and work with both to encourage this
cooperation.
+ Acres
Existing Catch Basin
*I
4t
A
Nit 4 ,
- Aal,
f,
A
ORDINANCE 14 -12
1 5t Reading (03 -12 -2012)
MEETING MATERIALS
FOLLOW
Office of the City Manager
5200 Emerald Prkwa* City of Dublin Phone: 614 - 410.4400- Faax:b614 --410 -4490 1090
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager
Date: March 8, 2012
Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning
Re: Ordinance 14 -12 - Rezoning Approximately 18.5 Acres, Located on the North
Side of Brand Road, Approximately 700 Feet West of Coventry Woods Drive
from R and R -1 to Planned Unit Development District (Wellington Reserve
PUD) to Establish a 28 Lot Single- Family Detached Residential Development
and 3.6 Acres of Open Space. (Case 08- 038Z /PDP /PP)
Summary
Ordinance 14 -12 is a request for review and approval of a rezoning with preliminary development
plan from R and R -1 to Planned Unit Development District (Wellington Reserve PUD) and a
preliminary plat for 18.5 acres to establish a 28 lot single - family detached residential
development with 3.5 acres of open space.
Update
This application was postponed from first reading at the February 27, 2012 Council meeting
because the applicant needed additional time to make modifications to the proposed access for
the future development of the adjacent parcel to the west.
Background
Several development applications for this site have been submitted since 2003. None have been
acted upon by the Commission or City Council, primarily because of development challenges
created by the shape and character of the site and issues raised by nearby residents. The current
application was first filed in 2008 as a condominium development. The applicant withdrew from
the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 19, 2008. Subsequent to that application, the
applicant contacted the City regarding any interest in purchasing the property for parkland,
however, City Council has not pursued this option.
Description
Preliminary Plat
The proposed preliminary plat subdivides 18.545 of land into 28 single - family lots and 3.5 acres
of open space. The plat also provides rights -of -way for Wellington Reserve Drive, Ballybridge
Drive and Brand Road.
The preliminary plat correctly shows all setback requirements and all information required by the
Subdivision Regulations. The Zoning Code requires the dedication of 1.9 acres of open space and
Memo re. Ordinance 14 -12 Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat
Wellington Reserve PUD
March 8, 2012
Page 2of5
the proposal contains 3.5 acres. The plat indicates that the open space areas will be owned by
the City of Dublin and maintained by a forced /funded homeowners association.
Pre /immary Development Plan
The proposed plan shows a new intersection and turn lane at Brand Road near the east edge of
the site. A new public road, Wellington Reserve Drive, will extend west north and west from
Brand Road to provide access to all lots. Ballybridge Drive, which parallels Brand Road, in the
Wellington Place subdivision, will be extended west to connect with the new Wellington Reserve
Drive.
The plan was revised following action by at the Planning and Zoning Commission to provide
right -of -way for a potential future extension of Ballybridge Drive to provide access should the
parcel to the west be developed. Since the future development of the parcel is unknown,
Engineering suggested that the applicant only provide the right -of -way but not install the street
stub. The area will be seeded and will be delineated on the final development plan.
The proposal includes 3.5 acres of open space along Brand Road, which will accommodate a
portion of the site's stormwater management. Six lots are on the north side of the open space,
with Wellington Reserve Drive as a single - loaded street which extends toward the north and
terminates with a cul -de -sac.
Development Text
Proposed Development Text
The proposed preliminary development plan includes specific requirements that address the
zoning and development details for this PUD.
Use /Density /Lot Sizes
The development text permits single - family detached homes, open spaces and related park
features. This development is intended to mirror the development pattern of the surrounding
neighborhoods. The minimum 12,000 square foot lots are slightly larger than those adjacent to
the proposal. Required lot width at the building line is 90 feet and required minimum lot depth is
140 feet.
Setbacks
The Community Plan requires setbacks ranging from 60 to 100 feet and the development text
requires a 100 -foot setback from Brand Road. The lot setbacks stipulate a 10 -foot wide Build -
Zone starting 20 feet from the right -of -way. A portion of the home is required to be within this
Build -Zone. Rear yard setbacks at 30 and 40 feet coincide with a proposed Tree Enhancement
Zone to provide additional buffering for the existing development; lots 1 -7, and 20 -28 are shown
at 30 feet, and lots 8 -18 are shown at 40 feet. Required side yard setbacks for buildings are a
minimum of six feet on one side, with a total of 14 feet.
Traffic and Access
Discussion regarding the traffic impacts of the proposal at the Planning and Zoning Commission
review focused on site access and the extension of Ballybridge Drive. Questions were raised as to
Memo re. Ordinance 14 -12 Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat
Wellington Reserve PUD
March 8, 2012
Page 3of5
whether a separate access point is warranted or if the proposed development can be served
solely by an extension of Ballybridge Drive. Providing adequate connections to this development
is important to control the access along Brand Road and provide residents with better connected
neighborhoods through the street network.
The Fire Code requires a separate access point for Wellington Reserve. Although a suggestion
was made to access the new lots from the existing Coventry Woods Boulevard /Brand Road
intersection, this connection would not meet Fire Code requirements. Having the Brand Road
access and extending Ballybridge Drive will allow both neighborhoods to meet Fire Code
requirements.
The modification that required the postponement was related to a previously shown street stub
at the northwest edge of Wellington Reserve. The shape of the parcel immediately to the west of
Wellington Reserve and its proximity to the Brand /Coffman Road intersection makes it likely that
access to reach Brand Road will have to be through the new Wellington Reserve Drive. The
applicant has worked with Engineering to move this access to be a further extension of
Ballybridge Drive and adjusted the lot lines accordingly.
Sidewalks and Bikepaths
A four -foot, public sidewalk is proposed along all street frontages, except as waived in the
proposed development text where homes do not front the street. The proposed text also requires
a three -foot private sidewalk from the front door to the driveway for every residence. The plans
show that the sidewalk meets a portion of bikepath that extends south toward Brand Road to
connect to the public system adjacent to the open space next to Lot 28.
The City has programmed a capital improvement project to install a bikepath along this portion of
Brand Road in 2013. The applicant has indicated that their anticipated construction time frame is
2012. Should the construction of this neighborhood be delayed, the City will request a financial
contribution in lieu of the construction of the bikepath along Brand Road for this project's
frontage.
Architecture
The development text describes the general character of the development as one- and two -story
homes that will reflect the quality of surrounding homes. The text requires adherence to the
Residential Appearance Code unless otherwise stated. The text allows shutters to be considered
trim, which the Appearance Code does not permit. Permitted materials include brick, stone,
wood, stucco and fiber cement siding. Trim materials permitted are wood, vinyl, EIFS, copper or
fiber cement products.
Colors are required to be natural and /or warm neutral colors; high - chroma colors are not
permitted. The text requires similar architectural design elements and details to be consistent on
all elevations and stipulates that chimneys have to be finished with masonry.
The text includes a variety of two- and three -car garages, and encourages side- or rear - loaded
garages. The text has also been revised to require a 30 -inch high wall or hedge in the front of
homes where a courtyard is created by any size court- loaded garage. A 36 -inch hedge is also
Memo re. Ordinance 14 -12 Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat
Wellington Reserve PUD
March 8, 2012
Page 4 of S
required along the entire length of the driveway adjacent to the rear of another lot for side -
loaded garage to cut down on vehicle headlight trespassing.
Tree Preservation
The text outlines a goal to preserve as many trees in good and fair condition as possible. A tree
replacement plan will be required with the final development plan. The Zoning Code requires that
protected trees (trees six inches in diameter and in good or fair condition) be replaced on an
inch - for -inch basis with deciduous trees. The applicant is proposing a tree waiver in the
development text, which is usually granted by City Council. Specifically, the applicant requested
that tree replacement be permitted on a tree - for -tree basis for removed trees between six and 24
inches. Trees larger than 24 inches would be replaced inch - for -inch per Code. The Commission
requested that this provision be changed in the development text to require tree - for -tree
replacement for trees between six and 12 inches. The applicant is also proposing to allow
evergreens as replacement trees, which is supported by Planning.
The applicant has worked with Planning to address tree preservation and buffering from adjacent
neighborhoods. As indicated on the preliminary tree survey, the rear yards of the majority of
homes along the eastern property line have very few protected trees. Since substantial grading
will be required for stormwater management within this area, the applicant is proposing a 30 -foot
Tree Enhancement Zone along the rear property line of these lots. The intent of this zone is to
provide an area for reforestation with deciduous and evergreen replacement trees to reestablish
or recreate a tree row buffer that will be affected by the stormwater improvements.
Open Space and Landscaping
The plan includes 3.5 acres of open space and the development text states that this open space
will be owned by the City. The applicant will be responsible for the landscaping of the open space
areas and the homeowners association will be responsible for maintenance. The text includes
details regarding the natural, passive landscaping intent of the proposed open space including
language regarding the roadway character landscape requirements in the Community Plan with a
Brand Road landscape treatment and the required natural woodland effect with deciduous trees
and shrubs, ornamental trees and perennials or a combination thereof. The text requires that the
dry portions of the stormwater basin be landscaped with water tolerant meadow grasses,
perennials, shrubs and trees planted in a natural manner to continue the woodland effect. Details
for open space landscaping will be required at the final development plan.
Utilities and Stormwater Management
The site will connect to the public sanitary sewer intended to serve this area by constructing new
sewer mains to existing sanitary sewers in Wellington Place.
New public water mains and fire hydrants will be constructed to connect to existing water mains
located along the north side of Ballybridge Drive and the south side of Brand Road.
To accommodate anticipated stormwater drainage, and to meet the requirements of the
Stormwater Code, the applicant will install a public storm sewer system that will connect to the
proposed dry detention basin. Several catch basins will be installed along the eastern property
Memo re. Ordinance 14 -12 Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan /Preliminary Plat
Wellington Reserve PUD
March 8, 2012
Page S of S
boundary to intercept existing overland drainage. This should improve ponding conditions that
are present in the vicinity.
Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission
The Planning and Zoning Commission first reviewed this application at the October 6, 2012
meeting and recommended approval of the rezoning and preliminary development plan to City
Council on January 5, 2012 with the conditions listed below. Conditions 1, 3, 4, 9, and 10 will be
monitored and /or addressed at the final development plan /final plat stage. All other conditions
have been addressed as part of this submittal.
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Conditions
1) That the developer be required to notify the future property owners in the northern part of
this site regarding the possible future road extension;
2) That the development text be modified to clarify the proposed landscape buffer planted
within the tree enhancement zone of Lots 1 through 18 will be installed by the developer
and maintained by the individual homeowners;
3) That, if deemed appropriate by the City Engineer, in lieu of constructing the multi -use path
along Brand Road, the applicant contribute financially to the City's Brand Road Multi -use
path installation;
4) That the applicant install an off -site left turn lane from Brand Road to Wellington Reserve
Drive as recommended by the traffic study, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer;
5) That the development text be revised to duplicate the fence restrictions of the surrounding
neighborhoods;
6) That the development text and plans be updated to indicate multi -use paths instead of
bikepaths;
7) That the tree replacement language in the development text be revised to require inch -for-
inch replacement for trees 12 inches and greater;
8) That the text clarify that any supplemental plantings within the Tree Enhancement Zone
shall not be counted toward required replacement trees;
9) That the details of plantings within the proposed Landscape Buffer be reviewed and
approved at the final development plan stage to ensure existing trees are preserved where
possible and incorporated into the buffer; and
10) That the developer work with the residents to the south of the proposed access point to
provide a landscape screen, subject to approval by Planning.
Recommendation
Planning recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 14 -12 at the second reading /public
hearing on March 26, 2012.
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Leal Blank. Inc. — Form Ye.. = 4043_ —
Ordinance No
14 -12
Passed 70
AN ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 18.5
ACRES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BRAND
ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET WEST OF COVENTRY
WOODS DRIVE FROM R AND R -1 TO PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (WELLINGTON RESERVE
PUD) TO ESTABLISH A 28 LOT SINGLE - FAMILY
DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND 3.6
ACRES OF OPEN SPACE. (CASE 08- 038Z /PDP /PP)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin,
of its elected members concurring, that:
Section 1. The following described real estate, (see attached legal
description), 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 . The application, including the list of contiguous and affected
property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning
Commission, are all incorporated into and made an official part of this
Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance
there within.
Section 3 . This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the
earliest period allowed by law.
Passed this day of 2012.
Mayor - Presiding Officer
ATTEST:
Clerk of Council
PUBLIC COMMENT `a6` v i
Claudia Husak - Wellington Reserve
From: Claudia Husak
To: rongeese @yahoo.com
Date: 1/30/2012 10:16 AM
Subject: Wellington Reserve
Mr. Geese,
in response to you voicemail, I wanted to let you know that the material available online for the Wellington
Reserve project are for the rezoning /preliminary development plan and this stage in the process does not
require detailed landscape plans. The applicant will have to prepare a final development plan for approval to the
Planning and Zoning Commission and at that stage, a detailed landscape plan with material types and sizes is
required. I can assure you that the Brand Road entry area will be landscaped.
As for the dry detention, the applicant is adhering to the Community Plan that calls for the installation of
informal landscape designs to enhance the natural character along the river corridor, the use of swales and
berms to blend with the surrounding character and woodland plantings and the incorporation of land forms to
create topographic change.
Claudia
Licmiuics iu3ure� r
Planner II
City of Dublin
Planning
5800 Shier Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016
phone 614.410.4600
direct 614.410.4675
chusak @dublin.oh.us
www.dublinohiousa.gov
wkv�,v.tv�oitter.com /dublinohio
www.facebook.com /dublinohio
file:/ /C:\Documents and Settings \husacd \Local Settings\ Temp \XPgrpwise \4F266EOODublin... 2/3/2012
PUBLIC COMMENT
Claudia Husak - Fwd: Case 08 -038
From:
Claudia Husak
To:
thiergt @yahoo.com
Date:
1/17/2012 8:49 AM
Subject:
Fwd: Case 08 -038
Ms. Price,
Page 1 of 2
I've spoken to the City's Nature Education Coordinator about your concerns and she acknowledged your
concerns regarding the wildlife population. She stated that animals will clearly be displaced due to impending
development but also noted that while habit is being destroyed new habitat is being created with the generous
setbacks and landscape areas that are part of the proposal. She said that the displacement is typically short-
lived and that the animals are quite resilient in adapting to or finding new habitat.
Hope this helps!
Claudia
1audia Ht
linner II
;ity of Dublin
Planning
5800 Shier Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016
phone 614.410.4600
direct 614.410.4675
chusak @dublin.oh.us
www.dublinohiousa.gov
www.twitter.com /dublinohio
wwv�.fa(7.ebook.con, /dublinohio
>>> Claudia Husak 1/12/2012 2:00 PM >>>
Thank you for contacting the City of Dublin regarding the Wellington Reserve proposal. The Zoning Code does
not require an Environmental Study as part of the application materials. I've contacted the City's Nature
Education Coordinator to receive additional information.
Sincerely,
Claudia Husak, AICP
Planner II
tile: //C:\Documents and Settings \husacd \Local Settings\ Temp \XPgipwise \4F1535FFDubli.. 1/17/2012
PUBLIC COMMENT
Claudia Husak - Cleaning up of debris within Wellington Reserve
From: Justin Bird <JBird @castoinfo.com>
To: "'chusak @dublin.oh.us "' <chusak @dublin.oh.us>
Date: 1/11/2012 2:40 PM
Subject: Cleaning up of debris within Wellington Reserve
Claudia,
Page t of 1
Kim Shepherd, a resident of Sheffield Place, had brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission's
attention during last Thursday's meeting that some illegal dumping had occured on the Wellington Reserve site
located on Brand Road. On behalf of Casto, I wanted to let you know that this has since been cleaned up and the
crude play equipment located along the eastern property line removed.
Kind Regards,
Justin Bird
CAS:O 1 +y Gvest ivauonwiue Blvd, Suite 200 1 Columbus, OH 43215
(c) (,14.214 -2358 (t) 1 814.744 -2008 (f) 1 614.229 -4330
castoinfo.com
file: / /C: \Documents and Settings\husacd \Local Settings \Temp\XPgipwise \4FOD9F6CDubl... 1/12/2012
PUBLIC CONTENT
January 5, 2012
Ms. Marsha Grigsby
Dublin City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway
Dublin, Ohio 43017
Ms. Cathy Boring
Dublin City Council
5200 Emerald Parkway
Dublin, Ohio 43017
Ms. Claudia Husak
AICP, Planner II
City of Dublin
5800 Shier -Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commissioners
5200 Emerald Parkway
Dublin, Ohio 43017
Re: Case #08- 038Z /PDP /PP — Wellington Reserve
We write on behalf of the residents of the Brandon and Wellington Place subdivisions to express our
opposition to the proposed development of 18.5 acres north of Brand Road, situated approximately 1,000
feet east of the intersection with Coffman Road ("Wellington Reserve ").
As you know, we appeared before Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission (the "Commission') on
October 6, 2011 to express our concerns regarding Wellington Reserve. We greatly appreciated the
opportunity to present our issues and hear the thoughts of staff, the applicant, our neighbors on Brand Rd.,
as well as those of the individual commissioners. We are fortunate to live in a community that allows for
such an open public forum.
While we welcome some of the concessions that have been made by the applicant regarding rear yard
setbacks, maximum lot coverage and hedge requirements for side - loaded garages, we collectively believe
that both bigger picture and more detailed issues remain unaddressed or unresolved. As a result, we
cannot support the development of Wellington Reserve as currently proposed.
First, we believe piecemeal development is not sound long range planning and is detrimental to the City
and its residents. Both City staff and the developer have admitted that this L- shaped parcel presents
challenges in its development. In one of the worst new -build housing markets in American history, it is
difficult for us to understand why the City would sacrifice the aesthetics and rural character of Brand
Road, responsible planning and a comprehensive approach in exchange for an individual developer to
turn a profit on what he has referred to as one of the last remaining pieces of developable land currently in
the highly regarded Dublin Coffman School District.
In addition, creating another curb cut along a narrow and well - traveled Brand Road presents visibility,
safety and traffic issues that are already a concern to residents in the surrounding neighborhoods,
especially with two existing high - volume intersections at Brand Road and Coffman Road and Brand Road
PUBLIC COMMENT
and Coventry Woods Drive. When coupled with the large tracts of land to the west of the proposed
Wellington Reserve development and the commissioners expressed desire to review the adopted 2012-
2016 Capital Improvements Program with respect to the installation and preliminary engineering of an
imminent roundabout at the intersection of Brand Road and Coffrnan Road, hastily forcing another curb
cut and development onto such a busy thoroughfare does not comport with a comprehensive roadway
traffic and safety study typically found in municipalities' long range planning goals.
With the bigger picture issues outlined above, it is important to also note that virtually every homeowner
on Ballybridge Drive, Katesbridge Court, Kilbrittain Lane (each, part of the Wellington Place
subdivision) and Reddington Court (in the Brandon subdivision) who backs up to the proposed
Wellington Reserve has unique issues that they would like to see satisfactorily addressed by City staff, the
applicant and the Commission. Such issues include the following:
1. Ballybridge Drive: Residents of Ballybridge Drive are concerned with the currently proposed
setbacks for lots 1 -5. As stated in the City Planning Report dated January 5. 2012, "The
Community Plan Identifies Brand Road between Dublin Road and Muirfield Drive as River
Character... with modest setbacks ranging from 60 to 100 feet." Also stated in the summary is the
assertion that the proposed development "will safeguard the value of the property within and
adjacent to the area" and "strives to maintain the existing development patterns."
While the residents of Ballybridge Drive are opposed to the development as a whole, if approval
of Wellington Reserve were to occur, we respectfully request that one lot be eliminated from the
proposed lots I -5 and the remaining four lots be developed consistent with those existing homes
situated on the southern side of Brand Road. Each of these houses includes a generous setback
and long driveways, as evidenced by 4805 Brand Road, which has been the only development
permitted along this portion of Brand Road in the last 15 years. This can be accomplished on the
north side of Brand Road as well by eliminating the initial bend in the curb and moving the
entrance to Wellington Reserve to the west. Such layout would be consistent with the
Community Plan and provide the residents of Ballybridge much needed relief from the curb cut
and setbacks currently proposed by the applicant. In its current state, such a development would
lead to dramatically decreased rear -yard setbacks, increased drainage problems and a degradation
of Brand Road's rural character. Examples are included for your convenience as Exhibits A and
B.
2. Katesbridge Court and Kilbrittain Lane: The residents of Katesbridge Court and Kilbrittain
Lane, while also opposed to the development as a whole in its current state, believe that should
Wellington Reserve ultimately be approved, drainage problems, rear -yard setbacks and tree
enhancement/preservation must be addressed in a more satisfactory manner than what the
applicant currently proposes.
a. Drainage: Drainage is a major issue for many of the residents of Kilbrittain Lane and
Katesbridge Court, with serious flooding of backyards occurring as the water runs from
the land currently proposed to be developed. It is our belief that the defective design of
certain lots and corresponding engineering issues have led to this problem. With
additional development looming, we know that additional runoff is a distinct possibility,
potentially exacerbating the problem. We would ask that a reasonable escrow be
established by the developer and that the City engineer work with the developer's
engineer to address such issues. Pictures of such flooding experienced by the
homeowners at 7502 Kilbrittain Lane are attached Exhibit C.
PUBLIC COMMENT
b. Rear -Yard Setbacks: We appreciate the applicant's willingness to increase the
proposed rear -yard setbacks from 20 feet to 40 feet. We originally asked for 75 feet
along Kilbrittain Lane and Katesbridge Court. Given the significant depth of the
proposed lots 7 -16 adjacent to Kilbrittain Lane and Katesbridge Court, we respectfully
request that a 50 foot rear -yard setback be adopted by the Commission. With a 20 -30
foot build -to zone and a developer- suggested house footprint of 60 feet in depth, we
believe that a 50 foot rear -yard setback is a reasonable request and compromise. This
would still provide new homeowners with adequate space to build a deck, patio or other
permitted accessory.
c. Tree Enhancement Zone/Buffer: We are pleased with the applicant's willingness to
provide a 75% opacity with "plant material" within two years of installation within the
tree enhancement zone for lots 1 -18. We are concerned, however, with the vagueness of
the term "plant material" and the condition in the Planning Report which states that the
landscape buffer be installed by the developer and maintained by (emphasis added) the
individual homeowners. We believe that the developer should be required to post a
performance bond and/or contribute a reasonable amount to an escrow established by the
developer for replacement of any trees in the tree enhancement zone that may die within
a reasonable period following installation of such trees, as determined by the
Commission. Otherwise, enforcement between neighbors becomes difficult when
ultimate responsibility should rest with the developer.
It must also be noted that the residents of Ballybridge Drive concur with the sentiments listed in
items 2(a) -(c) above.
3. Reddington Court: During the summer of 2005, 156 Brandon homeowners were approached
regarding the potential development by Edwards Land Company ( "Edwards ") of the subject 18
acre site. A total of 150 of these homeowners were opposed to Edwards proposed 28 lot
development which had many similarities to the Wellington Reserve plan being put forth.
The current developer originally proposed a rear setback or no build restriction of 30 feet for lots
16, 17, and 18. This is the same no build restriction offered in the Edwards development plan
from 2005. The Brandon homeowners expressed their vocal opposition to the 30 foot setback in
2005, and are united in opposition with the current plan. Further, the Brandon homeowners
respectfully request a "do not disturb" restriction of 200 feet for lots 16, 17, and 18 in order to
preserve the heavily wooded natural state of this area of the site, create a sufficient buffer to
prevent crowding between the houses of adjoining Brandon and Wellington Reserve neighbors
and prevent the inevitable deforestation of this portion of the site in the absence of a 200 foot
restriction.
The Brandon homeowners would make the following suggestion as a way to provide a solution to
the 200 foot "do not disturb" restriction at the rear of lots 16, 17, and 18: lot 19 and lot 15 should
be eliminated, moving the street which runs east and west a total of 148 feet to the south (the
width of lot 19). This would cause lots 16, 17, and 18 to be 148 feet deeper than on the
development plan. The developer has offered on the latest plan, a 40 foot "no build" restriction
across the rear of 16, 17, and 18. By making these lots 148 feet deeper, a "do not disturb"
restriction of 188 feet (40 feet + 148 feet) could be created at the rear of lots 16, 17, and 18.
There is also sufficient acreage immediately south of current lot 28 to replace one of the two lots
(lots 15 and 19) being eliminated.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Finally, the current proposed development plan does not call for a fence prohibition, as required
by the covenants in both the Brandon and Wellington Place subdivisions. We are requesting that
Wellington Reserve covenants also prohibit fencing, consistent with the surrounding
neighborhoods.
We appreciate your willingness to listen to our concerns as residents of the Dublin community and thank
you for your attention and concern over the development of this property.
Sincerely,
` �Wf
Frank Fraas
Brandon Association Trustee
Roger Reeves
Spokesperson for Adjacent Brandon
Homeowners
C"0040'
Collette Feldmann
Spokesperson for Adjacent Ballybridge
Homeowners
Frank Pagnatta
Wellington Place Association Trustee
Michael Ensminger
Spokesperson for Adjacent Kilbrittain Lane and
Katesbridge Court Homeowners
0 Exhib E} PUBLIC COMMENT
an
awlspw►a
8r sand.
PUBLIC COMMENT
;-=VWRlr C'.
(1/5/2012) Claudia Husak - Contact PZ
PUBLIC COMMENT
From: < davejenkins @rpmsupplycorp.com>
To: <chusak @dublin.oh.us>
Date: 1/4/2012 9:15 PM
Subject: Contact PZ
Date: Jan 04, 2012
Time: 08:19 31 PM
Topic: 5144 and 5056 Brand Rd rezoning
Comments: I am Dave Jenkins and I have lived on Brand Rd. across the street from this site for over 30
years.) would hope this commission would keep the rural and scenic feel of Brand Rd. with a limited
number of houses facing Brand Rd. with at least a 130 ft set back.) believe there should only be four
houses facing Brand Rd with wider lots. I would also like wet ponds vs dry retention ponds.) would hope
there would be alot of landscaping to screen the houses from Brand Rd. I would hope the starting price
point would be in the $400,000 's
Would_ You Like_A ?: Yes
Name Dave Jenkins
Address: 5071 Brand Rd.
City-State-Zip Dublin ,Ohio 43017
Phone 614 - 889 -5533
emai`• davejenkins @ ~pmsupplycorp.com
utma. 186847161584950538 1325758304.1325766510 1325768952.5
_utmzr 18684716 1325758304.1.1. utmccn=( direct)lutmcsr= (direct)lutmcmd= (none)
utmc: 18684716
Page 1
Sender's IP address: 24.160.175.247
(1/5/2012) Claudia Husak - Contact P�
PUBLIC COMMENT
From: < rogerjacobs @wowway com>
To: <chusak @dublin.oh.us>
Date: 1/4/2012 12:29 AM
Subject: Contact PZ
Date: Jan 04, 2012
Time: 12:06:58 AM
Topic: Wellington Reserve
Comments: My name is Roger Jacobs. I have resided in Wellington Place for the past 13 years and have
attended many meetings held on the subject property throughout the years. If you look at where my
house is situated, you might say I am at "ground zero" for any construction which may occur on this
awkward piece of land and am thankful that you have allowed me to live in peace for so long.
I am writing because I am frankly very concerned about how this approval has proceeded. It was my
belief that hearings were to be held to determine whether a zoning change would be approved for the
land in question (from "Rural" zoning to something else which would allow more dense development).
Instead, what I have been hearing is a discussion back and forth as to the details of the development;
drainage, driveways, trees, Brand access, etc. (concerns which I share by the way) as though it is a
foregone conclusion that if the developer presents a plan which meets the requirements of the NEW
zoning, it would be approved. Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? Isn't the question to be
answered first whether or not to re -zone the property at all? It is THIS question I would like to discuss
and ask, "why - what benefit would it be to the residents of Dublin and the Brand Road community
specifically, to grant such a zoning change - why would Dublin (not the developer!
) need or want to shoehorn developments into every bit of open space in the community ?" The only
possible answer I can think of is for the money it would bring to the city and the local economy (in the
forms of taxes and spending, respectively) - maybe you can share your insights on this. But, if this is
true, do we really need revenue so badly that we would sacrifice every bit of natural beauty which
surrounds us? Do we really need to have subdivision after subdivision on our scenic ways? Do we need
the money that badly? Well, I can tell you it doesn't do anything for me when our roads and my children's
schools get overcrowded and more dangerous year after year, and it certainly doesn't benefit me at all to
have my taxes increase year after year to try to contain it all!
I implore you, before we ask the question of how the developer might satisfy the requirements of new
zoning, please ask (and answer) the question of how such a development (and the general practice of
developing every bit of land we can) benefit Dublin as a whole - we know how it will benefit the
developers. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Roger Jacobs
Would_You_Like_A Response ?: No
Name: Roger Jacobs
Address: 5065 Ballybridge Dr.
City- State -Zip: Dublin /01-1/43017
Phone: 614 - 314 -2709
email: rogerjacobs @wowway.com
Page 1
PUBLIC.�OMMENT
October 6, 2011
Ms. Marsha Grigsby
Dublin City Manager
5200 Emerald Parkway
Dublin, Ohio 43017
Ms. Cathy Boring
Dublin City Council
5200 Emerald Parkway
Dublin, Ohio 43017
Ms. Claudia Husak
AICP, Planner 11
City of Dublin
5800 Shier -Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commissioners
5200 Emerald Parkway
Dublin, Ohio 43017
Re: Case #08- 0382 /PDP /PP — Wellington Reserve
We write on behalf of the residents of the Brandon and Wellington Place subdivisions regarding the
proposed development of 18.5 acres north of Brand Road, situated approximately 1,000 feet east of the
intersection with Coffman Road.
As you know, development of the above- referenced acreage has been proposed several times over the last
decade by different entities. Prospective and past developers, as well as planning and zoning staff from
the City of Dublin, have admitted that this property presents several unique development challenges.
First, the L -shape of the combined parcels makes it difficult for developers to build the number of
dwellings necessary to be profitable. Second, the heavily wooded character of the land requires
developers to thoughtfully address the City's parkland, open space, setback and tree replacement
requirements, all of which have contributed to the preserved aesthetic and natural beauty for which the
City is so revered. "Third, each of these past plans has faced vocal opposition from the Brandon and
Wellington Place residents.
While representatives of the Brandon and Wellington Place Homeowners' Associations have met with
Mr. Charles Ruma, the prospective purchaser of the land and Mr. Ben Hale, the attorney representing
Casto, the current landowner, both associations were a bit taken aback by the lack of advanced notice
provided by the applicant and the proposed developer. In our opinion, one week is simply not enough
time for hundreds of homeowners to develop a coordinated response to a plan the applicant submitted to
the City nearly three months ago.
In 2005, more than 300 homeowners from the Brandon and Wellington Place subdivisions sent a letter to
the City requesting that ie p s at issue be purchased by the City to be dedicated as parkland. It is our
understanding that the City is no longer considering the potential acquisition of this property. The
residents, though disappointed, understand that the parkland option is no longer viable in the eyes of the
City. Fo? lowing an expedited review of the application packet, it is evident, however, that several
PUBLIC COMMENT
concerns remain regarding the proposed development. As a result, the Brandon and Wellington Place
homeowners respectfully, but ardently, submit our concerns, requests and objections to the development
proposal in its current state.
As we have done in the past, having stated our objection to the proposal, we would like to make you
aware of our concerns, in addition to those previously communicated to the City by the residents of
Ballybridge Drive, should Planning Commission and City Council approve the rezoning and development
plan.
We are entirely opposed to the 20 -foot, or even 25 -foot rear yard setbacks as currently proposed.
It is our understanding that Mr. Ruma, the prospective purchaser, has committed to providing up
to a 40 -foot rear yard setback for at least one of the lots adjacent to the Brandon properties. We
believe that, due to the sizeable depth of the proposed lots, a minimum 50 -foot rear -yard setback
is warranted for all lots adjacent to the west edge of Wellington Place. We respectfully request
that at least a significant portion of such rear -yard setback be adopted as a wildlife /tree
preservation or no disturb zone and that such a zone be made a restrictive covenant on all deeds
for the new parcels. This property is heavily wooded and houses a variety of wildlife. Such a
zone would also create a natural privacy barrier, benefiting the existing Wellington Place
residents, as well as any future homeowners in Wellington Reserve. Where existing trees or
plants or trees that are deemed to be in poor condition are insufficient to create such a barrier, the
affected Wellington Place homeowners would request that the developer be responsible for
planting staggered fir trees or other comparable coniferous trees to create a suitable barrier
between the existing homes and the proposed lots.
The developer's tree preservation component, including the request for a tree replacement waiver,
is totally unacceptable to the homeowners, and we would hope that the Planning and Zoning
Division, and the City Administration would agree with the unacceptability of this component of
the proposal. We believe that the developer, and not the future homeowners, should be
accountable for tree replacement in a manner consistent with City code. Such adherence to the
minimum code requirements will ensure that mature trees are preserved, thereby minimizing the
number of nascent trees that will take years to develop. Additionally, we would request that the
developer commit to planting a variety of trees, including a suitable number of 2.5 -3" caliper
trees and 6" caliper trees around the retention pond(s) along Brand Road to maintain a natural,
woods -like setting similar to the entrances of a majority of the surrounding subdivisions in the
City.
3. The adjacent Brandon homeowners, including those property owners further to the west along
Reddington Drive in Brandon would strongly prefer to see lots 16, 17 and 18 moved further to the
south, allowing for the future street which is stubbed off at the end of the northern most
boulevard /court to also be moved further to the south. Additionally, the homeowners want a park
reserve with no disturb restrictions of at least 200 -feet in depth to be provided at the northern
edge of the parcel and the court to be eliminated. 'I his would allow for the future continuance of
the reserve for adjacent properties further to the west, and also allow for the preservation of many
landmark, and 24 inch plus trees presently located within this proposed park reserve.
4. We heartily agree with City staffs recommendation to reduce the grade difference to more
closely match the elevation and grade of the Brandon and Wellington Place properties. As
drafted, the development text permits these new houses to be built at a grade up to 10 feet higher
than the existing houses. Many of the Wellington Place residents, both on the western and
southern edges of the subdivision, already have severe drainage problems, which results in
PUBLIC COMMENT
unacceptable flooding of their backyards. City staff has recommended as a condition for approval
that the grade difference be reduced to more closely match our elevation. However, this language
is very ambiguous. We request that the elevations of the proposed lots are required to be
comparable to the existing homes in Wellington Place. Further, the developer should be required
to escrow funds to fix drainage problems that may surface after the homes on these lots are
completed.
5. The homeowners would like to see a traffic study regarding the placement of the entrance to the
development, and a study of the possibility of the Wellington Reserve entrance off of Brand Road
moved between 300 and 400 feet to the west in order to reduce congestion relative to the
Wellington Place and Coventry Woods entrances.
6. We are requesting that the plan includes staggered lots so as not to line up their locations with the
existing homes in Wellington Place and Brandon. While some lots are staggered, there are a
number of proposed lots that line up almost exactly with several existing homes.
7. We support the recommendation of City staff that the one -foot driveway setback for side - loaded
garages and the rear - loaded garage language be eliminated.
We appreciate your willingness to listen to our concerns as residents of the Dublin community and thank
you for your attention and concern over the development of this property.
Sincerely,
rce*v L
Brandon Association Trustees Wellington Place Association Trustees
Roger Reeves Michael Ensminger
Spokesperson for Adjacent Brandon Spokesperson for Adjacent Wellington Place
Homeowners Homeowners
PUBLIC COMMENT Page 1 of l
Claudia Husak - Re: Wellington Reserve
From:
Claudia Husak
To:
Beth @BethSutor.com
Date:
10/12/20119:41 AM
Subject:
Re: Wellington Reserve
Thank you for your comments. We will forward this correspondence to the Planning and Zoning Commission as
part of the next review of the Wellington Reserve proposal. Our Engineering staff will be working with the
applicant to further evaluate the street connections and proposed intersections of the proposal based on public
comments and comments from the Commissioners. At this point, we do not have a scheduled date for the next
Commission review of the project, but you will be notified of the next hearing.
Claudia D. Husak, AICP
Planner II
City of Dublin
Planning
5800 Shier Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016
phone 614 410.4600
direct 614 410.4675
chusak @dublin.oh.us
www.dublinohiousa.gov
www.twitter.com/dublinohio
www.facebook.com/dublinohio
>>> <Beth@ BethSuto r.com > 10/7/20119:48 AM >>>
Claudia
Thank you for allowing us to speak at the meeting last night. I am a resident of Wellington Place
on the North side of Ballybridge Dr. 5042 is my house number.
I have attended all of the meetings in regards to this project. It has come a long way with the
discussions.
I have a few concerns that I would like to mention.
Ballybridge Dr is a very quiet street with little traffic. My concern is that the street is not wide
enough to allow this to be the only entrance in to the new development. I feel that this new
project needs to have it's own entrance off of Brand and feel that some traffic studies would be a
good idea. A school bus has trouble getting through when there are cars parked on the street, so
a fire truck would have the same problem. My other concern is that cars from Wellington Place
would use this as an exit onto Brand Rd also increasing the traffic on Ballybridge Dr. I have lived
here 15 yrs and have loved this street being just for those who live here.
My other concern is with a declining Real Estate market and other housing developments just
sitting why would we need another one just sitting? The price point of this project is not one that
file://CADocumentS and SettingAhusacd \Local Settings \Temp \XPgrpwise \4E9560D4Dub.. 10/21 /2011
PUBLIC COMMENT r age 2 of 2
is moving quickly and don't want
to see dirt and empty lots with signs on them. If Brand Rd is to be a scenic road I feel keeping is
natural is more appealing then a plot of houses. Do we really need to put a house on every inch
on land in Dublin. We have house that are not moving why add more to the mix.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you with answers to my concerns.
Beth Sutor
5042 Ballybridge Dr
614- 793 -1160
fileWCADocuments and Settings \husacd \Local Settings \Temp\XPgrpwise \4E9560D4Dub... 10/21/2011
PUBLIC COMMENT
October 2. 2011
The City of Dublin
5200 Emerald Parkway
Dublin, Ohio 43017
Dear Planning and Zoning Commission Members and City Planner, Claudia Husak,
As homeowners on Ballybridge Dr whose backyards fall adjacent to the proposed zoning change from R-
1 to PUD, we have serious concerns about the proposed Wellington Reserve development by Casto
Historically when developments have been proposed there has been the opportunity for public review and
comments to consider community concerns for rezoning of this magnitude. Although public records show
that Casto submitted this application to P &Z on July 11, we were only notified of this proposed zoning
change and development on Sept 23, 2011 by the City of Dublin and have not been contacted by Casto
at all. While the developer and attorney did meet with two members from our Home Owners Association,
this was not a public meeting nor were property owners invited to participate.
We respectfully request that this issue be tabled for at least 30 days until such time that a public meeting
with residents of Ballybridge Dr as recommended by Dublin Planning and Zoning can occur. See
condition number 1 of P&Z's conditional recommendation.
While P &Z has noted that previous development plans have not been acted on partially due to vocal
opposition by adjacent property owners, we are not opposed to any and all future development. Our
three main concerns that have not been addressed are:
1. The set -back requirement from Brand Road which is inconsistent with other Brand Road
developments, and which requires lot depths which are considerably shorter than other lots
within the Wellington Reserve development, thereby pushing homes and out - structures
unnecessarily close to present properties.
2 The continued drainage problems along the Southern side of Ballybridge Dr. that will likely
worsen
3 The need to maintain a natural visual barrier of trees and /or additional landscaping especially in
the event that our current trees are stressed or remo during construction.
Respectfully,
Roger Jacobs a an \nd d ' Alb nsky (f
Martin and Co Feldmann
e and n ung
F Onken
Michael and Michelle Orzo
O f � V
Brett anATracy Ingram
a-
IkAv "'
Set -back Comparisons
Neighborhood
Points of Estimated Measurement
Estimated Distance in Feet
"Roadway Character"
Shannon Glen
Brand Road to edge of cul -de -sac
-80
Dublin Model
Brand Road to edge of street
-135
Dublin Model
Quinn Abbey
Brand Road to edge of cul -de -sac
-75
Dublin Model
Brand Road to edge of street
-145
Dublin Model
Wellington Place
Brand Road to edge to home
-115
River
Brand Road to edge of cul -de -sac
-175
River
River Character http: / /www.dublin.oh.us /planning/ community /roadwaycharacter /dver.php
Dublin Model Character http. / /www.dublin.oh.us /planning/ community/roadwaycharacter /dublin.php
Question Raised
Why is a farther set -back (130') being required for this subdivision than is required for the other Brand Road subdivisions noted above
"0
C=
CXII
II-
C7
C7
O
M
z
Set -back Range (in Feet)
at least 100'
at least 100'
at least 100'
at least 100'
60 -100'
60 -100'
C
r
C>
C7
O
3c
3c
m
z
;9130/2011) planningcases - 08 -038
RESIMENT COMMENT
From:
<cbsnider @aol.com>
To:
<planningcases @dublin.oh.us>
Date:
9/26/2011 2:27 PM
Subject:
08 -038
comments: There are TOO many homes for this area, TOO compacted for the land which also creates
too much traffic in Wellington Place and on Brand Rd. Why isn't the pond in the lowest lying area in the
back CORNER with more green space and a park? This is where wildlife nests and where it backs up to
TWO neighborhoods, Reddington Ct. and Katesbridge Ct. We do not approve of the present proposal for
use of this land. The housing is TOO dense.
name: snider
email: cbsnider @aol.com
utma: 18684716.1185509077.1314935330 .1314935330.1317060728.2
_utmz: 18684716 .1314935590.1.2.utmccn= (organic)lutmcsr= googlelutmctr= dublin ohio mosquito
fogging 2011(utmcmd= organic
utmb: 18684716
utmc: 18684716
Sender's IP address: 75.185.83.148
Page 1
PUBLIC COMMENT
Our names are Julie Hubler and Lloyd Hubler. We have lived at 5025 Brand
Road, Dublin, Ohio 43017 for the past 13 years if we correctly understand the
developer's proposal and proposed preliminary plat layout, as presented on the City of
Dublin website, we are deeply concerned about the proposed development from a traffic
safety standpoint We have several concerns that we would like to address.
The preliminary plat shows the entrance to the new subdivision being located
directly across from our driveway. Based upon our experience, this is a very dangerous
location for an intersection where cars will be turning on and off of Brand Road.
Due to the curve in Brand Road west of our driveway, the visibility of cars
approaching from the west is poor. Visibility from an intersection across the street
would be even worse since that would be on the inside of the curve. Surely, the City is
already aware of these visibility issues and safety problems.
In addition to the curve, the speed and volume of traffic on Brand Road makes
the idea of adding another intersection as proposed a dangerous one. Traffic speed
generally exceeds the posted 35- mile - per -hour limit by a wide margin. In fact, serious
consideration should be given to reducing the speed on Brand Road to 25 miles per
hour for safety reasons.
The stretch of Brand Road in front of our property is particularly treacherous.
Every year since we have lived on Brand Road, we have had countless cars ending up
in our front yard or the ditch in front of our house. Cars have even overturned in these
accidents. In addition, we have observed numerous other accidents both west and east
of our property as well as across the street due to cars driving off the roadway and
striking telephone poles, fire hydrants, and trees. An added hazard in this area is the
herd of deer, which frequently cross back and forth over Brand Road in this vicinity and
have been struck by cars on several occasions since we have lived in this home.
Surely, the City is aware of the treacherous nature of Brand Rd.
As long time Dublin residents, we are surprised by this proposal which involves
having an additional curb cut/entrance right on Brand Rd. It is our understanding that
the City of Dublin has had a longstanding commitment to keep Brand Road's scenic
character. In fact, we understood that the reason our house was not permitted to have
its own driveway curb cut, but had to share the entrance with our neighbors, was that
the City of Dublin did not allow an additional curb cut on Brand Road.
In short, due to the obvious traffic hazard, the proposed plat must be revised to
eliminate the street intersection with Brand Road. Thank you for your consideration and
attention to our concerns.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Claudia Husak - Wellington Place - Existing Drainage Issue - M. Ensminger
From: Mike Ensminger <mike.ensminger@mac.com>
To: <chusak @dublin.oh.us>
Date: 10/6/2011 1:46 PM
Subject: Wellington Place - Existing Drainage Issue - M. Ensminger
CC: Mike Ensminger <mike.ensminger @gmail com>
Claudia,
Page 1 of 9
Attached are 16 photos taken this year which shows the drainage issue in our backyard. I can only
believe that this will get worse with the proposed development in Wellington Reserve. I would love to
talk with your engineers about this to see what can be done regardless of what ends up happening with
the current application.
Thanks,
Mike
1 02
r 4 3 -V.
W"-
IMG_1657.JPG
file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\husacd \Local Settings \Temp\XPgrpwise \4E8DB 11 ADu... 10/21/2011
PUBLIC COMMENT 4p Page 2of9
IMG_1658.JPG
file: / /CADocuments and Settings\husacd \Local Settings \Temp\XPgrpwise \4E8DB 11 ADu... 10/21/2011
� PUBLIC COMMENT
IMG 1660.JPG
IMG_1661.JPG
Page 3 of 9
file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\husacd \Local Settings \Temp\XPgrpwise \4E8DB1 IADu... 10/21/2011
PUBLIC COMMENT
IMG_1662.JPG
Page 4 of 9
fileJ/CADocuments and Settings\husacd\Local Settings \Temp\XPgrpwise \4E8DB11ADu... 10/21/2011
PUBLIC COMMENT
Page 5 of 9
file: / /CADocuments and Settings\husacd \Local Settings \Temp\XPgrpwise \4E8DB11ADu... 10/21/2011
PUBLIC COMMENT
Page 6 of 9
file: //CADocuments and Settings\husacd\Local Settings \Temp\XPgrpwise \4E8DB11ADu... 10/21 /2011
PUBLIC COMMENT Page 7 of 9
IMG_1669.JPG
file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\husacd \Local Settings \Temp\XPgrpwise \4E8DB 11 ADu... 10/21/2011
PUBLIC COMMENT W Page 8 of
file:HC:\Documents and Settings\husacd \Local Settings \Temp\XPgrpwise \4E8DB 11 ADu... 10/21/2011
PUBLIC COMMENT Page 9of9
file: //CADocuments and Settings\husacd \Local Settings \Temp\XPgrpwise \4E8DB11ADu... 10/21 /2011
IMG 1672.JPG
0 1 PUD
V o o e e raha0
ay�
cBrana
PUD
o e ,
R eddington�
dington-
m
s
Kilbrittainin.- LR
o e o o
L
C PL
— Ball ridge-Dr. C
P R P Lo ,
= L `�Y
d
R -1 a p
- Brand -Rd.
P R 1
U
PUD D o : , o R -1 LR
R -1 e e o o
- -_ o o e _
PLR --
FPUD�
08- 038Z /PP /PDP N
City of Dublin Rezoning/ Preliminary Plat /Preliminary Development Plan A
I Land Use and Wellington Reserve � Feet
Long Range Planning 5144 and 5056 Brand Road 0 200 400
February 2009
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPLICATION
(Code Section 153 232)
I. PLEASE CHECK THE TYPE OF APPLICATION:
Land Use and
Long Range Planning
Saw ut- Rrisjs kuW
DLhNn. On6 43D 16 -1 W36
Mom/ 7 M 614-410
Fox. 614 -41 D-747
Web Sire' www.dutikh.on.us
❑ informal Review
❑ Final Plat
(Section 152.085)
® Concept Plan
❑ Conditional Use
(Section 153.056(A)(1))
(Section 153.236)
�} Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning
❑ Corridor Development District (CDD)
(Section 153.053)
(Section 153.115)
❑ Final Development Plan
❑ Corridor Development District (CDD) Sign
(Section 153.053(E))
(Section 153.115)
❑ Amended Final Development Plan
❑ Minor Subdivision
(Section 153.053(E))
❑ Standard District Rezoning
❑ Right -of -Way Encroachment
(Section 153.018)
❑ Preliminary Plat
❑ Other (Please Specify):
(Section 152.015)
Please utilize the applicable Supplemental Application Requirements sheet for
additional submittal requirements that will need to accompany this application form.
II. PROPERTY INFORMATION: This section must be completed.
Property Address(es): 5144 Brand Road
Tax ID /Parcel Number(s):
273- 010865
273- 004538
273- 004537
Existing Land Use /Development: Undeveloped
Parcel Size(s) (Acres):
18.58 acres
IF APPLICABLE, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
Proposed Land Use /Development:
Single Family residential subdivision
Total acres affected by application: 18.58 acres
III. CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER(S): Please attach additional sheets if needed. JUL 1 1 20
Name (Individual or Organization): CF Brand LLC CITY OF DUBLIN
LAND —
c/o Casto LONG RANGE PLANNING
Mailing Address: 191 W. Nationwide Blvd., Ste. 200
(Street, City, State, Zip Code) Columbus, OH 43215
Daytime Telephone: (61 7 4 4 - 2 0 08 I Fax:
(614) 229 -4330
Email or Alternate Contact Information: Justin Bird
Page 1 of 3
IV. APPLICANT(S): This is the person(s) who is submitting the application if different than the property owner(s) listed in part III.
Please complete if applicable.
Name: Charles Ruma Applicant is also property owner: yes ❑ noU
Organization (Owner, Developer, Contractor, etc.): Davidson Phillips Inc. - U., E � VE
Mailing Address: 4020 Venture Ct., Columbus, OH 43228 JUL 1 1 201
(Street, City, State, Zip Code)
Daytime Telephone: 777 - 9325 Fax: 777 -9355 CIrV OF DUBLIN
LAND USE &
RANGE P NN
Email or Alternate Contact Information:
V. REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF APPLICANT / PROPERTY OWNER: This is the person(s) who is submitting the application
on behalf of the applicant listed in part IV or property owner listed in part III. Please complete if applicable.
Name: Ben W. Hale, Jr. and Jackson B. Reynolds, III
Organization (Owner, Developer, Contractor, etc.): Smith & Hale LLC
Mailing Address:
(Street, City, State, Zip Code) 37 W. Broad St. , Ste. 725, Columbus, OH 43215
Daytime Telephone: 221 -4255 Fax: 221 -4409
Email or Alternate Contact Information: jreynolds@smithandhale.com
VI. AUTHORIZATION FOR OWNER'S APPLICANT or REPRESENTATIVE(S): If the applicant is not the property owner,
this section must be completed and notarized.
CF Brand LLC _ _ _ , the owner, hereby authorize
Ben W. Hal _Jr. and Jackson_ B . Reynol , III to act as my applicant or
representative(s) in all matters pertaining to the processing and approval of this application, including modifying the project. I agree
to be bound by all representations and agreements made by the designated representative.
Signature of Current Property Owner:
❑ Check this box if the Authorization for Owner's Applica
Subscribed and sworn before me thi day of _
State of D'h010
County of 1 , _ I f ar Notary Public
Date:
Representative(s) is attached as a separate document
) V QLL A 20
KIM M. GUZZO
Notary Public, State of Ohio
My Commission Expires 09-15 -2012
VII. AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROPERTY: Site visits to the property by _City' t .d are essential to process this
application. The Owner /Applicant, as noted below, hereby authorizes City representatives to vii .. graph and post a notice on the
property described in this application.
I Jackson B. Reynolds, III the owner or authorized representative, hereby
authorize City representatives to visit, photograph and post a notice on the property described in this application.
Signature of applicant or authorized
Page 2 of 3
Date: _A/ A
VIII. UTILITY DISCLAIMER: The Owner /Applicant acknowledges the approval of this request for review by the Dublin Planning and
Zoning Commission and /or Dublin City Council does not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able
to provide essential services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by said Owner /Applicant.
Jackson B. Reyn olds , II the owner or authorized representative,
acknowledge that approval of this request does not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able to
provide essential services such as water and sewer facilij.�ef when needed by said Owner /Applicant.
Signature of applicant or authorized representafiveL { 1 (74 t— i// I Ae f' f Lz/ I Date: 7///
IX. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT: This section i [Vsl be completed and notarized.
I Jackson B Rey nolds, III the owner or authorized representative, have
read and understand the contents of this application. The information contained in this application, attached exhibits and other
information submitted is complete and in all respects tri "nd correct, to the best of my knowledpe and belief.
Signature of applicant or authorized representative r ,�// j Date:
Subscribed and sworn to before me this J � day of 20 - 1 Lr
State of
�,r 1 /
County of jyonLLlV�1 Notary Public
`iq �riSNlurgril / /.'
�A�
p NeWle t TUIN0M
*� Notary Pldft Gf'I N0
r RWFICE USE 0 N LY
Amount Received:
Application No.
P &Z Date(s):
P &Z Action:
Receipt No:
Map Zone:
Date Received: �) I `
Received By:
City Council (First Reading):
City Council (Second Reading):
City Council Action:
Ordinance Number:
Type of Request: corice,p+ -P an ' P- f-ftrU ,rj , - Pre-4 evwrl LTV-dof Tt
S, E, W (Circle) Side of: &CUAIA 1
N, S, E, W (Circle) Side of Nearest Intersection:
fllstance from Nearest Intersection:
Existing Zoning District:
Requested Zoning District: A) P
r
Page 3of3 JUL 1 1 2011
CITY OF DUBLIN
LAND USE 24
LONG RANGE PLAA1! ING
ZONING DESCRIPTION
18.584 ACRES
Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Dublin, located in Virginia
Military Survey No. 2543, and being all of the 12.584 acre tract conveyed to CF Brand LLC by
deed of record in Instrument Number 200202140042366, and the 6 acre tract conveyed to CF
Brand LLC by deed of record in Instrument Number 200201090009109, (all references are to the
records of the Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio) and being more particularly described
as follows:
Beginning at the northwesterly corner of "Wellington Place Section I", as delineated in
Plat Book 79, Page 67, being in the southerly line of "Brandon Section 3 ", as delineated in Plat
Book 66, Page 93;
Thence South 00° 10' 50" West, a distance of 1153.65 feet, to a point;
Thence North 89° 47' 36" East, a distance of 579.63 feet, to a point;
Thence South 00° 34'42" West, a distance of 367.11 feet, to a point;
Thence South 89° 12' 50" West, a distance of 577.18 feet, to a point;
Thence North 00° 10' 50" East, a distance of 7.75 feet, to a point in the centerline of
Brand Road;
Thence North 77° 02' 10" West, a distance of 209.01 feet, along said centerline, to a
point;
point;
Thence North 76° 49' 21" West, a distance of 189.95 feet, along said centerline, to a
Thence North 01' 30'21 " West, a distance of 1392.67 feet, to a point;
Thence North 85° 04'39" East, a distance of 184.08 feet, to a point;
Thence North 85° 12' 58" East, a distance of 247.51 feet, to the Point of Beginning.
Containing 18.584 acres of land, more or less.
This description is for zoning purposes only, and is not to be used for deed transfer.
EVANS, MECHWART, HAMBLETON & TILTON, INC.
JMP/Feb 08
18_584 ac zoning 80269
Proximity Report Results
Proximity Report Rest ltr
DO 111A22 JH
i a Lb. th—g h 1e�
'M m n a y, .It R-,.
Z Get Rect
di Prin
® Back to Proximity Reood
.✓datl
mapny mvw --me nolegl rupmnblwss C, He mlvmauomm�ainion ,V map. nwenniih riaMm wnty aicoimnm ¢ m. 5 im—t-
Pro. imiry Parcels
razyov uantmcaa.
am —Ithe Aatlartlzth
a h
Etlt 1,1 —th.m nv bar.
vovooNm t-he rervtinwamNOapdiouon.
Parcel Owner Name
Address
273TODO45 ACHILI1MIEHWZI MOHAMMAD
5173
REDDINGTON
Q
273 104044 ANDREWS GREGORY I A LISA E
5157
REDDINGTON
CT
273 104537 GO BRAND TO
5055
BRAND RD
273 CODER CFBRANO TO
BRAND
RD
273 -0ID855 CFBRANO TO
5144
BRAND RD
273 CODER GO BRAND TO
BRAND
RD
273 104537 CFBRANO TO
5055
BRAND RD
273 104042 GEORGETT GREGG W A THERESA
5141
REDDINGTON
CT
273 104047 HUNTER JOHN RA CAROL A
5183
REDDINGTON
CT
270 100025 JENKINS LEE A IR JENKINS DAVID R HE
5071
BRAND M
273 004048 KING DAVID LA SHERRI L
5191
REOOINGTON
OR
270 100055 MCLOUGHLIN BARBARA STOD
5131
BRAND RD
273 104043 REEVES ROGER W A DEBRA
5149
RE-0oINGTON
CT
270 100292 REYNOLDS JON LREYNOLDS COLLEEN M
5151
BRAND RD
270 000252 SPEARS JERRY G III A MARSHA M
5150
BRAND RD
273 104045 THOMAS EDWARD J THOMAS ERIN E
5155
REDDINGTON
CT
19 nk
Page 1 of 1
http: / /64.79.95.202 /scripts /gis proximity report display.pl 7/13/2011
IUWR e. Ws] of 13 10 32 17 2011
Proximity Report Results
Proximity Report Rest ltr —.1 1 273
T x .lLbl. xh—Alh m�
'M m n mlLtltio:
Z Get Recoft
eh Prin
® Back toPmx Unit, Poor
0
CIp sm". LY
Im
m
mapny —It— nolegl rupmnblwss Iv He mlvmmoommmion hI map. J --Kylh riaMm wnty aicoimnm dam.1 —p-tat
Pro. imity Parcels
razyov uantmcaa.
amoodlh hAatlardzth
Etlt I,'— th. ,.nv
vovooNm
t- herervuo — h— pdiouoo.
Parcel
Owner Name
Address
273TO4044
ANDREWS GREGORY ]@ LISA E
5157
REDDINGTON CT
273104537
CFBRANO LLC
5055
BRAND RD
273 C04538
OF BRAND LLC
BRAND
RD
273 -0ID855
6BRANO LLC
5144
BRAND RD
273 -004538
6BRAND LLC
BRAND
RD
273 104537
OF BRAND LLC
5056
BRAND RD
273 007611
CHITTIPROLU ]AGAN R HE CHITTIPROLU
7514
KILBRITTAIN LN
273004542
CIRIACO ANTHONY C A MARTHA H
9915
BRAND RD
273 105955
CITY OF DUBLIN
COVENTRY WOODS DR
273 107513
ENSNINGER MICHAEL] WHITSON]ENNIFE
7502
KILBRITTAINLN
273 -007508
FELDMANN MARTIN E FELDMANN COLLETTE
5053
BALLYBRIDGE DR
273 104042
GEORGETT GREGG W A THERESA
5141
RE-0o1NGTON CT
273 107501
GIHA JA M GIHA KATE S
7483
MCCARTHY CT
273 10597
GOOD FREDERICK J JR A SCARLETT J
7471
KATESIRIDGE CT
273 107503
HANDLER MICHAEL I A JANET D
799
MCCARTHY CT
273104536
HERRON PATRICIA A
5051
BRAND RD
273 004717
HURLER LLOYD E III A JULIE P
5025
BRAND RD
273 107505
INGRAM BRETT A A TRACY A
5035
BALLYBRIDGE DR
273 107510
]ACOBS ROGER E TR
5055
BALLYBRIDGE DR
270 100025
JENKINS LEE A US JENKINS DAVID R TR
5071
BRAND RD
273 105934
JULES MARK E C(2)
7453
KATESERIDGE CT
273 107514
LANDIS BRIAN
7496
KILBRITTAINLN
273 107502
MCCARTHY JOSEPH J ASUSAN E
7489
MCCARTHY CT
273005938
MCDONALD JEFFRY E A ERNELEE P
7477
KATESERIDGE CT
270100056
MCLOUGHLIN BARBARA STOD
5131
BRAND RD
273 107504
ONKEN BRADLEY S TR ONKEN JANICE F T
5029
BALLYBRIDGE DR
273 107507
OPEC MICHAEL E OPEC MICHELLE N
5047
BALLYBRIDGE DR
27310596
PAGNATTA FRANK A A KATARINA M
7455
KATESERIDGE CT
273104716
PEARSON JOAN LPEARSON JOSEPH J
5019
BRAND RD
2273 104043
REEVES ROGER W A DEBRA]
5149
REDDINGTON CT
273107612
RODRIGUEZJA
7508
KILBWTTAINLN
273 -007509
ROSANS:Y STEPHEN H ROSANSKY ALBAL
5059
BALLYBRIDGE OR
273 104040
.01 THOMAS R A LORI M
5125
REDDINGTON CT
273 -00599
SNIDER JAMES M TR SNIDER CYNTHIA B
7483
KATEMRIDGE CT
273 -004041
SJ GAR KENNETH C SOLAR CHRISTINA A
5133
REDDINGTON CT
273 004039
TLM MORRIS MICHELLE L
5117
REDDINGTON CT
273 107500
TULIZHUQIN
7477
MCCARTHY CT
273 107515
VENUGOPAL RAGHANATH PALANISNAMY HAM
7490
KILBRITTAIN LN
273 10595
WU WILLIAM A SUSAN S
7459
KATESERIDGE CT
273107506
YOUNG STEPHEN J YOUNG ANN C
5041
BALLYBRIDGE DR
Page 1 of 2
http: / /64.79.95.202 /scripts /gis proximity report display.pl 7/13/2011
e. Watl of 131035'.132011
Preliminary Development Plan
WE LLI NGTON RESERVE
Dublin O h i o
Land Owner.
Developer:
Legal
Land Planning/
Landscape Architecture:
Engineering:
CASTO
Davidson Phillips
Smith and Hale
The EDGE Group
EMH &T
191 West Nationwide Blvd., Suite 200
4020 Venture Ct. Suite D
37 W Broad St, Ste 725
1400 Goodale Blvd., Suite 100
5500 New Albany Road
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Columbus, OH 43228
Columbus, OH 43215
Columbus, OH 43212
Columbus, OH 43054
Phone_ (614) 777 -9325
Phone_ (614) 221 -4255
Phone_ (614) 486 -3343
Phone_ (614) 775 -4710
Phone: (614) 744 -2008
Contact Charles Ruma
Contact Jack Reynolds
Contact Greg Chillog
Contact Linda Menery
Contact: Justin Bird
Approved. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission, January 5, 1011
5ubmittak Dublin City Council, March 5, 2072
WELLINGTON RESERVE
SECTION I —
Development Overview
I. LOCATION AND SIZE
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND CHARACTER
III. EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USES
IV. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
V. PROVISION OF UTILITIES
VI. ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
Table of Contents
SECTION II —
Development Standards
SECTION III —
Exhibits
DO -1
I.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
DS -1
PDP -1
REGIONAL CONTEXT MAP
DO -1
II.
PERMITTED USES
DS -1
PDP -2
VICINITY MAP
DO -1
III.
DENSITY
DS -1
PDP -3
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
DO -1
IV.
LOT STANDARDS
DS -1
PDP -4
BOUNDARY MAP /SURVEY
DO -1
V.
STREET ACCESS AND /OR
DS -1
PDP -5
EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP
DO -2
IMPROVEMENTS
PDP -6
TREE SURVEY LIST
VI.
STREET STANDARDS
DS -1
PDP -7
TREE SURVEY LIST & ANALYSIS
VII.
UTILITIES
DS -1
1/3
TITLE SHEET & INDIX MAP
VIII.
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
DS -1
2/3
PRELIMINARY PLAT
IX.
TREE PRESERVATION, REMOVAL
DS -2
3/3
UTILITY /GRADING PLAN
AND REPLACEMENT
X.
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
DS -2
XI.
ARCHITECTURE
DS -2
XII.
LANDSCAPING
DS -3
XIII.
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
DS -3
SECTION I-
Development Overview
WELLINGTON RESERVE
Location and Size
• The site is located completely within the City of Dublin and Franklin
County.
• The 18.584± acre site is located on the north side of Brand Road,
approximately 730' east of the intersection of Coffman Road and
Brand Road, immediately west of the Wellington Woods subdivision.
The property is one of several remaining parcels along Brand Road
that are undeveloped between the Wellington Woods subdivision and
the Brandon subdivision.
• There is approximately 950' of frontage along Brand Road.
• The site measures approximately 1,500' at its deepest point.
II. Existing Conditions and Character
• The site is L- shaped with a large portion of the site in woods, the
balance being grassed and meadows. Tree rows and brush line the
perimeter of the property. Substantial portions of the trees on this site
are overgrown with vines or are vine damaged.
• 921 trees exist on the site, 71 of those are landmark trees. Of the 921
trees, 241 (26 %) are in poor condition, 28 (12 %) of those are
landmark trees in poor condition.
• The site is located in the North Fork Indian Run Watershed. The site
generally drains from west to east. The site is located entirely out of
the 100 year floodplain.
• The site is generally flat; there are no steep slopes on the site.
• No buildings exist on the site.
III. Existing and Proposed Land Uses
• The Dublin Community Plan - Existing Land Use Map designates the
site as "undeveloped."
• Surrounding land uses include: single - family detached residential
(Wellington Place, Brandon, Coventry Woods, Asherton of Dublin)
private institutional (Berean Bible Church, Dublin Baptist Church),
public institutional (Bailey Elemetary School), parks (Wellington
Park, Brandon Park), and residential and institutional uses in
surrounding unincorporated areas.
• Proposed uses are residential, open space and parks.
• The proposal is to develop the tract with 28 single - family lots for a
gross density of 1.50 units per acre.
IV. Parks and Open Space
• A total of 3.5± acres ( ±18.8 %) will remain free of development and
will include the required Brand Road setback and the stormwater
management facilities.
• The open space areas will be owned by the City of Dublin and
maintained by a private home owners association.
V. Provision of Utilities
General
• All utilities, including sanitary sewer, water, telephone, electric, and
gas, are available at this site.
• All utilities will be designed and constructed to meet the standards
established by the City of Dublin Engineer.
• A comprehensive storm water management system will meet City of
Dublin design criteria.
• All utilities shall be placed in appropriate locations on the lots that
will best preserve the existing trees in good or fair condition.
Sanitary Sewer
• Sanitary sewer service to Wellington Reserve will be provided from
two locations.
The northern portion of the proposed development will be service
from an existing 8 -inch line that is located between 2lots on
Kilbrittan Lane in the Wellington Place Development Section 2,
backing to proposed lot 11.
Although a second line is stubbed to the proposed development from
Section 2 at the western end of Ballybridge Drive, the depth of this
sewer is not adequate to serve the remaining southern portion of the
proposed development. Therefore, a manhole will be cast in place on
the existing 10 -inch sanitary sewer located at the northwest corner of
the intersection of Coventry Woods Drive and Brand Road and an 8-
inch line will be extended 500 -feet to the Wellington Reserve site.
This sewer extension will occur through property owned by the City
of Dublin and appropriate easements will be placed on the easement
as required by the City of Columbus.
• Sanitary lines will be sized and located to accommodate future
development of the undeveloped property to the west.
Development Overview
Water
• An existing 16 -inch water main along the south side of Brand Road
should be adequate to provide service to this site.
• Public water mains will be constructed along the proposed roadways
within the development.
• An 8 -inch water main stubbed at the end of Ballybridge Drive will be
tied into the new public system which will aid in service to this site.
• Water lines will be sized and located to accommodate future
development of the undeveloped property to the west.
Storm Water - Existing
• The site drains from west to east to existing storm sewer inlets that
were installed with the Wellington Place Development.
• 4 acres of offsite area drains from the west across the site to the storm
sewer inlets mentioned above.
• The predominant soil type is Blount, a Type C soil, corresponding to
a pre - developed runoff curve number of 70.
Storm Water -Post Developed
• In the post - development condition the site drainage will be handled
by two separate stormwater management systems. One system will be
considered the "clean water system" and will accept drainage from
pervious areas such as rear yards, side yards and the offsite 4 acres
mentioned above. The other system will be the "developed area
system." It will accept drainage from impervious areas such as
roadways, driveways, roofs, and sidewalks and some back yard
drainage.
In regards to the "clean water system" the offsite 4 acres tributary to
proposed lots 21 and 22 along with vegetated back yard and side yard
areas are being collected and discharged to an existing 24 -inch storm
sewer located between 2 existing lots along Kilbrittan Lane in the
Wellington Place Development (backing to proposed lots 9 and 10.)
The storm sewer system is considered a "clean water system" in light
of the fact that only wooded or open space areas are being collected
by the storm sewer system; therefore detention and water quality are
not being provided for these vegetated areas.
The "developed area system" will be directed to a dry basin with a
wet micro -pool on the east side of the entry drive. The total
developed tributary area to the basin is approximately 13.2 acres with
a composite runoff curve number of 83. The 1 -year pre - developed
runoff volume is 0.339 ac-ft for the pre - developed 13.2 acres of
drainage area and the 1 -year post - developed runoff volume increases
to 0.895 ac-ft, an increase of 164% resulting in a 25 -year critical
storm. The allowable release rate based on the City of Dublin
stormwater master plan for the 1 -year event is 0.1 cfs /acre; therefore
the allowable release for the 25 -year event is 1.32 cfs. The 100 -year
DO -1
WELLINGTON RESERVE
event allowable release is 0.5 cfs /acre for a total allowable of 6.60 cfs.
The outlet of the basin drains to a 21 -inch storm sewer which ties into
the existing 21 -inch storm sewer in Wellington Place. The proposed
21 -inch has available capacity for the 100 -year event. Please note, the
site is located in the North Fork Indian Run Watershed. Water quality
is provided by the use of a dry basin per Ohio EPA and City of Dublin
requirements. The outlet for the basin will be a three -stage outlet,
with the first stage providing the required 48 hour water quality
drawdown. The second stage controls the 25- yearevent, and the third
stage the 100 -year event. The required storage to meet all of these
requirements is 2.9 ac-ft.
VI. Access and Circulation
• Vehicular access to the site will be from a single access point on
Brand Road and from the existing Ballybridge Drive.
• Wellington Reserve Drive will extend from Brand Road to the
northern end of the site.
• Ballybridge Drive will be extended from the stub at the eastern
property line to Wellington Reserve Drive.
• A street stub will be provided to the property west of the site.
Development Overview
SECTION II-
Development Standards
WELLINGTON RESERVE
I. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Basic development standards are addressed in this text regarding proposed
density, general site issues, traffic, circulation, landscaping, and architecture.
These component standards ensure consistency and quality throughout the
development. Unless otherwise specified in the submitted drawings or in this
written text, the development standards of Chapter 152 and 153 of the City of
Dublin Code shall apply.
II. PERMITTED USES
Permitted uses shall include the following:
A. Single- family detachedhomes.
B. Open spaces and related park features.
III. DENSITY
A maximum of 28 residential homes shall be permitted in this PUD.
IV. LOT STANDARDS
Single - family homes in this development will be constructed on traditional lots
with fee simple ownership. Specific lot standards shall apply to each of these
development types:
A. Fee simple lots
1. Lot Size
a. Lot Area: 12,600 square feet minimum
b. Lot Width at the building line: 90 feet minimum
c. Lot Depth: 140 feet minimum
2. Lot Setbacks
a. Front yard: There shall be a Build -Zone of 10 feet starting at 20
feet from the right-of-way line or as shown on the approved
preliminary plat. Homes must be located within the Build -Zone,
which will allow flexibility in staggering of the homes along the
street frontage. The requirements of the Subdivision Regulations
Chapter 152.019(C)(6) shall not be applicable to this
development.
b. Rear yard: There shall be a minimum rear yard setback of 30 or
40 feet as indicated on the preliminary plat.
c. Side yard: There shall be a minimum side yard of 6 feet for
buildings, provided, however, that there shall be a minimum of
14' total side yard per lot.
d. Brand Road: There shall be a minimum scenic setback of 100
feet from Brand Road, as measured from the proposed right -of-
way. Detention, landscaping, multi -use path, open space, park
amenities and an entry feature may be located within this setback
to enhance the rural character of the Brand Road corridor.
3. Lot Coverage
The maximum lot coverage shall be 45 %.
V. STREET ACCESS AND /OR IMPROVEMENTS
A. Access
1. Brand Road:
a. A new intersection shall be provided.
2. Adjacent properties:
a. Ballybridge Drive shall be extended to the west.
b. A street stub shall be provided to the property west of the site.
VI. STREET STANDARDS
A. Public Streets
1. Right -of -Way Width: 50 feet minimum
2. Pavement Width: 28 feet minimum for the Ballybridge Drive
extension and for all other public streets, as
measured back -of -curb to back -of -curb
3. Drive Lanes: Two (2)
4. Parking Lanes: Parking shall be permitted on one side of
public streets internal to the PUD opposite
the waterline and hydrants.
5. Tree Lawn: May vary based on existing vegetation, but
shall in no case be less than 7 feet in width.
Development Standards
6. Sidewalk: 4 feet wide minimum; sidewalks shall be
concrete. No sidewalk is required where it
does not front a single family lot.
7. Multi -use path: 8 feet wide minimum; multi-use paths shall
be constructed of concrete when located in
front of lots and of asphalt when located
elsewhere.
B. Private Sidewalks
1. A minimum 3 -foot wide sidewalk shall be required for every residence.
This private side walk shall extend from the front door to the driveway,
where applicable, as the driveway may abut the front door.
VII. UTILITIES
A. Design and Construction
1. All utilities shall be designed and constructed to meet the standards
established by the City of Dublin Engineer.
B. Location
1. All utilities shall be placed in appropriate locations on the individual
home lots that will best preserve the existing frees in good or fair
condition.
VIII. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
A. Design and Construction
1. A. comprehensive storm water management system shall be
developed, following the City of Dublin storm water management
policies.
2. Stormwater management in the post development condition is
anticipated to be handled by two separate systems: a "clean water
system" to accept drainage from pervious rear and side yard and a
"developed area system" to accept impervious areas such as
roadways, sidewalks, driveways, roofs and some back yard drainage.
a. The "clean water system" will accept a portion of the offsite
drainage from the west and on site drainage collected in side and
rear yards which will then be discharged to a rear yard catch
basin. Because these areas are wooded and/or open space and
will remain so, detention and water quality will not be provided
for these areas.
DS -1
WELLINGTON RESERVE
b. The "developed area system" shall be generally located along
Brand Road to include both dry basins and a wet micro -pool.
IX. TREE PRESERVATION, REMOVALAND REPLACEMENT
A. Tree Preservation
1. It is the intent of the developer to preserve as many good and fair
condition trees as possible on site. A good faith effort will be made to
preserve existing trees in good and fair condition where appropriate.
Any trees 6 inches of caliper or greater in good or fair condition
removed during development of the site or home lots shall be
accounted for on the Tree Replacement Plan.
B. Tree Replacement Plan
1. If approved by City Council, tree replacement shall be as outlined
below.
a. Existing trees removed that measure 6 inches to 12 inches in
caliper shall be replaced tree for tree, one replacement tree for
every tree removed in good or fair condition.
b. Replacement trees shall have a minimum caliper size of 2 /z
inches and may include evergreen species.
c. Existing trees removed that measure 12 inches and greater in
caliper shall be replaced "inch per inch ", one replacement inch
for every inch removed in good or fair condition.
d. The master developer shall be responsible for the replacement of
all subject trees affected due to the development of the site.
e. All site required tree replacement must be completed prior to the
issuance of the first building permit or within 6 months, due to
unfavorable weather conditions.
I. All individual lot tree replacement must be completed prior to
issuance of an occupancy permit or within 6 months, due to
unfavorable weather conditions.
C. Tree Enhancement Zone
1. A tree enhancement zone is an area identified on the subdivision plat
for reforestation or naturalization with deciduous or evergreen
replacement trees, where appropriate, in order to augment, re-
establish or create a tree row buffer between adjoining lots.
2. In addition to replacement trees, supplemental plantings including,
but not limited to, ornamental trees, deciduous and evergreen shrubs,
ornamental grasses, groundcovers and fine or rough turf are permitted
to be planted in tree enhancement zones. These supplemental
plantings shall not be utilized to meet tree replacement requirements.
3. Trees or other vegetation may be removed in any tree enhancement
zone in order to install or maintain utilities and drainage facilities.
4. Dead, diseased, decayed or noxious trees or other vegetation may be
removed from tree enhancement zones as required for conservation or
aesthetic purposes or in keeping with good forest management
practices.
5. Trees measuring 6 inches and greater in caliper are subject to the tree
replacement plan as approved in the development text.
6. A 30' or 40' wide Tree Enhancement Zone shall be located at the rear
of all lots and shall be indicated on the preliminary and final plat.
7. An area designated as a tree enhancement zone is not precluded from
any use or activity that would otherwise be permitted in a rear yard
setback.
X. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
The open space will meet that required under Code. The code required open
space shall be dedicated to the City. These open space areas may contain a
mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs to enhance the rural
character of the area. All open space areas shall be maintained by a forced and
funded homeowners association.
XI. ARCHITECTURE
A. General Character
1. The character of the development shall be 1 and 2 story single - family
homes with a variety of 2 or 3 car garages that will mimic the quality
of the surrounding homes in adjacent neighborhoods and will adhere
to the City of Dublin Residential Appearance Standards Code.
B. Permitted Building Height
1. Maximum of 35', as measured per the Dublin Code.
C. Permitted Exterior Materials
1. Cladding Materials.
a. The exterior cladding of all structures shall be finished using all
natural materials, including brick, stone, manufactured stone,
wood, stucco, fiber -cement siding products or any combination
thereof.
Development Standards
2. Trim Materials.
a. Wood, vinyl, aluminum, EIFS, copper or fiber -cement products.
Shutters shall be considered as trim for the purpose of meeting
the Residential Appearance Code requirements
3. Roofing Materials.
a. Dimensional asphalt shingles, wood, slate, concrete, tile or metal.
D. Permitted Exterior Colors
1. Cladding Colors.
a. Natural earth tones and/or warm neutral colors, including white.
b. High - chroma colors are not permitted.
2. Trim Colors.
a. Natural earth tones and/or warm neutral colors, including white.
b. Complementary or contrasting to siding color.
3. Roofing Colors.
a. Roofing colors shall be from the color range of natural materials:
such as, but not limited to wood shakes and black.
b. High - chroma colors are not permitted.
E. Architectural Elements
1. Four -sided Architecture
a. Similar architectural design elements and details shall be
consistent throughout all elevations of the structure.
b. Dublin Residential Appearance Code will be adhered to
throughout the entire subdivision unless otherwise stated herein.
2. Chimneys
a. "Cantilevered" or "through- the -wall" chimneys are not permitted.
b. All chimneys shall be built on an integral foundation.
c. All exterior portions of chimney shall be finished masonry,
consisting of brick, stone, and/or manufactured stone.
DS -2
WELLINGTON RESERVE
Development Standards
3.
Garages
19 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21
2. Plantings shall create a natural woodland effect and may consist of
20 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22
deciduous trees and shrubs, ornamental trees, perennials or any
a. All single - family dwellings shall have an attached or detached
21 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 22, 23
combination thereof. This effect shall be installed across the Brand
garage of sufficient size to accommodate a minimum 2 standard
22 11, 12, 13, 20, 21, 23, 24
Road frontage in both retention and non - retention areas, to create a
sized automobiles, side by side.
23 10 11 12 20 21 24 25
consistent appearance and disguise the presence of a stormwater
24 9 10 11 22 23 25 26
management area.
b. Side loaded garages are encouraged.
25 8 9 10 23 24 26 27
26 7 8 9 24 25 27 28
3. Dry portions of the stormwater basins located within the Brand Road
c. In those instances where a garage is utilized and an auto
27 6 7 8 25 26 28
setback shall be landscaped as a rain garden to create a natural
courtyard is created in the front of the house; a minimum 30"
28 6 7 8 26 27
woodland character. Water tolerant meadow grasses, perennials,
high wall or hedge shall be installed to provide a partial visual
shrubs and trees shall be planted in a natural manner as to continue
buffer along the entire length of the court pavement.
the woodland character occurring within the Brand Road setback and
to diminish the appearance of a basin.
d. In those instances where a side loaded garage is utilized, a
H. Plan Approval
minimum 36" height, 75% opacity hedge shall be installed along
4. Any trees, 2 1 /2" in caliper and larger, planted in this treatment, shall
the entire length of driveway pavement so as to prevent headlight
1. The Master Developer shall retain the right of individual plan
count toward the required number of replacement trees.
pollution into the rear of neighboring properties.
approval for all single family homes within the subdivision.
5. Earth mounding may be used provided it does not disrupt the master
F. Architectural
Diversity
drainage plan or the critical root zone of trees to be preserved.
1.
The same or similar front elevations shall not be repeated within:
X11. LANDSCAPING
6. Pedestrian pathways, multi-use paths, water features and pond access
will be provided in this treatment.
a. Two lots on either side of subject lot.
A. Entry Features
E. Perimeter Landscape Buffer
b. Three lots directly across the street from subject lot.
1. Entry features shall include integrated project signage, landscaping,
and irrigation.
1. A landscape buffer shall be installed by the developer and maintained
c. Any lot on a cul- de-sac bulb.
per plan by the individual homeowners in the tree enhancement zone,
2. Final location, design, and standards for entry features and related
on all lots. Design and details of the proposed buffer plantings shall
2.
Comer lots apply to both streets on which the home is situated.
landscaping and signage details shall be presented and approved
be reviewed and approved at the final development plan stage.
during the Final Development Plan phase.
2. The buffer may consist of existing vegetation, deciduous or evergreen
G. Lot Diversity Matrix
3. All entry features will be owned and maintained by the homeowners
trees and/or deciduous or evergreen shrubs. The design of the buffer
Subject
Influenced
association.
shall incorporate and preserve existing trees and vegetation where
possible, while striving to achieve a 75 percent opacity after two
Lot
# Lot #
growing seasons. Areas of preserved trees and vegetation shall be
B. Street Trees
deemed to meet opacity requirements, but may be supplemented with
1
2 3
other plantings that do not require the removal of vegetation to install.
2
1 5 3 5 4
1. Street trees will be installed in accordance with the City of Dublin
3
1 5 2 5 4 5 5
Code. Final location shall be determined by the City Forester.
3. Deciduous and evergreen trees installed in this buffer planting shall
4
2 5 3 5 5 5 6
qualify as replacement trees, if they are 2 1 /2" caliper minimum.
5
3,4,6,7
C. Fencing
6
4 5 5 5 7 5 8 5 27 5 28
7
5 5 6 5 8 5 9 5 26 5 27 5 28
1. No fencing shall be permitted unless it is decorative in nature and
8
6 5 7 5 9 5 10 5 24 5 25 5 26 5 27 5 28
does not enclose an area.
XII I. HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
9
7 8 10 11 23 24 25 26 27
10
8 9 11 12 22 23 24 25
2. Fencing around pools shall be permitted that conforms to the
All residential property owners located within the Wellington Reserve PUD
11
9 10 12 13 21 22 23
requirements in the governing building code.
shall be required to join and maintain membership in a forced and funded
12
10 11 13 14 20 21 22
homeowners association, which will be formed prior to any lots being sold.
13
14
11 12 14 15 19 20 21
12 13 15 16 19 20 21
D. Brand Road Landscape Treatment
Homeowners association responsibilities shall be detailed within Declarations
of Covenants and Restrictions as approved by the City of Dublin before being
15
16
13 14 16 17 18 19 20
14 15 17 18 19 20
1. A roadway landscape treatment shall be installed in the setback along
duly recorded in the office of the Franklin County Recorder. These
17
14 15 16 18 19 20
Brand Road.
Declarations of Covenants and Restrictions shall run with the land and shall
include, without limitation, the requirements imposed upon the homeowners
18
14 15 16 17 19 20
association in this text.
DS -3
SECTION III-
Exhibits
,�a •.. '�} �F <s , t�.�.�rr• 1�� I .. �M1r_ ..
g � 7f a
. � Kd Y 9 . � ` ' Ir '1r1�� �.• D In ,. nd.. v'„�".: i�i
! w�
V
1 4 ,
r -
1IDID�bbb I fff `` ♦ . ,( Ilc „I ldlL'dr ,'
r- ilk
ACK
A ll
A is
rA
' MNN4v •a. r. � 1� 7{'�����i:� '.� � r_>i I' _' 4 ” y'r$y' .:i,
� � � ;�•r a '... 75�
S•. 1�
cilr [ �� �J. • - •. •� �1 ` V� r
L 1.
PL
QU
.`` � .fit �4 � ' ��Y d,,♦ .' f � � __ _ y �'
�a,. ���.n.e.- ..in..1"ret'�' ��i� _ I ". o -v � �i ;�� ��� �� {. �' 1y��� � 7`,'' , � i ��� �� � '�� T ✓� 111111
r
"a
ZONING OIdWO P110N
18.584AW85
Situated In the Sbte of Ohio, County m Franklin, Cry m Dublin, lomkd In Mlglns
Military Survey No. 2543, and being all ofthe 12.584aoetractmme ea CF
Band LLC by dead of record In Instrument Num11er200202140017366, andtle
6 acre Vad conveyed b CF Brand LLC by dead Of record! in Instrument Number
200201090009109, (all generates .rend the recortls of the Recorder's Office, Fanklin
County, Ohio) and being more p bularly descrbed as folkas:
Beginning .trite northwesterly comer of Wellington Place Section 1', as daliravmd
In Plat Book 79, Page 67, being In the southely line of "Bandon SeNOn 3',
as delineated in Plat Book 6% PI 0,
Thence South W 10' 50' West a distance of 1153Mman, to part,
Thence NoTh 89° all 36' East, a distance of 579.8 feet ma point;
Thence South W Sal 42'West,a distance of 367.11 feet To a local
Thence South 89° 12' 50' West, a distance of 577.18feak W poun
Thence North 00° 10' Sl East a distance of 7.75 feet nd a Nunn in be ceMedlre
of Brand Base;
Thence North 77° 02' 10 West, a distance Of 209.01 feat gal carmalre,to
B
Thence
Thence North W 49' 21' West, a distance Of 189.95 feat gal carmalre,b
B
Thence
Thence North 01° 30' 21 West, a distance of 1392.0 fcet, to point;
Thence North 85° 04' 39' East, a distance Of 184Mfed, ba point;
Thence North 85° 12' 58' East a distance of 247.51 feet tithe Foiaaf Beginning.
Containing 18.584 acres of land, more arias.
This desription Is for tuning puracres only, and Is not to be used fordeadginger.
EVANS, MECHWAer, NAMBLETON STILTON, INC.
I
� � 2
/ � I
r
5
� I
T I
I I
1
I
I
I
I I
i
ti
i
L —J
I
I
L_
I - �
I �
I I
� i I
I r __J I
L_J
I
` - I I IL fJ I I I
I I
IIIIII�� 7 I I
l J r� J
FIL __J 1
I
I I
- -� r J
r — �
_ —y L,
Y
I I
I
I
I I
- -� r i
L
� y1 4�4 H
7392.67
W21'W
4
ez
o/
1w
00
7.75'_ --"
I
u I
rj I
i I
0' 30' MY 120• NOM
:
02
?O
m�
00
O
It Z
52
W
C
W
W
Z
0
z
Z
J
J
I
a
W
0
Z IA
O
M
a�
Wore
1 DT
101
I PDP I
EX KATESEIRIDGE COURT � \� EX KIL13kiWAN LAKE
L Z _ J 1
l I
I
I
L I
I
I I
I �-
I I -
1 ,
I L_
L - r J -/
I I
I I
�l I
` I 1
i� I
I
T T T
L_ L L____
___
i00° O'50'W I 1753.85' I
i}ll H
ILZr �I
LEGEND r -_� - -� __ I �6�§nA 0.45 I E, ° 8
I MIC L16 JCESPH J.B
+m EXISTING TREE - 6 TO 24' CALIPER SIZE JAA G. susnn E. L
R q _
HAND
nw EXISTING TREE - +24' CALIPER SIZE -
--
OVERLAND ROW
I
– J
-- -____. RIDGE/DRAINAGE DMDE
L I
L L__J
cm:
W
02
Ir
– h e
f - -, w Illl Jp 1 O �� Z
I o - -�s >
L
KAT 6BRIDGE WuRT I I A Qq) T IEX. LBRITTM E�
I f
-T
� I B
,wrnss �
%B. r j _ L ` JJ� r i_ s --
I crmHw a. ��Z � ���"– �` — z r F Z I � r – Zr �- -, _ �� -- �-- -- Q
,� I �_f L _ L_ � IJIL�_�JI �0.5 b �� 1 i t
i / �� L J 3' I _ a�
di r __J L� -- L___J ___ 1 � y x CIA
ti _J Z_ I � jig I I d O
Ex 18• Ev TC X T ANRICNY W.B MICHAEL B.B JA8 ANRB b� r ` ! Y Z
-TJ I Sbn. Ez hr-854M FREGERICKJ.B KA8 MPAKEB HAMSA CATHERINE E. JENNIPERA CILIA C. VI AL ® L ® Q 1 i
an
L_ J SCMII =TTJ. 1 KATARINAM SUSAN 8. N8. PERRVMNJ EMBMINGER WGUEZ CH W — �d - - 1 J O O
JEF BERNELEE P. P TTA a m A J WIN— J 1 J J 1 J
0 � e b a X�
1 R +R H .50% 0 0
w D
'I C E 1-7% // a s 0 oA Os� S G" oa la 9 ! (y J 7.7s% i O
1 a of 1 0 1
-1 " ° \ o � – - - -- V
§ o I OE °
O / / so
I I EG A o i Ate! o� / a a i A \ _ wi 1G
_ F y m 0 GI OA O 00 Q A ® 100 O O g$ i
-- 0 ® of A o
Go 0 o i I: s 1 a y ° - a A !�'A GO 1 e \ o f W
ag o! 10 1 0 60 A i
A o O ! 1 a O:
o " 2 I 9T
I , I G ER AF 44 a O �O 6 E i 90 a 1 1 ! o 0 a 1 A o � M I N
MT
I Gi A a A o GO a s 1'o! § !® 333 H
Io gCDg ® ON _ 8
® 1 ® § €W3
D I i Is 9 1 q '
- �-- -� -e a oloA' o ® o Eo11ga A i bo of
J
I I I u4G E 10 z@ -o O o OA G a i I A A I i .� a I V�
L'– b 02 aaj a O oa0 o G ! ,( DL I o l �• r_
_ cp (J O 9 a G O O G`O V I
ao o . a 0 0: IO o ! ! I � � rJ
1 0 of
l0 10 I Oi O /
A - ON No - 01 p I _ E O A
E EWN .s p 102'o QoR OA 1'
i0 a OA 0 O I� O R I q OA 10 – -- I
AO Ao A O l0 1 g 0 �II 0
AO 480E i0 FDJ Q'b R �CWYn u IRRRR4 N 'RSr_ ( n
r AO O w 1n,,WTa ,INP
1 HA M. rc AGIVBJM R I DRAINAGE JERRY G.B PEPHS.III
pGHN.FME
n n � IRM PDP
a, Brc SBA IZB• NORTH 5
TREE 5URVEY L15T
#
COMMON NAME
OBH
"Na .
#
COMMON NAME
aBH
CON,.
#
COMMON NAME
Vi
CON,.
#
COMMON NAME
OBH
OONa.
#
COMMON NAME
OBH
OONO.
# COMMON NAME
OBH
GONO.
g2Z
Honeylocusk
20.0
Good
119
Sugar Maple
24.0
Fair
256
Cherry
10.0
Fair
352
Hackberry
12.0
Good
Abe
Hackberry
60
Goad
5B5 Walnut
9.0
Poor
" u
2
Haneylocust
120
Good
120
Haneylocust
200
Poor
25
Silver Maple
25.0
Fair
555
Bouelder
14.0
Fall
469
Beech
10.0
Good
51 Hackberry
240
Fair
3
Haneylowsk
10.0
Good
121
Sugar Maple
200
Good
238
Hackberry
1.0
Fair
354
Hackberry
10.0
Good
410
Cherry
60
Fao-
Bar Epoch
6.0
boo.
4
Honeylawsk
120
Good
122
Haneylocust
6O
Poor
239
Walnut
180
Poor
355
Cherry
80
Poor
411
Pm oak
161
Poor
Sea Hackberry
80
Poor
5
Elm
80
Pall
123
Haneylocust
100
Poor
240
Yialnut
ISO
Fair
556
Elm
Ica
Poor
412
Hackberry
10.0
Good
5H9 Beach
5.0
Good
6
Honeylocuat
180
Good
124
Cherry
130
Poor
241
511ver Maple
300
Poor
551
Cherry
15.0
Poor
415
Elm
60
Goad
Spa Beach
6.0
Good
1
Green Ash
120
Poor
125
Sugar Maple
1.0
Good
242
511ver Maple
24.0
Poor
35B
Beech
100
Good
414
Sugar Maples
50
Good
591 Hackbcrry
18.0
Good
B
Honeyloaost
10.0
Fair
126
51 Maple
25.0
Fair
243
5Weetbay Magnolia
13.0
Poor
551
Gherry
60
Poor
415
Hackberry
12.0
Gaad
592 Hackberry
SO
Good
9
Haneylowsk
10.0
Fair
121
Haneylocust
200
Poor
244
Silver Maple
360
Poor
360
cherry
12.0
Poor
41b
5u9ar Maple
240
dead
593 Hackberry
BO
Per
10
Hackberry
10.0
Gootl
1EB
5u9ar Maple
80
Good
245
Silver Maple
24.0
Poor
361
Cherry
15.0
Falr
411
Hackberry
80
Good
544 Walnut
lea
Good
Haneylocust
100
Poor
129
Hackberry
220
Good
246
Osage Orange
100
Poor
362
Cherry
150
Poor
415
BeecM1
60
Good
515 Beach
100
Fair
12
Haneylocust
100
Poor
130
Honeylooust
lea
Poor
241
Walnut
180
Fair
363
Beach
1.0
Good
419
Beech
60
Good
596 5ugar Maple
0.0
Fair
13
Elm
6.0
Fair
131
Haneylocust
19.0
Fair
245
511ver Maple
10.0
Poor
364
Beech
60
Good
480
Beech
300
Poor
591 Basch
BO
Pair
14
Hackberry
5.0
Fair
152
Hackberry
100
Good
249
511ver Maple
250
Good
365
cherry
60
Poor
481
Hackberry
8a
Good
595 Green Ash
6.0
Poor
15 Honeylawsk 10.0 Poor 133 Elm 50 Good 250 5Waekgum 12.0 Poor 366 Beech 1.0 Fall 482 Beech 60 Good 599 Cherry 18.0 Poor
16
Haneylowsk
10
Poor
134
Haneylocust
60
Fair
251
Si
12.0
Poor
361
Bbadh
150
Gaad
453
Green Ash
ISO
Poor
600 BeecM1
10
bond
11
Haneylowsk
10
Fair
135
Elm
11.0
Good
252
Cherry
130
Poor
365
Beech
90
Good
464
5oech
360
Poor
601 Beach
0.0
Fair
16
Haneylocust
100
matr
136
Cherry
90
Poor
253
cherry
21.0
Poor
369
Cherry
10
Fair
485
Hackberry
80
Poor
602 Beach
100
Good
P
Honeylocuat
12a
For
131
Haneylocust
9.e
Good
254
Green Ash
9.0
Poor
510
Beech
60
Good
456
Beech
60
Good
603 BeecM1
15.0
Fair
20
Honeylocusk
5.0
Poor
15B
sugar Maple
55.0
Poor
255
Cherry
80
Poor
311
S.Igar Maplo
21.0
Good
461
Beech
60
Poor
614 Beech
BO
Good
21
Hackberry
10
Good
139
Gherry
100
Poor
256
cherry
GO
Poor
312
Hocklwrry
BO
Good
485
Beech
211
Good
605 Beach
120
Good
22
5ugar Maple
10
Good
140
Elm
60
Good
251
Cherry
12.0
Poor
515
Gherry
211
Good
459
cherry
1.0
Good
606 Boxeldar
100
Poor
W
23
24
Haneylowsk
Elm
5.0
6.0
Fair
Pear
141
142
cherry
Elm
80
1.0
Poor
Fair
255
259
Elm
Elm
60
10
Poor
Poor
514
Cherry
200
Fall
490
Boxalder
60
Fair
601 @each
130
Good
ZZ >
25
Haneylocus t
120
Poor
145
Haneylocust
1 0
Poor
260
cherry
10
Poor
515
316
Elm
Cherry
60
ISO
Fear
Poor
491
4q2
W.olnuk
Ybinuk
10.0
1.0
Fair
Good
605 Walnut
609 Elm
120
10
Good
6aad
III S
W
26
5ugar Maple
60
Good
144
Haneylocust
1.0
Fair
261
Cherry
60
Fair
511
Cherry
120
Poor
A5
Beech
6a
Good
610 Cherry
10
Fair
F CCCC
21
Honeylocusk
6.0
Poor
145
Sugar Maple
100
Good
262
Cherry
10.0
Poor
519
Cherry
210
Poor
494
Beech
60
Good
611 Hackborry
0.0
Good
=O W
29
Haneylocust
120
Poor
146
Is
150
Good
263
Gherry
120
Poor
319
Cherry
100
Poor
495
Hackborry
12.0
Good
612 Hackbcrry
B.O
Good
W
29
Cherry
15.0
Poor
141
Honeylooust
80
Poor
264
Cherry
14.0
Fair
Sea
Apple
150
Poor
446
Beech
60
Good
613 Hackberry
60
Pair
Z�
Z
30
Haneylocust
80
Fair
145
Haneylocust
10.0
Good
265
Cherr y
10.0
Fall,
381
551
Beech
15.0
Good
491
Beech
60
Good
614 Hackberry
lea
Good
0 O
31
Ch y
Ie.O
Poor
149
5u Maple
gar p
12.0
Good
266
Gherry
120
Fair
382
Chair,
Poor
490
Beech
10.0
Good
615 Beech
100
Good
00 r O DU 2 O
32
Honeylocusk
10.0
Poor
ISO
sugar Maple
IOC
Good
261
cherry
ISO
Poor
Sea
Cherry
390
Poor
4q9
cherry
60
Good
be Hackberry
100
Good
LL)-
55
Haneylocust
10.0
Poor
151
5ugar Maple
1.0
Good
265
Cherry
21.0
Poor
384
Gharry
1.0
Good
5a0
Beech
120
Goad
611 Hackborry
100
Fair
O z
34
Honeylawsk
10.0
Fair
152
Haneylocust
100
Poor
269
Cherry
120
Poor
555
Beech
50.0
Good
501
Ylalnuk
60
Good
615 Elm
240
Poor
r Z
35
Honeylawsk
10.0
Poor
153
5ugar Maple
210
Good
210
Gherr y
14.e
Fall,
See
Beech
60
Good
502
Hackberr 9
10.0
Poor
619 Beech
180
bond
C -
36
Hone locust
Y
60
Pao-
154
Hackberr Y
80
Fair
2 11
Cherry
12.0
Fair
561
Birch
160
Good
503
Beech
10.0
Good
620 Hackberry
6.0
Good
U J
91
5ugar Maple
60
Good
155
Haneylocust
Good
212
Cherr,
Y
100
Poor
9BB
Birch
BO
Pool,
°A4
Beech
111
Good
621 Hackberr y
6.0
Fea
J
38
Honc locust
y
8.0
Poor
I56
Hackb erry
0
IB.O
15.
Good
213
Hackberry
ISO
Good
3B9
Birch
60
Poor
505
Beech
15.0
Gaad
622 Hackborry
6.0
Goad
6
39
5ugar Maple
6.0
Good
151
Hackberry
60
Good
214
cherry
10.0
Poor
390
Birch
150
Poor
506
5ugar Maple
60
Fair
623 5ugar Maple
20.0
Good
90
Haneylocust
90
Poor
ISB
5ugar Maple
100
Good
215
Hackborry
12.0
Fair
391
Birch
Be
Good
501
Hackborry
10.0
Fair
624 Hackbcrry
6.0
Poor
41
5ugar Maples
6.0
Good
159
Hackberry
12.0
Good
216
Cherry
12.0
Poor
5q2
Hackberry
60
Good
°A6
Beech
200
Good
625 5ugar Maple
180
Per
42
Elm
90
Poor
160
Hackberry
160
Good
211
CheY rr
GO
Poor
393
Hackborry
0
Fall,
SOP
5u Maple
gar p
160
Good
626 Edison
32.0
Good
43
5u Maple
Bar P
100
Good
161
Hone locust
Y
140
Goad
219
Green Ash
10.0
Poor
394
Hocklwrry
1
Good
510
cherry
60
Fall,
a
621 Bach
100
Good
44
5ugar Maple
0
1
Good
162
Hackberry
Goad
219
Hack Y berr
11.0
Fall,
395
ac
Hkb y
err
80
BO
Poo-
511
Hack y berr
15.0
Good
625 Hackbcrr y
6.0
Good
45
Honeylocusk
120
Fair
165
Sherry
do
20
Poor
Cherr,
Y
100
Poor
396
Bosch
AV
Poor
512
Hackberr
0
Good
629 Beech
BO
Good
46
gar Made
Su le
6.0
Good
164
5u gar Map
p
200
Fall,
Eel
261
51 Maple
200
Good
5q1
0
Fall
513
R amat
6 0
Good
63e Beach
Good
41
sugar Maple
Good
165
Hackberry
0
G ood
2B2
Cherry
6 .0
Poor
3q3
Hackberr y
ocd
6
Good
514
1 1 00
Good
631 Beach
5.0
B.O
Good
40
Honeylask
w
10.
Fall,
166
€m
6
l
G ood
ood
295
Sugar Maple
24.8
Good
399
Hi
50 O
B m
Fall,
515
Cherr
cherr
y
10.0
Poor
632 Hackbcrr 9
B. 0
Good
49
Elm
.
Do
Poor
161
Ell
I 100
Fair
254
204
Gherry
q.0
Fall,
40
55-1
300
Poll,
516
Sliver Maple
110
Fair
633 Elm
Good
50
5ugar Maple
10
Good
168
auger Maple
200
Fair
205
c
100
Good
401 1
Beach
IOC
Good
511
10
Fall,
654 Walnut
Ic a
Good
51
Honeylocuat
60
Poor
Ibq
Bouelder
60
Good
206
cherrherry y
201
Fall,
402
Beach
21.0
Good
515
S., Sugar Maple
5 0
Good
655 Cherry
6.0
Fall,
52
cherry
90
Poor
110
Boxalder
60
Good
251
Elml
50
Good
403
ac y
Hkberr
ILO
Good
519
ack
Hberry
6
6C
Good
636 Cherry
240
Poor
53
Cherry
B.
Poor
111
Cherry
Poor
20B
chair,
13.0
Good
404
Hackberry
60
Good
521
H ackberr Y
6a
Poor
631 Hackberr y
60
Fao-
r
54
55
Haneylow sk
Maple
1 0
60
Poor
112
cherry
1Fair
12 0
Fa
261
Cherry
140
Good
405
Ch err y
IOC
Fall,
521
Hackberry
ba
Fair
630 Beach
6.0
Good
(n
56
5ugar
5ugar Maple
100
Good
Good
115
Cherry
BO
Fall,
290
cherry
0
Good
406
Cherry
Good
522
6a
Good
639 cucumber Magnolia
150
Good
114
Hackberry
50
Good
291
Cherry
21 0
Goad
401
BeecM1
45
Fall,
523
Beach Beech
60
Good
640 el,
6.0
Fair
J
51
5ugar Mae
pl
6.0
Good
115
Hackber ry
60
G ood
2q2
Red Maple
6aad
406
Nut
6 0
60
Poor
524
Hackberry
Good
Y$dIn t
641 Walnu
Fair
W
59
sugar MCI
6.
116
Hackberry
240
G
Good
2q3
Gchoir, choir,
22
22 0
Good
419
NL
al,
6a
Poor
525
5ugar Maple
Ica
100
Good
642 Hackbcrr ,
y
.r
DO
W >
Sq
Honeylocusk
55.0
Fair
Fall,
111
Hackberry
A0
Good
2q4
Cherry
y
550
Poor
410
Beech
50.0
Poo
526
Hai
6a
Fair
643 Hackberry
120
Per
P Pair
W
60
Haneylow sk
B.O
Poor
115
H ackberry
26.0
Good
2q5
cherry
340
Poor
411
Bee
100
r
Paor
521
Hackberr 9
ba
Fall,
644 Hackberr y
12a
Good
61
62
y
Hone lMpl
Maple
120
100
Fall,
119
Hackberr y
80
Good
296
Gherr Y
ICO
Poor
412
Beec h
6a
Good
529
Hackberry mold -stem
10.0
Goad
645 Hackberry
Ica
Good
r
63
5ugar a e
5ugar Maple
60
Good
Good
IBC
IBI
Mulberry
Haneylocust
59.0
12.0
GaaQ
Good
2q
Cherry
CO 1
Fall,
413
Cherry
Good
52q
Hackberr Y
10.0
Good
646 Hackberr 9
120
Good
li
64
Su Ma I
Good
Hackberr,
29B 5
Cherry
12.0
Good
414
Elm
ea
Poor
530
Hborry
ack
9.0
Good
641 Hackberry
6.0
Good
65
gal, p e
sugar Maple
6. 9
&.0
Good
163 183
Hackberry
0
6 0
6
Go
G ood
299
Hackerr y
b
0
Good
Gd
415
Cherr y
le
180
Fall,
531
Hackberry
60
Good
640 Elm
6.0
Good
N
66
Elm
0
Fall,
I54
Cherry
Poor
Maple
0
80
Good
416
rr Maple
0
Good
532
Hackberr,
Y
60
Good
649 Hackbcrr, 9
100
6aad
Su Mope
6.
6.0
Good
IBS
Hackberr
Ic
100
Goad
5 0
501 1
Apple Apple
80
Poor
411
Cherry
9.0
Fall,
553
Hackberry
120
Fair
650 Hackberry
100
Per
69
be
Hackbcrry
60
Fall,
IB6
Srabae
100
Fail-
302
Su gar Maple
120
Fall,
410
Ghar ,
ry
11
Poor
554
Cherry
1.0
Fair
651 Hackberry
Ica
Fair
69
Maple
8Maples
ppl
503
Chery r mulkl -skem
300
Fool,
419
Walnuk
.0
130
Good
535
Cher
y
10.0
Fall,
652 Elm
6.0
Poor
10
5ugar
5ugar Maple
0
60
Good
Good
166
185
Ma
Gross, Green Ash
30.0
200
Fall,
Poor
304
0
Fall,
421
Green Ash
lea
Poor
536
Cherry
Poor
653 Hackberry
5.0
Fall,
11
gal P
Su Ma Ie
Good
Hone locust
Y
2aa
Fair
305
chat
Cherry
1 120
Poor
4
Cherry
Fall,
531
Hackberr y
ba
80
bond
654 Green Ash
B.O
Poor
d
ea 530 Hackberr 120 Good 655 Red Oak 240 6aad
12 sugar Maple 10.0 Good I91 Haneylocust 0 Fall, 306 Birch 9.0 Fall, 42E 2 HI 60 Good y
10. MC 656 Maple 120
13
Hackborry
120
Good
111
Su Ma le
Maple
50
Good
O
Birch
0.0
Fool,
423
Elm
O
Poor
539
12.0
poor
5u g P
651 Walnut
Good
Poor
w�
14
15
Hackbcrry
Su Ma le
60
ba
Food
Fall,
or
q.0
9.0
Good
BOB 3rch
309 5 B
cherry
80
60
Fa ir
Fair
424
425
Elm
Hkb arry
oo
GO
1
Poor
Good
540
B 41
Cherry
Elm
10
15
Poor
Poor
65B Eager Maple
I a
Ica
Poor
o.
16
Hackberry y
Good
193
ME
poor
Pear
130
Poor
310
Birch
10.0
Fall,
426
Hackberr
a
GO
Good
542
Hackb y
12.0
Good
659 sugar Maple
15.0
Good
T
5ugar Maple
650
15
Good
194
195
cherry
Hackberr y
15.0
Poor
Fall,
311
Birch
120
Pa ir
421
Y
Cherry
I
100
Poor
543
Hackberr
12.0
Goad
660 5u of Ma p le
1 20
Poor
19
Elm
6.0
Fall,
116
EIm
40 0
40
Poor
312
Birch
10.0
Poor
420
Hackborry
Good
544
Hackberry
60
Good
e
661 Cherry
Fall,
UJ
19
5u MCI Ma
0
Good
Pear
Poor
515
10.0
Poor
429
Hackberry
5 0
BO
Good
545
Cherry
12.0
Fair
662 cherry
aI
BO
Poor
BO
5ugar Maples
10 10 .0
Good
190
ME
Crabapple
lea
10.0
Poor
314
cher
Cherry
Fair
430
Hackberry
60
Good
5461m
B41
Elm
100
1
Pao-
Poor
663 Hackberry
664 BeecM1
6.0
100
Good
Good
5
01
Mulberry
I00
Good
5
80
Good
315
Birch
Il
100
Fair
431
Beech
8a
Good
548
Hackberry
9.0
665 Blkkernut dwry
Hl
10.0
6aad
�
62
Su ar Media
60
6aad
20 20
a
O
Good
516
Cherry
0
Fall,
452
Beech
Good
541
Hackberry mulCl -stem
21.0
Good
Good
666 Beech
120
Good
s J
Q� �
63
5ugar Maple
Good
gel 1
Find
Pne
100
IG
Fair
0
5 .0
Poor
433
Beech
ea O
Good
661
5.0
94
5ugar Maple
IV
100
Good
202
Mubarry
60
Pool,
SO
319
Gherry
Cher
Ch
80
Poor
434
Beech
8a
Good
550
551
Elml
Cherry
5.0
60
Pool,
Poor
Beech
bed Hackberry
la
Good
Good
p
hill!� i
BS
5ugar Maple
6.e
Good
205
Hackberry
60
Good
SIP
Birch
5.0
Poor
435
Hal
IOC
Good
552
Hackberry
100
Fair
b69 Beech
100
Good
56
sugar Maple
6.0
Good
204
Pear
12.0
Poor
320
51rch
10.0
Poor
436
Hackberry
100
Falr
51 Hackborry 0.0 Good 205 Spruce 12.0 Poor 321 Cherry 100 Poor 431 Green Ash 15.0 Poor 553 Hackberry Ica ..ad 610 Hackberry 60 Good
Be
51 Maple
B.O
Good
2065
ppru a
200
Poor
322
51rch
10.0
Fair
436
5oech
60
Good
554
Hackberry multi -stem
250
Good
611 Hackberry
61
Good
69
Cherry
120
Fair
201
Ybinut
160
Poor
325
Cherry
10.0
poor
439
Basch
360
Poor
555
Hackberry
50
Good
612 Cherry
100
Good
90
Sugar Maple
10.0
Good
2005ppru
a
25.0
Poor
324
cherry
120
Poor
440
Beech
60
Good
556
Hackberry
80
Good
613 Walnut
15.0
Good
91
Hackberry
10.0
Good
289
Sherry
290
PBaf
325
cherry
0.0
Fall,
441
Beech
60
Good
551
Hackberry multl-skem
12.0
Good
614 Hackbcrry
100
6aad
92
Hackberr y
6.0
Good
210
Hackborry
9.0
Good
326
Cherry
0.0
Fair
442
Hackberry
6a
Good
559
Elm
80
Good
615 El Hickory
300
Good
95
Hackborry
6.0
Good
211
Sugar Maple
30.0
Good
321
cherry
80
Poor
443
Hackberry
150
Good
SEA
cherry
60
Poor
616 Em
60
Poor
94
Hackbcrry
6.0
Good
212
5ugar Maple
240
Poor
329
Gharry
0.0
Poor
444
Cherry
60
Poor
560
Hackberry
12.0
Good
611 Eecch
6.0
Good
95
Hackberry
50
Good
213
Aalnutl
80
Fair
52q
Cherry
60
Fair
445
BeecM1
60
Good
Bel
Beach
11.0
Good
619 Elml
5.0
Fear
96
Hackberry
60
Good
214
AdInuk
15.0
Fair
330
Cherr y
80
Fair
446
Spear
2C
Good
5£2
Gherr,
y
80
Poor
619 Beach
6BO Bml
100
60
6aad
Per
91
Hackbemy
6.e
G ood
215
IB.O
Fair
Fo
331
Cherry
8 0
Poor
441
Beech
100
Pool,
565
Hai
10
..ad
Hackberry
6.0
Good
216
YlaI nut
50.0
Goof
552
Cherry
y
0
Poor
440
Beer
200
Fair
564
Hackberr
24.0
Good
bel Walnut
BO
Good
100
10
Hackberr y
6.0
Good
211
Hackberry
12.0
Good
333
Cherry
I 1 50
Good
449
BeeaM1
36 a
Fair
erry
Hackby
60
Fair
652 Beech
6.0
Good
101
Hackborry
6.0
Good
21Si
S Maple
Good
334
cherry
12 0
Gaod
450
Elm
61
Good
566
See
561
Hackberry
Elm
60
10.0
Fall-
poor
6B3 Green Ash
6B4
100
1 50
Poor
Poo-
102
Hackberry
6.0
Good
219 q
cherry
lea
180
Poor
3355
agar Maple
12 0
Good
451
Hackberry
60
Good
Sea
5oech
210
Good
Cherry
6B5 Su Maple
Ica
Good
103
H ackberry
60
Good
221
Hackborr y
1 20
Good
336
Elm
0
Poor
452
Hak y
6O
Gee Hai
gal, pe
Q
104
Hackberr y
60
Good
221
Hackberry
150
GaaQ
331
Cherry
10 olsarc
10.0
Poor
453
Elm
BO
Poor
569
511
Ha
Hackberr
& a
ba
..ad
Fall,
686 Elm
6.1
Good
�
115
Hackberry
6.0
band
222
Gradappla
12.0
Poor
330
Su Ma Icl
gar p
40
Fall,
454
Elm
60
Poor
ST
y
Cher,
10.0
Fall,
6B1 Hackberr y
600 Walnuk
6.0
10.0
Good
Good
106
Hackbe rr y
6.0
Good
223
Crabapple
12.0
Poor
339
Elm
80
Poor
455
Elm
60
Good
rc
101
Hackberry
6.0
Good
224
Cherry
160
Poor
341
cherry
I5.1
Pool,
456
ckberry Ha
110
Good
512
513
Cherr,
y
Hai
60
60
Poor
Fair
6B9 Elm
b90
6.0
6aad
°
100
Hackborry
6.0
Good
225
Silver Maple
36a
..ad
341
Poor
451
Green Psh
6C
Paor
514
Hackbcrr
Beech
691
240
6.0
Good
1ckbcrry
09
Ha
11.0
Fail-
226
Gherry
12.0
Poor
342
Elm
Elm
60
ba
Goof
450
Elm
60
Fall,
y
Food
Beech
Good
110
Hackberry
150
Fair
221
chair,
100
Poor
343
Hackberr y
80
Good
459
Elm
60
Good
515
Hackberry
80
GO
Fall,
612 Hackberry
6.0
Good
a
III
Hone 9 locust
GO
Good
229
Padbud
21 O
Pao-
344
cherry
0.0
Poor
460
Hackberry
60
Good
516
ST
Hackberry
Hackberr,
60
60
Fall,
Good
613 Hackberry
614
6.0
Good
12
1
Hackberry
140
Fair
22q
Mulberr Y
210
Poor
545
Cherry
51.0
Fair
461
Hackberr,
Y
60
Good
510
y
Hackberr,
Good
Basch
695
240
15.0
Good
13
5ugar Maple
Ile
Good
231
Cherry
y
100
Poor
346
Cherry
0.0
Fair
462
Bozelder
6a
Far
519
y
Hackberry
60
60
Good
Beech
696 Beach
10.0
Good
Good
114
Hackberr 9
110
Good
251
Sherry
Poor
341
cherry
6a
Fair
465
Elm
ba
Good
560
Beech
ba
Good
691 Hackbcrr
6.0
115
5u9ar Ma
140
Fair
232
Cherr Y
24
Poor
34g
Su al, Maple
9 P
IB.1
Poor
464
Hackberry
60
Poor
591
Hackberry
6a
Fair
y
696 Hackberry
100
6aad
Good
ppp
IIb
Hone lowsk
9
34.0
Poor
233
esoge orange
10
Fair
Sha bark Hlckor
9 9
10.0
Goad
465
Hackberry
Good
582
Hackberry
60
Fall-
699 Hackberry
60
Good
111
Hackberr
y
120
Good
254
Cherry
46
46.0
Poor
350
Hackberr,
y
IBC
Good
466
Hackbcrry
24 0
240
Good
5B3
Beech
60
Good
111
115
Hone locust
9
360
Fair
235
chair,
230
Fall,
351
Hai
60
Good
461
Elm
60
Good
5g4
Elm
60
Fao-
Beech
101 Beach
241
20.0
Poor
Good
C
y
TREE SURVEY L15T
TREE COUNT 5e 5-Ell
COMMON NAME
GBH
GONE.
b
COMMON NAME
GBH
GONG.
Apple
i
Beech
1
z
Beech
I5.0
Good
5 19
Shagbark Hickory
240
aod
B irch
21
21
v
1 0
105
rry
60
Good
2
der
F
Fair
BR c
iernut Hkory
2
104 4
Beach h
60
bond
D B21 1
Elm
Elm
60
ba
Pear
er
12
'105
Basch
I5.0
Good
822
Elm
10
Poor
Cherry e
ChCrab.
106
Beach
15.0
Good
823
Boxalder
100
Poor
Crab app le
4
4
705
Beech
150
Poor
824
Hackberry
100
Good
Oummber Magnolia
1
OP
Basc
120
025
Green Ash
400
Poor
dogwood
2
T
Beach h
6.0
See
Good
B26
Hackbarry
100
Goad
Elm
14
710
110
Beech
0
Good
525
Hackberry
120
Goad
Green Ash
29
511
B r
6
Goad
828
Geen AS
r
Ie0
Poor
Hackbarry
260
512
B each
I 0
10 ch
Good
529
Green
15.0
Poor
Hancylacusi
6B
11
Be
Beach
240
Good
E Aah
Ash
1.0
Pa
Mulberry
5
514 4
Beech
Goad
Sal 851
Ellm m
IBC
Far ir
Fears Orange
2
515
Basch
&.0
Good
852
Graen AsM1
100
Paor
Pear
3
T 20. 6 Beach 20.0 Falr 5 Elm 100 Fair Pln Oak 1
515
Beech
80
hood
5 534 4
Graen Ash
100
Poor
I
715
Beech
l ac
Poor
855
Green Ash
100
P aor
Red
Rod Maple
1
519
Sugar Maple
5
50
Good
556
Crean AsM1
200
Paor
Red Oak
1
Sugar Maple
BO
B55
Hal
Fair
2
1 2
521 1
Beach
6.0
Food
See
BEE
Grecn Ash
100
Poor
5rageo
Shagbark Hickory
3
2
Beach
Fair
839
Elm
90
Good
5 Maple
10
725
B
12
840
ao
Hkberry
80
Goad
5 p"c pruca
6
W
524 4
Beach each
Do BO
See Food
041
Hackberry
Good
Sugar Maple
tbay Magnolia
I
ZZq
525
728
Beach
Hackberry
60
6.0
F-
Goad
542
043
Cherry
Hackbarry
Do BO
10
Peer
Good
Brao 5weetgum
1
S III
C W
l25
arF
Poor
B44
Hancylacusi
5.
Fair
Nbinut
32
Q N
l2B
Ch
Cherry
Do
BO
Food
845
Honaylocust
bO
Fair
0 W
129
Beech
Ica
band
846
Haneylacuat
80
Fair
TOTAL
921
a W
750
Green Ash
15.0
Fear
845
Honeylocusi
80
Fair
m Z
151
Sugar Maples
160
Good
54B
849
01rch
Birch
60
130
Good
2 Q
132
Beach
50
Poor
Good
783
Elm
60
Pair
550
Birch
1.0
Good
IC H
154
Sugar Maple
120
Goad
851
Honeylocusi
12.0
Good
O z w
155
5ugar Maple
6.0
Good
552
Honeylocusi
BO
Goad
Z
156
Boach
6.0
Good
059
Honaylocust
60
Good
U
755
Hackberry
6.0
Feed
854
Honaylocust
loo
Food
TREE COUNT 5Y 51ZE AND CONDITION
J
J
LED
Beech
IHO
hood
855
Honaylocust
100
Good
W
759
Cherry
240
Fear
856
Haneylacuat
100
baad
d
140
Beech
40.0
Food
551
Hackberry
9.0
Good
TOTAL 6000
FAIR POOR
141
Beech
60
Pair
855
5oxelder
11.0
Good
142
Beach
6.0
Falr
559
Elm
BO
Fair
I TO 12"
Fa 525
154 141
145
Boach
120
Good
B60
cherry
1.0
Good
12" TO IB"
165 55
56 49
144
Beach
120
bead
561
Elm
60
Pair
18" 10 24"
84 4C
21 25
145
Beach
100
Falr
862
Cherry mult1 -atam
25.0
Poor
24'Y
71 29
14 25
146
Boach
6.0
Good
565
Ohorry
19.0
Poor
745
Hackei
1O
Ter
564
Honaylocust
15.0
Fair
TOTAL TREE5
921 475
205 241
748
Beech
120
baad
565
Cherry
10
Poor
149
Hackbarry
100
Good
566
Green Aar
11.0
Poor
750
Bcachl
BO
Fall
567
Hackborry
220
Goad
151
Beech
BOO
Food
56B
Hackborry
60
Good
152
Beech
15o
Poor
B69
Hackbarry
60
Good
755
Beech
100
Fall
510
Hackbarry
60
Good
154
Shagbark Hickory
120
Food
811
Hackberry
60
Fair
JN
155
Hackbarr y
100
bead
512
Elm
50
Good
N
156
Beach
50.0
Fair
815
Elm
60
Good
151
Walnut
120
5ood
514
Beach
25.0
Fair
W`
755
Walnut
100
Fear
515
Birch
10 0
Good
J
159
Walnut
15.0
Good
alb
Elm
6a
Poor
/
160
Beach
300
bead
817
Dogrvood
60
Good
c Q
761
Beach
6.0
Good
515
Cherry
60
Fair
= �l
L
162
Boach
50.0
Falr
ale
Sugar Maple
60
Good
165
Hackei
6.0
Food
550
Elm
60
Food
LA Q
164
Hackbarry
60
bead
561
Elm
60
Good
W
165
Hackberry
120
aimed
582
Elm
6a
Gaad
c a
LU
166
Beach
6.0
5ood
555
B54
cherry
eharry
12.0
1.0
Poor
Poor
767
Hackberry
120
Good
`y
16B
Elm
210
Poor
565
Elm
60
Good
l69
Hackei
130
Tel,
556
Cherry
100
Poor
110
Hackbarry
120
Dead
58l
Cherry
12.0
Fair
TI
Beach
50
Good
BBB
cherry
1.0
Poor
a
112 5oxeldar 120 Fall 589 Hackbarry 60 Good
775
Hack'cerry
6.0
Fall
590
Cherry
1.0
Fair
114
115
Hackbarry
Hackberry
6.0
6.0
Falr
Food
591
B92
Cherry
Mulberry
110
15.0
Poor
Poor
Q.
116
Hackbarry
90
Dead
893
cherry
90
Fair
W1 ,A
717
Beach
240
Falr
094
Hackbarry
ba
Good
a
118
Groan Ash
100
Poor
595
Hackbarry
9.0
Fair
�; E
119
Hackberry
6.0
Good
596
Malnut
50
Fair
E
150
Ell
60
Fa1r
591
B96
Hackborry
Hackbarry
60
60
Fair
Fair
r^
5
181
Hackbarry
10
Pair
9
4
182
Hackberry
10
Fair
099
9OO
Walnut
Cherry
60
6a
Good
Good
Q� ��a
753
Hackberry
1O
Poor
901
Cherry
8O
Poor
754
Hackberry
100
Good
902
Sugar Maple
12.0
Good
10i 3 $9
185
156
Ell
Hackberry
2.0
50
Poor
Good
905
Elm
80
Good
6
757 Hackberry 60 Fa1r 1045ugor Maple 60 Good
788
Hackbarry
50
Dead
905
5ugar Maple
6a
baad
189
Hackberry
60
baad
9O6
Cherry
7.0
Fair
79O
5ugar Maple
19.0
Good
901
cherry
150
Good
791
Hackberry
BO
Good
908
Chair,
6a
Fair
192
Hackbarry
6.0
Good
909
Hancylacusi
12.0
Good
793
Beach
60
Fair
910
Sugar Maple
60
Good
794
Hackloorry
80
Good
911
Hackberry
BO
Goad
195
Hackberry
ea
Good
912
Hackborry
9.0
Good
l96
Hackberry
8a
Good
915
Elm
1.0
Poor
797
Hackberry
BO
Good
914
Walnut
60
Pair
195
Hackbarry
6.0
Good
915
Hackberry
6a
Gaad
l99
Hackberry
BO
Food
916
Hackbarry
6a
Good
800
Hai
50
Dead
911
Hackberry
80
Good
801
Hackberry
80
baad
915
Hackbarry
BO
Good
502
Hackberry
Ica
Goad
919
Hackbarry
100
Good
505
Hackberry
15.0
Good
920
Hackbarry
80
Good
504
Hack'cerry
20.0
Good
921
Hackberry
10
Good
505
Hackbarry
6.0
Falr
rc
DOD
Hackberry
6.0
Food
801
Hackbarry
120
Dead
p
808 Hackberry 100 Good
Doi
Hackbarry
120
Good
2
510
Hackberry
8a
Good
511 Hackaiirry 9.0 Good
512
Hackbarry
15.0
Good
515
Hackberry
6.0
Food
514 Cherry 60 Poor
515
Ell
6.0
Fall
PDP
816
Hackberry
BO
Good
517 Haokberry 10.0 bead
515
Hackbarry
50.0
Good
7
R
CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO
H
CITY OF
DUBLIN
E
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR
WELLINGTON RESERVE
2012
LOCATION MAP
Not to 511/e
LTNIid'a P
®. 561NfC6
1- !D]4Zb1 iAJa¢x.Yeua
REGIONAL REGIONAL CON�XTMAPMAP 00 00 800
Sco /e: 1" — 400' SCALE M FEET
'rl Qw
a
�
°-
w
o w
VI
EXISTING: R & R -I
PROPOSED: PUD
�
W
a Z
?o
X
mw
owo
RIGHT OF WAY: +2.61 ACRES
NUMBER OF LOTS: 28
O 0 a
DENSITY:
or
H
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Q
C7
Gros ±1 50 DU /ACRES
>
Z
TITLE SHEET &INDEX MAP l
PRELIMINARY PLAT 2
w
J
UTILITY /GRADING PLAN 3
m
a
OPEN SPACE /RECREATION FACILITIES:
REGIONAL REGIONAL CON�XTMAPMAP 00 00 800
Sco /e: 1" — 400' SCALE M FEET
'rl Qw
DEVELOPMENT DATA
W
ZONING
EXISTING: R & R -I
PROPOSED: PUD
w W
a Z
GROSS AREA 118.584 ACRES
H H
F
RIGHT OF WAY: +2.61 ACRES
NUMBER OF LOTS: 28
DENSITY:
Gros ±1 50 DU /ACRES
Net ±1 J5 DU/ACRES
OPEN SPACE /RECREATION FACILITIES:
Required: ±121 ACRES
eta
0.02 X 18.584 - 0.37 ACRES (OPEN SPACES
0.3 X 28 - 0.84 ACRES (OPEN SPACE)
Planning Commi4ion Approval Date:
Date
`0
Council Approval Dote:
D
Date
Director, Land Use and Long Range Planning Date
Cceto, Property Owner Date
SHEET
REGIONAL REGIONAL CON�XTMAPMAP 00 00 800
Sco /e: 1" — 400' SCALE M FEET
i
n
R
c1 e �
I
a= 132 43
McCARMV
L -23243
90'
T 146.84' -_
�� - 89'35'43"
30' 55'
R= 155.00
L =242 38'
T- 153.91' -�
a 1 df 5B
J
MG
f
PE J.
REEVES
Sp
_
17
I
60 2 83 123
W
_ 1 _
1 tl
SCALE M FEET
o
a
/ �–{
L
t
�1 V — L
A /� /
EX KATESBRIDGE COURT � 1
1 IX. 1(ILBRI TiAN LANE
JMIES M.B 7-L 1 ,- l O THVI B. V� \ SNIDER —Z r__ L _ L 1RU81EE5 l Z -I `1 Z r —T s . -�
i
l r r -s
r -- _– –
i
J ra / FRFOERK:K J.B III MGHANATII ( MICHAEL 8.a Lt - -_1
/ WILLIAMB MARK E.B PAWNISWAMV BRNII 8. JENNFERA JAA JAGANRa
JEFFREYS.BERNEIEE P.
Al KA AGIIIA , SUSAN B. BHAHDN B. E.E.M. O' LANIDIB EMSMINGER CE MC. VIJAYA L.
PAGNATiA
McpONALp GOOD WU
I,,piI JURAS VEGP RODRMIJI CNITTIPROLU
3S0'W
,I THa __ 1753.85'
T
I GREGORY]
I aL4 E.
gNDREWG
-J Z
m
I l l
W RIETIM A,
� �
I
HANDLER
McCARMV
m
r GRE TH E GO AES P a
90'
i0
GEORGETT
30' 55'
+ I
_1
�
a 1 df 5B
J
MG
f
PE J.
REEVES
Sp
I 02
17
_
W
'C
m
W:
4e.o0'
0' G°
6,58 21.00
Ladder Truck feet
Width 8.20
Track 8.00
Lack to Lack Tim, 8.0
Steering Angle 33.3
15 g 1
14 F 13 12 R � 11 a � 10
?' \
W-30 BUILD ZONE,
NM WE
MK:HAEL18 JOESPH
JANETD.
J.
SUSAN E.
HANDLER
McCARMV
r - 1
90'
i0
t
7 ` TWGy
30' 55'
�
a 1 df 5B
L�
myn�LEyNr
f
ev VnL EeMr
Z O
l� Z
I 02
L
a
� >O o
18
19
I
20 F
1 tl
w w-
o
a
J 4 aY
26
3 ��
�i z
F
r' I e w
a
30'R YARDS
KI
p D
r.
avurL EEMr
_
I a
I W
vum ESMr
y
r FJ
F
3
8 ea
w
- -
-
aymDpnllp
w
1.9 Ac.
W
M
Ii
L__J
L'+
D!�
I-
nz K
a
2z
_1
Z
1_
WI0
9 S j5 o 6
R�
{B
81' 108' 18'
_RES ERVE C OURT
01096' FApFO6Ep YB0M:lW%
RESERVI
t1.0Ac.
+ - -I -
I
7'
1
9MTl
MLLTJNSE
TAFFRILI
M BURN
SIpEVIALN
�q �
W
9B
BV
6
90'
88'
BB
30' 55'
O Z U]
OR
a 1 df 5B
L�
myn�LEyNr
f
ev VnL EeMr
Z O
l� Z
2C 'BUILD ZONE
a
� >O o
18
19
I
20 F
21
w w-
o
a
2
26
3 ��
�i z
30'R YARDS
KI
p D
r.
avurL EEMr
w
NE
vum ESMr
J
s
3
8 ea
R ERVE'9'
- -
-
aymDpnllp
w
1.9 Ac.
i
148' N
_1
q R s
a
e
✓'
U
I
143
5
j
W
A'VIILEEM!
_
a
GO °1450 °E
AMR
m
iH
/
C
tl
o
ng!E
MLLTJNSE
TAFFRILI
M BURN
SIpEVIALN
�q �
13 T2'
9B
BV
90' 90'
90'
88'
BB
30' 55'
a 1 df 5B
L�
myn�LEyNr
f
ev VnL EeMr
2C 'BUILD ZONE
18
19
I
20 F
21
22
23 24
25
26
(III(
I
27
^ w wLESMr
28
30'R YARDS
KI
avurL EEMr
TREE NHANCEMENTZ
NE
vum ESMr
ITS-
By
aymDpnllp
w
- JUM "W Wmnlnebn iowneNP CoryoreNnuna _
1
MOHAMMAO 1 4.0 AD.
OFF-
gGRBFMEHRIZI I FSITE
DRAINAGE JERRY B.a MARSHA M. GPEARG, III
I EDWARD J.A
EWSE.
-� THOMAS
� m
– – 13PUT –
/1 C
Y 1 /
7 0
I s
Y
f f
3
NOTE. Grading shown Is
based en Auditor's
Topography and is
subject to change upon
completion of final
engineering plans.
o
bcNMrMan Bwln� �S
a
r
> r
Plfi�
50 OF OF SITE
SAN ITARY SE WE
EXTENSION
u5
999 T .9Yt0 9F CRV GF @uN yN F \
SAN 8'9M1
E
_MUL4
EX. BRAN ROAD
_ Ex M.E a HW Foci •W.M. R,RW \
f Ea10•S9n.
60 a 60 120
SCALE IN FEET
- - - -� / s
v ,tip �. v > l - - - -�
el LT
I L -- I
o' \
\ KA7ESBRIDGE COURT
\ \ - / a% EJG LBRRTAN E
y
(` \ IF \ \\ -
/� --
Y Z y_L l __
SNIDER, �- � L - L
i a �Y ��
1RU81EE8 L 1
- -\ \ I � wta I I aea.5 I � � J I j I __ _' I I d s I
\ wo.o 2 4 - E
., 2 988.0 rR� B@B.0 r 989.0 X0.51
Z_f L -J L_ I:9I IT
xd Fxi @' aTC BBB 96 _J I L - - -J II
1 j0 y 91m. -� I Et irm8N.fi2 FNEDERKM J.d KAS �/Itty Mg_ MARKE6 PALWI AMY I S. J AB JA9
SCARIETEJ. KATARINA M. SUSAN B. - I- HM18A
�� JEFFREYS.BERNELEE P. GOOD A ppGNAITA GN B. LN9DI3 EMSMINDER 5I ECIW
-I _ WU J VENUGOPAL U DRIC
.- . 00 Ex. @•BWb la; E9.9 /• TC B
� g� 12•@TM O to .50N O '.Inv881
KEN TH C
' OH RI TM I - -_ a3 a3 2' bTM IXe9n 3 � IX ' � 6 1' IX
avwxWNr � 40'TREE
REA NMI- aau,�9anN� .
BACK
REC#IW.B ° II 16/
THE SA FGE 14
� 13 _ $ 12 0
FOR o / "1 -.0 � 'FGE �E p �;��� °} oo
_ _ 1 o 895.9 i 885.0 884 5 F 8 GE o FGED
_ - 0I (p V 0 .0® 0 2�0' BI�ID' E 0 sE O uP@r9r 1 00
0 0 8 94.5 .1O
8 �y 0 0 8 n Q
-+ W hI I
h� -II I I I J, I ,'
�I L -
MIC LIA JOESPHJ.d &I ®F TC 680 G0
TD. SUSAry E. r, Ex. inv�M.45
I � I � °L - MCCwRmv 'v
, W N]
�/ J 99 � PiR'P
I� 1
_ - }-
�II
9I H
0 I s
T , L r
j 7L
Ji o KT
o r - -�S g gas n
I a w
L II _ n
E J
Ll
w
F � w y I 94s O b l
G� >O J 5
a4 S
1 eF N
Mal, L -vO W
W N $ O
cI Row 97� ~� L
F
Ex. 9• IkBeeE �-� -� A 5� $
O
p flF1
O
w (r�p'/
N
D
O
6
/ i
i
g o
PIi11Pog04 - �
®
o
7
z
0
e
i
9 w _
O
�1
$
_
�6
z
a
RO914E4
° ANO
q v {j X 51'
0
05
SP ynl
�-
o
FGE
FG
�
8968
0
0
0 It
0 0898.00
8 ; 66 0
/
I�
a
0
o 0
0
20
o
0
GL .
9
E ARD .A
ERIN
TH
o O 0
0
O /
c4�
a2 O
o^
1 9 0
00
0
® O
0
0
/ 10
-+ W hI I
h� -II I I I J, I ,'
�I L -
MIC LIA JOESPHJ.d &I ®F TC 680 G0
TD. SUSAry E. r, Ex. inv�M.45
I � I � °L - MCCwRmv 'v
, W N]
�/ J 99 � PiR'P
I� 1
_ - }-
�II
9I H
0 I s
T , L r
j 7L
Ji o KT
o r - -�S g gas n
I a w
L II _ n
E J
Ll
w
F � w y I 94s O b l
G� >O J 5
a4 S
1 eF N
Mal, L -vO W
W N $ O
cI Row 97� ~� L
F
Ex. 9• IkBeeE �-� -� A 5� $
O
N
D
O
6
.Z6]
i
g o
Z r%
®
o
7
z
0
e
i
9 w _
O
a
_
�6
z
a
RO914E4
�
L" J
^ _
8968
FGE
v
a
J
GL .
895.0
y
n
r9a
e=
�
I �
z
9AN
�
O -
F
O i
J
F
9
0 0
R COUR
P94Paff4
ewaK
/
os4x
F E U U 2V- 90'BUILD ZONES FGE 1s ' 91r
B .2 885.8 FGE 995 FGE FGE
895.7
�2 o � 23' k X24 g 26 / /
1 25 27
0 O
ARD SET KI /^
0 <, 0 i4calr REE N NCEMEMZ NE aum esNr
0 12• fYBTM TM q 1Y 8TM 1Y O 1 P
8o O � 4f OUb9n 39 e O lfi
O � O 0 E%901.6 EK 901. pL IXBW FX 983.4 R. T IXA10.0 IX9WL IX •�
c- - um u
M
¢� OHPMMAO \ 4.G ADS
AGN @FME
DRAINAGE JERRY o.ar.�wsHn M. sPEnns, 111
FGE
895.0
0 � \ O
$ W
2fi . p O IXW4.1 /
lip z
IJ - -,
W
3M'7Q[Y1I
i
mug
a
.Z6]
O
5
Z r%
®
��
ZO
o
z
0
9ex4
i
9 w _
O
a
_
�6
z
a
RO914E4
�
L" J
^ _
3
a
J
U
y
e=
�
I �
z
�
O -
F
O i
J
F
�
E
1.
I /
EE
_ Z
>
9HEEr
_
3
r c o ityclif Dublin
Land Use and Long
Range Planning
5800 Shier Rings Road
Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236
phone 614.410.4600
fax 614.410.4747
www.dublinohlousa.gov
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
JANUARY 5, 2012
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
1. Wellington Reserve 5144 and 5056 Brand Road
08- 038Z /PDP /PP Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan
Preliminary Plat
Proposal:
A subdivision of three vacant parcels with 28 single - family lots for land currently
zoned R, Rural District and R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District, located on
the north side of Brand, approximately 700 feet west of Coventry Woods Drive.
Request:
Review and approval of a rezoning with preliminary development plan under the
Planned District provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050, and a preliminary plat
under the provisions of Sections 152.015 through 152.022.
Applicant:
CASTO; represented by Ben W. Hale, Jr., Smith and Hale LLC.
Planning Contact:
Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II.
Contact Information:
(614) 410 -4675, chusak @dublin.oh.us
MOTION #1: To recommend approval to City Council of this rezoning with preliminary development plan,
because the proposal meets the Community Plan designation for this site and the applicable review criteria for a
Planned Development, with ten conditions:
1) That the developer be required to notify the future property owners in the northern part of this site
regarding the possible future road extension;
2) That the development text be modified to clarify the proposed landscape buffer planted within the tree
enhancement zone of Lots 1 through 18 will be installed by the developer and maintained by the individual
homeowners;
3) That, if deemed appropriate by the City Engineer, in lieu of constructing the multi -use path along Brand
Road, the applicant contribute financially to the City's Brand Road Multi -use path installation;
4) That the applicant install an off -site left turn lane from Brand Road to Wellington Reserve Drive as
recommended by the traffic study, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer;
5) That the development text be revised to duplicate the fence restrictions of the surrounding neighborhoods;
6) That the development text and plans be updated to indicate multi -use paths instead of bikepaths;
7) That the tree replacement language in the development text be revised to require inch- for -inch replacement
for trees 12 inches and greater;
8) That the text clarify that any supplemental plantings within the Tree Enhancement Zone shall not be
counted toward required replacement trees;
9) That the details of plantings within the proposed Landscape Buffer be reviewed and approved at the final
development plan stage to ensure existing trees are preserved where possible and incorporated into the
buffer; and
10) That the developer work with the residents to the south of the proposed access point to provide a landscape
screen, subject to approval by Planning.
Ben W. Hale, Jr., representing CASTO, agreed to the conditions.
Page 1 of 2
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
JANUARY 5, 2012
1. Wellington Reserve 5144 and 5056 Brand Road
08- 038Z /PDP /PP Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan
Preliminary Plat
VOTE: 7-0.
RESULT: Approval of this rezoning with preliminary development plan was recommended to City Council.
RECORDED VOTES:
Chris Amorose Groomes Yes
Richard Taylor
Yes
Todd Zimmerman
Yes
Warren Fishman
Yes
Amy Kramb
Yes
John Hardt
Yes
Joseph Budde
Yes
MOTION #2: To approve this preliminary plat because it meets the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations
with two conditions:
1) That the applicant ensure that any minor technical adjustments to the plat should be made prior to City
Council submittal; and
2) That the plat be revised to include utility easements, a minimum of 20 feet in width, centered on all
proposed public sewer, accessible to the public right of way and a drainage easement over the areas of the
stormwater basins defined by the anticipated 100 year storm water surface profile.
* Ben W. Hale, Jr., representing the applicant, agreed to the conditions.
VOTE: 7-0.
RESULT: This preliminary plat was recommended for approval to City Council.
RECORDED VOTES.
Chris Amorose Groomes Yes
Richard Taylor
Yes
Todd Zimmerman
Yes
Warren Fishman
Yes
Amy Kramb
Yes
John Hardt
Yes
Joseph Budde
Yes
STAFF CERTIFICCATION
0 1aud .0t -Aa ,k,rJ ~
ia D. Husak, AICP
Planner II
Page 2 of 2
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
January 5, 2012 — Meeting Minutes
Page 1 of 13
1. Wellington Reserve 5144 and 5056 Brand Road
08- O38Z /PDP /PP Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan
Chair Chris Amorose Groomes stated that the following application involves the subdivision of three
vacant parcels with 28 single - family lots for land currently zoned R, Rural District and R -1, Restricted
Suburban Residential District, located on the north side of Brand Road, approximately 700 feet west of
Coventry Woods Drive. She said the Commission will make a recommendation to City Council on the
preliminary development plan and rezoning as well as the preliminary plat.
Claudia Husak said the Commission reviewed this case in October 2011 and there were a lot of concerns
by the Commission and adjacent residents with the setback from Brand Road and the existing drainage
issues, and tree preservation. She said the Commission also wanted additional information regarding the
Brand Road access point and the potential for having the subdivision be accessed from the existing
Wellington Place neighborhood. She said the Commission agreed with the conditions that Planning at that
time had proposed for clarifying the requirements and development standards that were being proposed
in the development text.
Ms. Husak said that Aaron Stanford with Engineering will also present information regarding this
application as many of the previous questions and concerns centered around engineering issues. She
said the site plan proposes 28 lots on a new road to be accessed off Brand Road with a unit density of
1.5 units per acre which is comparable to what is surrounding the area. She said the lots are proposed at
a 12,000- square -foot minimum with a 90 -foot minimum width and a 140 -foot minimum depth. Ms.
Husak explained that there is a 20- to 30 -foot front building zone required and there are six -foot side
yards with a 14 -foot total side yard which is comparable to the surrounding neighborhoods. She said the
applicant has proposed a 100 -foot setback from Brand Road which due to the required curvature of the
road has not changed the locations of the lots on the north side of Brand Road. She said the applicant
has increased the rear yard setback for Lots 1 -7 which are the ones on the north side of Wellington
Reserve Drive and there is a 40 -foot rear yard setback proposed for lots on the north side of the
extension of Ballybridge Drive going all the way north and then to the west, the lots on the west side of
Wellington Reserve Drive are proposed with a 30 -foot rear yard setback which has increased by 5 feet
compared to what was proposed in October.
Ms. Husak said the applicant is proposing at the rear of each of the lots on the east and west side of
Wellington Reserve Drive to require a Tree Enhancement Zone. She explained the intention of the Tree
Enhancement Zone is to prioritize an area for tree replacement to take place. She said that there will be
a lot of grading activity that needs to take place to alleviate existing stormwater issues that the neighbors
in Wellington Place have and also deal with stormwater management for this proposal. She mentioned
that lots adjacent to lots in Wellington Place and on the north also include a landscape buffer which the
developer will plant and the homeowner will be required to maintain at 75% opacity. She said the a
hedge or wall treatment is required for court loaded garages to eliminate the views into those driveways
and the applicant is proposing a hedge treatment that will be for side loaded garages that would be at
the rear of the driveway to help with shielding head lights.
Ms. Husak said the applicant continues to propose a naturalized landscape treatment for Brand Road with
a dry detention pond as suggested in the Community Plan and there will be a new road from Brand Road
serving the subdivision with an extension to the western portion of the unincorporated land within
Washington Township. She said a new intersection is proposed with Brand Road to access the site with a
turn lane and there were a lot of questions at the October meeting from the residents and the
Commission regarding the necessity of a separate access point for this site and whether or not it could be
served through the extension planned through Ballybridge Drive. Ms. Husak said she was informed by the
Washington Township Fire Department that the existing the subdivisions surrounding this site are not
meeting the Fire Code for access, so this proposal could not be served by existing roads and is helping
Wellington Place with their existing Fire Code access issues.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
January 5, 2012 — Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 13
Aaron Stanford said with this application a traffic study was performed by the applicant and it modeled
the traffic that would be generated by this development and identified any offsite improvements that
would be required to be performed by the applicant and with this application it identified a left turn lane
will be constructed at the time of their subdivision on Brand Road.
Mr. Stanford said the other element was to analyze site distances for the proposed intersection which
helps to identify safe access point locations and shows that there are adequate site distances at the
proposed location. He said they have found that the spacing from Coffman Road is approximately 1,500
feet and the spacing from the next adjacent intersection to the east at Coventry Woods Drive is
approximately 730 feet. He said the desirable point of location is determined by pushing the intersection
point away from the heavier volume of the intersection at Coffman and Brand Roads and improves the
spacing from Coffman and Brand which has additional traffic and there is adequate spacing from
Coventry Woods with the anticipated traffic. He said there is an intersection improvement planned for
the intersection of Coffman Road and Brand Road with the installation of a roundabout and in the 5 -year
Capital Improvement Plan they have provided for funding for preliminary engineering which will be
performed this year, but the funding for final engineering or construction has not been determined.
Mr. Stanford said site grading was previously identified that some of the house pad locations along the
eastern boundary of the site were raised to an extent where it may create some excessive grading with
the adjacent lots and the Wellington Place Subdivision, since then the grading plan has been improved
reducing the change in grade of the site which helps the natural transition of the grading of the site and
from the western edge to the eastern edge of this site there is approximately 12 to 14 feet of grade
change and they have managed it fairly well and reduced the grading at the rear of the lots.
Mr. Stanford said currently within the CIP there is a Brand Road Bikepath project that will be within the
area of this project because of the timing of the bikepath along Brand Road it is likely that the City would
be constructing this portion of the path and would like to request reimbursement from the applicant for
the bikepath that will be constructed this year.
Ms. Husak said the applicant has provided a rendering of the site of what it might look like at the
development stage and confirmed a lot of the discrepancies they had between the text and the plans at
the last meeting were resolved with this submittal and the applicant has eliminated the one -foot driveway
allowance that was proposed last time and there is open space dedication that has been resolved and
accurately reflected and the maintenance of the open spaces have also been accurately revised.
Ms. Husak said Planning has reviewed the proposal thoroughly and analyzed its compliance with the
review criteria and is recommending approval of the rezoning with preliminary development plan with
four conditions as outlined in the report and approval of the preliminary plat with two conditions.
Ben Hale Jr., 37 West Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio, representing the applicant, said Bill Ryatt with Casto
and Charlie Ruma who is the developer is present if there are any questions. He said they wanted to talk
about Mr. Ruma's intent with this subdivision. His development company is Davidson Phillips and they
will be developing this subdivision, his son is Charles Ruma who owns Virginia Homes. Mr. Ruma is doing
this development on his own and also developed other subdivisions, the most similar is Wedgewood
which is also in Dublin. There are a number of builders there that are having a difficult time finding lots
and what Mr. Ruma does is to meet with the builders to select lots and make deposits and at the time he
believes all these lots will be spoken for. He said Mr. Ruma will have the builders in place and the
minimum will be $125,000 per lot which will render a house at $450,000 to $550,000 range. He said
there was a concern of where Mr. Ruma was going to get the loan for this project and he is using his
own money there will not be a loan to develop this site.
Mr. Hale said they have seen an improvement in the market and he knows that these builders want
places to build and they will be developing a subdivision that is a terrific development.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
January 5, 2012 — Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 13
Mr. Hale said they were asked if they could make the curve coming in the front of the subdivision more
severe and reduce the setback and increase the lots on the north side of the road and they were not able
to do that because the curve as proposed has to meet safety requirements. They tried to provide for the
neighbors along the western and northern property lines with setbacks that were increased to 40 feet.
Mr. Hale said part of the Tree Enhancement Zone and the tree replacement is to emphasize trees and
provide 75% opacity along that border which means they will plant a fair amount of pines trees. He
explained if there is a side loaded garage they will provide plantings to block the lights of those
driveways.
Mr. Hale said the 40 -foot Tree Enhancement Zone cannot be invaded with a porch, pool, deck, or a patio
and there are other substantial areas between the houses and the 40 -foot setback that will be planted
heavily and additional open area will be provided by setting the houses closer to the road. He said their
experience is that they need the ability to have decks and patios, they could have made the area deeper
but then they would have a very small back yard that would prevent patios or decks.
Greg Chillog, Edge Group, said the frontage treatment is an area for them to reforest and create a
natural element with the replacement trees that will be located along the Brand Road frontage to create a
community amenity. He said this area will also have a living retention basin or rain garden and will be a
wooded naturalized area with a basin with soft grading and plantings with deciduous trees, evergreens,
shrubs and natural grasses it will appear as a wide expansive land and there will not be a definite
boundary or an edge to a dry basin or a pond. He said the frontage will be very natural and free flowing
and blend in with the community character. Mr. Chillog explained that they are trying to bring a nice
front door onto Brand Road and create a community amenity.
Mr. Hale said any trees that have to be replaced as a result of putting in the streets, Mr. Ruma will
replace them within the frontage and along the edges of the subdivision and their experience is not to
remove trees from the lots until they know which house will be there because a wooded lot is more
valuable any tree removed off the lot will be replaced back on the same lot and he said that Mr. Ruma is
responsible for making sure this happens.
Bill Ryatt, Casto, said this is about the fourth attempt at the zoning since they have come by the land and
when Mr. Ruma came along they knew they needed something nicer, with much larger lots, less density
and really high standards. He said they have 5 home sites along the section of Brand Road and the
neighboring properties have 11 homes in that same area and the same situation happens along every
boundary line and comparable to all the neighborhoods surrounding this property they feel really good
about their project.
Ms. Amorose Groomes announced that there are people that have signed up to speak, she will call their
names and anyone who did not sign up will have an opportunity to speak.
Roger Reeves, 5149 Reddington Court, said he is in the Brandon Subdivision and backs up to Lot 17. He
said he has lived in his home for 22 years and probably longer than any of the other adjacent property
owners. He said this is the fifth attempt to try and develop this site and in 2005, the Edwards Land
Company made an attempt to develop this and in terms of commenting to what Mr. Ryatt said he sees
very few if any changes or modifications to the current plan from what the Edwards Land Company was
trying to do. He said at that time a number of the adjacent homeowners went around the neighborhood
and the Wellington neighborhood and solicited comments from property owners both adjacent and
affected properties. He said that they approached 156 homeowners in both subdivisions and asked what
they wanted to see done with this site and they got 150 responses that they did not want to see this
property developed. He said when he moved in he had no expectation that this would not be developed,
but they felt they wanted to see something done responsible and that is similar to what already exists.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
January 5, 2012 — Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 13
Mr. Reeves said this particular site is probably one of the last heavily wooded sites in the City of Dublin
that has not been developed and he suggested a much larger no -build zone along the northern border of
the property. He requested a 200 -foot no- disturb zone off the northern property line and the applicant
agreed to increase that to a 40 -foot Tree Enhancement Zone. Mr. Reeves believes this is inadequate and
he was not supportive of the 75% opacity requirement in the replanting area. He was concerned that
this requirement would necessitate taking existing trees out as they would not be adequate to meet the
new requirement. He proposed an alternative that involves moving the road that stubs to the west and
eliminating Lot 19 to make the northern three lots deeper by about 141 feet. He suggested that this way
a large almost 188 -foot no disturb zone could be created.
Mr. Reeves said both Wellington and Brandon have restrictions against any type of fencing and in the
proposed plan there is no such restriction and they requested that a fence prohibition be added to the
request for this subdivision as well and finally he wanted to say that his fellow homeowners in Wellington
both along the eastern boundary and along Ballybridge on the southern end, they have all met and they
are unanimous in their concerns as well as requests for modifications of this plan.
Hamid Mehrizi, 5173 Reddington Court, said he is two houses down from Mr. Reeves and is in 100
percent agreement with Mr. Reeves.
Gregory Andrews, 5157 Reddington Court, said he expresses his full support in what Mr. Reeves has
presented.
Dave Jenkins, 5071 Brand Road, said he is opposed to the whole project and thought it is way too many
houses on this kind of a lot. He said the proposal is not keeping in line with what Brand Road is all about
with five to seven houses along there and he does not know what kind of trees they are planting along
Brand Road, but it makes a big difference of how big they are and what kind they are and he thinks there
is way too many houses. He said he knows this is awful late but he was not here for the first meeting
because he was out of town and he lives right across the street from it and if there were less houses
there would not be a need for a curb cut coming out to Brand Road and that is his feeling. He does not
know why they didn't have the other project had ponds out front in Brand and now they are proposing a
dry retention pond.
Ms. Husak said the Community Plan does suggest dry detention and a more naturalized treatment as
opposed to a more manicured ponds.
Mr. Jenkins said the big problem that he sees with it and it looks good and if they put all that landscaping
in and screen it off, but he still thinks there is way too many houses along Brand Road and that is not the
way Brand Road is and if they take one or two maybe three houses out of there and he would suggest
building a bigger nicer house on a bigger lot and that would satisfy everybody. He said they are talking
about getting other builders in there and he knows Virginia Homes and they should know who they really
think they are going to line up and what kind of house they are building and what is the starting price
and he sees homes being built all over Dublin start at 7 or 800,000 Dollars and they are talking about a
450,000 Dollar house and he would like to see a bigger house on a bigger lot.
Collette Feldman, 5053 Ballybridge Drive, thanked everyone for the opportunity to come and express
their opinions, she and her husband have lived in Dublin for 23 years, and they do not utilize the school
system they live in Dublin solely because of the amenities such as trees and bike paths and the green
spaces and parks. She said they chose their current home location 11 years ago and will back up to the
homes that front Brand Road and when they chose that home location they were confident that because
they are in Dublin no future development would be allowed that detract from their home value and they
remain confident that Dublin will respond to voices of all the residences that are here and were here back
in October to express their opposition to this development and they presented a letter in October that
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
January 5, 2012 — Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 13
was signed by every resident that backed up to this area on Ballybridge Drive and they had three main
concerns, visual barrier and they felt that the 75% opacity requirement has addressed that concern.
Ms. Feldmann said the second concern was regarding drainage and because that concern is shared by
the residents of Kilbrittain she is going to wait and let Mike address that, the third concern was the
setbacks and they are still here primarily opposed because of the setbacks. She said the development of
Brand Road was never intended to provide a roadway that accessed a new neighborhood, if they look at
the summary that was provided, quote "the Community Plan identifies Brand Road between Dublin and
Muirfield as River Character with modest setbacks ranging from 60 to 100 feet" and it says "there is the
assertion that this development will safe guard the value of property within and adjacent to the area" and
finally it says "the proposal strives to maintain the existing development patterns ". She said when they
purchased lots that backed up to farm property they were not naive, they knew that the farm would
someday sell and there would be the possibility of development, but what they anticipated was
development like is seen on the rest of Brand Road.
Ms. Feldmann said from the Dublin Road roundabout all the way to Muirfield Road the only thing that has
been built was a one beautiful home and that is the type of home that was expected would be developed
in their back yards. She said they put together an image that shows that if this development basically
mimicked what is already there. She said the renderings that have been presented do look really
beautiful and if it were developed to that extent she thought it would be gorgeous, but she does not
think anybody could look at that rendering and say it represents 75% opacity and it looks like you cannot
see their homes at all and at best case scenario is 75% opacity within two years and the rendering does
not accurately reflects the development plan.
Mike Ensminger, 7502 Kilbrittain Lane, said he was speaking on behalf of the Wellington Place
homeowners, particularly those situated on the lots to the eastern boundary of the proposed
development along Kilbrittain and Katesbridge Court. He said over the past three months they have been
anxious to see the revisions, they welcome the concessions that have been made by the applicant
regarding the rear yard setbacks and maximum lot coverage and the hedge requirements for the side
loaded garages, they collectively agreed that the bigger picture and the more detailed issues still remain
unaddressed and unresolved. He said they cannot support the development of Wellington Reserve as
proposed. He said they believe that the development is not sound long range planning and detrimental
to the City and its residents, both the City and the developer admitted that this "L" shaped parcel
presents challenges in its development.
He said, contrary to what the developer is saying, this is the worst new build housing economy in
American history and it is difficult for them to understand why the City would consider sacrificing the
esthetics and rural character that has been laid out in exchange for one developer to make a profit to
what he has referred to the last remaining piece of developable property in the Dublin Coffman School
District. He said creating another curb cut along a narrow and well traveled Brand Road presents
visibility and traffic issues that are already a concern to residents in surrounding neighborhoods especially
with two existing high volume intersections at Brand and Coffman and Brand and Coventry Woods. He
said when coupled with large tracts of land immediately to the west and he knows those are in
Washington Township but he is sure people have their eyes on them, and the installation of the proposed
roundabout at Coffman and Brand Roads, he thought the additional curb cut and development on such a
busy thoroughfare does not conform with comprehensive roadway traffic and safety studies typically
found in municipalities' long range planning goals.
Mr. Ensminger said it is important to note that each of the nearly 25 homeowners on Ballybridge,
Katesbridge, Kilbrittain and Reddington that back up to this proposed Wellington Reserve have unique
issues that they would like to see satisfactorily addressed by staff, the applicant and the Commission. He
said drainage is the major issue for many of the residents with serious flooding of back yards occurring as
water runs from the current land and with additional development and the grade change they know that
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
January 5, 2012 — Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 13
additional run is a distinct possibility and asked that a reasonable escrow be established by the developer
and the City and that they work with the City Engineer to address these issues. He said earlier in the day
Mr. Stanford had visited their property and viewed pictures that show the flooding issues. He said the
rear yard setbacks have been increased from 20 to 40 feet and they originally asked for 75 given the lot
depth and realized that is on the high end especially along Kilbrittain and Katesbridge, but given the
significant depth of the proposed lots, they request a 50 -foot rear yard setback to be adopted by the
Commission. He said the plans indicate a 20- to 30 -foot build to zone and the developer has presented
approximately a house print of 60 feet, then the 50 -foot rear yard setback is reasonable and a good
compromise. He said they are pleased with the applicants willingness to provide 75% opacity along
Katesbridge and Kilbrittain, they would prefer to have the tree replacement with deciduous and
evergreen mix. He said the conditions indicated that the trees would be installed by the developer and
maintained by the homeowner and they realize that the developer's responsibility cannot last forever, but
asked that a performance bond and escrow be established to provide assurance to the tree enhancement
zone viability.
Julie Hubler, 5025 Brand Road, said they have lived at this house over 13 years and when they bought
the house they asked why there was a split driveway. She said the previous owners were Engineers and
at that time they were not using the Dublin School District. She said they indicated that the house is well
built and to trust that Dublin has the best Planning and Zoning Commission in the world and they will do
what is responsible and they did not give an extra driveway because Brand Road is considered a scenic
road and it is one of the small prices you have to pay in order to live in Dublin. She said they expect to
live here for 30 or 40 years and really care about property values they are only concerned with safety.
She said they are going to have their ritual with about seven to eight cars in their ditch on Brand Road
which is a weekly event throughout the winter. She asked that the Commission look at the road and the
safety issues. She is concerned that the end of her driveway is going to be an entrance to the new
subdivision and cares about being able to pull out of her driveway safely. She said they have not been
contacted by the developer since the October meeting and she does not know what went on with the
revisions. She said the developer gets their own driveway and she was not able. She said she urged the
Planning and Zoning Commission to please delicately balance the developers right and the greatest
benefit for the greatest number of people and if they decide that is the price she has to pay then she will
do that, but when it comes to a safety issue, she invited them to come to her drive way around 6 am
with a little snow there will be someone in the ditch. She asked that the Engineers look at the practicality
and not just works on paper and she will buy them a cup of coffee and they can look at the traffic going
by her house.
Carol Hunter, 5183 Reddington Drive, said they have lived here for 19 years and she wanted to say they
support what Mr. Reeves and Mike Ensminger said and with the way it was said. She is disappointed that
the applicant said the proposal contained fewer lots than 5 years ago, because that is not the case. She
said the discussion 5 years ago is the same as today: fewer lots should be allowed here. She thanked
the Commission for their time and asked them to please be as meticulous about this case as they were
about the black and white striped awnings discussed earlier.
Cindy Snider, 7483 Katesbridge Court, said they have loved their home and lived there for 16 years and
she wanted to speak about the wild life. She said they are at the very end of Katesbridge Court adjacent
to this property and between Wellington Park. She said they have 10 to 15 deer go through a day and all
kinds of wild life. She said what concerns her the most, is taking down all the trees and hurting the rural
aspect of that property.
Bruce McLaughlin, 5131 Brand Road, said he and his wife have lived there for 31 years and his home is
directly across from the western portion of this property. He said he is stunned that no one has done
anything about the curve in Brand Road that is so dangerous, and with all the work being done to create
a left turn lane, that no one in Planning has insisted that they somehow get rid of the curve for safety
reasons. He said he is against the curb cut and he has read the analysis from the fire department so he
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
January 5, 2012 — Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 13
gave in. He requested that if the project is approved and a curb cut is installed along Brand Road, more
money should be spend to straighten out Brand Road so that it is not unsafe. He suggested that this
may also help Ms. Hubler's problem. He took exception to the gentlemen from Casto that said this is a
great looking subdivision. He said he counts six houses along Brand Road and thought that they cannot
show him any place along Brand Road where there is that many houses on a length of property. He felt
that this proposal included too many houses along Brand Road and it was not in keeping with the
roadway character.
He said the impact of the property on the wild life that runs along this property down along the Indian
Run Creek will have dramatic impact on them and he knows they cannot consider that when they review
development, but it would be nice if they would cut down the number of lots, create a more treed area
and made an opportunity for the wild life to continue to thrive in this area.
Richard Weirich, 7466 Katesbridge Court, said he has comments pertaining to the multi -use path that
runs along Brand Road and said the plan uses the term bikepath and he asked that they change to the
term multi -use path to not get confused with bike lanes. He said there were a lot of hours spent and he
wanted to clean that language up.
Ed Thomas, 5165 Reddington Court, said he wanted to support the plan that Roger had put forward
earlier and said it is important that they do not tear down the large trees in their back yards because wild
life is running through there, including a large owl. He thanked the Commission for their time.
Mark Juras, 7453 Katesbridge Court, said they are in the middle of the eastern boundary, and by looking
at the plan, the Wellington Place and Sheffield Place subdivisions a very large well planned expanses of
land and what they are dealing with now is a very narrow, odd "L" shaped piece and that is why there is
so much difficulty getting this done. He said there is a big pod of land to the west that they need a
comprehensive plan for that will determine how that entire plat will eventually be developed. He said
trying to do a piece meal solution is very difficult. He said his concern is that there will be several catch
basins that will be put along the eastern portion and sounds like there will be a lot of heavy equipment
tearing up ground and trees and doing a lot of damage and does not reconcile with preservation trees,
but there is a big drainage issue on this property. He said if they go farther down to the Brandonway
entrance there is a well developed and nicely landscaped area where they preserved the river character
of Brand Road that is something consistent with that feel and they will need more land to do it. He said
they need to be patient and let Dublin evolve gracefully as the property becomes available.
Frank Pagnatta, 7465 Katesbridge Court, said he is a Trustee of the Wellington Place Homeowners
Association and over the years he has talked to a lot of their residents about the five different proposals
and that Mike and Collette have done a nice job summarizing the concerns of the homeowners and he
would like to say as a homeowners association, consisting of 130 homes overwhelmingly support not just
what they have heard, but what they have heard from the Brandon Subdivision and Brand Road residents
affected by this development.
Joseph McCarthy, 7489 McCarthy Court, said on one of the slides shows a retention pond that comes in
behind his house and he has concerns about that and currently the water drains to their property from
that field and he is concerned that somehow that retention pond will be hooked up to the Wellington
storm sewers and he is not sure what the process is. He said the past proposals said that would not be
the case but their experience with the home is that the developers and the developer that developed
Wellington has had drainage problems just like everyone else and they did not take care of their
responsibilities and he is concerned that as this gets developed, the City of Dublin takes its
responsibilities seriously because they worked with the City for a while and ended up having to pay to get
the drainage problem fixed. He said with the five proposals nothing has worked and nothing has changed
and from what they have seen and developers and still trying to get it through.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
January 5, 2012 — Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 13
Jeff Blasinski, 7511 Bardston Drive, said this is his first meeting that he has attended and it has been
fascinating and they moved into a home in Dublin just over 10 years ago and it was supposed to be a
temporary move and had dreams of building his own home and has been eager to watch new
developments go in with great interest and participated with developers and discussed the ideas of the
developments. He said what has been striking to him has been how dense the lots have been and even
if he had the money to build these homes, he would not want to buy the types of homes that have been
going in with extremely small yards and in some cases no yards as in Tartan Ridge, but if the City could
look at a comprehensive design and look at more modern sustainable design or something that would
preserve the wild life and the natural aspects of what makes this part of the country beautiful and try and
build a home that has a degree of green space that is not across the street and maybe have a garden in
your own yard, but a completely revolutionary kind of design that would be more modern or something
different that is not a traditional grid type design, something that would inspire people to want to live
there rather than large square footage.
Kimberly Shepherd, 7412 Charmonte Court, said she is on the other side of Coventry Woods in
Wellington Place and has no vested interest in terms of property values or one of the homes that back up
to this. She said she has concerns with how the property is currently being maintained and used and she
was at the last meeting and they got her curiosity peaked and she went for a hike on this property and
found illegal dumping and a military style home gym buried in the woods, so she just wanted to raise the
concerns about the property maintenance.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if there was anyone else that wanted to speak to this application. [There
was none.]
Ms. Amorose Groomes indicated she assumed everyone had the opportunity to read the correspondence
that was given out at the meeting. She said there are two items requested the rezoning with the
preliminary development plan and the preliminary plat. She said they will start with the rezoning with the
preliminary development plan.
Mr. Budde said he likes what the developer has presented and he noted that the size of the lots
compared to the lots that this development backs up to are larger and he said he thought he was hearing
that people do not want this in their back yard and at some point this is going to be developed and he
likes what he sees and has no objections, but he is concerned about the water drainage.
Mr. Fishman said he admires the passion of Dublin residents and he has been here a long time and was
here for all the zonings around this development. When Brandon came in the room and the lobby was
packed with residents that felt just as passionate about the other subdivisions going in and they were
concerned the wild life would be eliminated. He feels the developer has come a long way. He heard the
concern about Brand Road and the density. He also discussed density when the other subdivisions came
in and he was against the density of those subdivisions that exist today.
Mr. Fishman said Lot 1 is a concern and he could not support this with Lot 1 remaining. He said Lot 1 is
a headlight lot and when he visited the site it ruins the entrance. He felt that Lot 1 would need to be
eliminated to Dublinize the entrance. He said he noticed that on this proposal the lots and setbacks are
bigger than the surrounding neighborhoods.
Mr. Zimmerman said he understands Mr. Fishman's concern for Lot 1 and agrees that the setbacks are
larger than that of the neighboring subdivisions and he thanked the applicant for making that change and
making it work better. He said at the entrance of the subdivision across the street are two homeowners
that have been there for a number of years that share a joint driveway and when this entrance is being
used they will experience head light trespass into their homes and would like to see the developer work
with the homeowners to install landscaping on their individual properties to eliminate the trespass issues.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
January 5, 2012 — Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 13
Ms. Kramb said she agrees with the comment to work with the homeowners on the south side of Brand
Road with landscaping and agrees with the comment regarding Lot 1. She said at the last meeting her
biggest concern was the curb cut and after reading the traffic report her concerns have been addressed.
She said agrees that the intersection should not be any closer to Coffman Road because of the curve.
She agrees with straightening the curve as suggested by Mr. McLaughlin but thought that was a City
issue and not related to this application.
Ms. Kramb agrees that there is a lot of homes on the site plan and that ideally they should look at the
larger parcel, but unfortunately it is in Washington Township and not under their review and they cannot
require a property owner to acquire more land to make it bigger and it comes back to this is going to be
developed and this proposal has made a lot of accommodations and the lots will not decrease the value
of adjacent properties because the lots are bigger and the setbacks are bigger.
Ms. Kramb said the drainage comments have been addressed and will be improved greatly and the
neighboring residents will be quite satisfied.
Ms. Kramb said she is heartbroken over all the trees that will be lost with this development, but glad to
see the Tree Enhancement Zone where the replacement trees will be planted but would like the wording
in the text corrected. She has heartburn over allowing as many evergreen trees and trying to create a
75% opacity because they will be tearing down a lot of trees to create that opacity. She said the tree
replacement plan to have a tree for tree replacement for 6 to 24 inches in caliper and would like that
reduced to 6 to 12 and anything over 12 should be replaced at caliper for caliper. She said the provisions
for the tree replacements only apply to Lots 1 — 18 as far the landscape buffer of 75 %. She said the Code
reads for the western boundary that they can cut everything down and replace it with ornamental
grasses, ground covers, fine or rough turf and it does not specify that they need to put trees in there and
she was concerned that if the developer grades the whole site, the homeowner comes in and decides to
cut down the 2 -inch trees he never has to replace them according to the way it is written and that means
the western boundary could have nothing on it and wanted to extend the buffer to include the entire
property.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said they will have an opportunity to address the treatment of the boundary at the
final development plan.
Ms. Husak said that if there are replacement trees installed they would be protected and would not be
able to be removed based on the text and the Zoning Code and would be preserved or replaced.
Mr. Hardt said he wondered if this is the right parcel for this proposal and the developer has come back
with a proposal that is considerably better. He agrees with the statements that have been made and at
this point they have a proposal for single - family homes which is the most desirable option for the land
and the standards that the development has been laid out with meet or exceed the standards of the
neighboring subdivisions.
Mr. Hardt said his issues were setbacks and how they were reflected in the text and those have been
cleaned up and have been resolved by having larger setbacks.
Mr. Hardt said the other issue was the curb cut on Brand Road and asked for a traffic study and it
answered the questions and was surprised by the small number of trips that will be generated with this
subdivision, but it works out at a car every two or three minutes at the peak hour and the clarification of
the Fire Code has resolved the concerns.
Mr. Hardt said the stormwater was an issue and was not surprising that there is drainage issue on these
properties now, but as the development installs 16 new catch basins, that are not there today, will
address the drainage issue. He does want to make sure that they do take more trees than necessary.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
January 5, 2012 — Meeting Minutes
Page 10 of 13
He said on the plans the catch basins fall within the tree enhancement zones and asked if an option was
considered to move those out of the setback.
Ms. Husak said why they called it a Tree Enhancement Zone is because of the catch basins and the tree
survey indicated trees along the eastern property line are not in good or fair condition or the size that
would require replacement. There are more trees along the western property line.
Mr. Hardt said he wondered if the catch basins could be moved or tweaked to preserve trees. Aaron
Stanford said there is always room for the catch basins to be moved in a minor way. He said they run
into the grading situation that the basins create and if they would push too close to a home it would
create a grading situation which they try not to have, but there can be fine tuning to the drainage
structures.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not think they were suggesting the basins come closer to the homes,
could they be moved on the western side of the road to the western property line. Mr. Stanford said they
would like to see them within 10 feet of the property line due to maintenance needs.
Mr. Hardt said he did not want to re- engineer this tonight, but if they could look at it and improve for the
final review of the plans. Mr. Stanford agreed.
Ms. Kramb said there are prohibitions against fences in the neighboring subdivisions and she would like
this development to be consistent. Mr. Hardt agreed.
Mr. Taylor said he appreciates the passion of the neighbors and appreciated Mr. Fishman's historic
knowledge and perspective because he has been here a long time. He said at the last meeting they
asked the applicant to reduce the size of the lot coverage to 45 percent and they have made the lots
bigger and the homes smaller reducing the coverage. He said this is at least as nice as the neighbors
and if they added land it would not change this it would just add another street just like the one
proposed.
Mr. Taylor said one of the residents had a number of questions about details, but there is another stage
after this that they will be looking at the very specific details should this pass the preliminary plan.
Mr. Taylor said he is happy with the build zone on the front of the property will increase the size of the
backyards. He said for these size lots and houses there is a maximum practical depth of the lot. He said
they have achieved a good balance between the developers and homeowners.
Mr. Taylor said he is convinced that the location of the curb cut is the only place it could be based on the
traffic study that balances the safety of that between Coffman Road, Coventry Woods Drive and the
curve and would like to see the curve straightened but that is an issue for the City and not this applicant.
Mr. Taylor said that the six lots that face Brand Road are set back farther than the lots that back up to
Brand Road along Balfour and he would much rather see the fronts of homes rather than the backs of
them that is the case along Balfour.
Mr. Taylor said the text indicates on item DS3 that the developer retains the right to have final review of
the individual homes or at what point will it be turned over to the HOA. He asked the applicant to
elaborate.
Charlie Ruma, 4020 Venture Court, Columbus, Ohio 43228, said they developed Wedgewood Hills and the
Conine property in Wedgewood Glen and Riverside Woods which is similar and in all cases they retained
the whole process of plan approval to make sure that they fulfilled the obligation that they presented in
the matrix so that they did not get homes that are identical to each other or across the street from each
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
January 5, 2012 — Meeting Minutes
Page 11 of 13
other and they made sure the color patterns and the use of materials were complimentary to the whole
subdivision and if necessary they hire an architect and the builder paid the architect to make comments
and look at colors and roof and materials and they reviewed the overall look and appearance of the
subdivision and by doing that they ended up creating more value for the unsold lots than they would
have if they just let builder go about their way.
Mr. Ruma said he is a builder, but he is also a developer and they would retain the right for plan approval
and the time of being complete they would turn it over to the Home Owners Association.
Mr. Hale said they had talked to Wellington Place because this is a 28 lot subdivision they had indicated
at some point this should be within the Wellington Place Association and that happens at 80 or 90
percent of the lots being built out. He said the current trustees have indicated they will allow it.
Mr. Taylor said at the final he would like to see the stub at the end of Wellington Reserve Drive at the
northwest be treated as if it was something other than the end of the pavement, no orange bollards or a
mound of dirt, something nicely landscaped treatment since it is likely to be there for some time.
Mr. Fishman said, in his experience, there should a sign similar to the one in Donegal or Amberleigh that
identifies that the street will be extended in the future.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she does believe that this proposal is being held at the same standard as the
surrounding developments and with the 40 foot tree enhancement zone and the lots are significantly
deeper than the existing lots and appreciative that was accomplished.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said they need to talk more about Lot 1.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she is in favor of the prohibition of the fencing in this area for the reasonable
expectation of the neighbors.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said the drainage has been addressed and the issues will be significantly relieved
by having this new drainage in place and the prevention of the migration of water from west to east
across this property.
Ms. Amorose Groomes agrees with the under 12 inches tree replacement that it can be tree for tree
replacement and over 12 inches it is caliper inch for caliper inch replacement. She said there is room for
a lot of trees on this property with the Tree Enhancement Zones and there are a lot of places to put them
and they want to get as many trees on this property as they can.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she agrees with the gentleman who asked for the multi -use path to be
cleaned up in the text and would like to make the change City wide that they only refer to them as multi-
use paths.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she is concerned with the dry basin and wanted them to understand it is very
important for them to look at how they dry out that basin and that it does dry out for a long period of
time to avoid becoming a maintenance issue or a haven for an insect problem down the road. She said
the one by the Bailey Elementary School is done very well and there are some done poorly by Jerome
High School.
Ms. Amorose Groomes agrees that the Tree Enhancement Zone needs cleaned up in the language of the
text that there should be deciduous trees and evergreen trees where appropriate. She said there has to
be some leeway to the 75% opacity and at some point a field judgment will need to be made as to what
is in the best interest of the landscape as a whole and they will need to explore that and come up with
some solutions and she wanted them to condition it to be cleaned up at the final development stage.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
January 5, 2012 — Meeting Minutes
Page 12 of 13
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if everyone was okay with Lot 1. Mr. Hardt said he was okay with it
remaining because he would rather see the headlights being blocked by the house and not be hitting the
backs of the homes on Ballybridge. Ms. Kramb said she was leaning toward Mr. Fishman's
recommendation to eliminate Lot 1. Mr. Budde said he was okay with leaving it. Mr. Zimmerman said he
agrees with both opinions. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she agrees with Mr. Hardt and nothing blocks a
head light like a house. She said she did not see pursuing this further and suggested that Lot 1 remains.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said that the language needs to be cleaned up with the Tree Enhancement Zones
within the text and to not allow any other plant material to be counted toward a replacement tree.
Mr. Chillog said they just did not want to preclude anyone from planting other materials there, but would
not be counted towards a replacement tree.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said that the Home Owners Association union is not something this Commission
can address and is not something that cannot happen unless they agree to it.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said that the first motion is with respect to the Rezoning with the Preliminary
Development Plan and there are four conditions in the staff report and now there are nine. The first four
remain unchanged. She the additional conditions:
5. That the development text be revised to duplicate the fence restrictions of the surrounding
neighborhoods.
6. That the development text and plans be updated to indicate multiuse paths, instead of bike paths.
7. That the tree replacement language in the development text be revised to require inch for inch
replacement for trees 12 inches or greater.
8. That the text clarify that any supplemental planting within the tree enhancement zone shall not be
counted toward required replacement trees.
9. That the details of plantings within the proposed landscape buffer be reviewed and approved at the
final development plan stage to ensure existing trees are preserved where possible and incorporated
into the buffer.
Mr. Zimmerman asked if there needs to be a condition for the homes across the street with landscaping
to be installed by the applicant to help with the light trespass. Mr. Ryatt said they are willing to work
with the neighbors and plant trees.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said there will be a 10"' condition that they will work with staff and coordinate
with the homeowners to plant landscape screening.
Mr. Hale agreed to the conditions.
Mr. Reeves said the Brandon residents would much rather have them keep the existing trees then try to
obtain 75% opacity. Ms. Amorose Groomes said it was something that they will be working through at
the final development stage and a notice will be sent so that they are aware of the application and they
will have the ability to come and provide comment to incorporate those into the final landscape plan.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said there are 10 conditions on the screen, Number 10 reading: That they will
work with the neighbors across the street for screening issues.
Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if the applicant agreed to the 10 conditions. Mr. Hale agreed
Motion and Vote
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
January 5, 2012 — Meeting Minutes
Page 13 of 13
Mr. Taylor made a motion to approve the rezoning with preliminary development plan with 10 conditions.
Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms.
Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Budde, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes.
(Approved 7 — 0.)
Motion and Vote
Mr. Taylor made a motion to approve the preliminary plat with two conditions. Ms. Amorose Groomes
asked if the applicant agreed to those conditions. Mr. Hale agreed. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the
motion. The vote was as follows: Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Budde, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr.
Hardt, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Approved 7 — 0.)
Ms. Amorose Groomes thanked everyone for their comments.
City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
�>TroFD�f�-
Planning Report
Thursday, January 5, 2012
SBA SYic- RingiR
.6
DWNIn Obb 4"m1 b196
! °°=
Fw V41
Wellington Reserve
Web SNe: w..&W.0 0 ob us
Case Summary
Agenda Item
1
Case Number
08- 0382 /PDP /PP
Site Location
5144 and 5056 Brand Road
Located on the north side of Brand, approximately 700 feet west of Coventry Woods Drive.
Proposal
A subdivision of three vacant parcels with 28 single - family lots for land currently zoned R,
Rural District and R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District.
Developer
CASTO, represented by Ben W. Hale, Jr., Smith and Hale LLC.
Case Manager
Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner 11 (614) 410 -4675 1 chusak @dublin.oh.us
Requests
Review and recommendation to City Council of a rezoning with preliminary development plan
under the Planned District provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050.
Review and recommendation to City Council of a preliminary plat under the provisions of
Sections 152.015 — 152.022 of the Subdivision Regulations.
Planning
Recommendation
Approval of the retuning with preliminary development plan with 4 conditions; and
Approval of the preliminary plat with 2 conditions
Based on Planning's analysis, the proposal meets the Community Plan designation for this site
and the applicable review criteria for a Planned Development.
Conditions
Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan
1) That the developer be required to notify the future property owners in the northern part
of this site regarding the possible future road extension;
2) That the development text be modified to clarify the proposed landscape buffer planted
within the tree enhancement zone of lots 1 -18 will be installed by the developer and
maintained by the individual homeowners.
3) That if deemed appropriate by the City Engineer, in lieu of constructing the bikepath
along Brand Road, the applicant contribute financially to the City's Brand Road Bikepath
installation; and,
4) That the applicant install an off -site left turn lane from Brand Road to Wellington
Reserve Place Drive recommended by the traffic study, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
Preliminary Plat
1) That the applicant ensure that any minor technical adjustments to the plat should be
made prior to City Council submittal; and,
2) That the plat be revised to include utility easements, a minimum of 20 feet in width,
centered on all proposed public sewer, accessible to the public right of way and a
drainage easement over the areas of the stormwater basins defined by the anticipated
100 year stonn water surface profile.
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 08- 038Z /PDP /PP I Wellington Reserve
Thursday, January 5, 2012 1 Page 2 of 17
City of Dublin 08-083ZfPDP n
Land Use and Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan A
Wallington Reserve �p�
Long Range Planning 5144 and 5056 Brand Road g 2D0 400
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 08 -038Z /PDP /PP I Wellington Reserve
Thursday, January 5, 2012 1 Page 3 of 17
Facts
Site A
18.584 acres, in three parcels.
Eastern two parcels: R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District
Zoning
Western parcel: R, Rural District.
Surrounding Zoning
East: PLR, Planned Low Density Residential District, Wellington Place subdivision
and Uses
North PUD, Brandon subdivision
West: Unincorporated land in Washington Township
South: Unincorporated land in Washington Township, large lot residential uses
zoned R -1 and a small portion of the Coventry Woods subdivision zoned
PLR
Site Features
General: Undeveloped, L- shaped parcel.
• Frontage: Brand Road - 950 feet.
• Vegetation: Mature trees particularly in the northern portion of the site and in
fence rows along the east boundary.
• Elevation: 900 feet at a high point in the northern portion of the site to 884 feet
in the southeast.
Case Background
Several development applications (history attached) have been submitted since
2003. None have been acted upon by the Commission or City Council, primarily
because of development challenges created by the shape and character of the site
and opposition by adjacent residents. The application currently under review was
first filed in 2008 as a 30 unit condominium development. The case was withdrawn
by the applicant from a scheduled Work Session with the Planning and Zoning
Commission on June 19, 2008. Subsequent to that application, the applicant has
Contacted the City regarding any interest in purchasing the property for parkland,
however, City Council has not elected to pursue this option.
Neighborhood
Various meetings between the applicant's representative and the adjacent
Contact
neighborhoods have occurred for previous proposals. The applicant has had contact
with the Board of Trustees of the Wellington Place subdivision prior to the October
6, 2011 meeting and has indicted that they will be contact with the neighborhoods
prior to the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Additional
correspondence from adjacent residents is attached.
Community Plan
Future Land Use: The Future Land Use Map identifies this site as Rue/ MLred
Residential, a classification intended to encourage cluster design that integrates
multiple types of residential units, provides significant provision of open space and
preserves natural features and open vistas. Planning is aware of the challenges to
meeting these intents given the size and shape of the site and prescribed density.
Ideally, development of a larger site with the property to the west would have made
this easier. But the property is not in the city and a coordinated development is not
feasible at this time. Developing the site with traditional single - family lots rather
than mixing housing types better fits within the surrounding neighborhood context.
Density: The Future Land Use Plan calls for a density of 1.5 dwelling units per acre.
The 28 lots on 18.54 acres equal the maximum density as prescribed by the Plan.
Roadway Character: The Community Plan identifies Brand Road between Dublin
Road and Muirfeld Drive as River Character, defined in the Plan by the visual
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 08 -0382 /PDP /PP I Wellington Reserve
7bursday, January 5, 2012 1 Page 4 of 17
Facts
Community Plan experience created by physical elements adjacent to the roadway. Among other I'
design elements, River Character is described by modest setbacks ranging from 60
to 100 feet, the use of woodland plantings, incorporation of landforms to create
topographic change and change views, and the use of informal water features and
landscaping to blend with the character of the river corridor. The proposal meets
the setback requirements as stipulated in the Plan and the development teat
requires a natural woodland effect in the setback area, the details of which will be
reviewed with t final de velopment plan.
Update
December 1, 2011 11 The application was postponed by the applicant prior to the meeting, no discussion
PZC Meeting
or action took place and adjacent residents were notified. Since that time the
applicant has met with the neighbors and made changes to the proposal to address
their concerns. The tree enhancement zone located along the rear of lots 8 -18 has
been increased from 30 feet to 40 feet to provide more buffering between the
existing and new homes. The increase in the tree enhancement zone has resulted
in a 10 -foot increased lot depth for lots 16 -18 and required the internal street to
shift to accommodate the modifications. Additionally, the applicant has agreed to
provide 75% opacity with the plant material within two years of installation within
the tree enhancement zones for lots 1 -18.
October 6, 2011
At this meeting, the several residents voiced their concerns regarding the proposal,
PZC Meeting
including the location of the Brand Road access point and the proposed setback
along Brand Road, rear and side yard setbacks, the landscape design intent of the
open space, tree preservation, and drainage. The Commission agreed the proposed
setback off Brand Road should be less than 130 feet, the rear setbacks for lots
should be increased, and that tree preservation was important. Commissioners
wanted additional information regarding the proposed Brand Road intersection and
the potential for having the main subdivision entry through the Wellington Place
neighborhood to the east.
Commissioners also requested information regarding the intersection of Brand Road
with Coffman Road. The adopted 2012 -2016 Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
identifies improvements for this intersection. The proposed improvement is a
roundabout and preliminary engineering design is programmed for 2012.
The Commission agreed with Planning about the requested development text and
plan clarifications and modifications, and tabled the application, as requested by the
applicant.
Revisions
Summary
Ine applicant has Worxea with Planning to aacress the concerns ralsea Dy the
residents and the Commission at the October 6, 2011 meeting, as well as the
conditions from the Planning Report. Revisions to the development text and the
preliminary development plan and plat do not affect the layout of the proposal as
submitted by the applicant. Below is a summary of the revisions:
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 08 -0382 /PDP /PP I Wellington Reserve
Thursday, January 5, 2012 1 Page 5 of 17
Preliminary
Development
Plan /Plat
• Clarified that the open space will be dedicated to the City
• Allows a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs in open spaces
• Permits park amenities within the Brand Road setback
• Eliminated the separate tree replacement responsibilities
• Deleted the previously proposed language for one -foot driveway setback for
side - loaded garages and rear - loaded garages
• Requires a 30 -inch high wall or hedge in the front of homes for all court - loaded
garages
• Revised the lot diversity matrix to accurately reflect all affected lots
• Requires a 36 -inch, 75% opaque hedge along the rear of a driveway for side -
loaded garages to reduce headlight trespass
• Proposes a Tree Enhancement Zone along the rear of all lots to coincide with the
setback requirement as an emphasis area for tree replacement
• Required 75% opacity within the Tree Enhancement Zones for lots 1 -18 _
• Increased all rear yard setbacks to 30 feet
• Revised the required Build Zone for Lot 1
• Shows all setback requirements accurately
• Includes accurate lot depth and open space dedication
• Increased Tree Enhancement Zone for lots 8-18
• Increased lot depth for lots 16 -18
• Accurately shows the Brand Road bikepath
• Includes revised site grading to reduce the difference in elevations
Details. Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan
Process Rezoning to a Planned Unit Development requires approval of a development text to
serve as the zoning regulation; the Zoning Code covers all requirements not
addressed in the development text. This development text establishes a new
Planned Unit Development District (Wellington Reserve) with a development text
that applies to these 18.545 acres.
Plan Overview The rezoning with preliminary development plan includes:
Rezoning the 18.545 -acre site from R and R -1 to a Planned Unit
Development.
• Establishing a new development text with requirements for a 28 lot single-
familyd etached residential development and 3.6 acres of open space.
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 08 -0382 /PDP /PP I Wellington Reserve
Thursday, January 5, 2012 1 Page 6 of 17
Det&l Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan
Layout The proposed plan shows a new intersection and turn lane off Brand Road at the
eastern portion of the site. A new public road, Wellington Reserve Drive, will extend
west off Brand Road and provide access to all proposed lots. At the northwest
corner of the site the road is proposed to stub to the west to allow for future
connectivity. Planning recommends the developer ensure that future property
owners near the stub street are notified at the time of purchase regarding this
future road extension.
Existing Ballybridge Drive, which parallels Brand Road, in the Wellington Place
subdivision, will be extended west to connect with the proposed Wellington Reserve
Drive.
The proposal includes 3.6 acres of open space along the Brand Road frontage,
which will accommodate a portion of the site's stormwater management. Six lots are
on the north side of the open space, with Wellington Reserve Drive as a single -
loaded street until it extends toward the north. Access to three lots in the northeast
corner of the site is from an eyebrow street, and the plans include AutoTURN data
that demonstrate the ability for a fire truck to navigate the turn.
Development The proposed preliminary development plan includes specific requirements that
Text address the zoning and development details for this PUD.
Permitted
The development text permits single- family detached homes, open spaces and 1
Uses
r elated park features.
Density and Lot Sizes
The applicant has indicated this development is intended to mirror the development
pattern of the surrounding neighborhoods. At the October 6, 2011 meeting, the
Commission was interested in the development pattern of the adjacent
neighborhoods. Lots to the east in Wellington Place are on average 10,000 square
feet with an average lot size of 80 feet by 130 feet. Lots to the north in the Brandon
subdivision are similarly sized.
The minimum 12,000 square foot lots are slightly larger than those adjacent to the
proposal. Required lot width at the building line is 90 feet and required minimum lot
dept is 140 feet.
Setbacks
The Community Plan requires setbacks ranging from 60 to 100 feet and the
development text has been revised to require a 100 -foot setback from Brand Road,
which meets the Plan. The change in the required setback does not affect the layout
of the proposal.
The lot setbacks stipulate a 10 -foot wide Build -Zone starting 20 feet from the right -
of -way. A portion of the home is required to be within the 10 -foot wide Build -Zone.
Adjacent lots require a 30 -foot front building setback. Neighborhoods such as Oak
Park and Tartan Ridge have similar requirements, which allow a more natural
pattern of home siting.
The rear yard setbacks coincide with the Tree Enhancement Zone for the proposed
lots and are indicated at 30 and 40 feet. Lots 1 -7, and 20 -28 are shown at 30 feet,
and lots 8 -18 are shown at 40 feet to provide additional buffering for the existing
development. Required rear yard setbacks for adjacent developments to the east
are 20% of the lot depth with a minimum of 25 feet. The Brandon subdivision to the
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 08 -0382 /PDP /PP I Wellington Reserve
Thursday, January 5, 2012 1 Page ] of 17
Details Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan
north requires a 30 -foot rear yard setback.
Required side yard setbacks for buildings am six feet with a total of 14 feet. A
previously proposed one -foot driveway setback for side - loaded garages has been
eliminated.
Traffic and Access There was a lot of discussion regarding the traffic impacts of the proposal, including
the proposed site access, the extension of Ballybridge Drive and the proposed street
stub to the northwest site boundary.
Access is provided by a new public road intersecting Brand Road and by the
extension of Ballybridge Drive in Wellington Place. Both have 50 -foot rights -of -way
and pavement widths of 28 feet.
Residents and the Commission questioned whether a separate access point is
warranted or if the proposed development can be served solely by the Ballybridge
Drive extension. The Fire Code requires a separate access point to this proposed
development. The existing Wellington Place and Coventry Woods subdivisions were
approved prior to current Code requirements and exceed the number of homes
permitted to be accessed by a single point. Accessing the proposed 28 lots from the
existing Coventry Woods Boulevard /Brand Road intersection would violate the Fire
Code. The Brand Road access point and the extension of Ballybridge Drive will meet
Fire Code requirements for the proposed Wellington Reserve neighborhood and
improve access for the existing homes.
Traffic and Access Proper intersection spacing is an important consideration in access planning. The
location of the Brand Road intersection was carefully selected to optimize the safety
and functionality of the proposed roadway and Brand Road.
The proposed access point is located between the intersections of Brand Road with
Coffman Road and Coventry Woods Drive. The Brand Road and Coffman Road
intersection experiences a much higher traffic volume and is slated for an
intersection improvement in the current CIP, requiring the proposed intersection as
far away from the Brand Road and Coffman intersection as possible to reduce its
influence on the operation and safety of the new intersection. The proposed
intersection spacing is 730 feet from Coventry Woods Drive and 1,500 feet from
Coffman Road.
9J PKe�mvJY
l�5
The location of the proposed intersection is also influenced by the existing geometry
of Brand Road. As seen in the above exhibit, Brand Road curves north to the west
of this proposed intersection. As demonstrated in the Traffic Impact Study (from
which the above figure was takeni the proposed intersection has proper sight
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 08 -0382 /PDP /PP I Wellington Reserve
Thursday, January 5, 2012 1 Page 8 of 17
Details Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan
Traffic and Access distance. In addition, according to the Ohio Department of Transportation, Location
and Design Manual, sight distance at Brand Road will be adequate as proposed.
The applicant will be required to install a left turn lane from Brand Road to the
proposed Wellington Reserve Boulevard. The auxiliary turn lane will limit the speed
differential between a turning vehicle and through traffic. The location of the
intersection allows the left turn lane to be located outside the area of the curve on
Brand Road. Locating the intersection any farther to the west would require drivers
to maneuver from the through lane to the left turn lane in the middle of a curve,
which should be avoided.
Engineering has determined that providing this access point onto Brand Road will
not have a detrimental impact to the safety and operation of the public roadway
system. In addition to providing better access for emergency response, this
intersection allows the traffic generated by the new development to be more
appropriately distributed and not be routed through the Wellington Place subdivision
and directed to an even busier intersection at Coventry Woods Boulevard. Doing so
would likely produce undesirable traffic volumes on local neighborhood streets and
increase delay at the Coventry Woods Drive and Brand Road intersection.
The proposed street stub to the west in the northern portion of the development
has been carefully considered by Planning and Engineering. Providing connectivity
to potential future development is important to control the access along Brand Road
and provide residents with better connected neighborhoods through the street
network. Providing this potential connecting using Ballybridge Drive is undesirable
as it would interfere with an existing residence on the adjacent parcel and increase
J the potential of Ballybridge Drive to become an alternative route to brand Road for
too many vehicles. A farther westward extension of Ballybridge Drive would also
force an intersection with Brand Road that would not be in a desirable location.
Traffic Study A traffic study has been submitted analyzing the proposed development traffic
impact on the existing transportation network. The study recommends the
eastbound left turn lane from Brand Road to Wellington Reserve Drive be installed
as described above.
The development is expected to generate 31 total vehicle trips in the a.m. peak
hour and 36 total vehicle trips in the p.m. peak hour. Existing traffic counts on July
6, 2011 showed 112 and 179 vehicles respectively in the morning and afternoon
peak hours at the southbound Coventry Woods Drive intersection with Brand Road.
The traffic study anticipates approximately 15 vehicle trips from the Wellington
Place subdivision will use the Ballybridge Drive connection to this development to
reach the new Wellington Reserve Drive intersection with Brand Road.
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 08 -0382 /PDP /PP I Wellington Reserve
Thursday, January 5, 2012 1 Page 9 of 17
Details
Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan
Sidewalks and
A four-foot, sidewalk is proposed along all street frontages, except as waived
Bikepaths
in the proposed development text where homes do not front the street. The
proposed text also requires a three -foot private sidewalk from the front door to the
driveway for every residence.
The plans show that the sidewalk meets a portion of bikepath that extends south
toward Brand Road to connect to the public system adjacent to the open space next
to Lot 28.
The City has programmed a capital improvement project to install a bikepath along
Brand Road in this area in 2013. The applicant has indicated that their anticipated
construction time frame is 2012. Should the construction of this neighborhood be
delayed, the City will request a financial contribution in lieu of the construction of
the bikepath along Brand Road for this project's frontage.
Parking
O n -street parking will be allowed on one side o the street.
Architecture
The development text describes the general character of the development as one -
and two -story homes with a variety of two- and three -car garages that will reflect
the quality of surrounding homes. The text requires adherence to the Residential
Appearance Code unless otherwise stated. The text allows shutters to be considered
trim, which the Appearance Code does not permit. Permitted materials include brick,
stone, wood, stucco and fiber cement siding. Trim materials permitted are wood,
vinyl, EIFS, copper or fiber cement products.
Colors are required to be natural and /or warm neutral colors. High -chroma colors
are not permitted. The text requires similar architectural design elements and
details to be consistent on all elevations and stipulates that chimneys have to be
finished with masonry.
The text encourages side- or rear - loaded garages. A previous reference to rear -
loaded garages has been eliminated. The text has also been revised to require a 30-
inch high wall or hedge in the front of homes where a courtyard is created by any
size court-loaded garage.
A 36 -inch hedge is also required along the entire length of the driveway adjacent to
the rear of another lot for side - loaded garage to cut down on headlight trespassing.
The applicant has provided a lot diversity matrix and addressed any inconsistencies.
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 08 -038ZIPDP /PP I Wellington Reserve
Thursday, January 5, 2012 1 Page 10 of 17
Details Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan
Tree Preservation Theme goal to preserve as many trees in good and fair condition as
possible. A tree replacement plan will be required with the final development plan.
The Zoning Code requires that protected trees (trees six inches in diameter and in
good or fair condition) be replaced on an inch -for -inch basis with deciduous trees.
The applicant is proposing a tree waiver in the development text, which is usually
waived by City Council. Specifically, the applicant is requesting that tree
replacement be permitted on a tree- for -tree basis for trees between six and 24
inches. Trees larger than 24 inches would be replaced inch- for -inch per Code.
The applicant is also proposing to allow evergreens as replacement trees. Planning
supports this proposal as evergreens will add to the tree replacement variety and
can provide a more opaque buffer than deciduous trees. The applicant has worked
with Planning to address tree preservation and buffering from adjacent
neighborhoods. As indicated on the preliminary tree survey, the rear yards of the
majority of homes along the eastern property line have very few protected trees.
Since substantial grading within this area will be required for the proposed
stormwater management the applicant is proposing a 30 -foot Tree Enhancement
Zone along the rear property line of these lots. The intent of this zone is to provide
an area for reforestation with deciduous and evergreen replacement trees to
reestablish or recreate a tree row buffer that will be affected by the stormwater
improvements.
The proposed Tree Enhancement Zone allows for the planting of landscape
materials and the removal of material for the maintenance of utilities. Removal of
undesirable landscape material is also permitted. The development text states that I
a landscape buffer will be installed in the tree enhancement zone of lots 1 -18 that
will reach 75 percent opacity within two years of installation. Planning recommends
this text requirement be further clarified to state the landscape buffer will be
installed by the developer and maintained by the individual homeowners.
At the October 6, 2011 meeting, some Commissioners were concerned that the
proposal creates open space areas where there is a lack of natural features and
suggested that the applicant eliminate a lot to save a tree stand similar to the
design of the Riverside Woods subdivision. This proposal is challenged by a difficult
to develop parcel configuration and is lacking sizable wooded areas. Eliminating a
lot to create a similar style of tree preservation as was done in Riverside Woods is
not practicable here. The applicant has indicated great efforts as seen in the
illustrative, conceptual master plan to create a unique entry feature and open space
areas as natural features for this development.
Open Space and The plan includes 3.6 acres of open space and the development text states that this
Landscaping open space will be owned by the City. The applicant will be responsible for the
landscaping of the open space areas and the homeowners association will be
responsible for the maintenance. The text includes details regarding the natural,
passive landscaping intent of the proposed open space including language regarding
the Brand Road landscape treatment and the required natural woodland effect with
deciduous trees and shrubs, ornamental trees and perennials or a combination
thereof. The text requires that the dry portions of the stormwater basin be
landscaped with water tolerant meadow grasses, perennials, shrubs and trees
planted in a natural manner to continue the woodland effect and meet the roadway
i. character landscape reouirements in the Community Plan. The aoDlicant has also
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 08 -038ZIPDP /PP I Wellington Reserve
Thursday, January 5, 2012 1 Page 11 of 17
Details
Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan
adopted Plans
prepared an illustrative, conceptual master plan that shows generally the landscape
3. Advancement of
intent of the proposal.
general welfare and
The City typically requires amenities be provided in open spaces that are largely
orderly development
within required setbacks. The development text states that pedestrian /bikepaths,
4. Effects on
water features and pond access will be provided. Planning recommends that other
adjacent uses
amenities deemed appropriate by the Parks and Open Space Director be required.
The proposed development text allows these amenities within the Brand Road
setback.
Details regarding the open space landscaping will be required at the final
development p lan st age.
Stonnwater and
The site will connect to the public sanitary sewer intended to serve this area by
Utilities
constructing new sewer mains to existing sanitary sewers in Wellington Place.
New public water mains and fire hydrants will be constructed to connect to existing
water mains located along the north side of Ballybridge Drive and the south side of
Brand Road.
To accommodate anticipated stormwater drainage, and to meet the requirements of
the Stormwater Code, the applicant will install a public stone sewer system that will
connect to the proposed dry detention basin. Several catch basins will be installed
along the eastern property boundary to intercept existing overland drainage.
The applicant has revised the grading plan to lower the finished grade elevations of
some of the proposed lots to reduce the grade difference between existing homes
to the east and the proposed lots. Planning and Engineering have verified the
finished floor elevations of adjacent homes within Wellington Place, Section 2 on the
approved grading plan. Based on this information, the elevation change between
existing homes and the proposed finish grade elevation is between 2.5 to 4.5 feet
over a span of approximately 200 feet. Considering the existing difference in
_I Ltopogrzap applicant has brought the grades as close as practicable.
Analysis
Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan
Process
Section 153.050 of the Zoning Code identifies criteria for the review and approval
for a rezoning /preliminary development plan (full text of criteria attached).
Following is an analysis by Planning based on those criteria.
1. Consistency with
Criterion met: This proposal is consistent with the Zoning Code, except as
Dublin Zoning Code
approp alte in t p de te
2. Conformance with
Criterion met: The uses and density proposed for this site are consistent with the
adopted Plans
F utu r e l Use design a nd meet th in te n ded r oad w ay c
3. Advancement of
Criterion met: This proposal conforms to the Community Plan and is compatible
general welfare and
with the surrounding residential development.
orderly development
4. Effects on
Criterion met with Condition: The proposal is appropriately located in the city
adjacent uses
and will safeguard the value of property within and adjacent to the area. The road
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 08 -0382 /PDP /PP I Wellington Reserve
Thursday, January 5, 2012 1 Page 12 of 17
Analysis Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan
10. Development
layout and intensity
11. Stormwater
management J
12. Community
benefit
13. Design and
appearance I I L
14. Development
phasing
Criterion met: The proposed plans contribute to the orderly development of this
site, including proposed uses, setbacks, and density.
Criterion met: Adequate provision is made for stormwater management and will
help resolve existing problems in adjacent development.
Criterion met: The development text outlines all applicable development
requirements for this project.
Criterion met: The proposal outlines high - quality building materials and l
architectural design standards within the proposed development text.
criterion met: I ne plans indicate two phases for this project wrtn a phasing line
indicated between Lots 8 and 9 on the east side of Wellington Reserve Drive and
extension into the adjacent neighborhood has been planned since the approval of
Condition I
that subdivision, and the road was constructed clearly indicating a stub street,
rather than a cul -de -sac. The proposed plans also indicate a future connection in
the northwestern portion of the site. Planning recommends the developer provide
assurance that any existing and future property owners will be notified regarding
_
t hi s p ot e n t i a l fu road extension.
5. Adequacy of open
Criterion met: The open space is adequate for residential development and the
space for residential
maintenance responsibility of the open space is appmpriately that of the
development
Homeowners Association. The development text contains requirements for the
land scape design of a naturalized area within the open sp ace.
6. Protection of
Criterion met: The applicant has worked with Planning and Engineering to find an
natural features and
appropriate solution for the desire to have adequate stonmwater management while
resources
providing a tree buffer area along the rear of lots. The applicant has met with the
neighbors and agreed to install a landscape buffer in the tree enhancement zone of
lots 1 -18 that will reach 75 percent opacity within two years of installation.
Condition2
Planning recommends this requirement be further clarified within the development
text to state the landscape buffer will be installed by the developer and maintained
by the individual homeowners.
7. Adequate
Criterion met: With the proposed improvements installed, the site will have
infrastructure
access to adequate utilities.
8. Traffic and
Criterion met with Conditions: The applicant has provided a traffic analysis,
pedestrian safety
which accounts for the proposed future development. The applicant will be required
Conditions 3and 4
to install an off -site left turn lane from Brand Road to Wellington Reserve Place
Drive as recommended by the traffic study.
Depending on the timing of construction of the Citys project and this development,
the City may request a financial contribution in lieu of the construction of the
bikepath along Brand Road to install the section along this project's frontage.
9. Coordination &
Criterion met: The proposal maintains the existing development patterns of
integration of
surrounding developments. While the proposed lots are slightly larger than lots in
building & site
the adjacent subdivisions, setbacks are similar and the Build Zone requirement will
relationships
pull buildings closer to the road and farther from the rear lot line, which will
minimize the effect on adjacent residents.
10. Development
layout and intensity
11. Stormwater
management J
12. Community
benefit
13. Design and
appearance I I L
14. Development
phasing
Criterion met: The proposed plans contribute to the orderly development of this
site, including proposed uses, setbacks, and density.
Criterion met: Adequate provision is made for stormwater management and will
help resolve existing problems in adjacent development.
Criterion met: The development text outlines all applicable development
requirements for this project.
Criterion met: The proposal outlines high - quality building materials and l
architectural design standards within the proposed development text.
criterion met: I ne plans indicate two phases for this project wrtn a phasing line
indicated between Lots 8 and 9 on the east side of Wellington Reserve Drive and
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 08 -038ZIPDP /PP I Wellington Reserve
Thursday, January 5, 2012 1 Page 13 of 17
Analysis 11 Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan
between Lots 25 and 26 on the west side.
15. Adequacy of Criterion met: There are adequate services for the proposed development.
public services
16. Infrastructure Criterion met: As noted, the applicant may be required to make a financial
contributions contribution in lieu of constructing the bikepath located along Brand Road,
depending on the timing of construction of the site and the City's Brand Road
Bikepath project.
Recommendation Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan
Approval
In Planning's analysis, this proposal complies with the rezoning /preliminary
development plan criteria and the existing development standards within the area.
Approval with four Conditions is recommended.
Conditions
1) That the developer be required to notify the future property owners within the
northern part of this site regarding the possible future road extension;
2) That the development text be modified to clarify the proposed landscape
buffer planted within the tree enhancement zone of lots 1 -18 will be installed
by the developer and maintained by the individual homeowners.
3) That, if deemed appropriate by the City Engineer, in lieu of constructing the
bikepath along Brand Road, the applicant contribute financially to the City's
Brand Road Bikepath installation; and,
4) That the applicant install an off -site left turn lane from Brand Road to
Wellington Reserve Place Drive as recommended by the traffic study, to the
sati sfaction of the City En gi n eer.
Details
Plat Overview
The proposed preliminary plat subdivides 18.545 of land into 28 single - family lots
and 3.6 acres of open space. The plat also provides rights -of -way for Wellington
Reserve Drive and Brand Road.
The preliminary plat correctly shows all setback requirements. The preliminary plat
should show lot depths between Lots 8 and 9. All other information required by
the Subdivision Regulations is provided in the proposed preliminary plat.
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 08 -038Z /PDP /PP I Wellington Reserve
Thursday, 3anuary 5, 2012 1 Page 14 of 17
liminary PA
_ The Zoning Code requires the dedication of 1.9 acres of open space and the
proposal contains 3.6 acres of open space.
• Reserve "A" is 1 acre located to the east of the entry, with a small stormwater
pond.
• Reserve "B" is 1.9 acres and incorporates the largest portion of the Brand
Road setback. The plans show a dry detention basin within this open space.
• Reserve "C" is 0.7 acres in the western portion of the site. The reserve
includes the bikepath connection from Wellington Reserve Drive to the Brand
Road path.
The plat indicates that the open space areas will be owned by the City of Dublin
and maintained by a forced and funded homeowners association.
,lf1;$15`
Preliminary Plat
Process
The Subdivision Regulations identify criteria for the review and approval for a plat.
Following is an analysis by Planning based on those criteria.
1) Plat Information
Criterion met with Condition: This proposal is consistent with the
and Construction
requirements of the Zoning Code and all required information is included on the
Requirements
plat. The applicant should ensure that any minor technical adjustments to the plat
Condition 1
are made prior to City Council submittal.
2) Street,
Criterion met: Street widths, grades, curvatures, and intersection signs comply
Sidewalk, and
with the appropriate Code sections and engineering requirements. Sidewalks or
Bike path
bikepaths are required on both sides of all public streets in compliance with City
Standards
construction standards, except as specifically waived in the development text.
3) Utilities
Criterion met with Condition: The applicant should update the plat to include
Condition 1
utility easements over all proposed sewers. The easement should be a minimum
of 20 feet in width, and should be accessible from the public right of way. In
addition, a drainage easement should be placed over the areas of the stormwater
basins defined by the anticipated 100 year stonn water surface profile.
5) Open Space Cr/terionmed The plat meets the open space requirement.
Requirements
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 08 -0382 /PDP /PP I Wellington Reserve
Thursday, January 5, 2012 1 Page 15 of 17
,
Recommendatio: Preliminary Plae
Approval This proposal complies with the preliminary plat criteria and a recommendation to
City Council for approval of this request is recommended with two conditions.
Conditions 1) That the applicant ensure that any minor technical adjustments to the plat
should be made prior to City Council submittal; and,
2) That the plat be revised to include utility easements, a minimum of 20 feet in
width, centered on all proposed public sewer, accessible to the public right of
way and a drainage easement over the areas of the stormwater basins
defined b y the anticipated 100 y ear storm water surface profile.
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 08- 038Z/PDP /PP I wellington Reserve
Thursday, January 5, 2012 1 Page 16 of 17
REZONING/ PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The purpose of the PUD process is to encourage imaginative architectural design and proper site planning
in a coordinated and comprehensive manner, consistent with accepted land planning, landscape
architecture, and engineering principles. The PUD process can consist of up to three basic stages:
1) Concept Plan (Staff, Commission, and /or City Council review and comment);
2) Zoning Amendment Request (Preliminary Development Plan; Commission
recommends and City Council approves /denies); and
3) Final Development Plan (Commission approves /denies).
The general intent of the preliminary development plan (rezoning) stage is to determine the general
layout and specific zoning standards that will guide development. The Planning and Zoning Commission
must review and make a recommendation on this preliminary development plan (rezoning) request. The
application will then be forwarded to City Council for a first reading /introduction and a second
reading /public hearing for a final vote. A two- thirds vote of City Council is required to override a negative
recommendation by the Commission. If approved, the rezoning will become effective 30 days following
the Council vote. Additionally, all portions of the development will require final development plan
approval by the Commission prior to construction. In the case of a combined rezoning /preliminary
development plan and final development plan, the final development plan is not valid unless the
rezoning /preliminary development plan is approved by Council.
Review Criteria
Section 153.050 of the Zoning Code identifies criteria for the review and approval for a
Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan. In accordance with Section 153.055(A) Plan Approval Ciitena,
Code sets out the following criteria of approval for a preliminary development plan (rezoning):
1) The proposed development is consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable standards of the
Dublin Zoning Code;
2) The proposed development is in conformity with the Community Plan, Thoroughfare Plan,
Bikeway Plan and other adopted plans or portions thereof as they may apply and will not
unreasonably burden the existing street network;
3) The proposed development advances the general welfare of the City and immediate vicinity and
will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding areas;
4) The proposed uses are appropriately located in the City so that the use and value of property
within and adjacent to the area will be safeguarded;
5) Proposed residential development will have sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives
of the Community Plan;
6) The proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and
protects the natural resources of the site;
7) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and /or necessary facilities have been or are
being provided;
8) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress designed to
minimize traffic congestion on the surrounding public streets and to maximize public safety and
to accommodate adequate pedestrian and bike circulation systems so that the proposed
development provides for a safe, convenient and non - conflicting circulation system for motorists,
bicyclists and pedestrians;
9) The relationship of buildings and structures to each other and to such other facilities provides for
the coordination and integration of this development within the PD and the larger community and
maintains the image of Dublin as a quality community;
10) The density, building gross floor area, building heights, setbacks, distances between buildings
and structures, yard space, design and layout of open space systems and parking areas, traffic
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 08- 038Z/PDP /PP I wellington Reserve
Thursday, January 5, 2012 1 Page 17 of 17
accessibility and other elements having a bearing on the overall acceptability of the development
plan's contribution to the orderly development of land within the City;
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, water courses and drainage areas;
12) The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed development justify any
deviation from the standard development regulations included in the Dublin Zoning Code or
Subdivision Regulation, and that any such deviations are consistent with the intent of the Planned
Development District regulations;
13) The proposed building design meets or exceeds the quality of the building designs in the
surrounding area and all applicable appearance standards of the City;
14) The proposed phasing of development is appropriate for the existing and proposed infrastructure
and is sufficiently coordinated among the various phases to ultimately yield the intended overall
development;
15) The proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing or planned public
improvements and not impair the existing public service system for the area; and
16) The applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare
Plan and are sufficient to service the new development.
PRELIMINARY P
If approved, the preliminary plat will be reviewed at a later date by City Council. If the Commission
disapproves the preliminary plat, it must state its reasons for doing so. Approval of the preliminary plat is
effective for 24 months and authorizes the developer to proceed with construction after meeting all
Engineering requirements. The Commission and City Council will later review the final plat for each
phase, generally after infrastructure is complete, to ensure that it conforms to the preliminary plat.
Review Criteria:
In accordance with Chapter 152, the Code sets out the following requirements as part of the platting
requirements for the subdivision of land:
1) The proposed plat provides the minimum plat contents required by Sections 152.018(B) and
152.018(C);
2) The proposed plat will comply with all applicable subdivision improvement procedures as defined by
Sections 152.035 through 152.053;
3) The proposed plat will provide required improvements as specified by Sections 152.065 through
152.072.
City of Dublin 06- 038ZIPPIPDP N
Land Use end Rezoning/ Preliminary Plat/Preliminary Development Plan A
Long Range Planning Wellington Reserve Feet
5144 and 5056 Brand Road 0 200 400
Existing Site
1
N
a .
� v
it �r� i iR ' : - y ���
T. Rilbrittain Ln
ir
� • =fir >< t
-
�, f ■a ARM �h
0
:if
i ,
p ie
4r
.
Brand Rd
08- 038Z/PP /POP
Rezoning /Preliminary Plat /Preliminary
Development Plan
Wellington Reserve
5144 and 5056 Brand Road
Proposed Preliminary Plat
f
N
08- 038Z /PP /PDP
Rezoning /Preliminary Plat/Preliminary
Development Plan
Wellington Reserve
5144 and 5056 Brand Road
Proposed Grading Plan
t
08- 0382 /PP /PDP
Rezoning /Preliminary Plat/Preliminary
Development Plan
Wellington Reserve
5144 and 5056 Brand Road
Please refer to the
packet attachments for
the proposed
development text.
08- 038Z /PP /PDP
Rezoning /Preliminary Plat /Preliminary
Development Plan
Wellington Reserve
5144 and 5056 Brand Road
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
3. Wellington Reserve 5144 and 5056 Brand Road
08- 038Z /PDP /PP Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan
Preliminary Plat
Proposal: A subdivision of three vacant parcels with 28 single - family lots for land
currently zoned R, Rural District and R -1, Restricted Suburban
Residential District, located on the north side of Brand, apprmdmately
700 feet west of Coventry Woods Drive.
Request: Review and approval of a rezoning with preliminary development plan
under the Planned District provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050,
and a preliminary plat under the provisions of Sections 152.015 through
152.022.
Applicant: CASTO; represented by Ben W. Hate, Jr., Smith and Hale LLC.
Planning Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner H.
Contact Information: (614) 410 -4675, chusak@dublin.oh.us
MOTION: To table the Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat.
VOTE: 7-0.
RESULT: The Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat was tabled.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
(OA d-^ AjaG
Claudia D. Husak, AICP
Planner II
08 -038Z /PP /PDP
Rezoning /Preliminary Plat /Preliminary
Development Plan
Wellington Reserve
5144 and 5056 Brand Road
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECORD OF ACTION
CITY OF DUBLIN_
OCTOBER 6, 2011
raaa.me
xoova.+ mx�a
owM1arom,o-izx
mw./ mo: ei,a,o�mo
rmc sunona
waea.:.w«.mm.m.0
uwar>,P.cemr
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
3. Wellington Reserve 5144 and 5056 Brand Road
08- 038Z /PDP /PP Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan
Preliminary Plat
Proposal: A subdivision of three vacant parcels with 28 single - family lots for land
currently zoned R, Rural District and R -1, Restricted Suburban
Residential District, located on the north side of Brand, apprmdmately
700 feet west of Coventry Woods Drive.
Request: Review and approval of a rezoning with preliminary development plan
under the Planned District provisions of Zoning Code Section 153.050,
and a preliminary plat under the provisions of Sections 152.015 through
152.022.
Applicant: CASTO; represented by Ben W. Hate, Jr., Smith and Hale LLC.
Planning Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner H.
Contact Information: (614) 410 -4675, chusak@dublin.oh.us
MOTION: To table the Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat.
VOTE: 7-0.
RESULT: The Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat was tabled.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
(OA d-^ AjaG
Claudia D. Husak, AICP
Planner II
08 -038Z /PP /PDP
Rezoning /Preliminary Plat /Preliminary
Development Plan
Wellington Reserve
5144 and 5056 Brand Road
3. Wellington Reserve 5144 and 5056 Brand Road
08 -0362 /PDP /PP Rezoning with Preliminary Development Plan
Preliminary Plat
Chris Amorose Groomes Introduced this application which involves the subdivision of three vacant parcels
with 28 single -family lots for land currently zoned R, Rural Dlstrict, and R -1, Restricted Suburban
Residential District, located on the north side of Brand Road, approximately 700 feet west of Coventry
Woods Drive. She explained that the Commission would be making a recommendation to City Council on
the preliminary development plan and rezoning.
Claudia Husak saki that since 2003, Planning has worked with several different property owners in an
attempt to develop this parcel. She said last time R was submitted with new information was 2008, and
R was scheduled for a Commission work session for a condominium project, and the applicant chose not
to move forward with that proposal. She saki the applicant has worked since the summer with Planning
on this proposal.
Ms. Husak said that the site Is comprised of three parcels, totaling 18.5 acres, just west of the Wellington
Place subdivision and south of the Brandon subdivision. She said to the west is unincorporated land in
Washington Township.
Preliminary Development Plan
Ms. Husak said the applicant Is proposing a preliminary development plan, and a preliminary plat for 28
single -family lots. She said the Community Plan calls for a mix of housing units on this parcel at a
density of a maximum of 1.5 units per acre, so with 28 lots, they are meeting the maximum permitted
density. She said the traffic study submitted and approved by Engineering calls for a new Intersection
with Brand Road as well as a turn lane off Brand Road. She said the plat Includes the new street,
Wellington Reserve Drive, which accesses all of the lots In the development and provides a stub to the
west in the northern portion of the development. Ms. Husak said recommended Condition 1 deals with
notification of potential homebuyers In that area to the north, and advising them that the street Is slated
to be extended 9 development would occur to the west. Ms. Husak said Baliybddge Drive that currently
stubs Into Wellington Piece will be extended to Intersect with Wellington Reserve Drive.
Ms. Husak said proposed is minimum lot width of 90 feet and depth of 145 feet She said Lot 1 does not
meet the lot width and therefore a condition is recommended. She said the applicant proposes to include
a 10 -foot wide build zone a" the front of each lot Instead of a front building line. She said that zone is
between 20 and 30 feet. Ms. Husak said the rear yard proposed Is 25 feet. She pointed out that there is
some discrepancy between the zoning text which requires the 25 -foot rear yard and the plans submitted
which show a 20 -foot rear yard, so that should be corrected on the plan. She said a &foot side yard is
required, 14 feet total, typical of what is seen in the City.
Ms. Husak said that Planning had concerns about the proposed setbacks In the development text that
would allow driveways to be within one foot of the side lot line in case there are side- loaded garages.
She said Code allows driveways within three feet of the adjacent lot line, and Planning would want the
applicant to adhere to that requirement. She said that the text also proposes rear loaded garages,
something not seen In adjacent neighborhoods. Ms. Husak said a 130 -foot setback is required from
Brand Road In this development. She said the Community Plan classifies Brand Road in this area as
having River Character, which is showcased by requiring natural landscaping, earth forms, more informal
plantings, and setbacks in the Plan are stipulated between 60 and 100 feet. She said the applicant is
proposing a 100 -foot pavement setback and a 130 -foot building setback. Ms. Husak presented what the
60 -foot and 100 -foot setbacks would look like and the 130 -foot building setback proposed. She said that
neighbors on the south side or Ballybridge Drive that would back up to these lots have raised concerns
regarding this part of the development text. Ms. Husak highlighted that there was approximately a 100 -
frot setback to most of the existing buildings along Brand Road.
08- 038Z /PP /PDP
Rezoning/Preliminary Plat /Preliminary
Development Plan
Wellington Reserve
5144 and 5056 Brand Road
"n Planning and Zoning Commission
October 6, 2011 - Mints
Page 2 of 12
Ms. Husak presented the surrounding development patterns of this plat and that of Wellington Place
Section 2 for a comparison of lot sizes and widths. She said that the applicant stated that they were
trying to make the lot development similar to those in the surrounding neighborhoods. She said that the
other lots are slightly larger and a little deeper, but have a similar development pattern.
Ms. Husak said the proposed grading plan Included 3.6 acres of open space in the setback along Brand
Road and a detention basin. She reiterated that the development text requires the informal natural
landscaping that would meet the Community Plan. She said that the applicant has been asked to clarify
that the open space Is to be deeded to the City and that there will be amenities included in the open
space. She said that the applicant also proposes a bikepath connection to Brand Road and the City Is
currently working on the Brand Road Bikepath project to be undertaken in the near future.
Ms. Husak said that it has been requested that the applicant work with Planning at the final development
plan stage to Identify areas for tree preservation zones. She said the applicant has also been requested
to not differemdate for tree replacement responsibilitles between the developer and the homebulider
because that is a very difficult requirement to enforce. She said the trees have to be replaced, and there
should not be a differentiation between who is responsible for replacing them. Ms. Husak said that the
proposed development text includes a tree waiver that would be required to be approved by City Council.
She said R was typical for what Planning has seen in developments such as this. She said the applicant Is
also allowing a portion of the tree replacements to be evergreen trees, and Planning wants to make sure
that there can be a mix of evergreen trees and deciduous trees in the open space area.
Ms. Husak said that Planning has worked with Engineering and looked in more detail to the grading and
there are some significant differences between the finished floor elevations of the proposed lots and to
what Is In Wellington Place currently existing. She said that Planning wants the applicant to work with
them to laver the grading so that these houses are not 10 feet higher.
Amy Kramb asked if the height difference was due to the topography.
Ms. Husak said there seemed to be some artificial raising of the grade, due to where the road and home
pads are located. She said that Engineering did not think It had to be that way.
Ms. Kramb asked if the existing topography of that is equivalent to the adjacent property. Ms. Husak said
It was similar errough but they may not get It down to the same grade.
Ms. Husak said that Planning's review of this application was based on the 16 review criteria for a
preliminary plan, included in the Planning Report. She said Planning recommends to City Council
approval of this rezoning with preliminary development plan with nine conditions:
1) That the developer be required to notify the future property owners located to the north of this
site regarding the future road extension;
2) That the development text be modified with the following provisions:
a) Clearly state that the open space will be dedicated to the City and that a mix of evergreen
and deciduous trees and shrubs are permitted In these areas;
b) Additional amenities be required as deemed appropriate by the Parks and Open Space
Director and to allow these amenities within the Brand Road setback;
c) The differing tree replacement responsibilities be eliminated;
d) That the one -foot driveway setback for side -loaded garages and the rear -loaded garage
language be eliminated; and
e) A 30 -inch high wall or hedge be required in the front of homes where a courtyard Is created
by a two -car court- loaded garage; and that all lots are accurately reflected in the lot diversity
matrix, as approved by Planning.
08- 030Z /PP /PDP
Rezoning /Preliminary Plat /Preliminary
Development Plan
Wellington Reserve
5144 and 5056 Brand Road
Dublin Placing and Zefing Caanisdw
October 6, 2011- Minutes
Page 3 of 12
3) That the applicant identify lots where a tree protection zones are appropriate, as approved by
Planning, and include those on the final plat;
4) That the plans be revised to Indicate a blkepath along Brand Road instead of a "leisure trail ;"
5) That, if deemed appropriate by the City Engineer, in lieu of constructing the bikepath along
Brand Road, the applicant contribute financially to the City's Brand Road Bikepath installation;
6) That the applicant install an off -site left turn lane from Brand Road to Wellington Reserve Place
Drive as recommended by the traffic study, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer;
7) That the Build Zone for Lot 1 be straightened to allow sufficient room for home placement and to
meet lot width requirements;
8) That the applicant revise the site grading to reduce the difference In elevations of the proposed
homes in relation to the existing homes in Wellington Place to the extent possible, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer; and
9) That the plans be revised to correctly indicate the 25 -foot rear yard setback.
Ms. Husak said that Planning recommends approval the preliminary plat with the following two
conditions:
1) That the applicant ensure that any mirror technical adjustments to the plat should be made prior
to City Council submittal, including accurate lot depth and setback requirements, Build Zone
locations and open space dedication; and,
2) That the plat be revised to include utility easements, a minimum of 20 feet in width, centered on
ail proposed public sewer, accessible to the public right of way and a drainage easement over the
areas of the stomowater basins defined by the anticipated 100 year storm water surface profile.
Ben Hale, Jr., 37 West Broad Street, the attorney representing the applicant, said this property Is now in
contract with Davidson Phillips, which is the same group that developed WedgewDod and Riverside
Woods. He said this is not going to be built by Virginia Homes, but a group of approximately ten builders
that Charlie Ruma has done business. He said the tots will cost around $125,000 to $150,000 yielding
custom -built houses with minimum paces of $450,000 up to $700,000.
Mr. Hale said that they agreed with all the Planning recommended conditions except the one for the side
yard for the drive. He said that they want to do a one -foot side yard with the other site, a full setback
because it Is believed by Mr. Ruma in this price point, that the homeowners want side loaded garages,
and three car garages. He said the experience Mr. Ruma has had is that there are certain houses that
these builders build that are wider, and the 90 -foot lot makes the house deeper and some of those
models are a little more difficult to get on the lot. Mr. Hale said Mr. Ruma said that two -feet makes a big
difference, so he wants the proposed side yard setback.
Mr. Hale said that they were asked why they did not have another neighborhood meeting. He said they
had worked since summer on many issues with staff and the plan details had changed. He said they met
with the two civic associations and received feedback. He said for instance on the lots to the north, they
were asked to increase the rear yard setback, and the rear yard setbacks on the two western lots have
been increased. He said the Wellington neighbors requested that they use every effort to retain the tree
line along the common border and they would be happy to do so. He said when the street Is
constructed, any lost trees and the diseased or dying trees in the tree line will be supplemented and
replaced; as well as those that die because of development.
Mr. Hale referred to resident's correspondence requesting that the road move farther toward the street
so that the lots that abut the houses on Ballybridge Drive can be a little deeper to provide a little
additional setback in the rear. He said that these lots are deep and bigger than theirs are, but they
understand that they would like to have as much there as possible. He said that they met Code and
making it 120 feet Instead of 130 feet, was the City's call.
08- 030Z /PP /PDP
Rezoning/Preliminary Plat /Preliminary
Development Plan
Wellington Reserve
5144 and 5056 Brand Road
Dublin Planning arid Zoning Cornmisslon
comber 6, 2911— Minutes
Page 4 of 12
Mr. Hale said that although the developer is responsible for trees taken out as part of the development,
putting in streets and utilities, there will also be some tree loss as the lots develop. He said they have
agreed to the extent possible, working with the City Forester, to have all the tree replacements on the lot
so if a tree comes off a lot, they will put it back. Mr. Hale said they will also reforest or fill in on lots that
abut them, and maybe after working with the Forester, they may find the best thing Is to use either
deciduous or pine trees.
Mr. Hale said another concern was expressed about drainage problems in Wellington backyards. He said
their engineer believes that the neighbor's drainage issues will be addressed.
Ms. Amorose Groomes Invited public comments.
Julie Hubler, 5425 Brand Road, said that their driveway will be directly across from this development
entrance. She said they were not concerned about property values, but concerned about safety. She
Invited everyone to try to drive out of her shared driveway onto Brand Road. She said that they were not
allowed a separate curb cut because the road was designated by the City as Scenic She said It shocked
her to know that they could have a subdivision entrance just to accommodate 28 vehicles on Brand Road.
She said there have been many accidents near or in her driveway. She distributed to the Commissioners
written comments and offered to speak to the developers after the meeting.
Bruce McLaughlin, 5131 Brand Road, said they lived directly across from the westernmost portion of the
development in Washington Township. He said it was not a good idea to have another curb M on Brand
Road with the amount of traffic. He said it was not far from the Coventry Woods entrance and past
Commissions and developers have already made it so that you can access this from Ballybridge Drive. He
questioned why a second access was needed for fire trucks. He said safety here should be paramount In
the Commission's considerations. Mr. McLoughlin said in conjunction, there is a nasty curb after the
entryway proposed on Brand Road, and he implored the Commission to make sure that If the developers
go forward, they somehow straighten out that curve for safety. He said that on Brand Road there are
times of the day you cannot get out of your driveway when the students leave Coffman High School. He
said in his opinion, If another curb cut is allowed, there will be more accidents.
Mr. McLoughlin asked the Commission to ask the City Engineer if he can engineer the sewer system in
such a way that all of the residents on the south side of the street might have access in the future to tap
Into the sewer system. He said he was talking about running a lateral somewhere in the area from Lot
#28 or #6. He suggested it might be the enticement that Dublin needs to get the balance of the
residents in Washington Township to annex. He said currently, there is rro reasonable way that he knew
fix them to get into the sewer system; therefore, there Is no reason to annex. He said the water is in the
street, so they have easy access to water, but if it is no too much of a problem, if the Inverts are correct,
it would certainty be a very small addition to the cost of the serer improvements to make ready for the
annexation of these lots in the future If that becomes something mutually desirable.
Kimberly Shepherd, 7412 Channonte Court, said although not Immediately Impacted by the development,
she had three young children who walk to Bailey Elementary School and she was concerned about their
safety when drivers cut through this new road to go to Ballybridge Drive, and cut over to find an
alternative route to get to Dublin Road. She asked if there was anything that could be done to mitigate
cut throughs should that occur.
Collette Feldmann, 5053 Ballybridge Drive, outlined three concerns; the setback, drainage issues, and the
trees. She said Mr. Hale had addressed their concerns about the trees. She said regarding the setback,
she understood the Community Plan requires a setback between 60 and 100 feet, and this developer has
chosen to go 130 feet. She said as homeowners and property taxpayers in the City of Dublin, they
believed that the Historic designation and the River Road designation from Brand Road was going to help
make it more scenic, not push potential homes, literally Into their backyards. She referred to item 4 in
0 "38Z /PP /PDP
Rezoning/Preliminary Plat /Preliminary
Development Plan
Wellington Reserve
1144 and Lngg nrand Rnad
Dublin Manning and Zming Commttlon
Mabel 6, 2011— Minutes
Page 5 of 12
the Planning Report analysis: The proposal is located in the City and will safeguard the value of property
within and adjacent to the area and said she did not that was true, especially considering that they are
proposing required side bad garages. She said those homes are dose to their backyards which meant
that at all hours; they will have headlights In their back yards. She said the tree line, when the vines are
removed will not screen the headlights.
Ms. Feldmann said they are all concerned about the drainage that will go down the street from these new
homes. She said the previous developer, when their homes were built, had to come back and add
French drains in order to alleviate the problem. She said additional homes will only make the problem
worse.
Ms. Feldmann said regarding the proposed setbacks, she suggested that If the Wellington Place homes
and the homes on Ballybridge Drive were looked at in relation to Brand Road, compared to the homes on
Balfour Circle, and these homes in this neighborhood were in alignment with the homes on Balfour Circe,
they would not be concerned with the setback. She said that they would feel that was a reasonable
distance, but it was not, they are literally push all the way back Into their entire backyard.
Igor Sirotin, 5215 Reddington Drive, said he was concerned about the value of their homes and what was
going to be developed to the west of this development. He was also concerned that displaced deer and
wildlife in this area might cause car accidents.
Brett Ingram, 5035 Baltybridge Drive, said that currently, he had drainage issues in his backyard. He said
from his patio, there Is a guiley, which is where his drainage goes, and then there are trees. He asked
for the drainage from the property behind them, it could be specifically written to be self -contained within
that backyard. He said from his patio, it is a two-foot drop and he would not want to have additional
water moving from time new properties into theirs. He said he and his neighbors paid for a French
drain, but it did not fully address the problem.
Mr. Ingram said if there was not an access directly to Brand Road, and there was a thought of having a
single Ballybrdge Drive access for this new neighborhood without any direct access to Brand Road, it
raises a counter safety Issue of many children on Bailybridge Drive. He said an extra house could be built
If you did not even cut over on BriarwoDd Drive and maybe extra profit in the overall effort.
Mike Ensminger, 7502 Kilbrittlan Lane, spoke on behalf of the homeowners living on his street and
Katesbridge Court whose backyards are adjacent to the aforementioned eastern edge of the proposed
development. He pointed out that a week ago, the Federal govemment reported that new home safes
fell for the fourth straight month In August, even though summer is traditionally the peak time for
homebuyer. He saki that has left many in their subdivision wondering If this Is the right time to propose
new homes build on heavily wooded land in the heart of Dublin. He said the Planning Report indicated
that these three parcels have been described both by staff and by the past developers as difficult to
profitably develop due to its unique nature character, the Lshape, as well as the heavily wooded lots.
He said as a new resklent It was his fear that some of these lots will become'McMansions', no land and
big houses, which is why they moved from Washington, D.C. He said their strong preference is that this
land remains wooded as they chose Dublin for Its commitment to keeping green and open spaces and the
beautiful that largely surrounds every development.
Mr. Ensminger said one of the most critical comments he had tonight was the need for an Increased rear
yard setback on the entire north, south, and east skies of the Wellington Reserve development. He said
a 25 -foot rear yard setback was not acceptable to them. He said It was a gorgeous parcel of land with
wildlife. He said they would request a 50 -foot minimum setback. He said the plat posted on the
Commission website actually showed up to 200 -foot long property lines and he was not sure where the
145 -foot goes. He said he liked the build -to -zone because it would assure that the houses stay closer to
the front of the street and will give the residents a nice separation between the houses. Mr. Ensminger
08- 038Z /PP /PDP
Rezoning/Preliminary Plat /Preliminary
Development Plan
Wellington Reserve
1144 and 5056 Brand Bnad
Dublin Planning and zoning commission
October 6,2011 - Mlnutes
Page 6 of 12
suggested that if the trees considered to be in poor condition are removed, that it be committed In
writing to replace those trees with some deciduous or coniferous odes, maybe staggered to create a
privacy berm between the existing and proposed developments, it would go a long way m benefiting
both the existing and future buyers of this land.
Mr. Ensminger said that the inn -foot grade difference proposed Is unacceptable. He said in March, he
had ducks living in his backyard in the water running off this property. He said a ten -foot grade
difference will only make that worse. He said he would like more details on the pipe Mr. Hale mentioned
that would be in the backyards. Mr. Ensminger said he would like to see the grade reduced to something
comparable to what exists up to a three -foot difference. He said the proposed conditions are very
ambiguous and he asked that they be tightened.
Mr. Ensminger said that Ballybridge Drive was too narrow for a school bus to pass a parked car. He said
parked cars on the street would prevent emergency access.
Mr. Ensminger said that Ms. Husak and Aaron Stanford had been fantastic in addressing their concerns
and they were appreciative of the time taken to listen to them.
Christine Gawronskl, representing the Brandon Homeowners Association, said most of their concerns had
been mentioned by Mr. Ensminger. She said overall, they were pleased that so many of their concerns
from the last few attempts were addressed in this proposal. She said R was nice to see that the
greenspace and density was met She reported that Mr. Ruma and Mr. Hale had met with them and
agreed to the 30 and 40 -foot setbacks on the homes and they were appreciative of that. She said they
wanted to emphasize a 'No Disturb Zone; keeping as a wildlife preserve, the setbacks between the
houses. Ms. Gawronski said they were happy to hear that there will be a mix of deciduous and
coniferous trees so that the winter screen will remain. She said they would like a copy of the traffic study
for the drive. She said they understood that it looked like the only place it could go and would probably
address the safety Issues.
Ms. Gawronski said both neighborhoods want the integrity of Brand Road and Dublin's commitment to its
rural character to be maintained. She pointed out that other neighborhoods in Dubin have greenspace,
ponds, and beautiful homes, however they are very manicured and sparse. She said there are those
areas in Tartan and on Brand Road by Avery that do not fit with the rest of Dublin. Ms. Gawronski said
they were requesting, as they had already mentioned to Mr. Hale and Mr. Ruma, at least 150, 2 1 /2- inches
to 3 -inch caliper trees around the front detention pond to preserve the rural character and integrity of the
look of Brand Road so that it does not look manicured, but natural. She said they agreed that there
should be restrictive covenants that the trees cannot be taken down by the homeowners on the 40- or
30 -foot setback that they have.
Marty Cirlam, 4915 Brand Road, said they had lived in their historical home for 19 years and any change
to Brand Road affects their property value. She said they liked the rural look of Brand Road and did not
like everything manicured. She said she did not think it was necessary to develop 28 more houses when
Mere are many areas that are empty. She said she did want to see the trees removed and a bunch of
signs to sell lots from her home. She said she was against this proposal.
Dana Mack 7417 Charmonte Court, a trustee of the Wellington Place Homeowners Association, said he
wanted to know what was going to be the overall mission or zoning with these three parcels; the overall
plan. He asked also if the intersection of Coffman and Brand Roads was proposed for a roundabout.
Mr. Hale said that Reserve C was to be a passive recreation area with places for people to sit or throw
hisbees. He said it would not be playfields. He said that they cannot force this on the Wellington Place
homeowners. He said they have looked at the grade, and the grades will be much closer to the
neighbors than they are on the preliminary development plan and they will be set at the final
08- 03SVPP /PDP
Rezoning/Preliminary Plat /Preliminary
Development Plan
Wellington Reserve
5144 and 5056 Brand Road
Dubin naming and Zobng Ckanmiss on
Dchker 6, 2011- Knix s
Page 7 of 12
development plan stage. He said they will try to get the grades as close to what exists as they can,
taking into consideration that this site is higher. He said they would not unnaturally buildup the grade in
any way. Mr. Hale said they also Intend to have a dry basin and plant trees in that area and reforest It
with the City's approval, with trees in the detention area to forest the set back area and make it a very
natural area.
Mr. Hale said regarding the lots that back up to Wellington Place, they made the lots on the east side of
the Wellington reserve about 190 feet, and on the other side they are about 165 feet so that the depth
was as deep as they could. He said he did not think there was a problem with Increasing that setback to
40 feet which will ghre them more room to plant. He said this subdivision will not drain towards the
neighbors. He said the houses, streets, and driveways all come Into the street. He said then there are
the areas behind and t he lawns which will be picked up with the drainage.
Steve Schehl, EMH &T, referred to the grading plan and said lowering the development to better match
the existing property was not a problem. He said when he reviewed this site hie found there were about
13 acres that fall from the west to the east with one catch basin which was a problem. He said they
propose a storm sewer along the property fine, beginning between Lots 9 and 10 with 5 to 7 inlets that
will pick up all of that flow. He said that actually outlets through the 21 -inch storm sewer between the
Goodwin and Rodriguez property. He said R will not get all the flow that Is accepted because they are
cutting off drainage coming from the west four acres through this property into the rear of those lots. He
said It would be designed as a system that picks up all of the Impervious area and takes R to the basin,
deans per Code, and then the dean water will go through the pipe into the 21 -inch storm sewer and
eventually to the river. He said that Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 will also have inlets added to spring drainage
through the basins.
Tracy Ingram, 5035 Ballybddge Drive, said they had been present In 2001, 2003, and 2008, during the
Commission hearings for this site, and they appreciated the developer trying to accommodate some of
their concerns, however she did not hear addressed the drainage In the back yards of these proposed
homes backing up along Beltybridge Drive being accommodated so that It does not come Into the existing
property.
Ms. Amorose Groomes dosed the meeting for the Commission discussion.
Amy Kramb said she thought the proposal was failing Criteria 4, 5, and 6 which address the adjacent
uses, the open space, and the natural features. She said she thought they were dose, but riot all the
way yet, because Mr. Hale mentioned Riverside Woods where a wonderful job of preserving trees was
done. She said there Is a very nice central tree preservation area In which about 90 percent of the trees
were preserved. She said she did not see a similar area on this development, which she found
disappointing because they were using the setback as an excuse to not develop the southem end of the
property. She said that was the most unattractive part of the entire property, and they were saving it for
the open space.
Ms. Kramb said no one is ever going to enjoy that area, and there is great lard on this parcel that can be
enjoyed. She said she would like to see a stand of trees preserved which unfortunately might mean one
less lot. She said personally, she would give the lower setback in front, taking it down to 90 feet on
Brand Road to give an extra lot up front, if in the back northwest corner they could preserve the good
trees on Lots 17, 18, ad 19. She said they could preserve those trees by making a small cul -de -sac at
the end of the road instead of just a stub, and should they figure out what happens to the development
on the west, maybe the road could be extended and there would be a finished road Instead of a dead -
end one at the sake of some nice trees. She said using Riverside Woods as a good example, where there
is a nice tree buffer along Hard Road, Riverside Drive, the homes backing up to Hanna Hills where they
did a wonderful job preserving all the trees. She said along Riverside Drive, some, but not all of the
rooftops can be seen. She noted that someone tonight had mentioned 30 -foot setbacks, and nowhere on
the plan submitted did she see them noted. Ms. Kramb said they needed to consider marking the tree
08- 03gz /PP /PDP
Rezoning/Preliminary Plat /Preliminary
Development Plan
Wellington Reserve
5144 and 5056 Brand Road
Dublin Planning and Zoning commission
October 6, 2011— Minutes
Page 8 of 12
preservation areas off. She said she was not happy with the dry retention basin solution. Ms. Kramb
asked If the traffic study Indicated that the intersection should be signalized or signed.
Aaron Stanford said the traffic study said what was needed to mitigate the traffic would be a left turn
lane or widening of Brand Road, but did not show in the 10 -year horizon that was studied, a need for an
Intersection improvement being a roundabout or a traffic signal. He said the new roadway would be stop
controlled.
Ms. Kramb said she did not know for 28 houses that they needed to create a new curb cut on Brand
Road, but she had not read the traffic study. She said her first thought was that traffic be routed down
the existing street. She said the new homeowners will have children also, so especially if they become
members of the same homeowners association, they are not going to speed down the neighborhood
streets and will be courteous to those walking down the street as well.
Ms. Amorose Groomes requested that Mr. Stanford speak with Mr. Mack regarding his question about a
roundabout after the meeting.
John Hardt referred to the neighbors' Concerns about stormwater and explained that the City has
regulations In place that apply to every site in the City stipulating that stonnwater from one site cannot
run across the property line onto another. He said the stonnwater plan submitted showed seven
stormwater catch basins along the western edge of this site, which from an engineering perspective, are
designed to catch the water from the undeveloped Washington Township land that is currently flowing in
their direction. He said another eight catch basins are shown along the eastern side of the site, and all
are connected by underground stone pipes that range from 12 inches in diameter, flowing down into the
pond. Mr. Hardt said he was comfortable that the problem has been solved and that the City Engineer
will scrutinize everything to make sure that the way R is being designed by the developer is consistent
with the City regulations, and R will function as it is intended. Mr. Hardt said that he was comfortable
that it will make things better than R is now and he was not terribly worried about it at this time.
Mr. Hardt saki regarding the access, it was not focused that the Engineering Department is requiring a
left turn lathe on Brand Road, which tells him that any cars needing to turn into this development will
have a place to go to get out of traffic. He said he was not sure that two ways into this development
where needed. He said right now, there is a proposal for a curb cut on Brand Road and a tie-in at
Balybridge Drive, and he did not have an opinion yet on which Is the better option. He saki he would
like to see the traffic study to know how many vehicles and trips these 28 homes will produce before he
forms his opinion.
Mr. Hardt said the setback on Brand Road is confusing to him because the Community Plan calls for 60 to
100 feet, the neighborhood to the east has 100 feet, and this proposal Is for 130 feet, and he was not
Gear from what he heard tonight, who is asking for the 130 -foot, why, where is it written, and what is
the requirement.
Ms. Husak explained that in the 2007 Community Plan the River Character streets are stipulated to have
a minimum setback of 60 to 100 feet. She explained that they were meeting Code by being more than
100 feet, at the developer's discretion.
Mr. Hardt said the Commission has heard tonight that supposedly promises were made about larger
setbacks at the rear yards, and 30 feet and 40 feet where the numbers mention, but the documents In
front of the Commission indicate they are 20 feet which does not sound like the right number. He said
whatever it is, it should be a tree preservation zone, not simply a setback.
Mr. Hardt said he belkved that single family homes on this site are consistent with the Community Plan,
and it is probably the right thing to do. He said it was certainly better than the proposals seen in the
08- 038Z /PP /PDP
Rezoning/Preliminary Plat/Preliminary
Development Plan
Wellington Reserve
5166 and Smg Rmnd Rnod
Dublin Manning and Zoning Commission
October 6, 2011 — Minutes
Page 9 of 12
past. He said there were many discrepancies regarding the rear setbacks, the one -foot Issue on the side
yards for skle- loaded garages, the confusion about tree replacemeit, and the diversity matrix had an
error. He said at a minimum, he would like to see everything cleaned and polished before he would vote
on this proposal.
Richard Taylor agreed with the other Commissioners regarding the stormwater and tree preservation
Issues. He said one concern he had was with the location of the drive. He said just looking at the
character of Brand Road from Dublin Road to Jerome High School, there are very few access points. He
said there is nothing from Brand Road until you get to Coventry Woods and nothing from Coventry
Woods to Coffman, nothing from Coffman until Brandonway, and on and on. He said he had concerns
about adding small bits of road here and there on an existing road that has a rural character.
Mr. Taylor said the L -shape sliver of land with a lot of available undeveloped land adjacent to it was his
biggest concern, but that was beyond the control of the Commission. He said according to this plan,
there had been some consideration that some day that land might become available and can be
connected, and if this current road plan were accepted, and additional land to the west was acquired as
part of this, there is going to be another curb cut onto Brand Road connecting this. He said in a perfect
world, he would be much happier seeing all of that land as one neighbodtood with one access onto Brand
Road, but he saw this as adding another potential road in the future because he could not imagine It
would continue to a large cul-de-sac or large loop that never exits onto Brand Road again.
Mr. Taylor said he agreed with the existing residents of the area about the currant danger on Brand Road
because it is narrow and additional traffic was potentially a problem.
Mr. Taylor said he agreed that along Brand Road the character needs to be park -like and not just a
manicured grove of trees. He noted that there was nothing included about the Intent of the landscaping
of the development Itself In the future which comes with the final development plan, but he would like to
know its intent. He wanted to know if there was any Intent to do any kind of neighborhood -wide
landscaping at the street.
Mr. Taylor referred to the 100 -foot setback for the Ballybridge Drive lots and said his concern was that he
appreciated the residents' concerns with the lot size, but the existing lots he saw on the south side were
actually shorter than the new lots being proposed.
Mr. Taylor said he could see about a 10 -foot difference between the grade running north to south that
backs up to Kilbrittain Lane and Katesbridge Court. He pointed out that In a different kind of
development and layout, that grade could be used to the advantage of this development and the streets
could be shaped to complement that to make that work with It. He said if this proposal goes ahead, they
are just painting the whole thing with lots, and If that was the case, he could not see any reason that
cannot be graded relatively Bat and remove the bump so those properties are down closer to the
elevation of the existing homes behind them.
Mr. Taylor saki regarding the side yards, he was concerned about the driveways being too close, not bo
each other, but to the property line In the sense they would have one foot, unless they create a condition
where two side - loaded garages cannot face each other, there could be two driveways two feet apart. He
pointed out that It was not only an aesthetic problem, but a big drainage problem because the properties
in any subdivision like this have to drain between them and then off the property. He said he was not
close to accepting having driveways two feet apart, especially for houses this big.
Ms. Husak explained that the development text currently requires the hedge treatment for courtyard
garages that are three garages deep, and Planning would like to include the hedge treatment for
courtyard garages that are two garages deep.
08- 0382 /PP /PDP
Rezoning/Preliminary Plat /Preliminary
Development Plan
Wellington Reserve
5144 and 5056 Brand Road
Dublin Manning and Zoning Commisson
October 6, 2011— Minutes
Page 10 of 12 '
Mr. Taylor referred to a notation from staff that 9 the developer does not want to build the bikepath they
can contribute money in lieu. He said at some later meeting, he would like to be updated on the status
of the Brand Road bikepath. He said If there is to be a bikepath; it needs to be constructed when this
development is built.
Mr. Taylor asked if there was any specificity as to what the 30 -inch wall at the courtyards could be.
Ms. Husak explained that it would be a final development detail required to be submitted.
Mr. Taylor noted that these single - family lots are significantly larger than the existing lots in the area, and
that had to do with not only the front, back, and side setbacks, but that the lot coverage was 50 percent.
He pointed out in the rest of the City, the residential lot coverage was 45 percent. Mr. Taylor made some
calculations that illustrated what the difference In the 5 percent more lot coverage entailed. Mr. Taylor
said he was not yet prepared to vote.
Joe Budde said he agreed with Ms. Kramb about the tree preservation zone, and he liked the concept.
He said he too, was not ready to make a decision about the curb cut to Brand Road. He said he thought
having the entrance on Ballybridge Drive would be a viable option, but he would like to know more.
Warren Fishman said he thought that the one -foot setback was completely out of the question. He said
regarding lot coverage, he disagreed because he did not pre how big the houses were, but he did not
think there should be more than a 40 percent lot coverage which most of the Dublin developments have,
not 45 percent which Is a huge difference. He said that a 40 percent lot coverage would eliminate many
of the other problems discussed. Mr. Fishman said that they had to be very careful with a No Build Zone
because about five years ago City Council allowed swing sets to be placed In them. He said It was
amazing that the swing sets seem to have killed the trees.
Mr. Fishman referred to the dry pond being proposed instead of a wet pond. He said he only knew of a
few Dublin dry ponds that were as attractive as wet ponds. He said he was definitely against a dry pond
and recommended a beautiful, heavily landscaped wet pond instead because this was on Brand Road.
Mr. Fishman said he and Mr. Zimmerman thought Ballybridge should run across this and it should be cut
through in the first phase. He said he was undecided about the curb cut on Brand Road bemuse It might
not be needed If this is developed that on the west, there is Ballybridge and the rear street to get
through the development. He said more curb cuts were certainly not needed on Brand Road.
Mr. Fishman said that the bikepath was needed instead of the money.
Todd Zimmerman said he definitely was set on the 130 -foot setback from Brand Road. He said he would
like entrances on Brand Road and Baltybridge Drive. He said that Ballybridge Drive was designed to be a
street to connect, not an entrance to a development. He said when an entrance is proposed on Brand
Road across from residential, such as was at the Conine property on Summitview Road, the entrance was
lined up to a house across the street for safety. He said he believed Mr. Hale represented the developer
on that project and they landscaped across the street for light transparency across the street He
suggested that should be done for the Hublers and the other residence, but It was between them and
this developer. Mr. Zimmerman said that for the side - loaded garages he wanted the setback to meet
Code. He said he hoped that Ballybridge Drive will be phased In with Phase 1 of the development. He
pointed out that wet pond maintenance would be a lower cost for the 28 homeowners in the association.
Mr. Zimmerman confirmed that the standard lot coverage in Dublin was 45 percent.
Mr. Zimmerman said he understood Mr. Taylor's concern and one way to eliminate some of the problem
Is to eliminate a couple of lots and make the lots 95 -feet wide.
08 -o38Z /PP /PDP
Rezoning/Preliminary Plat /Preliminary
Development Plan
Wellington Reserve
5144 and 5056 Brand Road
Dublin Marring and Zoning Commission
Ochiber 6, 2011 - Minutes
Page 11 of 12
Mr, Fishman recalled that Tartan West had a 50 percent lot coverage, but there was a huge area around
it that had common properties and that was why that coverage was allowed.
Mr. Fishman said regarding the setback on Brand Road, the 100 -foot setback had been that way for 30
years. He said it was not put in writing, but R was ItadItion that there was to be a 100 -foot setback
minimum on Brand Road. He recalled recently that a variance was granted for a Coventry Wands house
addition that was proposed to be a few feet into the Brand Road setback and it was very controversial.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she would like Mr. Hale to meet with Mr. McLoughlin later to discuss the
sewer Issues which are not part of the Commission's discussion tonight.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she had concerns with the connectivity to the west and the uncertainty of
that parcel of land is not this landowner's problem, but it is the responsibility of the Commission to
consider. She said she, too would be aggrieved to see more curb cuts along Brand Road. She said she
would like to see the capability of those existing roads, particularly Bellybridge Drive of handling EMS
traffic. She said she would like to hear from emergency services what it would take to make it safe. She
said she would be more willing to have a curb cut If there was no other way to provide that safety.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she liked the courtyard garages, but she would be opposed of setting a
minimum of a one -foot side yard. She said she appreciated the thought of the courtyard garages if they
wanted to maintain a side bad kind of appearance without having to mitigate the side load areas. Ms.
Amorose Groomes said she believed a lot coverage of 45 percent would resolve some of the probtems.
She said she would like to know the setbacks for all of the existing homes so that the Commission can
make sure that they require at least that of the new homes, and hopefully more.
Ms. Husak said that the side yard setbacks are the same and the front yard setbacks have a 30 -foot build
line so there Is a little more by ten feet. She said the tames backing up to this property have a 25 -foot
No Build Zone required and the setback requirement in this neighborhood is 20 percent of the lot depth,
so It Is different, depending upon the lot depth. She said usually, they have the 25 -foot No Build Zone
and on tap of that they have a rear yard setback that could vary a little.
Ms. Amorose Groomes requested that the greatest be calculated and they would use the highest
watermark.
Mr. Zimmerman asked what the depth of the lots was.
Ms. Husak said the adjacent lots are 125 feet deep and the average was about 135 feet deep.
Ms. Amorose Groomes would like to see the Information so that these residents can be assured that the
requirements of their incoming neighbors are at least what they have, if not greater.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was in favor of a No Disturb Zone versus a setback In the rear so that
even if there were no trees because they died, they still could not have a play set in that location.
Ms. Husak said that Planning's preference was currently a tree protection zone because a in a No Disturb
Zone there Is no clearing of evasive species allowed, and in Deer Run they have proposed tree
preservation zones with language that was in the development text.
Ms. Amorose Groomes pointed out that dry detention basins are very difficult to maintain. She suggested
It be handled in another way; maybe with a rain garden or something of that nature. She said a wet
basin would be nice if there is enough room on the site for a living environment that is sustainable.
08- 03SVPP /PDP
Rezoning/Preliminary Plat/Prellminary
Development Man
Wellington Reserve
5144 and 5056 Brand Road
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commkslon
October 6, 2011 — Minutes
Page 12 of 12
Ms. Amorose Groomes said her rough calculation resulted In around 190 caliper inches of Ash trees. She
requested that when an application for the final development plan is submitted, those trees need to be
calculated into the tree requirements for the balance. She said did not see any evidence of them being
treated, so they will likely perish in the next 18 months.
Mr. Hale said they had received sufficient guidance and requested a tabling so that they could meet with
staff to work through the issues and meet with both homeowners associations again afterwards to make
sure the concerns are addressed to the extent they can.
Ms. Amorose Groomes thanked everyone and said that this is going to be a better project by their
participation.
Motion and Vote
Mr. Hardt made a motion to table this rezoning with preliminary development plan and preliminary plat.
Mr. Zimmerman seconded.
The vote was as follows: Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Taylor, yes; Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Buckle, yes;
Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Hardt, yes. (Tabled 7 - 0.)
08- 0382 /PP /PDP
Rezoning/Preliminary Plat /Preliminary
Development Plan
Wellington Reserve
5144 and sns6 Brand Rnnrl
CM OF DUBM
rra.r
aaw�a�e�iun
eby9axelwgelp
rw,eae rseuero-oa
�s
aawlaP •taaecr
PLANNING AND ZONING COM USSION
RECORD OF ACTION
NNE 19, 2008
The Plamling and Zomag Commission took no action on the following case, at this mo&jrj :
6. WeiDagton Reserve 5144 Bn®d Read 08A;8CP/Z Concept Plan
proPosial: A Subdivision with 30 residn" duster lots for land currently
zoned R, Rural District and R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential
District, located on the north side of Brand Road, approximately
700 fact west of COVeotry Woods Drive.
Request: Review Of a concept plan under the Planned District provisions of
Code Section 153.050.
Applicant: Kolby Tumack, Casm: represented by Smith and Hale LI.C.
Planing Correct: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Plainer 11.
Contact Information: (614) 410-0675, chusekedubtiaohus
RESULT: This case was postponed prior to the meetiog. There was on discussion of vote
taken
STAFF CERTIFICATION
p..sfx<D �cl
dsudia D. Hosak, AICP
Planner 11
C
08- 038Z/PP /PDP
Rezoning/Preliminary Plat /Preliminary
Development Plan
Wellington Reserve
5144 and 5056 Brand Road
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Cl RECORD OF ACTION
SEPTEMBER 2, 2004
C[TY OF DUBLIN.
enals a,w
aeaabanml u
lrhl� elY exlFlrlr
tlsa6I4A1040
rrc tIH1aVV
tyt }a:w6Wim
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting:
3. Concept plau/Rezoning 03.153CP/Z — Brand Road Development (a." We0129101
Reserve)
Location: 18.584 acres located on the north side of Brand Road, approximately 700 feet
east of Coffman Road.
C Existing Zoning: R, Rural and R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential Districts.
Request: Review and approval of a rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District
under the provisions of Section 153.050.
Proposed Use: A single - family residential development of 27 lots and 1.8 -acres of
paridand.
Applicant: CF Brand LLC, 5056 Brand Road, Dublin, Ohio 43017; represented by Ben
Hale, Jr., Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, Ohio 43215.
Staff Contact: Anne Wanner, Senior Planner.
MOTION: To table this Concept Plan/Rezoning application as requested by the applicant's
representative, Aaron Underhill, Smith and Hale.
VOTE: 6.0.
RESULT: This case was tabled as requested by the applicant's representative, Aaron Underhill,
Smith and Hale.
STAFF CERTIFICATION
� 1 %
Daniel p Bid FAlCP
Planning Director
C
08- 038z/Pp /PDP
Rezoning/Preliminary Plat /Preliminary
Development Plan
Wellington Reserve
5144 and 5056 Brand Road
Dublin Planning sad Zoning Commis
blueness — September 2, 2004
Page Z
C M< Gesber was vary w;th thin area H awed probl as being a
had would pay for the am 25
He said anfotdmate dtd not know' was any to ever fm it 'd be
• th the Other 'SSlanfd5 that o -wiv a R em was e was percav whb this
oa He aid wi hasOA air. there was y ample for another
He thought area cotmneme duxets diet an bank was Howaver, he
thought this would nm He suggested properties to the of north of ft th
site would better. However mtght the arehiteetme ' If wa a "home ry4"
Mr. iditwajamin wrong plane.
Mr Ile thanked the ' 'on and sai a appreciated the'
Gerhes said budding was nice. He said ly, the ion's discasi
center more a the building dc. and the is not much of data. He said
site wa n t, there is no to go forward it
Mr. be again said eppredated the mmission's o ns. He eated the
on, saying had an exce phanser wlao this ' hearing He
comp' ila Commiamc0 the info®al ' g berm ne gee . they go through
entha process a tat of eaght etc and the of dollars y to be told no.
.
W. aid that wa wit ere sues an inf application He said all tarmers
wen , but Mr. Nola f amete to with Ms.
C Nolte again d he appreci Commission' time and input He thanked the
Commission fo positive is shout tla
2. orridor Develo t District 04 DD — Ken Met — 6611
S Road
o cation or vote taken m this 'des Wes at the request of spit cant
3. Congest Plan/Rezoning 03.153CP/Z — Brand Road Development (a.k.a. Weihugtnn
Reserve)
Aaron Underhill, Smith and Flak, a0nmey representing the applicant, said based on the staff
report and the wort needed, especially in respect to getting this development up to speed with
the conservation design tier staff has recommended. Day would like to table this application.
Mr. Gerber said at this cans' initial aw staff had recommended diapprovd. He said there
were many outstanding issues remaining. He assumed that the applicant would be Working with
staff and the residents as requested.
Mr. Underhill said they were aware of some of the neighbors' issues and would like to work with
them.
C
08- 0382 /PP /PDP
Rezoning/Preliminary Plat /Preliminary
Development Plan
Wellington Reserve
5144 and 5056 Brand Road
C
E41
C
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Mimam — September 2, 2004
Pap
Mr. Craber said it was always very important to hew ftem residents. The Camnission wants to
know what they are [hinting. However, this cox could eome back lodcmg very diFfi than it
does now. He aid to take bestimnny tonight would be promotion at this point He apologized to
those in the audumee who wished to speak. He said no mechanism was in Vim to bear
comments when there is not in effect as ease befine the Commission. He said when this
application [clams, Were will be time to talk about it He suggested that speakers leave their
names with the plainer, Arm: Wasa r, who will keep them up to date. He invited diem to share
with her any facts to be considered in the process.
Mr. Gerber made the motion to table this Concept Pleo/Rtmaing application, and Mr.
Zimmerman wounded We motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Messioeo, yes; W. Sp iga.
yes: Ma Baring, yes: Ma. Reiss, yep Mr. Zimmer man, yes; and Mr. Dater, yes (fabled 6-0.)
4. Desdopmant
and D
. (iabc said this Was a rep"
PUD, Planed UVrIbevelopumd
plan nom' consideration
*on, arglalkaute, etc. by Way]
may pp6ed to City Counoi W
Mark ZuppooZ*" presented
Tart es4 Seedan 4, P 1 aZSu
and approval of a developme provisions of 153.056 The f nal details of prged including
e said following vnl the applicant
Pte•
'fy on this cam
said to this development matched the
the only 'ssion was the platted with
Mr. Zuppo said S as C and D ate for 50 single- roes on 54 acres dading
13 acres of This plan b 50 single-family es with two saes opensl e
Tartan West' in the northwest of Dublin, at soudrean Corner 0 gland -Croy and
McKitvi cads. This site is trally I 'thin the T artan devdopmem with
some a on McKibi oad. He said lots bounding the te to the trorWa�ert
curry a t aoniog. He a allele of the S Plan. He aid is a
required 200 -foot ack from McKi ' In addition, is a 50 -foot for all
IM within S C and D along Drive.
Mr. Zu said Subarea D lots that were to have a minim fioubWHesmdft
and um size of 13 square feet S C has 19 lob m®mum
feet. Flo said along Common . a 50 -Soot aired and a
to 35 -foot required except there is a bi tli The b'
north/south alo the wen side of D Ito Drive req ' 30- to 35 -foot
bikepat6 along the wrest side Donatello Delve, ugh the reserve d w1R connect to
futma ' epaths along Rood. Mr. Zu said Wet a 25 -foot isbub, oo•buildyftr
oce savation maze is Dived to the rear f all the lots a . .steel m the plat /fhe
08- 0362 /PP /PDP
Rezoning/Preliminary Plat /Preliminary
Development Plan
Wellington Reserve
5144 and 5056 Brand Road
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
O RECORD OF ACTION
JUNE 10, 2004
CITY OF DUBLIN.
aiNAaaeVm
Rrax.%* W
tli.01m4Mu,)M
P6 .V441040
W 61441ae41
Mhifi l4enn
The Planning and Zoning Commission took an action on the following at this meeting:
1. Informal Review 04-0 MF— Wellington Reserve —Brood Road
Location: 1 5.584 aces locathd on the north side of Bond Road, approximately 700 fax
east of Coffman Road.
Existing Zoning: R, Rural and R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential Districts.
Request: Review of three site plan options for conformance with the conservation
design resolution.
Proposed User The following two options for residential development are proposed:
1. Option l : A residential development consisting 29 single•family lots, and g.4
acres of open space (Conservation).
2. Option 2 : A residential development consisting of 29 single - family lots, and
3.7 acres of open space (Conventional).
3. Option 3. A residentiali development consisting of 29 single6imily lots, and
3.7 acres of open space (Combination of Conservation and Conventional).
ApplicauL CF Brand, LLC, 5056 Brand Road, Dublin, Ohio 43017; represented by Ben
Hale, Jr., Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, Ohio 43215; and
Linda Menerey, 2577 Andover Road, Upper Arlington, OH 43221.
Staff Contact. Anne Warmer, Senior Planner.
RESULT: There was no vote or action taken on this informal discussion. The Commissioners
stated that the ultimate design should incorpomie conservation design and that a new site plan
should be created
STAFF
Frank A. Ciamchi
Acting Planning Director
V
08- 038Z /PP /PDP
Rezoning/Preliminary Plat /Preliminary
Development Plan
Wellington Reserve
5144 and 5056 Brand Road
Dublin Planning and Zoning CS mmiss
Minutes —June 10, 2004
Page 3
*0 on on
on conduct anothta c hearing to approve other am; C .such es 8. He said io fit eiopnow based on a prior Anye
who' nda m address the 'on on any of cases maul he swum
1. Informal Review 04.082R4F —Wellington Reserve —Brand Read
Rick Gerber announced that this was an infomal ease, which meant than was up to a 30- minute
limit for the mere. He said this was a review of three site plans for conformance with the
Conservation Design Resolution.
Arm Warner said this was an informal review for a single - family lad division on Brand Road.
She said staff bas been working with the applicant for some time, and the design has made a lot
of progress owe the applicant began the rezoning application process.
The site is located north of Brand Road, approximately 700 fact Bari of Coffman Road. She
showed an aerial slide of the 18. 584 -acre site. She said it was comprised of thms parcels. Ma
Warner said them is a significant number of existing even. Developed subdivisions are to the
east of this rite and these are estate lots within the township, located to the west and to tle soon.
The aite is currently word R, Rural and R-1, Remitted Suburban Residential Diatrids.
Wellington Subdivision is zoned PLR, Moved Low Density Residential District and
surrounding zoning includes PUD, Planned Unit Development District to the norlh. Adjacent
township land is not incorporated into Dublin.
C Ms. Wanner said them am three options being considered and all three consist of 29 dogk-
family lots with varying opeospace. The layouts ere all very similar. They are laid out with a
cal de me street rum noNJsouth and an extension of Valleybddge Drive to convect to an
existing stub. All time plans have openspace located towards Brand Road. and there is apond in
the general openspace area proposed.
t0° ton' I contains 29 lots. Ms. Wanner said the applicant considers this option their
Conservation Design option. It includes 8.4 acres of openspace, which is approximately 45
percent of the total ama AR lots are adjacent to the openspam There is a narrow fret
preservation aura located behind the lots and they do cot mat the subdivision diversity
regulations or the 200 -foot setback.
Oo ioa 2 is entitled Conventional Development Ms. Wander said it has typical lot widths,
which match those in the adjacent subdivision (approximately 80 fat). Ms. Warmer said it
meets the Subdivision Diversity Code. A nn-dishub area could be located behind the lots to
preserve the trees, which are significant. Ms. Warmer said this layout is slightly deferent than
Option 1 in that it shows two lots with a shared drive access from the proposed cul- de-sac mad.
She said those lots would face Brand Road and then have access from the frontage road. Most of
the home pads will be located outside the 200 -1cot setback, except one.
Qption L is considered Combination Development. It provides 3.7 acres of openspam located
towards Brand Road and meets the Subdivision Diversity Regulations for setbacks and lot depth,
08- 030Z /PP /PDP
Rezoning/Preliminary Plat /Preliminary
Development Plan
Wellington Reserve
5144 and 5056 Brand Road
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Names — June 10, 2004
Page 4
but not lot width. Me, Wan= said the lots ware all basically 90 feet in width, paralleling
C development to the cuL She said a no-disturb tree preservation, area could be located to the tear
of these lots because they mat subdivision diversity regulations for lot dep h. Two lots are
ad o=at to the frontage street and would face Brand Road. Ms. Wenner said all an lots ate
outside of the 200 -foot sedack
W. Warner showed slides of the site. She said structures existed on the site and included a
Lome. Thera a a significant tree row directly adjacent to the Wellington sabtl=nom which staff
wish= to preserve and possibly put a nadhazub save within the opeoagace. To the west is
another signifaat tree stand with mature trees. Ma Waxer said staff fools this area is one of
the last tree stands in this general Dublin location. The stub muds at a significant tree row.
Ma Warmer said staff is pleased with bow the applicant has progressed with &a process. She
and the applicant u looking for criminal feedback to verify if conservation design is wamn[ed
on this site, consistent with the Conservation Dew Resolution ordinance. She said each of the
plans has dick own mail, but come of tie plans meet all of the Dublin ordinances and mgubm, i
that are in plae at this lima.
Ms. Wanner said staff recognizes that the subdivision ordaces allows for a variation of lot
widths to encourage arol itoclsal diversity. She said side - loaded garages, ate better sited on a
100 -foot lot tva on an Minor lot, and saff would encourage the subdivision diversity
tegdaton to stay in place, as well as, the 200 -£loot setback along Brand Road She =id the
padded seems to be in line with Code, however, the two lots facing Brand Road could possibly
C provide an awkward layout for those property own= in the fishim,
She said staff does not believe the site knits itself to a very strict application of the Conservation
Resolution and recommends that the uhimste aite plan thither incorporate all the Cod= for
setbacks, subdivision diversity, and tree preservation.
Ms. Boring said they should be very careful in calling Option 1 conservation, because of the
minimum sin of greenspace. She bad difficulty in considering this option for conservation
d=igs
Mr. Gerber said typcally diving informal reviews the Commission does not permit public
participation because of the brevity of the review. However, he agreed the two people who had
signal the speaker sheet could provide comments.
Entice Mcl. u din, 5151 Brand Road, said he has lived directly across the sheet from this site
for 23 years and did not oppose Out development. He commented that rile people developing
this have been (mown to do some gat things and some thaz wee not so great Mr. McLoughlin
requested that die development teat give an in-depth in the kind and tier of louses built and
materials used He said the most important concern he lad was the road tat came out onto
Brand Road. He at first, thought it made sense that the in department may need it as an
additional entryway into the subdivision. However, he said them was adequate access from the
east on the extension of the road and he saw no reason why another road should be brought one
C Brand Road to service 29 lots. He said there is plenty of access off Brand Road through the two
0"38Z/PP /PDP
Rezoning/Preliminary Plat /Preliminary
Development Plan
Wellington Reserve
5144 and 5056 Brand Road
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Wfmutes — drone 10, 2004
Page 5
existing subdwisiooa. He thought the toad should be made a dad de sac. He said where die
C emryway was proposed, them was a very significant bond in Brand Road which might lead to
safety problems with traffic.
Mr. McLoughlin said the staff report aided on the second pegs that the ul6made rightaf- -way
width for Brand Road was 90 feu per the thoroughfare Plan. He reed Bathes fmen the staff
report: Additional right -of -way may be required along Brand Road due to the required loft turn
lane along Brand Read at the entrance of the project He drought the applicant should make
access through the subdivision in the beak and not allow access onto Brand Road.
W. Gerber told Mr. McLoughlin if this ease would come back to the Commission for a formal
review, he would, as an adjo®g property be notified of subsequent hearings.
Frank Pegna ta, 7465 Katesbridge Court, Wellington Place subdivision, concturod wilt Mr.
Me[mugh in in the feet that a nice job had been done with the ioital proposals. He also
conned that the Commission should consider placing some heavy design restrktions and
accountability standards on this development, based on past history with this developer. He
commented drat he liked the fad that tree preservation has been a cunaged, especially in the no
disnnb arms in Options 2 and 3. He said that was one of the biggest concerns, and obviously,
Dublin bas done a great job of preserving noes through history . Mr. Paguta said for the
properties in Wellington Place on the south edge, backing up to Brand Road, them was a
documented problem where they collaborated with the City and the Wellington Place developer
to take care of some drainage problems. He warded to make aura that was considered in this
C design Mr. Pagmatta asked that the developer net with the association, possibly even the
Brandon Civic Association because many people will be affected
Mr. Gerber said if this case goes forward fire surrounding property owners are notified by staff of
the date There will be ample opportunity for those concerned to speak at the Commission and
City Council meetings.
Bret Ingram, 5035 Vail ybridge Drtve, said he understood the concern of the frost commmt Mr.
McLmghlin regarding the Brand Road entrance, he had the alternative concern of a Balleybridge
Drive entrance in terms of the through traffic. He said his concern was regarding the enhance
and the continuation of Valleyl ridge Drive into this new subdivision,
Mr logreo said Ibe setback along the adjacent properties was a uran macs concern. They
would be concerned about the setback and the disssnce from the property line of the other homes
to the other side.
Ben W. Hale said he was preset to speak in behalf of the applicant He said they agreed with
staff that a lot of progress had been made. He said they still had a tittle work to do. However, he
said they agreed with Ms. Boring, that one of the things that the new conservation design
resolution required them to do was to do a plan that was in compliance. He said they did net
think that was the plan that should occur on this site.
C
0"38Z /PP /PDP
Rezoning/Preliminary Plat /Preliminary
Development Plan
Wellington Reserve
5144 and 5056 Brand Road
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
K'inutes —June 10, 2004
Page 6
Mr. Hale add they also "deed to the Township about the property to ON west in regard to park
C " purposes. He said they were tom that the Township was verypedem, and they hoped to own the
property to the west eventually. Mr. Hale said these had been discussion whether the stub to the
west should be a abed or same tied of walkway. He thought the Towoeldp's position was that
the cmtent residents do not want to seii, but sooner or Was the property will come on the market
He sdd the a aM thing m do dwm is the wanm4W, as opposed to db nkiog that someone will take
mother street over He said they made the walkway wide enough so it an work either way.
He said with respect to the two lots facing Brand Road with a shard drives there was sufficient
f on er them that both of the lots could have an individual drive because they both have
6ovtage on the toed. He said they thought they could do a joint drive agreement m they could
provide joint mdividtml drives to those two Iota.
Mr. Hale and they beard the residents about the design, and would address their concerns. He
maid would develop houses comparable to theirs.
Mr. Sprague asked for staff comments regarding the bead to Bmml Road and the access drive.
He wondered if the street could be teaofigmed to save trey and give a continuing vista.
Linda Meaay, Link Meoery Design, said she would not say am than two sentences because
she thought Ms. Wearer had covered it do Wy and Mr. Hale had most of the other issues. She
reminded everyone that there is a single cul-de-sac and the lot depth is about Igo feet, and those
to the east of them save about 130 fed in depth. She said there is a lot of opportunity for
C preservation on the mar of all lots.
Mr. Gerber asked the Commissioners if they thought this was suitable for conservation design.
Ms. Boring said she thought they had mentioned that properties under a oartem acreage did not
However, she said they are still serving wry much in Dublin to have something diHaont. She
thought this was not appropriate. Ms. Boring resulted the 200.400t setback along Brand Road
was imperative. Secondly, she thought they needed to get rid of some houses an that they do
look IOse something diBaent . Thirdly, she thought the land did not lend itself o housing at all.
She thought that was probably a mute point on dart
Ma Boring asked what kind of expense would there be to follow the Tree Ordinance. Ms.
Wanner said a tree waiver had been discussed.
Ma. Boring said she did not see a good example of conservation and did not know what one
would be because she was not a phana. Me. Boring thought this was probably too small of a
space for conservation design. She said the absoluaes were the 200 -font setback and reducing the
number of lots.
Mr. Timmerman said he would like to see what it would look like with everything at the
conservation design level. He said 200 -foot setback was a given for Brand Road He said he sat
at a conservation design meeting for four hours last night and he redly wanted to see it
implemented here. This site is almost 19 acres and it had a lot of woods. He said if they had to
08- 038Z /PP /PDP
Rezoning/Preliminary Plat /Preliminary
Development Plan
Wellington Reserve
5144 and 5056 Brand Road
Dublin planning and Zoning Commissi
Minutes —.lane 10, 2004
Page 7
cut some Iota and ratomfigute a dif grant design that is what it is all about. He wormed to we a
C gad effort
Mr. Messinco asked if the access onto Brand Road was adevelopm request or staff requirement
Barb Cox said not bavimg an access point to Brand Road had mot ben discussed. She said she
definitely would want to take it up with the WashiagWa Township Fire Department. The overall
layout of the other subdivision had many lots and based on the Fire Code, the mare lots that am
accessed fiom a single point, the higher the probability that that there is going to be an acculc t
someplace so they cannot get the EMS people in thee. Mt Cox agreed to consider that She
said if this comes for rezo they need a MdEic study and part of that will be looking at the
sight distances on Brand Road to make sore that is a safe access point
W. Sprague said normally he was a big advocate of multiple iegreeas points for EMS, but ones in
a while there may be something to counter it or eliminate it
Mr. Mnseiaeo asked if it was still an option or a possibility. Ms. Cox said yes, ban Until she
spoke with the fire department, looked at the numbers, and checked how many scoessed offthe
entry point already to the east of this site, she would not want to go through that exercise.
W. Gerber suggested that the temamder of the time be spent offering comments to the applicant.
Mr. Messineo asked if Option 2 was compliant with Dublin's haditioual xoaing Code.
G Ma. Wanner asked if he was hill l ng about the two side lots fronting Brand Road. Mr. Messineo
said yet Ms. Wane said typically, residential lots need about a 60-fom lot width along the
rigffi -of -way of a public mad. As shown, she said these lots are between 40 and 50 feet wide, so
they do not corojily.
Mr. Messinco said Lot 29 was totally within the setback. He said basically, none of these
designs really comply, even with the traditional zoning code.
Mr_ Berber said the fast question the applicant had was are they looking at a conservation design
for this site, or are t hey looking more towards Options 2 or 3 which are name traditional. He
said fw many reasons they may not meet the Code. He avid these applicants had been here
before and they knew well what they had to do to comply. b1r. Gerber said the applicants were
shopping name tonight for a concept that the Commission liked so that they could go beck,
design it, and begin the process
Mt Reia4 said she was a believer that you could do conservation development on any lot
anywhere interesting or uninteresting. She said she believed a conservation development could
be done on this site. However, she acknowledged that this was an odd - shaped toy making it
difficult to get anything exciting going on it 'Mere are lots of trees. The Commission wants to
preserve tors, but also it runs to the difficulty of sighting buildings and streets on the property.
Ms. Reiss said she absolutely armed with the other Commissioners that they have to keep the
C 20D -foot setback. A couple of lots may have to be lost is order to maintain that 200-foot setback
08-038Z /PP /PDP
Rezoning/Preliminary Plat /Preliminary
Development Plan
Wellington Reserve
5144 and 5056 Brand Road
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes —Jose 10, 2004
Page 8
Ms Reiss said of the three options, she liked Option 1 best. She had questions who would own
C *a apempece. On any of the options, them looked like them would be significant opeospece to
bier. She asked if it would be left natural or would it be a manicured situation. She also agreed
with W. Zimmerman, she would like to see an option where the, is ashy 50 pin opemyrece
to see what it would look Hke.
lift. Hale said they were not opposed to that He said the lot Sizes were comparable in width and
greeaer m depth. He said they would do some sort of single - family cluster thing where the lots
are smaller, it is a differs Lome type, not neeaus rily a different value.
He said before they come back to the Commission, they would go to the civic associations with
mother design to let them knew the options and express which they would supper
Ma Boring reminded the neighborhoods to be concerned what a between them and the other
(muse. She said the small let size should net be a major concern to adjacent neighbors.
Ms. R®ss also mentioned to the neighbors that a smaller lot size did net mesa that they would
have mere houses, it just meant they would be smaller lots. It would be the same number, or
possibly fewer boom than what is being shown onight
]silt Reiss believed as many existing trees as losable trey should be preserved. She said she
would rather sue a common area owned by the city or homeowner association thin a deep lot
She hated to Put nee disturb zones on people's property because then was loss control. She said
C by the time you find out someone decided to clear every two on their l it is too lase —the trees
those rte. If it is in a common area, there is a better chance of preserving and maim ainieg all
Mr. Gelber asked if this site could accommodate conservation design. He said he looked at all
dime options and thought now of them wen appealing. He looked for something more creative.
He ftaokly, said he would salt over. He Otought the Commission had lames with the saw onto
Band Road. Ik said Braid Road was a scenic road and he tbmi& whatever wem in them has
to bland in with what is already there now- very sceno, rolling, net intrusive. He said there am
very fee mighblehoods behind this He and it looked like they were "o correc Orin
Proposal to those neighborhoods, which was good. However, he did not am a lot of diaansim
with how it would look with brick on One from and an Brand Road. He said that was something
they needed to look at again
Mr. Gerber sr mmuss the discussion by staling that the ul timate design should n'
conservation design sad anew site Plan should be ceased. incorporate
Mr. Hate thanked the Commission for their feedback
Mr. Gerber called a short recess.
C
DO- a38Z/PP /PDP
Rezoning/Preliminary Plat /Preliminary
Development Plan
Wellington Reserve
5144 and 5056 Brand Road
Council Action — Monday, Docernber 15, 2003 Page 3
ANNUAL APPROP TlONS ORDINA E
Ordlnartee 138 P diet
Establbhtrlg pnatlons Based the 2004 0 e Bud of the
State of Oh' , for the Fiscal Yea Ming December 2004.
139 -03
the CLU
Indigent Dafepliants, and
LOVED 5-0
140-03
the Ctty M tD Enter trlto ntrad far Health rvioes with the
only of Health for nd Dedaring an rgency. ,
BIDS
Accep ' g the P Low7INGWIPUBLIC est Bid for the
Pro' C SECOND R H"
tai
5
ance143 -03
ing Approxi ly 2.834 Acres ted on the North de of Tuller Ro ,200
Fcet East of Tut a Drive, Fro . CC, Community mmerclal Di o:
PCD, Planned mmerce Di Be No. 03-14 BC (Formerly ritech) -
4270Tutier oat).
ERRED TOP ING & ZONING MMISSION
Ordi 144 -03
R ping Approxima 5.092 Acres L on the South S' a of Brand Road, 0
F t East of T Road, From: R , Restricted Subu n Residential D
o: PUD, Plan Unit Developm istrict (Case No. 15OZ - Prelbnin
Development an - Freshwater F (HumbeW P ) - 0325 Brand ad).
REF RED TO PLAN G & ZONING C MISSION
it Ordinance 145 -03
Rezoning Approximately 18.4 Acres Located on the North Side of Brand Road,
Approximately 700 Feet East of Coffman Road, From: R, Rural and R -1, Restricted
Suburban Residential Districts, To: PLR, Planned Low Density Residential District
(Case No. 03.153Z - Brand Road Development).
REFERRED TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
08- 0382 /PP /PDP
Rezoning/Preliminary Plat/Preliminary
Development Plan
Wellington Reserve
5144 and 5056 Brand Road