001-92 Ordinance
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank Co. Form No. 30043
I
I
Ordinance NO.mJH::-92_mnm Passed__m m_mn_19m I
-------- ------- i
-~
r
....... I
I
II AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE OF
II
II ZONING OF A 46.369 ACRE TRACT LOCATED ON
II THE EAST SIDE OF COFFMAN ROAD, APPROXIMATELY
OPPOSITE ADVENTURE DRIVE. TO BE REZONED
I FROM: R, RURAL DISTRICT (PUD ZONING LAPSED)
! TO: PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
I
Ii
I
i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin,
I
I State of Ohio, 7 of the elected members concurring:
II
II
Ii Section 1. That the following described real estate (see attached legal
II description marked Exhibit II A"), situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio,
II is hereby rezoned to PUD, Planned Unit Development District, and shall be
I subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21-70
-- (Chapter Eleven of the Codified Ordinances), the City of Dublin Zoning Code
"
and amendments thereto.
II Section 2. That application, Exhibit "B", including the list of contiguous and
II affected property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and
'I Zoning Commission, Exhibit "C", are all incorporated into and made an
i official part of this Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and
il used in accordance therewith.
i'
,I
I,
il Section 3. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and
II after the earliest period allowed by law.
i'
II
!! Passed this //rrh day of7n.~, 1992.
"
I'
Ii
I
Ii
II
L ,
,I
I!
I Attest:
I
I
r- li~, ~ ~~\\\\\\a
Ii ~ ~/ . '({tft \\~~ .~ to~9.
"- il Clerk of Council rf'>'~ ci'\\O "e~\c;e
I . ~<~. -:,,!," "s 0\ \\1e i
~. (' 1\ /..
. . c\ \' . \\ 1 . I
Sponsor: Planning Division "", \\'\'~\ tt'v C> 'ti.~\' S~t\.o I
I
~ t~'i' , t~~'(\f.e i
\ \\tte ~ X-I'. \n ottO ~ I
0\ 'V I\') . , I
t\\'l (l. . . 0\\\0 I
I
.~ \)u'o\\\\' I
~ toU\\t\ ,
t\et\ (\ I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I'f' 'I. "J,lIliilli'll ~~"."""..".,.""".__..".,._.,"."..~.,~..........."_"",.."o,,,...~,,,,. "-'~ I I
-" ~~- ,
. ~~ 11
, ZONING DESCRIPTION
OF 46.369 ACRES
Situate in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Dublin, being
located in Virginia Military Survey No. 2543 and bounded and described as
follows:
Beginning for reference at a point in the centerline of Coffman Road, at the
northwesterly corner of the 9,590-acre tract conveyed to The Board of Education
of the Dublin Local School District, by deed of record in Official Record
6749103, the southwesterly corner of the 1.73l-acre tract conveyed to H. and L.
Sunderland, by deed of record in Official Record 7888E12;
thence North 00 19' 00" East, along said centerline of Coffman Road, a
distance of 384.44 feet to the northwesterly corner of the 1. 731-acre tract
conveyed to The Epcon Group, Inc., and being the point of true beginning for the
herein-described tract of land;
thence North 00 19' 00" East, continuing along said centerline of Coffman
Road, a distance of 512.24 feet to the southwesterly corner of the 7.057-acre
tract conveyed to Jay B. Eggspueh1er, et a1 (4), by deed of record in Official
Record l4765Fll;
thence North 850 24' 00" East, along the southerly line of said Jay B.
Eggspueh1er, et a1 (4) 7.057-acre tract, the southerly line of the David R. and
Lee A. Jenkins 6.342-acre tract and the southerly line of the John M. and
Patricia A. Herron 5-acre tract, of record in Deed Book 1591, Page 87, a distance
of 1529.48 feet to the southeasterly corner of said 5-acre tract and being in the
westerly line of "COVENTRY WOODS", as the plat of same is of record in Plat Book
69, Page 9;
thence South 450 01' 00" East, along said westerly line of "COVENTRY WOODS" ,
a distance of 118.23 feet to an angle point in said line;
thence South 520 32' 00" East, continuing along said westerly line of
"COVENTRY WOODS" and the westerly line of the 1. 793-acre tract, conveyed to
Coventry Woods Associates, by deed of record in Office Record 10769H02, a
distance of 291.32 feet to an angle point in said line;
thence South 150 42' 50" East, continuing along said westerly line of the
Coventry Woods Associates 1.793-acre tract, a distance of 145.24 feet to the
southwesterly corner of said 1.793-acre tract;
thence South 130 58' 43" East, a distance of 91.06 feet to a point;
thence South 40 03' 00" East, a distance of 360.11 feet to a point;
thence North 880 40' 00" East, a distance of 195.36 feet to a point;
thence South 10 20' 00" East, a distance of 145.00 feet to a point;
thence South 570 47' 56" East, a distance of 391.85 feet to the
southeasterly corner of the 16.172-acre tract conveyed to Bonna B. Starkey, by
deed of record in Deed Book 2324, Page 67;
thence South 880 40' 00" West, along the southerly line of said Bonna B.
Starkey 16.172-acre tract, a distance of 275.10 feet to the northeasterly corner
of a 30 foot strip of land conveyed to Bonna B. Starkey, by deed of record in
Deed Book 2561, Page 166;
thence South l~O 13' 00" East, along the easterly line of said Bonna B. .
.....'" Starkey tract, a distance of 30.00 feet to the southeasterly corner of said
tract;
thence South 850 49' 18" West, along the southerly line of said Starkey
tract, a distance of 894.20 feet to an angle point in said line;
thence South 850 16' 00" West, continuing along said southerly line of the
Starkey tract, a distance of 508.13 feet to a point;
" - -~_.._----_._-_._-~--
,
- .
- thence North 40 13' 00" West, being in part along the easterly line of the
. Board of Education of the Dublin Local School District 9.590-acre tract, a
distance of 568.58 feet to a point;
thence South 850 16' 00" West, a distance of 407.12 feet to a point in the
northerly line of said 9.590-acre tract;
thence South 670 '.2' 00" West, along said northerly line of the 9. 590-acre
tract a distance of 101.93 feet to a point at the southeasterly corner of said
1.731-acre Epcon Group Inc., tract;
thence North 00 19' 00" East, along the easterly line of said 1.73l-acre
tract a distance of 208.10 feet, to a point at the northeasterly corner of said
1.73l-acre tract;
thence North 890 41' 00" West, along the northerly line of said 1. 73l-acre
tract a distance of 250.00 feet to the point of true beginning containing 46.369
acres, more or less.
R. D. ZANDE & ASSOCIATES, LIMITED
LWP :jce
December 6, 1991
RDZ IN 2826X
2826XZON.ING
<"...,-- .
C : " ,I:;; 7, -r-- p
eX II
"-'
.
."
CITY OF DUDLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION .- , .,
, ,
" :
. , . ......
AN APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT FOR P&Z C
OF TilE CITY OF DUDLIN ZONING App lica t " ,
DISTRICT MAP ZM -z.
; (Reclassification of Land)
'.
Please type or print information - Use additional sheets as necessary . .
TO TilE 1l0NORABLE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: ' '
....
S & H Developmentj , .
The Applicant Bonna B. & Walter L. Starkey, Ph.D.
(Have property in contract)
being the owner(s),/lessee(s) of property located within the area proposed for' .
:Single Family Development , requests that the~ollowing
".
"
described land to be placed in the Planned Unit Development . . :
"
.
. . ",
, .
".
A. DESCRIPTION OF LAND TO DE RECLASSI~IED
1. General Description of Land (describe by one of the following): :
.. ,
..
a. Lot(s)/Reserve(s) . , . 'of
"
, . - ;, '.
. ,
a recorded plat, with an area of ..
b. Beginning at a point along
(street or other)
and being feet in a ,',N S .E II
direction from the (specify) of " ,
(Street or other), and thence having ~'~ime~~~on
(specify) of "
of from the
"
(street or other), and having an area of. "
.... .
. ...
..
The tract of land containing 46.369 Acres and bounded by: . "
c.
Coffman Road (specify) on the N S E@ (~'i'rc1e)'
, ..
Dublin High School (specify) on the N@E W (Ci~c1e)'
North Fork Indian Run (specify) on the N S@W (Circlei .
. .
p'~,,"
(specify) on the N,S E W (Circle)'
~~ NO'"
d. Attached legal description: YES X
. ,
;
Page 1 of J , '
.
---~.-
,
Map of Proposed Zoning District Boundaries
Two (2) copies of map accurately drawn to an appropriate scale (to fill a 'sheet of,
not less than 8~ x 11 inches and not more than 16 x 20 inches). The map sha 11 he :
identified and submitted in addition to the General Description of Land. The map . .
shall include all land in the proposed change and all land within five hundred (50b)
feet beyond the limits of t~~ proposed change. . '
.. .
To be shown on the map - all property lines, street right-of-way, easements and .::. I
other information related to the location of the proposed boundaries and shall be'"
-~~-~~
fully dimensioned. ' ,'.
.,
The map shall show the existing and proposed Zoning District or Special District . , :
boundaries.
.'
List all owners of property within and contiguous to and directly across the street . '
from such area proposed to be rezoned. The addresses of the owners shall be those'
appearing on the County Auditor's current tax list or the Treasurer's mailing list. '.
. .
NAME ADDRESS .',
See attachment "A". . .
. .
, .
.
..
-.
,
B. ARGUMENTS FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF TilE DESCRIBED LAND
, ,
1. Proposed Use or Development of the Land: Single Family Development
.
.' .,
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICTS and SPECIAL DISTRICTS submission of
three (3) copies of a Development Plan and other documents and two (2)
copies shall be retained as a permanent public record if approved. '. .
For other Zoning Districts, such plans or other exhibits would be helpful
to the review of this application.
. .
Plans and Exhibits submitted
Plot Plan ; Building Plan _____; Development Plan -1L--; Sketch ~;
-----
Photographs _____ ; Other Master Utility Plans (specify)
2. State briefly how the proposed zoning and development relates to the existin~
and probably future land use character of the vicinity.
~.
This planned unit development will allow thp prnppr~y to be uSQd-in a"
~
manner consistant with the e~isting development along CoffmRn RnR~
and the North Fork of Tn~i~n R'ln
'.
, .
.
Page 2 of 3 pages
. ,
." ~,,_'-~--'._--- __".____.'...__"_~m__~._.......__~~~~..___,~_,,> f ~,.._~-"'<_.__.,_.
.
.'
3. lias an application for rezoning of the property been denied by the cn.y
Council within the last two (2) years? '.
. .
YES
.'
NO X "
If Yes, state the basis of reconsideration
.'
, .
.'
C. AFFIDAVIT
..
Defore completing this application and executing the following affidavit, It is
recommended that this application be discussed with the Building Inspecto~,to
insure completeness and accuracy. Present owner of property: . .
. .
:
APPLICANTS'S AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF 01110
COUNTY OF FRANKLIN,
"
I (we) David E. Haid: Walter L. & Ranna R. gtarkp~
being duly sworn, depose and say that I am/we are t e owner(s)/lessee(s) of being
duly sworn, depose and say that I am/we are the owner(s)/lessee(s) of land included
in the application and that the foregoing statement herein contained and attached,
and information or attached exhibits thoroughly to the best of my/our ability present.
the arguments in behalf of the application herewith submitted and.that the stat~ments
and attached exhibits above referred to are in all respects true and correct to.the
best of my/our knowledge and belief. ;tr4hJ
. .
D~~ ~ ~cd) /~""1-1A/l-1t /3
(signature)
David E. Haid Walter L. Starkey, Ph.D.
S & H Development Bonna B. Starkey
941 Chatham Lane 7000 Coffman Road
Suite 315 Dublin, Ohio 43017
Columbus, Ohio 43221 (Mailing address)
(614) 457-0200
J.j.S7-0::tOO
(Phone)
I~ of Pcc::.avJ.J3Cl'L ml
Subscribed and sworn to before me this , , . -t9'813 .
cl>WARO F. SEIDEl, JR., Attorney-aH''''1
; NOTAnv PUJLlC-SIAil: (;, UrtlU
My tOl1lml$SIOn hdS no expiration l1.lt., (notary Public)
Section IH.U3 R.C.
_,;fI""~
Person to be contacted for details, if other than above signatory:
"'-"
(Name (Address) ,
(Telephone)
\.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - \Do not wrIte below thIs-1Ine)- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D. RECORD OF ACTION
1. Withdrawn Held to
(Date) (Date)
2. P&Z C: Date of Hearing
Approved Disapproved Modified I
I
3. City Council: Date of Hearing
A",", _,....."',1 ni.,,,nnrn,,,,rf MnrH f i Prl
""""""-""---"" I
.
The applicant/owner hereby acknowledges that approval of (his) (her) (its)
request for Planned Unit Development Zoning by the Dublin Planning and
Zoning Commission hnd/or Dublin City Council does not constitute a guarantee
or Illnding commi.tment that the City of Dublin ...till be able to provide essential
servi.ces such as water and seHer facili.ties \~hen needed by said applicant.
1be City of Dublin will make every effort to have these services available
as needed. However I the rap:td gro\~th of the City of Duhlin and Northwest
Fronk.Un County has stretched the City 's cnpncity to prov.i.de these services
to the limit. As such I the City of Dublin may be unable to make all or part
of said facilities available to the applicant until some future dote.
The undersigned hereby acknowledges and understands the foregoing.
I >-W'l \ -" ~ /' N(l~
Date Signature of Applicant or authorized
representative thereof.
f> On belwlf of:
- /JY~d' ~ ~<<-.6.~itJ-
AppHc ~
i$~,
""-'
.
. ATTACHMENT "A"
.
1. Board of Education of the Dublin LSD 10. Aerosafe, Inc.
62 West Bridge Street 20 North Street
Dublin, Ohio 43017 Dublin, Ohio 43017
2. Bonna B. Starkey 11. Jack S. & Joan B. Eggspueh1er
7000 Coffman Road 20 North Street
Dublin, Ohio 43017 Dublin, Ohio 43017
,ii"" 3. McKitrick Properties, Inc. 12. Richard A. Hollingsworth
Bethel Road Investment Company, Inc. & Elsie M. Sanchez
655 Metro Place S. - Suite 800 5308 Adventure Drive
Dublin, Ohio 43017 Dublin, Ohio 43017
4. Coventry Woods Association 13. S.E. Floyd & Patricia L. Bostic
Multicon CommunIties, Inc. 7143 Coffman Road
Mu1ticon Builders, Inc. Dublin, Ohio 43017
941 Chatham Lane - Suite 111
Columbus, Ohio 43221
5. David R. & Lee A. Jenkins 14. The Epcon Group Inc.
5071 Brand Road 6277 Riverside Drive
Dublin, Ohio 43017 Dublin, Oh~o 43017
6. Jay B., & Michele Z. Eggspueh1er
7250 Coffman Road
Dublin, Ohio 43017
7. John M. & Patricia A. Herroh
5051 Brand Road
Dublin, Ohio 43017
8. Carl D. & Rebecca L. Coleman
11059 Bodwell Court
Cincinnati, Ohio 45242
'"",," 9. Corp. presiding Bishop of Church
Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints
LOS Church Real Estate Division
50 E. N. Temple RE517-8819
Salt Lake Ci~y, Utah 84150
.~
.......
. -
- I
I
- i
-- -- -
I
i
I,
"". .
,
.-'
- -
PUD -
~UO
,#
- -
Ll
,
peo: '. PC'I
0::-
i:i:
"
~
......
--_._~-~--.---~"~~....._---,~.."._...- I.
,
ZONING DESCRIPTION
OF 46.369 ACRES
Situate in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Dublin, being
located in Virginia Military Survey No. 2543 and bounded and described as
follows:
Beginning for reference at a point in the centerline of Coffman Road, at the
northwesterly corner of the 9,590-acre tract conveyed to The Board of Education
of the Dublin Local School District, by deed of record in Official Record
~ 6749103, the southwesterly corner of the 1.73l-acre tract conveyed to H. and L.
Sunderland, by deed of record in Official Record 7888E12;
thence North 00 19' 00" East, along said centerline of Coffman Road, a
distance of 384.44 feet to the northwesterly corner of the 1.731-acre tract
conveyed to The Epcon Group, Inc., and being the point of true beginning for the
herein-described tract of land;
thence North 00 19' 00" East, continuing along said centerline of Coffman
Road, a distance of 512.24 feet to the southwesterly corner of the 7.057-acre
tract conveyed to Jay B. Eggspuehler, et a1 (4), by deed of record in Official
Record 14765Fll;
thence North 850 24' 00" East, along the southerly line of said Jay B.
Eggspuehler, et al (4) 7.057-acre tract, the southerly line of the David R. and
Lee A. Jenkins 6.342-acre tract and the southerly line of the John M. and
Patricia A. Herron 5-acre tract, of record in Deed Book 1591, Page 87, a distance
of 1529.48 feet to the southeasterly corner of said 5-acre tract and being in the
westerly line of "COVENTRY WOODS", as the plat of same is of record in Plat Book
69, Page 9;
thence South 450 01' 00" East, along said westerly line of "COVENTRY WOODS",
a distance of 118.23 feet to an angle point in said line;
>1'/., thence South 520 32' 00" East, continuing along said westerly line of
.. COVENTRY WOODS" and the westerly line of the 1. 793-acre tract, conveyed to
Coventry Woods Associates, by deed of record in Office Record 10769H02, a
distance of 291.32 feet to an angle point in said line;
thence South 150 42' 50" East, continuing along said westerly line of the
Coventry Woods Associates 1.793-acre tract, a distance of 145.24 feet to the
southwesterly corner of said 1.793-acre tract;
thence South 130 58' 43" East, a distance of 91.06 feet to a point;
thence South 40 03' 00" East, a distance of 360.11 feet to a point;
thence North 880 40' 00" East, a distance of 195.36 feet to a point;
thence South 10 20' 00" East, a distance of 145.00 feet to a point;
thence South 570 47' 56" East, a distance of 391.85 feet to the
southeasterly corner of the l6.l72-acre tract conveyed to Bonna B. Starkey, by
deed of record in Deed Book 2324, Page 67;
thence South 880 40' 00" West, along the southerly line of said Bonna B.
Starkey l6.172-acre tract, a distance of 275.10 feet to the northeasterly corner
of a 30 foot strip of land conveyed to Bonna B. Starkey, by deed of record in
'f'~ Deed Book 2561, Page 166;
thence South 40 13' 00" East, along the easterly line of said Bonna B. .
~ Starkey tract, a distance of 30.00 feet to the southeasterly corner of said
tract;
thence South 850 49' 18" West, along the southerly line of said Starkey
tract, a distance of 894.20 feet to an angle point in said line;
thence South 850 16' 00" West, continuing along said southerly line of the
Starkey tract, a distance of 508.13 feet to a point;
I
thence North 40 13' 00" West, being in part along the easterly line of the
Board of Education of the Dublin Local School District 9.590-acre tract, a
distance of 568.58 feet to a point;
thence South 850 16' 00" West, a distance of 407.12 feet to a point in the
northerly line of said 9.590-acre tract;
thence South 670 42' 00" West, along said northerly line of the 9.590-acre
tract a distance of 101.93 feet to a point at the southeasterly corner of said
1.731-acre Epcon Group Inc., tract;
thence North 00 19' 00" East, along the easterly line of said 1.731-acre
tract a distance of 208.10 feet, to a point at the northeasterly corner of said
1.731-acre tract;
thence North 890 41' 00" West, along the northerly line of said 1. 731-acre
tract a distance of 250.00 feet to the point of true beginning containing 46.369
acres, more or less.
R. D. ZANDE & ASSOCIATES, LIMITED
LWP:jce
December 6, 1991
RDZ IN 2826X
2826XZON.ING
~,
-,--
---
.. -,.".,_.~~"~=._~._......,..,~_.. ""'~..... ~'~"
;(j ,1~~-'j).
~^h,hrT
C I T Y 0 F 0 U B L I N '\
Department of Plarl'ning ':~ Development
RECORD OF ACTION
DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 6, 1992
The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action in the application below at its
regular meeting:
2. Rezoning Application - Z91-015 - Starkey-Coffman (Single-Family Plan)
location: 46.369 acres located on the east side of Coffman Road,
approximately opposite Adventure Drive.
Existina Zonina: R, Rural District (PUD zoning lapsed due to failure to submit Final
Development Plan by November, 1991)
Reauest: PUD, Planned Unit Development District. Approval of Preliminary Development
Plans under PUD regulations.
Prooosed Use: Single-family subdivision of 96 lots with a 6.2 acre park.
Aoolicant: David E. Haid, c/o S&H Development, 941 Chatham Lane, Suite 315,
Columbus, OH 43221 and property owners Bonna B. and Walter L. Starkey, 7000 Coffman
Road, Dublin, OH 43017.
MOTION #1: To approve this application subject to the following conditions:
1 ) Working with the Staff to realign the entry road for better traffic safety;
2) Design of storm water conveyance through the site;
3) Widening the park access to at least 80 feet from the subdivision;
4) Widening the easement behind the Starkey residence as requested by the
Parks Director;
5) Improving the tree preservation plan and no-build zone or other protections
in wooded area subject to the approval of the staff;
6) Provision of a 20-foot access through to the high school site between lots
-- to be paved at the developer's expense; and
7) Submission of consistent landscape treatment and development restrictions
for lots abutting Coffman Road and increasing their depth to equal the lots
on the west side of Coffman Road.
VOTE: 7-0
RESULT: This application was approved. It will be forwarded to City Council with a
recommendation that this rezoning application be approved. A public hearing will be
scheduled through the Clerk of Council's office.
MOTION #2: To recommend to City Council that it consider a waiver to the
MORPC standards for on-site detention.
VOTE: 7-0
RESULT: This recommendation for a detention waiver will be forwarded to City Council.
,~
~FF CERTIFICATION:
., ,rj ){/1 CfJaJ
{)1J/C~~ ., t /. ~
Barbara M. Clarke
Zoning Administrator
5131 Post Rd, Suite #/102 Dublin, Ohio 43077 614.761.6553 F A X 761.6566
._._ '.""'__"~r"_M___'_"_'__,~,"",<,",_,~~~""_,,_=,,,~"~'~~.'_'.'~ _._'L...__ t 'I1Ul!Irlll:TI
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report - February 6, 1992
Page 4
:
CASE 2: Rezoning Application Z91-015 - Starkey-Coffman - (Single-Family Plan)
APPLICANT: David E. Haid, c/o S&H Development, 941 Chatham Lane, Suite 315,
Columbus, OH 43221 and property owners Bonna B. and Walter L.
Starkey, 7000 Coffman Road, Dublin, OH 43017.
REQUEST: To rezone a 46.369 acre tract located on the east side of Coffman
Road, approximately opposite Adventure Drive, from R, Rural District to
PUD, Planned Unit Development District. This is the Preliminary
Development Plan review under the PUD regulations.
BACKGRO~1J):
The Concept Plan was reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission last month. The
Commission recommended approval of the Concept Plan with conditions unanimously. The
Preliminary Development Plan was tabled in order to resolve several areas of concern.
A revised plan will be distributed at the meeting. Due to time constraints in the staff review,
the applicant was not given sufficient time to resubmit revisions. No major changes are
expected from the plan that was reviewed last month.
The site was rezoned, including a 1.7 acre single-family home on Coffman Road, in 1990 to
the PUD, Planned Unit Development District for residential project. That plan included 112
multi-family units, 36 single-family lots and a 9.9 acre park along the Indian Run.
Following a PUD rezoning, the applicant has 240 days in which to file a Final Development
Plan for part of the development. A six-month extension was granted, in this case, in May
...'" of 1991 by the Planning and Zoning Commission. No Final Development Plan was flied,
and thetinie extension expired in November. The zoning therefore reverted ~ack to its
original R, Rural District designation. Additionally, another applicant presented a 78-10t
single-family proposal informally at the September Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting.
This is a new application offered by a third developer for a single-family subdivision on the
Starkey property. It does not include the 1.7 acre home site abutting Coffman Road, located
immediately to the south of the School Administration Building, and identified as the Epcon
Group, Inc. property on the plans. The plan consists of 96 lots and a park of 6.21 acres
along the Indian Run. The lots are to be 80 feet in width in the unvegetated, north and west
portions of the site. The wooded area is to})e subdivided into lots of 100 feet in width.
- -- .._- ~-_...-_...-.-~..-._--
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commi~ion
Staff Report - February 6, 1992
Page 5
The rezoning to the PUD District will Co,mmit the developer to the density, minimum lot
size, general layout and park configuration. Generally speaking, any expectations for .
development of the site are to be presented and/or imposed at this stage. Following a
recommendation here, a public hearing will be held by City Council. Subsequent to the
hearing, Council will vote. As a rezoning application, Council can only override the
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission by a two-thirds vote. Following J
Council approval of the rezoning, the Final Development Plan for each phase will be
submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review. The purpose of that later
review is to assure that all commitments made at this stage, in the Preliminary Development
Plan, are in fact fulfilled.
CONSIDERA TIONS:
0 The site itself is zoned R, Rural currently. To the north is land in
unincorporated Washington Township which is developed in estate-sized lots
and a church. To the west across Coffman Road are lots in Hemingway
Village and a church, zoned R-4 and R-2, respectively. To the south of the
site are a single-family residence (Epcon Group, Inc.), the school
administration building, the high school, and the northwest corner of the
McKitrick office park (proposed) zoned PUD.
0 The proposed gross density is 2.1 dwelling units per acre. The previous
approved plan included multi-family housing and had a gross density of 3.1
units per acre. Adjacent densities include Earlington Village at 3.28,
Hemingway Village at 2.61, Coventry Woods at 1.68, and the unincorporated
township residences at less than 1.0 unit per acre.
0 The site is partially wooded. The heavier stand of trees is located on the
western half of the site. The eastern portion is open except for a fence row on
the north property line. Wider lots (100 feet) are shown in the wooded .....,
sections. However, a tree preservation plan and no-build zones will be needed ~
.J
to protect the trees.
0 The North Fork of the Indian Run runs to the southeast along the interior
property line. Floodway and flood way fringe lines are both shown on the
plans. A major stormwater pipe runs under Coffman Road and street drains,
without detention, through this site to the Indian Run. Upon development, this
storm water will need to be properly transported to the stream.
.
.....
~"'._.._'."~'"'~~~'''"'~_'~~"'_ ~'.__~'_~ I 'V~:.'""" t;
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report - February 6, 1992
Page 6
o The Indian Run streambed. is an area specified for park acquisition.
Immediately across the Indian Run is the Coventry Woods subdivision which
will have a 9.3 acre park along the stream. This plan offers another 6.2 acres
of park along the creek which meets the Code requirement for the reduced
number of units. A broader access into the park (minimum 80 feet of
'>" frontage) is being requested. A north/south 20-foot easement through to the
high school property is also requested. The access shown along the south
property line will be acceptable if it is not used to meet the park acreage
requirement and if an acceptable written easement through the school property
is secured.
o The Community Plan calls for 80 feet of right-of-way along Coffman Road,
and this is reflected on the plan. One street entry point is shown from
Coffman Road, approximately 190 feet to the north of Adventure Drive.
Also, a street will be stubbed into the north property line to provide additional
neighborhood-to-neighborhood circulation, if and when, that property is
redeveloped more intensively.
o The Starkey residence will remain. After development, its access will be
through the new subdivision streets. Park access along the stream to the rear
of the house will need to be widened by field inspection.
o Sidewalks and street trees will be required throughout the development.
o The size of the detention basin has not yet been determined. The City
Engineer requests direct access via an easement to it for maintenance.
o The proposed utility layout has been delineated. Utilities are available to the
site and adequate to handle the proposed development.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
~ To approve the Preliminary Plan subject to the following conditions:
Conditions:
1) Working with the Staff to realign the entry road for better traffic safety;
2) Design of stormwater conveyance through the site and detention for the
development in compliance with MORPC standards;
3) Widening the park access to at least 80 feet from the subdivision and
submission of written access agreement from school system for the southern
access;
4) Widening the easement behind the Starkey residence as requested by the Parks
Director;
5) Improving the tree preservatiC?n plan and no-build zone or other protections in
wooded area. "
,
6) Provision of a 20-foot access through to the high school site between lots; and
......
- ----.---""
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report - February 6, 1992
Page 7
7) Submission of consistenflandscape treatment and development restrictions for
lots abutting Coffman Road and increasing their depth to equal the lots on the
west side of Coffman Road.
Bases:
1) The plan, as modified above, fulfills the requirements of the Preliminary Plan ~.
under the PUD requirements. ~.
2) The land use and density proposed fully comply with the Community Plan. ..J
3) The park is properly situated to meet open space acquisition goal of the
Community Plan.
4) With the dedication of Coffman Road right-of-way, the entire traffic plan
meets the requirements of the City Engineer.
~
...",
..
I' " \ '\\ \./ .__ -=-- _____e___
// /'-~Il~. ,~, I-'" ./ ~~\." .
, .~ ~ '. R}/ .~~~~\ " -.
..-'\ ... ,.'
. /' ~
, \ ~' '.. ... . . ~.;-
~uO ;:::::r d'~ u: .- . ..,.~)
.... '_/W' ~~.- :.,~ <fi1l ':'
~ Y" ~ '\ \ IT \.. ~ "'\ ~~ . \ \ '1
· D " '\ \ \\ . _.. - ,. I
, V V\V7\"'\ ~ ./. ~.
'..',' I ~ ~ ~ , ~. R.\2 .
~......., '. \.......... t'\ '\ -~......- .' /' \.:;.~., pUD ,~ ~~~-
\\" "~, \ ,__., V\IU \\. ' ~
,) . _. .---..,.. - r\\. . ~t::
; ~..~ \ U." -. ,\to ,..,-njl
': ~'f' uO \\:'1- \' \ l.. -:..-\ \' ,il '
i; ~ .' w-::<" ' '" c::;e-:::II ,\
~I s..... , \ \y ,---,'---<1
, ~ _'0. '. \'c" ...-- \
I- ,'" . \~ .. !-----\
\ ','..:-.:.:._'::' R-'~J. .~ . n-r"'-1.- - '1.---
~\\/ . ..___.~';- ~'r-- ~" . '\1 \ \ -- 1R'1 ~ _: (i
" pun ../ . '. I . d ,'" L---
\\ ~-1' ,"---
,\ .' ~/ IC----'
\\ ~~ \. \ ,.. "'_ :(. 1=+11
IV \ '- ~ ~ t;2JJ11
__ I . ~ \-' ~ '---. t~ ~ , 'V:!1.. . ~ '2
R 1 f', S ilE ~ " ..... >.I, Lv -,'/ ,~.~ \ JJ
I~i--I _ Y ~, ...... -, ? \ "'P.LR.' \~
c f---..Lly! 0 \} J.. .
~ ~ " '~ . /R-Z~ . ' I l' \ ' .
F ~T ....",." ,.L- ~ ~
, ..;....- ~ ~..1 ' \\.- -
I :;..-""-'" '" , '..I ,\.0 ;..- ./
pUD 7l . ;.r1' f. ')~ \ :;./
_ U R-4 /"- ~', · ::: t?' I .--II
~\)'\l ./ / C ~v J ::: \ ~I
-:,Q . R.2 '" . _ puo
I , ~ ~~. \i:I '\ L J' ~ .~ ~J .',
\,\' PUO ~. - R - 0 ~ I
j \ , -..... - . . ,~ -.
\' ~ _~. ~ __:;} _~.,~ \ \' ~~o '7Y ~. ^~\
\i ,,:-;r T\\U _ ~ '1'--\ \ -,~ -"" I ~ 1
, . ,,_, " 1~ R- '-lo ~-1 "" I ..'
. .__...;;,.'_ 'IQ' r-:-- %; R-Z "'"
I o' pC, . \ ~- j \
'\ pea . p~ L\ ~I s::..._______ .50 ~ ri~~ -~
. I . ~ ....I . \ \ ~ ~ l/"" \' \1
. ; . . . ~ \'. t' .' --C::=:.:.?-=.~ nil II .\
! ~. . c.ti) ~cc.. ~::::2
1 j . :..-- \ \ ~ \~ ' / " .. 'cc.A';~ ,J.... ~m
l -~ - }~ J '" ' \ '(-I' ~uo " ""i~2 ~
; Gl ~ t:::: \.. T~' i 7{ \..
; _ ,-,! \:1 ....... \ ~- I I'-t-... %. .# 50 ,,1-
\ LI --;; ~~. ~ ,+ / r=' [Zt:;.ZDN \1'3lf:,- ~~
\ ,.-, c: R:t , . i ;2:.C\I-OI6
\ \ R . _l---1---:1 ~R .'. _ \'>1' k (. s,..~ -evt='FHN-l.
\ \ I . '\ r _, \\ . (S1~~~Iv(
'-
4. Rezoning Application Z91-015 - Starkey-Coffman (Single-Family Plan)
Ms. Clarke presented the staff report and slides of the site. The site is ..:t.46.5
acres located on the east side of Coff.man Road, just to the north of Adventure
Drive. A revised copy of the propcs'ed layout was given to the Commission
members at the meeting. This was zoned PUD previously, and included 1.7 acres
located immediately opposite Adventure Drive. The 1.7 acres is not part of this
application. This tract was known as the Starkey-Coffman tract and was zoned in
the PUD classification. The PUD regulations require that the Final Development ~
Plan be presented within 240 days. This time limit was extended by six months
and that lapsed, as well. In November, the zoning on this property lapsed back ...J
from PUD to R. The open field will be laid out in 80-foot lots and the treed area
will be laid out in 100-foot-wide lots. An area along the north fork of Indian Run
will be dedicated as park. Since the unit count has been lowered in this plan, the
amount of park acreage has decreased to 6.2 acres. The site wraps around the
school administration building and the house owned by Epcon. The Starkey
driveway extends back from Coffman Road to the creek where the house is
located. This house will no longer be serviced by the driveway but by the internal
street system. A walking path is planned along the edge of the stream. The
Starkey house is located very near the stream.
The proposal is for 96 lots plus 6.21 acres of parkland. The lots are split up with
half of the lots being 80-foot lots and the other half being 100-foot lots. This is a
rezoning application from R, Rural to the PUD~ Planned Unit Development district.
The gross density across the site will be 2.1 dwelling units per acre. This is lower
than almost all of the surrounding developed areas with the exception of Coventry
Woods. The area to the north of the site is located within unincorporated
.~ Washington Township. Ms. Clarke referred to the plat given to the Commission
'.-
'.- this evening and said there are a number of issues which the developer has
"'-' specifically been able to address in terms of development standards, sideyards, the
... setbacks which he intends to employ, compliance with MORPC standards, and that ~
there will be sidewalks and street trees within the subdivision. ....."
There are still several outstanding issues:
0 The park has two access points, one being the existing driveway along the
south property line which abuts the high school property, and the other is a
35-foot wide access near the north end of the creek property. The Parks
Director and the Parks and Recreation Committee have requested that there
be a wider access. A minimum of80-feet of frontage along the internal road
is being requested. The high school is a major destination point immediately
to the south of the subject site Sfld an easement has been requested
between the two lots. 1 f~~ HlrJU\E,S
.JAN. q) \Clqz.
z..q \- O\CS>
~~ - aff'MA1'\!
\/&
1IfII/If.
~......"""""""....,,_,,"-,~~..._'~_~~,~"~"__,~,__._u_, _ I
0 The City Engineer is concerned with where the entry street intersects with
Coffman Road. On a previous plan, there was a direct alignment with
Adventure Drive. Since the immediate parcel across the street is not part of
the application, the entrance here has been shifted to the north. The offset
between the two streets is .190 feet. The engineer would encourage there
would be negotiations to inclDdethe Epcon property so this could align with
Adventure Drive. Failing that, the offset be significantly greater by shifting
the entrance road farther to the north.
0 The Parks Director has asked for the access behind the Starkey residence to
be demonstrated to assure access along the stream. Regarding the access
that is shown along the south property line, the driveway dead-ends at the
house. It is requested that this driveway be extended to the stream for park
access.
0 Dedication of right-ot-way on Coffman Road has been included on the
revised plat. An appropriate setback of 40 feet from the new property line
is included in the configuration of the lots along Coffman Road. This leaves
a very limited developable portion for these lots. Widening of these lots has
been considered.
Staff recommends approval of the Concept Plan. The applicant has submitted the
revised plat in order to address as many items in the staff report as possible. After
reviewing the revised plat with the Parks Director and the Engineering staff, the
staff recommends that the Preliminary plan (the actual rezoning document) be
tabled until the access problems (both into the park and access from Coffman
Road) be resolved.
Mr. David Haid, applicant, said he tried to address the City's concerns. He would
prefer not to have the access through to the high school site between lots. The
pedestrian access has been increased to 35 feet and he feels this is adequate. He
said the street location is within 20 feet of last year's approval and he requests
that the present street location remain.
. Richard Hollingsworth, 5308 Adventure Drive, said he is pleased to see this plan,
but is concerned about the traffic on Coffman Road. He would like to see this plan
mesh with Coffman Road improvements. Another concern is the maintenance of
Coffman Road during construction with all the dirt and construction materials. He
would like to see the preservation of wildlife in the park.
Jay Eggspuehler, property owner directly to the north, said the prior plans to the
Commission indicated a 25 ft. access easement along the north boundary to the
park. The intent was to preserve the ttees along the natural line and he asked if
that plan has now been abandoned. Ms. Clarke said when that plan was reviewed,
the 25-foot access easement along the north property line was questioned by
some. There was disagreement whether it was an asset or a liabilit .
r~2:. MINVn?
.JAN.q,lcqq2-
:~.Pl (- 01 c:; 2,1 (p
~"
consider it, but it will be considered in the future. Mr. Eggspuehler asked if there
is a sewer through this property. Ms. Clarke said yes. Mr. Campbell said there
was not an access along the southern part of the property to get to the park when
this plan was submitted previously. He asked if permission is needed from the
school board to gain access. The staff responded that permission is needed for the
southern access. Mr. Haid said he Jla~ met with Dr. Fink regarding obtaining an
easement and he is favorable. He will' discuss this issue with the school board on
Monday, January 13.
Mr. Campbell said he is surprised that there wasn't any more opposition from the ~
adjoining property owners (Hemingway Village) with respect to Greystone Manor. ...)
This is the single-family development that also provides for the park issues and
drainage problem. The developers were asked to deal with drainage from the sites
to the west because of the long standing drainage easement.
Mr. Campbell said the remaining issues seem to be the width of the park access on
the north, the possible relocation of the road problem on Coffman Road and the
contingency of obtaining south access on the school property for parking and
access to the park. Ms. Clarke said there are two other issues: The easement
behind the house and no-build zones. These are shown as areas 15-feet wide
along the back of the lots and they need to be wider. Staff feels this will not be
adequate in order to assure that we get trees preserved en masse. Mr. Haid said
that in order to preserve the trees, the utilities were moved out of the back of the
yards to the front. No paths were made through the back. This is why he is
requesting the 15-foot no-build zone, instead of the 30-foot no-build zone. He said
the tree line along the north property line with the 15-foot no-build zone will be
protected.
Mr. Campbell asked if the detention pond takes care of the drainage issue and is it
considered part of the parkland. Ms. Jordan said the detentio,:, pond is in addition
to tna parkland. Mr. Mack said the developer is required to, by MORPC guidelines, ~
retain the water on the site and also to continue to carry it. The developer will not
be required to retain the water which is coming from the west, but will have to .,
transport it across the property and discharge. This method of discharge would
minimize the impact that the water would have on the stream in terms of erosion.
It would surcharge through the pond in that general area. The discharge condition
of the water will be better. Mr. Haid said the detention area is larger than required.
The excess land will be available for parkland which would be above the 6.2 acres
required.
Mr. Campbell asked if the staff could support this plan if these issues are included.
Ms. Clarke said yes, but parks and access to them are a central issue in rezoning
proposals. It is still uncertain whether either access works. The southern access
depends upon the school board action and needs to be field-checked at the east
end. The other access point is only 35 feet wide, which is 45 feet less than
requested. Access into the park has been a big issue on many rezoning requests
f I 2::- MrrJ 0~
.JAtJ. q / l~ 2-
~ I ~ DI?
-:a/eo
.-
Id.~....
and it has to be resolved as part of the preliminary plan. Requirements for this
land need to be included in the preliminary plan. The developer is not amenable to
widening the park access and the access onto Coffman Road has not been
resolved to the engineer's satisfaction. These are critical issues in terms of how
this site gets developed.
,
':
Mr. Campbell said that 35 feet should.b'a wide enough for park access.
Ms. Jordan said that with the south end of the Dublinshire development, the in-fill
between Indian Run Meadows and Hemingway West, the Indian Run greenbelt was
continued. Within Indian Run Meadow, one of the major problems was extremely
limited access to the park. There were 1 Q-15-foot wide easements in between
homes. In the Dublinshire development, one whole lot was dedicated as access to
the park. In situations with parkland. running behind homes, it is really only a
private park unless it is brought out to the street for those who don't have the lots
backing up to the parkland. It brings the park out to the street and gives ready
access to everyone who lives in the development. A similar situation occurred in
the north end of the Dublinshire park where there was a woods which adjoined the
existing Scottish Corners school parksite and off of Earlsford Drive. Again, one
whole lot on the north part of the subdivision was dedicated for the parkland
access. This parkland, by being in the rear of some homes, was not accessible to
other homeowners who did not back up to it.
Mr. Kranstuber said a sidewalk can easily fit into this space, but is a wider space
needed for aesthetic value? Ms. Jordan said if it is not given, the kids will make
their own path. Ms. Clarke said an easement is needed for the kids to walk
through to the high school. If there is an easement between two lots and the
driveway stays, one can walk around the stadium fence to the high school
property. Only the stadium is fenced. Ms. Jordan met with Dr. Fink. Dr. Starkey
has requested from the Board of Education, the easement from Coffman Road.
She said she would like to see the school board work with her on the plan and
utilize their parking lot at the administration building. This is the community's
access to the park and not the neighborhood's.
Mr. Kranstuber said this is a nice plan, but the access to the park is bothersome.
Mr. Fishman asked if there are bikepaths in the subdivision? Mr. Haid said there
would be the required sidewalks throughout the entire subdivision. Ms. Jordan
said bikepaths would disrupt the area and are not necessary in a self-contained
subdivision. Mr. Fishman asked if the chainlink fence bordering the high school
and the Starkey property stops in front of the Starkey home. Ms. Clarke said that
fence surrounds the stadium and stops well before the Starkey home. Mr. Fishman
feels the kids will make a path where the fence stops and into the subdivision.
The path needs to be wide enough to ~olve this problem. He said that the
entrance to the park should be wider. Mr. Haid said he has no problem with the
easement requested for the high school. He will widen the park access to 40 or
45 feet but he feels 80 feet is excessive. 2=- HIN Vf~
~ .'l, f1"'~
2--Gl11 - Of '?
Lt/'(p
-
.~
,
Mr. Jason Coffee, A.D. Zande & Associates, said the request is to move the
entrance as far north as possible. It is requested that the entrance remain where it
is to enhance the layout of the subdivision. Mr. Willis said staff requested that
Adventure Drive align with the entrance drive. Mr. Haid said he doesn't own the
property so the entrance drive can:not align with Adventure Drive. As an
alternative, it is suggested that the ,.entra,nce drive be relocated farther to the north
to increase the offset from Adventure Drive. Mr. Willis said he is looking at this
situation from a traffic standpoint and it is desired that the space be increased
between intersections if they can not be aligned. Mr. Haid said that in the last
zoning that was approved, there were two roads onto Coffman Road with 154 .-...
living units. He has 96. He said his street is close to one of the spots previously ..~
approved for access. Mr. Willis said the street which aligned with Adventure Drive ......,
had been the primary entrance.
Mr. Manus asked if the purpose of the 80-foot access is to enhance access into
this park? Ms. Jordan said it will bring the park out to the street. Mr. Manus said
the street might be lined with parked cars. Ms. Jordan suggested no-parking
signs.
Mr. Leffler said a wider accessway is needed.
Mrs. Stillwell said the stub street might, in the future, be able to be connected to
another street in another development.
.
Mr. Geese asked if the detention basin is the treed area. Will the trees be torn
down to put in a detention basin for 90 houses? Mr. Willis said there are trees in
this area which will be destroyed. No detailed design has been done yet. It is
possible to do the retention on-site for this development. Mr. Geese said he does
not want to see the trees torn down and then have an ugly detention basin site. Is
there a need for this detention basin? Mr. Willis said there are detention basins
further down stream from this subdivision which are providing retention. Mr. Willis .......
said this will probably be a policy decision. If Dublin chooses to waive
requirements for retention it could be done. Mr. Geese asked why it has to be in -
the treed area that is going to be in the 1 DO-year flood plain. Mr. Mack said the
low end of the site is where the detention basin would be and where the trees are.
Mr. Bowman said a waiver can be discussed for the future.
Mr. Haid requested that the Preliminary Plan be approved tonight rather than have
it tabled. Mr. Bowman said the Concept Plan and Preliminary Plans are considered
together if the issues were worked out, but there are some unresolved issues with
the Preliminary Plan.
f.t~ MINVff;:17
"
.JAtJ.q, ~Z
~q I-Olt?
'5J{,
..
'.<~~..-
,; ~ ~, ., .
Mr. Campbell made a motion to approve the Concept Plan subject to the following
conditions:
1) Improvement of park access from the subdivision and submission of written
easement from school system if southern access is to be maintained;
2) Staking of easement and park'ent,rance behind Starkey residence for
assessment by Parks Director; ,
3) Submission of tree preservation plan and no-build zone or other protections
in wooded area;
4) Submission of development standards for sideyard, rear yard, height, etc.,
as well as minimum lot requirements;
5) Provision of access through to the high school site between lots;
6) Reconfiguration of lots to meet the setback requirement along Coffman Road
and entry street;
7) Dedication of Coffman Road right-of-way consistent with Community Plan;
8) Submission of consistent landscape treatment and development restrictions
for lots abutting Coffman Road which may require additional depth to
property accomplish;
9) Provision of sidewalks and street trees throughout the subdivision in
compliance with Code;
10) Design of stormwater conveyance through the site and detention for the
development in compliance with MORPC standards;
11 ) Provision of direct access to the detention pond between lots by way of
easement; and
12) Further review by developer and staff of the location of the entrance from
Coffman Road as appropriate.
Mr. Manus seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mrs. Stillwell, yes;
Mr. Geese, yes; Mr. Leffler, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Kranstuber, yes; Mr.
Manus, yes; and Mr. Campbell, yes. (Approved 7-0.)
Mr. Leffler made a motion to table the Preliminary Plan for further consideration.
Mr. Manus seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Kranstuber, yes;
Mr. Campbell, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mrs. Stillwell, yes; Mr. Geese, yes; Mr.
Manus, yes; and Mr. Leffler, yes. (This Preliminary Plan application was tabled
with a vote of 7-0.)
r~MINLJf~
'" iMJ. "I l'1'ft-
~4(-OI0
u/v
.. ,
,'.
MlNUTES~OF MEETING
DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 5, 1990
~
1- Rezoning Application - Z90-00l - starkey/Coffman ..."
2. Concept plan - proposed phase 44 of Muirfield Village
3. . Concept plan - proposed phase 45 of Muirfield village
4. special Permit _ SP90-005 - satellite Dish - Ashland Chemical Company
5. Final Plat - Enterprise Court
6. Subdivision Regulation Exception - Tuttle Crossing
7. Subdivision Regulation Exception - Coventry Woods, Section 2
B. Informal _ Rezoning Application - Z90-005 - Windmiller property
Mr. Geese called the meeting of the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission to
oreer at 7:35 p,m. In attendance were Commission members Mr. Campbell, Mr.
Berlin, Mr. Geese, Mr. Kranstuber, Mr. Leffler and Mr. Manus. Mrs. Melvin's
replacement had not yet been appointed by Council. Staff members in
attendance were Mr. Foegi~r, Mr. Bowman, Mr. Willis, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Mack, Mr.
Covey, Mr. Banchefsky. . . ..
,*. 1. Rezoning Application - Z90-00l - starkey/Coffman
Ms. Clarke mentioned this application was tabled at the June meeting of the
planning Commission over the issue of dedication of park land. Two letters
written by Dr. Starkey were aistributed to Commission and staff members. The
first letter discussed the misunderstanding ~bout the missing 1/3 acre of .--
Coventry Woods. The second letter was Dr. starkey's proposal to dedicate the
park land in phase II within 5 years if phase II doesn't develop on its own.
Ms. Clarke also mentioned t~at the March and April, 1989 Coventry Woods .....
Planning Commission minutes ~~re on the desk in front of the commission
members for reference.
.'
The proposal for rezoning was heard and discussed at some length at the
June 7, 1990 meeting of .the planning. and Zoning Commission. . It was tabled
because of general dissatisfaction with the applicant'S proposal to have the
park dedicated in phases, even though this would be permitted by Code.
The site is located on the east side of Coffman Road, opposite Adventure
Drive. The 48.1 acre tract, whic~ extends from Coffman Road east to the North
Fork of Indian Run creek, is mostly wooded w;.th the denser woods toward the
interior and creek area. The northwest third of the site is open and was
previouSly used fo~ agriculture. The site is zoned in the R, Rural District,
at present. The land to the north is in Washington Township and consists of
~ 1;. t1!1/1LLtcS
V10...CO/....
~ (U:..r 1C~17,v-I',...
...', f}...5"'C:;O 1/2;
.
.-
'~._'--~ ------"---------~--~---------------- ________________1__
Minutes of Meeting, July 5, 1990
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Page 2
single-family homes on very large, deep lots. To the east across the creek is
the Coventry Woods subdivision zone~ PLR, Planned Low-Density Residential
District, and to the south beyond .~ drainage swale are Dublin City School
. District I s Administration Building- and' the high school athletic ~tadiurn. To
the west, across Coffman Road, is a single-family neighborhood zoned R-2,
Limited Suburban Residential District and R-4, Suburban Residential District
and includes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The Starkey
residence overlooks the creek at the southeast corner of the site and is
accessed by a "long drive from Coffman Road.
The PUD proposal is for a residential development consisting of both
multi-family and single-family dwelling units. The overall gross density of
the proposal is 3.2 units per acre. The project is divided into three phases.
phase I is a multi-family project of l12'units. phase II includes 11
single-family lots with 80 to 100 feet of frontage. Phase III includes the
remaining 25 single-family lot~.
The plan proposes that a total of 9.9 acres be dedicated as park. In
conjunction with Phase I, the multi-family portion, 6.5 acres of mostly wooded
lan~ along the creek, will be dedicated. The 1.1 acres acres dedicated as
part of Phase II is contiguous with the 6.5 acres of Phase I. The 2.3 acres
dedicated as Phase III is separated from the rest of the land on the same side
of the creek by the existing Starkey residence. The applicant has agreed to
insure that the parkland will be connected before it is all dedicated and
accepted. This could be a~~omplished by a foot bridge.
. .
Ms. Clarke gave a narration of the Staff report dated July 5, 1990. Staff
recommends approval of this rezoning application with the following
conditions:
l. Additional evergree~ buffers be provided along the south property
line and - along the north side between the single-family lots and the
25-foot access lane;
2. Public easements be provided through the single-family lots to
permit access to Phase I of the park. This includes a temporary
easement from Coffman Road and a permanent easement to the park from
the proposed public road when it is built. The applicant must also
provide access to phase III of the park either by a bridge or
..' pedestrian easement at the time of dedication;
3. The 100-year ~lood plain must be surveyed and delineated on the
final plan to assu~e that all lots are buildable; -
4. Storm water detention within dedicated parkland must be eliminated.
5. Drainage concerns on-site as well as transport of runoff from the
west as per previous agreements, consistent with MORPC guidelines
and subject to approval of City Engineer;
6. Roadway drainage along Coffman Road and roadway geometry within the
site (right-of-way, pavement width, etc.) subject to approval of
City Engineer; and
7. Underground utility placement subject to approval b Cit Engineer.
p~' -'b n1f n u.k-~
'7 - 5.- '10
a-Io
-
. .~
Minutes of Meeting, July S, 1990
Dublin Planning and zoning Commission
Page 3
Mr. Jim Houk with B~hm-NEBJ is the. ~epresentative for Dr. starkey. Mr. Houk
said he has researched the missing 1/3 acre at Coventry Woods. He said when
the developers of Coventry Woods prepared the legal plat, they did not buy
sufficient acreage from Dr. starkey to meet their park requirement. The
engineers made an oversight, trying to simplify the legal description and left
out the 1/3 acre. When the issue came up, they claimed that they didn't .
control the acreage so they couldn't dedic~te the additional 1/3, which was ~
true. None of the Coventry Woods developers, nor anybody at the city ever
approached Dr. starkey, requesting that the 1/3 acre issue be cleared up. He .J
said an agreement was made between the developer and the City of Dublin to pay
$9,000 to make up for that shortfall in the acreage. Dr. starkey was not
aware of any of that information until two days ago when he talked to the Pete
Edwards group to figure out what happened from that standpoint. His position
is the same as it was always. He.will have the developer of the property
dedicate that ground for park land when the development of the single-family
lots adjacent to that area comes in. The City will essentially have the park
land plus the $9,000 that was paid from Coventry. His concern, relevant to
giving up the property at this time given this situation, is that he then
wou~d not be able to sell it to whomever the developer would be and he would
essentially have given away 1/3 acre. His desire is that the developer pick
up that acreage. Regarding the one acre park within phase II, Dr. starkey's
intention is to sell that ground with the development of Phase II to the same
developer so that the lots will meet their park requirement by the purchase of
that property. He has .a~reed that he will try to find a buyer and if no sale
takes place within five years, he will dedicate it to the City so that the
City will have the ground in five years. All of the rest of the commitm~nts,
as they agreed to last time that were in the Staff report, they still agree
to.
Mr. Geese asked for Mr. Banchefsky's recommendation. Mr. Banchefsky
recommended that it be included in the record for both subdivision to make
sure of the dedication. JlIIIIIi
Mr.. Geese asked if the developer is willing to agree to all of' the 7 ...
conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Houk said yes.
Mr. Manus motioned to approve this application with the 7 conditions provided
by Staff, adding an eighth condition of a S-year commitment to dedication of
Phase II park land and. phasing of park land contributions per letter from Dr.
Starkey dated July 2, 1990. Mr. Berlin seconded the motion and the vote was
as follows: Mr. Geese, yes; Mr. Leffler, yes; Mr. Campbell, yes; Mr.
Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Manus, yes; Mr. Eerlin, yes. The issues passes 6-0.
2. Concept Plan - Proposed phase 44 of Muirfield village
\~~
The proposal for the rezoning and development of this new phase of Muirfield
village was discussed at the April S, 1990 meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission. A number of items were at issue which included: protection of
the natural stream bed and flooding issues along the North Fork of Indian Run,
the setback from Brand Road, street layout and street access onto Memorial
Drive, storm drainage ~nd natural wetlands, open space, and
f; Z; I1HJ1 ~f-{ '7 ..-z../3
.-S:;--"IO -
-
._._.__.___"..'.__m.,' .," I
Minutes of Meeting, June 7, 1990
Dublin Planning and zoning Commission
Page 9
landscaping. Mr. Amorose asked if Rax maintains the landscaping. Mr.
Marshall said Rax does not maintain the landscaping in the strip alongside the
. right-of-way. ~~. Amorose was concerned because a landscaper came through and
made telephone pqles out of the,shade trees that were along, there and he
stated shade trees are preferr~d., ,Mr. Marshall said Rax will not maintain
trees which are not in the immediate vicinity of the restaurant. The landlord
has requested the installation of some additional Austrian pine trees for
screening effect. Rax has agreed to do so as part of the approval process for
the landlord approval.
Mr. Leffler mentioned the recent upgrading of the shopping area next door with
the addition of the green canopies. He wondered why Rax wanted a red canopy
with green striping. Mr. Marshall said the canopy is red and there is no
green striping effect. ,He said the reason he is addressing the issue of the
canopy is that they are having extens~ve problems maintaining temperature
control in the solarium and because of leakage. The red awning ties in with
the building coloration that they have and it also has a tie to the awnings in
the shopping center and red awnings are part of the national image of Rax
Restaurants. He felt this would tie Rax in with the shopping center and solve
the problem of heat gain and leakage. He again guaranteed that the awning
will not backlight. Mr. Marshall also assured that the manufacturer of the
awning will obtain any permit necessary through the city.
Mr. Leffler motioned for the approval of this application as proposed with the
condition that the awni~g be opaque. Mrs. Melvin seconded. The vote was as
follows: Mr. Leffler, yes; Mr. Geese, yes; Mr. Kranstuber,yes; Mr. Berlin,
yes; Mr. Manus, yes; Mr. Amorose, yes; Mrs. Melvin, yes. Issue passed 7-0.
6. Rezoning Application - Z90-001 - starkey/Coffman
The site is located on the east side of Coffman Road, opposite Adventure
Drive. The 48.1 acre tract, which extends from Coffman Road east to the North
Fork of Indian Run creek,. is mostly wooded with the denser woods toward the
interior and creek area. The northwest third of the site if open and was
previously used for agriculture. The site is zoned in the R, Rural District,
at present. The land' to the north is in Washington To~~ship and consists of
single-family homes on very large, deep lots. To the east across the creek is
the Coventry Woods subdivision zoned PLR, Planned Low-Density Residential
Distric~, and to the south beyond a drainage swale are Dublin City Schools
Administration Building and the high school athletic stadium. To the west,
across Coffman Road, .i~ a single-family neighborhood zoned R-2, Limited
Suburban Residential District and R-4, Suburban Residential District and
includes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The Starkey
residence overlooks the creek at the southeast corner of the site and is
accessed by a long drive from Coffman Road.
The POD proposal is for a residential development consisting of both
multi-family and single-family dwelling units. ,~
. 5hl. r f. €I..' (10 {~/l'l<il'
Ms. Clarke sh~wed sl1des and read from the Staff Report. . , ~)
~~ Z 11\; lH-\\-e~
_~~\X 1, II' i) 0 \/'2,
-
Minutes of Meeting, June 7, 1990
Dublin Planning and Zoning commission
Page 10
Mr. Geese asked Steve Mack, Asst. City Engineer, for additional comments to
Ms. Clarke's presentation. He had no additional comments.
-.
!1r. Phil Fankhauser with the Epcon qroup, representing the applicants (the
developers of the multi-family portion of this property). In addition to Ms.
Clarke's report, he mentioned he had a meeting with Staff 22 months ago and
has made a lot of changes over that period. He feels that his company is
contributing a needed housing form for the City. The style is a ranch style
product. He mentioned the property appears to be a single family dwelling. ~
The materials used are brick, limestone accents, carved limestone address I
boxes, cedar, attached garages, fireplaces and private patio area. He said '.
..."ij
his primary market for his single-story homes is the "gray wave". Lifestyle
services, which are typical of condominium living, are provided such as lawn
care, exterior maintenance of the buildings and snow removal up to the front
doorstep. They also believe they are providing a beautiful streetscape along
Coffman Road. Details include mounding, landscaping, full irrigation, special
fencing and brick details at the entranceway and a guard house in the center
of'a divided entry way. Mr. Geese stated that the concept plan has already
been approved. He asked Mr. Fankhauser if he had any problems with Staff's
recommendation. Mr. Fankhauser replied no, that he agreed with all conditions
that Staff is making. He added that at his previous P&Z meeting, one of the
commission members who did not vote in favor of them, did so only because they
had not met with residents. Mr. Fankhauser stated that between the time he
met with the Board and the time he visited Council, he did meet with the
residents and the Hemingway Residents Association and were given support by
that organization. Mr. Fankhauser introduced Jim Houk, the land planner, and
Greg Comfort, the engineering consultant with Evans M7chwart.
Mr. Houk presented the land plan. He addressed the first four conditions
recommended by Staff and mentioned these were approved in concept. He
mentioned those were delineated on plan since Concept Plan approval. The
evergreen screen is included, provided the easement through to the park
through the multi-family easement through to Phase 3, the lOO-year flood plan ~
is. delineated (a piece of four lots within it, but' no building area will be in
the remaining lots). The storm detention has been removed outside the park
and it will be handled in other ways. During their previous meeting with ....
Council, concerns were raised regarding approval by the Fire Department. Mr.
Houk mentioned he has met twice with John Sedlock and the Chief regarding
private streets and the length of the cul-de-sac and they are comfortable with
it and.have no problem.
Mr. Berlin said he had no problem with the plan. ~~. Leffler referred to the
4 lots in the flood plain in the southwest corner and asked if Mr. Houk would
object to that piece of property becoming part of the park area. Mr. Houk
said they are working a module acrosS with the cul-de-sac. To move it out and
still maintain the depth on the lots does not work from a design standpoint.
They said they would agree to make the back of those lots no-build zones and
not allow them to put any fill in'that because it is far enough away from the
home sites that it will not be a problem. If we have to move that, then the
module at this cul-de-sac falls off and we end up losing two more lots. Mr.
Leffler continued by saying that he has a problem with the two southw
Sto.. r \\e 1'1\1\ '"
{J 4 1- 11\ ~ Y\I(~~~ I
.~'l~; I IQ'l b 2.. C(,\
.
..~=.,
I
Minutes of Meeting, June 7, 1990
Dublin Planning and Zoning commission
'Page 11
in that they run to the center line of the creek and have the ability to cut
off the creek. Mr. Houk mentioned the problem they have is that starkey's
existing residence sits 50 feet from the creek. He stated they couldn't get a
pedestrian easement down along there or else it's going right through the back
yard of Starkey's existing house~ ' M~,. Leffler said he's not suggesting
getting an easement, he suggested iimiting the lot to somewhere west of the
creek. Mr. Houk said he doesn't want to go to the center line of the creek.
He said he would take it to the west side of the creek line. Mr. Leffler also
asked at what point do they pick up the 60 inch drain from the existing swale.
Mr. Houk said there are two concerns for drainage. One is retention, which
they will provide and the other one is to make sure that they can convey the
water through the site without impacting the site or without impacting the
upstream owners. They submitted calculations to demonstrate that this pipe
and swale can carry the hundred year storm plus some and the 60 inch pipe can
do the same thing. Mr. Leffler asked if the 60 inch pipe can carry it, why
not carry it all the way to Coffman Road, as opposed to having water in
somebody's backyard. Mr. Houk replied there is a cost consideration, the 30
inch pipe plus swale that is there right now works pretty well and they would
maintain that. If the 30 incn pipe becomes a problem, they would work it out
with the engineering department and make sure they are satisfied with whatever
they come up with. Mr. Houk also raised concern abo~t a tree line that would
be damaged if a 60 inch pipe would be needed.
Mr. Geese asked Mr. Mack if the engineering department was happy with the
situation. Mr. Mack replied he feels there is a definite sense of cooperation
and that it can be worked out. Mr. Geese then asked Janet Jordan, Parks and
Recreation Di~ector, for her comments. Ms. Jordan commented that Dublin has a
section of par~ there, tbe 2.3 acres, that is isolated because of the location
of the Starkey residents. The applicant has agreed to ensure that the p~rk
land will be connected before it's all dedicated and accepted and that this
could be accomplished by a footbridge. Ms. Jordan asked for a commitment for
a footbridge. Mr. Houk replied that was not acceptable. He mentioned he
would work out either a footbridge or appropriate easement and pathways around
through the development. He mentioned much engineering work to be completed
before a footbridge commitment 'could be made. He said there is a flood plain
that runs through there. He said an easement would run between the lot lines
(the front of Starkey's property is now), back to the side of Starkey's
property between the high school property and Starkey's, coming right back
there and accessing the park. Ms. Clarke asked for clarification if the
accessway would be from the park along the creek, then out to the street, then
back between the lots to the park. Mr. Houk said that is the only way that is
feasible without going. through Starkey's back yard. The Starkey's have all
glass along the back of the house and the house is set 50 feet from the
stream. Mr. Houk said that without removing the Starkey house, they can not
get a continuous connection along there because of where the house was built.
The footbridge concept will be studied but not without a detailed engineering
study and costs. Mr. Geese asked if the City will approve anything that the
developer share in the cost of the]footbridge. Can this be part of capital
improvements? Mr. Houk said he is"willing to work with this, but after
looking at the flood plane and engineering construction if it's a $500,000
footbridge across there, we can't do that. If it's a reasonable ex e
S.\(.~r \:u~ ~ \-b,'.Aq ~
P + 2 i'~ i\'\~\.U I
,~111~'l0~) B
. .-
."'i
Minutes of Meeting, June 7, 1990
Dublin Planning and Zoning commission
Page 12
the footbridge, we have agreed all along that we will do it or participate
with the City.
Mr. ~~orose said he is not familiar with the stream. He asked if the
footbridge would access the pr~perty, from the east. Ms. Jordan added that it
would be a long-span bridge. Mr. Fankhauser mentioned that because the stream
is so wide,' during a time when there would be water in the flood plain ar-ea
requiring a bridge, might also be a time when it wouldn't necessarily be safe,
and it wouldn't be a good idea to encourage young people to be there. Hr.
Geese asked why we need a bridge at all. Ms. Jordan said there is a section ,~
of parkland that is not accessible otherwise. Mr. Geese asked why a
structured dam which could be walked on in dry weather. Ms. Jordan mentioned
FEl1A regulations which would have jurisdiction over this kind of thing. Mr. .......,..
Mack addressed Mr. Geese's and Mr. Leffler's comments about the floodway. He
said this development will have to file for a development permit because of
the floodway. There would have to be.a study done on the lots that are
impacted. There would also be a study done in terms of elevation at this
location to clearly delineate wnere the floodway is. It would have to show on
the development plan that this is a floodway. In terms of bridges and
floodway, there is a very lengthy and sometimes a very expensive process,
for the engineering, to go through to build a bridge. In some cases, the
engineering study may exceed the cost of the actual structure in order to
supply the data to get approval through the FEMA regulations or the
development ordinances. Mr. Geese mentioned that the creek is not deep, that
it is only deep at flood time. In normal water you would need only deep flat
rocks to walk across. ~r. Mack said the FEMA regulations are such that we
cannot put flat rocks in the area without a study. It's restricted to the
point that you can do' nothing in the floodway without a study.
Mr. Amorose asked Ms. Jordan why she wants this particular acreage and why
does she need access to it? Mr. Amorose asked why the Staff is willing to
accept the park ground in phases? Most every other development comes forward
with a whole rezoning and all the park ground is obtained at one time? Ms.
Clarke stated that when the land comes in for platting and development, we
usually get the part of the park that is included within that phase. \\'hen ~
Coventry Woods came in, we got that park in pieces, the same is true of Lowell
Trace, Earlington, and Erandon. Mr. Houk said Starkey wants to preserve .......
ground around the home. He said that's why the agreement is to bring it in
phases. When they bring in the single family area for development, the
Starkeys will no longer be living there. While they are living there,
however; they desire a band of protection around them.
Mr. Geese asked what park land on the first phase? Mr. Houk said the first
phase would give title and' ownership of the parkland to the City immediately.
Mr. Geese asked if there was access to Starkey's property by the walkway. Mr.
Houk said no, that access for a walkway all the way to Coffman Rd. all the way
down through there. Mr. Houk said he would talk to the Starkey's about
getting the easement moved so the/people can have access to the parkland.
Mr. Houk corrected Mr. Mack's statement that the lots were in the floodway.
Mr. Houk said the lots are in the lOO-year flood plain. He said that legally
you can reclaim the lOO-year flood plain. All you would have
\(2
.Alii
_.._--=,-,~=~ ~
. Minutes of Heeting, June 7, 1990
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Page 13
e 100-year flood plain is bring it above the grade of the expected lO~-year
flood. The floodway is the legal area that you cannot touch without a FE~A
permit. The floodway is not within any of our lots. Mr. Manus asked what is
the elevation that. has to be brought;up to in that particular area. Hr. Houk
said with it just touching us, he said he thinks it is just under a foot. Hr.
Houk said the area within the flood plane would be a no-build zone. He said
if it is the Planning Commission's desire is to not bring it up to fill,
they'll make that agreement to make it a no-build zone and not bring it up.
Mr. Houk said that when he first talked to Staff, he came in with just a
multi-family and Staff said they wanted us to put a zoning on the whole
property. That is what led us to force Dr. Starkey to make a decision on what
the rest of the property would be used for.
Mr. Chuck Kranstuber asked what the 1, 2, & 3 phases are on the park again.
Mr. Houk replied, I is 6.5 acres, 2 is '1.1 acres and 3 is the rest. Mr. Geese
asked if Mr. Houk could ask for a' request to get an easement through this
property, even though they would have a right to walk through the creek? ""ha t
you are asking is for the City to accept a portion of the creek. Nobody ,-'ould
know what portion is the Starkey property and what portion is Dublin. The
tendency is to follow the creek line all the way down. Would there be any
restrictions in doing that. Can we negotiate an easement to walk there? Hr.
Houk asked where would it go. Mr. Fankhauser said there are two problems with
that. One is the visual problem with the back of the Starkey home being
e mostly glass and they sit in their living room and it's only 50 feet to the
creek. The more serious 'problem is the fact that of all the areas along this
creek, the topography th~re is probably as steep as it is anywhere. If you
wanted to build a path between their house and the creek, you probably
wouldn't be able to do so because of the steep grade of the area. Mr. Geese
asked if an easement in the center of the creek could be obtained. Mr. Manus
asked if the Starkeys owned only to the middle of the creek. Mr. Fankhauser
said Mr. Starkey o"'~s on both sides. He said he doesn't know if an easement
can be granted to walk down part of a creek that is floodway. Mr. Leffler
said it was agreed that the lot line would end at the west side of the creek,
which means that the creek belongs to the park. Mr. Houk said an easement to
walk down to the creek would probably not be a problem. He sU9gested giving
an easement which comes across and through the area that y~. Starkey has not
deeded as park yet. The area which he still owns, which is all part of the
park in Coventry Woods, they get an easement to walk down through that area.
Mr. Fa~khauser said what they have tried to do is accommodate the planning of
this whole area, when in fact, we started out planning only the multi-family
section. The City will ~ave the park land eventually as a condition of
development of these lots. It's simply a matter of someone in the City saying
here is your license to develop, give me the deed to the park land and we'll
trade.
Mr. Geese said that with Coventry, cthey had a specific number of acres to
dedicate, and the City did not get:all the park land. Mr. Fankhauser said
that if the Starkeys are involved in owning some land today that should have
-- been given to the City as park land as part of this earlier development that
inadvertently was not, you can make that as a condition of approval of this
other piece tonight. Mr. Starkey was as surpris.ed as I was that
I "'.:t,....
Minutes of Meeting, June 7, 1990
Dublin Planning and Zoning commission
Page 14
some missing piece of land that didn't get deeded. Mr. Starkey said if
someone made a mistake and the legal description wasn't the total amount of
land, then bring me -a deed and I'll sign the rest... a deal is a deal. Ms.
Clarke said in the last phase C!.f Coventry, where Charlie Driscoll was
representing Mult~con, there was. a piece of land on the east side of the
;. .
creek, which according to the preliminary plan for Coventry Woods, should have
been dedicated as park land. It had never been transferred from Mr. Star~ey
to Multicon. Charlie Driscoll sat here and stated that he could not dedicate
land which he did not own.
Mrs. Melvin moved that the proposal be accepted with the following conditions ~
that the Staff has outlined: ....J
l. Additional evergreen buffers be provided along the south property
line and along the north side between the single-family lots and the
25-foot access lane;
2. public easements be provided' through the single-family lots to
permit access to Phase.I of the park. This includes a temporary
easement from Coffman Road and a permanent easement to the park from
the proposed public road when it is built. The applicant must also
provide access to Phase III of the park either by a bridge or
pedestrian easement at the time of dedication;
3. The 100 year flood plain must be surveyed and delineated on the
final plan to assure that all lots are buildable;
4. Storm water detention within dedicated parkland must be eliminated.
5. Drainage concerns on-site as well as transport of runoff from the
west as per previous agreements, consistent with HORPC guidelines
and subject.tQ .approval of City Engineer;
6. Roadway drainage along Coffman Road and roadway geometry within the
site (right-of-way, pavement width, etc.) subject to approval ~f
City Engineer; and
7. Underground utility placement subject to approval by City Engineer.
In addition an eighth and ninth condition were added:
..-.,
B. Any land still due to the Dublin Park System from the previous
development, named Coventry Woods, will noW be transferred and ....
deeded to the City.
9. Phase I and Phase II will come in at the same time.
Mr. Hou~ and Mr. Fankhauser said they would not agree to the ninth addition.
Mr. Fankhauser said it is unfair and not consistent with what the Co~~ission
has done n the past. Mr. Houk said he would agree to go back and work on an
easement with Mr. Starkey. .
Mr. Kranstuber said they are going to develop 112 lots multi-family which
leaves 42 single-family lots for later on. That is 70% of the lots being
developed initially but we're only,getting 30% of the park property. They are
only giving us 6.5 acres of park land out of 9.9 total. He said he doesn't
see any reason why Phase II can't come in immediately. Mr. Houk said it is
not required to meet their dedication in Phase I and they can not agree to it.
. None of these things. were made as motions during Concept Plan . We
5{-"r'te~ - (~..:.> II'\~~
\) * 1... 1'1'\; .'\v. \e., ~
.:~~ 1. '" tlO (; 2)
;l1li
.
Minutes of Meeting, June 7, 1990
Dublin Planning and zoning Commission
Page 15
could have discussed some of these with the Starkeys at that point in time.
The City has guidelines. There is a very complex formula that we use to
determine the amount of land that we have to commit to. Mr. Houk also said
they won't develop one single~family lot until we get Phase II. Mr.
Fankhauser said that there is <;t:com:nunity center, park facilities, including a
swimming pool and other recreational amenities which are part of the
development of the condominium property. The City's law provides that you may
elect to give us credit towards our total park obligation with that. You have
elected not to do so, and all of that expense is borne without credit to us
and we are still conforming to all of the required land per your formula.
Mr. Houk said he doesn't understand why the Concept Plan was approved with no
conditions or oppositions, and now the same thing back which was approved.
(Council approved it 5-0) comes back, and you throw conditions on it that you
never talked about previously. Ms. Clarke said the issue of Coventry Woods
was, at that point, that this Commission was openly displeased with the fact
that all of the park land indic~ted had not been dedicated, and this
Commission did, at least on one occasion, talk about its desire to obtain all
of the park land at once. Mr. Fankhauser asked if it wasn't true that in this
application as they have submitted it in terms of their park land
contribution, conforms with law of the City of Dublin. Ms. Clarke replied
yes. She said each phase that you have shown of lots or units and an
equivalent of acres of park land are as agreed. Mr. Fankhauser said
single-family was only included as part of this overall application only
because Staff asked us to go beyond the planning of our immediate intentions
to develop the condominiums.
Mr. Geese said he is'hearing several Commission members want to table the
issue until situation is worked out with Mr. Starkey. Mrs. Melvin wit~drew
her motion for approval.
Mr. Fankhauser said Mr. Starkey could elect to develop the land under its
present zoning in one-acre. lots and the City would get no park land. He said
they have followed what the law has asked them to do for 22 months and now at
the last minute, we're getting hung up over a technicality which is
inconsistent and unfair to us. Mr. Berlin agreed. Mr. Fankhauser said that
the Commission should not have an arbitrary license to say whether it is going
to be a baseball field or an apple orchard, whether he has to give it all or
half or three fourths or ten percent with his first phase. Mr. Kranstuber
said you are asking for the right to develop this in the nature that you've
set out: Mr. Houk said that they have given all the land that they have been
required to give. W~ agreed to give it prior to any development. Mr.
Fankhauser said the first. time they came in, they had asked that some of their
internal recreational amenities be allowed to apply to the total park land
commitment. He were told no, strongly. We could spend all the money we
wanted but not a penny of it would be counted toward our contribution. The
law allo",'s that. We then said we would put in every lOOth of an acre that
they require and we're not going ,to question it anymore, we'll do exactly what
they've instructed.' We have introduced it exactly as it's been developed.
Even the co~dominiums are going to be developed in two phases, but we aren't
asking that we be allowed to contribute that 7 acres in two phases. It will
all come in at once. S o.\'kv;/~,-ff.I""'~
p... L M'I\",,~i:c;,
_\~ "1 , I"V~ LJ ;
... ....
---,..--.~
Minutes of Meeting, June 1, 1990
Dublin Planning and zoning commission
Page 16
Mr. Berlin motioned to approve the rezoning application with the 7 conditions
in the Staff report, and the eighth and ninth conditions as follows:
8. Any land which is not transferred in the Coventry deal be
transferred. " "
9. That there be an easement from the multi-family area to the pa~k
land, Phase I and Phase II.
10. That the lot lines, the east end of the lot goes to the west end of
the street.
11. A no-build zone in the flood plain. ~
12. This land is subject to the connection ban.
.J
Mr. Houk said they would agree, before they bring back any final development
plan, to see if they can convince Mr. Starkey.
Mr. Leffler seconded the motion. Mr. 'Geese asked Mr. Banchefsky what their
recourse is if this application.is turned down. The concept approval is
non-binding and that's already been done by this Commission and Council. The
preliminary plan, if he goes ahead with the disapproval recommendation, he
must, in order to get the property rezoned, get an overturned vote from
Counci 1- Mr. Geese mentioned to Mr. Houk and Mr. Fankhauser that they are
taking a big risk by not going back to Mr. Starkey. Mr. Fankha~ser said it is
only fair to proceed. He also reminded the Commission that Mr. Starkey could
develop the land in one acre lots and that would leave the City with no park
land. He also said he doesn't believe Mr. Starkey would be able to meet with
him within the next month.
. ..
Mr. Fankhauser and Mr. Houk took a moment outside the meeting to discuss their
dilemma. They decided to table the issue until a later date.
Mrs. Melvin motioned to table., Mr. Kranstuber seconded. . The vote was as
follows: Mr. Amorose, yes; Mr. Berlin, yes; Mr. Geese, yes; Mr. Kranstuber,
yes; Mr. Leffler, yes; Mr. .Manus, yes; Mrs. Melvin, yes. The vote was 7-0 to
table. -.
1. Final Development Plan - Brandon section 5, Part I .'
The subject site is located about 1750 feet to the west of Dublin Road on the
north ~ide of Brandonway Drive. It is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development
District for single-family residential construction.
The request here is for approval of the Final Development Plan for 15 new lots
in Brandon.
Ms. Clarke showed slides of the area and read from the Staff report and asked
if the Commission had any questions.
,i
Mr. Geese asked Mr. Mack if he had any additional comments. He had none.
Mr. Geese asked the applicant if he had any problems with the 5 con . .
. 5\"" 6~/(1.:-,{~Y4""
t Z '11,\', I\u.~<;
~ 1, \'\ "lot>,} <(
I!f!II!J
,.,~--_....... I
.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes - February 6, 1992
2. Rezoning Application Z91-015.'" S~arkey-Coffman - Single-Family Plan:
, :: '~. . . ~ ...
Ms. Clarke showed slides of the site and presented the staff report. The site
includes the wooded portion behind the school administration building back to the
North Fork of Indian Run. The subject site is approximately 46 acres, and the
proposal is to build a single-family subdivision. The revised site plan (distributed at.
the meeting) reflects that the access point has been moved farther to the north,
the access to the park has been widened to the minimum 80 feet. There is a
diagonal 20-foot wide pedestrian path at the southwest corner of the site that will
permit pedestrian access to the high school. The tree preservation area has been
improved, but no plan for tree preservation has been submitted. The Wexford
Woods tree preservation plan was distributed as an example.
Staff recommends approval of this application subject to the following seven
conditions:
1) Working with the Staff to realign the entry road for better traffic
safety;
2) Design of stormwater conveyance through the site and detention for
the development in compliance with MORPC standards;
3) Widening the park access to at least 80 feet from the subdivision and
submission of written access agreement from school system for the
southern access;
4) Widening the easement behind the Starkey residence as requested by
the Parks Director;
5) Improving the tree preservation plan and no-build zone or other
protections in wooded area;
6) Provision of a 20-foot access through to the high school site between
lots; and
7) Submission of consistent landscape treatment and development
restrictions for lots abutting Coffman Road and increasing their depth
to equal the lots on the west side of Coffman Road.
She referred to the staff report conditions above:
#2 The applicant has shown a detention area within the site to take care of the
on-site drainage.
#3 The lane along Starkey's driveway would need to be maintained for access
to the southernmost portion of the park. The applicant has not submitted a
written access agreement from the school system.
~ ' .
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes - February 6, 1992
- , ,
.
Mr. Geese asked how wide the easement is behind the Starkey residence~ Ms.
JanetJordan, Parks and Recreation'DireCtor, said when the site was looked over,
the center line was staked. It was originally supposed to be five feet off of the
center, line. It ended up to be about seven feet and the developer agreed to it.
This will eventually have to be laid out in the field. ~.
Mr. Rauh asked why the park access is at the far north end of the park as opposed .."J
to a more centrally located park. Ms. Jordan said the proposed detention is
centrally located, but this was not the most aesthetically pleasing point to enter
the, park. The northern part is a cOrT',bination of meadow and trees, and a sign and
benches could be used more effectively . Mr. Bowman said the intention is to
acqu,ire more open space'through dedication.
Mr. David Haid, developer, said the newly distributed plat addresses the seven
issues of the staff's conditions. He said he is not in total agreement of these. On
the previous plan (which included multi-family), there were two entrances from
Coffman Road. Now there is only one. The entry street is approximately 360 feet
from the north property line. The second street approved on the previous plan was
approximately 350 feet. Most of the traffic coming out of Adventure Drive and
this subdivision will be heading south. There should be no traffic interference with
the two areas. He requested that the entrance stay where it was earlier requested.
Regarding the stormwater issue, Mr. Haid said the property to the west had been
given stormwater detention waivers. The undetained water flows through to the
Starkey tract and onto Indian Run. The MORPC requirements require the detention
of just this site. The only time that there will be a great amount of water coming
down this 60-inch pipe and emptying into Indian Run is when there is a ......
tremendous storm. During a storm, Indian Run north branch widens.,to 200 feet.
The water coming out of a 60" pipe into a 200-foot stream is insignificant, -
compared to the amount of water he will have to carry from the west. A waiver
sh'ould be given to this site also. It is the last site before Indian Run gorge.
Mr. Jason Coffee, R.D. Zande engineer, referred to the 2,000 scale U.S.G.S. map.
He said the highlighted area is tributary to the north fork of Indian Run and the
Starkey tract. He met with the City Engineering staff to discuss it. There is 5,300
C.F.S. (cubic feet per second of stormwater) for the 1 QO-year storm in total water
shed. The actual increase in runoff for this site between pre-developed and post-
developed conditions is 40 C.F.S. The~detention basin is not heavily treed, but
preserving the trees will be a maintenahce problem for the City. ' With a large
water shed, it helps in a stormwater situation to have quicker release in some
downstream area. Mr. Haid presented some photographs of the stream.
tilt
I
.
Dublin Planni.ng and Zoning Commission . . -
Meeting Minutes.- February 6~ 1992 ."---. . H .. ...
.. -...
- .
Mr. Steve Mack said the MORPC 9l:l.idelir}es are clear on what should be detained,
and it will not cause a hardship for.the applicant to provide it. The area where the
detention basin will be a "thicket" with mostly scrub growth and very few trees.
The area from the west is not detained and was developed before adoption of the
MORPC guidelines. The developer to the west bought a stormwater easement
...... from the Starkeys. The Ohio Revised Code specifies that upstream property
owners are responsible for their stormwater as it impacts downstream property
owners. The City Engineering staff supports detention where it is specified. If the
detention basin is waived, it would relieve the City of maintenance. Mr. Haid said
if the detention is not required, it would become parkland. Mr. Mack said
detention was waived in Donegal Cliffs because the discharge was directly into the
river. In this case, although there is a ravine, it has to be on private property and
the downstream property owners will be affected by the water. The undetained
water coming from west of Coffman Road would enter this basin and at least be
slowed down some before discharging. Mr. Mack said no storage volume for it is
in the detention basin. The basin provides shock absorption, and the impact on
the stream would be lessened. Mr. Geese asked how can a mound be built in a
, DO-year flood plain. Mr. Mack said this will be a fairly low area. It will not be a
large detention area. By the time the area will fill up as part of a , DO-year rain, the
site will be past detention requirements. Part of the design will be that the effect
of the detention basin would not impinge on the flow of the stream, as it also was
swelling because of rain. Staff would prefer that the detention would not be in a
, DO-year flood type area, but now precautions must be made to consider this.
Mr. Haid said the written access agreement has not been obtained from the school
system. They are discussing land acquisitions and are not sure if they want to
provide_ ~he easement. He requested that the preliminary plan be approved without
the written access agreement because he feels the City should be able to work
with the school board.
Mr. Fishman asked if the Wexford Woods tree preservation plan will be adopted.
Mr. Haid said he would like to see some of the other tree preservation plans which
have been submitted to the City in order to prepare a draft. Ms. Clarke said the
two which have worked the best are the one at Wexford Woods and at the
Treetops Condominium development. Mr. Haid said his plan addresses all of the
points in the Wexford Woods tree preservation plan except for the hiring of an
arborist. He has made an effort to save 1/3 of the trees by using a single-family
plan. The utilities have been moved fr()m the back of the lots to the front. The
no-build zones will be roped off. ,
. .
II Ii ;, ' . .' : ~ i: i' t .
, . ,
Dublin Planning and Zoning Comm~ssion
Meeting Minutes - February 6, 1992
" .., .
" .... .-
-" ~ - --" ~.
.- -. ; - .,'-'
Mr. Fishman asked if there is an alterna~ive plan if the easement is not obtained!, '.
Mr. Haid said the easement could tie l1loved to the north which provides access' . --",-
from Coffman Road back to t~.e park. Ms. Jordan said there have be.en preliminary
discussions with the school board and the north access is not acceptable. Due to
the very rough terrain and because the top of the bank is very narrow, equipment ,-.
can not access the area. She said the south side works because the parking lot at I
the administration building can be used. She advised against providing parking in ...."
the 80-foot access area. Mr. Leffler asked if the 20-foot access through to the
high school site between lots could be an accessway to the south. Mr. Haid said it
was his understanding that the north access would allow the west side people to
walk back to the park. He feared that by making the easement 80 feet wide,
people would park there. Ms. Jordan said "no parking" signs can be erected if this
becomes necessary. She said she could get the equipment through the 20-foot
access if necessary.
Mr. Fishman said he liked the old plan where the access off of Coffman Road is in
a different position. Ms. Clarke said the best access drive would line up with
Adventure Drive to create a major four-way intersection. This is not possible.
Because Adventure Drive is a heavily used road, the offset between the two roads
should be much greater than 200 feet. Staff requested that the drive be moved to
the north property line, but the internal alignment of streets is up to the developer.
Mr. Fishman asked if it will be the City's or the developer's responsibility to get the
easement from the school board. Ms. Clarke said it will be the developer's
responsibility. Mr. Haid asked that this application move ahead tonight contingent
upon the basis that if the school board does not provide the, easement, that the
easement can be provided on the north. Mr. Campbell asked how we can subject ~
this applicant'to deal with something he can't correct. Ms. Clarke said the
alternative is to widen the park behind the Starkey residence in order for the park ....
to be uninterrupted. The problem is the placement of the house near the stream.
Mr. Campbell said if the easement is not received from the school board, the-
access will work as proposed.
. ,
.:
Mr. Leffler said there was no mention in the deed restrictions about boat and R.V.
storage. Mr. Haid said the covenant deed restrictions have not yet been prepared
for this site. Mr. Leffler said the 20-foot access easement should be paved. Mr.
Haid said he would pave it.
Mrs. Stillwell said she likes the Wexforp Woods tree preservation plan. She said it
is not fair to make the developer responsible for scho'oleasement. She likes the
street alignment on the new plan, but she likes the design of the internals ~n th~
old plan. She suggested combining the best aspects of both. --
-
- ---_. --,-~-,.._.- _._~-- "'-~ ~~.=-=-------------~_.+-----
~ ,c. .',
- .
.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes - February 6, 1992
Mr. Campbell asked if he makes th~.mot!on to approve this application subject to
the conditions with the deletion that the written access agreement be submitted
from the school system for the southern boundary, will the applicant agree to the
remaining conditions? Mr. Haid said yes.
Mr. Campbell made a motion to approve this application subject to the seven
conditions of the staff report, deleting the clause in condition #3, "submission of
written access agreement from school system for the southern access", adding to
condition #5 that the tree preservation plan be consistent with the Wexford Woods
plan, and adding to condition #6 that the 20-foot access through to the high
school site between lots be paved at the developer's expense. Mr. Haid said he is
agreeable except with the tree preservation plan. He felt he should have been
given a choice of plans, instead of being forced into using the Wexford Woods
plan. Mr. Geese suggested that the tree preservation plan be subject to the
approval of the staff. Mr. Campbell added this to his motion. Mr. Leffler
suggested that Condition #2 be changed to delete the requirement for the
detention for the development in compliance with MORPC standards. Mr. Coffee
said none of the calculations have been done to prove how all of this works with
the timing of the storms. The actual increase in runoff for 100-year storm is
40 C.F.S. He would like to work with Steve Mack to prove that downstream area
is not affected, and it would not raise the 100-year flood plain. Mr. Mack said this
motion is in violation of a City Ordinance which requires a MORPC design. Mr.
Banchefsky said this site requires detention for its own runoff. Mr. Campbell
asked if a recommendation could be made to Council to at least consider the
application to waive the detention requirements. Mr. Banchefsky said yes.
Mr. Campbell's motion in complete form is as follows:
To approve this application subject to the following conditions:
1 ) Working with the Staff to realign the entry road for better
traffic safety;
2) Design of stormwater conveyance through the site;
3) Widening the park access to at least 80 feet from the
subdivision;
4) Widening the easement behind the Starkey residence as
requested by the Parks Director;
5) Improving the tree preservation plan and no-build zone or other
protections in wooded area subject to the approval of the staff;
6) Provision of a 20-fopt access through to the high school site
between lots to be paved at the developer's expense; and
7) Submission of consistent landscape treatment and development
restrictions for lots abutting Coffman Road and increasing their
depth to equal the lots on the west side of Coffman Road.
-
.. .
.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes - February 6, 1992
Mr. Manus seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Leffler, yes; Mr.
. - ~."
Geese, yes; Mr. Rauh, yes; Mrs. Stillwell, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Manus, yes;
and Mr. Campbell, yes. (Approved 7-0.)
Mr. Leffler made a motion to recommend to City Council that it consider a waiver ~
to the MORPC standards for on-site detention. Mrs. Stillwell seconded the motion.
The vote was as follows: Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Manus, yes; Mr. Geese, yes; Mr. ."."
Rauh, yes; Mr. Leffler, yes; and Mr. Campbell, yes. (Recommended to City Council
7-0.)
...
~
"
~..
tf/II!IfI<'
-
..
~.-
'--
-=----
-...
'---" -
-- -
IRA'" .---: - -
~- --- --
~--- -
-........J - .---L-
~ ' ---
<l: - , -
~ -I -
~ -
J -
C '
~&l i .--
-~ !
25 I c=- · l
'.1 Z ' """ z
~ u -
I-- _ ~ as I
--..Jll:-- Ul '" > I Z = = i5 j ~
! <( :ffi15 ~~
....J r--'" U- ~ l 1\
0.... U ~Q!~
<( I @
~ 0::: i
0::: ~ 1
r-- ~ '" '
O <! C\J ~
UOr0 ~
0::: >- 0 23 <;j ~
L- >- aJ~a::Or0
. _ r- 0 O~ZI~
I if) W ~od-.JO~
. I . ~w3:5q-
I UL ,/ w20ro~
-L. a:: <! r-- ~ <;j
, . "" 0::: CL N r0 ::> w
. 0::: . C\J -.J ~
, 0_0
, W a: U
I I L- <(
I -' r- r--
! _~" _..~ : ~ if)
, -... [ ~
,
, --
, '
"
. '
- I
I
l 8 I
/,
. - it-:II
r. .;;:; ,
, _ J I
<X
I ~ . I
. I I
I I
, ' L; I' I
; , I '
. I ' I
/" ,~
.' . I
/ __ . -,,' I
__ _' I !
I · ii I !
) /
(-
: ,
~ f
~ I
. I
I
I
I '
I
.. . I
z I ~
~ l
~ I I
I-- '
4
Z 0 -- ~ ~
W ..-
~~ --
I--~ ~
~O 0
Od I 0
r> I
~w U
~o ' ~
, I-- '"
I or ' I
~oc ~
~ -
~z I
<t~
~~ / Z
I-- -
UW - I ~
<t~ I ~
oc ~
O~ /..-- 0
lJ...(I) / - "
/ /'
/~_ I
I ~
C"
/ ~. '
. ....'
N ' ' '
~,
-- / / \ /'
'----
--
_ G-
, ---- "
) " ------ / /
,,-...
~./ \... ' ./
.'.. :I - -. .- -- I \ I l
~ \ I I
r '
~ '
~ ' ~ __ I J
~ "
.. ,f
, " '. I i ~
" I I
1
00 I
" ~ .
I ~
\ g ,"_ i
I ~
,I
U I ,- ·
~ ' 1
\ \ Z ~
/ I \ I ~ I
\/ I ~ '
10'
,
I \ I
. \ '
I
I I
Z . I 2 !
O~ ~ i
U_:il I
~ ~ '
, W~ >< I
, ~ w
WQ
I} f _ .," ~ ffi \ · \ I i
I . ----
I
. - ~ I
! i
~ I .
_ .W
U~
~(I) ,
, '
O~ I
N~
~_ NO I
I
I
- , . I
- '
I
I
,....,
I
- -
--
.-
I .-
~
.---..
- ---~
.
'I.. - ~
. ~
~
"---<- .
~
I -
a.. ~ I -- ~
<{
'--i-
-'" ~
-'
-
." ---
~;'\
...._ft
:;.--
-
..
- .' '
~ ~
~
~ t
c:x: · 1
~ . .~
~ w ' --.-
> >-...1
~ ~
~ U
L c,' ,'1 " "'1 f- '" -- 'I
.........'\ 'lL" 0 - .
~. ~ t z" I Ir,=-.l -I
~ \l ~ _6 I '~I -,2
~<< [7 _ UZ ~ ~ itS
_ _ >+1 = - -J
_ ' (/)1 _ >' 12 I!:!!:!l~O
~ll- << '" w...
~ ~ @:coo
I I ~.<I: I!:!!:!l~>-
, 1 ~
I ~ ~~
_ ';.. ...J t- ~ '-' ,
:2r U . ---.J
-+0..
~ ' <t: I
jj I- 0::, ". ~
1111,2 hi '.. <o~
u.w 0:::' ! >- U <l N
I W n' m~ort)1'O
or: a::'Ct
I 0 oCQ CI)
w....zo,..,
""'_, . I QLI L ~ ell aJ ~ :
'in. 0.. 1.L LLJ a.. w...... CI)
~ I ~og~'Ct
. ~z ~
."<,,,~ I 0 ~ a.. < ,... al -
_' N,..,:lf"
. _.._. m.rul ~ _ _ c::::D ci N 3 iD
. Ill.. J1 ITA I.. ' . _ z I I I II t "'" ci - 0 -
.'I.WIIlI.lfn,..... . .' UJ.J ...J ...... u
_~ r.JIll-IlI__1lI.1 _. I up W <t:
~ _ / 3> .-
""'''-' A / 1.:1 W en
m '__ UJ.J
c ' .,:. or' 0
, ...
8 ~-. , . ,. ,. / /:,. I
. ~ __,' .' ..IL / / '
~;;:< //
>- (?, _./. / / I
r W '.' . / I
~ ~ . /
I- ~ - ~ .,Y~ /
z' < o~~ - 7/:'V 1
, w I I- ~u::l; 7. .,/.~ ..
> (/) 0'" w ~ ,/ I
o '" '
o . !5"'''' ,,/' I
III '" '" w / I
ai n.~~'" I ' I' -
U. t-
.' . . _ u
/ . ..'. ..1 .. / I z I g l" ~ ~
I . ' '.' .,:Z, , :J:- I .. I t::: Z - <l t-
_ J . J..' :>
o/r . J." "Y'.' 7".'::':-;':':::: I C/) ::> <l Z 0:: ;:: < -1 L. >-
" ., . '.' .::':-' ~I W ' 0 . - C .J ~ <I
_ . ~ . ~':)/ I / _ 0: "- ~ ~ ;c. e i ~ :> .
\, ' .'. ". .,.""", I- r :> 2 w- Z w
_., .. /' " """. ........,. I ' ,~ .. 0 - a 0 - w ~ (/) Z
_ ,/ , .' z. .,:.:.... . . ' . ~ . - .. ::l; 0: ",,,, 0
, I' '~: ,.":::,,,.,:,. I 1/ ' W 0'" U 0: '" '" ",;;N
~ _ i..... . . . fl.;,'''':''''':':: / ~ /~ ,,0.. " I WO z ... li>- W U ,.-
.. . . ". ...,'... . --'. f'" ,::,,""': . /' v, (f) QO ~ w w""" :>,,10
W "/j' 'i/":' . r~ : J:,:.,.,:,'" /'/ ~(' /'- (9 wi> U Cl J: ~ Z W ~w' o::;:::!
.J><" ,.'.. ,J~ ..'....:.:. 1/1.. ~ ' 02 w"" ::> 0 ~ r~:l
. .'.,.':: . .f I . . ,...' .L - z' '" w.J
0'" ././ ..::.x.:):' " I " I ,/./ r 0.. I- t [co.J !2~ ,;>.,; z8 ~ a:!!! !::~'f'
(%1. ., ....,.. /. '. . I / tlJ ",0: 0 0 - ..'" ao-
o l/) ~ '_. i.,j f......:i. '/ .', /'1 I'. / ,/ I ~ 0 0: WiS w<l o:g;;;1; .J xv ';' <I~
"' .../ .' -:>-"'" . / ....f. "j' ,/(' ,'/ ~ Z <I a: 00 '- - <I.J .J wO 0"
z fl: . /.,., ,. / .'.' " /' ' .J r z - u'" - z Q, - - W
~ ~~ ~. ",::^"e:'~< ,<l- FIJ)OOVl~'( __ _ ;:;;; ,;0:/.:,'/'2.:-- Pr'l I' / // .r;,/: ' /1 ~ ~ f- ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 3~ : 5~ ~~i=
_ _~ ' .' ./..... .,. "'. ,".:' ..,.:..' ..\. ..; ",-. . ' ....,. '-'. /' /, / / ~ z U! .J'" ",,,, z'" Q 0.,. -,::>'"
~ c:::> j .,y.... ,.., ..... j .. . _.~ _ -,.''/ .:..... " ' ,.' U 0: "'W .Jo: ..Z - .. -, <1"'0
0: 20 .' .... ';3.,' ~.__.,:,..,. .'. .... ... . _. _" . _ _ . ,/ . .... '/-/ /' /' ---" .., W '" WU :0... a:- ",w ",' ~w ~ -
. " -C.' . ,,- . . "".,,~"_". ..... .. ," ,. ." .......... .' __ .,..>.>,.. . / ",,' WZ .Jr >- ~w ~ 0:0 '
. o~ . ./.... ...,,,.__,:...,.' . .'=.... :.,~. .-:.','::. :~:.:...:. :...;:. ,. ..... :.'. ...,. "..'-..' . .:.r ~,..... '/. ." // /' / ' - --. I '-.::: chef 0::< ~I- ozt:) ll.~ OUW 00::: (fJW-
_u Z ~ ._~ ...... - __." ~.. ...., ..' ~.... .. ,-Ji. .. ."-.... ~/., ~ - ~<I > -I- >
~ .. . " .. ,~.. . _ ",..,.,.,.., ............. '''... . ........:...,.,'.. .. .' .' .'P' ..J<" .~,....:...,.<<........' /. / " ...J W ",- .J' L"
We:( ~~ ..'~ j'f. .r-.'...... ~"':::;:..4--..;:,.'.:,,/...':> ,..:.:":;'::'\~'I:('iHl~'lO:~'~"'~-:.'~'" .:~.~. / . / / /. 10... 0 ~ t-~ m= ~~< 052 z~ ffi>-z t~~
(f) u . ':""j; Irr~ . ......... _ ...... ...,............'... ~'i' ,c.LXr:::-::-,-"" . ~ / LLJ I W ~ ~ ~ -'" '0-
z .,.. . .' ........ __ _". ".,;..- _ .., .' . ~ ......... .........~ .. .. , <!l I 1- W 0 >- 0: :> · ' .. .J '" N ...
_ ,. .... ". ' .' . .,. .. .. .......:..:.,.:.>?..,..:......;._._ ,_. ... -;. ,..." . . .. _' """. ""-,,.,;. ,'. / '" U '" ~ or
1( C\J 0 !t / /:. ../ ,." ., .'c'l?...:..:.:.""....,...........,,;c..::'''.:.'...O;:; _ _ . . " .' __ ~ . . . ..... ..,...,..:.:,.:~"" .........,:"..,., ':.' :,.... ,.' , "" ~ '.... / Y ;!; ~ I --1 2 g: Z we ?i: c ... Ie il':1;! ~ :: vi !j!
::::wl-
... . '.' 'l ..,' .... .... ... ... ",.> .,j.................:..:.:..,..:........:........:..:-..,.:-....:............'.. ~ , .,,,.... . :,,:.. - 0 ,- ffi 0 u '" '" <I W "y z
0.. g .. /..!. "!i~";f. (';;' ;:',;;Z, \y;;/y;/..:YY/f@'" ~,_ _.:<:'.sP~ ..... . ~~ ,~ ' ~ liW 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ;
. ...:; ....''',,' ,e"e' . ". ." ... . .:..>,:.;.;::>..;....:.;.:/[/....':..:.i../, ,.", ~ ~ " '- .. .' ~" a:> '" > 0 ';> 0 .. ): w, ~ <!l 0; 0 ~
zu
. . ." .' .. '. . .. .,.... 0::':: ' '. ............................ .. .. .,. .... "_,, ::> .. 1: - <I <I ::>
.. .~/~j .Lz<t+fiV//YiV//Y;::"" ~ ~ ~~ ....':::-'y " / ( I ~ ~ '" Vj" ~~ 3~ ~ t; ~ 3~ >-,,;-e-
'" .:::'.::....~. :...", If....,<>V:....,:.:Cl.....,.:, ::::.::::,::.::::.::/./.:::::::.:::/,::::.::.::,/./:::.::::...:M\~_.-d --...J" ....~rl :. l / ~/ J ,'" -J: o~ ~I-J:. Cl)z~ ~~o:: <l~ >w~ ~z~(/)z .
. . .,....~,. ........... ...... ,~___ _ ... ~_ . J . - -~ ~ - "'~o VI
. . ',.f ,/ '. ~ .".' "...................... ___ ~. "'.. .. - X r ... W::> ""cO
-, , . ,"': .",... ..,:,/ /. . ~ Q, .: ..,:: ',,:..'./ .... ..;.......:":... . _.... _, ._ ;.G~ I j , to ,00 / 0 I ri! ): wu f- ~~ :I:~ 0 _o:~u
,. .... 1" .. '.,," 0.",. .'" . _'".,..~--:: -=: ,~ ,€.... . -f'l~ "" .II ),'$ S? - .... ;1;~ ",::>w
; ""':". /. .... .' j 0:8.: ."""""".,.' . ~ ~e. ~ V 0 I l'l-i~~' ' "'CD a:
)1'. / ..,.... J' '.'.' ,." .. ",z ../ f"
..."...". j...., ../ ..:,.,,;,. . :',:/. . ' ;"----7 I ~jmW~ / -- --- \~ .
. . 'I .r........ . .. . . "- ",;...". " / W /:;..--... 0' '\
, ,. . . '.. "" '. ..' . ...,..... .. ' ' . .p ,0
( :>i' :".':.. .:\ ". ''':.:'.' ,;. . .,.'. "...: " ,'J )<, (~Li I ,,3 . ..1) , . I ) ~ ,~ I
'~." . . ., :.... "",,,,,...,,:,,:...,:.' _. . . \0 ll; ~ ' . , ,~"-
. . ,.':' .\ ,.C,.C' .... .. . ."... . '. '" . / 'V ...... - - -- ,-r- Iii ,y",,-::: . I :-.
'" )-..' . .., . , ,....,..... \ ---' . '
0: 5 ~! ;:! ;.,.,:l::> Y ~ ? I I · J Y T' fa ~...:=;/ ~ \" ", I ,+' '/!'O I
... '" ~. '..1 . '" ,. ..... ,- .... \'./ .., \
. '" c' ,;tf. li"'..,H.!.'''' .,:" . , ~C . +,~I' ...........1-- I T I /: ) A 0-- r \\ I I
~W 0 ' . . \ YtlA' ,,[;..' .: rt> . " /'./' ,_.' ,O~.~ \ 1- '
.r ..' ..' .... . - III
"") 0 j~,,,::: ::" "; i ." ~ 0 I h I I.. ' '" \ \ -
-l . ..:; " \' .~,r:' ~, ~' ' '
, . ,.." ..' . . . _ i:
. . '''.. ,,, . " , . \.
IL '.':" . ,-c. "", _ " ) ,- ,I 1-- ...... ,d' ",' Q. I
'. ,,_ \ . ,_ . 10'" .<J.
, ,.... . .. , . ..' ' :. '
..;;,: "'j ~t.;r) ,,0' -' i ,. - - --' .0 '
~ ~lL'< .Ji.~;~ 1 ~ P' \ 'J 'Y)L' o' A ____-o.! ~I/ \:'-~ - -i..~.. . -0 \ (7') ,fi(j,\ -I II
I"" ::: .t,. I~ () _ I I ---, l'l ~ /
. ... .. <" .. .' ~ -I
Zl 1',,, ".' _ !.I ,........-' .' \ . C" ~'ui .~ -- -.,.~~. 1-
<( I' . ~ /; ...... I ) ~_:z" ,/ ....'. ~
;0 ....1....:/'...:.:~...,~.:.'::.:" 1/'" ~0"90 .,; \ 1.0L -q- '..J 7 ~ _~~2 . J./ -I-- ' ,.,-.,- -- -=-'I~
l?j r' .:':"', .,:: .::.:.:., ..' f'lW'l(I (:5" . -- -f 1 . ""' ., 1 -- ...J
. _ .... ......."....,... ' . ~ LX 0 ~ -' ~.
'" ". . . ..,..... . . -" _-' ., 'l ~ ......--
. _ . ...," '. ,.'7"""~("'" .... \ . '
l ~~ ,.' / "'; .,....:"v..:\f\'."" . 7 b - - - ""'-'\ ~ ~ I I .'" ",,-r- ~
.' 0 ........... ....... ~ ~ - , I
a _ I ,.:,.::.::.:: .":.:,:.:.::) 7 ,,'" - .l:7 -t- ~
" ' ..' .... .,.......' ,......" a' . I~ · · . ~
. ,/ ,......... -,Lo _' _ ~ 8 (9
j I .' I f.( m Q. V' x.. ,I. -g ---+ I I - 0 >- ~:f '
I ,I ~,I' " -. - ~"''''
I.....r _' / ,~ _2N J' - - . - S' ... I Q.,:': UJ -
. ,,'/ _ 0.J '" ...J
/'" ) I . ~ ' :r .OLI "'l v' (1 -1/--0\ ->- ~001 ..& I . J, ",0:: '" '" III
/' g _ J I I ~A..:~ ( ,_ ' ~~-P r'1 ' "'d.~W ::>
~I 0 .... ., / - --=-= _I a I
f \. _____<r>~ I j!. . <IZ g i q. ~ ,/ ---i-- _)1 I ~ /""'-'l...-"'/ '
~ II .,. I !l . I ' - / - - I
_ I I e4- ~ : -' I - ~ jl/l-" 1- I
0<, - ~."'" -- -
. ,I . 1 U ...0 .1 ,,<..... . 1 /'~ - \ 1 1/ I I I
'0 " . " ( N~. . 1/ '" ".......1 ~ r-
I- . '0 0," I - ..... .001 - ;<' . '
Z // I ;',.. 0.0 ,'. .ot'- 1_.1 . - ~ ' ~~I ,06 I' IVV I I
w lL... ./ .... &"'/" '-- , iWI" 1 ~ .. - .
;:l; .\ -" ,_____ :pol' , -, ",' - ' ~ .
~ II ,~kl l i .....J- r' _ i I ." :-s:" '~I-' 001-' - ~I / "I - II
~ : I I ""'I _ _ ~ \ I ~ -=:;:;;-' " , I .' - ./
, J .VL' -' - /.
W ."" ~ >l / .....:: ~- ,<lO1 ' /
0: _ 1 0 1 -' Sl I ~ .91 I ,. "'I
~ II" 1 _ I /1 L '01 ~ ,00' I:' . j , ' . 08", 7); I /1. - .. l!; I
I- .' ~I / ' _ __ ......- I 1 -n' J ,/ I ......... " (f) o.
z IilJ I .. . _ I ./ ~' . 00' \ I / _ _ -.0 ,/ \ "- ,.., 1" - f- :-' g g in <:> '
_ ,,_,. _ '.' _ __' _~ ~ ,/ 0 _ '" N '" ...
~ / ,,' I ,~ ' ' ' .. " -, ,_ - z 0 '" 0 Z ,.. N .
V) / U' _ / ~ ' ~..-1--1 .._ v, =r_" J-' 10..71', \. g I w - - Wo CD
,..., ,. ... _----,' _ _. -'I -0-' ' (--+1 - I - l-
e> " .' I _ .. _ ~ - ~ - 18- 0
z Il 1- I (__ r 1 I} JI I _J '- 001- I -./ / I I - - w~ U) u. z~ (0 (J'l
~ A I \ _ II _ _ ./! ... .. '" "'): '" "'....
V) I .;;J J __ .1"'" _ _ """' \ (\J 0:: 0, 0 U) 0:: l()
X 011 I ~ ' ."" ,09 \ '1""'\ 'I " _ / 1 - '-.. ,,'9' 1 I / _.J g 0 ",WWZ <:>
/ w ~ UJ -W 1- g ~ ~ ~ ~ II -' "'ll "I .- '-.",~\. ..----vl/ 6 g ~i I"'~~~ ~ iJ .
_ _ '/ .I \~.!!! 0 ,,- t v' I W
, ,h.. I _. ~ ,,- (/)U)U)
\ ~ _ _ _ _ ' I' . _..2 " · r - .... I - e::: I I- I- l-
I- _ I .001' '_ "" -. )~ A _./,:il 000
, 15" '1 I I ,09 0; 'r' \,{_ I. 0-.'" - ill ' r "SS ~ I" f- I ...J ...J...J
~ c..' I ,..,1 ,19\ ,0> I ,\~ \, 1 ,,<::::'- .001 I "''i' - ~J' '~ 0 '"
>--" JoII---'l I I,~ I r 't.... \ d <-<<..,.... ~ ,,,,,' . _ ;'I:::: . / I" ,,---I--, .:;: " Ov b .,j.J: .... ..... I \ --1 .J I~ '" '" ~ ~ ~
1'5 ~) gl \g./~ ~ . ,:) ~ ~ -! "\.001 ~...... '\,:~~..... iii - ~ ~ ~ o~~
, ,c \ .. ~ \ \ \ , L ,01. ,O~ :::2:'" ;1; '" CD ~ Z - .
'- " . I _ ! ' I \ '" . ,r ' ,I ::> '" ';> .. WOO
'" ' 0" T' I 01 ' ~ ' _ /. li .', 'I ~ Jl :::2: or ~ @ ~ '" ...J CD 0
~ . 1\ ,,_. \...." n.. I r ~O . 0 ~ ---I \. 1- - b W ~ 0 0 <t -
r 0' '- _ . 7'. , ",' W N Z - 0: 0: 0: I-
W ..' .... I ~ ""\ ~ _.7'-, \. >J' i <!l x...-' ! - ): "'.. '" '"
ii.' ......... ,I \, _ _ . I' Y "., z=:; g , / ~ " I I :::2: t.. 15 >- ~ ~
'" ' -;~ 1 ..' _" "' \ \' t;w _ ' . - -' .J 3 10::: ~ <l
g ____ ,I" _ _ . \ ,_lJJ:::> I I ~ - W
W I' ( I ~ _ ~. _ 1 \ 2 xa: ro. '" 0:
, _ U I -. 2 '" w.., - o' I
. - ,~ I
~ 'j; __~,..IlI. ~'__ ,/ "_~ \'\' \ )-- _2 I I I
; ~II~~ ~. -1 ~~:.., r f- ,\~~ ~~" '. l..~.: ~ ~ I I
\ _ 1\ 4 \ S I ~'-....\~~u ,. .'" 0 I I
I '-- ," I ,,_ ....... --... J: I
~ ' 1 I I I...... , -...::: '~ ...... \ ~ I I
,T . T- . I I ~f\ I I
II I, I 0 1'( I' "o.LI" " '. \ j 3 I I '
/ I 'I 1= c OgZ' co '
_ I. I L ~" 'at ~ 5 I I ' . .
T . _ ~ <!l'" ,?- U u
2, I 0 01_' - I ~ ..~ \ 0 '1' J ~ ~ :1 I I ~ ~
C ,....... '\ ;" ~ '" "" '" '"
I, I '- _ . ~ - x '0\ ~ I I (1) I J- ~
(L.. ,'_ v" ) ,.... W '" '" <D " - 0 0
, 0<, T- 1 I , \ \ /' _, _ 1 ~ \ <!. ~ -: eN (\j:;; ~ --' .J
'--..... ~ 1 .,j ( r-.... \ ~2; 0 I.... _;, I ~ I I ~ .... ID .0';: ~ ....
''\ ", I I all ~ ,,"~L ""- ~ ,I 7" , ~ I I ,'" ~ N ~
,..:.:.... .-L U \.. \~' I 0
02r~ c I \ \ · \, g; I
; , . . ' '" <(
i~ ". _ __) ._ ~ . i ", \~ ' n. I f-
~If ~ . t?r~- ~_ ~ I i ~ ~ \. \ I I <!
~ _,/ _ ~ u- '- 0
_ _ "" __ ,: 0.. · .' \. I
~-------: _ OIl, _ W 0.. ' Z
\ r -=-.~ L _ ' - D .~ \ ' I I w b 0 in '"
_ _ .;-- I W C? .~ . \ I I f- ::J ~ w w "" l-
ei ~-:-=' _ ~~_ \, \ - ~~~t:lD 3 >-
>- 0 ~ __~ _ . (f) u,:l U 2 >- I-
>-1- '1:Z ~ <I: 11M. 91 _ _....~ ,____.~ \ ) I I < IJ,.. 0 0 0 ~ IJ,.. J- (/)
W u- U:J "X3 =w lL _ _.._ 0 W W - W 0 2
~ <1:0" !!j'" <I:~ I- _e_ _ -" L_ ~..::> , \ I --' . ~ 0 I- '" in w
. 'fa ~ 5~ ~~e;z \~._.' , I ~ ~ l. '" ~ ~ ffi ~ 0
1 \51- 0:: ..'" WIL.Uot ' ~ I I 0 C> li ~ I- I- lD 0 '"
, 0 n. ",0 ",::J Z--' - I I- n:: n. <I: W W ::E I- Ul
I-w2 ",a: ",roOn. w' lL 0 Z ~ W 0
:I: ..J 1:W U 0:: I I Z Z a:
",l-~ u" ZW W :> ' 0 C>
_",_ .. -n.W W V
_ (W6 . ~... ~<l:IJ.J~ ~ ~~ \ _ou NVl'\J..J
. 0 ",.J :JUUlU 3: w'" J,jO:.J
OwlL. w'" roUl ,Ul w >0
~ 00 . ..,0 owo zt!> t!> a I
. 2ZZ '" '"
___ 0<1:0<1: i...J
~--'N--' ::l;~
w> .
:!:
...--'
~. '
........a.-'w~ ~.._.....:.. . . 'I"
."'" _' I
I
,
I
I ~ '