The URL can be used to link to this page

140-01 Ordinance RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank Co Form No. 30043 140-O1 Ordinance No Passed AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FOR 30.399 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DUBLIN ROAD (SR 745) AND MEMORIAL DRIVE, FROM: N•+~- PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO: PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (AMBERLEIGH NORTH - WASATCH ESTATES -FILE NO.O1-081Z). NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, ~ of the elected members concurring: Section 1. That the following described real estate (see attached map marked Exhibit "A") situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21-70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances) the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 2. That application, Exhibit "B", including the list of contiguous and affected property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Exhibit "C", are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance therewith. ~ Section 3 . That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law. Passed . ' ay of ~fi~ - , 2002. ayor -Presiding Officer Attest: Cs~yw~- ~ ~C~c, Clerk of Council Sponsor: Planning Division rwo. I hereby certify that copies of this Ordinance/Resolution were posted in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 731.25 of the Ohio Revised Code. 1~/~ Cle of Council, Dublin, Ohio ~ _ d~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oox , ~~oSAFARI GOLF COURSE -o ' ~ t ~ ` ~ cr ~~oo~ ~ b x 'o ~ ~ Y g~ ~ [ C! Cj? D \ pggscoN DUNHLANN ^ ~IGTON PL CF ~ ~ ~ dp_ QGH 1YAL G~iAi[OY GHS1~ ~ [ CT ~ ~ CRAII. CT ~%%u~t ~ BUC[Ori ~'1? ~KLTfI1fAI0s ~ ~ ~4$ ~~b CT ~ G? ~ SRiORI'ON Ct G g~srnzcs ;l' 8 NREtY 1 Cs o~~ - ~ • _`'`ir~ s It1f00DLBE GIEN ARBO ;~~?ss TANAR A ~ 4 ~ N ~ ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ 4i9~ BF~~°~ ~ ~ 'vim " L ~ ~ ~ o~ o ~F°~~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ DUNNWOOD ~Q. ~ oLL ~~°~D DRt~ ~ ~v ~a ~ ~ c ~c E ~ d~ ti '~l+'d ~ CISr1RIC ~ _ 1?t'R AY ~ 1 d 'G TH6R1f0o so ~AYfQL3' e`~ ~ l1I ~ 1 <; ~ ~o ox~rcaeY ~d HA D~ Y D 1 EARISTON ~ D P14 1 ' ~ 4PL I?iiS~D ~ ~ ~ ~ . DR ~ ~ D TONTI A ES ~$D ~ ~ ~$DDQ1R~~ R~DDIIi~ N °o~~ ~ T~n/P w 'd ~ c9~ ~ D~ ~ 1 ~ r 1 ' ffiLBRYlTl1N ~![6RI( O 1-Og i Z Lrt ~ ~ ~r cr. ~ Rezoning ~y cr Wasatch Estates ~ _ 1 Y CT gALFOURE ---._...,..a, L q ~oypE~ EWA~v~' Q ~k 9~ Z UD ~ ~ N81 Af1~ P OR PEMBtt001~ Pl W ABINCiTON Pl ~U D ~ r ~ ~ o m it a a e~ 0 n ~ III E P 7~ F S CT 01-0812 Rezoning Wasatch Estates • ~ • emo To: Dublin City Council From: Marsha Grigsby, Acting City Mana Initiated By: Chad D. Gibson, Senior Planner Date: February 4, 2002 Re: Wasatch Estates (Case 01-0812/Ord. 140-01) This is a revision of the northern portion of the Amberleigh North PUD. Rezoning application 01-0812 was submitted in July of 2001. This application represents a substantial downzoning from 74 units (11 single-family lots and 63 cluster housing units) to six estate lots. On December 6, 2001, Wasatch Estates received approval from the Planning Commission with 17 conditions (See attached Record of Action). The applicant's representative agreed to the conditions with the exception of Condition #17. This condition required a bikepath to be constructed on the north side of Memorial Drive, from Dublin Road to the property's eastern boundary. As reaffirmed within the Community Plan, the construction of pedestrian pathways is encouraged, and is a standard development requirement. It is a requirement from the original PUD that both staff and the Commission believe should be carried forward to Wasatch Estates. C: Frank Ciarochi, Assistant City Manager/Development Director Barbara M. Clarke, Planning Director Fred Hahn, Director of Grounds and Facilities ~ , ; Cure nt or Existing Zoning Di stricC Requests d Zoning District: No- of Acres to be Rezcnc~: ~~~~AmhPrlPicrh North) ~ prrn _ _ - il S;"ATEiV1ENT: Stato bri~~~f!y he:~ tl~~e proposed zoning and development relates to the existing and potential future lend use charac'er of the vicinity. This residential rezoning replaces an approved residential subdivision (Amberleigh Nor , ~ Sections 4 & but reduces the number of units from 75 to six and the density from 2.56 du/ac to 0.21 du/ac. This development is surrounded by residential uses. It will meet or exceed the residential character of the surrounding developments. ~I I ~f '`STATE^~tENT: - - - Clate b^cfly h~c:~ the prcpcs~~d zcnir,~~ and development relates ?o the Dublin Cemmunihy Plan. 'i The Dublin Community Plan calls for this site to be public parkland, however it has alre dy been zoned for 14 single-family lots and 63 cluster lots. This proposed development reduces the number of units and preserves more of the existing woods. It will improve the ~ quality of development from that previously approved, i I i I PREVIOUS A"PLICATIG'.? I F;.,~, I , .n G';r . _ r I' I ,i ty 1~~ -.~n ,n6,~i f; ~ , 'I~,in ti.~, I t i~j YES ? NO F Y F S ~ lH E h ~ - - - - - - i I ~ ~ I I h I I ~ _ I PL 1, ' -L L`I ;IC,T' ~ lip C`UFSTLD 13 CGrli'O` IT' CR f'~i~_LI^.11,1ARY FL A J A-fTAC rte J YE ~ NO ? f A i'1 ~ F.(U f I ERIC T IS HL(71~i~Sl CO I> f it01'OS~ ) L'1' Lt~i ~.1LNT T`_XT Al i At }t' L'' Y~ ~ - - - _ _ ~J_- _ _ - ~ h' r - II. I I ' ~L I. CLUOf THE FOLI U~~I ta: _ _ - - - - - - - _ ~ ~ - ~r t ~ r- g~ i ~ , , - it ~ 1 3 CC.1 ICS Of LFC AL DL Hlf ZION: I I ,_I_ I, , i, 11 • pig {~_ihr lu I~ r. ; on~v1 rri ~i-;t ; ~:I ~_I''l' O ~ i ; -art}-' f'Ll1:J fIL~:UIItEi.1CNT:i: ~ ~ ~<<--% 1~~ :;;.TS Of- Pl_AN,T TO SCALL= (i h)1~ Gf~!-111 Er'~ TI i,~"J :'~1' X:~~.~') ;ilfOV'v'IiJG: ~ F ~ i 1 h, ~ it .u~,~l dl Lirn1 _ ~t I~~~~1 I~~~y~~n~1 . (u'un~l ir~ ~ NiI i in~l;~n i, Y.. ~ s Iri~,r,~ ~r:ili,~ii .IirLf~n; .i~~l~~,rr',I~,,1~yI~~~ ,L.lirn.~ll~,i:n,!~~~~ ` ...RM~ ~~~E,-L~~...K~~~ I I''. I 1'.' r I. u I i i~~, n I~~i t, .i;, ,J ~ 1 _ I n' ; I•i, ' i I , , . ~i I I ~ ~ i .I - - - - - - - - . - - - - - ~ - - . I ,,a~,, _ ~~H~B~~T rr~rr f. Size c( the site in acres/syuare feet; and g. All property lines, street rights-of-way, easements, and other information related to the location of the proposed boundaries. ? i ~•f SETS OF REDUCED DRAB^.'ING(S) (NOT GRE„i ER THAN 11' X 17°) II 1~ COPIES OF COUNTY OWNERSHIP P~tAP: (NOT LESS THAfJ 8'/z' X 11' AND NOT MORE THAf1 16" X 2G") heriny ccnt!guc.:~ prcperhj caner :vi:hin 500 feet from the perimeter of the area to be rezoned. ~ - CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS f~= Lis, all neighboring property owners within 300 feet from the perimeter of the area to be rezoned. Such list to be in accordance with the County Auditor's current tar, list. (Use additional sheets as necessary.} Labels formatted for Avery 5160 may be submitted as labels or cn a compu±er disk. PROPERTY OWNER (not Mortgage Company or Tax Service) MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE ~'""'i ~ i ~t ~ I II - 'i i i l - - -I ~ ~I I I - - I i I I s w ; , ; i ~ ~ Z 2~~~ ~ I , ~ r~,i r ; ~ ~ n I ~ 'i ~ ,I~ ~ J I'~ ~ • EYHI~IT i ~..I r - I` PROPERTY OWNER INFORP.1AT10_N Narne of Current Property Ov~ner(s) Margaret Walter Duffy Communities LLC hlaifng Address: (street, cir~, sk~tE, zip c~~d~~~ 5000 Deer Run Drive Dublin = OH F2Y 4324 Daytima Tel~pi,,one_ Nan e of Contact Person (~~x P ~ .r.., r, ,hit: elc: F'~~ase cumplete tiie Agent Aur ,enzalrcn, Section VII, beio;r. Michael L. ClOSe - j ~ t ~ ; ~a 115 West Main Street, Columbus~Ohio 43215-5043. _ ______.~j =-r.,'.,,,,'~ 614-221-5216 614-221-4541 __==Michael _Clos~=--. V. AU T HORIZATIOfJ TO `?I°IT THE Pi;OPC.~;TY ~ L~ .h i-. rr'/ r, I,; G'~/ r ~r~ i.. ~,n r,r<1,=r i ~ I a. , , , +r; ~ . ~ . C,.. ~ , r ~~n! ~(r. Vii: I, h I' - l ,t rr.,~ , tf~. r ,I.~r;% ..r,r f; ~~1 ;r ti~~., I I' ....:n. V1. UTILITY GISCLAI~.IER ~ C.; r r ; ~ : ( ~ ~ r ~ tr hn I, r ~ c ~ ~l h' ~r tf ~ ;1 n ~ F ~ , n 'y v . ir. t ? ~ C.. . ~ r, ~ ~ ~ ~i . :tut r it :.~r. h C.'./ ~~.n ,I ' I i ~ ~ r ~I ~ i I ~ ~ ci li t'r• ~ i r _i ,rr L r~~r r ~ r r I v `~.tt ! :I ,I ~ r~ , r ~c~n 1 r .r ~ n [ . 1'in C~~, ~~il , n, t , ~,nsl~~ il . ~ f ~ ..n ~ r . ~t r ~ .n , ! i+ww I .~:I~ ~ rl it ~i . r 1 . ..I. r ~7; ,r l "~I~{ ~';1. ~r.;i „UTf{C~i,L_ATII~^1 FOit ft r i~~ `:k ,`11 ~~~I? - ~ , Michael_ L_ Anse of Wilea, -B©~1~, $u-r-khold~r---&-~r-ingardne~ C-o. LPA ~ ict n,~,~ I r . , r! u~! i,; t.; ~.n ,,.~•c , i.-~..:~.~~ , 'r, ~.h ~ I r:_ ie,~.~r~l ,rail n! i'i ;i :_I ,~.i ; i ! u r i r,~; ~ . " ~ ; I , ,I ~ t.: ; ~ i, ur l i ~ '~,i I,~, .~~n; il,~, n :.u i .r 1 ,,r,~n in,.. , k . i ,n rt•+l r,;,.nl .iyn.iturr ~~f Cutnv {'ru wt r'wn~. U.~t~ l~~-~Y - - - 6 ~;n,iLn~~ ~;1 ~'.u;i~ nl I'nh~~irp ['.vn~~i- ~ ~tDttry ~ i `f~ ~ . ~~u L r i t 41 i ~ ,mow.. ~ I I ~r ~ JUL 2 2001 V;II. ~11'I'I Ir 1`. i Af I il`A`111 Ol ~.-0~~~ - I~r~l!,~~.~, L~~ r ` u ~~~~~~T ~ STATc OF (phi n COUNTY OF Franklin & D lawarP I i, ,the applicant or the applicant representative, have read and understand the contents of this application. The informa5on contained in this application, attached ex` <ibits and ct}-per information submitted is complete and in all respects true and correct, to the best of y kno ge and belief. Signature of Applicant or C" Date: Authorized Representative: / / ~ /r1 ` ~ [ L ( C// cribed and sworn to before me this t~ ~ day cf ' ^ Notar/ Public / ) O~P~'~ S ROBYN D. HARP ~ Notary Public, State of Ohfo v, My Commission Expires 09-09-04 ~.1y~F of Deaf m....a• iw+~ x s ~ r,:, ~ rt 1 ~r ~ r ~ i` i t ~ ~ f{ ` i ~c~~ CS~I~ p l~s ~ .~lL 2 20 ~fT~ Q~ ~~~L~~ ~x~~ ~iT~ Q ~ . DESCRIPTION OF IS.349 ACRES November 2, 1999 EAST OF DUBLIN-BELLEPOINT ROAD (S.R_ 745) SOUTH OF GLICK ROAD CITY OF DUBLIN, OHIO Situated in the State of Ohio, Counties of Franklin and Delaware, City of Dublin, being part of Virginia Military Survey No. 2545 and No. 2544, being l 5.349 acres out of that original 43.965 acre tract (Tract 2), as described in a deed to Hoag Limited Partnership, of record in Official Records Volume 33470, Page G09 (Franklin County) and Deed Volume 613, Page 433 (Delaware County), all references herein being to the records of the Recorder's Office of the respective County, and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning FOR REFERENCE at an iron pin found at the southwesterly corner of said 43.965 acre tract, in the line between Virginia Military Survey No. 2545 and Virginia Military Survey No. 2544 and in the ~ centerline of Dublin-Bellepoint Road (State Route 745), 60 feet in width at this location; thence North l4° SS' 40" West, along said centerline, a distance of 297.56 feet to a point at the southwesterly corner of a 15.050 acre tract, as described in a deed to Margaret M. Walter, of record in Instrument No. 1 99801 1 6001 1256; thence North 7S° 04' 20" East, along the southerly line of said 1 S.OSO acre tract, a distance of 243.40 feet to a point of curvature; thence continuing along said southerly line with the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 765.00 feet, a central angle of 27° 24' S6", a chord which bears North 88° 46' 48" East, a chord distance of 362.57 feet to an iron pin set at the southeasterly comer of said 1 S.OSO acre tract and the TRUE PLACE OF BEGINNING; Thence along the easterly perimeter of said 1 S.OSO acre tract, the following courses: 1 • North 33 ° S7' 40" West, a distance of 27.73 feet to an iron pin set; 2• North 9° 23' 4S" East, a distance of 84.73 feet to an iron pin set at a point of curvature; 3. With the an; of a curve to the left, having a radius of 275.00 feet, a central angle of 32° 3S' 27", a chord which bears North 6° S3' S8" West, a chord distance of 154.32 feet to an iron pin set; 4• North 37° 43' 03" East, a distance of 392.16 feet to an iron pin set; S. North 3° 24' 06" East, a distance of 570.65 feet to the center of Manhole No. 38 in the southerly perimeter of "Deer Run Estates", a subdivision of record in Plat Book l 8, Pages 34 and 35 (Delaware County); Thence along said southerly perimeter the following courses: 1 • South S4° 38' 12" East, a distance of 187.35 feet to an iron pin found; 2. South 64° 40' S7" East, a distance of 113.I9 feet to an iron pin found; 3• South 79° 3S' 49" East, a distance of 95.72 feet to an iron pin set at the northwesterly corner of a 12.000 acre tract, as described in a deed to the City of Dublin, Ohio, of record in Instrument No. 199710100117335; Thence along the westerly perimeter of said 12.000 acre tract the following courses: 1 • South 22° 13' S4" East, a distance of 715.95 feet to an iron pin set; 2. South 2° 19' 20" West, a distance of 142.08 feet to an iron pin set; 3. South 61 ° 23' 04" West, a distance of 367.24 feet to an iron pin set; 4• South 14° 32' 20" West, a distance of 121.90 feet to an iron pin set; Thence North 7S° 27' 40" West, through said 43.965 acre tract, a distance of 504.49 feet to an iron pin set at a point of curvature; Thence continuing through said 43.965 acre tract with the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 765.00 feet, a central angle oi'2° 03' 04" a chord which bears North 76° 29' 11" West, a chord distance of 27.39 feet w the TRUE PLACE OF BEGINNING and containing 15.349 acres of land , 5.396 acres being in Franklin County and 9.953 acres being in Delaware County. Iron pin set consists of a 1 " (O.D.) iron pipe 30" long with a plastic cap inscribed "M-E ENG/S-6872' ; Bearings herein are based on North 14° SS' 40" West for the centerline of Dublin-Bellepoint Road south of Station 156+08.80. ~ ~3 15.050 ACRES EAST OF DUBLIN-BELLEPOINT ROAD (S.R 745) SOUTH OF GL1CK ROAD CITY OF DUBLIN. OHIO Situated in the State of Ohio, Cowrties of Franklin and Delaware, City of Dublin being part of Virginia Military Survey No. 2545, being 15.050 acres out of that 43.965 acre tract (Tract 2), as described in a deed to Hoag Limited Partnership, of record in Official Records Volume 33470, page G-09 (Franklin County) and Deed Volume 613, page 433 (Delaware County), all references herein being to the records of Ute Recorder's OfTce of the respective County, and being more particularly described as follows: t1~"" Beginning FOR REFERENCE at :ut iron pin found at the southwesterly comer of said 43.965 acre tract, in the line between Virginia Military Survey No. 2545 and Virginia Military Survey No. 2544 and in the centerline of Dublin-Bellepoint Road (State Route 745), 60 feet in width at this location; thence North 14 ° SS' 40" West, along said centerline, a distance of 297.56 feet [o the TRUE PLACE OF BEGINNING located 40.00 feet north of the centerline intersection of Memorial Drive. Thence continuing along said centerline, the westerly line of said 43.965 acre tract, the following courses: 1. North 14° 55' 40" Wcst, a distance of 452.56 feet to an angle point at station 156+08.80 witnessed by two monuments to the east a127 feet; 2• North 1 S ° 07' 13" West, a distance of 272.42 feet to the northwesterly comer of said 43.965 acre tract, the southwesterly comer of Deer Run Estates, a subdivision of record in Plat Book 18, pages 34 and 35 (Delaware County, Ohio) Thence along the northerly line of said 43.965 acre tract, the southerly line of Deer Run Estates, the following courses: 1 ~ North 74° 52' S7" East, passing an iron pin found in the easterly right of way line of Dublin-Bellepoint Road at 61.84 feet, a total distance of 395.30 feet to as iron pin found; 2• South 77° 11' S7" East a distance of 123.73 feet to the center of Manhole No. 41 of a 36" sanitary trunk sewer; 3. North 75 ° 39' 34" East, a distance of 242.66 fat to the center of Manhole No. 40; 4. North 25 ° ] 0' 24" East, a distance of 363.23 feet to the center of Manhole No. 39; 5. North 72 ° 52' 48" East, a durance of 153.81 feet to the center of Manhole No. 38; Thence through said 43.965 acre tract with a new division line the following courses: 1. South 3 ° 24' 06" West, a distance of 570.65 feet to an iron pin set; Yrr 2. South 37 ° 43' 03" West, a distarce of 392.16 feet to an iron pin set; y 3• With the arc of anon-tangent crave to the right, having a radius of 275.00 feet, a central Zl lA ` angle of 32 ° 35' 27", the chord of which bears South 6° 53' S8" East, a chord distance of 154.32 fcet to an iron pin set at the point of tangency; 4. South 9° 23' 45" West, a distance of 84.73 feet to an iron pin set 5 South 33 ° 57' 40" East, a distance of 27.73 feet to an iron pin set; 6_ With the arc of anon-tangent curve to the (eft, having a radius of 765.00 feet, a central angle of 27° 24' S6", the chord of which bears South 88 ° 46' 48" West, a chord distance of 362.57 feel to as iron pia set at the point of tangcncy; 7 South 75° 04' 20" West, passing an iron pin sct in the easterly right of way line of Dublin-Bellepoint Road at 175.52 feet, a total distance of 243.40 feet to the TRUE PLACE OF $EGINNING and containing 1 S.O50 acres of land, 5.342 acres being in Franklin County and 9.708 acres being in Delaware County. ~ Iron pins set consist of a 1" (O.D.) iron pipc, 30" long with a plastic cap inscribed "M-E ENG/S-6872. 'rr The manhole centers reference herein are center of the structure, not the center of the manhold lid. C1u~q~r~.J Htiti~~ .:nr 13.,t,a c~ A/: ..rn /y > > yc t/i n,. ~ esTaR(-.r- er= D: 3~,~ aaP...r T~ e..u .i...n~ eT Hit ri,.,~.,-~ 1Tn Ti.~ t d' ~c ~Sr!'n.. n~ ~L ~:,T ,r O - to'I_ C 5 . 3 42.4c . SP~~z ~2ot`I 2~3_ to5¢ ±e t'a Nd ,ant Cie1e. P.l:.. P.S. ` Fr„rJcl;n aunty ti ;l Enplncer D~lei'Q • Q t ttW 3~.~ • Margaret Walter Duffy Communities LLC Michael L. Close 01-0812 Wasatch 5000 Deer Run Drive 115 West Main Street Dublin, OH 43017 Columbus, OH 43215-5043 H. Keith & L. Ann Allen Peter D. Osborn George G. Vergits 5125 Chaffinch Ct. 5137 Chaffinch Ct. 5149 Chaffinich Ct. Dublin, OH 43017-8606 Dublin, OH 43017-8606 Dublin, OH 43017-8606 ~ mes E. Davidson Thomas J. McManamon Anthony S. Glover _ 63 Chaffinch Ct. 5175 Chaffinch Ct. 5199 Reserve Drive Dublin, OH 43017-8606 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Janis B. Rosenthal Howard R. & Joan E. Vanover Gary M. Busch 8429 Tibbermore Ct. 8441 Tibbermore Ct. 8438 Tibbermore Ct. Dubllin, OH 43017-9721 Dublin, OH 43017-9721 Dublin, OH 43017-9721 My & Minhloa Dotrong Jeffrey A. Paula A. Cerny William W. & Carolynne J. Khoury 8422 Tibbermore Ct. 8410 Tibbermore Ct. 8407 Tibbermore Ct. Dublin, OH 43017-9721 Dublin, OH 43017-9721 Dublin, OH 43017 Muirfield Association Roderick J. Spittle Michael L. Galayda 8577 Turnberry Court 8391 Glen Tanar Ct. 8383 Glen Tanar Ct. Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017-9557 Dublin, OH 43017-957 regory W. Witter John W. Dawson Jeffrey P. Rossi 376 Glen Tanar Ct. 8388 Glen Tanar Ct. 8392 Glen Tanar Ct. Dublin, OH 43017-9557 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017-9557 MacDonald P. Wick Nancy L. Sponseller Alfred R. & Patricia Celli 8351 Dublin Bellepoint Rd. 8315 Dublin Rd. 8285 Dublin Rd. Dublin, OH 43017 Dubli, OH 43017-8242 Dublin, OH 43017-8242 Cynthia Warye-Martin Jeannine M. Ashton John M. Wright 5282 Indian Hill Rd 5320 Indian Hill Rd. 5250 Indian Hill Rd. Dublin, OH 43017-8208 Dublin, OH 43017-8242 Dublin, OH 43017-8208 Erl J. Gockenbach Toll Land 8261 Dublin Road 3103 Philmont Ave. City of Dublin Dublin, OH 43017-8242 Huntington Valley, PA 19006 1 Margaret M. Walter Lou Ann Moritz Deer Run Limited Partnership 5000 Deer Run Drive 4900 Deer Road 745 State Route Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Noah A. & Patricia Frazier William D. & Maureen L Duecker James E. Bennett 8731 Glenamoy Ct. 8719 Glenamoy Circle 8708 Glenamoy Circle Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 seph A. & Cheryl B. Hoskins Stanley J. & Bettyann Bunk Jeffrey M. & Amy A. Wittmann 18 Glenamoy Circle 5065 Glenaire Drive 5049 Glenaire Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Martha Anne Brogan Shigeo & Ting-Ing L. Okajima Michael T. & Marcia A. Strall 5033 Glenaire Drive 5017 Glenaire Drive 5002 Glenaire Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 C. Richard & Dorothy M. Wise Jerry & Judith A. Ellis The Reserve Association 10820 Edgewood Drive 10815 Edgewood Drive 5163 Chaffinch Ct. Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Marsha K. Parenteau Clayton R. Jones Bob Webb Builders, Inc. 5124 Reserve Drive 5148 Reserve Drive 7662 North Central Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Columbus, OH 43222 ~ianita A. Bonta Henry R. & Susan M. Fisher Joseph J. & Jill H. Gasper 19 Reserve Drive 5133 Reserve Drive 5147 Reserve Drive y.,,,ublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 J. C. Scott & Polly L. Schillig David C. & Lisa M. Kanney Charles A. & Josephine M. Strickler 5159 Reserve 5171 Reserve Drive 5150 Chaffinich Ct. Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Michael W. Bradford Jeffrey R. & Georgiann M. Sinkey Muirfield Village Golf Club 5138 Chaffinch Ct. 5126 Chaffinch Ct. 5750 Memorial Drive Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 Dublin, OH 43017 / II / l' ll l ' ~ y~ / / Iltlll l I I I 1 ~ ~ I , ; P~~ 1 ~ 11. y X11 1, I ~ a~ ~ ~ yr ~ ~ ~ ~^R ^ ~ A 1 ~ 1 1 \ ~ `\\iY V I I,. 1 11 1 i~Y ~ ; ;;;1~ ~~II ` 11 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I ~ , r I ~I X11 I I - ~ ~ 't II t ` ' - ~ \ 1 1 I ~ ~ I `lam I 1 2 _ 1 ,,;,111, 1111 - _ ~1,1 ~ 1 ~ - ~ € I I , I r ~I 1 ~ , - ~ i ~ , Ir 1~ 1 11 II ~ ~ , , I `1 ~l~ I 11 ~ \\,V ~'I , , 1 1 ` I % I 1 W ~ ~ ~ y ~ :"Jss I /Ir ~ r 4, ~ i 1111 ` `I I. _ 1 r 1 ~ al ~ ~ ~ r ~ . _ _ . ? - - ~ ~ ~ ! 1 _ 1 ` _ ~ ~I-` ~ . /1 6 ~ r r, r ~ ~r ~ r ~ ; . v 1 ~ I I V1,N~ \r I / ~ ~ ~dy~P N JJ~ a, 1 111 ~f~_ ~ 11iIIyI.,~~ ~ ~~9r y ' - in O - ~0 . , 1 - I _ ';11~ , , _ w ~ ~ 1'', 1 ~ ~ . ~ ~ I ~ 1 ~ / ,11 _ _ __e~ ~ ~ ey9~ \ f./ . ~ . ~,c~- O ~ S iFk N ` ` ' ~ ~ ~ Si Q ~ I n ~c ~N~~ ~ ~ ~ ~o rn A rn ~ D 'I~ ~ vo r z n~n ~z ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ \ i ~ ' \ C ° ~ D I ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ° n D \ \ I \ \ \ \ \ I i ~ . i ~ / \ / x / 8 \ ~ oo~a ~d~ oo ~a L`~ ~ yy ~ : ~ B i ~ 3 ! A ~ a~~Y ~ ~~~zf g O l~ ~ y~ ~ y ~C N mD R~ i PROPOSED TEXT f WASATCH ESTATES Develo ment Text p City of Dublin, Ohio As passed by Council on: SUSMITTQlm /y c'`- PCp ~ oM ~ ~ (Revised per Conditions of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission, December 6, 2001) WASATCH ESTATES DEVELOPMENT TEXT Planned Unit Development Wasatch Estates The following information is submitted in accordance with the requirements of the City of Dublin Code Section 153.056, "Planned Unit Development District". Any additional information regarding this development text or the PUD can be obtained from the PUD Preliminary Development Plan, Wasatch Estates, dated (approval date herej. A. Site Data Site data information for all subareas of Wasatch Estates is as follows: Total Acreage: + 29.009 acres Total Lots: 6 lots Gross Density: + 0.207 dwelling units per acre Park Land/Open Space: Already dedicated per original Amberleigh North PUD See attached plan Exhibit A: Wasatch Estates Preliminary Development Plan (Drawings L-O1 & L-02). B. Subareas The following subareas shall be made part of the PUD plan and are further illustrated in the plan (Exhibit A) and further discussed in this text: Subarea A -Estate Lots 27.95 acres) This subarea composes the majority of the development site and contains five large residential lots. The residential nature of this subarea compliments the surrounding residential developments of Deer Run Estates, Muirfield, and Amberleigh North. Estate homes will occupy these lots. One or two lots may be devoted to community facilities for private entertaining and meeting the recreational and maintenance needs of the development. Such structures will be residential or barn-like in appearance. Subarea B - GateHouse 1.059 acres) The primary entrance to Wasatch Estates will be from Dublin Road. This subarea contains the gatehouse located at this entrance and will serve as the security and caretaker living quarters. The architecture of the gatehouse will fit the residential character of the area. * The site was + 29.258 acres in size prior to P&Z condition to dedicate to the City an additional 10 feet along Memorial Drive. This also changed the density from +0.205 units per acre. The size of Subarea A also changed from +28.198 acres. Page 2 of 6 WASATCH ESTATES DEVELOPMENT TEXT C. General Development Standards 1. If these standards conflict in any way with the City of Dublin Codified Ordinances, the standards of this Planned Unit Development shall prevail. Standards in the Dublin Zoning Code applicable to matters not covered in this document shall apply to each of the subareas in the Planned Unit Development. 2. Replacement of Amberleigh North PUD Sections 4 & 5: This Planned Unit Development replaces Sections 4 and 5 of the approved Amberleigh North PUD. All design and commitments of the preliminary development plan for those two sections are nullified with this approved plan. This development reduces the number of approved residential units from 75 (12 [Sect. 4] + 63 [Sect. 5]), as provided by Amberleigh North, to six (6). 3. Open Space Dedication: The site for Wasatch Estates already met the open space requirements of the City of Dublin through earlier dedications of land as part of Amberleigh North, and is therefore exempt. The 1.16-acre strip of land along Dublin Road was dedicated to the City per the originally approved Amberleigh North PUD. The total land dedicated by the Wasatch Estates site exceeds the open space requirement for this development. 4. Tree Replacement: Good-faith effort shall be made to preserve trees on-site, particularly within all setbacks. The tree replacement requirement shall be waived for this site in exchange for the additional parkland akeady dedicated to the City. 5. Entrances: The entrance for the Deer Run Estates subdivision will be closed and that development will gain access through Wasatch Estates. Wasatch Estates will have two access points, the primary access will be on Dublin Road between Subarea A and B, and the secondary access will be on Memorial Drive, spaced appropriately from the Dublin Road intersection. The entrances will be gated. 6. Streets: The streets will be private drives and are further described in this text. The drives shown on this plan are the ones that will be platted and constructed. While the layout of private drives will be constructed, their precise location may vary from that shown so long as the functional objectives continue to be attained. Page 3 of 6 WASATCH ESTATES DEVELOPMENT TEXT D. Permitted Uses Land and buildings in Wasatch Estates shall be used only for the following purposes: Subarea A -Estate Lots: (1) Dwelling Structures: One-family dwelling structure. (2) Private Community Recreation Facility: Clubhouse structure for residents of Wasatch Estates and Deer Run Estates. (3) Home Occupation: Home Occupation as specified below. (4) Accessory Uses: Accessory uses and buildings in association with permitted dwellings as specified below, including domestic servants' quarters (employed on- premise). (5) Private parks. Subarea B - GateHouse: (1) Dwelling Structures: One-family dwelling structure, including attached office for security and maintenance staff. (2) Home Occupation: Home Occupation as specified below. (3) Accessory Uses: Accessory uses and buildings in association with permitted dwellings as specified below. (4) Private parks. Accessory Structures All accessory uses permitted in the R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District, are permitted in all subareas. Unattached accessory uses may be located in any buildable area of the lot and are restricted to the maximum height limitation of the respective subarea. The total of all accessory structures shall contain no more than thirty percent (30%) of the gross floor area of the principal structure. Private Community Recreation Facility Any private community recreation facility will be limited to the residents and guests of residents of Wasatch Estates and Deer Run Estates. The private community recreation facility is restricted to non-commercial uses. Home Occupation All of the lots in Wasatch Estates must meet the standard home occupation requirement specified by City of Dublin Code, except for one. For that lot, the following type of home occupation will be permitted: No more than six (6) unrelated people shall be engaged in a home occupation. The space devoted to the home occupation shall be within the main structure or basement and will occupy no more than 1,000 square feet. Not more than six (6) vehicles used by employees, shall be parked at the location of the home occupation at one time. Page 4 of 6 WASATCH ESTATES DEVELOPMENT TEXT E. Development Standards Unless otherwise specified, the following development standards apply to all subareas: Lot Requirements Lot Area and Coverage: Subarea A -Estate Lots: For each principal structure there shall be a lot of not less than 2.5 acres. Only one principal use shall be permitted on a lot, and such lot shall not be covered more than thirty (30) percent by structures. Subarea B -GateHouse: For each principal structure there shall be a lot of not less than 1.0 acre. Only one principal use shall be permitted on a lot, and such lot shall not be covered more than thirty (30) percent by structures. Minimum Lot Width: For the principal structure there shall be a lot width of 150 feet or more at the front line of the building, and such a lot shall have access to a private street. Minimum Building Setback: Dublin Road: Sixty (60) feet from publicright-of--way. Memorial Drive: One hundred (100) feet from public right-of--way. Minimum Side Yard Setback: None. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: None. Maximum Height: Subarea A -Estate Lots: Thirty-five (35) feet for Lots 1, 4, & 5 and fifty (50) feet for Lots 2 & 3, as measured per City of Dublin Code. Subarea B -GateHouse: Thirty-five (35) feet, as measured per City of Dublin Code. Page 5 of 6 t WASATCH ESTATES DEVELOPMENT TEXT F. Private Drives Internal Drives Internal drives shall be private with not less than twelve (12) feet of pavement. Access to lots and maintenance of the drives is subject to across-access easement agreement (see Exhibit B). The cross-access easements are fifty (50) feet wide, measured twenty-five (25) feet from each side of the private drive centerline. Curb Cuts Curb cuts on public streets shall be limited to one on Dublin Road and one on Memorial Drive. Curb cut spacing shall be restricted to a minimum of 250 feet from intersections, with offsets no less than 100 feet. Parking Temporary parking during special events for up to fifty (50) vehicles shall be permitted on Lot 4, internal to the subdivision. Sidewalks In keeping with the estate appearance of the Wasatch Estates, sidewalks will not be included with the development. G. Landscape Plan Fencing and Walls Fences shall be permitted along lot lines and internal to lots, provided the fences are decorative and open and do not exceed six (6) feet in height. Masonry stone walls, up to four feet in height, shall be permitted along lot lines and internal to lots. Private screening fences and walls are permitted within the buildable area of all lots. Entry Feature Entry security gates shall be permitted at both access points within the building setback. Twenty-four hour emergency access will be provided to both gates. The gates shall have decorative masonry columns and wing walls not more than eight feet in height. The gates shall be decorative in appearance and not more than eight feet in height. A sign may be incorporated into the gate structure at both entrances indicating the address and/or development name. Each sign will not exceed 24 square feet in size. H. Final Development Plan The final development plan submittal will include a tree preservation plan and a landscape plan detailing items such as entry features and signage. Page6of6 EXHIBIT C PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION DECEMBER 6, 2001 ..fffl' (IF' IIt BLl\ vrsioa of Planning S00 Shier-Rings Road ia, Ohio 43016-1236 phone/1DD:614-410-4600 kz: 614-161 ~b566 Web Site: www.du61ai-oh.os The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 3. Revised Preliminary Development Plan 01-0812 -Amberleigh North, Sections 4 and 5 -Wasatch Estates Location: 30.399 acres located at the northeast corner of Dublin Road (SR 745) and Memorial Drive. Existing Zoning: PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Amberleigh North Plan). Request: A revised preliminary development plan for six single-family lots with associated uses (eliminating 63 condos and 11 single-family lots) under the PUD provisions of Section 153.056. Proposed Use: Six estate lots, a private recreation facility, and a gatehouse with servants' quarters. Applicant: Margaret Walter, 5000 Deer Run Drive, Dublin, Ohio 43017; c/o Duffy Communities, LLC, 8760 Orion Place, Suite 100, Columbus, Ohio 43240; represented by Michael Close, 115 West Main Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215-5043. Staff Contact: Chad D. Gibson, Senior Planner. MOTION: To approve this preliminary development plan because it substantially reduces gross density, provides substantial green space, preserves large stands of trees, and provides new estate-style lots for the community, with 17 conditions: 1) That right-of--way be dedicated according to the Thoroughfare Plan (40 feet from centerline of Dublin Road) prior to submittal of the final development plan; 2) That a plat be submitted at the final development plan stage reflecting a 50-foot (minimum) easement corridor and demonstrating provisions for construction and long term maintenance, subject to staff approval; 3) That the plans and text be revised to indicate tree preservation and/or no-disturb zones to preserve trees wherever practicable, and be submitted with the final development plan for the private road, subject to staff approval; 4) That the site plan optimize tree preservation with the sensitive placement of private utilities; 5) That a landscape plan, detailing any entry features, street trees, signage, etc. meeting Code be submitted with the final development plan, subject to staff approval; SUBMITTED TO COUNCIL ~ ~ FOR MEETING ON ~ D Z Page 1 of 2 l PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION DECEMBER 6, 2001 3. Revised Preliminary Development Plan 01-0812 - Amberleigh North, Sections 4 and 5 -Wasatch Estates (Continued) 6) That all private drives, bridges, culverts, etc. meet all applicable engineering standards; 7) That all private drives meet any provisions or conditions as required by the City Engineer or City Council; 8) That the site meet the provisions of the storm water waiver as approved by City Council, but not limited to, properly designed velocity controls and aesthetic storm water outlet areas; 9) That units requiring an ejector/grinder pump be identified on all subsequent plans and building permits; 10) That appropriate notes be included in all future documents prohibiting additional access to Memorial Drive; 11) That revised development standards be incorporated into the text including a 60- foot setback for Dublin Road, a 100-foot setback for Memorial Drive, and height restrictions of 50-feet for lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 and 35-feet for lots 5 and 6, subject to staff approval; 12) That both gates proposed provide 24-hour emergency access; 13) That if blasting of bedrock causes a well in the area to 'run dry, the developer will be responsible for supplying the affected structure(s) with water; 14) That the plat address the jurisdictional issue regarding the county line, subject to staff approval; 15) That the text be modified with regard to special "home occupation" to clarify that these only apply to one lot; 16) That the text be revised to indicate the clubhouse be used for non-commercial purposes and restricted in use to the owners in this subdivision, and that appropriate deed restrictions be applied, subject to staff approval; and 17) That a bikepath be installed along the north side of Memorial Drive. * Mike Close agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 6-0. RESULT: This revised preliminary development plan was approved. STAFF CERTIFICATION r. _f , ;Lip i~ Barbara M. Clarke Planning Director Page 2 of 2 Dublin Planning and Zonir ":ommission Staff Report -December 6, ~t)O1 Page 9 3. Revised Preliminary Development Plan 01-0812 -Amberleigh North, Sections 4 and 5 -Wasatch Estates Location: 30.399 acres located at the northeast corner of Dublin Road (SR 745) and Memorial Drive. Existing Zoning: PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Amberleigh North Plan). ~ Request: A revised preliminary development plan for six single-family lots with associated uses (eliminating 63 condos and 14 single-family lots) under the PUD provisions of Section 153.056. Proposed Use: Six estate lots, a private recreation facility, and a gatehouse with servants' quarters. Applicant: Margaret Walter, 5000 Deer Run Drive, Dublin, Ohio 43017; c/o Duffy Communities, LLC, 8760 Orion Place, Suite 100, Columbus, Ohio 43240; represented by Michael Close, 115 West Main Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215-5043. Staff Contact: Chad D. Gibson, Senior Planner. BACKGROUND: This site is currently zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District as part of the undeveloped Amberleigh North, Sections 4 and 5. Section 4 is currently zoned for 11 single-family lots and Section 5 is zoned for 63 condominium units in a cluster arrangement. This proposal would consolidate these two sections and rezone them for a total of five estate-sized lots with recreation facilities and a gatehouse with caretaker's quarters, or six units total. Approval of this application will rescind the existing zoning for Sections 4 and 5. This is a revised preliminary development plan for a portion of Amberleigh North under the PUD provisions of Section 153.056. The Planning and Zoning Commission is to make a recommendation on this rezoning request. The application is then returned to City Council for a public hearing and final vote. Atwo-thirds vote of City Council is required to override a . negative recommendation by the Commission. If approved, the rezoning will become effective 30 days following the Council vote. A final development plan must also be approved prior to construction. CONSIDERATIONS: Site Characteristics: The subject site includes two undeveloped parcels totaling 30.399 acres located at the northeast corner of Dublin Road and Memorial Drive. The site is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District as part of Amberleigh North. The site is irregular in shape and has about 1,400 feet of depth. It has about 720 feet of frontage along Dublin Road and about 1,200 feet along Memorial Drive. The site is heavily wooded with mature trees and contains relatively steep topography for the area. The site is split by the Franklin/Delaware County line, and a 20-foot sanitary sewer easement with a shallow, 36-inch sanitary line runs generally north-south through the eastern portion of the site. City-owned parkland and the 100-year floodplain and Dublin Planning and Zonir ~'ommission Staff Report -December 6, X001 Page 10 floodway of the Scioto River are located directly east of the site. The Deer Run is located immediately north of the site. • The western area is currently zoned for 11 single-family homes and the area closer to the river is zoned for 63 condominiums in a cluster arrangement. The proposal effectively reduces the density from 2.5 units per acre (74 units/30.399 acres) to 0.2 units per acre (six units/30.399 acres). • To the north of the site is Deer Run Estates, zoned R-1, Restricted Suburban Residential District, a subdivision developed on a gated, private street. To the south of the. site, across Memorial Drive, is the Amberleigh North subdivision, zoned PUD. To the east area 22-acre City-owned park and the Scioto River, and to the west, are the Muirfield Village, Phase 13 (zoned PUD) and Reserve (PLR) subdivisons. Site Layout/Access: • As proposed, the site is divided into two subareas, totaling six lots. Subarea A includes five single-family lots totaling 28.198 acres. Subarea B includes a gatehouse and caretaker's living quarters on 1.059 acres right along Dublin Road. • Subarea A is divided into five lots ranging from 8.575 acres to 2.626 acres. As proposed, the county line splits Lots 3, 4, and 5. For jurisdictional clarity, the plans should be revised to note which homes will be in which county. • The primary access to the site is proposed from a new, gated private street along Dublin Road. The existing private drive into Deer Run Estates (11 lots) will be closed, and the new access will service both developments via a new "loop" drive. Deer Run Drive (private) is not yet complete, and only has two houses to date. The new entrance falls entirely within Delaware County. A secondary gated access is shown along Memorial Drive. The location of the second access should be changed to show alignment with existing Autumnwood Way. Interior circulation will be comprised entirely of private roads. Due to the topography on the site, construction of one or more bridges/culverts may be necessary. Private streets and associated structures must meet Dublin Engineering standards. A 50-foot easement is required for the proposed private roads. It should be noted that City Council has taken a very strong stand a~nst the creation of private streets to serve single-family development. The proposed PUD text sets a minimum street pavement width of 12 feet, and Code requires 24 feet. Access to lots and maintenance of the drives is subject to cross-access agreements. • The text limits access to one private street on Dublin Road and one private street on Memorial Drive. The text also states that curb cut spacing must be at least 250 feet from intersections, with offsets of no less than 100 feet. "Special event" parking for up to 50 vehicles is permitted under the proposed text on Lot 4. No sidewalks are proposed within the development. A bikepath was to be installed along the north side of Memorial Drive as part of Amberleigh North, Sections 4 and S, and will connect to the existing tunnel. Staff believes this path should be constructed as a part of this development. • The Thoroughfare Plan sets Dublin Road right-of--way at 80 feet and Memorial Drive right-of--way at 100 feet. The required right-of--way from centerline (40 feet for Dublin Road) must be dedicated with the final development plan. Memorial Drive has already been platted with a 100-foot right-of--way. Dublin Road is designated as a scenic Dublin Planning and Zonir ~;ommission Staff Report -December 6, X001 Page 11 thoroughfare, and it is recommended that setbacks be maximized. The proposed gatehouse setback (25 feet) does not conform to this recommendation. Land Use/Community Plan/Text and Development Standards: The Future Land Use Map in the Community Plan designates this site as "public park". The area immediately to the east is now parkland. The Land Use Plan shows the all of the rest of this area as "medium density" residential (1-2 du/ac.). The site is now zoned for 74 units, and as proposed, is being reduced to six units. The proposal drastically drops the density from 2.5 units per acre to 0.2 units per acre. ~ Permitted uses in the text include single-family homes, home occupation limited to six or fewer employees for each lot, a private community recreation facility (clubhouse), accessory uses with a maximum size of up to 30 percent of the gross floor (livable) area of the primary use, and private parks. The home occupation and clubhouse provisions are different from standard Dublin Code provisions. In Subarea B along Dublin Road, a 25-foot building setback is shown (for the gatehouse). In Subarea A, the building setback along Dublin Road is 60 feet. Along Memorial Drive, a 50-foot building setback is shown. Side yard and rear yard setbacks need to be added to the text. • Minimum lot size for Subarea A is 2.5 acres and the minimum lot width is 150 feet. Maximum building coverage in Subareas A and B is 30 percent. Maximum building height proposed is 65 feet for Subarea A and 35 feet for Subarea B, as measured by Code. Staff believes this proposed maximum height is too tall given the setbacks proposed. Landscaping/Tree Preservation: No tree preservation plan has been submitted. The site is heavily wooded with hundreds of mature trees and the text states that "a good faith effort" will be made to preserve trees. A Council waiver will be necessary from the Tree Preservation Ordinance. At a minimum, staff recommends the use of large tree protection areas and/or no-disturb zones to preserve trees. It is standard policy to require no-build zones along all areas that abut parkland. • City Council recently adopted a partial waiver policy from the Tree Preservation Ordinance for heavily wooded sites. The policy allows tree-for-tree replacement instead of inch-for-inch replacement when certain criteria are met. • Open space has been dedicated to meet the full park requirement of the Amberleigh North PUD. No further parkland dedication is proposed. • Street trees will be required along Dublin Road and Memorial Drive. No street trees are required along private streets. Utilities and Storm Water: • Council approved a storm water detention waiver for this site in 1997. The storm water system must incorporate properly designed velocity controls at outlet points to prevent erosion and the discharge area must be aesthetically improved. Storm water management has not been addressed in the text. Water is available to the site via an eight-inch line along Memorial Drive and it has the capacity to serve this development. Sanitary sewer is available to the site via a shallow, 36-inch line that runs through the site. Some basements may be lower than the sewer Dublin Planning and Zonir ~;ommission Staff Report -December 6, X001 Page 12 line, necessitating the use of ejector pumps. Units requiring ejector pumps must be identified on all subsequent plans and building permits. • .The bedrock is very close to the surface in this area, especially along the river. Any blasting for rock excavation must be performed according to the City Engineer's policy. If any blasting causes a nearby water well to run dry, the developer will be responsible for providing the affected structure(s) with a supply of water. Architecture/Entry Feature: • Entry gates are proposed at both access points, and are to be constructed of decorative masonry columns with wing walls not more than eight feet in height. An entry sign of 24 square feet apiece is proposed at each entrance. All entry signage is subject to Commission review. Emergency gate access has not been identified in the text. • Architecture has not been addressed in the text. At a minimum, the gatehouse will have to return to the Commission for approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This is a very unusual application, effectively lowering the approved density from 2.5 units per acre to 0.2 units per acre. Density/traffic is the most important community issue, and this proposal will produce very limited traffic. The approved cluster plan (Amberleigh North, Section 5) would have eliminated a large number of trees, and that aspect of the development was a strong concern. The issue of the private nature of the street is one that needs to be taken up at City Council. Staff recommends approval of this PUD revision with 15 conditions: Conditions: 1) That right-of--way be dedicated according to the Thoroughfare Plan (40 feet from centerline of Dublin Road) prior to submittal of the final development plan; 2) That a plat be submitted at the final development plan stage reflecting a 50-foot (minimum) easement corridor and demonstrating provisions for construction and long term maintenance, subject to staff approval; 3) That the secondary access along Memorial Drive be relocated to the satisfaction of staff; 4) That the plans and text be revised to indicate tree preservation and/or no-disturb zones to preserve trees wherever practicable, subject to staff approval; 5) That the site plan optimize tree preservation with the sensitive placement of private utilities; 6) That a landscape plan, detailing any entry features, street trees, signage, etc. meeting Code be submitted with the final development plan, subject to staff approval; 7) That all private drives, bridges, culverts, etc. meet all applicable Engineering standards; 8) That all private drives meet any provisions or conditions as required by the City Engineer or City Council; 9) That the site meet the provisions of the storm water waiver as approved by City Council, including but not limited to, properly designed velocity controls and aesthetic storm water outlet areas; Dublin Planning and Zonir `:onunission Staff Report -December 6, X001 Page 13 10) That units requiring anejector/grinder pump be identified on all subsequent plans and building permits; 11) That appropriate plat notes be included in all future documents prohibiting additional access to Memorial Drive; 12) That the development standards be provided with the final development plan and be described in the notes on the plat, subject to staff approval; 13) That both gates proposed provide 24-hour emergency access; 14) That if blasting of bedrock causes a well in the area to run dry, the developer will be responsible for supplying the affected structure(s) with water; and 1 S) That the plat address the jurisdictional issue regarding the county line, subject to staff approval. Bases: 1) The proposed plan substantially reduces gross density. 2) As revised, the plan provides substantial green space and preserves large stands of trees. 3) The plan provides new estate-style lots for the community. ~E~ i C ' D Q 5 O G UD .1 b Nsr ANE e OR N d~ PEltBROOI~ Pl w 118iNGi'ON Pl T 0 e-e' ~ Q ~ 0 m - l m I L .L N ~ o_ Ez P o EO i n ~ Z Z 1 S3 ~ R9 R Q~ ~ Z p Y7 ~ e 01-0812 Wasatch Estates _ Amberleigh North Sections 4&Sr ~ _ - - - - - „ Rp dy, x ~o ~ 1 f-- SAFARI GOt_ :OURSE ~ -t ; d aiex i~ :`..1 - . a - ~ ~ ~ BIRGHAI[ ~ ~~LJS'TIE GT N Q ~ ~ pgggCON ~ ` ~gltiGTpt1 PL D CT tiDON ~ DLJIiaLA ~ ~8 QGH - ~ ~ l1p - GLENAltOY 4~ Gg,~[ - ~Q~ CRAII. CT Cift ~~i ~49 ~~C'C Q~' ~ ~ 5 ~s?to~cr~ ~ sI~~K ~c~r ~Glp ~ PL ~~Gg a- 8 ERRY i Cs o~~ si'~ - . ~ ~ s CIS s~ ~i Rif00DLEE ~O~Cf 4RQ0 ~ A ~ ~04~' O~ 9 .~cl' `D~ Ep - - t- ~T ~ ~GAN ~ - ?t ~ DR ~o 4 ~ ~ D ~ DO I e~°~ ~ ~ ~t BROpK Ili - DUNNW ~D p4 ~,,~p E OU. OOD DRIVE @~ 9 D~ Ct ~ d ` .O gu~ ,ap ~ ~O~O pD !i ~O R~ ~ Ga~N ~ M b bpd ,~t5 CLARK AI'X Y 4 1 TfIER9f00 JAY1(ES t~ Op. ~ ~ ~,~".i ~ ~O ORgQiGIiALiI ~d~ ' c~ ~ $AVERIDII. DR ~dYD 8 ca D DR P14 x YtHORN ~b PL ~ E10 ~ ~ ~ - corn A ES ~ ~o ~9~R Iiry°DUZ~ K ~ ~ ~ TWP _ - o ~ - ~ 1 i ~ ~RrITAx r iD~~ ~ ~ 01-0812 loY Ix ~ ~c ui. ae Wasatch Estates gA~l.Ya ~ Amberleigh North Sections 4&5 PROPOSED SUBAREA PLAN \ / H- ~ ~N~e~ / ~ rn ~ ~ ~ a y ~ ~ ? rI z n gg I I ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ D ~ ~ ~rn D ~ ~ ~ D I . I ~ \ ~ i ~ i ~ i ~ / / . o ~ E ~ / /iv+^ ~`'~4, lye ° ~ . r N ~ 01-0812 Wasatch Estates Amberleigh North Sections 4&5 PROPOSED SITE PLAN ~ i ~ -~1/ / /'1111 i s ~ 1 11 I ~ 1 ~ I `q f~All \9 1 ~~'l ~ V'_~~~Qr 11 1 ~j 1 ~ 70 ~ 1 \ 1~•, \ - \ _ _ o_ 1 1 ~ ~ - . n, ~ ~ t a ~ `~`r,~ \ \ \ \ ? i ; ` • ` \ ~ ` r r \r• ~ " a l~ i 1~ - ~ ~ \ by - - - - i \ J ~ • 01-0812 Wasatch Estates Amberleigh North Sections 4&5 Dublin Planning and "Coning Commission Meeting Minutes -December 6, 2001 Page 7 3. Revised Preliminary Development Plan 01-0812 -Amberleigh North, Sections 4 and 5 - Wasatch Estates Chad Gibson presented this revised preliminary development plan for future sections of Amberleigh North. He said Section 4 is now zoned for 11 single-family lots, and Section 5 is zoned for 63 condominiums in a cluster layout. This proposal combines both sections into five estate lots, a gatehouse with a servant's quarters, and a private recreational facility. Mr. Gibson showed several slides. He said the site contains 30 acres and is zoned PUD. The Delawaze/ Franklin County line runs through this site, as does a 20-foot sanitary sewer easement fora 36-inch pipe. Proposed Subarea A will contain five large single-family lots, 2.5-8.5 acres each. Subarea B contains an acre for the gatehouse and caretaker's quarters along Dublin Road. The primary access will be from Dublin Road, and the existing entry to Deer Run Estates will be abandoned and tied into this site. The proposed road is a private, loop-type system. A secondary access point is shown on Memorial Drive, which staff would like aligned with Autumn Wood Way. Regarding private streets, staff needs to point out that City Council did not support private streets for residential areas a number of times, but this is an unusual application. The plat should demonstrate phasing and what happens if only part of the private street would be built. Mr. Gibson said this is the appropriate state for submission of a tree preservation survey. Due to the limited development, the applicant would like to submit this later. Large tree no-build/no- disturb tree preservation zones could be drawn and might meet the intent of the Code. Any tree preservation waiver would need to be considered by City Council. He said Dublin generally restricts home occupations. The proposed text gives broader rights and allows up to six outside employees per lot. The maximum height in the text is 65 feet, and no side or reaz yard requirements are listed. Staff would like these text issues better addressed. He noted that City Council granted a stormwater waiver in 1997. He said this proposal drops the density from 2.5 du/ac to 0.2 du/ac., and staff recommends approval with 15 conditions: 1) That right-of--way be dedicated according to the Thoroughfare Plan (40 feet from centerline of Dublin Road) prior to submittal of the final development plan; 2) That a plat be submitted at the final development plan stage reflecting a 50-foot (minimum) easement corridor and demonstrating provisions for construction and long term maintenance, subject to staff approval; 3) That the secondary access along Memorial Drive be relocated to the satisfaction of staff; 4) That the plans and text be revised to indicate tree preservation and/or no-disturb zones to preserve trees wherever practicable, subject to staff approval; 5) That the site plan optimize tree preservation with the sensitive placement of private utilities; 6) That a landscape plan, detailing any entry features, street trees, signage, etc. meeting Code be submitted with the final development plan, subject to staff approval; 7) That ali private drives, bridges, culverts, etc. meet all applicable Engineering standards; 8) That all private drives meet any provisions or conditions as required by the City Engineer or City Council; 9) That the site meet the provisions of the storm water waiver as approved by City Council, including but not limited to, properly designed velocity controls and aesthetic storm water outlet areas; 1 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission ' Meeting Minutes -December 6, 2001 , Page 8 10) That units requiring anejector/grinder pump be identified on all subsequent plans and building permits; 11) That appropriate plat notes be included in all future documents prohibiting additional access to Memorial Drive; 12) That the development standards be provided with the final development plan and be described in the notes on the plat, subject to staff approval; 13) That both gates proposed provide 24-hour emergency access; ~.w, 14) That if blasting of bedrock causes a well in the area to run dry, the developer will be responsible for supplying the affected structure(s) with water; and 15) That the plat be revised to address the jurisdictional issue regarding the county line, subject to staff approval. Michael Close, representing the applicant, said he had a few exceptions to the conditions and the staff report. The private drive proposed is in a wooded area, and the wider the road is, the more trees will be harmed. He would like approval of a 12-foot wide road, not a 24-foot street. Also using public road standards for six lots is substantial. They will provide mutual cross easements for the benefit of all the owners for maintenance, etc. He agreed to all conditions except 3 and 4. He said the additional structure is a party house/private office for the handling of this family's own investments. There will not be six employees at each residence. He agreed to better define this in the text. There will be security on site, and they were concerned that the bulk of the traffic will come the principle drive, off Memorial Drive. The relocation of Deer Run Estates Drive to the top of the hill is safer and provides better sight distance to the south. Deer Run Estates currently only has two homes, and he expected only one more to be built. For security reasons, they want to offset the Memorial Drive access road to limit its visibility. Mr. Close noted that staff wants to relocate the secondary access because at some point Memorial Drive will be boulevarded with a median prohibiting left turns. He said that is fine, and they will not request a cut in the median. They understand this and agree to provide safety access all the time. They prefer an offset access, if possible. Mr. Close said they will not be ready to address tree preservation until the final development plan layout. The sewer line will restrict building farther back on these lots, and there are setback lines on the perimeter. They have concerns about Lots 1 and 2, due to topography. He said they do not intend to cut down any trees. They make the site valuable. He said he had talked to the Franklin and Delaware County auditors who indicated that there was no problem with adjusting Lot 3 to one county. The school district is the same. Mr. Close doubted that anything 65 feet high would be built. Due to the topography, a couple of houses will be higher than normal, but not the clubhouse. Mr. Eastep said he understood about the extra height requested, but thought that 50 feet would be adequate. All other residential districts use a 35-foot maximum height. Mr. Close said they could limit it to 50 feet. Mr: Fishman still thought 50 feet was too tall and could remember no other Dublin area over 35 feet. Ms. Clarke agreed. Mr. Close said this should be considered because the number of units is being dropped from 75 units to six units, and this is different. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -December 6, 2001 Page 9 Mr. Eastep said no one will notice the extra height at this location. Mr. Close said this will be done in an architectural manner, and it will not be seen from the roadway. Ms. Salay said these large acre estate lots are atypical and should not be limited to 35 feet. Mr. Eastep asked why was security an issue if there are gates. Mr. Close said the gate and fence will not keep out pedestrians. Mr. Eastep preferred locating the access drive where it is most practical, without removing trees. Mr. Close thought the number of trees removed would be the same at any location. There is a wrought iron fence with stone or brick pillars. Mr. Eastep said if this access can be treated as a driveway, he would be in favor of its proposed location. Ms. Clarke asked if the development area on each lot would be identified with the final development plan for the road. Mr. Close said no. Ms. Clarke repeated that the only final development plan the Commission will review would concern the private street. Mr. Close said mutual cross easements will be filed with every deed. He said the next step is to get surveyors and lay out the roads. Until then, tree preservation cannot be discussed. Ms. Clarke said in a PUD, the tree preservation is really required at this stage. It was not submitted, and it may be deferred if the Commission agrees. She understands the applicant has asked for the right to submit the tree preservation data when he is ready to build the roads, based on their estimation of where they can preserve the best/most trees. Mr. Gibson asked if the gatehouse architecture would need final development plan approval, due to its 25-foot setback which is less than Code and the Community Plan. Mr. Fishman was concerned about the 25-foot gatehouse setback and noted that Amberleigh was required to have a 100-foot setback. Ms. Clarke said it would be about 50 feet from the edge of the pavement. Mr. Gibson said staff was uncomfortable with the proposed height of 65 feet, and 50 feet still seemed rather high. He noted this is an unusual site. Subarea B will have a 35-foot height. Mr. Lecklider suggested that the height limit be 50 feet on Lots 2 and 3. Mr. Fishman agreed, based on 50 feet in the back lots and 35 feet, closer to Dublin Road. Mr. Eastep said this is the only site of its kind in Dublin. Mr. Gerber agreed and said he could support a maximum height of 50 feet. He did not think the buildings would be seen. Ms. Clarke suggested using the final development plan to raise the building height above a set level, based on road layout, house location, visibility, etc. Mr. Fishman liked this approach. Mr. Gerber suggested limiting the height to 50 feet, subject to visibility or staff approval. Mr. Close agreed to a height limit of 50 feet for Lots 4 and 5, but that the applicant could approach the Commission to raise it based of design, etc. He said Lots 1, 2, and 3 have different topography. He said an 80-foot house would not be seen on Lot 1. d Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -December 6, 2001 ? Page 10 Mr. Eastep asked for an increase of the proposed 25-foot setback for the gatehouse. If it had a 60-foot setback like the rest, it would not have to come back for approval. Mr. Fishman noted the Community Plan recommended a setback of 200 feet. Chris Hermann, of Myers Schmallenberger, said the approved setbacks for Amberleigh North were 60 feet or less. Mr. Close said a greater setback for the guardhouse is a problem. The drive alignment and the existing culvert when Deer Run Drive is relocated cause an engineering problem. Also, a guardhouse needs to be seen. After some discussion, he agreed to a 60-foot setback for the guardhouse. A 35-foot setback for Lots 4, 5 and 6, and no more than 50 feet on Lots 1, 2, and 3. Ms. Clarke asked if the building setback for Lot 3 could be increased to 100 feet. She said a tall house with a minimum setback along Memorial Drive would be inappropriate. Mr. Close agreed to a setback of 100 feet for Lot 3. He said he had no problem with anything with over a 35-foot height having a setback of 100 feet, but he was concerned that the topography on Lot 5 might not provide for more than a 60-foot setback. Mr. Fishman asked fora 60-foot setback on Lots 5 and 6, .along Dublin Road, and Mr. Close agreed. Mr. Close fora 50-foot building height, he would provide a 100-foot setback. If Lot 4 has a permissible height of 35 feet, the setback should remain where it is. Ms. Clarke said the 100-foot setback would apply only from the public street, not from the private drive. Mr. Fishman said the setback should be 100 feet on Memorial Drive, and 60 feet on Dublin Road (from the proposed right-of--way). The setback for Lot 6 will be 60 feet. Mr. Close agreed. There was some additional discussion on how setbacks are measured. Ms. Clarke said the 50-foot maximum height should apply to Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4. Mr. Close agreed, and the remaining lots would have a maximum height of 35 feet. Mr. Fishman said the record should be clear that if the private drive is ever petitioned to be a public street, it should meet all setbacks and Code. Mr. Banchefsky said Dublin has an ordinance that addresses the conversion of private streets to public. Mr. Close said the clubhouse will probably be built on either Lot 4 or 1. A clubhouse and residence will not be built on the same lot. It will be at most, atwo-story structure used primarily for entertaining. It will include offices to run the family investment businesses. Mr. Close agreed to restrict use of the "clubhouse" to the described office use or perhaps to convert it to a residence in the future by the deeds. Mr. Banchefsky suggested adding a condition to require such deed restrictions, acceptable to staff. Mr. Close agreed. Mr. Close said they did not want to build the bikepath along Memorial Drive because these six residences and the private drive do not need it. They gave up far more acreage than they would have been required for greenscape. He was not willing to do the bikepath. Mr. Hammersmith said the north side bikepath provides a necessary connection to the park. Mr. Fishman said a bikepath would benefit everyone, and it was previously approved. Mr. Hahn said the bikepath would be in the right-of--way and would be part of the public improvements. Dublin Planning and "Coning Commission Meeting Minutes -December 6, 2001 Page 11 Mr. Sprague asked if City Council could delete the bikepath requirement and then approve this rezoning. Mr. Close said yes. Mr. Gibson said the text permits asix-foot tall perimeter fence. He said it is proposed to be wrought iron with brick pillars. He also noted the existing final plat for the Deer Run subdivision needs to be modified because the street is moving, and its Dublin Road access is being closed. Mr. Close said that could be taken care of in the text and with the cross easements. Mr. Banchefsky said in a preliminary development plan, the applicant can accept or reject any conditions made by the Commission. He said the Code would require at least a sidewalk to be installed along the public street. Mr. Close said he could not agree to the bikepath condition. He said they would not sue the City. Mr. Lecklider made the motion to approve this preliminary development plan because it substantially reduces the gross density, provides substantial green space, preserves large stands of trees, and provides new estate-style lots for the community, with 17 conditions: 1) That right-of--way be dedicated according to the Thoroughfare Plan (40 feet from centerline of Dublin Road) prior to submittal of the final development plan; 2) That a plat be submitted at the final development plan stage reflecting a 50-foot (minimum) easement corridor, and demonstrating provisions for construction and long term maintenance, subject to staff approval; 3) That the plans and text be revised to indicate tree preservation and/or no-disturb zones to preserve trees wherever practicable, and be submitted with the final development plan for the private road, subject to staff approval; 4) That the site plan optimize tree preservation with the sensitive placement of private utilities; 5) That a landscape plan, detailing any entry features, street trees, signage, etc. meeting Code be submitted with the final development plan, subject to staff approval; 6) That all private drives, bridges, culverts, etc. meet all applicable engineering standards; 7) That all private drives meet any provisions or conditions as required by the City Engineer or City Council; 8) That the site meet the provisions of the storm water waiver as approved by City Council, including but not limited to, properly designed velocity controls and aesthetic storm water outlet areas; 9) That units requiring an ejector/grinder pump be identified on all subsequent plans and building permits; 10) That appropriate plat notes be included in all future documents prohibiting additional access to Memorial Drive; 11) That revised development standards be incorporated into the text, including a 60-foot setback for Dublin Road, a 100-foot setback for Memorial Drive, and height restrictions of 50 feet for Lots 1,2,3, and 4, and 35 feet for Lots S and 6, subject to staff approval; 12) That both gates proposed provide 24-hour emergency access; 13) That if blasting of bedrock causes a well in the area to run dry, the developer will be responsible for supplying the affected structure(s) with water; 14) That the plat address the jurisdictional issue regarding the county line, subject to staff approval; 15) That the text be modified with regard to special "home occupation" to clarify that these only apply to one lot; Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -December 6, 2001 Page 12 16) That the text be revised to indicate the clubhouse be used for non-commercial purposes and restricted in use to the owners in this subdivision, and that appropriate deed restrictions be applied, subject to staff approval; and 17) That a bikepath be installed along the north side of Memorial Drive. Mr. Close agreed to the above conditions, with the exception of Condition 17, requiring a bikepath along Memorial Drive. Mr. Fishman seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: ~ Mr. Eastep, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; and Mr. Lecklider, yes. (Approved 6-0.) r~. DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Rh;CORD Or ACTION August 19, 1999 Cf'I'1' OF Dl'ltl.l\ Oivisiaa of Planning 5800Shier-Rugs Road Dublin, Ohio 1301b-1236 wl~ 'hone/f00: 614-1b1 X550 Fa~c 614-761.6566 Web SAe: wrrw.dubtn.oh.us The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 4. Preliminary Development Plan (Finalization) Z96-002 - Amberleigh North, Section S (Cluster Site) Location: 15.32 acres located on the north side of (future) Memorial Drive extended, approximately 560 feet east of Dublin Road. Existing Zoning: PUD, Planned Unit Development District (Amberleigh North Plan). Request: Finalizing the .preliminary development plan as required at .the time of rezoning under the provisions of Section 153.056, for the cluster housing site. Proposed Use: 63 condominium units. Applicant: Wes Hoag, Hoag Limited Partnership, 65 South Fifth Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215; c/o Michael Fite, Bird/Honk, 6375 Riverside Drive, Dublin, Ohio 43017. MOTION: To approve this preliminary development plan with 16 conditions: 1) That architecture, building materials, and detailing be consistent with other projects such as Weatherstone, The Mews, and The Lea, as required in 1997, ,..r~ subject to staff approval; 2) That the developer compensate for the removal of trees as determined by City Council; 3) That the site plan optimize tree preservation with the sensitive placement of private utilities; 4) That the tree preservation plan be modified to address short and long term tree maintenance requirements and the impact of private utilities, subject to staff approval; 5) That an easement for a street connection to Section 4 be provided, subject to staff approval, and be shown in all plans and condominium documents; Page 1 of 2 01-0812 Wasatch Estates Amberleigh North Sections 4& PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION August 19, 1999 4. Preliminary Development Plan (Finalization) Z9G-002 -Amberleigh North, Section 5 (Cluster Site) (Continued) 6) That the applicant construct a street connection (stub) to the planned road in ` Section 4, unless the adjacent property owner submits a letter within two weeks ~ committing to build this stub connection if a public street is built in Section 4 and guaranteeing this commitment runs with the land; 7) That the entrance be one way and the detailed design be worked out with staff prior to submitting the final development plan; 8) That a 25-foot or greater "no disturb" zone be established around major preserved tree stands, and around the perimeter of the entire property (except entrances, subject to review by a certified arborist; 9) That the development standards be provided with the final development plan and described in notes on the final plat, subject to staff approval; 10) That the City Engineer's requirements for private streets, utility connection, and intersection improvements be met, subject to staff approval; 11) That afive-foot sidewalk be constructed along Memorial Drive; 12) That appropriate plat notes be included in all future documents prohibiting additional access to Memorial Drive and indicating the potential for a Memorial Drive bridge, and that the dead-end be posted as a potential future extension; 13) That the stormwater outlet area be aesthetically improved and include properly designed velocity controls, subject to staff approval; 14) That units requiring an ejector/grinder pump be identified on all subsequent plans and building permits; 15) That if blasting of bedrock causes a well in the area to run dry, the developer will be responsible for connecting the affected structure(s) to public water; and 16) That a landscape plan, detailing any entry feature(s) and street trees, and sign plan meeting Code be submitted with the final development plan, subject to staff approval. * Charles Driscoll agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: This preliminary development plan was approved. STAFF CERTIFICATION /121~~,/l~l~. iristopher S. Hermann Planner 01-081 Z Wasatch Estates Amberleigh North Sections 4&5 Dublin Planning and Zoning ~nunisslon Minutes -August 19, 1999 . Page 13 4. Preliminary Development Plan (Finalization) Z96-002 -Amberleigh North, Section 5 - Cluster Site Chris Hermann said this application is an unusual extra step. When Amberleigh North was rezoned in 1997, the text required Section 5 to come back to the Commission and Council for review and approval of the cluster proposal. He said the zoning text permits 63 cluster. homes on this site. This application is for 63 condos divided among 16 buildings on 15.32 acres. Condominium units should disturb the woods less than the "cluster" product. The rezoning noted the possibility of continuing Memorial Drive across the Scioto River. There are approximately 3,000 trees in the preservation area of Section 5. Staff would like another access point. He said the materials proposed are Hardi-plank, cultured stone, and asphalt shingles. Mr. Hermann said the density is 4.11 du/ac. The zoning text requires a project comparable to the Lea, Weatherstone, and the Mews developments of Muirfield Village. Staff recommends extending the stone watercourses around the building, using cedar shake roof or dimensional shingles, adding - stone on the gable ends. And breaking up the garage doors. Mr. Hermann said the applicant will ask Council for a tree replacement fee waiver. It is estimated that the fee would be approximately $526,000 dollars for the 560 trees to be removed. They will replace 125 trees on site and pay $50,000 to the parks. Staff is recommending at least a 15-foot no-disturb zone around the perimeter (excluding the entrance). He said the stormwater detention waiver was approved for all of Amberleigh North. He said staff is in support of the development and is recommending approval with 15 conditions. 1) That architecture, building materials, and detailing be consistent with other projects such as Weatherstone, The Mews, and The Lea, as required in 1997, subject to staff approval; 2) That the developer compensate for the removal of trees as determined by City Council; 3) That the site plan optimize tree preservation with the sensitive placement of private utilities; 4) That the tree preservation plan be modified to address short and long term tree maintenance requirements and the impact of private utilities, subject to staff approval; 5) That a future street connection (stub) to the planned road to the east in Section 4 be constructed; 6) That the entrance be one way and the detailed design be worked out with staff prior to submitting the final development plan; 7) That a 15-foot or greater "no disturb" zone be established around the perimeter of the entire property except at the entrances and around major preserved tree stands, subject to review by a certified arborist; 8) That the development standards be provided with the final development plan and described in notes on the final plat, subject to staff approval; 9) That the City Engineer's requirements for private streets, utility connection, and intersection improvements be met, subject to staff approval; 10) That afive-foot sidewalk be constructed along Memorial Drive; 11) That appropriate plat notes be included in all future documents prohibiting additional access to Memorial Drive and indicating the potential for a Memorial Drive bridge, and that the dead-end be posted as a potential future extension; 01-081 Z Wasatch Estates A.~~L..,.-1.,...1. T~T..rf-1, QPrt~nnc d~•~ Dublin Planning and Zoning ~mmission Minutes -August 19, 1999 Page 14 12) That the stormwater outlet area be aesthetically improved and include properly designed velocity controls, subject to staff approval; 13) That units requiring an ejector/grinder pump be identified on all subsequent plans and building permits; 14) That if blasting of bedrock causes a well in the area to run dry, the developer will be responsible for connecting the affected structure(s) to public water; and 15) That a landscape plan, detailing any entry feature(s) and street trees, and sign plan meeting Code be submitted with the final development plan, subject to staff approval. Mr. Hermann said Section 5 had a shared boundary with the future public cul de sac in Section 4. He said a crescent entrance should be one way in/one way out with a 200-foot separation. He said Section 4 was owned by another entity. Ms. Clarke said the preliminary plat and the preliminary development plan require the road in Section 4 to be a public street. Typically, all public streets have to be extended to the far edge of the property when the land comes in for development. In this case, the property owner split the property and sold the Section 4, to a separate buyer. Mr. Sprague asked if the land on Section 4 had already been dedicated. Ms. Clarke said no. Mr. Hermann said one condition requires a minimum, 15-foot no-build zone be placed all the way around the property. Mr. Harian said it should be at least 25 feet abutting parkland. Charles Driscoll, Edwards Company, said Duffy Homes will build this project. They are currently building The Lakes at Dunmere which is similar to this project. This exterior will be upgraded. They chose the attached units to better preserve the surrounding woods. Mr. Driscoll agreed with the 15 above conditions. The only substantial issue was waiving the tree replacement fee. This site was zoned prior to passing the ordinance, and they feel enforcement would be a hardship on this project. He said their proposal was to plant 125 trees on site and donate $200 per tree removed. They feel that meets the spirit of the ordinance. Vir Mr. Driscoll said Bob Walter owns Section 4. He does not want an entrance from this project to tie into his 15 acres. Michael Fite, Bird Houk Associates, said they are concentrating the buildings where there were fewer trees to maintain the heaviest woods. They also turned the buildings to minimize grading. They have employed walkout basements behind the buildings to minimize fill around the trees. He presented sample boards of the grey Hardi-plank, matching shingles, and stone. Mr. Peplow asked about increasing the no-disturb zone to 25 feet, especially along the park. Mr. Fite said only one buildings is not 25 feet off the property line. He said the building can tilt in slightly and there is no grading issue there. However, there is a ravine that would push most of the buildings off that line. He said they also wanted to save the trees. Mr. Fite said porches were considered. Mr. Eastep asked if the deed restrictions could prohibit any additional building expansions, additions, decks, porches, or patios. Mr. Fite said they could put that in the deed restrictions. Mr. 01-0812 Wasatch Estates n,,,t,o.-t A;nt, 1~T,,,-th CPrtinns 4&5 Dublin Planning and Zonin; ~~mmission Minutes -August 19, 1999 Page 15 Eastep said this was to be a 100 percent no-build/no-disturb zone and no excavations, digging, trenching or building could be done in the 25-foot zone. Mr. Fite said they would like to see how the 25-foot no-build/no-disturb zone would affect the two buildings. Mr. Eastep said the site was beautiful, but the concept was not pedestrian-friendly. There were no interconnected sidewalks, bikepaths, or common areas. Mr. Fite said there would be the ability to walk to the Memorial Drive sidewalks. It is difficult to make a pedestrian connection from this site to the park because it was straight down a hill. There are not usually sidewalks on private streets. Mr. Eastep asked if any of the common areas could have a pergola or gazebo so that the natural amenities could be enjoyed by all. Mr. Fite said they would consider it. Mr. Eastep asked what was planned for an entry feature. Mr. Fite said that was part of the final development plan submittal and it had not been decided. Mr. Eastep asked that avenues of access to the rear parkland be explored, even though it is just a chipped mulch path. It would help to preserve the natural area by designating paths. Mr. Fite said they would consider it, but it was too steep to walk down there. He said the drop was 40 feet. Mr. Eastep asked if a preliminary design for the stormwater outlet to the river is completed. Mr. Fite said it would be detailed at the time of the final development plan. Mr. Sprague asked what material would be used on the below grade walk-outs on the rear of the buildings. Mr. Fite said it would probably be Hardi-plank to the existing grade. Mr. Sprague agreed that the paths would help make the area more pedestrian-friendly. He did, however, not want a gazebo if it meant trees needed to be removed. Mr. Sprague asked for agreement on stubbing the street. Mr. Fite said yes. Mr. Eastep did not necessarily want to see sidewalks in this development because he wanted to minimize any disturbance of the trees. However, a mulch path might make sense. Mr. Fishman made the suggestion that the Commission recommend to Council that the caliper of trees removed be replaced in the park, denying the waiver. Mr. Eastep agreed in part. Mr. Driscoll said the preliminary development plan was approved prior to the enactment of the Tree Preservation ordinance. If it had been later, the site of the parkland might have differed. Mr. Fishman said Toll Brothers at Amberleigh North had clear-cut the trees from Memorial Drive, south to their trailer on Dublin Road. Mr. Eastep said that area was not to be clear-cut. He asked if the trees would be replaced with dense pines to Memorial Drive. Ms. Clarke said it was the responsibility of the landowner, Toll Brothers, not Mr. Driscoll. Ms. Newcomb said the trees were removed for aleft-turn lane. She said a buffer was planned along Dublin Road. It was an evergreen and deciduous mix, but not as dense as other sections. Mr. Fishman asked Mr. Newcomb to keep an eye on the landscaping. 01-0812 Wasatch Estates Amberleigh North Sections 4& Dublin Planning and Zoning ~mmission Minutes -August 19, 1999 Page 16 Mr. Sprague asked about the main goal of the Tree Ordinance. Ms. Newcomb said staff attempts to develop site plans that will preserve trees. The previous ordinance said trees six inches or greater shall be preserved unless they were in the. building footprint. The new ordinance requires replacement of larger trees that are removed. She said it was difficult on a fully wooded lot. Mr. McCash said the idea of the tree ordinance fee was to fund the planting of trees to replace those removed. He said it probably could go towards acquiring wooded parkland to preserve it. It is to minimize the number of trees cut down because of the importance the trees have, in filtration of air, aesthetics, and stormwater issues. Jeff Brown, Smith and Hale, said the Tree Preservation ordinance was enacted after this rezoning was done. Considering the ordinance, the park or development may have been located elsewhere to avoid payment of the large fee. More trees would be saved on the wooded site with the attached units. He suggested getting a waiver and planting trees back on this site and also contributing money for additional trees in the open portion of the park. Mr. McCash said Washington Township purchased a $500,000 wooded parcel in Shawan Falls in exchange for the fee waiver for their Hard Road fire station. Mr. Banchefsky said the township was exempt from Dublin's zoning. He said there was no waiver provision in the ordinance. It is a fee that Council has the inherent right to oversee. Mr. Driscoll agreed to a 25-foot no-build/no-disturb zone around the perimeter of the property. Barb Cox said there may be some minor tree disturbance on the east property line for stormwater outlets behind the buildings. Mr. McCash asked if it would go through the existing swages. Ms. Cox said it had not been engineered. Mr. McCash noted one building sits on top of a swage. ~ Mr. Driscoll agreed to the 15 above conditions with a modification of Condition 7, increasing the 15-foot no-disturb zone to 25 feet. Pat Hartman, 10791 Edgewood Drive, representing the wildlife of the area, was concerned about ' the removal of the trees from this area. The "park" is almost a straight cliff and not useful. She and her neighbors are also concerned with the number of units proposed and blasting. Donald Plank, attorney for Mr. Walter, said he does not oppose the project. He does oppose Condition 5 which required the stub into his property. Mr. Walter bought the property as a buffer to his home, and he does not want a private drive or a public street. Mr. Plank said Mr. Walter did not intend to develop his property soon. Mr. Hermann said the approved preliminary .development plan shows a public cul-de-sac. To change this, they must come back to the Commission and Council for rezoning to amend the plan and preliminary plat. If a private drive with two lots is desired, it must come back to the Commission for a recommendation to Council. 01-0812 Wasatch Estates Amberleigh North Sections 4&5 Dublin Planning and `Lorin; 7111I111SS1o11 Minutes -August 19, 1999 Page 17 Mr. McCash suggested that Condition 5 is changed to require a bond for the stub and the street. Ms. Cox said in all subdivisions there are stubs required into empty, undeveloped lots before the rest of the project is developed so it is ready when necessary. Ms. Clarke noted that typically residents oppose roads that are not built at the outset. Mr. Eastep suggested a condition that the Phase 4 developer construct the whole street. Mr. Banchefsky said that scenario requires an easement. Mr. Plank said the stub would not provide a connection until Mr. Walter develops his property. Ms. Cox said the boulevard design does not improve the access as a second entrance would. Mr. Lecklider said the entrance could be controlled, but he was concerned with the exit. Mr. Driscoll said the 63-unit project would end up in a cul de sac'situation regardless of the entry. Mr. Eastep noted if Mr. Walter wants to develop differently from the preliminary development plan, it requires Commission and Council approval. Mr. McCash suggested that Condition 5 read: "That an easement for a future street connection stub for the planned road to the east in Section 4 be dedicated and shown in all plats and condominium documents." If it becomes a public street as it is currently set up, Mr. Walters would build the stub. Mr. McCash said a letter from Mr. Walter to that affect will be required. Mr. Driscoll agreed to build the stub up to the property line if necessary. Mr. Plank wanted to know the length of the stub before making the commitment. Ms. Clarke said language was needed in the condition that said either Mr. Driscoll or the adjacent owner will build the road, the stub, and it needs to run with the land. Mr. McCash made a motion to approve this application with 16 conditions: 1) That architecture, building materials, and detailing be consistent with other projects such as Weatherstone, The Mews, and The Lea, as required in 1997, subject to staff approval; 2) That the developer compensate for the removal of trees as determined by City Council; 3) That the site plan optimize tree preservation with the sensitive placement of private utilities; 4) That the tree preservation plan be modified to address short and long term tree maintenance requirements and the impact of private utilities, subject to staff approval; 5) That an easement for a street connection to Section 4 be provided, subject to staff approval, and be shown in all plans and condominium documents; 6) That the applicant construct a street connection (stub) to the planned road in Section 4, unless the adjacent property owner submits a letter within two weeks committing to build this stub connection if a public street is built in Section 4 and guaranteeing this commitment runs with the land; 7) That the entrance be one way and the detailed design be worked out with staff prior to submitting the final development plan; 01-O81Z Wasatch Estates Amberleigh North Sections 4&5 Dublin Planning and Zonir. ,onunission Minutes -August 19, 1999 Page 18 8) That a 25-foot or greater "no disturb" zone be established around major preserved tree stands, and around the perimeter of the entire property (except entrances), subject to review by a certified arborist; 9) That the development standards be provided with the final development plan and described in notes on the final plat, subject to staff approval; 10) That the City Engineer's requirements for private streets, utility connection, and intersection improvements be met, subject to staff approval; 11) That afive-foot sidewalk be constructed along Memorial Drive; 12) That appropriate plat notes be included in all future documents prohibiting additional access to Memorial Drive and indicating the potential for a Memorial Drive bridge, and that the dead-end be posted as a potential future extension; 13) That the stormwater outlet area be aesthetically improved and include properly designed velocity controls, subject to staff approval; 14) That units requiring an ejector/grinder pump be identified on all subsequent plans and building permits; 15) That if blasting of bedrock causes a well in the area to run dry, the developer will be responsible for connecting the affected structure(s) to public water; and 16) That a landscape plan, detailing any entry feature(s) and street trees, and sign plan meeting Code be submitted with the final development plan, subject to staff approval. Mr. Eastep seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Peplow, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Harian, yes; Mr. Eastep, yes; and Mr. McCash, yes. (Approved 7-0.) Mr. Lecklider thanked everyone involved. The Commission reviewed waiving the 11 o'clock rule for the next case. All the Commissioners agreed to forego the 11 o'clock rule and hear the next case only. 5. Reconsideration Revised Final Development PI 99-058RDP -Wyandotte Woods, Section 1 Chris Hermann pr ented this reconsideration case. t was approved June 17, 1999. S f, residents, neighb s, developers, and consulting en ' eers have met numerous times. All rties have agreed up the stormwater management pla elf. Several issues relating to the pr erving the scenic qu ity of Riverside Drive are not res ved. Mr. He nn said unresolved issues are 1 t turn lanes on Riverside Drive, a ikepath on Riversi Drive and the location of the pri ry detention basin. Wyandotte Woo is part of the North st Quad PUD. He showed slid Wyandotte Woods Boulevard will me through the sing -family development, connect int Emerald Parkway. e approved final development pl has 37 lots. The revised plan has a ft turn lane that cuts (regrades) everything back tot telephone poles. Trees and rock w~ 1 be removed toward Riverside Drive to create the b n. The top lip of the basin will be el vated approximately two feet. An outflow will be b ed from the detention basin to an fisting culvert underneath Riverside Drive. Trees will ave to be cleared to bury the pipe. A tv-foot undisturbed area will be provided. 01-0812 Wasatch Estates Amberleigh North Sections 4&5 N ~ - X O W U U' C O Z _ 6 ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ v Z J 9 0 O p p N ~ d 4 O Z= ~ 4~ ~ ~ V W O n 9 ~ O c ~ ~ lZ- x ~ g r~ Q = ~ ~ a N O r-'. r Q ~~o N • - ` \ yam. V r r Xx. 1 ~ ~ ~ _ , ~ ~ v _ . \ , \ ! I / \ - \ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ i r t.',.i, f; ~ ice..-~ i; \ ~ \ N ` ~ ~ _ \ X - i , ~ \ ~ i ~ I \ , ~ v V i ` f ~ - / ~ , ~ i ~ v ' f~ - Q 4- ~ ~ ~ ' i \ J ~ ~ m + ~ ~ \ ' ~ v v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ` 1 I W ~ I Vd - ~ ~ • aW J 1 ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ` \ WW \ ` 1 f • • ~ ~ ~ i \ ~ ,,F: • \ ~ ~ ~ ~I \ ~ v • + ~ ii \ • ~ ~ - ~ ~ 1 . ~ • . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i 1 1 I ~ I ~ ~ 1• 7- . 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 j 1 l ~ 1 i 1 \ ~ y i ~ . ~ • ' ~ ' , 1 i r ~ ~ 1 ' ~ ~ _ \ j i ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 _ ~ ~ ~8_ . r-- J~ v •y. • ~ ~ ~ • ~ • Rpp,~ -e ~ - ' i ( ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ' • r f- _ ~ ~ ~ i r .ae:, b-.. ~ ~ X O zz ~ ~ ~ ~ N a = 4 ~ J O ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ m O O h O ` ~ • ~ • ~ ' ` 1 1 J Q V I ~ ~ DC ~ ~ Q^ 1 ` N ~ ~ ~ (n + ~ z ~ / o / o w ~ 1 I I ~ U O~ DC o ~ r-I ~Vg~SN Rp. ~ \ ~.m» F W X g ~ x W M ~ ~ ~ Z a ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ _ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ r ~ ~ a ~ ~ N ~ ~ 4 ~ r~~ ff d ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ €Y W o _ . , J \ . - _ v • , - i ~ i- ~ i / , - - _ - - ~ _ . ~ I ( _ - , _ - - ~ _ _ C ~ --~~1• - - _ . ~ - ~ I . - ~ ~ , • f ~ e i - ~ - ~ - _ - _ - - . j / " ~ : , . - - r ~ i _ ' _ , , ~ _ _ \ • - ~ / _ ~ _ - / ~ t / i _ _ - ` gi • , / i, ' ~ i ~ / 1 . ~ I ~ - J - - - - _ - _ - / ~ _ ~ ~ - i~` u , ~ _ f _ / _ ~ ~ ~ / - " ' i ~ ~ - - ~ / , - ; \ . . - _ / , / I t - \ / i / / ~ i ~ % ~ .r. / / / ~ ? - ' I . '"i . ~ - - \ I ~ ~ _ ~l~ ~ _ r I i z \ ~ r, , ` ~ \ ~ o A ~ d ~ ~ \ ~ \ j ~ ~ ~ I A \ , ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ - \ \ ~ ~ ~ t ~ / , k ~ ; ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ . , /l~ - ~ti i',~~1~ (f r ~~V V~''~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ i J i ti ~ v. ~ it \ ~ \ ~ .iF / / \ ~ I \ ~ _ \ \ 11 I j ~ 1111 ~,~~i1 ~ ~ ~ , i ~ ~ I" ~ ~ ~K ~ . - ~ ' I~) il~~', III / , ~ ! r` gVi~i ~ _ ~ / . ~ ~ ~ U • . i ' ~ _ ~ - _ - . - / ~ ( ~ / ! - _ _ DUBS ~ - ~ I t - ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - _ ~ ~ - ~ ~ _ q - - ; ~y ~ , , f . _ ~ - ,I