Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and commissioners press developer over density, traffic and open‑space detail in Avery Crossing concept review
Summary
The Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed Avery Crossing, a 127‑acre concept plan for mixed‑use development, and gave nonbinding feedback focused on density transitions, traffic dependence on a proposed Tunnel Crossing Boulevard extension, and the need for activated, usable open spaces; local residents urged lower density and clearer traffic solutions.
The Dublin Planning & Zoning Commission spent the bulk of its meeting on Avery Crossing (Case 25‑014CP), a 127‑acre concept proposal for a mixed‑use neighborhood southwest of the Avery Road–Rings Road intersection. The application is at the concept stage, and staff emphasized the review was for nonbinding feedback rather than approval.
Developer Colby Turnock of Casto told the commission the team had returned with a revised concept after community meetings with Ponderosa, Kramer Crossing and other neighbors. "It's been a little while since we've been before you," Turnock said, adding the project has shifted from a rectilinear grid to a more curvilinear pattern and that the plan centers on the alignment of the proposed Tunnel Crossing Boulevard extension.
Ted Sarum of Dimmit Architects explained design elements, including roughly 24½ acres of open space in several typologies, a neighborhood mixed‑use node fronting Avery Road, and a range of residential types intended to transition from single‑family along Rings Road to denser multifamily in the south. Sarum described the review as "crayons on paper stage," meaning details such as exact building placement, final unit counts and traffic mitigation will be determined later.
Staff reiterated the concept stage limits: rezoning and a traffic impact study (TIS) would be required if the project moves forward. "This is a concept plan review where the applicant is seeking nonbinding feedback," staff said, noting the community plan recommends a mixed‑use neighborhood and cites densities ranging from 3 to 12 dwelling units per acre for the broader future land use category.
Commissioners and several residents raised similar concerns. Commissioners asked the applicant to show how the proposed densities and building heights respond to the community plan's special area guidance and how transitions would be made to existing single‑family neighborhoods. Commissioner Garban pressed for clarity on density math and whether changes on the southern edge increased overall units; Turnock said the southern reductions were balanced by other adjustments and that the team would confirm final counts at a later stage.
Traffic and timing for the Tunnel Crossing Boulevard extension also figured prominently. Commissioners warned that much of the site's circulation depends on the extension — which is not currently in the five‑year capital plan — and asked whether parts of the project could proceed without it. Turnock said the extension is a "critical component" for the western portions and that some eastern subareas could potentially proceed sooner, but the TIS will determine phasing and required improvements.
Residents at public comment — including voices from Ballantray and Ponderosa — urged lower overall density, questioned the introduction of three‑story buildings near existing single‑family areas, and described current traffic problems on Rings and Avery roads. Ron Lovell, who said he lives in Ballantray, told the commission the combined development proposals in the area could "significantly" increase traffic volume and overwhelm neighborhood amenities and school drop‑off routes.
On open space, commissioners asked for usable, activated areas rather than largely decorative stormwater features. Several members said stormwater ponds must be amenitized if they are to count toward open‑space requirements. Commissioner Alexander suggested a northern greenway or shared‑use path to tie subarea parks to Avery Road and to improve walkability and connections to existing neighborhoods.
The commission did not take an action vote on the concept plan; members instead provided detailed nonbinding feedback and asked the applicant to return with refinements addressing density transitions, open‑space programming and a plan for pedestrian linkages and traffic mitigation. Staff reminded the applicant that a TIS and subsequent rezoning and development plan reviews would be required before any approvals.
Next steps: the applicant will revise the concept plan and provide more detail on the items flagged by commissioners; the record shows the next technical stage will require a traffic impact study, utility extensions and formal rezoning and plan reviews by the commission and city council.
