The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About88-98 Ordinance AMENDEDRECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank Co. Form No. 30043 Ordinance No._______..___88-98.__AMENDED Passed_____________November2_________________19____48 An Ordinance Amending Portions of the Zoning Code to Regulate Large Format Retail Development in the City of Dublin WHEREAS, the Council and citizens of the City of Dublin, Ohio have raised through the community planning process numerous issues and concerns related to the development of regional retail centers within the City, including but not limited to, the compatibility of any proposed large retail developmentwith the surrounding area, the impact of regional scale retail uses, preservation of existing architecture, open space, traffic, and related issues; and WHEREAS, City Council, through Ordinance # 61-98 (amended), enacted a development, building, and rezoning moratorium to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Dublin, by preserving the status quo while evaluating the issues related to additional retail development, including available retail space and the effects of additional retail development; and WHEREAS, the Community Plan defines Regional Retail Centers as including highly specialized stores and services that are also noted for their increased number and variety of stores and services they contain, attracting most of their customers from outside the surrounding neighborhood; and WHEREAS, regional retail centers add significant traffic to the existing infrastructure; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of Dublin City Council to address these concerns to the maximum extent possible, while at the same time respecting property owner's retail development rights; and WHEREAS, the City must continue to evaluate its retail needs, available areas for retail development, and impact of additional retail development on the City; and WHEREAS, the current Code, with does not differentiate between large format and small format retail uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this proposed Code amendment on July 6, 1998 and July 16, 1998 and has recommended approval; and WHEREAS, conditional uses are provided within the zoning district regulations in recognition that such uses will often more intensely affect the surrounding area in which they are located than the permitted uses of such zoning districts; and WHEREAS, a conditional use designation allows proper public review and provides the opportunity for adverse community impacts to be eliminated and/or mitigated; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that large format retail should be treated as a conditional use in all applicable zoning districts; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commissionhas studied the issue and developed guidelines for the design and development of large format retail uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the Large Format Retail Guidelines and has recommended approval on October 15,1998. N7W, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, of the elected members concurring that: RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Blank Co. Form No. 30043 ~~ _ Passed---------- -------- -- ------- --- --------- ----19--- ---- Ordinance No_________________________ SECTION I. That the following language be added within Section 153.002 (Definitions -Zoning Regulations): LARGE FORMAT RETAIL. A retail or wholesale use of 20,000 square feet or more of gross floor area. SECTION II. That the following section be added to the Neighborhood Commercial District: Section 153.027(B)(3) Large format retail. Any retail or wholesale use of 20,000 square feet or more of gross floor area. SECTION III. That the following section be added to the Community Commercial District: Section 153.028(B)(5) Large format retail. Any retail or wholesale use of 20,000 square feet or more of gross floor area. SECTION IV. That the following section be added to the Central Community Commercial District: Section 153.029(B)(2) Large format retail. Any retail or wholesale use of 20,000 square feet or more of gross floor area. SECTION V. That the following section be added to the Central Business District: Section 153.030(B)(3) Large format retail. Any retail or wholesale use of 20,000 square feet or more of gross floor area. SECTION VI. That the following section be added to the Planned Shopping Center District: Section 153.053(D) Conditional use. Large format retail. Any retail or wholesale use of 20,000 square feet or more of gross floor area. SECTION VII. That the following section be added to the Planned Unit Development District: Section 153.056(M) Conditional use. Large format retail. Any retail or wholesale use of 20,000 square feet or more of gross floor area. SECTION VIII. That the following section be added to the Procedure for Authorizing a Conditional Use: Section 153.236(D) Large format retail. Any retail or wholesale use of 20,000 square feet or more of gross floor area shall be classified as a conditional use in all applicable zoning districts. SECTION IX. That the following section be deleted from the Procedure for Authorizing a Conditional Use: Section 153.236(B)(3) Fee. Anon-refundablefee of $50 shall be paid to the municipality for each application for a conditional use. SECTION X. That the following sections be amended in Procedure for Authorizing a Conditional Use: Section 153.236(B) Written Applications. Fourteen copies of a provided application form (inclusive of the original), a dimensioned site plan, and other applicable information shall be filed not less than 30 days prior to the date of the public hearing. SECTION XI. That the following section be amended in Fees for Conditional Uses, Variances, and Special Permits: Section 153.239(A) Fees for conditional uses and variances. All fees shall be consistent with the fee schedule as amended by Amended Ordinance 122-94. RECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank Co. Form No. 30043 ------------------------------ Passed---- -- --- --- -- --19-- --- Ordinance No._______._-_------___ -- SECTION XII. This ordinance is hereby declared an emergency measure necessary to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City of Dublin, by amending the afore ed Code Sections. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage. accPtl Of/ "i~~~^ - ~ l~ ~or -Presiding Officer ATTEST: ~- !~~z~~-- ~~~!~ U ! hereby certify that copies of this Ordinance/Resolution were posted in the Cty of Dublin in accordance with Section 131.21 of the Ohio Revised Code. -~ ~~ ~.~,t of Council, Dublin, Ohio r.~.~+ CITY OF DUBLIPi ,~. Division of Planning SB00 Shier•Rings Road 4 ~ablin, Ohio 43016-1236 Phone/f D D: 6l 4-161.6 550 Fox: 614-161-6566 Web Site: wwxcdablin.oh.us DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION October 15, 1998 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 4. Code Amendment 98-077ADM -Large Format Retail Uses Request: Review and recommendation of a Code amendment to classify large format retail uses as conditional uses and to adopt new design guidelines. Applicant: City of Dublin, c/o Timothy Hansley, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. MOTION: To approve this Code amendment. VOTE: 6-0. RESULT: After a working session on the text for this Code amendment during which several changes were made, the Commission recommended approval to City Council. STAFF CERTIFICATION ~._--- ad Gibson Planner Dayton Lepl Blank Co. Fn..n Nn ann~~ .. 'i i Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -October 15, 1998 Page 13 CASE 4: Large Format Retail Guidelines - 98-077ADM -Proposed Code Amendment REQUEST: Review and recommendation on a proposed Code amendment to classify large format regional retail uses as conditional uses. Also submitted for review are the proposed architectural and site guidelines. APPLICANT: City of Dublin, c/o Timothy C. Hansley, City Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin,. Ohio 43017. STAFF CONTACT: Chad Gibson, Planner. BACKGROUND: In May, Dublin City Council adopted Ordinance 61-98 which implemented a 90-day moratorium on new large format or regional retail developments. The 90-day moratorium was extended for an additiona190 days on August 10. The moratorium expires November 14, 1998. November 2, 1998 is the City Council meeting which immediatelyprecedestbe expiration of the moratorium. Staff was directed to study the impacts of such developments in more detail, and to provide clear and enforceable policies to mitigate their impacts. The moratorium has provided an opportunity for staff to draft guidelines for future developments of this type. Currently, Code does not specifically differentiate between large and small commercial uses. The final result of this process will be a revision to Code that designates retail uses over 20,000 square feet as conditional uses. Any development application for a retail use of 20,000 square feet of building area (devoted to ore or more tenants/users) will be classified as a conditional use. All conditional uses are subject to discretionary review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The attached guidelines are proposed for adoption by the Commission (not codified) for use in the conditionalreviewprccess. The Planning and Zoning Commission would retain the right to deviate from these guidelines at its discretion. These guidelines have been discussed and revised at four subcommittee meetings in the last four months (see attached minutes). CONSIDERATIONS: • The amendment will affect the following Code Sections: 153.027, NC, Neighborhood Commercial District; 153.028, CC, Community Commercial District; 153.029, CCC, Central Community Commercial District; 153.030, CB, Central Business District; 153.053, PSC, Planned Shopping Center District; 153.056, PUD, Planned Unit Development District; 153.058, PCD, Planned Commerce District; and 153.236, Conditional Uses. In all districts, a 20,000 square foot retail use will be subject to conditional use review. • A goal of the 1997 Dublin Community Plan is to severely limit additional regional- and community-level retail establishments. The Community Plan tested traffic and fiscal impacts of different land uses through the use of computer models. That testing revealed that retail uses do not generate revenues adequate to offset the costs of their municipal services. Only industrial and office uses provided positive results in the fiscal testing for the municipality. There are significant transportation costs associ~ed with retail uses and .•• Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -October 15, 1998 Page 14 limited revenues (income taxes). As such, retail use is generally discouraged in the Plan. The Plan recommends limiting future retail and accommodating only the amount needed to service the local Dublin community. • In early 1998, BJ's Wholesale Club and Lowe's filed CDD, Corridor Development District, applications for retail stores of over 100,000 square feet in the Sawmill Corridor. In both instances, CC District zoning was already in place, and these two applications were specifically exempted from the new ordinance. The main goal of this Code amendment is to encourage development that contributes to Dublin as a unique place, with emphasis placed on safe and convenient traffic circulation and aesthetic character. Large format retail uses have been successfully regulated in other cities. • Lists of conditional uses are provided within the zoning regulations in recognition that suds uses will often more intensely affect the surrounding area in which they are located. Conditional uses are reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission to ensure the proper mitigation of their impacts. Approval/disapproval is at the reasonable discretion of the Commission. • A subcommittee of the Planning Commission was appointed this past summer to study this amendment more closely. Subcommittee meetings were held on July 6, August 12, September 9, and October 7, 1998 to obtain feedback from the Commission, various community professionals, and City staff. Comments and suggestions from these meetings have been incorporated into the attached guidelines. • The guidelines address various issues including traffic concerns, parking lot orientation arri design, building entrances, aesthetic character, building features, roofs, building materials and colors, rear and side facades, service areas, outdoor storage/display, and lighting. • "Pedestrian friendly" development is encouraged by the guidelines, including the use of brick pavers for clearly demarcated pedestrian paths, and the provision of bicycle racks, decorative path lighting, and public plazas. • The guidelines recommend the heavy use of landscaping within the parking lot of a large format retail development, including 10 percent interior landscaping. There is a provision for an additional five percent for a water feature, public plaza, or more green space. Cart corrals are suggested to be constructed of extruded curbing with landscaping on three sides. • The use of "parking pods" is recommended in order to break up the mass of large parking lots. Less than 50 percent of the site's parking is recommended to be in front of the building's front facade. The goal being that the parking on site will be distributed more evenly, and the impression of a "sea of parking" will not occur. • The guidelines recommend using a minimum of 60 percent brick or stone on all four sides of the building (excluding glazing). There is a provision for using a higher percentage of these materials to correspond with surrounding development. Materials such as vinyl siding, standard masonry block, and pre-engineered building panels are discouraged. New materials should meet quality standards and can be used at the discretion of the Commission. STAFF RECONIIVII';NDATION: In summary, the proposed Code amendment classifies retail or wholesale uses over 20,000 square feet (per tenant or group of tenants) as conditional uses which are subject to review by the ,~ Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -October 15, 1998 Page 13 4. Code Amendment 98-077ADM -Large Format Retail Uses Chad Gibson presented this code amendment to classify large retailers as conditional uses. The amendment will give the Commission discretionary review over retail uses that are 20,000 square feet and larger. The accompanying guidelines will be used to review large retail uses. The "'~" subcommittee reviewed and revised the guidelines several times. The subcommittee included architects, local citizens and Commissioners. The guidelines address layout, cart corral design, materials, parking design, the treatment of light pole bases, traffic controls, etc. Regarding the experience of Fort Collins in regulating large format retail, Mr. Gibson said their photos indicate good success. He said Dublin included different material requirements. Mr. Peplow referenced the Community Plan goal to limit retail to what is needed to serve the local community, and he wanted quantitative information. Mr. Gibson said the guidelines do not address this issue. He said the guidelines did stem from the Community Plan. Mr. Peplow asked how BJ's would have looked under these guidelines. Mr. Gibson said the design would have been substantially different. Ms. Clarke said that it may not have been practical to demolish the original building. A plan with one entrance and all parking in front of the store is discouraged. A total redesign would have been needed plus more green space. Mr. Eastep asked if parked trucks were regulated by these guidelines. Mr. Gibson said no. Mr. Sprague did not want large trucks parked near the street that function as signage. Dave Marshall said the graphics on a truck parked in this way would be considered a sign. Mr. Eastep asked about the use of Myrica pennsylvanica or inkberries, for screening parking ' corrals. He would prefer evergreen screening. Mr. McCash suggested using low evergreens to assure driving visibility in the parking lots. Mr. Gibson suggested changes to the Parking Lot Orientation section (page 4, third bullet) to regulate parking of commercial vehicles. After discussion, Mr. Eastep added the following: That delivery or service vehicles are prohibited from parking in customer parking areas. Mr. Gibson said 60 percent of the wall surface, outside of glazing, needed to be stone or brick. Mr. Gibson said the guidelines would not allow the use of higher chroma colors. Mr. McCash asked about the requirement that no more than 50 percent of the parking should be located between the main building facade and the abutting street. He was concerned about adequate screening for service areas and the treatment of a single retail use on one site. It may be difficult to achieve the goal of the guidelines for parking lot layout and design. Mr. McCash suggested a change on page 4 to Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines or to all applicable building regulations. The Commission is notgoing to be regulating or enforcing the employment aspects of the ADA, etc. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -October 15, 1998 Page 14 . DRAFT Regarding page 5, first bullet, Mr. McCash said it is our intentto use recesses of one or two feet to help break up the facade. Mr. Gibson said the intent to break up the mass of the building is the origin of the 10 foot-minimum recess. Mr. McCash suggested a reference to wall plane projections or offsets and strike the reference to recesses. He said the Building Features on page 5, first bullet, should include offsets, pilasters, columns, etc. as features that can be repeated. Cathy Boring, 5227 Glencree Place, wanted the hours of operation to be addressed in the 'mow guidelines. She does not want 24-hour operations permitted. There are several existingstores that are open 24 hours, and she would like all future retailers to have limited hours. She said the service areas will be screened, and parking could be placed behind the building. Mr. McCash stated that his concern regarded the single retail user. Those stores are not designai for four public entrances, and there is a clear "back" of the structure. Customers would have to walk around the building to get to an entrance. Mr. Gibson stated that these guidelines will apply to new applications. Mr. McCash said restricting the hours of operation would fit within the conditional use review, but there may be legal problems if the restriction only applies to future uses and not existing uses. Ms. Boring would prefer all sites to be restricted by the guidelims, including hours of operation. Mr. Lecklider suggested amending page seven regarding nuisances to inchzde hours of operation. He suggested that the hours be limited within 200 feet of residential areas. Ms. Boring wants language in the guidelines that the Commission strongly consider restricting hours of operation, with the Commission to decide on a case by case basis. Mr. Eastep stated that the hours of operation were limited for the UDF on Avery-Muirfield Drive. Mr. McCash suggested that the guidelines not prohibit 24-hour operations, but that the hours be reviewed in relation to the community's needs and desires on the particular use and its location. Ms. Boring wants 24 hour operations discouraged. The Commission agreed. It was decided to add (page 8, number 7): "The Commission should examine hours of operation and may restrict them at its discretion, if warranted. 24-hour operation is strongly discouraged. " Mr. Lecklider said they are recommending to Council that any use over 20,000 square feet is to be treated as a conditional use, and such future sites should follow the guidelines. Mr. Sprague made the motion that the Guidelines and Code amendment be amended as discussed, and forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation because they promote the Community Plan goals, will assist the Commission in reviewing such projects and foster higher quality projects. Mr. Eastep seconded. The vote was as follows: Mr McCash, yes; Mr. Peplow, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Harian, yes; Mr. Eastep, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes. (Approved 6-0.) Mr. Lecklider commended Mr. Gibson and the rest of staff on this project. ~, Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -October 15, 1998 Page 15 Planning and Zoning Commission. Development guidelines have been drafted to assist the Commission in the review of such applications. Staff believes this Code amendment is a positive step for the community and respectfully requests favorable consideration from the Commission. Bases: 1) The proposed Code amendment corresponds with the goals of the Community Plan. 2) The proposed guidelines will assist the Planning and Zoning Commission in the review of large format retail development applications. 3) The proposed guidelines will assist developers with the design and production of higher quality projects. ~~_~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Meetin aancd-ivle Held Mgy 1~, 1998 19 ~! Adamek, Yes; Mr. er, yes; Mayor er, yes; Mr. Peterson, s. ;! ~Mr. McCash, yes• . Adamek, yes; Mr. er, yes; Mr. { . i~ Petenon, yes: rK;anstuber, Yes: . Boring, Yom: Ma. ffi ittaluga, yes. t it O 60-98 - An Ordinan Acce ~ pting the Low d Best Bid for Pav ent ~~ Services. li Ma Ktanstuber introdu the ordinance. '' .Boring asked if City has the equipment ' house to perform ork. ,! Ii Mr. McDaniel. that last year the Ci plemented this pro in an`attempt to have the sho -and center lines pain in a timely manner. cost analysis study. demonstrates ' -more. cost efficient to d out the larger projec :Last yeaY; the cost savings was ' the range of 515,000 t 20,000. ~~ There be a second reading public hearing at the ne 1 Council meeting. Ordinance 61-98 - An Ordinance Implementing Interim Retail Development j, Controls as to Regional Retail Centers is the City of Dublin, Ohio, and Declaring II an Emergency. ;, Mrs. Boring introduced the ordinance. ~I Mr. Helwig noted that this ordinance was prepared in response to Council's discussion at 1 goal-setting regarding consideration of a 90-day moratorium on regional retail i~ development while staff• (1) studies the impact of regional retail development and (2) it PreP~ a list of recommendations to control such development through the use of P~n8 tools and architectural standards for development. The legislation prepared by - I the Law Director does not affect any applications already submitted. Mrs. Bo moved to . ring dispense with the public hearing and treat this as emergency ' legislation. Mayor iKranstuber seconded the motion. ~ Vote en the motion - Ms. Hide PitWuga, yes• Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Adamek, Yes: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Kranstuber, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes. I Mr. McCash oomraented that he - knowsoftwo cases being evaluated which are in the ~; final development.atages and a-.third one which has been filed with the'City and . ii referred to. Planning and Zoning Commission. Following discussion, the consensus of City Council was to amend the ordinance by striking the reference to rezoning and leave in place the exemptions for pending final development plans. Mayor Kranstuber moved to amend the ordinance as noted. Mrs. Boeing seconded the motion. Vote on the ametidment_ Mr. Reins, yes; Mr. Adamek, yes; Ms Hide Pittaluga, yes; Mr. i Peterson, Yes: MayoriiCixnstuber, Yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. .. Mra. Boring inquired about staff s time table for the study. ~i Mr. Helwig responded that he expects completion well in advance of the 90 da s y to allow I. Council time for review. it it Mrs. Boring requested that staff provide f/ounal with a time table indicating the order of I topic review. She suggested that, in addition to the Community Plan, staff rely on the Mt. I~ Aubum study when addressing this issue. i ~ Vete en the endlnenev~. Mr. Renter, yes; Mr. Petenoq, Yet; Ms. Fide Pittaluga, yea: Mr. i Adamek, Yes; Mr. McGsh, Yet: Mayor Kranstuber, Yes; Mr:. Boring, yes. 98-077ADM Large Format Retail Uses r LARrTF FORMAT RETAIL DESIGN GUIDELINES - 11/2/98 ***Comments/changes have been included from the July 16 and October IS Planning Commission meetings, as well as from the August 12, September 9, and October 7 subcommittee meetings. The intent of this document is to set forth development guidelines for the appropriate location and development of large format retail uses. It is the desire of the Planning and Zoning Commission to challenge the developer to provide the best product possible. These guidelines should be applied in conjunction with Ordinance 88-98 and should be consistent with the Land Use Policies, Strategies, and Action Items of the 1997 Dublin Community Plan. The Plan's directives are listed below: Land Use Policies: A) Use the Community Plan text and maps to guide development decisions and to promote public health, safety, and welfare. B) Control the quality and intensity of growth along Dublin's periphery. C) The City shall protect the rural character of outlying areas to the west. D) Land development intensities should be sensitive to the capacity of the transportation network. E) Encourage development patterns that support pedestrian mobility. F) Encourage development patterns that support transit service. G) Preserve areas of open space for active and passive recreation. H) Preserve environmentally sensitive areas and corridors. I) Due to its fiscal and traffic characteristics severely limit additional regional- and large-scale retail, but promote local-serving retail and service in appropriate locations. J) Reinforce Old Dublin as the historic town center of the City. Transportation Policies: A) Use the Thoroughfare Plan to coordinate development and roadway improvements. B) Balance public and private sector responsibility for roadway improvements. C) Establish Level of Service Standards for Dublin's roads. D) Design and capacity standards for roadways should be appropriately related to roadway function and classification. E) Maximize existing roadway capacity and safety and reduce peak hour congestion through roadway management improvements. F) Provide a roadway network with multiple connections between routes and -uses. G) Minimize adverse impacts of road improvements in sensitive areas. H) Promote alternatives to the Single Occupant Vehicle. I) Work cooperatively with surrounding jurisdictions to promote consistent regional transportation planning and programming. J) Act on key short-term components of the Thoroughfare Plan. K) Promote bicycle mobility in and through Dublin. Fiscal Policies: A) Seek alternative sources of revenue to offset costs of future roadway improvements. B) Dublin does not need to pursue increased employment intensities. C) New development should pay its fair shaze of growth impacts. D) Maintain current levels of service for City services. These guidelines should act as a reference for the Planning and Zoning Commission to review large format retail development applications. Their aim is not to stifle creativity. Rather, the guidelines should be applied so that their intent is met to the satisfaction of the Commission. Large format retail developments should be designed to reflect the high standards that have made Dublin a desirable place to live and work. The guidelines address the following azeas: • Traffic concerns • Parking lot orientation and design • Building Entrances • Aesthetic chazacter • Building features • Roofs • Building materials and colors • Reaz and side facades • Nuisances • Loading areas • Outdoor storage/display/sales • Refuse collection • Lighting Conditional uses are provided within the zoning district regulations because such uses will often more intensely affect the surrounding azea in which they aze located than the permitted uses of such zoning districts. Regional retail facilities aze examples of uses which have more intense affects, especially with respect to traffic, than most permitted uses. Therefore, any lazge format retail use (of 20,000 squaze feet of building area or greater devoted to one tenant/user) is classified as a conditional use under the provisions of Code Section 153.236. The Planning and Zoning Commission will review the conditional use application using these guidelines. The Planning and Zoning Commission 2 .,,rr should hold a public hearing and act on a conditional use by approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval. Traffic Concerns: Automobile traffic is a major concern of Dublin residents. Therefore, an applicant-funded traffic study may be required at the discretion of the Commission. Site access, left-turn vehicle stacking, right-of--way dedication, off-site improvements, circulation, and pedestrian protection should be appropriately and comprehensively addressed and/or provided as pazt of the conditional use application and consideration. The applicant should provide "nodes of shopping" to make multiple transactions possible with one trip. (A "node of shopping" is an area or development which serves multiple, separate functions for consumers with one vehicle trip.) P r ing L.ot Orientation and Design: Parking azeas shall provide safe, convenient, and efficient access. The following items should be integrated into parking lot design: • Buildings should be located closer to streets to minimize the scale of the overall development. This reduces the "sea" of parking effect (looking across a vast expanse of parking to the building). • It is preferred that no more than 50 percent of the required off-street pazking spaces for the store be located between the main building facade and the abutting street(s). • There should be greenspace margins at least 20 feet wide azound the periphery of the site, and at least seven feet in width around the perimeter of the building. • Pedestrian traffic should be handled appropriately through the site, minimizing conflict points between auto and pedestrian traffic by adequate design and demarcation of pedestrian walkways from pazking or driveway areas. Brick pavers should be utilized to emphasize the separation of vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Sidewalks should be integrated into the design of the pazking lot and should be kept free of obstructions to ensure safe usage by pedestrians. • Pazking lot layout should be designed to meet City standards, and connections to built or planned sidewalks and bike paths is encouraged. • At least one bicycle rack for a minimum of 20 bicycles should be located within 150 feet of a customer store entrance. • Internal green space islands/areas within the parking lot are required to be at least ten percent of the gross paved and building surface area. Parking "pods" should be utilized to minimize large expanses of asphalt (see schematic pod design). (A parking "pod" is a segment of a parking lot that is clearly separated from the rest of the lot by a landscaped edge.) • Water features and/or public plazas of at least five percent of the gross paved and building surface area should be required. These features may be incorporated into ,~~ .~ the retention plan for the site. The applicant has the option of converting this five percent into additional green space. • Adherence to the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines and applicable building regulations is required. • Cart corrals should be constructed of extruded concrete curbing, with landscaping on three sides, and exhibit no corporate signage (see schematic cazt corral design). (Cart corrals are small areas of a pazking lot that aze designated for the temporary storage of carts generally associated with a neazby retail use.) • Outdoor display of any type is not permitted. • The Commission should have discretion over the required number of pazking spaces for a site when green space, landscaping, water features, etc. are offered as an alternative. In planned districts, text changes may be recommended, and in straight-zoned districts, the Commission may recommend that a variance application be filed with the Board of Zoning Appeals. • Delivery or service vehicles are prohibited from parking in customer pazking azeas. Building Entrances: Entryway design elements and variations should provide orientation, aesthetically pleasing chazacter, and pedestrian scale to the building. These elements should be architecturally integrated with the building and create the appearance of multiple entrances and storefronts. Each principal building should have at least two cleazly defined, highly visible customer entrances featuring an appropriate combination of two or more of the following (see schematic entryway features): • Overhangs • Recesses/projections • Verandas • Arches • Landscaped azeas for pedestrian seating • Architectural details such as the work and moldings which are integrated into the building structure and design • Outdoor patios/public plazas with seating • Peaked roof forms • Canopies (not backlit) or porticos Aesthetic Character: Facades should be articulated to reduce the massive scale and the uniform, disengaging appearances of large format retail buildings, and to provide visual interest that will be consistent with the community's identity, character, and scale. Large "box" designs are not permitted. Composite shapes should be utilized in the site layout of these large structures. The intent is to encourage developments to incorporate high quality materials and a pedestrian friendly scale so 4 as to contribute to and identify a sense of community as articulated in the Community Plan. The following standards should be applied to accomplish these goals: 1) No uninterrupted length of any facade should exceed 75 horizontal feet, and wall plane projections or offsets should have a depth of at least 10 feet and should extend at least 50 feet of the length of the facade; 2) No segment of wall should exceed 10 vertical feet without interruption by an architectural feature such as a change in color, texture, material, design, etc.; 3) Ground floor facades that face public streets or parking areas should have display windows, awnings, verandas, entry areas, or other such features along no less than 60 percent of their horizontal length; and 4) Building height as defined by Code should not exceed 35 feet. Each development application should be evaluated with the scale, massing, and location of the project in mind. Two-story buildings which provide substantially more green space on a site are generally preferred over single story buildings with more lot coverage. Building Features: Buildings should have architectural features, finishes, and patterns that provide visual interest, contribute to a pedestrian scale, reduce massive effects, and recognize local, as well as community-wide character. The elements in the following standard should be integral parts of the building fabric, and not superficially applied trim, graphics, or paint. 1) Building facades should incorporate a repeating pattern that includes the elements listed below. At least one of these elements should repeat horizontally. The elements are as follows: • Color • Texture • Material • Reveals • Offsets • Columns • Pilasters 2) Expression of architectural or structural bay through a change in plane is recommended. The following are examples of such expressions (see diagram): • Offsets • Projecting ribs or columns 5 Recessed arches or other features ~QS2~&: Variations in roof lines should be used to reduce the mass and add interest to large buildings. Flat roofs should not be visible, except if verandas, trellises, etc. are utilized. Roof features should complement the character of adjoining neighborhoods and/or developments where applicable. All rooftop mechanical equipment must be screened from public view. Parapets should feature three- dimensional cornice treatment. Parapet backing, if visible, must match the materials of the front elevation of the parapet. Roofs should incorporate at least two of the following features (see diagram): 1) Overhanging eaves, extending no less than three feet past the supporting walls. 2) Sloping roofs that do not exceed the average height of the supporting walls, which utilize trusses and pillars. 3) Multiple horizontal roof planes per building elevation. Building Materials and Colors: Building materials shall be of high quality. It is the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that materials, systems, and their supporting connections, enclosures, joints, joint materials, ability to expand and contract, ability to maintain color and finish, long term durability and maintenance meet or exceed acceptable industry standards as accepted by the Commission. The applicant shall provide all appropriate data, samples, and warranty information. The Commission will consider new products, systems, and technologies, but retains discretion over their use. The use of brick and stone (including limestone and manufactured stone) is significant in the development's community-wide acceptability and contextual appearance. Therefore, one or both materials should be utilized on every building facade. A minimum of 60 percent of every building facade (excluding glazing) must be brick or stone. This required percentage may be increased if the development location warrants it. The following materials are not acceptable: • Standard concrete masonry units, such as concrete block, painted or unpainted, textured or untextured • Pre-engineered building systems and panels • Vinyl or aluminum siding • Wood siding and trim other than cedar 6 vrri Tinting of glazing and the percentage of facade area devoted to glazing are both subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. Window signage should be minimized. Building materials and colors contribute to the visual impact of a building. Therefore, they should ,~„ be aesthetically pleasing and compatible with materials and colors used throughout the community. These should be subdued low chroma colors, including grey, buff, beige, taupe, brown, and tan. Brick of red tones (e.g. Glengery Rosewood) is also permissible. "Corporate identity" or "logo" colors may not be used in any material colors unless they coincide with accepted colors. Business "logo colors" may be used sparingly in signage. Facade and trim colors should be of low reflectance, subtle, and neutral colors. The use of high intensity colors, metallic colors, black, or fluorescent colors is prohibited. Painted stripes or designs should be avoided. Exposed neon tubing on the building is prohibited. The use of neon tubing within the building should not be visible from outside the building. Rear and Side Facades: No structure is considered as having "front" and "rear" facades. The same degree of finish, including the required percentage of brick and stone, should be utilized on all sides of the building. All facades should contribute to the scale and features of the building by featuring similar characteristics as the front facade. The minimum setback for any building facade should be at least 50 feet from the nearest property line. If the scale, massing, and location of the proposed building warrant it, setbacks may be increased or decreased at the Commission's discretion. The required building setback may be """~" higher for certain roads (e.g. 200 feet for scenic roads). Where a facade faces any adjacent residential use, an earthen berm, no less than seven feet in height as measured from the fmished ~' ~° floor elevation of the store should be provided. This berm should contain, at a minimum, evergreen and deciduous trees 12 feet in height planted at intervals of 15 feet on center, or in clusters or clumps, and should be provided along the length of the property line. Grasses and shrubs may be incorporated with the approval of the Commission. Landscaping and mounding must meet or exceed Code as noted. NnisancPS, Loading rea.. Storage. Sales a_n_d Refuse Collection: Loading areas and outdoor storage areas of large format retailers exert visual and noise impacts on surrounding areas. All of these areas must be completely screened or enclosed. Standards for these areas are summarized in the following: 1) Storage, sales, truck parking, trash collection/compaction, loading, or other such uses must be fully screened. 7 ,~ 2) Storage, sales, trash collection/compaction, loading, or other such uses should be located at least 35 feet from a public street, public sidewalk, or internal pedestrian way, public or private. 3) Loading docks, truck parking, storage, utility meters, HVAC equipment, trash, collection/compaction, and other service functions should be incorporated into the overall design of the building and the landscaping. The visual and noise impacts of these functions should be fully contained/enclosed and out of view from adjacent properties and public/private streets. Attention should not be attracted to these functions by the use of screening or building materials different from or inferior to the principal materials of the building and landscape. 4) All areas for the storage and sale of seasonal inventory should be permanently defined and screened with walls and/or fences. Screening walls shall repeat the materials, colors, and design of the predominant materials and colors on the building. Chain-link, tubular steel, vinyl/aluminum slats, barbed-wire, and similar fencing types are not permitted. 5) No delivery, loading, trash removal, or other such operations should be permitted between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. when any part of the site is within 2,000 feet of residential uses. Trash collection containers shall have top enclosures. Violations of these policies should be handled by the Dublin Police Department and the Code Enforcement Officer. 6) Outdoor speakers are not permitted. 7) The Commission should examine hours of operation and may restrict them at its discretion, if warranted. 24-hour operation is strongly discouraged. ~$' Lighting should be of a pedestrian scale. All lighting plans must meet the requirements of the Dublin Lighting Guidelines, including the use of cut-off type fixtures. Wall pack lights must also be of the cut-off variety. Light pole bases should be incorporated into landscape islands where possible (all Landscape Code requirements must be met), and must be designed to utilize stone or brick veneer bases which match the building. 8 v T~ ~~_W ~. ._.W . a,__,~, _ ,~,.Y,......,......~... ~. ~'"~i ' " _ .. ., • •:- "~``- ' ~~.~~: . ~.. ~ - ~ offsets .. •.'~ projecting ribs . reveals s~ruc~ura[ I,ay Iayou~ Architectural/Structural Bays .. • ~ 1 t WINDOWS "AWNINGS ENTRY AREAS ARCADES Schematic Entryway Features 98-077ADM Large Format Retail Uses .~. Architectural Recesses and Projections 98-077ADM Large Format Retail Uses ~ .. ta~~ • E ~ ~~ ~~ ~ s10~~~ • . _..~ e~ ~~~da r ~I • d el I I ilk Ilt-~ I (~i . ~f ~ _.l ~• . ~~ 077ADM ""°'"'~irge Forniat Retail Uses ,~,,~ .' - ~. I ~. ~i~i ~. ~;:.. Public Street Schematic Parking Pod Design /' ~.. ~. s a a 98-C [.ar4 [.~~ .tLCR 1~0 ~~ ,~.- Schematic Cart Corral Design 1 a,CR REO ~-~.~r I /~• Conceptual Cart Corral Design Standard Site Plan Design 1 ~ ``- `~~. ~ .~- ~~ ~ .~, ~. ~~ Alternate Site Plan Design 98-077ADM Large Format Retail Uses 133a1S ~IlBfld i l ~ i ~ ~ ~~ i ~~ ,~ ~ c • ~ .~~ I i ° y ~ ~ ' ~~ ~W -. :~!~` . U • ~ J ' • ' •. ~ ~ i • ~, .' :• a ~ ~ .. ~ ~~~ w p ~~ ~ t~ ~ ~ V) N U ~ I_ ~ ~~ f ~: ~ ~ ~ a t ~ '• i I ~ i r ( ( t i ~l ~ . .. , .. ~ :l •_. 1 ~~ • .' t • J ~' + . III •~» . ..~% '\ '•.. ti. ~.~ a. ~~\ d i• E ~ a ~ ''. ~ ~ • ' ~ .~ ~ ~ .' U W N V W ': l~~als ~iiend W W F- N U J m a Schematic Site Layout a ,w ,~ ~ ~on T Design Review Subcommittee Minutes July 8, 1998 Page 1 Design Review/Large Format Retail Guidelines Planning and Zoning Commission Subcommittee Minutes, July 8, 1998 - 5800 Building - 5800 Shier-Rings Road Attendees: Mitch Banchefsky, Joe Hazian, Jim Sprague, Tom McCash, Warren Fishman, Tim Lecklider, Jerry Smith, .Roger Eastep, Martin Strayer, Bobbie Clarke, Kim Littleton, Chris Hermann, and Chad Gibson. Kim Littleton gave an introduction. He said the meeting was an organizational meeting for the design review subcommittee (3 members from P & Z). Due to the urgency involved with formulating guidelines for large format retail establishments, they would also be discussed. Issues were outlined related to large format retail. He said Mr. Gibson has been working on standards that address site layout, access, etc. Mr. Littleton said that a design review process should include an ordinance for providing for city- wide design review. Commercial, multi-family, and even single-family uses would be included. Mr. Littleton referenced the Multi-family Appearance Code and the 1997 Community Plan which recommended the formulation of citywide design standazds and a process that goes along with them. Other communities have adopted similar standards. He said Dublin doesn't have a specific architectural style like New Albany, so it would be an issue to discuss. Mr. Littleton distributed a packet which outlined eleven steps in the design review process.. There are three phases involved. Getting organized/setting up the background including pointing out historically successful projects and identifying the character of. Dublin is the first step. Second is drafting standards including site design. Finally, the selection of an appropriate process. These guidelines must be specific to stand up in court. He said, Council, staff, and- the development community _(azchitects, developers, engineers) will be involved in this effort. He also cautioned against adopting verbatim from other community's guidelines. There was group discussion about meeting date preferences and the availability of members. Meetings aze generally to be scheduled on the Wednesday of an off-week, probably the second week of the month. The Commission meetings will be schedule from 5:30 to 8:00 pm and a light dinner will be provided. Ms. Clarke asked who should be invited to future meetings, and added that citizens should play a larger role in these settings. Mr. Eastep suggested sending a letter to the civic associations. Mr. McCash suggested a task force of leaders from the development community, and he cited the AIA. Mr. Fishman suggested inviting an azchitect from outside the community. He was concerned developers would not be in favor of any type of control. Mr. McCash suggested that the document be flexible so the developer and the azchitect could be creative. Mr. Eastep said ~ 98-077ADM Large Format Retail Uses Design Review Subcommittee Minutes July 8, 1998 Page 2 Dublin has residents who are architects and do not work for local developers. Mr. McCash ' suggested an OSU professor as a neutral group member. Mr. Eastep noted that a common complaint from developers in Dublin is the ambiguity of the rules, and that they don't know what is expected of them. Avoiding the "guessing game" will save time for everyone. Mr. Littleton agreed. Mr. Harian reiterated that we should be careful not to become too rigid in our codes. He suggested a point system that rewards creativity. Mr. Fishman said he is concerned about durability. Mr. Harian wanted to be educated on various materials. Industry experts could be brought in to explain how material systems such as EIFS work. - Mr. McCash recommended George from Construction Specifications, Inc. (CSI). Mr. Fishman cautioned that aluminum siding was once guaranteed for life, but it has serious problems after a certain number of years. Mr. Littleton summarized the discussion. He said that staff, commissioners, architects, and developers are on the list of invites for the next meeting. There was discussion on the selection process. Mr. Lecklider was concerned about having too large a group. Mr. Banchefsky recommended a committee of the whole, where there would be selections made as to who would represent these various groups. Mr. Lecklider said the public will comment at the formal public meeting. Mr. Banchefsky said that input should only be taken from this subcommittee and additional invited members. Public input could be included in the subcommittee meeting. Mr. McCash suggested that the public submit written comments. Mr. Fishman said the group should not be too big.. The standards should be done correctly in order. to stand up legally. Mr. Banchefsky agreed.. Mr. Eastep said the group needs to determine how.many residents need to be invited/accepted,.and suggested inviting all of the civic association presidents. Mr. McCash suggested a developer, an architect, a builder; a corporate person, three members of Planning and Zoning and one citizen. Mr. Fishman asked if single-family residences and apartments would be included. Ms. Clarke said her understanding was that everything was going to be discussed except for one-, two-, and ..three-family housing. --Mr. ~ Eastep said the focus should be on commercial only. - Mr. Fishman said that the original idea for design review stemmed from single-family housing. A councilperson was distressed with the look of homes along Muirfield Drive. Mr. Banchefsky warned that if all development types are addressed, the project could become unmanageable. Mr. Eastep suggested starting with commercial buildings, including apartments, and use the process as a learning experience. ,~, Mr. Eastep thought at least three P and Z members should be present at each meeting. Mr. 98-077ADM Large Format Retail Uses Design Review Subcommittee Minutes July 8, 1998 Page 3 McCash agreed. Mr. Harian suggested four. Mr. Fishman agreed. Ms. Clarke asked for four volunteers. Mr. Lecklider, Mr. Harian, Mr. Fishman, and Mr. Sprague volunteered. Mr. Eastep said he would be an alternate. Mr. Littleton introduced the large format retail portion of the meeting. Ms. Clarke noted the moratorium on large format retail would expire August 18, 1998 if not extended. Mr. Littleton stated .that the .standards were comprised of staff ideas and .standards taken from other communities. He said they make commercial uses of 25,000 squaze feet or more a conditional use. They address big box retail as well as smaller stores like furniture or grocery stores. Mr. Littleton said a grocery store is in the 60-70 thousand square foot range. Mr. Gibson introduced himself. He cited a goal of the Community Plan is to limit additional community and regional retail. He stated that the draft was very rough, and it was adapted from the Fort Collins, Colorado guidelines. Mr. Gibson stated that Planning and Zoning Commission discretion is preserved through the conditional use procedure. The moratorium can be extended, if necessary. Mr. Clarke explained the scheduling deadlines for Code changes. Mr. Gibson showed a series of slides and explained the segments of his presentation which were: 1) Examples of free standing large format retail establishments around Columbus; 2) Examples of large format retail uses within malls or centers; 3) Outdoor storage and display; 4) Service areas; 5) Architectural styles; and 6) Cart corrals. Mr. Fishman asked if Dublin could legally. limitthe size of these structures. Mr. Banchefsky said wr~l there is a 70 percent lot coverage maximum. If a store had a large lot, then a lazge store could be built when complying with all other requirements. He also said that the goal is to come up with. standards for. a large format retailer...Mr. Eastep said that design standards may. discourage large format retailers not willing to modify their: standard design from orating in Dublin. Mr. Fishman asked if the Community .Plandealt :with-,aesthetics of large format retail development. Ms. Clarke said the Community Plan recommendation was based on fiscal and traffic impacts of this type of development. She said that industrial and office uses were the only land uses that create net positive results for Dublin. Every other land use is a fiscal negative for the City. Retail needs more traffic improvements to support it than the revenue it produces. As .a result, the Community. Plan recommends that .the. City only accommodate.retail .as needed-to. . - -- service its own population. City Council was looking at more aesthetic issues than anything else. Ms. Clarke stated the guidelines say "draft 1" but the staff has revisited it three times. Staff needs Planning Commission input to make sure staff is on the right track. Mr. Gibson noted when he visited lazge format retailers, there commonly had been forklifts moving about in the parking lot and the fire lane was generally full of displav product. 98-077ADM ''"" Large Format Retail Uses .. Design Review Subcommittee Minutes July 8, 1998 Page 4 Discussion followed. Mr. Eastep commented on how aesthetically pleasing the (vacant) Jumbo Sports building (Mill Run) was with its brick facades, color changes, offsets, and reveals. Mr. Fishman stated the large, uninterrupted expanses of blacktop are consistently unattractive. Mr. Gibson stated that less than 50 percent of the parking area was permitted in front of the building's main customer entrance. This would help reduce these large expanses of blacktop. Mr. Fishman and Mr. Eastep agreed that this requirement was a great idea. Mr. Fishman asked if the light pole bases in parking lots of retail centers were required to be the tall, cement type. Mr. Gibson thought that the pole bases were designed for safety reasons, and Mr. Eastep concurred. Mr. Fishman thought the bases could look more attractive with stucco stone or brick. He also said that it would be a good idea to place pole bases within landscape islands. He thought this idea should be a requirement within the guidelines. The group agreed. Mr. Lecklider wanted to make sure that the pole bases would not detract from the landscape requirements. Mr. Fishman agreed. Mr. Hermann complimented the Kitties building with its architectural features on all sides. Mr. Banchefsky requested that no direct references be made to the Lowe's application. This meting should not pre judge the pending application. Mr. Eastep and Mr. Sprague said the document looks good. Mr. Eastep thought that sidewalks in parking areas should be addressed. He suggested the following addendum to the guidelines: "parking .lots .shall be used,for the sole purpose of customer or employee parking, no outside display, sales, festivals, .carnivals, storage, or merchandise receiving shall occur in parking lots or driveways." Mr. Fishman thought-that a special permit was required for this type of activity. Mr. Eastep said that developers want the minimum amount of parking. Then some parking area is utilized for product or other display. The result is that the parking requirement is no longer met. Mr. Eastep said that the 90 percent brick/stone requirement eliminates some design flexibility. .He suggestedthat 75 percent brick or stone be required -when the remaining :25 .percent is an approved type of glazing. Mr. Eastep said glazing can be a quality building material. Mr. Sprague, Mr. Harian, and Mr. Fishman concurred. There was discussion concerning stucco stone. The wall at Hayden Run and Frantz Road was mentioned as an example of poor installation of stucco stone. Mr. Littleton said that the storm water management regulations had been revised. Mr. Eastep 98-077ADM Large Format Retail Uses ,~~., 98-077ADM Large Format Retail Uses Design Review Subcommittee Minutes July 8, 1998 Page 5 requested that staff provide the group members with the revised storm water regulations. Mr. Hermann asked when the group would like to see these guidelines at Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Harian said he would like to have the guidelines a week to review before the meeting. Mr. Lecklider expressed concern that the moratorium could expire without having the Code amendment passed. Mr. Eastep concurred. Mr. Fishman asked if Lowe's would be effected by these guidelines. Mr. Gibson said Lowe's would not because it was specifically exempted. Mr. Fishman asked if augmenting the light pole bases was addressed in the guidelines. Mr. Eastep questioned the feasibility of placing stucco stone or brick around the light pole bases. Mr. Strayer discussed building material options for, the bases. He suggested the use of color on the light pole bases to match the building. Mr. Gibson suggested the following verbiage, "that light pole bases incorporate stone or brick that match the primary building .materials. " Mr. Eastep wanted to assure this procedure was feasible enough for the developers to carry through. Mr. Lecklider said he would like to see these standards applied to Lowe's to the extent possible. Mr. Fishman concurred. Mr. Sprague thought this would not be legal. Mr. Banchefsky said we could ask Lowe's about it. Mr. Gibson stated that Lowe's had made architectural upgrades to their plan. Mr. Fishman said that a lot has been accomplished in Dublin by simply asking more of developers. Mr. Harian addressed page four of the guidelines' roof section. He said we should incorporate a sentence that ensures parapet backing, if visible, .should match the front material of the parapet, to avoid viewing inferior materials (usually black rubber). Mr. Gibson offered wording to address this issue. There was discussion on this and Mr. Harian eventually approved the wording. Mr. Fishman gave Ponderosa Steakhouse as an example of a company that uses black parapet backing. Mr. Gibson asked if there were any other points for discussion. Mr. Eastep asked if the group.. was comfortable having only Code address storm water management issues. He expressed concern for detention ponds that were too small like the one at Avery Square. Mr. Fishman said large format retail establishments would need larger detention ponds, and that some retailers use their parking lot for some storm water retention. Mr. Eastep stated .that. pazking lot. retention. is generally designed for afive-yeaz storm.. Mr. Fishman - referenced an example of a retailer who did not want storm water in the pazking lot because he did not want his customer's feet getting wet. Mr. Eastep said Homewood Suites Hotel has storm water detention underneath the parking lot in 48-inch concrete pipes. They did this because they did not have enough room on the site to meet requirements. He said he wants nice retention facilities that aze aesthetically pleasing as well as functional. Mr. Leeklider asked about page three which addressed building design, and breaking up lazge "* .r Design Review Subcommittee Minutes July 8, 1998 Page 6 masses of featureless wall. There was discussion among the group members concerning how the section should be worded. Mr. Gibson said there is no building height restriction in the guidelines. Mr. Fishman said a multi-story building was more attractive because it provides more green space than the same square footage. Mr. Lecklider expressed concern about impacting adjacent residential areas. Mr. Sprague reiterated the concern that a limit be placed on total square footage per acre. Mr. Harian said it is substantially cheaper for retailers to build none-story building versus a multi- story building. The group concurred. There was more discussion on lot coverage. Mr. Hermann offered-the following wording, "a two-story building cannot have more square footage than aone- .story building in terms of lot coverage. " Mr. Fishman stated that the Planning Commission could coax a developer to make a building two-stories to preserve green space. Mr. Gibson said afloor- area ratio could possibly be used to handle this issue. Mr. Gibson asked about scheduling the revised guidelines for Commission action. He said that they could be included in the July 16, 1998 meeting. The group concurred. Mr. Harian said the landscaped, extruded curb design for cart corrals looks much better than the traditional steel pole type. Mr. Eastep was excited to see the final cart corral product at BJ's. Mr. Gibson -said Big Bear would be coming in with an application for cart corrals in the near future. Mr. Eastep said the guidelines address cart corrals, requiring landscaping without any signage. Steel tubing. could be used, but landscaping would have to surround them. Mr. Eastep reiterated his parking lot verbiage. He said, "parking lots shall be used for the sole purpose of customer and employee parking, no outside display,. sales, festivals, carnivals, storage, or merchandise receiving shall occur in parking lots or driveway areas. " Mr. Gibson asked for any other comments, either in written or verbal form, and he thanked the members for their attendance. The meeting was adjoined at approximately 8:00 p.m. 98-077ADM Large Format Retail Uses Minutes of Meeting Dublin City Council Meeting 'Page 9 ~~ portion of the pro y. The plan has been approved wit odifications. Ms. Clazke commente bout the landscaping plan, noting tha a zoning of the property required buffering to the e t and to the west along existing resid tial properties. The applicant purchased the lan the east, and waived their own requi ment. She explained that certain sections Muirfield were brought in after the o ' final P1JD was approved by Council. Muirfield h a number of internal landscaping req 'rements that substantially exceed the City require ents. Therefore, staff is requesting tha he applicant submit a plan for landscaping hich may include whatever the restri 'on is per tin terms of landscaping. Mr. er explained that the Muirfield Assoct ion requires street trees from the buil r, but the instead placed somewhere within the operty. They have submitted a landscape an which has been approved. Ms. Clarke exp fined that staff is trying to ensure that thi ew section of Muirfield has similaz standards the other sections. Regarding the bikep ,there is none planned on the north side of Br d Road in this vicinity. The closest bike th would be across the street on the south side f Brand Road. However, as part of the r Tonal bike system, Brand Road is designate a regional route. Discussion followed about wh her fees have been required by Council p viously in lieu of sidewalks or street tree install 'on. Mayor ICranstuber stated that since a other sections of Muirfield do not have idewalks, he would not support requiring a fee t be paid for the waiver. Mr. cCash stated that sidewalks should b required since pedestrians are forced to k in the eels. Mr. Reiner oved to approve the sidewalk and str t tree waiver with the additional condition tha he alternate landscape plan be submit d and approved. Mr. Adamek se nded the motion. ' - Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Peterson, yes; yor ICranstuber, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. A ek, yes. dinance No. 87-98 - Aa rdinance Amending Sections 153.1 through 153.164 (S n Code) of the Dublin ifed Ordinances. May r Kranstuber introduced th ordinance and moved to refer this to P ing and Mr. Rei r seconded the motion. - Mr. McCash, yes; r. Adamek, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Ma Kranstuber, es; Mr. Peterson, yes. Ordinance No. 88-98 - An Ordinance Amending Portions of the Zoning Code to Regulate Large Format Retai! Development in the City of Dublin I! Mr. Reiner introduced the ordinance. ~ ~~ There will be a second reading and public hearing at the September 8 Council meeting. 'I ~j i Or 'Hance No. 89-98 - An Ordinance t ppropriate a Fee Simple intere from the I, Tho s Family Limited Partnership, Co fisting of 6.6832 acres, More or ss, ~~ ~ Locate n the North Stde of I-270 and the ast Side of the Scioto River, in t City I~ ~~ of Dublin, ounty of Franklin, State of Ohio. 'i I Mr. McCash ' troduced the ordinance. ~i j Mr. Smith state this relates to the property on the a side of the river owned by the ,~ Thomas family w 'ch is needed for the new bridge. Ne otiations are continuing. II There will be a seco reading and public hearing at the tember 8 Council meeting. I~ Ordinance No. 90-98 - Ordinance Declaring the Procur ent of a Colorado ~' Timing System as a "SIn Source" Procurement and Watv Competitive ~ ~. ~ ,, .ti-, Minutes of _._ - Dubhri Meeting Council Meeting - -- ~ Page 12 - - ~ -- - finance No. 98-98 - An Ordin ce Providing for the Issua ce and Sale of Bonds in t Maximum Principal Amoun f $4,000,000 for the Purpo of Paying Costs of Constr ling, Furnishing and Equipp' g aMulti-purpose Comm ity and Recreatio I Center and Improving the 'te Thereof, and Declaring Emergency. Mayor Krans ber introduced the ordinance. Ms. Grigsby pro 'ded brief background on this 1 'slation. There will be a sec dreading and public hearing a e September 8 Council m ling. ~tesolution No. 43-98 -. A Resolution Extending the Interim Retail Development Controls as to Regional Retail Centers in the City of Dublin, Ohio. Mrs. Boring introduced the resolution. Mr. Smith stated this allows for an additiona190 days' moratorium as recommended by the Planning Commission. Vete nn the resolution -Mayor Kranstuber, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. Adamek, yes. Resolution No. 44-98 - A R olution of Intent to Appropri e a Temporary Construction Easement from tephen Meagher Consisting o 0.0085 Acres, More or Less, in Property Located at 69 Dublin Road, on the East Si a of S.R 745/Dublin Road, in the City of Dublin, Coun of Franklin, State of Ohio. Mayor Kranstuber introduced the reso lion. . Smith stated that staff is meeting wi Ivlr. Meagher to work out the tails regarding difieation of.the slope of his side yazd. - Mr. Adamek, yes; Reiner, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; ayor Krans ber, yes; Mr. McCash, yes. Council Member Reiner a belated~Iappy Birthday! :.~. Mr. Mc .ach scat 1. He was out f town during the Irish Festival, but hear it was a tremendous success this y 2. It appears that o the Post Road bridge, right lane, the sub ade underneath the roadway has faile nd the asphalt is broken up. He asked ether staff has followed up with th ontractor. Mr. Kindra responded that sta has followed up on this and it will be to n caze of when a crew is brought in to finish so other items. Mr. Reiner complimented Ms. Puska ikon the tremendous success of the Irish est H thanked all of the City staff member who helped with the event. Asked for an update on ODOT's plan o close the freeway ramps during the upcoming I-270 widening project. Mr. 'ndra responded that he has no further info lion at this time. 2. omnlimented Ms. Puskarcik on the success f the Irish Festival. to have a re current history of Dublin. Perhaps the Du in Historical Society could overse such a project with funding from hotel/motel x. He asked that staff give cons oration to this idea. He will contact the Histo ~ al Society to discuss this furth r. Mr. Hansley suggested th this could be done under the Arts Council um ella, as living history can be viewed asp of the culture of the community. The early his ry of Dublin has been compiled, bu the later years have not. Mr. McCash stated that Counci ad discussed some type of memorial park or p sive Mayor Kra stuber: 1. Note that he received a letter from a citizen about ying tribute to past leaders of Dub ' with some type of memorial in the Old Du 'n area. This suggestion encourag d him to reflect on the history of Dublin, and ought to mind the need ..... -. __ ~, _. ,; r ,:. Dirlsioo of Planning 5800 Shia Rings Road Dobtaw, ONo 43016-1236 iione/fOD: 614.761-6550 Fmc 614-761.6566 Ne6 Sits www.dubGn.oh.us DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION July 16, 1998 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 2. Large Format Retail Design Guidelines - 98-077ADM -Proposed Code Amendment Request: Review and recommendation of a code amendment to classify large format retail uses as conditional uses. Applicant: Ciry of Dublin, Timothy C. Hansley, Ciry Manager, 5200 Emerald Parkway, Dublin, Ohio 43017. MOTION #1: To recommend to .City Council that Ordinance 61-98, implementing a 90-day moratorium on large format or regional retail developments, be extended to permit the guidelines to be examined further by the Planning and Zoning Commission subcommittee and staff. VOTE: 6-0. RESiJLT: A recommendation to extend Ordinance 61-98 will be sent to City Council. MOTION #2: To table this proposed Code amendment. VOTE: 6-0. RESULT: The proposed code amendment was tabled to further study and refine the guidelines. STAFF CERTIFICATION Chad Gibson Planner Dublin Planning and Zoni^~ Commission Minutes -July 16, 1998 Page 10 Jce Harian said liked the look of the b 'dings and the mix of m rials proposed. He thou t a good quality myl may work. There ' more and more traffic i is area, and he was su sed ~,,,, at some of a numbers in the traffi tudy. He had problems ith the secondary access d saw no solut' unless more propert is purchased. More paz and is needed. W en Fishman said deve pers always tend to c e a major park. If a two houses on Dublin .development were pul away from the Indian this .would bean. to.the. azea.... He enco .d er~Qevelop sites. This devel ment does not .//oad were incorporated ' the plan and the and connected mores ugly to Old Dublin, ;.connection with.01 •. ublin.and: encouraged fountains. He ght the architectural sty and design was very -• ~ Village feel..::. .two. concerns. were tra c.and .overdevelopment. project is ed. A coffee shop w d give it some chazacte . .will tak any yeazs to improve d connect all of the roa ap opriate and had a German. :. estated,a.little retail:in th' According to Dublin's CI , it T' klider liked the limit four units per building a materials, architecture, d style. It a lot of trim-and ma e a high maintenance He had concerns with a siding. He .agreed with the conce of the .light colors pr .sed and how they fit in ~ azea. He was concerned about the iew from I-270. Thep g and buildings may be ery visible. Traffic is a concern. H . nderstands the positio f Mr. Smith, being loca next to the secondazy .access. Mr. klider supported a b levazd entrance... He w feedback from .the F' Department .The ravine and surrou mg azea will be impacted the number of new p ple having a s. Mr. ale said they still have a work to do, and he st' this is a worthy ject. Their tr fic. consultant will a ine some of the issues r ' ed by the Commissio They do not -envision acall-center r here. They -think peop that-live in Dublin wil ' ant offices here, ..shortening their. co te.. He would like to forth discuss the stormwater ' ue. They will work with the staff on roposal to. impress them. a thanked them. for th ' time. and comments. Tom McCas made a motion to table case.. Mr. Eastep s ded the motion, and a vote was as fo :. Mr. Hazian, yes; Mr. klider, :yes;. Mr.: Sp e, yes;:. Mr..Fis yes; Mr. F.astep es and Mr. McCash, yes Approved 6-0.) . Lecklider called for a s rt recess. 2. barge .Format Retail Design Guidelines - 98-077ADM -Proposed Code Amendment .Chad Gibson.presented this proposed. Code:.amendment to address large:~.formatretail businesses. Any retail/wholesaleose, 25,000. square feet or lazger will be .classified as a conditional use, and it will be subject to Planning and Zoning Commission review. City Council issued a 90-day moratorium in May to allow for a study of the issue and preparation of a Code amendment. He said two of the obvious issues are traffic and aesthetics. Staff has come up with• some guidelines to mitigate some of the impacts. Mr. Gibson showed a number of slides of existing retail uses. Dublin Planning and Zon' ~ Commission Minutes -July 16, 1998 Page 11 Mr. Gibson said reuse of large format retailer facilities may be difficult. Outdoor storage is a concern. There are often displays and storage obstructing the parking lot or blocking the entire sidewalk. He said screening of service areas and the architectural detailing of the buildings will be addressed. One goal is to break up large walls and to make structures "four-sided. " Mr. Gibson showed illustrations from the design guidelines from Fort Collins, Colorado. They have different ways to break up the building mass, including projections. Windows, awnings, entry features, arcades, ~ etc. are .used to add interest. He said the Commission subcommittee .....discussed parapets, .and wherever .visible, .the rear of .the. parapet should .match the front.. The ordinance form ~of this code amendment .will have a first reading at City Council on August 10. If needed; the moratorium can be extended 90 days by Council. Mr. Fishman said staff did an .honorable. job on this assignment. He wants the mass of blacktop parking -and the open work areas addressed. They are ugly. Dublin should be a landmark community and address these.issues. Greenspace should be required in every parking lot and retention ponds should be used to control storm water. He did not want an extension of the • moratorium, but those two things should be addressed. A chain link fence through the parking lot with pallets stacked high and cart corrals is unacceptable. All work areas should be shielded. 'Mr. Gibson said. the proposed guidelines address .these concerns. The parking lot .greenspace requirement was increased from five percent to seven percent. Also, a three percent area for pedestrian and water features was added. The proposed guidelines totally restrict outdoor ~ storage for big box uses. Outdoor storage is generally a conditional use, and the desire is to assure it is screened. The guidelines require landscaped cart corrals with no signage. Mr. Fishman said ten percent required greenspace may not be enough to prevent a sea of blacktop. He wanted more creativity. ~Mr: I:ecklider said the subcommittee had discussed limiting the parking permitted in front of the building to 50 percent. Mr..Hazian said staff had.done a fine job.. He thought breaking up the mass of big walls was quite important and was addressed by using reveals, offsets and projections. He also liked giving the designers several:choices. More than one entrance would help to make the buildings look like a couple of smaller stores. He would support this Code amendment. Mr. McCash attended~the subcommittee discussion of this proposal. He suggested using 20,000 square feet, rather than 25,000 squaze feet as the threshold. . Mr..McCash said moving .buildings closer to.ihe street to minimize the appeazance of the pazking . lot appeazanoe .creates the opposite problem of having a 45-foot tall building too close to the street. He suggested that all pazking lots be broken into "pods" of 150-250 spaces, separated by a continuous 12-foot landscaped strip. Each pod would then meet the internal landscape requirements. This should be incorporated into the new Zoning Code. Mr. McCash noted that page 2 should say "retention" rather than "detention." Dublin Planning and Zonir ~:ommission Minutes -July 16, 1998 Page 12 Mr. Gibson said the cart corrals would consist of extruded concrete curbing. Mr. McCash said there were problems with concrete curb adhering to asphalt. However, Mr. Eastep said the construction industry uses concrete curbs. Mr. McCash asked the staff to examine this issue. Mr. McCash said the entryway definition should be included in the building's design, creating the appearance of multiple entrances and storefronts. Many large format buildings have two frontages. Mr. Eastep said this may enhance the resale viability. Mr. McCash agreed, but said - .that mandating two entrances may defeat. the purpose:.: It .should look as if it were multiple stores. Mr. McCash said the subcommittee wanted no flat roofs to be permitted.. The 1-foot vertical per ... _3-foot.horizontal run is pretty:flat.:Most.of~the minimum roofs in Dublin aze 6:12 pitch,.but that-~- will not-work on a lazge building. It could be done with trusses and a pillaz on the front. - Mr. McCash said it wasimportant to have-percentage. of tinted glazing on the windows. There is a noticeable difference between the tinting at-Avery Square and Perimeter Center. Mr. McCash said the.lighting bases constructed of stone or brick to match the building would create a structural problem for light poles. They are solid tubes that are in some cases four to five feet deep~-in the ground with reinforcing bar in them. This requirement should be reviewed. Mr. F.astep said the intent. was to use strictly a veneer, not the .actual construction, so that _ it matches the building components. Mr. McCash said there were other ways to deal with it Mr. Sprague said this amendment has improved since the subcommittee meeting. He agreed with Mr. McCash's comments on multiple storefronts and hoped the guidelines could be enacted before ..the moratorium expires. Mr. Sprague supported using 20,000 square feet as the threshold. Mr::Eastep concurred .with the points raised: ~ He.wanted additional revisions and asked if the moratorium could be extended to cover this period. Ms. Fierce noted these aze the guidelines which will be referenced in the ordinance. The ordinance will return for the Commission's :. recommendation. ~ Mr. ~ McCash thought .Council. would be inclined to extend the. moratorium :for a specific time to allow for the refinement of guidelines. Mr. F.astep noted that flat roofs were not permitted; but it also says.-that .pazapets aze to conceal flat roofs. -Other than this contradiction, he believes the guidelines aze a great idea. He said more ...greenspace was needed; and pod pazking might be a.good idea. He thanked Mr. Gibson for his work. .Mr:.:i,ecklider. asked .if .the. guidelines were to be codified.:.Ms.. Fierce said this is currently undecided; but staff would support adopted guidelines with some flexibility that are not codified. .The Commission should have discretion with the guidelines. Currently, staff is working on the community wide design review issue. These efforts may ultimately overlap. For certain, the conditional use application process will be codified and at least reference the guidelines. ,~.,~ Dublin Planning and Zone -Commission Minutes -July 16, 1998 Page 13 Mr. Lecklider was concerned about the enforceability of guidelines versus a codified ordinance. Mr. Banchefsky said if the zoning code refers to them, they will be in effect, administrative rule, having the same force in effective law. The goal is to apply the guidelines to real situations and modifying them as needed, possibly codifying them later. This avoids amending the ordinance. Mr. Banchefsky said they will be enforceable if they are referenced in the ordinance. Regarding Fort Collins, Colorado, Mr. Gibson said .the current planning literature offers its guidelines as among the best. Mr. Lecklider said the guideline material looked good,. but he was . ~ :.. concerned that. Ft.. Collins had problems in applying them. Mr.:Gibson said decisions .will .still: . be up to the Commission's discretion. Ms. Fierce said staff will contact Fort Collins on this and report back to the subcommittee. Mr. Lecklider was interested to .know if the guidelines. were practicable.and if developers had found them to be successful. Mr. I.ecklider liked the idea of parking pods, but he did not want to create difficult traffic patterns. He could support using.20,000 square feet instead of 25,000 as a trigger point. Mr: Lecklider said there was consnsus to hold off on a formal recommendation on the ordinance. The Commission does wish to recommend and extension of the moratorium. Mr. Harlan asked if the entire shopping center with a 25,000 square foot tenant would have to _<~ meet the guidelines. Mr. Gibson suggested rewording the guidelines to do this. Mr. Gibson said the primary goal is to give the Commission discretion over straight zoned districts. Mr. Fishman said Mr. Gibson did an excellent job. He wanted Mr. McCash's comments addressed. -Pulling the buildings~°forward could be a mistake. He would like to see the 12-foot .strips in the. parking lot and asked for a slide showing how they would look. Mr. McCash said ~it was a different way of approaching the problem as opposed to pulling the building forward. There. was agreement that .the number of entrances .and orientation toward the street .should be studied further... The guidelines require an. entrance facing. each public .street frontages. Mr Gibson said he would examine it further. Mr. Sprague asked for a promotional brochure or photos from Fort Collins. Ms. Fierce said she. would ask for slides. Mr. Eastep, -said for .the record, the. goal is to make Dublin a little more developer-friendly by .. ~ ~ :-eliminating the~ambiguity. °With design criteria, a developer knows what to expect. Mr. Sprague made the motion to recommend that Dublin City Council extend the moratorium (Ordinance 61-98), placed on large format or regional retail developments. Mr. l.astep seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Harlan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Eastep, Yes; and Mr. Sprague, yes. (Approved 6-0.) .,.~H...... --- a Dublin Planning and Zonis commission Minutes -July 16, 1998 Page 14 Mr. Eastep made the motion to table the Large Format Retail Design Guidelines for further study and refinement. Mr. Sprague seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Harian, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; and Mr. F.astep. (Tabled 6-0.) 3. Development Plan 98-058DP - ost-Avery Office Complex - 750 Post Road John Talentino presented this dev opment plan for four small ice buildings on the south t corner of Post and Avery-Mui eld Drive. The site was for rly known as the Super rica site. The has been zoned D, Planned Commerce Dis ct since March 1997. He owed several slides of the area. the east of this site are singl amily lots. There is a lac stand of trees on this southeast rner of the site, and additio trees were planted as part f the buffer between the residenti lots to the east and this site. The Community recommends a 200=foots ack along Post Road. buildings proposed are to be in li with the house to the east, as equested by staff. One is medical building, and the other are general office buildin Two access points are p posed: right-in/right-out on Ave uirfield Drive due to the ian and full access point Post Road. Gen ally, the landscape plan m the text and Code, but grading plan is a concern. Th A ry-Muirfield Drive landsca treatment of stone pillar ith hedges will be installed. e act of the drainage swales the existing fencerows s uld be addressed. Staff is con rned that with the existing trees tc. on both property line the swales might not work. Mr. Talentino said medical building will b all stone, and the other three ildings will combine stone and ick. There are gabled en or dormers on the front and b k sides. Four- sided azchitectur ~s required by text. The text p its a density of 12,000 care feet per acre, and this pr sal is well under that. Allowab of coverage is 70 perce ,and the plan shows for 60 pe nt. Mr, alentino said staff woul like to see more creativity more of a presence of Ave afield Drive incorporated ' to the site layout. Perhaps par could be screened by build' s. proposed, all parking be visible from the street. S f is also recommending a con tion to the bank site, consis with the Community Plan. gateway at the corner is impo t. He said the buildings az attractive link into Perimeter enter. The text requir mounding along. the east pr erty line, adjacent to the singl amity lot. The original pro sal showed mounding alo the fencerow. After revie this, the staff recomme augmenting the treeline w' out mounding. Mounding w' probably damage the . existin ees. The landscape plan een redesigned by the appli eq ted. as r ues A nceptual sign has been sub for Avery-Muirfield Driv This corner site is entitled to o signs with a combined az of 66 squaze feet. The max' m sign size under the text is 25 ..~~