Loading...
30-98 OrdinanceRECORD OF ORDINANCES Dayton Legal Blank Co. Form No. 30043 30-98 Ordinance No._____-_________ - -- Passed ---------19_ ___-- An ordinance providing for a change in zoning for 25.346 acres located on the north side of Perimeter Loop Road, approximately 250 feet west of Avery-Muirfield Drive, From: PCD, Planned Commerce District, To: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Riverside Hospital PCD -Subarea B Signage - 6335 - 7100 Perimeter Loop Road). NOW, T~IJE~REFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, GG 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 PCD, Planned Commerce 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 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. ~~day of fi , 199 -Presiding Officer Attest: ~~ Clerk of Council Sponsor: Planning Division File No. 98-0242 I hereby certify that copies of this Ord`nance/Resolution were posted in the City of Dublin in accordante w;tla Sect°on 731.25 of the Ohio Revised Cods. ~,, ~ / y ~ //1~ ~}r,~;CI r of Council, Dublin, Ohio / „,... 25.346 ACRES Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Dublin, being located in Virginia Military Survey Numbers 2999 and 3452 and being 25.346 acres of that tract of land as conveyed to Hospital Properties, Inc. by deed of record in Official Record ,all references being to records of the Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning for reference at the centerline intersection of Perimeter Drive and Avery Road as shown on the recorded plat entitled "Perimeter Center" of record in Plat Book 72, Page 47 and 48; thence South 4° 37' 38" East, being along the centerline of Avery Road, a distance of 115.31 feet to a point; thence South 85 ° 22' 22" West, leaving said centerline a distance of 72.61 feet to a point; thence northwesterly along the arc of a curve to the left (Delta = 90° 00' 00", Radius = 65.00 feet), a chord bearing and distance of North 49° 55' 34" West, 91.92 feet to a point of tangency; thetux South 85 ° 04' 26" West, a distance of 43.37 feet to a point of curvature of a curve to the right; thence northwesterly along the arc of said curve (Delta = 20° 48' 25", Radius =400.00 feet), a chord bearing a~ distatce of North 84° 31' 20" West, 144.46 feet to the "true point of beginning" for the tray herein itaended to be described; theaoe South 0° 32' 34" East, a distance of 543.77 feet to a point on the azc of a curve to the left; thence southwesterly along the arc of said curve (Delta = 13° 47' 40", Radius = 420.00 feet), a chord bearing and distance of South 63° 18' 21" West, 100.87 feet to a point of compound tattvatttre; thence southwesterly along the azc of said curve to the leR (Delta 56° 43' S9", Radius = 397.85 feet), a chord bearing and distance of South 28° 02' 42" West, 378.01 feet to a point of tangency; thence South 0° 19' 08" East, a distance of 49.35 feet to a point; thence North 87° 14' S4" West, a distance of 835.62 feet to a point; thence North 7° 27' 09" West, a distance of 248.57 feet to a point; thence North 2° 45' 06" East, a distance of 769.16 feet to a point on the arc of a curve to the right; thence northeasterly along the arc of said curve (Delta = 3° 34' 11", Radius = 1,960.00 feet), a chord bearing and distance of North 80° 04' 13" East, 122.09 feet to a point of tangency; thence North 81 ° 51' 19" East, a distance of 327.33 feet to a point of curvature of a curve to the right; thence southeasterly along the arc of said curve (Delta = 32° 14' S3". Radius = 800.00 feet), a chord bearing and distance of South 82° Ol' 15" East, 444.35 feet to a point of tangency; thence South 65 ° 53' 48" East, a distance of 168.89 feet to a point of curvature of a curve to the left; Continued.... a ."... ~, ~.,.. -Page Two - thence southeasterly along the arc of said curve (Delta = 8° 13' 21 ". Radius = 400.00 feet), a chord bearing and distance of South 70' 00' 29" East, 57.36 feet to the place of beginning containing 25.346 acres of land. more or less. The above description does not represent an actual field survey by this firm and should not be used to transfer title. -t EVANS, MECHWART, HAMBLETON & TILTON, INC. ~ ~~~ amen R.•Hill Professional Surveyor No. 6919 ,, t. CITY OF 5E00 Shier Rings Rcad Dublin, Ohio 43016 P",~ ne~'DD: 614/761-6550 Fax: 614/761-6566 EXHIBIT REVISE® L~EVELO~,w~~~-'NT TEX TO EXPIRE O~'G„aa,~~~ iVU. ~ ~•-p Q City C^.,~;nci, 1st Reading _____~~~~~ __ '':~;o rr~~>a~cil rui~iic Hearing _ ____ City Council Action FOR OFFICE USc GPvLY Amount ~v~~G~~y App' tioi~: P&Z Date(s}: P8Z Action: Recei pt No: F.1,c ro ?-e' ~-.• ~ Date P,ece~~ed Received Sy: Type of Request: PLEASE SUBMIT TWO (2) ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATIONS PROPERTY INFORMATION: TAX ID NO/ 31-0345740 Parcel Size: - DISTRICT PARCEL NO: 2'73-'76'71 -4 (Acres) 25,1 acres Property Address: 7100 Perimeter Loop Road, Dublin, Ohio 43017 Property Location: North side of Perimeter Loop Road Side of Street: (N, S, E, W) Perimeter Loop Road - Nearest Intersection: Perimeter Loop/Avery-Muirfield Drive ~ Distance from Nearest Intersection: 2~ ~~ fL'~n ~y/~~i~ S, E, yy from Nearest IntersedionA~y~~jP~f~ ~~ Ex~si~rg ~ and usemevelopment: Shopping Center I ~, ~! -- -_ ----- -- I~ Proposed Land t;se:Develapment Shopping Center ~I j Curr~ert or F~istinn Zoning District: --~ Requested Zoning Distant ~ No. of Acres to be Rezoned: ~PI CD (Riverside Text) ! ~ -revised signage standar 25.1 acres i Subarea B ~ t STATEMEN is -- - ------ ----- -- St~+te. brefly ho~.v the proposed coning and development relates to the existing and potential `:.hire land use character of the vicinity. Revised sign package. Currently, the Kroger sign in question is 109 sq. feet. This is 29 sq. feet larger than Dublin zoning regulations. However, it is 146 sq. feet smaller than standard Kroger signage. It should also be stated that our competitor, Big Bear Stores, located ! directly across the street, displays a sign which is 110 sq. feet. Att~ri`nar3. ara ~~chn,x~i~-~.-r nra:~tar t~nani ci me ~nr r•nncirl~ra~inn ac aicall ~I - ~; 1 ,! 1j -~ ~~~~ t' ~ ~,t . `r?c~~; il DF~v,•,~h~r~enl T,txt ~~t~:~~i.:.rt~on r ~ IrPREVIOUS APPLICATION? III, Has an application for rezoning the property been denied by the City Council within the last two (2) years? YES ^ NO ~ IS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT ATTACHED? YES L~ Pd0 ^ II. ~~PL1EASE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: `~J ^ LEGAL DESCRIPTION (14 SETS): ,, t Legal description of the property to be rezoned contains _. Z page(s). ~~ Ez~.'~b',~-,4 ' PLAN REGIUIREMENTS: ', 14 SETS OF PLANS TO SCALE (NOT GREATER THAN 24" X 36") SHOWING: a. The site and all land 500 feet beyond the boundaries b. North arrow and bar scale c. Existing conditions (Roads, buildings, vegetation topography, jurisdictional boundaries, utilities, etc.) d. Proposed Uses (Regional transportation system, densities, # of dwellings, building/unit types, square footages, parkland/open space, etc.) e. Existing and proposed zoning district boundaries f. Size of the site in acres/square feet; and g. All property lines, street rights-of-way, easements, and other information related to the location of the proposed boundaries. 14 SETS OF REDUCED DRAWING(S) (NOT GREATER THAN 11" X 17") Il COUNTY OWNERSHIP MAP (14 SETS): (NOT LESS THAN 8'/~" X 11"AND NOT MORE THAN 16" X 20") l Showing contiguous property owners within 300 feet from the perimeter of the area to be rezoned. III. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION: IF YES, WHEN? State the basis of reconsideration: ~~ IF A PLANNED DISTRICT IS REQUESTED, IS COMPOSE . _ .;? ?REL".'„`I.~RY PL4N ATTACHEu? YE3 ^ NO ~ I~ Name of Current Property Owner(s): Dtzbliri Oaks PLEASE PRINT Limited Mailing Address: 209 East State Street, Columbus, Ohio 43229 Daytime Telephone: (614) 228-5331 Fax: (614) 469-8376 Name of Contact Person', ;ex Attorney, Architect, etc): 'Please complete the agent authorization sc--coon below. Dana G. Rinehart, Esq. t`I~''''"~ Address. 395 E. Broad Street, Suite 330, Columbus, Ohio 43215 Daytime Tai phone. (614) 221-0717 Fax: (614) 221-1278 Which of the above is the pnmary contact person % Dana G. Rinehart, Esq. IV. AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT TFiE PROPERTY Site visits to the property are necessary by City representatives in order to process this application. The Owner/Applicant hereby authorizes City representatives to visa. photcgr,3ph and post a notice on the property described in this application. V. U`ILITY UISCLA141ER Thr i:ar :~f Ihih!in wail n~ahr every i~ttr,rt to P~~ivute cs;entral services to the property is needed However, the rapid growth of the City of Dublin and noiihwrst F rar,4~iui County h.r~; str+~tchrxi Yu' C~tys capacity to provi<fe these services to the limit As such, the City of Dublin may be unable to make all or „ p,rrt ';t ;;;~r1 rar_ddics .rv.aiLat~~i~~ to tt~.e applicant until ;ome h,,ture date The ApphcanUCwner hereby acknowledges that approval of this request for rezoning by th~~ Dut~lin f'4mnin~~ and Ic^u~q Commission andror Dublin Gty Council dons not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of Dublin w~L' ;,~, aL!~r to hrr;vu'.e ~~s•s~tnr;tl servu:es such as water and sewer faalities when needed by said Applicant. I'a ,e ..,t .r ilev~ :~.~~ D'~Ve~~lrl~~p~QP Y ~X ~~~~ ~,,,. ,r, ~,:.x.:~ - CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS List 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 tax list. (Use additional sheets a s necessary.) Labels formatted for Avery 5160 rray be submitted as labels or on a computer disk. PROPERTY OWNER MAILING ADDRE~~ CITYlSTATE/ZIP CODE (oo± !Mortgage Company or Tax Service) --- - BP Exploration & Oil Inc. _-- ~.~~. Anderson LLP Tax Dept. -- .Houston TX 15990 N. Barkers Landing 3d floor 77079 Northwest Mgmt. Inc. rysville, Ohio McDonalds Corp. 720 W. 7th Street 3040 Timothy W. Reardon P.O. Box 165 Dublin, Ohio 43017 Hilliard, Ohio Lowell R. Mast 3534 Alton Darby Road 43026 Presbyterian Church in 1852 Century Pl. NE Ste. 180 Atlanta, Georgia America Foundation Inc. 30345 Dublin, Ohio Deckhockey Associates I 7440 State Route 161 43016 Northwest Presbyterian 6488 Post Road Dublin, Ohio Church PCA Inc. 43017 BJL L P P.O. Box 671 London, Ohio 43140 Dublin Senior Suite 301 Tulsa, OK Community L P 1516 S. Boston Avenue 74119 Dublin Geriatric American Medical Financial Columbus, Ohio Care Co. 1490 Old Henderson Road 43220 BancOhio National Bank 155 E. Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 Hospital Properties Inc. Suite 4000 Columbus, Ohio 3555 Olentangy River Road 43214 Ashland Inc. Ashland Oil & Refining Co. Lexington, KY P.O. Box 14000 40512-4000 Richard J. Solove & 8 E. Broad Street John J. Chester & Columbus, Ohio Lucas Ave Limited 43215-3411 i c ~_ ~~ ~~ ~ M.AR I 0 ,nc~c I ., is .,.. _ _. 04/09/1998 15:50 61422?.'~278 RHRK PAGE 05 III. PROPERTY OWNER IN~ORMATYON Parcel Nos.: 273-008208 and 273-008209. Name of Current Property Owner. L~ cC Avery Limited, Richard J. Solove amd John J. C es Mailing Address: Lucas Avery Limited c% Don M. Casto Organization 209 East State Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 228-5331 (614) 469-8376 fax Richard J. Solove John J. Chester c/o R.J. Solove and Associates 8 East Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 221-1191 (614) 221-191.0 fax Contact Person: Dana G. Rinehart, Esq. Rinehart, Howarth, Rishel & Kopech Ltd. 395 E. Broad Street, Suite 330 Columbus, Ohio 43215 (614) 221-0717 (614) 221-127 $ fax c~. ~;:~crv i HV 111VRILF111VfY '+~«-e a. - ~v :~.- -- I - _ Dllbllri Oaks Limited ,the applicant, hereby authorize Dana G. Rinehart, ESq. _ __ to act as my representative and agent in all matters pertaining to the processing II and approval of this applicatcn inc'cdlrg modirying the project, and I agree to be bound by all representations and agreements made by the designated agent. Signature of Current Property Owner: Date: /~ DUBLIN O IlYII~ ~ I ~ $' ~ g By: ve united, Member Byy- Sign~tu ~ ,.1PlANAGI~L Date: VII. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT STATE OF Ohio COUNTY OF Frarilcllri I, __~7h1 i n C1akc L~i~~ ,the applicant, have read and understand the contents of this application. The information contained in this application, attached exhibits and other information submitted is complete and in all respects true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature of Ap licant: Date: DUBLIN By: ve ited, Member ~~~~-9~ Signature riSodA~~ I , Ir NAGHR Date: ~ ~"''' Subscribed and sworn to before me this /,~ day of , 199 Notary Public~~~~~ ~l~._. _ -- ~~~-~- .CP'RtAL S` r~ ~~ BENNA S. WATERFIELD s~` ~;~~ . ..~•~ Notary Public, State of Ohio .~~ ~, ~~ ~ My Commissan Expires 06-20-2001 •.,E ~oF~,..~ w FILE COPY 9~-~~ 1'.~y,~ ~ r! J f~iw~•:r~~ (~~~vnoluni~nl 1 ~,,,1 .~i~1•4~ ~hor~ ,~~, ~_, VI. AGENT AUTHORIZATION We, Lucas Avery Limited, Richard J. Sotove and John J. Chester, the applicants, hereby authorize Dana G. Rinehart, Esq. to act as our representative and agent in all matters pertaining to the processing and approval of this application including modifying the project, and we agree to be bound by all representations and agreements made by the designated agent. 'i0'"~ Lucas A ery Limited Don M. Casto III, Manager ichar J. Solove -~ oh J. Chester '~-9-9~ Date ~ ~ ~~ Date .~~ Date f~ ~r Inc; _ ~~t _ :~ ;; ,. {~~' APR 15199 ~.:;-- ,~~:.., ',. _~ r Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1~Vday of April, 1998 Notary 1? ~ sF,ry 9` ir;~r`GAREt A. LARCOMB _* w_ ~~UTARYPtIB~,IC,$pg~(~p VII. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT STATE OF OHIO COUNTY OF FRANKLIN I, Richard J. Solove, the applicant, have read and understand the contents of this application. The information contained in this application, attached exhibits and other information submitted is complete and in all respects true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief. t ~ ~ ~~ Richard J. Solov Date Signature of Authorized G. Date Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~4~ day of April, 1998 of ry Publ'c v '~A ~ ROlM ~n~i 9q P. ~~~f ~~ k APR I ~ ;c;~ --_ ._ ~ F,~~,, ~*~ " ~~ t VII. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT STATE OF OHIO COUNTY OF FRANKLIN I, Lucas Avery Limited, the applicant, have read and understand the contents of ~t,4 this application. The information contained in this application, attached exhibits and other information submitted is complete and in all respects true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief. Lucas Avery Limited (/ Don M. Casto III, Manager ~-9-9~ Date Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~ day of April, 1998 Public BENNA S. WATERFIELD Notary Pub~C, State of Ohio My Commission Expires 06-20-2001 Date Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~ day of April, 1998 o ary Pub c asxNwsnc ,~,.~ VII. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT STATE OF OHIO COUNTY OF FRANKLIN a ,. I, John J. Chester, the applicant, have read and understand the contents of this application. The information contained in this application, attached exhibits and other information submitted is complete and in all respects true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief. ------~ ~~~~~~~~ o n J. Chester Date Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~~ day of April, 1998 - Signature of Authorized Agent Win, ana G. R ehart ~v ~~~~~ Nota Public `\\\pp~ \fA ~ Iprrp~y F~•~C~PP ., SF9q: LINDA L SMITH _, "= raramrPUeuc,sr~o~aao -, s, ~~,, ~ ~. `o r= IN1f COWI f~~PIRES APRIL 17.2000 ,,~~ .gp~O1,``a p~~9pEI'Q UUNP~`~ 4 Date ~~ Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~ day of April, 1998 Public ~.~ ~~ , << ~r ~~: APR - ~ , -.,,~ _. n f ~°~ R. AI~TROlM C,~5 b~ CITY OF DUBLIN Division of Planning 5800 Shier-Rings Road Oubta~, Oha X3016-1236 hone/iDO: b1~-161.6550 Fax b1~-161-6566 kb Site: www.dubl'u~.oh.us DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION August 20, 1998 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 3. Rezoning Application 98-024Z -Revised Development Text -Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B - Signage - 6335 through 7100 Perimeter Loop Road Location: 25.346 acres located on the north side of Perimeter Loop Road, approximately 370 feet west of Avery-Muirfield Drive. E~risting Zoning: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Riverside Hospital Plan). Request: Review and approval of a revised development text under the provisions of Section 153.058 regarding signage. Proposed Use: A sign package for the retail center including a 109 square foot, internally illuminated wall sign for the anchor tenant and other tenant signs. Applicant: Frank S. Bensen III, Manager, Dublin Oaks Limited, 209 East State Street, „~~ Columbus, Ohio 43229; represented by Dana G. Rinehart, attorney, 395 East Broad Street, Suite 330, Columbus, Ohio 43215. MOTION: To approve this rezoning application with f41IL conditions: 1) That all signs in Subarea B be of the same design, materials, and colors as shown in the appropriate exhibits, including maximum sign heights and projecting sign color; 2) That a maximum of seven colors be on the approved sign color palette, subject to staff approval; 3) That the text be revised and approved by staff prior to being scheduled on City Council agenda; and 4) That the text be revised to include the following four changes from the draft dated August 14, 1998: Page 2, Section 3.a: "All signage shall conform to Dublin Sign Code Chapter 1189 except as provided for by this text for Subazea B, and except ac provided for in the Sig~g .ri ria and annrove-d as part of t_he Development Plann." ~. . AS 811BM17TED ?ID COUNgL { ~ Page 1 of 2 ~ g FOR MEETINp ON ~ DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION August 20, 1998 3. Rezoning Application 98-024Z -Revised Development Text -Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B -Signage - 6335 through 7100 Perimeter Loop Road (Continued) Page 3, Section 3.i.: "No sign shall be painted or posted directly on the surface of any building, wall, or fence except as provided herein or at nPrmitte~ as tenant's main identification sign " herein. No wall murals shall be allowed. " Page 13, Section A - "Signage and Graphics" Delete the sentence following "Main Identification Signs". ''''~~-~ ~'~~" ''° ~'~'" . $r~ Page 13, Section A.1: "A total of two main identification signs shall be permitted, not to exceed 15 feet in height on Perimeter Lnop Road, 10 fe-~t in height on Perimeter Drive. and 19 feet in width, with a maximum each of two sign faces, with a maximum area of 66 square feet per sign face, externally illuminated, with sign base materials matching the retail tenant Signage materials and colors. Permitte.~ location for each main identification sign: .(1~ at the eastern Perimeter Loop Road entrance to the center and !~. at the western Perimeter Drive customer entrance. " * Charles Fraas, Don Casto Organization, agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 6-0. RESULT: This rezoning application was approved. It will be forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation. STAFF CERTIFICATION hn D. Talentino Planner Page2of2 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -August 20, 1998 Page 9 CASE 3: Rezoning Application 98-024Z -Revised Development Text -Riverside Hospital PCD Subarea B -Signage - 6335 through 7100 Perimeter Loop Road APPLICANT: Dublin Oaks Limited, c/o Frank S. Bensen III, 209 East State Street, Columbus, Ohio 43229; represented by Dana G. Rinehart, attorney, 395 East Broad Street, Suite 330, Columbus, Ohio 43215. REQUEST: Review and approval of a revised development text under the PCD, Planned Commerce District provisions of Section 153.058 regarding Signage. The site is 25.346 acres located on the north side of Perimeter Loop Road,. approximately 370 feet west of Avery-Muirfield Drive, and contains a new retail shopping center. [The changes to the text are in the "General Subarea Standards" and "Subarea B - Retail Center" portions. Signage detail drawings will also be added. Other nonsubstantive technical text modifications were included. STAFF CONTACT: John Talentino, Planner. UPDATE: After much discussion-, this case was tabled by the Planning Commission at their July 9, 1998 meeting to allow for further review of the Signage issues presented in the memorandum from Mark Ford, Ford Beery Architects, Inc., dated July 8, 1998. The main issues discussed were: existing Kroger Signage; permitted number and locations(s) of project identity signs; proposed locations of tenant sign heights permitted to exceed 15 feet; awning and projecting sign restrictions; and sign colors. ~# BACKGROUND: The composite plan (including development text) for a mixed use project of 120 acres was approved in -1989. It included a retail site at the center of 28.505 acres.. A development plan for the shopping center was approved as the first phase of the overall project on March 14, 1996 by the Planning Commission. Last July, a 109-square-foot wall sign, which exceeds the maximum sign area allowed by text, was installed for the major tenant (Kroger). Kroger was issued a temporary sign permit with the City's understanding that a development text revision would be pursued. (Refer to the attached letter from Timothy C. Hansley, dated July 22, 1997.) The applicant is seeking now to revise the development text to refine the sign package for the Avery Square shopping center. It would permit a 109-square-foot wall sign for the anchor tenant, consistent with the provisions at Perimeter Center, and address other tenant signage in the center. It has been the position of staff and the Planning Commission that the retail centers on both sides of Avery-Muirfield Drive be treated equally regarding aesthetics, Signage, landscaping, etc. The Planning and Zoning Commission is to make its recommendation on the proposed development text revision and then forward this application to City Council. It will be scheduled for a public hearing and vote by City Council. Atwo-thirds vote of Council will be required to override a negative recommendation from the Commission, and otherwise the outcome will be determined by a simple majority vote. If approved, the revision will take effect in 30 days. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -August 20, 1998 Page 10 CONSIDERATIONS: • The site is 25.346 acres located on the north side of Perimeter Loop Road, approximately s 250 feet west of Avery-Muirfield Drive. The site consists of the entire Subarea B, the retail site, of the Riverside PCD, Planned Commerce District. The retail center of 166,200 square feet is in operation with Kroger as the major tenant. `~°~" To the north is undeveloped Subarea A of the Riverside PCD zoned for office uses. To • the east are outpazcels (Subareas B 1 and B2) featuring a combination Wendy's/Tim Horton's restaurant building, and across Avery-Muirfield Drive are several shopping center outpazcels which are part of the Perimeter Center PCD. To .the .south are undeveloped Subazeas C1 and C2 of the Riverside PCD. To the west is undeveloped land zoned R, Rural District. • According to the current text, two types of signs are permitted. The center is entitled to one overall project identity sign (identifying only the name of the shopping center) to be located in Subarea B and not to exceed 50 square feet in area or 15 feet in height. Each shopping center tenant is entitled to one wall sign limited to one square foot in area for every lineal foot of the building wall (maximum 80 square feet) and a maximum 15 feet _ in height (standard Code). It would appear that sections of the center are not well served by the 15-foot height limit. • The existing Kroger sign is 109 square feet with a mounting height of 22 feet. It consists of individual can letters in white which spell the name of the store. They are a standard, internally-illuminated design. This sign exceeds the maximum 80-square-foot sign area allowed by Code. Kroger was issued a temporary sign permit last summer with the City's understanding that a development text revision would be pursued. (Refer to the attached letter from Timothy C. Hansley, dated July 22, 1997.) • All proposed changes to the text aze in the "General Subarea Standards" and "Subarea B - Retail Center" portions. Signage detail drawings will also be added. Other nonsubstantive technical text modifications were included. Proposed development text revisions for signage: Project identity signs: The revised text proposes two overall project identity signs (identifying only the name of the shopping center) not to exceed 66 square feet in area or 15 feet in height. One will be located at the eastern Perimeter Loop entrance to the center, and one at the western Perimeter Drive customer entrance, both within Subarea B. Project identity signs must be installed on a stone base with stone columns featuring decorative caps (as shown in Exhibit submitted to Council on 5/22/97). Wall signs: One 109-square-foot wall sign up to a maximum 22 feet in height for the major tenant (Kroger) is proposed, as currently in place. It will be permitted to have individual internally-illuminated letters with white plastic faces. All other tenants will be limited to an externally illuminated sign of a common design, of one color selected from a set of seven approved subdued colors, and limited to one square foot in area for every lineal foot of building width (maximum 80 square feet). The height will be a maximum of 15 feet except for the tenant spaces that are architecturally incompatible with this height. Elevations of these locations within the center are attached as permanent exhibits with maximum permitted sign heights for each location noted on the exhibit. There are no sign cabinets or a sign band. The plastic cut-out letters are mounted directly on the face of the building. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -August 20, 1998 Page 11 Projecting signs: One projecting sign per tenant space, limited to three square feet in area, is proposed. Projecting signs will be permitted for tenant spaces with a recessed store front and a covered front walkway. Projecting signs will not be permitted for any other tenant spaces. Projecting signs shall have uniform gold lettering on a background color matching that tenant's wall sign letter color. A detail is included in the exhibits for this application showing size, shape, height and mounting requirements. Colors: One color per tenant sign is permitted from the approved sign color palette - for the retail center, which is as follows, or a compatible color approved by staff: a) Martin-Senour Market Square Tavern Dark Green W85-0620. b) Martin-Senour Palace Arms Red W 1083. c) Martin-Senour Benjamin Powell House Green W85-1089. ~2 Sherwin Williams Palais White SW-2429. e) Sherwin Williams Obsidian (Dark Blue) SW2738. f) Sherwin Williams Amethyst SW2703. - g) Sherwin Williams Bonfire SW2321. The applicant is proposing to modify the sign color palette by replacing the approved brown color (Martin-Senour William Finnie House Brown W85-0225) with a lighter ivory color (Sherwin Williams Palais White SW-2429). Lighting: With the exception of the major tenant sign, all tenant signs shall be externally-illuminated by gooseneck light fixtures. All fixtures will be of uniform exterior fmish and color. ~:.:a • One additional phase of the retail center remains to be built. All signage for this future phase is limited to 15 .feet in height, except as shown on the proposed sign detail drawings gr included with this application, or otherwise approved as part of a text revision (rezoning). • The sign requirements at Perimeter Center are restated here for comparison purposes. The center is entitled to two overall project identity signs (identifying only the name of the shopping center) not to exceed 15 feet in height, 19 feet in width, or 66 square feet in area:- They shall be externally-illuminated with one to be located on the northeast corner of Avery-Muirfield Drive and Perimeter Loop Road and one at the Perimeter Drive entrance to the retail center. (The developer has opted not to install them, at least for the ..present.) One 109-square-foot wall sign up to a maximum 26 feet in height for the major tenant (Big Bear) is permitted. It is permitted to have individual internally illuminated letters with red plastic faces. All other tenants are limited to one wall sign limited to one square foot in area for every lineal foot of building width (maximum 80 square feet), and a maximum 16 feet in height, externally-illuminated by gooseneck fixtures. Each tenant has one maximum three-square-foot projecting sign. Wall and projecting signs have gold lettering on matching dark backgrounds. Permitted colors coordinate with the storefront and canopy (if any) and are limited generally to: black, navy blue, dark purple, hunter green, and dark burgundy. The specific manufacturer's paint numbers are on file. STAFF RECONIII~NDATION: ~° °` The proposed development text revision promotes the equal treatment of retail centers on both sides of Avery-Muirfield Drive regarding signage. A single, larger-than-Code sign is granted Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -August 20, 1998 Page 12 concurrently with commitment for coordinated tenant signage. The proposal provides for the same size signage for Kroger and Big Bear. It also provides for the same level of other signage, including project identity signs, projecting signs, external illumination by uniform gooseneck fixtures, and a limited color palette. The sign packages are different for the two centers, but they appear to be nearly equal and afford the same level of tenant identification. Staff recommends approval of the revised development text with the following three conditions: Conditions: 1) That all signs in Subarea B be of the same design, materials, and colors as shown in the appropriate exhibits, including maximum sign heights and projecting sign color; 2) That a maximum of seven colors be on the approved sign color palette, subject to staff approval; and 3) That the text be revised and approved by staff prior to being scheduled on City Council agenda; Bases: ~ - 1) The proposal includes well-articulated signage which becomes a binding part of the PCD zoning. 2) The proposal conforms to the PCD requirements. 3) The proposed text revision provides for standards that are equivalent to those required under the Perimeter Center PCD text. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 20, 1998 Page 9 10) That the plan be re iced to incorporate Avery Road right-of- ay consistent with th S Consultants all ment study, and th an easement and ri t-of--way dedication at be submitted pri to construction. Mr. McCash nded, and the vote as as follows: Mr. F' man, yes; Mr. Spra e, yes;, Mr. Peplow, y ; Mr. Lecklider, yes, Mr. McCash, yes; an Mr. Eastep, yes. (A roved 6-0.) -~C 3. Rezoning Application 98-024Z -Revised Development Text -Riverside Hospital PCD, ~ `' Subarea B - Signage - 6335 through 7100 Perimeter Loop Road John Talentino presented this revised development text regazding signage. He said Ford/Berry Architects submitted it at the July meeting and staff has reviewed it. The main issues were the existing Kroger sign, the permitted number and locations of project identity signs, locations of the tenant signs that will exceed 15 feet, awning and projecting sign restrictions, and sign colors. Mr. Talentino showed slides. Mr. Talentino said -the Kroger sign is 109 square feet, mounted at 22-feet high. However, the existing text only permits 80 squaze feet at a 15 foot height. The Kroger sign was granted a temporary permit, with the agreement that the applicant pursue a text revision. Also included in the text are projecting signs for tenants located under the covered walkway and recessed off the street. The Drug Emporium sign is to be mounted on the brick building exterior, and the existing color palette provides very little contrast. Anew beige color (Sherwin Williams Palais White SW- 2429) is added to solve this, and an existing brown (Martin-Senour: William Finnie House Brown W85-0225) is being deleted from the color palette. He said this brown color has not been used by any of the center's tenants to date, and so there should be no adverse affect from removing it. Mr. Talentino said the intent is to provide equivalent treatment for Avery Square and Perimeter Center. They have similar commitments, restrictions, and sign packages. Staff has worked with the applicant on the proposed text revisions. There is agreement on the clazifications included in the proposed development text. Several sign criteria of the approved development plan aze being retained. They could be changed by approval of a revised development plan, rather than a rezoning. Mr. Talentino said wall murals will continue to be prohibited. He said there could be two development identification signs for the shopping center, the locations for which are specified in the text. They are not required. Staff recommends approval with three conditions: 1) That all signs in Subarea B be of the same design, materials, and colors as shown in the appropriate exhibits, including maximum sign heights and projecting sign color; 2) That a maximum of seven colors be on the approved sign color palette, subject to staff approval; and 3) That the text be revised and approved by staff prior to being scheduled on City Council agenda. Mr. McCash questioned the permissible sign locations for Wendy's restaurant. The text permits outpazcel uses to have a sign facing Avery and one facing "the internal access road on the west ~~ side." Its sign faces Avery-Muirfield and Perimeter Loop, not the access drive behind the store. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 20, 1998 Page 10 He wanted this researched and for the text to accurately reflect the permissible sign locations. Mark Ford, Ford/Berry Architects, suggested that originally, there was no service road shown behind the outlots on the approved plan. He thought that reference was really to Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road. Mr. McCash noted that text page 13, A2, addresses the proportion of the sign base to sign face. The width in section Al should be limited to 15 feet. Mr. Talentino said this allows flexibility for a future sign request through a revised development plan. The intent is to keep both centers equivalent. Mr. McCash suggested referencing the sign elevation that was submitted. Regarding the background color for projecting signs, Mr. Talentino said these pieces will all match for each tenant, but not all tenants will use the same color. All awnings have white stripes with one of several pre-approved colors as the background. Mr. McCash said that striped awnings make awning signs unlikely, because they would be illegible. On page 16, the setbacks are being changed for Subarea B-1 but not for B-2. This reflects the setbacks for the Wendy's site. The building area was shifted westward (increasing the right-of- way and front setback on Avery-Muirfield Drive, and decreasing the rear setback behind the outparcels). Mr. McCash suggested applying this to Subarea B-2 as well. Mr. McCash suggested attaching the signage criteria from the approved development plan as an exhibit because it would consolidate the sign information. The applicant wants to retain the right to request signage changes over time without having to rezone the site. Mr. Talentino said this document should not be binding, but could be attached as an example. He said it is very detailed, including such things as letter height. Charlie Fraas, Don Casto Organization, requested that the signage criteria remain separate because it contains detailed information. Currently, it could be changed by getting a development plan amendment through the Planning Commission. He does not want to be required to undergo a rezoning, which is a very lengthy and complex process, due to minor signage changes. He said these details are not included in the text for Perimeter Center. Regarding equivalency of the permissible identification signs for the two shopping centers, Mr. Talentino said staff consulted the Law Director. Staff believes Perimeter Center would be entitled to a center identification sign facing Avery-Muirfield Drive. The site for the identification sign was originally identified in the text and plan, and that site has subsequently been developed .with the McDonald's restaurant. The original plan recognized it as an outparcel of Perimeter Center. Therefore, staff believes the circumstances and sign rights are unchanged. Mr. Sprague understood from his discussion with the Law Director that such a sign was unlikely. It would require agreement by McDonald's, and it might interfere with their own sign. Mr. Talentino said the possibility remains. Mr. McCash believes the center's developer negated this location for its sign when the outparcel was sold to McDonald's. It would now be an off-site, non-permissible graphic. There is no formal legal opinion. Such a sign would also look bad. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 20, 1998 Page 11 Bridget Kahle said this will be fully researched if, and when, a sign permit is filed. Mr. Fishman wanted a mechanism that would assure that a Perimeter Center sign would never be installed on Avery-Muirfield Drive. Mr. McCash said City Council has the power to eliminate it by initiating such a rezoning, but he thought that was not likely to happen at the present time. Mr. Talentino said the 15-foot height is measured from finished grade minus mounding to the top of the sign. Mr. Lecklider noted the outparcels were substantially regraded and are now at a higher elevation than Avery-Muirfield Drive. Mr. Frans said the rear setback issue was approved by Council for Wendy's, but the text did not reflect the change. Subarea B-2 is not involved because it is owned by Riverside Hospital and is not a party to this rezoning. Subarea B-1 includes both shopping center outparcels. Mr. McCash asked about the text (A1 and A2), the 19-foot width, and the area of the sign base. He asked if pillars created a problem and should be included in the exhibits. Mr. Frans said the signage criteria was approved by the Planning Commission, and the base shown is 15 feet or less. He said no changes from the approval are being requested. The revised text accommodates all of the requested signage: Mr. Frans said this originated with the 109 square foot Kroger sign. Staff then requested several accompanying modifications through the negotiating process. The new, lighter sign color will be compatible with the trim on the buildings. Mr. Fishman thought the new color should not be a bright white color. Mr. Talentino said Drug Emporium had requested alternate colors for its sign because of the lack of contrast with the brick „~;,- background. Staff thought it was prudent to include all sign issues in one application for the center. Staff fords the proposed color to be acceptable. Mr. Fishman recalled the discussion about the wet basin and saving the landmark tree. He said the pond area is unattractive and not maintained. The pond needs an aerator and a proper stone edge to make it an attractive feature. Mr. Frans said the developer did. everything required at the development plan. He thought a grass edge was preferred. The water level is low due to a lack of rainfall. The pond is not a germane issue, and he cannot-make a commitment to redo the pond. Mr. Frans agreed to take care of the algae and mowing necessary. Mr. Frans said the orientation of the Perimeter Loop Road sign is not decided, but the location is shown. Signage on Avery-Muirfield Drive, although disapproved by Council, would be more important to the developer. This sign on Perimeter Loop Road may not be installed for some time. Mr. Lecklider said the location has potential for sign clutter. On Perimeter Drive, at the northeast corner of the site, the plan indicated a 50 square foot sign only. six feet in height. Mark Ford said these dimensions related to the original sign proposal that incorporated stone piers. In discussing the equivalency issues with staff regarding Perimeter Center, a second sign location was determined. Mr. Frans was unsure if the second identification sign will be installed. He <~y Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 20, 1998 Page 12 believes this makes both sides of the street more equal. Some of these are advantages for the site, and some are disadvantages. He thinks the proposed text is fair for both centers. Mr. Lecklider said great effort was applied in saving the historic oak tree, and that placement of a 15-foot tall sign in front of it seemed inappropriate. He was concerned about the potential actions of future owners of the center. Mr. Fraas said every detail of the center was thoroughly discussed prior to approval of the development plan three years ago. Mr. Lecklider noted that at a previous meeting, several citizens spoke about this area being a gateway to the northern residential areas. Mr. Fishman preferred that the second sign be removed from the text if possible. Mr. McCash said in general, he dislikes signs that are 15 feet tall. However, in special cases, they may be okay. This was previously approved. He said the whole center seems to face the wrong direction. The sign location on Perimeter Drive is more appropriate due to the importance of that road. He does not think the sign will detract from the historic oak tree. Mr. Sprague said size is an important factor in signage. He would prefer to tighten up the plan. The sign mass seems too large for the location. The grades were built up. He preferred to resolve the issue by reducing the potential sign size, but he supported the overall proposal. Mr. Peplow agreed with Mr. Sprague. He thanked Mr. McCash for his thorough text review. Mr. Eastep said most residents want to minimize the commercial look of roads in Dublin. He had concern with the magnitude of the sign. He said the Hilton Head area presents a good example of appropriate signage. Signs there are lower than 15 feet, and their businesses are doing well. He preferred lower signage, but did not want to override the previous approvals. Mr. Lecklider appreciated the efforts of all involved. The current text permits one project identity sign, and the proposal is for two signs. He thinks the sign on Perimeter Drive should be lower. He thought the size and height proposed here indicated more than mere "identification. " Mr. Fraas suggested a sign height limit on Perimeter Drive of 12 feet. Mr. Lecklider appreciated the offer, but it was still too tall. Mr. Fraas said the height of the sign will be determined based on the setback from the roadway. Mr. Fraas then offered a 10-foot sign height limit. Mr. Lecklider thought six to eight feet would be more appropriate. Mr. Sprague thought the interpretation of the term "equity" was too narrow. He thought there should be "comparability" between the two centers, which does not include matching every detail. He could support the compromise of ten feet for the sign height offered by Mr. Fraas. ~.~, Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 20, 1998 Page 13 Mr. Frans said the Avery Square sign is larger than Perimeter Center's sign, but it is not on Avery-Muirfield Drive. He said this is a property rights issue, and this text is fair to both centers. Mr. Fishman said this a gateway location for Dublin. The Don Casto Organization has done a great job here, but this center could be sold in the future. He also thought a compromise was in ~. order. Mr. Lecklider said all issues are subject to change. He recalled a controversy over signs for the BP station. The applicant was adamant about the exact green and yellow colors and the BP "shield." That corporation was sold, and the signs will no doubt change now. This developer has done a great job, but his concern is for the future. Mr. McCash said City Council is proposing some Sign Code changes. He thought there should be a relatively even playing field, but there will never be exact equality. Formerly, the Commission approved a 15-foot tall sign. He believes the text presents a reasonable compromise. _ Mr. -Fishman agreed to the ten-foot height as offered by the applicant for the sign on Perimeter Drive. Mr. Peplow agreed as well: Mr. Frans accepted all of the conditions. Mr. McCash moved for approval of the revised development text for signage with four conditions: 1) That all signs in Subarea B be of the same design, materials, and colors as shown in the ,~`K, a ro riate exhibits includin maximum si n hei hts and ro~ectin si n color PP P ~ g g g P J g g 2) That a maximum of seven colors be on the approved sign color palette, subject to staff `` approval; 3) That the text ~ be revised and approved by staff prior to being scheduled on City Council agenda; and 4) That the text be revised to include the following four changes from the draft dated August 14, 1998: Page 2, Section 3.a: "All signage shall conform to Dublin Sign Code Chapter 1189 except as provided by this text for Subarea B, and except as provide-d for in the Signag~ S'ri -ria nd a~rove~ as Hart of the Development Plan." Page 3, Section 3.i: "No sign shall be painted or posted directly on the surface of any building, wall, or fence except as provided herein or as permitted as tenant's main identification sign under a~g~ph B.2. of the "Signage and Graphics" section of "Suba_re-a B -Retail Center" herein No wall murals shall be allowed." Page 13, Section A - "Signage and Graphics" Delete the sentence following "Main Identification Signs". Page 13, Section A.1: "A total of two main identification signs shall be permitted, not to exceed 15 feet in height on Perimeter Loon Road and 10 feet in height on Perimeter Drive. and 19 feet in width, with a maximum each of two sign faces, with a maximum .~~ area of 66 square feet per sign face, externally illuminated, with sign base materials matching the retail tenant signage materials and colors. Permitte-d location for each main .~.~ identification sign: at the eastern Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 20, 1998 Page 14 entrance to the center and ~ at the western Perimeter Drive customer entrance. " Mr. Fishman seconded, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr. Peplow, yes; Mr. L.ecklider, yes; Mr. Eastep, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; and Mr. McCash, yes. (Approved 6-0.) 4. Rezoning Application 98-053Z - Tittle Cross' g -Homestead Village - 4900 Tutt Crossing Boulevard The applicant requested by letter that this ap tion be postponed until the September 998 meeting. Notices were sent to property o ers. There was no discussion or vote n. 5. Development Plan 98-054D - Tittle Crossing -Homestead Village - 4 0 Tittle Crossing Boulevard The applicant requested letter that this application be postponed til the September 3, 1998 meeting. Notices we sent to property owners. There was no ~ cussion or vote taken. 6. Condit' al Use 98-067CU -Riverside Hospital P , Subarea B - B'W-3 Grill and Bar - 659 Perimeter Loop Road Chris ermann said this is a request for an outd service area at an existing restaurant within the very Square shopping center. It is contai in Subarea B of the Riverside Hospital PC , and outdoor seating is a conditional use un r the development text. An outdoor concrete ad next to the building will be used to seat 4 ple. Access will be from inside the restaur .The area is surrounded by a wrought iron ence with two exit-only gates. He presented several slides of th ea. Mr. Hermann said there will be goosen light fixtures. The storefront system on th' errant space has a dark appearance from the terior and does not match the rest of the cent An 80 percent opacity blind has been ins ed on the interior that causes the difference in pearance. Staff recommends modifying the orefront so that the entire center maintains a c~ms~stent appearance. He said the s pping center will occupy nearly 225, square feet when fully constructed. Approxima 47,000 square feet remain to be built, in ding an expansion of the grocery store. This outd r patio will add 2,000 square feet to e 7,000 square foot restaurant. The patio require 11 additional parking spaces and th nter currently has eight spaces over the full requ' ement. When the future shopping nter expansions occur, there will be a three-space sh tfall. That will have to be alle~ ted at that time by adding parking, restriping, etc. Currently, based on square footage,,tfie~shopping center exceeds the required parking. Umbrellas with a striped fabri imilar to the awnings will be used. They will not have logos or advertising. The tables ' 1 be permanently fixed. The chairs and umbrellas will be stored ,~~ - ~,. *' ~-~+' 04!09/1998 15:50 6142211?'"~ RHRK PAGE 03 ~~2o P~~~-~ ~~~C ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ Graphics and Sig~nage: All signs shall comply with the sign code unless varied by this text or accompanying drawings. ,A, Main Identification Signs: There shall be main identification signs for the shopping center on Perimeter Loop Road and Avery-Muirfield Drive: 1. A total of two main identification signs shall be permitted, not to exceed. l5 feet in height and 19 feet in width, with a maximum each of two sign faces, with a maximum area of 66 square feet per sign face, externally illtuminated. with sign base materials matching the retail center material and sign face materials and colors matching the retail tenant signage materials and colors, and with one such sign . located at the northwest corner of Avery-Muirfield Road and Perimeter Loop Road and one such sign located at the Avery Muirfield Road entrance to the retail center. . 2. Area of sign base (if any) shall not exceed area of sign face. The base shall not be included in the overall area permitted for the sign face. 3. There will be no project identification sign located adjacent to SR 161/U.S. 33 as allowed by Item 5(b) of the original Riverside Dublizt Subarea Standards dated March 6, 1989. B . The Riverside-Dublin sign package shall meet the following elements: 1. All wall and projecting signage shall meet ttte C5ry sign code relative to permitted . sign face area and that wall signs not exceed 15 feet in height. 2. Each te~nant.store front shall be limited to one waU sign, one projecting sign and one awning sign. Wall sign faces shall not exceed one square foot to area for each one lineal foot in scare frontage not to exceed 80 square feet, except iun the case of the major tenant. (See section ?and 8 below) Projecting sign faces shall not exceed three square feet in area. 3. Each te~aant shall have one (1) projecting sign of uniform size and design. as illustrated by the accompanying drawing. Background~color of projecting sign shall match letter color of that particular tenant's wall sign. 4. Awning signs are permitted per code for property addresses, names of occupant and yeaz business established, should not state product names or lines, tag lines. pictures of products, hours of operation or telephone or fax numbers, and provided suoh signs are limited to one square foot in area unless approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission as a part of a development plan and the color is complimentary to the awning and wall sign. 5. The signs will be externally illuminated, except for the major tenant, by .gooseneck light fixtures. The gooseneck fixtures will be comprised of the same exterior finish and color, subject to staff approval. 6. The color of wall signs, projecting sign and awning signs be selected from the existing Riverside Dublin Subarea B stgn palette. ,, a 04/09/1998 15:50 6142211'"'° RHRK PAGE 04 '7 , The major tenant (Kroger) shall be permitted signage of an individual nature within the center. The "Kroger" letters shall be internally illuminated with "white" plastic faces. All awning signage shall be painted on the fabric. The signage colors shall be aesthetically compatible with the awning fabric. 8. With the exception of major tenant or "Kroger" signage, the maxiunum height of all signage shall be 15'-0" above finished walkway. signage at "Kroger" will be a maxunum of 26'-0" above finished walkway. The grocery store wall signage, relative to sign face area and location, shall comply with the elevation as shown on the attached building elevation. 04/09/1998 15:50 61422112 RHRK PAGE 02 Subarea De~eloDment Sta dards ,~.~ 1 3. ~ a. All signage aid graphics shall confornn to Dublin Sign Code (Sections 153.150- _~ ~ 153.164), except as provided by this text for Subarea B. b. All signage shall be subject to applicable signage setbacks of Sections 153.150 - 153.164, Signs. ,:. 4 ~a . ~ q8- o~y ~ ', 51 gns $ Servl ce ``=rv,~ PHOME CIO. +614 836 1644 ~: ~ Jun. 26 1997 12: LOPM ?p_ 1 1 '~ •~~~~ 11'1 i • YJIaJ~~~ ' . :'G~1. .....,.. ~ • 1 r,~,1~~~; . ~•~ ' ~I:1 ~,, I , 1 1.• •~ '.x..:1..11 1' ~ I~~!t1.11i:~I;a~l,~~11y~1;,!.,'I. :•r , f , . l . '1~ ~~ ~ ~~ ;111..11'.: ;.I.. 1.1.1 ~,. ., t t ~ I ..hill • ~!~;,Ih,;'!~'.1•. 1 :, ' 1.i 1 ' 1 ' ~ 1,. , Y ~ ~ 1 ~ .., . " 1. " . 1 :1 I 1 ~ •1 '~j .,• .. ,I/~ ,~ • . ' 1 v :~I:i.•j;,~{,III I _-- `~' "'" ~ 1 , ~ , 1 . , 1 ' ~ ~ ~ ,.. ~~ 1 , 1 , , 1 1 + , , Q ~'• ~~ V I i 1 ~ ; :•; 1 ~ ~ ' i .'~• 1 ., ~~. ~ .1111 •, 1 1 { N I t ~1' ~ ~ ll ~. 1 . , t 1 1 I '1, 1 ' 1 1 I, 1 i ' • i J '. ' '~, . ~ I ~ . i ' ti; a -- z ~ fL' . ' ', 1 I 1 ' .1 ~ 1.. _ ~ . OU ~~~ ..1.r*~.. . . J f.ly ~ ., r, .,I, i '~ <~ z J Y ~m N ~~ .., ~a b O N N ~L N 1 ~ 1,1 1 ~. I b ' ~ +;,. . 1 , 1 M ., 1 , ,,; ,. ~~'~ 1 , ~ ..t" ~•1 1 ~~. ~~ t: ~ ~-t.~ ~ , f . f f• ~. I I i'I ' ~ 1 ! t ; ~ { 1 , ,~~ i ,. . i • I { ., 1 ,. ~;i M" 1 ' .1' ,,• • ~ ~o '~ N 1 •,.. 1 •1'R 11, I l~Y,~~ . • •. • .. ~ 1• .1 .. . '.1 •• .'I. ;~ •., :~ 1 1 - - 1 ' r , ~ t -- ' ,.9-,LZ - ~. ~ ~ ~~=~._ ~ ~ N 41J ~ :._ . ~ ~~ ~~ S~ ! C. 1 i ` ~~ ~( !-.... a_ .. _ ~ ~~. ~~fIL COPY ,~ 98~o~y~~ • ~ uri,wa I~Jaeg~ ...> ~ ~ ~ . ~~ §. •~~ ~~~p~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ s ~~~~#~ ~~~~~~ ~3rrs 80''d ~w~s •ra • wr~~«~~o «..~ ~ ..Q r+ aq..~ I.~.~.?I t"~I tN~Y . ~ ~o f ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~o s ~~~~~ M P z O w ~~ A a~ z 4 0 £96688bbT9T 7NI S1~312H~21ti AZI338QtlOd 80: TT Q3M 86-6T-83d L ~P df ~. _ , ~;.,u, ~_._~ ,. & , Y ~]` ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ _ s i. ~ :.. . ~ ~ -~ ~..._,..i ~...~ ~~ C,.,. C.7 ~ w J ~ ..... ~, 4.. mb ~~ .i C 4 oc s _7 ~L & 4 ~~ t- ,,.; a. Subarea Standards Riverside Dublin July 1, 1988 Revised August 25, 1988 Revised September 30, 1988 Revised December 15, 1988 Revised December 20, 1988 Revised January 11, 1989 Revised January 13, 1989 Revised February 10, 1989 The following Subarea Descriptions and Development Standards by sub- area shall be made part of the Concept Plan and are further discussed and illustrated in the Subarea Plan. Subarea Descriptions Subarea A Post Road Related: 27.3 ac. This area is characterized by its relationship to residential and nursing home uses on the north side of Post Road. Development within this subarea should be of the office type and should reflect residential scale and character. A reasonable landscaped setback buffer. should be provided between the residential uses and the proposed development within Subarea Al and A2. Subarea B Proposed Retail Center: 25.1 ac. Subarea B is sandwiched between the lighter office related uses of Subarea A and the more intense hospital and freeway office related uses of Subarea C1. This area contains a mix of retail/commercial uses in an integrated shopping environment typical in size to a small community center. This self-contained area also has access on two sides and is closely related to both traffic signals on Avery Road to create an even distribution of traffic. Subarea B1 ~c B2 Avery Road Outparcels 4 ac. Retail outparcels located along Avery Road and the proposed entry drive. Uses and Architecture will be integrated into proposed retail center located in Subarea B. Uses in Subarea B2 will be for either retail outparcel or medical office buildings. :~~,•~: i~1 .~, Subarea C1 Hospital/State Route 161 Related Uses: 33.7 ac. Uses within Subarea C1 focus around development of a community hospital or medical/institutional campus. Because of extensive State Route 161 frontage, additional uses within Subarea C2 will be freeway oriented, including general office. Subarea C2 Medical/Avery Road Related Uses: 18.4 ac. Uses within Subarea C will primarily service those uses located within Subarea C but will no~include hospital beds for overnight stay. Because of extensi~e Avery Road frontage, these uses will include primarily medical office, hotel, clinical and diagnostic service uses. Within this subarea approximately 8.6 acres will be dedicated for completion of the interchange. 1 -2- ~ ~- Subarea Development Standards General a. 1. If these standards conflict in any way with the City of Dublin Codified Ordinances, then the Planned Commerce District 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 Commerce District. 2. The street plan shown is the general scheme which will be platted and constructed. It is not however, intended to be precise, and while the functional system will be preserved, its precise location may vary from that shown so long as the functional objectives continue to be attained. - 3. signage and Graphics: a. All signage and graphics shall conform to Dublin Sign Code Chapter 1189. b. All signage shall be subject to applicable signage setbacks of Chapter 1189, Signs. c. All ground supported signage shall reflect a uniform shape and shall be set in a frame of dark brown, black or bronze color. d. Within Subarea A and A , no signage shall be located on or oriented toward P~st Road e. All uses within Subarea B and B2 shall have signage of uniform size, shape and mat~rials, signs base shall be made of wood, brick, stone or stucco and shall reflect the materials of the building. These signs shall have a maximum height of 6' and contain no-more than SO SF of area per face, Landscaping shall be integrated into signage feature. f. All uses within Subarea B 1 and B shall. be allowed two ground signs, one sign oriented toward Avery Road and one sign oriented toward internal access road on west side. g. No building mounted signs will be allowed along Avery. Road frontage. h. Within Subarea 8, one overall project identity sign shall be allowed for retail center within Subarea B. Slgnage base would reflect similar materials to Subarea B and B All building mounted signage should conform to )bublin ~gnage Code and reflect a common shape, size, material and base color. i. No slgn shall be painted or posted directly on the surface of any building, wall or fence. No wall murals shall be allowed. -3- '' j. No signs shall be applied to windows for the purpose of outdoor or exterior advertising. k. No roof signs shall be permitted. Nor should a sign extend higher than the building. 1. No flashing, traveling, animated or intermittently illuminated signs may be used. m. No billboards, or electrical or other advertising signs shall be allowed other than a sign carrying the name of the business occupying the site. n. On site permanent directional sign, e.g. employee and visitor parking, deliveries, etc. will be of a common design, material and size must meet signage standards. 4. Lighting: a. External lighting within all subareas shall be cutoff type fixtures. b. All parking, pedestrian and other exterior lighting shall be on poles or wall mounted cutoff fixtures. and shall be from the same type and style. .c. All light poles and standards shall be dark in color and shall be constructed of dark wood, or dark brown, black or bronze metal. - d. Parking lot lighting shall be no higher than 28'. e. Cutoff type landscape and building uplighting shall be per- mitted. -4- Subarea A Post Road Related Permitted Uses The following uses shall be permitted within Subarea A 1: a) Those uses listed in Section 1159.01 (SO) of the Zoning Code. b) Skilled Nursing Facility. c) Hospice. d) Daycare Center. The following uses shall be permitted within Subarea A2: a) Those uses listed in Section 1159.01 (SO) b) Financial Institution (Condition Use drive-thru for Bank). Density: The density shall not exceed 10,000 SF/AC. Yard and Setback Requirements: ' 1. Setback from Post Road shall be 75' for pavement and 100' for buildings. 2. Side yards shall be 25' for pavement and buildings. 3. Rear yards shall be 25' for pavement and buildings. 4. Front yard parking setback .from publicly dedicated local access streets shall be 25' for pavement and 50' for buildings. S. Total ground covered, exclusive of parking garages, by all buildings shall not exceed 2596 of the total lot area. 6. The .setback from Avery Road shall be 30' for paving, 50' for building. 7. Setback from Perimeter Drive extension shall be 30' for pavement and SO' for building. Height Requirements: 1. Maximum height for structures within Subarea A shall be 35' as measured per Dublin Zoning Code. Parking and Loadings 1. Size, ratio and type of parking and loading facility shall be regulated by Dub1In Code Chapter 1193. -S- Circulation: ~.r, 1. Existing Post Road shall remain a 60' right-of-way and re- located Post Road intersecting with Perimeter Drive Exten- sion shall be an 60' right-of-way with a 32' pavement. 2. The Perimeter Drive Extension shall have a !00' right-of-way and 56' pavement width at the intersection and taper down to an 80' right-of-way and a 36' pavement. 3. All other local public access streets shall have 60' rights-of- way with 32' pavement. 4. Avery Road shall have a 112' right-of-way consistent with preliminary plan for Avery Road widening. prepared by -::- E.M.H.T. 5. Curb cuts on Perimeter Drive extension shall be spaced a minimum of 200' (as measured from the driveway's centerline) with opposing curb cuts offset no less than 100' or directly aligned wherever possible consistent with prudent traffic engineering principles and practice. Waste and Refuse: 1. All waste and refuse shall be containerized and fully screened from view by a solid wall or fence. Storage and Equipment: 1. No materials, supplies, equipment or products shall be stored or permitted to remain on any portion of a parcel outside a permitted structure. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings shall be screened from public view with materials harmonious with the building. Landscaping: 1. Landscaping shall be according to the Dublin Landscape Code Chapter 1187. In addition, landscaping shall be provided within the Post Road setback and shall include a sodded or seeded mound with a mixture of ornamental, evergreen and shade trees. The mound shall be natural in appearance and shall vary between 130' and 150' in length, and 5' to 6' in height. Landscape plantings will be in accordance with the attached Exhibit "Buffer Plan;' Sheets 1 and 2. 2. In addition, landscaping within the Perimeter Drive Extension shall Include a 3' to 4' landscaped mound with street trees planted SO' on center within the right-of-way and planted 1' from the right-of-way line. ~ -6- 3. A comprehensive landscape plan along Avery Road corridor is provided as shown in Exhibit "Buffer Plan;' Sheets 3 and 4. The plan incorporates plant materials, signage, lighting and grading with a single design element creating a unique, aesthe- tic entrance to the Dublin Area. 4. Minimum size of all trees shall be 2" to 2f4" caliper for shade trees, 6' to 8' height for evergreens and 1" to lf4" caliper for ornamentals. Architecture: 1. All buildings shall be finished with natural materials: brick, wood, stone, stucco and shall be of earthtone colors. Roofs shall have a pitch no flatter than 6:12 and shall use dimen- sional asphalt shingles. 2. The Planning Commission shall have the right to review materials to assure they are consistent with other building materials used in the area. The Planning Commission may accept alternative materials and colors if they are consistent with other building materials and add to the overall architec- tural quality. 3. The building shall have the same degree of finish on all four sides. 4. Buildings along Avery Road shall be designed to reflect the existing character of Avery Road and be sympathetic of the residential areas to the north. Subarea B -Retail Center Permitted Uses The following uses shall be permitted within Subarea B: a) Those uses listed in Section 1159.01 (SO) of the Zoning Code. b) Those uses listed in Section 1163.01 of the Zoning Code. Conditional Uses a) Drive-in facilities developed in association with a permitted use. b) Theaters Yard and Setback Requirements: 1. Along Perimeter Drive Extension, pavement setbacks shall be 30', building setbacks SO'. 2. Along the South Access Drive, pavement setbacks shall be 25', building setbacks 50'. 4. All other local street pavement setbacks shall be 25', building setbacks 50'. 5. Total building square footage permitted per acre shall not exceed 10,000 square feet. Utilities 1. All utility lines including water supply, sanitary sewer service, electricity, telephone and gas, and their connections or feeder lines should be placed underground. 2. All utility connections should be kept to the rear or the side of the building, out of view or screened. 3. All mechanical equipment and related structures should be effectively screened from grade level view as well as on site views from within the development. 4. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground, or buildings shall be screened from public view with materials harmonious with the building. -8- Circulation p 1. Avery Road shall have a 112' right-of-way consistent with preliminary plan for Avery Road widening prepared by E.M.H. :,;. ~ T. 2. Perimeter Drive Extension shall have a 100' right-of-way, and a 56' pavement width and shall taper to an 80 right-of-way and a 36' pavement width. 3. South Access Drive shall have a 100' right-of-way, and a 56' pavement width and shall taper to an 80' right-of-way, and a 36' pavement. 4. All other local public access streets shall have a 60' right-of- way, and a 32' pavement width. 5. Opposing curb cuts on the Perimeter Drive Extension and the South Access Drive shall be offset no less than 100' (as measured from the driveway's centerline) or directly aligned wherever possible consistent with prudent traffic engineering principles and practices. Paving 1. Asphalt paving. for roads and parking areas. 2. Concrete curbs. 3. Concrete road paving as needed in service area. 4. Sidewalks should be minimum 4'-0" wide; paving material to be broom finish concrete. Parking In addition to meeting the current City of Dublin code requirements, the following guidelines should be followed in the design of parking facilities. 1. Ail parking and loading shall be regulated by the Dublin Code Chapter 1193. 2. Drive-thru stacking areas for fast food restaurants shall accom- modate aminimum of eight spaces per exchange window. 3. Bank drive-thru stacking requirements as per the Columbus Zoning Code. 4. Parking stalls shall be laid out In the most efflclent manner; 90 . degree layouts are suggested with 9' x 19' stalls and 22' - 24' aisles. 5. No parking shall be permitted on either the Perimeter Drive Extension or the South Access Road. 6. One curb cut shall be permitted for each parcel. An additional combined curb cut shall also be permitted creating a maximum of three curb cuts for every two parcels. 7. Where slopes occur that exceed 3:1, the area shall be terraced or treated with erosion control materials, shrubs or ground cover. Materials which will roll, wash or float away are to be avoided on these slopes. 8. Handicap parking spaces shall be 19' long x 12' wide. Handicap ramp access shall be included in conjunction with these parking spaces. -. Waste and Refuse 1. All waste and refuse shall be containerized and fully screened from view by a solid wall or fence. Service 1. All loading activity shall occur within a building. 2. No noises, smoke, odors, vibrations or other nuisances shall be permitted. 3. No area of the site will be used for outdoor storage. 4. Service courts and loading docks shall be screened from all streets by landscaping, mounding or walls. S. No materials, supplies, equipment or products shall be stored or permitted to remain on any portion of the parcel outside the ' permitted structure. Landscaping A comprehensive landscape plan along Avery Road corridor is provided as shown in Exhibit "Buffer Plan" Sheets 3 and 4. The plan incorporates plant materials, signage, lighting and grading into a single design element, creating a unique, aesthetic entrance to the Dublin area. 1. All landscaping shall be according to the Dublin Landscape Code Chapter 1187. 2. Along Perimeter Drive Extension and the South Access Drive, a 3' to 4' hlgh landscape mound shall be provided with street trees planted 50' on center, within the right-of-way and planted 1' from the rlght- of-way line. -10- 3. The rear of all buildings or structures shall be screened with planting, hedge, fence, wall or earth mound to provide a minimum of SO% winter opacity and 70% summer opacity, between 1' above finish level and 6' in height. `~ 4. Minimum size of all trees shall be 2" to 2f4" caliper for shade trees, 6' to 8' height for evergreen and 1" to 1 f4" caliper for ornamentals. General Conditions A. Any portion of a lot upon which a building or parking area is not constructed shall be landscaped. B. Street trees on each side of an entry drive shall be set back twenty (20) feet from the curb to accentuate the entry/exit points. C. A minimum greenbelt of ten (10) feet shall -be maintained along each adjoining property line. D. Shrub plantings are recommended massed or clustered in beds rather than singular shrub plantings. E. Site unity can be maintained by specifying the same species of major landscape elements (shade trees, evergreen trees and orna- mental trees). New compatible species of shrubs and ground cover will be introduced to the plant palette as needed to provide interest, focal points and screening around new development. Fences/Walls: A. No chain link or wire fencing shall be permitted. Architectural Height: A. No outparcel structure shall be more than 28' in height. For structures with pitched roofs, this height limit will be:measured to the roof peak. B. Height limit for the shopping center will be 35'. Color Palette: A. Earth tones, muted and natural tones are preferred. Accent colors in brighter hues such as white are permitted for building accent features only. A mixed palette on a single building should be carefully selected so all colors harmonize with each other. Materials: A. Warm-tone brick. _~,, B. White brick can be used as accent. C. Cedar shakes/shingles with not less than 325 lb per square weight. D. Split-face concrete block or pre-cast concrete used as an accent with dark brick only. E. Stone veneer with limestone trim (limestone rubble in a coarse ashlar pattern). F. Stucco when accented with brick or stone. Roof: A. Pitched roofs with gabled or hipped ends are suggested with a slope equal to 8/12. B. Minimum 8" overhangs are suggested. C. Glass roofs are acceptable in portions of a structure. D. Mansard roofs are not permitted (unless used to screen air handling equipment). E. Flat roofs are permitted if architecturally coordinated and approved by Planning Commission. Scale: A. The scale of the structures should be sympathetic to a residential character. B. Structures should be designed to harmonize with the landscape. C. The scale of each building can be aided through the use of articulated building elements, such as porticoes, dormers, recesses and other such elements which help break up the mass and bring it into a more residential character. Wall Articulation/Fenestration: A. In addition to using building elements to articulate the building mass, individual walls must be articulated with fenestration, pattern or structural expression equally on all sides of each structure. B. Blank facades on the "rear" of the building will not be permitted, articulating such facades with recesses, fenestration, fences, pilas- ters, etc. is encouraged. C. The amount of fenestration should be balanced with the amount of solid facade. D. With the exception of enclosed service corridors, the buildings shall have the same degree of exterior finish on all sides. -12- Subarea Bl do B., Outparcels Permitted Uses The following uses shall be permitted within Subarea B 1: a) Those uses listed in Section 1159.01 (SO) of the Zoning Code. b) Those uses listed in Section 1163: CC, food, apparel, miscella- neous retail, eating and drinking. c) Same uses as permitted under Subarea B. d) All drive-through uses will be conditional use. The following uses shall be permitted within Subarea 82: a) Same uses permitted under Subarea B 1. b) Same uses permitted under C2. c) All drive-through uses will be a conditional use. General The orientation and the face of the out parcels in the zone will be to the west and at the corners toward the intersecting streets and to what would normally be considered the rear of those parcels, (i.e. the portion abutting Avery Road will be employed as an entrance feature to the residential areas to the north). Buildings will have a common architec- tural theme with good aesthetic quality, the same or compatible building materials and a common lighting, signage and landscaping ethic. Within this mold the west, and intersecting street faces may identify the separate users and their products with appropriate expressions of individ- uality. However the east face must appear as a unified, single expression. Structures, be they buildings or walls, roof lines and types, building spacing, signage, lighting and landscaping should present an almost non-commercial approach with low level signage .employed solely to identify users and structures and landscaping effectively shielding the street from the impact of activity on the site. .The .following additional standards are deemed appropriate to produce such a function. The Planning Commission shall have the right to review .all applications for their-Architectural consistency. Additional materials and colors may be approved by Commission if they are consistent with other building materials and add to the overall Architectural quality. Yard and Setback Requirements: 1. The setback from Avery Road shall be 30' for pavement and SO' for buildings. 2. Setback from South Access Road will be 2S' for pavement and ~' SO' for buildings. .~.,. 3. Side yards shall be 25' for pavement and buildings. 4. Rear yards shall be 25' for pavement and buildings. 5. Front yard parking setback from publicly dedicated local access streets shall be 25' for pavement and 50' for buildings. 6. Total ground covered by all buildings shall not exceed 25% of the total lot area. 7. The setback from Perimeter Drive extension shall be 30' for pavement and 50' for buildings. 8. Building setback from Avery Road shall be consistent for all building if possible. Height Requirements: 1. Maximum height for structures within Subarea B and B shall be 28' as measured per Dublin Zoning Code. 1 2 Parking and Loading: 1. Size, ratio and type of parking and loading facility shall be regulated by Dublin Code Chapter 1193. Circulation: 1. The Perimeter Drive Extension shall have a 100' ROW and 56' pavement width and shall taper to an 80' right-of-way and 36' pavement width or whatever deemed necessary under prudent traffic engineering practices. 2. South Access Drive shall have a 100' right-of-way and a 56' pavement width and shall taper to an 80' ROW and 36' pavement width or whatever. deemed necessary .under prudent traffic engineering practices. 3. Full service access to outparcels will be provided from rear access drive shown on Exhibit 8 access to outparcel on South Access Drive will be right-in, right-out only within 300' from Avery Road. 4. All other local public access streets shall have a 60' right-of- way with a 32' pavement. S. Avery Road shall have a 112' ROW consistent with E.M.H. ~ T. plan for Avery Road widening. -14- Waste and Refuse: 1. All waste and refuse shall be containerized and fully screened from view by a solid wall or fence. Storage and Equipment: 1. No materials, supplies, equipment or products shall be stored or permitted to remain on any portion of a parcel outside a permitted structure. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings shall be screened from public view with materials harmonious with the building. Landscaping: 1. A comprehensive landscape plan along Avery Road corridor is provided as shown in Exhibit "Buffer Plan", Sheets 3 and 4. The plan incorporates plant materials, signage, lighting and grading with a single design element creating a unique, aesthe- tic entrance to the Dublin Area. 2. In addition, landscaping within the Perimeter Drive Extension and South Access Drive shall include a 3' to 4' landscaped mound with street trees planted SO' on center within the right- of-way and planted l' from the right-of-way line. °"' 3. Minimum size of all trees shall be 2" to 2S4" caliper for shade trees, 6' to 8' height for evergreens and 1" to 114" caliper for ~,., ornamentals. Architecture: 1. Architectural standards shall be the same as defined in Sub area B. 2. If the uses specified in Subarea C2 are_used within Subarea B , then the architectural standards set forth in Subarea C2 sha~il apply. 3. Architectural character shall be sensitive to adjacent develop- ment if applicable. .. <''~'"~+ ~,~ Subarea C1 Hospital/State Route 161 Related Uses: Permitted Uses The following uses shall be permitted within Subarea C 1: a) Those uses listed in Sections 1159.01 (SO) of the Dublin Zoning Code. b) Hospitals and clinics. c) Healthcare, including ambulatory care, outpatient care and surgery, medical offices and ancillary distribution. d) Hotel and motel. e) Restaurant uses within a structure primarily .devoted to hotel/motel or medical/office. f) Ancillary commercial uses within a structure primarily devoted to office or medical uses. g) Health Club and Fitness Center. h) Skilled Nursing Facility. i) Hospice. Yard and Setback Requirements: 1. Setback on the the South Access Drive shall be 25', for all pavement areas, 50' for buildings. 2. Setback along State Route 161 /Route 33 shall be 50' for all pavement areas and buildings. 3. Side yards shall be 25' for parking -and buildings. 4. Rear yards shall be 25' for parking and buildings. 5. All other publicly dedicated local streets shall have a 25' pavement setback and 50' building setback. 6. Total ground covered by all buildings, exclusive of parking garages, shall not exceed 2596 of the total lot area. -16- Height Requirements: 1. The maximum height for structures in Subarea C 1 shall be measured per the Dublin Zoning Code and have a maximum height limitation of 65' and a minimum height of two stories shall be required for all primary structures. The maximum height may be extended if the structure is setback from both the Ramp Access Drive and State Route 161 right-of-way an additional foot beyond the required setback for every 1' of height above the 65' maximum. A minimum height of two stories shall be required for all primary structures along the freeway. Parking and Loading 1. Sizes, ratio and type of parking and loading and other facilities shall be regulated by Dublin Code Chapter .1193. Circulation: 1. South Access Drive shall have a 100' right-of-way and 56' pavement width at the Avery Road intersection tapering back • to an 60' right-of-way and 36' pavement width. 2. All other local public streets shall have 60' rights-of-way, and 32' pavement widths. 3. Opposing curb cuts on the South Access Drive shall be offset ,~ no less than 100' (as measured from drive-way center line) or directly aligned- whenever possible. Driveways to be placed in accordance with prudent Traffic Engineering practices and principles. Waste- and Refuse: 1. All waste and refuse shall . be. containerized and. fully screened from view by a solid wall or fence. Storage and Equipment: 1. No materials, supplies, equipment or products shall be stored or permitted to remain on any portion of the parcel outside the permitted structure. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings shall be screened from public view with materials harmonious with the building. r s ~~: . Landscaping: 1. All landscaping shall be according to the Dublin Landscape Code Chapter 1187. 2. In addition and within the required building setback, a 3' to 4' earthen landscaped mound shall be provided along the South Access Drive with street trees planted SO' on center and located 1' from right-of-way line within right-of-way. 3. Along State Route 161, a 6' landscaped mound shall be provided with trees planted a minimum of 1 tree per 40' O.F.T.O. (trees may be grouped). 4. A comprehensive landscape plan along Avery Road corridor is provided as shown in Exhibit Buffer Plan Sheet 3 ac 4. The plan incorporates plant materials, signage, lighting and grading into a single design element creating a .unique, aesthetic entrance to the Dublin Area. 5. Minimum size of all trees shall be 2" to 2l4" caliper for shade trees, 6' to 8' height for evergreens and 1" to 1 S4" caliper for ornamentals. Wall Articulation/Fenestration: Architecture: 1. The architecture within Subarea C1 will be more urban in nature than .the other sabareas but should still reflect the residential tones of Subareas A, B and C2. 2. The base material shall be earth tone brick accented with lighter tones of brick, pre-cast concrete, stucco or similar. 3. Pitched roofs of 6/12 minimum will be generally required but flat roofs will be allowed as long as all mechanical equipment on them are screened and they are deemed acceptable by Planning and Zoning. Roof: A. Flat roofs will be permitted only if deemed acceptable by Dublin Planning and Zoning. B. All mechanical equipment will be screened from view. C. Mansard roofs are not permitted. D. Pitched roofs with gabled or hipped ends will be suggested, if possible. -18- ~~ Subarea C2 Medical/Avery Road Related Uses: Permitted Uses The following uses shall be permitted within Subarea C2: a) Those uses listed in Sections 1159.01 (SO) and 1175.01 of the Dublin Zoning Code. b) Clinics. c) Healthcare, including ambulatory care, outpatient care and surgery, medical offices, diagnostic facilities and ancillary distribution. d) Hotel and motel. e) Restaurant associated within a hotel structure. Yard and Setback Requirements: 1. Setback on the South Access Drive shall be 25', for all pavement areas, 50' for buildings. 2. Setback on the Ramp Access Drive shall be 25' for pavement, 50' for buildings. 3. The setback from Avery Road shall be 30' for pavement and 50' for buildings. 4. Side yards shall be 25' for parking and buildings. 5. Rear yards shall be 25' for parking and buildings. 6. All other publicly dedicated local streets shall have a 25' pavement setback and 50' building setback. 7. Total ground covered by all buildings, exclusive of parking garages, shall not exceed 2596 of the total lot area. Height Requirements: 1. The maximum height for structures in Subarea C2 shall be measured per the Dublin Zoning Code and have a maximum height limitation of 48'. Pitched roofs equal to 6/12 will be suggested. Mansard roofs will be only permitted when used to screen air handling equipment. -19- '~ "~ Parking and Loading 1. Sizes, ratio and type of parking and loading and other facilities shall be regulated by Dublin Code Chapter 1193. Circulation: 1. The South Access Drive shall have a 100' right-of-way and 56' pavement width at the Avery Road intersection tapering back to an 80' right-of-way and 36' pavement width or whatever deemed appropriate by prudent traffic engineering practices. 2. The Ramp Access Drive shall have a 80' right-of-way and a 36' pavement or whatever deemed necessary by ODOT and Dublin - City Engineer and prudent traffic engineering practices. 3. All other local public streets shall have 60' rights-of-way, and 32' pavement widths. 4. Opposing curb cuts on the South Access Drive shall be offset no less than 100' (as measured from drive-way center line) or directly aligned whenever possible. Placement is to be consis- tent with prudent Traffic Engineering practices and principles. 'S. Avery Road shall have a 112' R.O.W. per Dublin Traffic Plan or consistent with E.M.H. ac T. preliminary plan for road widening. Waste and Refuse: 1. All waste and refuse shall be containerized and fully screened from view by a solid wall or fence. .Storage and Equipment: 1. No materials, supplies, equipment or products shall be stored or permitted to remain on any portion of the parcel outside the permitted structure. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings shall be screened from public view with materials harmonious with the building. Landscaping: 1. All landscaping shall be according to the Dublin Landscape Code Chapter 1187. 2. In addition and within the required building setback, a 3' to 4' earthen landscaped mound shall be provided along the South Access Drive and the Ramp Access Drive and perimeter with street trees planted SO' on center and located 1' from right-of- way line within right-of-way. ~ -20- ,~: ,. 3. A comprehensive landscape plan along Avery Road corridor is provided as shown in Exhibit "Buffer Plan", Sheets 3 and 4. The plan ,,„, incorporates plant materials, signage, lighting and grading into a single design element, creating a unique, aesthetic entrance to the Dublin Area. Architecture: Color Palette: A. Earth tone, muted and natural tones are preferred. Accent colors in brighter hues such as white are suggested. A mixed palette on a single building should be carefully selected so all colors harmonize with each one. Materials: A. Warm tone brick (white brick can be used as accent) and stucco. B. Pre-cast concrete, split face concrete block or similar can be used as accent. C. If sloped roof is used, shingles with not less than 325 !b. per square weight. D. The Planning Commission shall have the right to review materials to assure they are consistent with other. building materials used in the area. The Planning Commission may accept alternative materials and colors if they are consistent with other building materials and add to the overall Architectural quality. Scale: A. The scale of structure within Subarea C shall blend between smaller residential character of Subared~ B and larger more urban character of Subarea C 1. 850.HacH ~. ,, AVERY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 1. Payment Obli aqs tion. The Applicant shall be obligated to pay 1/3 o the cost oz the "Phase I Improvements" (as defined ~ below) to Avery Road from the south right of way line of Post Road. to the north right of way line of State Route 161 according to ' plans approved by the City of Dublin if, and only if, the City of "'~ Dublin agrees to pay 1/3 of said cost, and 1/3 of said cost is assumed by those owning property on the east side of Avery Road between Post Road and State Route 161 and involved in the development of Perimeter Mall (such party owning property on the east side of Avery Road and developing Perimeter Mall being referred to herein as the "Perimeter Mall Developer"). Said. improvements shall be undertaken and performed by, or under the direction of, the Perimeter Mall Developer prior to the opening of any commercial use on the~Perimeter Mall Developer's property (or such earlier time as may be agreed to between Applicant and the Perimeter Mall Developer) if, and only if, the City of Dublin furnishes the Perimeter Mall Developer in money or required materials with the City of Dublin's share of said costs at a time which reasonably meets the construction and opening schedules. In addition, Applicant and the Perimeter Mall Developer have agreed to include within the improvement project that part of Avery Road (Muirfield Boulevard) from the south right- of way line of Post Road to the present southerly terminus of the four lane section of Muirfield Drive north of Indian Run if , and only if , the City of Dublin furnishes the Perimeter Mall Developer in money or required materials with the entire cost of said additional construction. Applicant, the Perimeter Mall Developer and the City of Dublin understand that appropriate contracts will be executed covering'"' the construction contemplated herein. 2. Phase I Imnroveme^.ts. For purposes hereof, the "Phase I Improvements" to Avery road shall have the same meaning as that given in plans prepared by EMH&T dated December, 1988. w Revised 02/17/89 Addendum to Subarea Standards Dated December 20, 1988 INTERCHANGE SUBAREA 1. Description of Subarea. This Subarea is situated at the southeast corner of the property, consists of approximately 8.6 acres and is labeled "Interchange" on the attached Subarea Plan. 2. Reservation of Land. The Interchange Subarea shall, subject to Paragraphs 3 and 4 below, be reserved for possible ramp completion and other .related interchange improvements. Nothing contained herein-shall obligate the owner of the property .to incur any expense in.connection with such possible ramp :completion and related interchange improvements; it .being understood .and =agreed that if the City of Dublin or other governmental authority exercising jurisdiction hereafter elects to pursue such ramp completion and other interchange improvements, .then the City of Dublin or such other governmental authority, as the case may be, (i) shall have the right to acquire the Interchange Subarea, or portion thereof, which may be needed for such ramp completion and related interchange improvements, .and (ii) shall be responsible for all costs and expenses incurred with respect thereto, including construction costs and further, including the obligation to compensate the then owner for the land acquired. for such ramp/interchange improvements. The compensation tb be paid to the then owner by the City of Dublin or other governmental authority for the land so acquired shall equal .the sum of (i) the actual cost incurred by the owner-Applicant in acquiring such land,. plus (ii) an amount equal to the actual interest expense incurred by the owner-Applicant. in acquiring such land for the period from March 1, 1989 through the date of acquisition by the City of Dublin or other governmental authority. 3. Termination of Reservation. In the event :the _City of Dublin or other governmental authority, as-the case may~.be,-does not hereafter acquire the necessary land for ramp/interchange improvements by April 1, 1994, the reservation and right of purchase set forth in Paragraph 2 above shall terminate and be of no further force and effect. 4. Limited Improvements. Notwithstanding the reservation described in Paragraph 2 above, the owner of the land shall have the right to grade, clear, landscape, pave and/or perform other site related work with respect to the Interchange Subarea or any part thereof. 5. Access. The owner shall in good faith attempt to secure the necessary approvals from appropriate governmental authority permitting a direct access into the property from Avery Road along ,~ the common boundary of the Interchange Subarea and Subarea C-2 in ~ ~ ~ V ~ I 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 .1 ~ •~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 1 i '~I x. 1 1 ~l r 1~ J 1 1 1 f _ 1 1 1 ~, < ~T1 .._. _ 7 _ / \ r ~' I 1 ,; / - ^ y _/ -ter sue' V _ _,.. I,r. ~ . ,~''n l ~ ~,., w+ ~ 1 11 ,~Zr ~• ~„ ~ ~ ~ s /. v 11 -~ { ~ "~ 'J -~ --'>r - •=^f ~ ` ~ , • ~• ,~ i I ~• ~ •i , _. _ • ~ ~ `~. i to ' 1 ~,~, ~ ~ ' . ~f~ t 1f 1~= Q a W Q ~~ f F r ^~• M v J~ ~~ ~ 11 ~; Fey ~. N 1 W ~~ o: V< w W ~ = w qY q JW WQ V N811 i ~ I H I CI WI ulpi-111 W`II ~6' qZ u w ~...n ~ •+ Z wW WJ 4< mr ~R ~J W r. 4~ QgwQa SN f~i c n I 2p'I Fn1 1 .1 I r I len f1 I Y ~ m ~i ~ 1 1 V O i L r 1 ! L T 1 a r 4 ~ o w i I ~ E p • PL • 1 o n r rw F r 8>w. F V < F ~ na is V l i r ry IY V` e` V r p w n~ > O ~ p V Y Y Y .0 R ~ V r O M O A O Y ~~ jw ..< r rq(ggry ry6 Y M •Piri O ti "~ OL O w ` ~ ~ r>ua w O[f fl IY• O •lY I L/C IP •O• rr` YwYppO r rnw R P (r~1 nP pp 4tly4 YO .OiIL' iL evai n..ruL Lw e erye 4v ulYt m A e a w YL .. V.. •V n L.~rVO n w s O L V 6YLr*rOL• , a N 6iw Y ywR. •.l ei C ]` ^10.Y• rL 4 i• • L4 Ya ui MCLY ' ~. i i ~ 0 ~\ ~YV 00 ~ ~> ) R m 1 •Y cnl • c C aV 0•00/b0 •Y i~ mnmc-o•V YO> oar • i mq • is~io L-.Vxx:7 mnms<. ACO V r u u 4 ~ > L t V ,„ 8 0 M ~ • a r M w Y w O+ w • w` nrya ) o Y 7 O V A ~ \Oq 1-r n my v O V `` S V r r O L • Y L L O C m V V Y V L O ry R ry n u~V O LxL s~]VZ ~ 1 re Y• O1y1 YpV-1 i . Y P.'+Y ^ L u n OYaLYw(j re• Mww L O re~011.. YJR a Ln f n(7 P y ~ " 1 S/w YL w w .+VL i..e MrY -. .w V.+YnY Y.+w Y w11Y Yq es L ~ LF O ]w q-~ ~ O> > s s4 w.+ws •t L • 6 w rV~wLi Cti w V V w• w V O < YL YV O: g e Y a i H V • r L V L O L a 7 r Y Y a • ` u O o r O Y C L.+ w a 0 I Y V R ^ n n • i S~ ~~ 0 0> O Y] Y ILxIIC<OILmx oiamco. 1d Lry dry LV mL< mq m V Y e) ~„1 i 4 N Y ry 6M r a 1 p 9 sRM +ryie i 4 n ' \.. I M a r 1 il . l i l i ~ > ~ rrY~ •r I O:R YRep epRVa s s w ~ r a • ~•u wi.R V^^~ a ~ H I u > > ~W~O : J ~L p~ mm I7 1I INY)G1 Id ` C i 1G IY fl 1 1 I 1 IOOC n 1 ti> r] a r ry a ry 1ti.y .F• w wMe Y.9 Pia a a L ooe~wC y ~ "'.".« ~R<R.R ~ 1 Y Y V w L w • O IOIn •w se I S [ a O L L ~) u a Y j O j 0! ni~ 6wm aJa O ~il j 1 C M O M w M` Y Igo o M n : w SR ..: IIn •.Li Y m • u •.+ w 1'1 O d{.> Y> O I~ L C » w0 VV n n 17 ywaw LO.y ] r L rL ry ry •a full e z ~ e i°+ mEr ~~~. en 1I\LL n I r.+e i+rY r.. ..l •wr r •wL iry Clary M O r~w u L V O Y O> C s a > v Y R s M w r w y r C> Q Y w i <~ L V a r 0~•+w P•w w~ %~ ~ • Vr . n,. i JnCL V YwLw EvLYw ~ II ~-. ioi 1 ~. q rL+.evOe~ oEOLe wL -.N L•IO ry-~L~ 009w.r •w4 L>LV.+ OOOw n '< < LaAmacALRL wL ra = n Y Y 7 a a f i V Y [ e "~ Ge 4 L r d T q = a V F < w Y Y Y p • O Y V L A ~ V i O / V O O y C Y w Wr~ Y w~ .~19 Y •L w Y r~ G Y O L r •y a rryry<qqa LY ~ii Yi ~{7 tf m q Y11~~ Y ~w4 s O ~ Ya1M% 8~ ylw OY 7r L OV 71. w.. 4 L L a t 4 0 O O r ~ p w ~ QQ r rw y r a o ~ L Y• C 2SL+ :~Y~ ..:~ p~1~'" icy oe _ ..... + O u~ L s j C L V 8 v Y~ r= y Y ~ Y P a ) e • r r Y M• • L • aw7j70.1aY wwYwYyL1s.' Lr L m u r L C•+ L` V• us • 4~0 •~ Y nz° ~~miwu°O- i1~wr~~ L$~t v:.. na' a` ~ ~ w r a sw L L O ~ C r y V V :.:; ~ ~ s f ~~ eia~Y a"1 Lai ~ .. O~V ~, eC~ .ryia L~ 1.~w Ca C ~ a~ £et~i.°.i i ~i/ao ai.. i° A V YGYSr YO r~FV• rLt eti w~ V OL ~~,w11 CpL~88tML 117yy.>>s^A~ L``~C rpOaC Or. Ot 81'lOL»w 0Y !'i`O,t~>x 01CL L~utV C L ~ o L J u a ~ C V ~ •' • r ~ Y • ~ 4 C G u Ji i ,xi ~;,.- I., ~ ~ ~~ L`5~ • ~ ~.:.~.~ . ti .,# f.; ~ ,~~i*~j-'~1y' .ra -it I''~ I.'.. I~ ~` • `` n ~~ :4i 'I. -.;• ~., y ~ } ~•u:, is ~ ~ ~ 1 '10 ~ ~~{' .• 1• ~'!•~ ~ • 3 wmlll Ad ~ ~~. ~ ~ ~ ~ . IIi ~w ~. '' •L.. _ ' t -~j ~j\~ •~.r' ~ ~^ •+- .. '----J' • erij~nl .,,~-..-1_`Gy"tw~ .r 1 J _ ~ s, //~~ ~ . ~_... • t i . r :;. 1 ,j •s.•• ' : .fir ~ M~ ~w1. 1 ~. •-ice „/'i•a/ ~ .Z •. ., _ r O e ~,- ,~~ 1• ', 3 .(n tit .; ~. , ,, ~'. ~ 0 E ~ ! r ~ . o ~ l M .W f . / •' Iceilm. tt ~~` ill . • ., •-v • ~,.,1 ,t , '~ W 1 C' ti 1 1 ~1 ~ • ~»f. •-~ )vM ~i+ U.!'•Lv.~ •wwt . +• • `I vn~' - - _ - r\ )/~\ M i .r. I y ~~ ~ ,, • . /1-. ~a,, ; "~ - ~: ~ ~ S '•• ,~ ° X01 0 . " ~ r ~ •~. - r -~_ ~ ~. J • ~ m . p D ' ~. N G ~..~~ ' ~ 7 ~ ~ r , /•, •1 1 ~ . 1• • i'. 'r ~ . 'rF 1i _ 1 ~ A :;7 ! • • des ~ . ~- ~~ • •~,1 ~~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~f ~ ~ 0 ~ 1` 1 1 ' 1 1 . ~:. 1 } ! ~ . k~ 'tom G ' '~°I!~ r~`~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ! .~. _ ~ ..• , , J.i _ ~ f • j~ ; .i .~i...i~ N 1 l {. fir, '~~ •:~'aC! ~~ i` ,1 1 •~ ~ '~/ T ~~. g 1 ~,. ~ is ;; 4 r;: .ti!A' i a F ~ : ~..~,;~- ~ , 1 ~ •! . •, 1 4• /~ 13.•4` ~! ~ 1 .~~ ~ /1~,J `•~ 1 1. / ..I,`a .x1~ t . J 1 1 I! 1 1 7 f , ,i •~• 1 1 1 ! _ T ~ /\ f , ~I a! ~• S.!r 1q~,, ~1 ` ~1 •~ 1 . 1 .~ ^~ _ __ icy,/' ~J~, t,.• . •,^ ., t;i!i`~,~j,r.4;~•-,.f.F.• ~~';' 1 ' ~ ' .l ~•kD:.• ~ J .~ . ~1•, 'r~"~- , ~,'•1 I i R ~: ! !~~ s~~ i m : + Q. ~ I ' 1 ~ , L . z O ~ /y~ / 4Fi 0. ~ Q i ~. s a ! . • 1 1 1 I 1 i w~~ .~ ~~ w~~ Q ~.. _ '~i I • ~c~ 1 ..x_ \ 1 r_ ~. - _.a ~ ~ ~ _ -" ~ ~ 1 1 A :~ ~~ 1 ~ . /• ~~ 1 A ><0 O ~ 1 7 .1 s, (I~ 1 1 ~' ~~q m 1 1V!- 1 1 m . , ,,, ;~ (~• 1 , t. mil - _' •. I ~ •. _ 1 I~ '. t 1 1 1 1 ~ 'S ~ 2 1 '. r., ~r I' ~ } _, 1 1 1 1 1 1 l=~ ,~ ~ . 1• ~ ~i(1 I j N ~ '/IZ ~_V/ 1 % ~ - - .~ ~ '~ (J \ ~ O hi 1 J - ' , W'i 6 1'` ~1 , , ' 1 i ~ ' :)~. ~ _ _ a 1 'F-" ' ~' --- , . ~ wJ • 1 . 1 1 . ~ 1 ~ ' ~' TiP ~~1 1 I r ~ e 1 '' .dam;:`: • `- *' ~ . J al;:~ oC ti . , ~ ,~., • ~ , ,a" ~ __ ..~ .:4 - - ~ r~ 1 ~: ~~,~~ _ J .1' .. ...I .. _. ~ ~ J J ~ u 1 r _. . ~~~~" 6' R.T.. ,...__ .._ ._ ~..._ ...~._C. ~~ 1~ „ olibooeero.u.u~ I ~~ L W~ • ~ ~~~~ 'b'~ .,J -~.. ~ .s y' t f..L~ ri''•,p ~ l• ~p C Giz . '. ~~ ~ 3' L.V .~ . ' i. ~ ~ a. \~~ 46 tfJ '~ -~ 1 ' 1. ~ '' 3 ~ - 1. e - i~ 1 ~r,: . , 'P '` --~ / ~ `` ~ - '.~_~. ~I1 1 ~=.`n . •~ ;~r:. I I I , , I 1 1. ~ ~ i;~ ii.~ /~ •~ II 1 1 1 .,~1~ I~ g-~ I• • .; ~. 1 1 Ic 1. ;~~q - -i ~. ~~ ~~ ~ •'! •~ 1 ~ - ~5;~ ;:• ;r-• ~: :;~:: • ~ .~, ,; ~ 'i1C'~it'sfl. 1. LL• .,.L ~ 'i:.1::5•• f .:4• j'.:~i b '~~' ~:. ~•~. .i •• ~ tiyy•' r1 r• .. Z.~i.ir _~~~ ~~ 1 • L `, '• ~•'. t'r~4., 1r f '~`~1f:.' x:l '~~'}1 5• ~lY fi'. •. firs ~~~,.: ~ ,. , "`.~ ;jq ,,~ ,r'a ~'~q~ ~ ~;~'}f~~t ~ '"~•~~ •. S:~t ~ ~ .s ~ }:'»•. n •:•:;.`Z' ;;~ ~•,•`~ dlr. ;ic~~t.^ ?r~~ r • // ,. i.jis: ••1 ;'.~1: l'~ rl. 'tip •~ i • _ ~~F. • .I Sri .'.~t•,'; r' • / r ~ ~. ..: \ • r'i• •J. ~i~ 11~' :..:. 11 . l L f '~.1Lr ~ '~ f/. yy~ ~ f •.h '~'F:T:~; ~ 3~.~i1~ rry~r'~ i~~:~ o:r •il: l~ 1~ •~ , .~ •i~•• ' -1' ?3y~ ,~ ' " • :., i• ~i~f:..e>tTr~.j` ,~~~~;:~F'j• ~ jY?j:'!%:. c ., ' • 7 ~yl .l.:e i' •}1 +y~:~lii,2,.3Y'~;~«s~,f:{~~,~r•,•.~y.d~Fr..~~ '~~~~ 3''i.r•'1 :~.i'i; .'i %'r •`kF' ... ,. '.ii ji-;+4s•'~:fjJ? i;r~~Ph~l..,~•r.•,,.. ~ I } T...•y /:• .' +' •~ n y ' its t1~7•;~•+,FS;~a A~. } i, •~' ~' 1 1 Ir• 1 r' ~ . ~ ~l~ ~ - ~S y. ~ ~~ 1 ra ~~1 1• ~1 R 1 1 7 d I I I ~ JI 1. 1 ~• 1 ~ 1~ 1 ~~~ '6 \ T 1 i 1 1 ~~~ I Il t 1 ~ 1 ~ I a~ 1 1 1 ~~ . ~ ~ _ ' U l 1 1 • ~~ 1 f 1 1 ~, 1 1 1 [ 1 1 1 1 ~ • f I 1• •1 1 ,1 J _ ~il .1 f t~ '- ~` , 1 I 1 i~ 1 Q 1 11 I~~I L~~ /~ 1 t i .1 ~~11 i 1 tp~ //~n / 1 1 1' ~ ~~ I 1 1 _ i ,. 1 ~I ~~ )~ d; o ~ ; .' ~ .., ~ ~ -~ r~ 1 0 ~~ ~, . ' .' ~~ ~~ r .. - ., ~ ~ 1 mss: ~iTw,....d 1 ~ ~~~~ ~1 1 1 _~ .~ ~~ , R 1 I 1 II :. 1 1 !-, , , I I W~ Ir if ~ .1 r+. .; i I I.., ~ 'ue; ~ '~ t '•~, ~i 1 i [ ~/ - •I I i 'I i '~ ' i w i I I ; * I %, ~~ / I I ' ~ ~ ~•• Y • ' I '~ ~ . w' 1 ~~l ~ 9 `~ ;'j~ :.~~ ,,. a oc a a c~ z z z a a m m ~- ~~ ~~ W~ Q'-i ~a ~~ ~Q ~;z! z a J LL a w a a m ~1~ ~ ~;~ ,~~ m m '~ L = W~ Q~ t~r~~ ~~ ~Q --- o .~ (S~'~Il''llll~ !i".~~ '~ .....Y.~ oe_ t•:: 40-:'" `~~li , ",, ~.~ ~i~T ,~l i`y ~ ~1"`-ie~~~u try ~ -1- = ~° ~~~ c° ~. - , ~ ~1 ~ ~~~ ~~ z ~ m.,~ ~. - ,.f~; w ~ .:. ~ ~ ~~~ ~ Q ~~,.' L ' , ~ ~'. +++~~~ .l (~ 4 .=,= -- ~ ~ ~ . ~' Q,- _. ~ ~. ~ - ` .._' .. . _. ~, . C 1 ~. o~ ~~ :j;~ ' 1 i "- ~. ~ `~ •. ti ~, . ~~.~ ~!~ . _ ~~ . ,,:,. • ,' • ~ y ~' ' ~~ .Q ' u+n Irsyryt a~ . a 2 ' i ~ ~ •, i t~~ ~~ ~ ' 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ I ~ ~ L `~ . i•p• ~~; +i fir ' •. - .: •=. ..,, -- ~ • - • ~-~T , ; : y. ., . 2 a.. • r r t I ~ • ~ i' ., . fit -'• ;' • f'' . , ., ~ ~ • . •~j. ~ . t 4 /S 3 L „ ~ t ' ~ ~~:: ' ' .. : 1 i ~ r ! ' i~7...; u ~ ' ,~': h ~1 """ ; . III •' . ,,: , 1 ~ . '~ Y. ~ 1 ~ .r , ~~ I. .;, •z . f ,~ ~ i3 ~A : ~`~ ~ ~ ` ~. . y , t 1 ~~ ~ ! I {{''' 'ii .:I ti!; " (i'MI: '-i•.... {..~~. \~ Zit.. .. :,•7 ! ~ , • , 41j' 'A:.T ,.~: :w 1.. Y.. . ' I . Jh ~ f := lc~~ ...... . ~ f,, ~w' ..... i~ ~ •u.~ .. .'. 1,~ . • ... a l~fy ' i. , '/ . .. 1. ,~~' ... . +. '` .~ 1 ''.S~=.Pyy~ '. ..r_,y ~ . t :,f' :I. .Iw' r ~, 1 . e ~~ \~. _ ~ ,. r..~.....~ •, .i,, f. ~~ ' •.. ~~ I~.~I.~~.I.~.11,'.' .~~ " ~ p ~. ~ ~ :rl~a +. ..+ CITY OF DUBLIN Divtslaa oI Naa~n9 5800 Shier-Rigs Road Qr~lia, Oha 43016-1236 bone/1DD: 616-761 ~bS50 Faz: 61~-761566 Fhb Site: www.dabl'm.oh.us RECORD OF ACTION August 20, 1998 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 3. Rezoning Application 98-0242 -Revised Development Text -Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B - Signage - 6335 through 7100 Perimeter Loop Road Location: 25.346 acres located on the north side of Perimeter Loop Road, approximately 370 feet west of Avery-Muirfield Drive. Existing Zoning: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Riverside Hospital Plan). Request: Review and approval of a revised development text under the provisions of Section 153.058 regarding signage. Proposed Use: A sign package for the retail center including a 109 square foot, internally illuminated wall sign for the anchor tenant and other tenant signs. Applicant: Frank S. Bensen III, Manager, Dublin Oaks Limited, 209 East State Street, Columbus, Ohio 43229; represented by Dana G. Rinehart, attorney, 395 East Broad Street, Suite 330, Columbus, Ohio 43215. MOTION: To approve this rezoning application with fQ1u conditions: 1) That all signs in Subarea B be of the same design, materials, and colors as shown in the appropriate exhibits, including maximum sign heights and projecting sign color; 2) That a maximum of seven colors be on the approved sign color palette, subject to staff approval; 3) That the text be revised and approved by staff prior to being scheduled on City Council agenda; and 4) That the text be revised to include the following four changes from the draft dated August 14, 1998: Page 2, Section 3.a: "All signage shall conform to Dublin Sign Code Chapter 1189 except as provided for by this text for Subazea B, and excp~,~provide~i for in the Signag . ri Pri and a~orover_i as part of the Development Phn." "" A~ 8U8MRTgD'1~0 OOtJNCq. "' ~ Page 1 of 2 ~ S FOR MEETING ON ~ DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION August 20, 1998 3. Rezoning Application 98-024Z -Revised Development Text -Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B - Signage - 6335 through 7100 Perimeter Loop Road (Continued) Page 3, Section 3.i.: "No sign shall be painted or posted directly on the surface of any building, wall, or fence except as provided herein oror a. permi P~ tPn nt' main id ntifica ion ign under p~gtaph B.2. of th_e "Signage and Graphics" section of "Sub rea B - Re ail Center" herein. No wall murals shall be allowed. " Page 13, Section A - "Signage and Graphics" Delete the sentence following "Main Identification Signs". Ors Page 13, Section A.1: "A total of two main identification signs shall be permitted, not to exceed 15 feet in height on Perimeter Loop Road, 10 feet 'n height on Per'me Pr Drive, and 19 feet in width, with a maximum each of two sign faces, with a maximum area of 66 square feet per sign face, externally illuminated, with sign base materials matching the retail tenant signage materials and colors. Permitted locaxion for each main identification sigma ~ at the eastern Perimeter Loop Road entrance to the center and ~ at the western Perimeter Drive customer entrance. " * Charles Fraas, Don Casto Organization, agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 6-0. RESULT: This rezoning application was approved. It will be forwarded to City Council with a positive recommendation. STAFF CERTIFICATION hn D. Talentino Planner Page 2 of 2 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -August 20, 1998 Page 9 CASE 3: Rezoning Application 98-024Z -Revised Development Text -Riverside Hospital PCD Subarea B -Signage - 6335 through 7100 Perimeter Loop Road APPLICANT: Dublin Oaks Limited, c/o Frank S. Bensen III, 209 East State Street, Columbus, Ohio 43229; represented by Dana G. Rinehart, attorney, 395 East Broad Street, Suite 330, Columbus, Ohio 43215. REQUEST: Review and approval of a revised development text under the PCD, Planned Commerce District provisions of Section 153.058 regarding signage. The site is 25.346 acres located on the north side of Perimeter Loop Road,. approximately 370 feet west of Avery-Muirfield Drive, and contains a new retail shopping center. [The changes to the text are in the "General Subarea Standards" and "Subarea B - Retail Center" portions. Signage detail drawings will also be added. Other nonsubstantive technical text modifications were included. STAFF CONTACT: John Talentino, Planner. UPDATE: After much discussion, this case was tabled by the Planning Commission at their July 9, 1998 meeting to allow for further review of the Signage issues presented in the memorandum from Mark Ford, Ford Beery Architects,. Inc., dated July 8, 1998. The main issues discussed were: existing Kroger Signage; permitted number and locations(s) of project identity signs; proposed locations of tenant sign heights permitted to exceed 15 feet; awning and projecting sign restrictions; and sign colors. -~ BACKGROUND: The composite plan (including development text) for a mixed use project of 120 acres was approved in 1989. It included a retail site at the center of 28.505 acres. A development plan for the shopping center was approved as the first phase of the overall project on March 14, 1996 by the Planning Commission. Last July, a 109-square-foot wall sign, which exceeds the maximum sign azea allowed by text, was installed for the major tenant (Kroger). Kroger was issued a temporary sign permit with the City's understanding that a development text revision would be pursued. (Refer to the attached letter from Timothy C. Hansley, dated July 22, 1997.) The applicant is seeking now to revise the development text to refine the sign package for the Avery Squaze shopping center. It would permit a 109-square-foot wall sign for the anchor tenant, consistent with the provisions at Perimeter Center, and address other tenant signage in the center. It has been the position of staff and the Planning Commission that the retail centers on both sides of Avery-Muirfield Drive be treated equally regarding aesthetics, signage, landscaping, etc. The Planning and Zoning Commission is to make its recommendation on the proposed development text revision and then forward this application to City Council. It will be scheduled for a public heazing and vote by City Council. Atwo-thirds vote of Council will be required to override a negative recommendation from the Commission, and otherwise the outcome will be determined by a simple majority vote. If approved, the revision will take effect in 30 days. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -August 20, 1998 Page 10 CONSIDERATIONS: • The site is 25.346 acres located on the north side of Perimeter Loop Road, approximately 250 feet west of Avery-Muirfield Drive. The site consists of the entire Subarea B, the retail site, of the Riverside PCD, Planned Commerce District. The retail center of 166,200 square feet is in operation with Kroger as the major tenant. • To the north is undeveloped Subarea A of the Riverside PCD zoned for office uses. To the east are outparcels (Subareas Bl and B2) featuring a combination Wendy's/Tim Horton's restaurant building, and across Avery-Muirfield Drive are several shopping center outparcels which are part of the Perimeter .Center PCD. To he south are undeveloped Subareas C1 and C2 of the Riverside PCD. To the west is undeveloped land zoned R, Rural District. • According to the current text, two types of signs are permitted. The center is entitled to one overall project identity sign (identifying only the name of the shopping center) to be located in Subarea B and not to exceed 50 square feet in area or 15 feet in height. Each shopping center .tenant is entitled to one wall sign limited to one square foot in area for every lineal foot of the building wall (maximum 80 square feet) and a maximum 15 feet in height (standard Code). It would appear that sections of the center are not well served by the 15-foot height limit. • The existing Kroger sign is 109 square feet with a mounting height of 22 feet. It consists of individual can letters in white which spell the name of the store. They are a standard, internally-illuminated design. This sign exceeds the maximum 80-square-foot sign area allowed by Code. Kroger was issued a temporary sign permit last summer with the City's understanding that a development text revision would be pursued. (Refer to the attached letter from Timothy C. Hansley, dated July 22, 1997.) • All proposed changes to the text are in the "General Subarea Standards" and "Subarea B - Retail Center" portions. Signage detail drawings will also be added. Other nonsubstantive technical text modifications ~ were included. Proposed development text revisions for signage: Project identity signs: The revised text proposes two overall project identity signs (identifying only the name of the- shopping center) not to exceed 66 square feet in area or 15 feet in height.. One will be located at the eastern Perimeter Loop entrance to the center, and one at the western Perimeter Drive customer entrance, both within Subarea B. Project identity signs must be installed on a stone base with stone columns featuring decorative caps (as shown in Exhibit submitted to Council on 5/22/97). Wall signs: One 109-square-foot wall sign up to a maximum 22 feet in height for the major tenant (Kroger) is proposed,. as currently in place. It will be permitted to have individual internally-illuminated letters with white plastic faces. All other tenants will be limited to an externally illuminated sign of a common design, of one color selected from a set of seven approved subdued colors, and limited to one square foot in area for every lineal foot of building width (maximum 80 square feet). The height will be a maximum of 15 feet except for the tenant spaces that are architecturally incompatible with this height. Elevations of these locations within the center are attached as permanent exhibits with maximum permitted sign heights for each location noted on the exhibit. There are no sign cabinets or a sign band. The plastic cut-out letters are mounted directly on the face of the building. "" Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -August 20, 1998 Page 11 Projecting signs: One projecting sign per tenant space, limited to three square feet in area, is proposed. Projecting signs will be permitted for tenant spaces with a recessed store front and a covered front walkway. Projecting signs will not be permitted for any other tenant spaces. Projecting signs shall have uniform gold lettering on a background color matching that tenant's wall sign letter color. A detail is included in the exhibits for this application showing size, shape, height and mounting requirements. Colors: One color per tenant sign is permitted from the approved sign color palette for the retail center, which is as follows,. or a compatible color approved by staff: a) Martin-Senour Market Square Tavern Dark Green W85-0620. b) Martin-Senour Palace Arms Red W 1083. c) Martin-Senour Benjamin Powell House Green W85-1089. ~,l Sherwin Willi ms Palais White SW-2429. e) Sherwin Williams Obsidian (Dark Blue) SW2738. f) Sherwin Williams Amethyst SW2703. g) Sherwin Williams Bonfire SW2321. The applicant is proposing to modify the sign color palette by replacing the approved brown color (Martin-Senour William Finnie House Brown W85-0225) with a lighter ivory color (Sherwin Williams Palais White SW-2429). Lighting: With the exception of the major tenant sign, all tenant signs shall be externally-illuminated by gooseneck light fixtures. All fixtures will be of uniform exterior finish and color. • One additional phase of the retail center remains to be built. All signage for this future phase is limited to 15 feet in height, except as shown on the proposed sign detail drawings included with this application, or otherwise approved as part of a text revision (rezoning). • The sign requirements at Peruneter Center are restated here for comparison purposes. The center is entitled to two overall project identity signs (identifying only the name of the shopping center) not to exceed 15 feet in height, 19 feet in width, or 66 square feet in area They shall be externally-illuminated with one to be located on the northeast corner of Avery-Muirfield Drive and Perimeter Loop Road and one at the Perimeter Drive entrance to the retail center. (The developer has opted not to install them, at least for the ..present.) One 109-square-foot wall sign up to a maximum 26 feet in height for the major tenant (Big Bear) is permitted. It is permitted to have individual internally illuminated letters with red plastic faces. All other tenants are limited to one wall sign limited to one square foot in area for every lineal foot of building width (maximum 80 square feet), and a maximum 16 feet in height, externally-illuminated by gooseneck fixtures. Each tenant has one maximum three-square-foot projecting sign. Wall and projecting signs have gold lettering on matching dark backgrounds. Permitted colors coordinate with the storefront and canopy (if any) and are limited generally to: black, navy blue, dark purple, hunter green, and dark burgundy. The specific manufacturer's paint numbers are on file. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The proposed development text revision promotes the equal treatment of retail centers on both sides of Avery-Muirfield Drive regarding signage. A single, larger-than-Code sign is granted - Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -August 20, 1998 Page 12 concurrently with commitment for coordinated tenant signage. The proposal provides for the same size signage for Kroger and Big Bear. It also provides for the same level of other signage, including project identity signs, projecting signs, external illumination by uniform gooseneck fixtures, and a limited color palette. The sign packages are different for the two centers, but they appear to be nearly equal and afford the same level of tenant identification. Staff recommends approval of the revised development text with the following three conditions: Conditions: 1) That all signs in Subarea B be of the same design, materials, and colors as shown in the appropriate exhibits, including maximum sign heights and projecting sign color; 2) That a maximum of seven colors be on the approved sign color palette, subject to staff approval; and 3) That the text be revised and approved by staff prior to being scheduled on City Council agenda; Bases: 1) The proposal includes well-articulated signage which becomes a binding part of the PCD zoning. 2) The proposal conforms to the PCD requirements. 3) The proposed text revision provides for standards that are equivalent to those required under the Perimeter Center PCD text. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 20, 1998 Page 9 10) That the plan be re ised to incorporate Avery Road right-of- ay consistent with th S Consultants ali ment study, and th an easement and ri t-of--way dedication at be submitted pri to construction. Mr. McCash nded, and the vote as as follows: Mr. F' man, yes; Mr. Spra e, yes;, Mr. Peplow, y ; Mr. Lecklider, yes, r. McCash, yes; an Mr. Eastep, yes. (A roved 6-0.) ~C 3. Rezoning Application 98-024Z -Revised Development Text -Riverside Hospital PCD, ~ `' Subarea B - Signage - 6335 through 7100 Perimeter Loop Road John Talentino presented this revised development text regarding signage. He said Ford/Berry Architects submitted it at the July meeting and staff has reviewed it. The main issues were the existing Kroger sign, the permitted number and locations of project identity signs, locations of the tenant signs that will exceed 15 feet, awning and projecting sign restrictions, and sign colors. Mr. Talentino showed slides. Mr. Talentino said the Kroger sign is 109 square feet, mounted at 22 feet high. However, the existing text only permits 80 square feet at a 15 foot height. The Kroger sign was granted a temporary permit, with the agreement that the applicant pursue a text revision. Also included in the text are projecting signs for tenants located under the covered walkway and recessed off the street. The Drug Emporium sign is to be mounted on the brick building exterior, and the existing color palette provides very little contrast. Anew beige color (Sherwin Williams Palais White SW- 2429) is added to solve this, and an existing brown (Martin-Senour: William Finnie House Brown W85-0225) is being deleted from the color palette. He said this brown color has not been used by any of the center's tenants to date, and so there should be no adverse affect from removing it. Mr. Talentino said the intent is to provide equivalent treatment for Avery Square and Perimeter Center. They have similar commitments, restrictions, and sign packages. Staff has worked with the applicant on the proposed text revisions. There is agreement on the clarifications included in the proposed development text. Several sign criteria of the approved development plan are being retained. They could be changed by approval of a revised development plan, rather than a rezoning. Mr. Talentino said wall murals will continue to be prohibited. He said there could be two development identification signs for the shopping center, the locations for which are specified in the text. They are not required. Staff recommends approval with three conditions: 1) That all signs in Subarea B be of the same design, materials, and colors as shown in the appropriate exhibits, including maximum sign heights and projecting sign color; 2) That a maxunum of seven colors be on the approved sign color palette, subject to staff approval; and 3) That the text be revised and approved by staff prior to being scheduled on City Council agenda. Mr. McCash questioned the permissible sign locations for Wendy's restaurant. The text permits outparcel uses to have a sign facing Avery and one facing "the internal access road on the west - side." Its sign faces Avery-Muirfield and Perimeter Loop, not the access drive behind the store. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 20, 1998 Page 10 He wanted this researched and for the text to accurately reflect the permissible sign locations. Mark Ford, Ford/Berry Architects, suggested that originally, there was no service road shown behind the outlots on the approved plan. He thought that reference was really to Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road. Mr. McCash noted that text page 13, A2, addresses the proportion of the sign base to sign face. The width in section Al should be limited to 15 feet. Mr. Talentino said this allows flexibility for a future sign request through a revised development plan. The intent is to keep both centers equivalent. Mr. McCash suggested referencing the sign elevation that was submitted. Regarding the background color for projecting signs, Mr. Talentino said-these pieces will all match for each tenant, but not all tenants will use the same color. All awnings have white stripes with one of several pre-approved colors as the background. Mr. McCash said that striped awnings make awning signs unlikely, because they would be illegible. On page 16, the setbacks are being changed for Subarea B-1 but not for B-2. This reflects the setbacks for the Wendy's site. The building area was shifted westward (increasing the right-of- way and front setback on Avery-Muirfield Drive, and decreasing the rear setback behind the outparcels). Mr. McCash suggested applying this to Subarea B-2 as well. Mr. McCash suggested attaching the signage criteria from the approved development plan as an exhibit because it would consolidate the sign information. The applicant wants to retain the right to request signage changes over time without having to rezone the site. Mr. Talentino said this document should not be binding, but could be attached as an example. He said it is very detailed, ~ including such things as letter height. Charlie Frans, Don Casto Organization, requested that the signage criteria remain separate because it contains detailed information. Currently, it could be changed by getting a development plan amendment through the Planning Commission. He does not want to be required to undergo a rezoning, which is a very lengthy and complex process, due to minor signage changes. He said these details are not included in the text for Perimeter Center. Regarding equivalency of the permissible identification signs for the two shopping centers, Mr. Talentino said staff consulted the Law Director. Staff believes Perimeter Center would be entitled to a center identification sign facing Avery-Muirfield Drive. The site for the identification sign was originally identified in the text and plan, and that site has subsequently been developed with the McDonald's restaurant. The original plan recognized it as an outparcel of Perimeter Center. Therefore, staff believes the circumstances and sign rights are unchanged. Mr. Sprague understood from his discussion with the Law Director that such a sign was unlikely. It would require agreement by McDonald's, and it might interfere with their own sign. Mr. Talentino said the possibility remains. Mr. McCash believes the center's developer negated this location for its sign when the outparcel was sold to McDonald's. It would now be an off-site, non-permissible graphic. There is no formal legal opinion. Such a sign would also look bad. a Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 20, 1998 Page 11 Bridget Kahle said this will be fully researched if, and when, a sign permit is filed. Mr. Fishman wanted a mechanism that would assure that a Perimeter Center sign would never be installed on Avery-Muirfield Drive. Mr. McCash said City Council has the power to eliminate it by initiating such a rezoning, but he thought that was not likely to happen at the present time. Mr. Talentino said the 15-foot height is measured from finished grade minus mounding to the top of the sign. Mr. Lecklider noted the outparcels were substantially regraded and are now at a higher elevation than Avery-Muirfield Drive. Mr. Frans said the rear setback issue was approved by Council for Wendy's, but the text did not reflect the change. Subarea B-2 is not involved because it is owned by Riverside Hospital and is not a party to this rezoning. Subarea B-1 includes both shopping center outparcels. Mr. McCash asked about the text (A1 and A2), the 19-foot width, and the area of the sign base. He asked if pillars created a problem and should be included in the exhibits. Mr. Frans said the signage criteria was approved by the Planning Commission, and the base shown is 15 feet or less. He said no changes from the approval are being requested. The revised text accommodates all of the requested signage. Mr. Frans said this originated with the 109 square foot Kroger sign. Staff then requested several accompanying modifications through the negotiating process. The new, lighter sign color will be compatible with the trim on the buildings. Mr. Fishman thought the new color should not be a bright white color. Mr. Talentino said Drug '~ Emporium had requested alternate colors for its sign because of the lack of contrast with the brick background. Staff thought it was prudent to include all sign issues in one application for the ~" " center. Staff fords the proposed color to be acceptable. Mr. Fishman recalled the discussion about the wet basin and saving the landmark tree. He said the pond area is unattractive and not maintained. The pond needs an aerator and a proper stone edge to make it an attractive feature. Mr. Frans said the developer did. everything required at the development plan. He thought a grass edge was preferred. The water level is low due to a lack of rainfall. The pond is not a germane issue, and he cannot make a commitment to redo the pond. Mr. Frans agreed to take care of the algae and mowing necessary. Mr. Frans said the orientation of the Perimeter Loop Road sign is not decided, but the location is shown. Signage on Avery-Muirfield Drive, although disapproved by Council, would be more important to the developer. This sign on Perimeter Loop Road may not be installed for some time. Mr. Lecklider said the location has potential for sign clutter. On Perimeter Drive, at the northeast corner of the site, the plan indicated a 50 square foot sign only six feet in height. Mark Ford said these dimensions related to the original sign proposal that incorporated stone piers. In discussing the equivalency issues with staff regarding Perimeter Center, a second sign location was determined. Mr. Frans was unsure if the second identification sign will be installed. He ~. ~s~ Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 20, 1998 Page 12 believes this makes both sides of the street more equal. Some of these are advantages for the site, and some are disadvantages. He thinks the proposed text is fair for both centers. Mr. Lecklider said great effort was applied in saving the historic oak tree, and that placement of a 15-foot tall sign in front of it seemed inappropriate. He was concerned about the potential actions of future owners of the center. Mr. Fraas said every detail of the center was thoroughly discussed prior to approval of the development plan three years ago. Mr. Lecklider noted that at a previous meeting, several. citizens spoke about this area being a gateway to the northern residential areas. Mr. Fishman preferred that the second sign be removed from the text if possible. Mr. McCash said in general, he dislikes signs that are 15 feet tall. However, in special cases, they may be okay. This was previously approved. He said the whole center seems to face the wrong direction. The sign location on Perimeter Drive is more appropriate due to the importance of that road. He does not think the sign will detract from the historic oak tree. Mr. Sprague said size is an important factor in signage. He would prefer to tighten up the plan. The sign mass seems too large for the location. The grades were built up. He preferred to resolve the issue by reducing the potential sign size, but he supported the overall proposal. Mr. Peplow agreed with Mr. Sprague. He thanked Mr. McCash for his thorough text review. Mr. F.astep said most residents want to minimize the commercial look of roads in Dublin. He had concern with the magnitude of the sign. He said the Hilton Head area presents a good example of appropriate signage. Signs there are lower than 15 feet, and their businesses are doing well. He preferred lower signage, but did not want to override the previous approvals. Mr. Lecklider appreciated the efforts of all involved. The current text permits one project identity sign, and the proposal is for two signs. He thinks the sign on :Perimeter Drive should be lower. He thought the size and height proposed here indicated more than mere "identification." Mr. Fraas suggested a sign height limit on Perimeter Drive of 12 feet. Mr. Lecklider appreciated the offer, but it was still too tall. Mr. Fraas said the height of the sign will be determined based on the setback from the roadway. Mr. Fraas then offered a 10-foot sign height limit. Mr. Lecklider thought six to eight feet would be more appropriate. Mr. Sprague thought the interpretation of the term "equity" was too narrow. He thought there should be "comparability" between the two centers, which does not include matching every detail. He could support the compromise of ten feet for the sign height offered by Mr. Fraas. .. ' Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 20, 1998 Page 13 Mr. Frans said the Avery Square sign is larger than Perimeter Center's sign, but it is not on Avery-Muirfield Drive. He said this is a property rights issue, and this text is fair to both centers. Mr. Fishman said this a gateway location for Dublin. The Don Casto Organization has done a §:~ great job here, but this center could be sold in the future. He also thought a compromise was in order. Mr. Lecldider said all issues are subject to change. He recalled a controversy over signs for the BP station. The applicant was adamant about the exact green and yellow colors and the BP "shield." That corporation was sold, and the signs will no doubt change now. This developer has done a great job, but his concern is for the future. Mr. McCash said City Council is proposing some Sign Code changes. He thought there should be a relatively even playing field, but there will never be exact equality. Formerly, the Commission approved a 15-foot tall sign. He believes the text presents a reasonable compromise. Mr. Fishman agreed to the ten-foot height as offered by the applicant for the sign on Perimeter Drive. Mr. Peplow agreed as well. Mr. Frans accepted all of the conditions. Mr. McCash moved for approval of the revised development text for signage with four conditions: 1) That all signs in Subarea B be of the same design, materials, and colors as shown in the -r appropriate exhibits, including maximum sign heights and projecting sign color; 2) That a maximum of seven colors be on the approved sign color palette, subject to staff ~, _ approval; 3) -That the text be revised and approved by staff prior to being scheduled on City Council agenda; and 4) That the text be revised to include the following four changes from the draft dated August 14, 1998: Page 2, Section 3.a: "All signage shall conform to Dublin Sign-Code Chapter 1189 except as provided by this text for Subarea B, and except as provided for in the Signag~ Criteria and approved as part of the Development Plan. " Page 3, Section 3.i: "No sign shall be painted or posted directly on the surface of any building, wall, or fence except as provided herein or as permitted as tenant's main identification sign under p~g~ph B.2. of the "Sig~ge and Graphics" section of "Subarrea B -Retail Center" herein. No wall murals shall be allowed. " Page 13, Section A - "Signage and Graphics" Delete the sentence following "Main Identification Signs". Page 13, Section A.1: "A total of two main identification signs shall be permitted, not to exceed 15 feet in height on Perimeter Loop Road and 10 feet in height on Perimeter Drive. and 19 feet in width, with a maximum each of two sign faces, with a maximum area of 66 square feet per sign face, externally illuminated, with sign base materials "'"' matching the retail tenant signage materials and colors. Permitted location for each main at the eastern Perimeter Loop Road .. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -August 20, 1998 Page 14 entrance to the center and !,?~ at the western Perimeter Drive customer entrance. " Mr. Fishman seconded, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr. Peplow, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. F.astep, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; and Mr. McCash, yes. (Approved 6-0.) 4. Rezoning Application 98-053Z -Tuttle Cross' -Homestead Village - 4900 Tutt Crossing Boulevard The applicant requested by letter that this ap tion be postponed until the September 998 meeting. Notices were sent to property o ers. There was no discussion or vote n. 5. Development Plan 98-054D -Tuttle Crossing -Homestead Village - Tuttle Crossing Boulevard The applicant requested letter that this application be postponed til the September 3, 1998 meeting. Notices we sent to property owners. There was no ' cussion or vote taken. 6. Condit' al Use 98-067CU -Riverside Hospital P , Subarea B - BW-3 Grill and Bar - 659 Perimeter Loop Road Chris ermann said this is a request for an outd service area at an existing restaurant within the very Square shopping center. It is conta' in Subarea B of the Riverside Hospital PC , and outdoor seating is a conditional use un r the development text. An outdoor concrete ad next to the building will be used to seat 4 ple. Access will be from inside the restaur .The area is surrounded by a wrought iron ence with two exit-only gates. He presented several slides of th ea. Mr. Hermann said there will be goosen light fixtures. The storefront system on th' Want space has a dark appearance from the terior and does not match the rest of the cen An 80 percent opacity blind has been ins ed on the interior that causes the difference in pearance. Staff recommends modifying the orefront so that the entire center maintains a c intent appearance. He said the s pping center will occupy nearly 225, square feet when fully constructed. Approxima 47,000 square feet remain to be built, ' ding an expansion of the grocery store. This ou r patio will add 2,000 square feet to a 7,000 square foot restaurant. The patio require 11 additional parking spaces and th nter currently has eight spaces over the full requ' ement. When the future shopping nter expansions occur, there will be a three-space sh fall. That will have to be alle ' ted at that time by adding parking, restriping, etc. Currently, based on square footage a shopping center exceeds the required parking. +•~r Umbrellas with a striped fabri unilar to the awnings will be used. They will not have logos or advertising. The tables ' 1 be permanently fixed. The chairs and umbrellas will be stored ExHBrr ~ o ~~ ~ ~ ~ . m. o ~ «~ N ~ ~ ~ s ~ . 3 ~- v4 vNn ~ R P03T RD I ' ', fTE 0 Ct ~ DR _~ ~~ D~ 0 ~ ,~ ~ o ~~~~ ~, I I~ ~ I ~' ~, ~ntA~toit tip ~; `"" ~ Revised Development Test ~ ~ t 6335-7100 Pew ~r Loop p Road R ~:-: R- ~ '' j - _ PLR z ~P.1.S-~ Pu PL R- TP R o R-2 ~" Puo ~vv • R-4 p QVO R-2 u PUD • . +~ ~ ' o R_, Ra P• R POS D EXTE PlR p~; t ~ ~ ~ •o QCD P EXTENSION • ~j-~ Ll \, 9 LOOP ' SR 16.1 ~,~, l ~_ ~~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ x - ~ R • ~ ~tI zc R - ~L I S o. RI ~~ ~ R1 RI R _ R R a- ~ ' ~~ a•~a ~ .. ' PIP PVC PL-R '~ • P ' so \_.. EU pLR a •-1 Aµl1N R~ 6 ~ R~'~2 ~ • Nc C~ .. a-' • -> Nonc 98-0242 ~. Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road - `",~ ~_ R.16 Scam i"= 2001' «. 1. . , .~ -~7(r .~ (/ .~ ,~ ti s: ilti ~ fit. ~. 1. . ~ •r- ~1 . ~ • •~~ ~ .~ R/I/ERSIDE PCD Sub Area P/an 98-024Z Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road LOCATIONS WITH TENANT SIGN HEIGHTS PERMITTED TO EXCEED 15 FEET (Refer to Exhibits) Sign Location 3 ~..~a wM. ~«. ~~ >~ 98-024Z '"" Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea g >3azBgng `Q~d [g~I~H aPlsiaeRI ;acay ;naiudoja~aQ pas~~ag ZtiZO-86 ; :, . •_• •_ 0 .. .. ._.~, r~, IE~'1';' f'a Ir ~t •, .,.: r . ~~ ~ ~ ,i. _ .. •• X ~ 3 •• • c ' • ••~ ('• . 3 . . •. , • l• ~ 4 m N N , ;r . ••• ~-, .. t''T~~ t~ ~~ .. ,~ •~ `i. v ., ~~~~~~ ~' - . M ~-a ~. ,- - ~ . ~,..,r, • • • 1. •!• '•! '. ~ • ~• t ? l •• r .. + . t ~}..y . i .~~~ ~ L T.i-• S L 1 ~'t~~ ' ~1 l~tf . .• ~ i t t '~ • ; ... . ........ •~ ~ r. ~ .t : ~:. ,- -i ~~ ~ .fir ~ . ~... .~ ~.. , ~~ • ~... --+- .: W }1 c i ~~: l i s f t r t M i •~•. •. 1/ 1~1• /...•.•t .,... • i ~ ~ ..~ 1 ~ i ~ ~t ~• .~ • ........ • ,..... i `ti• ~ ~ ~~ S tF ._... i ,.. ~ . •• i.t! ~ t w •• • ~t•: i .~ • • ` • r... ~ ~ ..~ s ~:,l1r • N • • i 4~ ~...~1• • ' ~ t 't •1 ~l~..4 it .;~:••• ~ ..• ~ ; ~y,., . r i • ~ . , • ~• 1~;• it }}.. • • • • • f~y x~• ~-f ~ ~_ Z 0 D _~ O Z g garngns `Q~d Ig31~H aPI~"I?I ;aca,L ;uamdoia~aQ pas~eag ZtiZO-86 ~C 3 c ~' 2 m ~' N 0 a3 ~_ z r O n O z N ..w g ea.~gns `Q:~ ig;I~H aPI~a~I2I ;xai, ;uauidoiaeaQ pasZ~ag ZtiZO-86 3 c 3 m m' ro 4 ~_ Z r O n ~_ O z w .. .:~ S g~QnS `Q~d I~I~H aPI~~I?I ~acas ;uawdoia~aQ pas~~ag ZtiZO-86 3 c 3 N m cfl - Mj• W s ~_ Z r O C~ 0 z ~ ~ i i i is 6R~f'HIG ~ AREA- b6 S.P. ~ M~4XIMUM ~ i O i ~ ~ ~ L-------------~--~ GENTER IDENTIFIG,4TION 15'-2" EXHIBIT A PAGE 1 OF 2 - 51GN G~4BINET .GUT. STONE STONE BRIGK YV~TERTaSLE STONE 98-024Z Revised Development Text Riverside Hosp. PCD, Subarea H ro= ~~ .•, ~ . -_ - ~~,~ ...l ...~ ..... ~ ~ . . - __ - ~'~ ~C.~ ~~ hu f yL ~' ;ti ~~~ ~. ~. Dt?UBLE FACED SIGt1[ 7/4" _ 't' CULORS: FACE • PMS 453 CHARCOAL GRAY GRAPHICS • WHITE BRIGHT MAP.GOLD'OUTUNES HEAVY BORDER -BRIGHT MAP GOLD W/ CENTERLINE PAINTED CHARCOAL GRAY EXMtBIT A PACE 2 OF 2 98-024Z "~ Revised Development Text Riverside Hosp. PCD, Subarea H S . , ~ : ~,. . ~~3. , , ~, ,.;,~. . ,, ~. . ;~ r'~s.'~ ~` :: ! ~~' ~, ~~c ,' .; ~; .. ~ _ ~~ t~ ~~ i I_ ~~~ ~ .~ R ~1 '. f ,a ~~ ~ i ! f~ ~~. ~ ~ .~ ~ ., .. 1- ~~ • ~•_ , ±~. II~~~~~ `~~ a~ ';\ 98-024Z • Revised Development Text ' Riverside Hncn. P(`n C\1hAmA u 07/!S/97 IgED 06: d8 FA7C 614 889 0740 w n' u>• n[~tc[,tn July 22,1997 CITY OF DUBLIN +~~ DEV-UP QJOOY , ot~ae ~f t6e Gr7.Mo~a ~ a t 1VIr. Dana G. Itiunehart oauua.~soo .Attorney at Law "~ i~ --- _-- -_Rinehart Howarth Rishel & Kopeck 395 B. Broad Street Suite 330 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Re: Kroger/Avery Square Dear Buck: This letter will serve to con5mn that I have been made aware of the problem involving the . Kroger sign It is my understanding that the Kroger Co. Inadvertently ordered a sign that is somewhat larger than provided for in the Avery Square. It is my understanding that your client could not reorder a different sign and have it ready for the grand opening of the store. It is also my understanding that your position would be that you would like to seek a variance on this sign and/or seek a modification of the zoning in order to permit the sign to remain as presently configured. Therefore, in my role as City Manager, please be advised that you will be permitted to install the signs that you presently have which is 109 square feet, rather than the 80 sgwue foot sign under what I would deem a provisional basis. Please work with the Law Director to either seek a variance, modification in the sign codeand/or an administrative solution to this matter over the next six months. I will notify staffof my position and we will iuove on this matter promptly. Sincerely, Timothy C. Hensley City Manager TCIi/mc c: IL. Hehaig B. Clarke 98-0242 Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road ~~» #~~ Sd00 Skier R1nps Road DabDq, OH 13016-1236 lione/IDD: 611/~61~6SS0 Fay 611/161.6506 February 7, 1996 Mayor Chuck Kranstuber and Dublin City Council 6665 Coffman Road Dublin, Ohio 43017 Re: Avery-Muirfield Drive/U.S. 33 Interchange Site acquisition concerns Dear Mayor Kranstuber and Members of City Council The Planning and Zoning Commission is appointed by City Council, in part, to provide guidance r with regard to development of the community and to make recommendations regarding Dublin's future. At this juncture, the Commission is prompted to underscore with City Council the importance of the Avery-Muirfield Drive interchange at U.S. 33 in Dublin's long term traffic management. The Planning and Zoning Commission has been reviewing the preliminary plat and development plan for a shopping center of 225,000 square. feet located on.28 acres on the west side of Avery- Muirfield Drive. The site is the Riverside Hospital PCD, ' located_ directly across from the Perimeter Center development which is under construction. (Please see attached Record of Action dated January 18, 1996.) ~ This is, of course, only -the first phase of the overall 120-acre development. Roadway improvements are a critical element of the development review and were discussed in great detail at several Commission meetings. The hospital made a commitment, within the context of its 1989 Planned Commerce District zoning approval, regarding the sale of land to the City of Dublin for potential improvements to the U.S. 33/Avery-Muirfield Drive interchange. This agreement permits the City to purchase property from the hospital for ramp improvements to the Avery-Muirfield/U.S.33 interchange, at a price equal to the hospital's cost (originat purchase price plus carrying costs). The Commission notes that this offer expires jar 1. 1997. After that date, the City will be required to pay the fair market value for land needed for interchange improvements. This is expected to be a premium price because the property is commercially zoned and located immediately adjacent to the U.S. 33 interchange. 98-0242 Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin City Council February 7, 1996 Page 2 Staff has informed the Commission that a study of the Avery-Muirfield/U.S. 33 interchange was ~~++ funded by City Council and that a consulting firm has this study underway. The results of the study. are expected to be presented in the very near future. The Planning and Zoning Commission wishes to stress its concern that the City needs to establish an adopted improvement . .:;.. alternative..-for: this interchange, so that the. City-may purchase. the-needed .right~f:way :from 'Riverside ~ Hospital, if =required : to -implement `the preferred alternative: -Furthermore, the ::.Commission believes this will be a critical improvement to.Dublia's transportation network. The Commission strongly urges City Council to make the decision to improve -the interchange in the -~~ynearest~possible~~.term--and Ito acquire any `of°~the Riversidehospitalproperty~~which -may be needed, while the purchase price agreement:is -still in effect, prior: to January 1, 1997. ~~ ..The :Commission's concern~° is : much. broader:.than the .Riverside :Hospital-,application ~ currently under review. In addition to other development, the Commission and City Council have participated in the. creation of about 1,000 lots in the area to the west of Avery Road in only the last few :years. This new housing .will -feed. its traffic. directly into :the .Avery-Muirfield interchange, -and this new area of development has only just begun. The delays at the interchange are.beginning to escalate, and the Commission believes that swift action is indicated. - The Commission formally urges Dublin City Council to objectively evaluate interchange improvement scenarios, and to undertake acquisition of all property for interchange improvements, and if any is needed from Riverside hospital, that its purchase be consummated -before -the end of the 1996. calendar year. On behalf of the rest of the Commission, I thank you for your careful consideration of this important issue. Respectfully submitted, Marilee Chinnici-Zuerch ,Chair Dublin..Planning and.: Zoning Commission MCZ/bmc/laf cc: ''City Council members Planning Commission members Ben Hale T. Foegler B. Kinds R. Bowman B. Clarke ~/ 98-0242 Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-100 Perimeter Loop Road :1'rl' off nua1.1N Otvtsioo ~f Plaaaiaq seoo s~-fi~ iieod ;~A, Ohio 43016-1 Y36 eA/fDD: 614.161.6SS0 fa~c 614.161.6566 Site: wwMrdubGn.oh.us DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION July 9, 1998 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Rezoning Application 98-024Z -Revised Development Text -Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B - Signage - 6335 through 7100 Perimeter Loop Road Location: 25.346 acres located on the north side of Perimeter Loop Road, approximately 370 feet west of Avery-Muirfield Drive. Existing Zoning: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Riverside Hospital Plan). Request: Review and approval of a revised development text under the provisions of Section 153.058 regazding signage. Proposed Use: A sign package for the retail center including a 109 squaze foot, internally illuminated wall sign for the anchor tenant and other tenant signs. Applicant: Dublin .Oaks Limited, c%. Frank. S. Bensen III, Manager, .209 East State Street, Columbus, Ohio 43229; represented by Dana G. Rinehart, attorney, 395 East Broad Street, Suite 330, Columbus, Ohio 43215. MOTION: To table this rezoning application. VOTE: 4-3. RESULT: After much discussion, this application was tabled until a later date to allow the Commissioners and staff to further review the signage issues presented in the memorandum from Mark Ford, Ford-Beery Architects, Inc., dated July 8, 1998 and distributed at the meeting. STAFF CERTIFICATION J D. Talentino Planner 98-0242 ,,. Revised Development Teat Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -July 9, 1998 Page 2 r. Sprague ma a motion to prove the June , 1998 meetin minutes; Mr. Cash seconded. vote was as llows: Mr. tep, yes; Mr Harian, yes; r. Lecklider, y ; Mr. Peplow, yes Mr. Fishman, abstain; Mr. cCash, yes; a d Mr. Sprague, yes. (Approv 6-0-1) Mr. prague made motion to ap ove the June 1998 meetin minutes with rections to page changing the ferences fro "Mr. Lecklide " to "Mr. Spra ue"; Mr. Eastep seconded. The v to was as foil ws: Mr. H 'an, yes; Mr. klider, absta ; Mr. Peplow, es; Mr. Fish ,abstain; Mr. cCash, yes; r. F.astep, yes; d Mr. Sprag ,yes. (Approv 5-0-2) Mr. der announcxd t the Indian dge rezoning lication (97-15 )has been until the J ly 16 meeting. He also not there is an 11: p.m. meeting ut-off rule. 1. Rezoning Application 98-024Z -Revised-Development Text -Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B, Signage - 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road John Talentino presented this revised development text regarding signage for Avery Square. The composite plan was approved in 1989, and the development plan for the shopping center was approved in 1996. In July 1997, the Kroger sign was installed which is 109 square feet in area (29 square feet too large) under a temporary sign permit. Ix was understood that an approved text revision is needed before the sign can be permanent. Staff wants to keep the signage equal on both sides of Avery-Muirfield Drive. Mr. Talentiao showed various slides. The proposed text would legalize the Kroger sign and allow two shopping center signs; at the Perimeter Loop Road and Perimeter Drive entrances. The existing text allows only one entrance sign, but two would conform with the Perimeter Center text. Sign colors have been revised `to replace brown with an ivory shade, providing a better '~ contrast with the background. All signs will be externally illuminated by gooseneck fixtures except the Big Bear sign. There will be pedestrian-oriented signs with similar size, standard lettering, and colors, as specified in the text. Mr. Talentino said the proposed revisions create comparable treatment for the two competing centers on Avery-Muirfield Drive. The text provides for the same size ignage for Kroger and Big Bear and similar treatment for all tenants. Staff is recommending approval of the revised development text with following conditions: 1) That all signs in Subarea B be of the same design, materials, and colors as shown in the appropriate exhibits, including maximum sign heights and projecting sign color; 2) That a maximum of seven colors be on the approved sign color palette, subject to staff approval; and 3) That the text be revised and approved by staff prior to being scheduled on City Council agenda. Mr. Talentino said a memorandum from Dublin Oaks Limited recently arrived requesting revisions. Staff has not had an opportunity to review the comments fully. [Memorandum copies were distributed.] 98-024Z Revised Development Text ~' Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perimeter Loon Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -July 9, 1998 Page 3 George Peplow asked about store fronts for which signs higher than 15 feet aze requested. These were shown in the slides, and 15 feet falls in the middle of some of the taller windows. Mr. Peplow noted the Kroger sign was inadvertently installed to match the size of the Big Beaz sign. Jim Sprague asked if the Perimeter Center or Avery Squaze PCD text was adopted first. Bobbie Clazke said they were discussed together at several meetings in 1989. The Perimeter Center text was fast by a month or two and assumed the retail center would be an upscale internal retail mall. A few yeazs later, that text was revised to permit an azchitecturally coordinated strip center. ~.Mr..Sprague asked,about;the Kroger sign. Mr. Talentino said~thatcurrently, the permitted size :. is 80 square feet, and the existing signis 109 squaze feet.: The height is 22 feet, and the. current text only permits 15 feet. Mr. Sprague thought it should be explained to who is involved in the - text revision.:..It.seems that there is one applicant with several..involved parties. Mr. Fishman said the Big Bear landscaping seems much heavier than Kroger's. He wondered if it exceeds-the Code. Ms. Clazke said the Perimeter Center. landscaping is a few yeazs older, -but she thought both centers meet Code without exceeding it, except for entry features, etc. Both have big pazking lots, therefore, to meet the Code will require many trees. Mr. Fishman asked if both parking lots have the same amount of grass azound them. Big Bear appeazs to have more greenspace. Mary Newcomb said much effort was taken at here to get the pazking lot trees and the azea consistent with the Perimeter Center overall greenspace. Mr. Talentino said a sign height of 15 feet refers to the top of the sign. Mr. Hazian asked what the new sign height will be for the non-conforming areas. Mr. Talentino said there are elevations attached to the text revision showing these azeas individually. Kroger's will be 22 feet high. ,~ Tom McCash asked about entry feature signs. Previously there was only one sign approved at the Perimeter Loop entrance. Mr. Talentino agreed. Mr. McCash said Council turned down a sign along Avery-Muirfield Drive due to size. Now two sign locations. are requested. Mr. McCash asked how many tenants at Perimeter Center use awning signs. Ms. Clarke said the awning signs -.:are pedestrian-oriented, as part of the architectural package, but-none aze in use.:: Staff supports .this type of subdued on-site identification .for tenants.. This is not .the-.same as :having several illuminated sign boxes, although several signs:per tenant aze~permitted..She said=awnings with aenant-messages flf some- type were uses historically installed on older buildings. - Mr. Talentino said the current text for Avery Square allows one shopping center sign, and the .Perimeter ..text permits wo -such ~ signs. Mr. Lecklider asked if Perimeter Center could install a shopping center sign on Avery-Muirfield Drive. Mr. McCash said this would be prohibited as an ~ off-site graphic. sign. Mitch Banchefsky. said such a sign was always contemplated, and he would like an opportunity to review the text. He does not want to leave the Commission with the impression that no such sign is possible. Dana G. Rinehart, attorney for Kroger, said their sign is six inches higher than allowed by the coning text. He said this was an inadvertent mistake, but the Kroger sign is smaller than the Big ,~- . Beaz sign. The sign was ordered a few days before the store opened, and when it was discovered 98-0242 Revised Development Teat Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B G~lR~ ~/1M ~ari.w~s~s~ T Mn ~Aaf~ Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -July 9, 1998 Page 4 it was slightly larger than permitted, they called the City, asking for direction. They were allowed to go ahead with the opening and put the sign up with the understanding that they would return to the Commission for revision of the zoning text. Kroger apologizes for the size error and would like to keep the current sign. Charlie Frans, Don Casto Organization, also represented the applicant. After receiving the staff report, they realized that staff had initiated certain changes .which benefit the developer, but were not requested by the applicant. The attempt to duplicate the Perimeter Center text was initiated . ~ by. staff: The memorandum distributed requests minor. changes regarding the monument sign. Their biggest concern was-that their signage rights would be given up to achieve equality with ..Perimeter Center signage. He -said the Casto Organization knew Kroger would need to pursue a rezoning for a larger sign, .and they support that effort. He said. staff. support .has been great. He would like .the clarification in the memorandum from :-Mark Ford added to the record. [Memorandum attached to minutes.] Mr. Frans said -the new-text refers to one monument sign in one place, and a second reference is made later to two signs. The text should be consistent. They did not request awning signs but will accept awning signs as an option. They would like the "blade" signs to be optional because tenants are responsible for their own signage. They have no problem with the ivory color chosen. They would like Section F if okayed by Kroger.- In section G, .they believe the sign height should be 20 feet, not 18 feet at future anchor A. Section H is anon-issue and clarifies a text inconsistency. He wanted existing language not incorporated as part of the zoning text, dealing with signage criteria, to remain as part of the final development plan. Mr. Frans said the other issues will clean up the record, including the recent setback change. Their biggest issue is the monument- sign. They -will be happy to have this decided at a future point. They would like the second shopping center sign to be located at the western customer entrance, not the western service drive: Mr. Frans suggested that the Ford Beery report could be incorporated into the text. Roger Eastep asked about timing. Ms. Clarke said this is not delaying anything at the shopping center. George Peplow said that the memorandum makes:references`.to a~ text:,not~.before .the Commission. ~~Mr: Peplow wanted assurance no action ~would° be taken against Kroger. Ms. Clarke said the Kroger temporary sign permit required they to follow up with a text revision. She said the sign will stay in place until the disposition of the rezoning paperwork. Warren,Fishman suggested that Kroger be permitted to .have .its sign; that future monument signs be permitted, '(but not on ~ Avery-Muirfield Drive); and that the- awning .sign .language be eliminated. Mr. Harian agreed. Mr. Frans said his center has been pressured to do things following the Perimeter Center pattern. He wanted the same rights to awning signs, if possible. Tom McCash noted the retail center is Subarea B. Mary Newcomb said Subareas B-1 and B-2 are outparoels along Avery-Muirfield Drive. Mr. McCash said Item lA of the Ford Beery memo that Item H in the Ford letter Heads to changed to allow two signs in Subarea B. He could support 98-024Z Revised Development Text ~' Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B fZZi_71M PPrimPtPr Tenn Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -July 9, 1998 Page 5 awning signs consistent with Perimeter Center. The blade signs could be optional. He wanted the paint colors listed in the text also consistent with the Perimeter Center text. He supports the Kroger sign. The additional sign height at the noted location will be architecturally integrated into the building. Mr. McCash said 18 or 20 feet high will be fine. Item B is the biggest problem. Mr. Fraas said there is some compromise here, and they will go through a two step process if necessary. :Tim Lecklider was not comfortable voting tonight. He would like an answer about the ability of ..Perimeter.Centerao have align on .Avery-Muirfield Drive. He wanted staff to review•the~recent .memorandum for consistency with Perimeter Center. Sign height may be an issue near the historic tree. - He >preferred tabling. Mr. Lecklider asked if tabling would be `a problem for Kroger... Mr. Rinehart said no, unless the sign :will be removed. Mr. Rinehart: suggested there were no issues with the. Kroger proposal, and-he did not think ~he needed to reappear. Mr. McCash would rather act on this case tonight. James Rennard, vice president of the Lowell Trace Civic Association, said both centers are very nice and professionally done, but any type of monument or identification sign that can be observed from the gateway on Avery-Muirfield Drive would be strongly opposed. Mr. Lecklider asked for a straw vote on the issue of tabling. Messrs. Peplow, Eastep, Sprague, and Lecklider favored tabling. Messrs. Harian, Fishman, and Mr. McCash favored voting. Mr. F.astep made a motion to table this rezoning application. Mr. Peplow seconded. The vote was as follows: Mr. Harian, no; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr. Fishman, no; Mr. '~ ' roved 4-3. ) McCash, no; Mr. Peplow, yes; and Mr. Eastep, yes. (App 2. 1~me Exte 'on - Plat 98-07 -Westbury uzanne Wingenf ld presented this time extension or the Westb preliminary pl t, containing 44 acres. The 1 1> acres within in County ere rezoned in une .1995, and a 23 acres ' UnionCounty w .rezoned in 1996. The. reliminary plat or :121_:acres w approved b City Council in ember of 199 . A subsequen minor revision.. the: prelim plat was roved by City Co it in January 1 .The prel' plat for theacres in Uni .County approved by the ommission, D tuber 1995 an by Council, ch 1996. Ms. Wingenfield said the Code states t a prelim' plat expires o years after uncil app val, unless the Co ion grants extension. Al ough the plat is fficially expir this is a equest for a tim extension. Th Commission either appro a or disapprov the extens on, but this is not a lat amendment. She showed se eral slides of th area. The pro rty contai 144 acres in F in and Unio counties. Th Edwards prope (an acre) is of includ in the Westbury s ivision. The house w' have access from new subdivisi street. ~,,,$ , 98-0242 Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road 1'Y OF DUBLIN '`-~ ~ o; Ohio 43016-1236 ~1DD: 614.161.6550 Fmc 614.161.6566 .N: www.duhGn.ah.us DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION May 7, 1998 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Rezoning Application 98-024Z -Revised Development Text -Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B -Signage - 6335 through 7100 Perimeter Loop Road Location: 25.346 acres located on the north side of Perimeter Loop Road, approximately 370 feet west of Avery-Muirfield Drive. Existing Zoning: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Riverside Hospital Plan). Request: Review and approval of. a revised development text under the provisions of Section 153.058 regarding Signage. Propc>Sed Use: A sign package for the retail center including a 109 squaze foot, internally illuminated wall sign for the anchor tenant and other tenant signs. Applicant/Owner: Dublin Oaks Limited, c/o Frank S. Bensen III, Manager, 209 East .State Street, Columbus, Ohio 43229; represented by Dana G. Rinehart, attorney, 395 East Broad Street, Suite 330, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: John D. Talentino, Planner. MOTION: To table this application as requested by the- Law Director. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: This application was tabled for 30 days. STAFF CERTIFICATION Barbara M. Clazke Planning Director 98-0242 Revised Development Tent ~' Riverside Hosp. PCD, Subarea H SPECIAL MEL"I~G DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMIVIISSION RECORD OF ACTION SEPTEMBER 21, 1995 TY OF DUI3L[N Sl00 Sher Rhgs Rand Oe6Yq, .01(43016-1436 e>•/(00: 614/1616350 fi~c 614/161.6506 . The Planning ~ and ZoningCommission took the following action;~at~ its %special~:meetingr ~ - 3. Preliminary Plat and Development Plan-;Rlverslde~ospital PCD -Retail Subareas . : --: Location:.25:346~.:acres .,and, 3:159 acres located on the west side of Avery Road, approximately X600 feet south of Post Road. Existing Zoning: PCD, Planned. Commerce District (Riverside Hospital Plan). Request: - .Review. and approval of .the preliminary. plat. under the provisions of Section 1103 and of the development plan under the provisions of Section 1181.07 of the Planning and Zoning Code. Proposed Use: Extension of Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road to the west of Avery Road and construction of a 230,000 square foot retail center. Applicants; Lucas Land Development c% Don Canto Organization, 209 East Town Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215 and Hospital Properties, Inc. c/o Frank T. Pandora II, '"' 3535 ~Olentangy River .Road, Columbus, Ohio 43214 represented by Ben W. Hale, 7r., Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4199. - "~~ Staff Contact: ~Barbara~ M. Clarke, Planning Director. MOTION: To table this .preliminary plat and development plan. VOTE: 5-0-1. ...RESULT: This preliminary .plat-::and ..development.:plan«=was~~abled :as - requested ~ by the applicant to permit.the following issues to be addressed: 1) .That .the preliminary. storm water master plan .be modified to .indicate committed pond .designs, ~ not theoretical °pond areas; 2) ....That .the.City -Engineer: and. the .applicant's traffic. engineers come to consensus oa what level of traffic improvements are na:essary for this development and provide recommendations for roadway improvements, including left turn storage lengths, location of driveways, and recommendations for traffic signal improvements and lane assignments at intersections; Page 1 of 2 98-0242 "~"" ~ Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road SPECIAL MEETING DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMIVIISSION RECORD~OF ACTION SEPTI;MMBER 21, 1995 3. Preliminary Plat and Development Plan -Riverside Hospital PCD -Retail Subareas (Cont.) ..:,...,,3).:...,.That,;consensus;isreached>on:;the proge~:.exteusion and~:al~gnment of.P.erimeter:-Drive:and -: X=- ~ ~ _:~~~~~~~~ - .Perimeter Loop Road through this and the adjacent property, .including Phasing Plan for ' roadway construction; 4) That architecture for the. outparcels be determined and :coordinated with ..the center; ~ 'That. signage treatment be resolved; ~ That.pmper screening of the servicearea, and-.views_along ~the.public treets be better incorporated into the design; 'n That the design of the center- include -more pedestrian amenities and appear less like a conventional L-shaped shopping center; and 8) That the plan include provisions for a pedestrian and bikeway system. STAFF CERTIFICATION _~ ~ Barbara M. Clarke Planning Director Page 2 of 2 98-U24Z Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea I 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -September 21, 1995 Page 2 CASE 3: Preliminary Plat and Development Plan -Riverside Hospital PCD -Retail Subareas .~ Bobbie Clarlae presented this case which was carried forward from the Septem r 7, 1 5 .. ; :meeting. • This land ~ was rezoned in :early 1989. The plan called for ,a new.: set : ofmedical _ facilities along SR 33, a retail .center in the middle of the site, and thirty acres. at .the northern .. °,~end~~'~abutting~Post:kRoad for office uses. 'The<~service ~of the site; (where'the wads- are'~to'°be ~ -~ , ~~'''" ;: constructed, :the width_.of those.roads, theoveerall improvements to be.putinto~:plaee,~where the ~ ~_ - .-site.drains;~how~the-overall storm drainage will be handled, need to be discussed as part of the _ : ' ,:~, preliminary .plat. Ms.: Clarke:.said the plans:for: the shopping center.4had~been:submitted-~y°the~applic~nt which .involves the: development of. the. center of the. -site, for 230,.000 square _ feet=of :retail use on X28.5 acres.. The site has access: from both .Perimeter Drive and Perimeter. Loop, both of which .will :be extended to the west of~Avery Road. There is a large landmarkoak-tree in the center of this site along the Perimeter Drive: alignment. The~hospital proposes to extend.Perimeter Loop.as a cul de-sac. The alignment of the extension of Perimeter Drive extending beyond this property line into the next property and extending over to reconnect with Post ~ Road needs to be addressed. Perimeter Drive is to ~Y most of the east/west non-freeway traffic to mlieve Post Road from the new trips coming from new development. Many of the same restrictions placed on Perimeter Center were adopted for this site. The outparoels will not have individual access to Avery Muirfield Drive. At the time of zoning the alignment and point of connection with Post Road -were undetermined. A cul de sac was shown :,~..- .at :thatxime-coming;very.-close<to.the~west Propertyaine and Iherewere:discussions<as Itowhether •. ~ i~: it might service the property to the west. That was not determined at the rezoning either. It was deferred to the preliminary plat. Ms: Clarlae said another-issue then was the possibility~of~anfreeway~np~or:southbound Avery traffic to head westbound on US 33. Currently~~i1-southbound ~aocess:{miquired a left turn, which in turn interferes with. Avery's north/southm+ovemeat;One>~ahe:~unga to :be~ addressed shortly: is-engineering design for US ~ 33~ interchange improvements. `The Avery Road bridge is the "choloe" point now. Ms. Clarke said. obviously, that overpass had implications for new freeway ramps which is an issue staff will continue to study. The service side of the northerly retail .building proposed faces Perimeter Drive. The staff has ~._ .:..been very~eoncerned about thewlew for moving east/west traffic. The ~developex's ~gineer.has , , . _ .. _,. __:. reported that all the ponds can be made wet or dry, depending upon what seemed to malae the most sense in that particular location. Because staff feels these are areas that need to be heavily saeened, ff the pond is invisible, it probably should be a dry water feature. If that is a possibility, staff has aslaod the applicant to identify correct sites where they would provide good drainage as well as good aesthetics for the overall development of the site. „,~~,, Mr. Sutphen aslaod that the landmark oak tree be located on the slide. Ms. Clarloe said it would ~tf-11L4G RevLsed Development Text .~ Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perhneter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -September 21, 1995 Page 3 be close to the alignment of Perimeter Drive, but actually it is on the site, probably in the middle of the driveway. Ms. Clarke said the rear elevations indicated that the building would have above standard, good looking rear side. ~ The applicant has agreed to do some shifting on the site to avoid the tree. She said the proposal was to build one section of Perimeter Loop and then to build Perimeter Drive just beyond the second driveway, not to the limits of the project. • Staff does not~.want to;get caught up in: detail.issues,auch-.as brick color, signage, etc. at this =time-butthose issuesshould;not~bedgnorcd <~Ms:~~Clarlaeencouraged~ahe Commissionao'provde .~~~ ~"t whatever- feedback they could to the applicant regarding the. architecture. rMs. Clarlae said the:Riverside.Hospital development. text. said. that,the hospitai~.will pmvide the land for, freeway. ramp.impmvement to the City~~t-a~price~thatisequalatoits°.acquisitioa cost its cany-ing. cost since 1989- and that agreement e~cpires :ion ~-April: 1, 1994. - :Thereafter, the City would :pay the.:fair- market value for the land:~~if-~the~City determines :it 3s::appropriate. The conditions of approval as ~ passed by .the Commission :should have amended that text to change .the date to January 1, 1997.. Unfortunately, the paperwork never included the proper date. The text.should read January 1, 1997, -~ April 1, 1994. She said Dublin is currently updating the Community Plan and :will ~have:Barton-Aschman looking at the traffic needs for the overall City, including the need for a new .ramp on this site. Staff has informed the developer that the plan appears to be a very linear. The community has a real need for congregation-type spaces and pedestrian amenities. This was discussed during the Perimeter Center rezoning from a mall to a open-air strip center. The devloper should design spaces that would be special, invisiting to the public, and would actually get used, on the exterior of the building. Ms. Clarlae said this center is predominately brick anchored by a large grocery store. Staff is is supportive of -the general . ambitectural features. All of ~ the signage oa the Perimeter Center site is very: subdued -and has a pedestrian, oriented village feel-~wth the architecture and all the 'way down to the trim~of the~lightposts-and~additional-ching~nd.-hedging;~iQg=ahe fronts of .the. shops.:< :.:,That: signage :Package.Permits ~only~te~standard plastic vinternaliy:~iiuminatsd .sign for Big Bear. All other signage on the site:will;~babigl~lr~controU~d,agc~ldrletteriag~on navy.dark . ~ - ~ .colored~plaques: ~. Staff would,like both sides ~of the ~str~eet -to ~reflect~.the=name-creativity and: feel, without copying everything done at the Perimeter Center site. :.:. ~Staff:.,is;:~recommendingahis:; applicatioa:be stabled,: but . feels -this is ~an important point in the . . overall staging of the process for the Commission to have input to the developer. The following issues need to be addressed further by the developer. i) That the preliminary storm water master plan be modified to indicate committed pond designs, not theoretical pond areas; 2) That the City ]engineer and the applicant's traffic engineers come to consensus on what level of traffic improvements are nccessary for this development and to provide rccommeadations for roadway improvements, including left fora storage lengths, location of driveways, and recommendations for traffic signal improvements and lent assignments ~lif-Ul4G Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perimeter hoop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -September 21, 1995 Page 4 at intersections; 3) That consensus is reached on the proper extension and alignment of Perimeter Drive and ,~~, Perimeter Loop Road through this and the adjacent property, including phasing plan for roadway construction; ,,, 4) That architecture for the outparcels be determined and coordinated with the center; 5) That signage treatment be resolved; . . ~ That proper ; screening ~ of the -service area and views along the public streets be better . - . incorporated into the design; . ~ .: ~ r~ = ~ ; That ~the:-desiga~ ofahe ~ center include .more pedestrian -amenities :and `appear less ~ lla; a , . ` ' : ~ . " '' " conventional Ushaped shopping center, and 8); : .., :That <the ~plaa include provisions : for a pedestrian and bikeway system. .,, . _ _.Ms. Clarlae ~ said the; appropriate location for,Perimeter:,Drive ao ~iate~ect=:theYwest!properiy line and whethex-Perimeter: Loop: should extend to the~west~~property~line~to?provide;possible service for the next properly (BJL.Property aka DublimPlace) need>to.be~determined. Mr. Ferrara asloed if:this development had a identifying name. Ms. Clarke said no. Bea -Hale, Jr., 37 West -Broad Street, Columbus, Ohio, representing -the Don M. Casto :Organization said:.many meetings had been. held..with: Staff.: The<landmark tree has beenlocated aerially, and .they lmow it must be preserved. Mr. Hale said they were following the basic layout of the 1989 zoning. They want to be compatible with the center across the street. Many .changes have been made in response to Staff s concerns. *~ Mark- Ford, Ford Beery Architects, Inc., reviewed the site plan and concept. _ He said the site _. .planfincludes a large anchor, :a grocz=ry. store, which is positioned in the southern quadrant of :.; _,:ahesite.•,Itis them intent=to have all<theservices along the~north.~edge of the~project-and the east boundary.. to the residual Riverside Hospital properties. The two outlots indicated on Avery -..Road will.be compatable.with the architecture.and materials of the-main structure. They. are .. allowed.: one center .identification _sign along Avery Muirfield Drive. Mr. Ford said the main throughfnre through =the aite~s ~ffof;Perimeter.~S~oopaotire south, .which will bisect the site with the major field of.parking::~rre.~sma~er~~irt~meonini~an~chors,.?A,000 ~.. ~:to.30,000•squarefeet, will:be located on the~north~side. °P.ach~outlot~isapproximately l.ti acres. Mr. Ford said there will be a combination of stone .and brick. To address the comments of the ...::..~..ainear.nature. they-have~tried ~to push~the,footprint in and,out: ~ The storefronts: have been pulled ~ ~ `' in and ,out within .the overall-geometry. They also have changed the massingalong that long . ,storefront n orderao create elevational, material, roof pitch, and storefront changes. Within the canopy, the repetitive theme element is the tower with fiat arches. Lanterns on top of :the small hipped-roof towers are also used. When walking down the promenade there will be spaces where the sections will be raised, the ceiling heights will go up, and in some locations the store front actually will go out to the front of the towers so that you cannot pass through them. You will have to go out into the sidewalk, or they will have plantings and benches. This is not depicted on the overall site plan presented to the Commission. They are pnnwsing canvas ~» ~ awnings in spedfic locations throughout the center. The awnings are not intended to be used 98-0242 ,,,~„ Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Stibarea B 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -September 21, 1995 Page 5 as signage, they are primarily to give a more pedestrian breakdown of the scale. They are using more residential scale elements such as the smaller pane windows, the large focal tower, and the way the storefront is depicted underneath the canopy. The grocery will be 75,000 square feet. By using different hip roofs, entrance features, etc., an overlaid appearance will be created that it is not a blank wall. Tuskan columns throughout the center will be at 20 foot intervals through the canopy area. r.:- ~ : ? ~ ~iVlr ,Ford said very specific ovations have been identified for the signage and the awnings: ' The =-roofing :material_is a dark charcoal gray-colored synthetic slate. A very.: araditional palette is :~~proposed- :The brick is the same brick-used at the ICinsburo pmject -north of I 270 =on~ SR 315. It,has.awery.tumbled, -handmade.appearance...It:is .the .developer.'shope:.that::the:large~:octagonal - : ~ focal =piece-: oa -the east -end of-..the center will :beoome$dominant-feature of-~the ~ center and a beacon for it. Mr. _ Ford presented exterior material samples to -the Commission which included the .......manufactured charcoal gray slate, four fabric awnings selections to be used in.groups, brick, and the. manufactured buff ..colored Old Ohio limestone. He .said the storefronts would. be of ~alumisum: He showed exterior trim colors that-had been selected and.a°cutsheet for the`tuskin - .columns.. The- synthetic: stone parapet in the:rear will be raised to screen the rooftop equipment. Mr. Hale said they will try to make an area around the landmark tree where pedestrians can congregate and sit. Dave Tyndall, EMH&T Engineers, said the storm water-moves from south to north. There are three drainage outlets on the site. A .wet pond will be provided in .the northwest corner. The . , ~~: -:-Riverside,Hospital, ite will address.~its own storm water~~drainage at .the time of development - .` ~- Storm water is a concern and they, without further study cannot consider anything but conceptual basins in location, shape, and size. .,Mr: Hale .said ;as thesites . come .in ~ for ~ review; stonm~water~vill~be°~~sedhas ~sair~smenity to- the office building and they would be handled then. Mr. Hale :said the text. stated Perimeter Drive would transition ~ from a five=lane- to a threo-lane road (36-foot). He said staff has asked it to transition farther to the west, and he agrees to do that.: He said the property owner (Lane) to the west wants the Perimeter alignment set. Mr. :::Hale.said,;additional Avery.,Road studies are;.being :made by them.' When Avery Road. was . widened,Riverside Hospital -and the Perimeter Center developer contributed X650,000. The agreement then was if there were future improvements needed, they will be the City's responsibility, not the developers. Mr. Hale thinks the way the ponds are proposed is correct. They cannot be combined into one. If the ramp is consttvcted at the southeast corner, then the pond will be there. The applicant sees the pond with fountains, etc. and part of an amenity with possibly seating around it with the tree worlaod into the area. He mentioned bike racks. Mr. Hale said they knew there were mote issues to address. y~~Z Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 PerLneter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -September 21, 1995 Page 6 Mr. Hale said the engineer asked them to take the five-lane section beyond the second drive and they agreed to do so. '" Mr. Hale said the rear of the center and how it is landscaped also are issues they are working on to addressing. He said they will do an A+ job there. Mr. Peplow aslaod what the smallest retail user size was. Mr. Tindell said it was 1,200 square feet and they were predominately on the north. .Mr..: Sutphen suggested : a bike path was needed,.. even- if.: temporary, to.: connect ~ the retirement - . - home and other residents. Mr. Sutphen pointed-out that the landmark tree would~be aamenity such:as~:the one at Max and P.rma's-:restaurant. IVtr: Hale said. they. realize::that.#he Tree -must be:preseaved:- . Mr.: Sutphen wanted~.all the issues resolved priorao the case being heard `again. He said the centear did. not have to be different architecture from that of Perimeter Center. He wanted this center to look as good. He said the. rear elevation needed more work and would act accept ~~ : -anything on..~the north other than perhaps businesses with partial walkthrus or elevations that.... . looked .like a streetscape. It will .face office and a wall of evergreen trees will act screen it well enough.. Mr: Hale saidthey had considered turning ahe architecture around the corner. Mr. Sutphen said reducing the road from five lanes to three lanes on this property should not be done because the situ is not fully developed out to the next freeway exit. It-has always been ~.... his. thought that road .will carry the traffic .out to the next freeway exit. y ,~ ., ..Mr.~ Fishmanaaid this development had to be at east.as-good, or better than Perimeter Center. He said-the signage was important, it~ had to be at least as mute as those at Perimeter Center. He said-the .bilge path-to the convalescent center is important.. He said the architect had done a good job on the elevations, but the shape of the buildings need to be broken up. It is too -: ainear.: Mr.:~Fishman,wanted.a water feature. ~~He~said~the.:re~ti~on~~basins~~n~the~;back~ should be creatively used as water features. .. _ Mr. Feaarasaid the City .had an: ~bligatioa .to let °the:applicant-lmow~what~isexpected at US . 33/SR 161 because it will impact the design. He said he thoughtthe City had an obligation to the extension of Perimeter, and Mr. Hale's obligation back was to let the City know what .. .mechanisms will.trigger ev He it should ~be constructed full asfive lanes: ~He .. -. erythmg: , agreed ~ y said ,what had been proposed made no .sense. The: City should. have better feedback about, the -bridge -going across US 33. He aslaod ~ if the- study of it~ was on the Five-year Capital Improvement Plan (C1P). Randy Bowman said the Coffman Road overpass was on the Five-year CIP, but not this bridge. Staff will evaluate which bridge structure was needed first. Mr. Ferrara said the walkway between the Convalarium needed to be constructed early because residents will be both customers and employees. The linear elevations should be brolaen up and improved. „~.~ 98~24Z Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -September 21, 1995 Page 7 Mr. Rauh said it was important that the architecture as seen fmm Avery-Muirfield Road did not appear so linear. He said the center seemed very auto-friendly, but it was not pedestrian- friendly. Perhaps some of the smaller stores could be grouped together. He suggested that some of the straight buildings around the parking area could be pulled out 40 feet so the driving lane actually curves. _ Mr. Rauh. aslaed which way the offices off of Post Road would front. Mr.' Hale said they would clearly face Perimeter Drive. He did not oonsides office buildings as having fronts or backs. ,.: ~ Mr.:Rauh~saidthis shopping,center~had.huned itsxback oa~ahe. future office!development-and:~the ~ ~ ` ~ i -; ~ k.:.; . Coavalarium...Mr„Rauh;said the proposal:.was very. commendable and::within=and sensitive~to :~:~how. things:fat+e;-done~:in>Dublin. He said the::ma sing needed to.becoolaed:at,~:the:pede,4triaa +~` access, and the neighbor's view. Mr. Fishman said..staff..had.done an-excellent:job=~f-outlining-the.~issuesy-=~He--wanted water features and thatahe:.development exceed Perimeter-Center in~:appearance. ~:4Mr~Hale=said they had learned from- he °Perimeter Center _experieace to do it right the -first time. Mr. Ferrara. said the center should have amore-welcoming, friendlier feeling than as proposed. Mr.:Sutphen was.concerned about traffic.:He said the road going-north and.where it intersects into Post Road should be identified. He said a lot of traffic will come from Plain City. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked how many stores would be in the north building. Mr. Berry said there would probably be 20-25 stores. There would be smaller users, 60 and 80 foot depths, along .the frontage, a potential. mini anchor of 15,000 square feet, and then smaller stores. The 20-foot bays. might-:be combined into two or three. groups where a tenant may .take 3,600 or 4,800 square feet. The leasing module could:be 20 feet. Ms.:Chinnici-Zuercher said:a.25,000 square ~foot~store would totally change the character. Better knowledge was now needed of the . .tenant pace because of. the: change in the external appearance. Mr. Hale said the building would cot change with the size of tenant space. They will try to vary the store sizes so it feels like a .:walking :street, not ahe ;typical strip.:.Ms. ~ Chimnici„~Zuercher-;said~he~elevations.presented did not let her visualize that. . : Mr.Fishmanasked~whatahe~size>ofPerimeter.Center°was: Ms-Clarke~•estimated.7t~at180,000 ..square feet. Mr. Fishman-said this•center is larger. Mr. Hale said Perimeter Center was over 300,000 -square feet in phases over 35 acres. Ms. Clarke said it started out as a 35 acre site, but office-flex. was approved :for .the back.. side of: it. -Approximately half .the .acreage was removed .from the retail component. Mr. Fishman said this needed to be really creative. Mr. Hale thought it was smaller then Perimeter Center. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher believed many shoppers would come . from the south residential community, not using US 33. The way the north area is addressed in the larger scope really needs to be the entry point. The Northwest Presbyterian Church and the school with residential uses north will be there. Mr. Hale understood. Mr. Rauh said the tower rendering appeared that there was a landmark, but from another 98-0242 Revised Development Text Rivers[de Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -September 21, 1995 Page 8 direction, the tower disappeared. He said the massing was a key. Mr. Rauh asked for a photograph of the tuscan columns. ""~` Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher made the motion that this preliminary plat and development plan be tabled as requested by the applicant to permit the following issues to be addressed: 1) That.the preliminary storm water. master. plan be modified to indicate committed pond ..designs, not theoretical pond areas; .,..2) : ~ .:. ,That-the:City.~:Engineer:-and ~~the,applicant's ~ traffic. engineers ::c;ome -to ~consensus-~ on ~: what ~ ~ ~ . ' level of. ;araffic - improvements ...are necessary for ..this development _ and .provide ;: rec;ommendationsforrondway improvements,: including -left.turnstorageaengths, aocation . -- _ .- _ of driveways, .and. recommendations for traffic. signal improvements and<lane assignments at intersections; 3) -:That~conseasus is reached:.on~•the proper~e~ctension~and alignment~oF;Perimeter:Drive and . Perimeter Loop Road through. this: and the=adjacent property.~~ncludingA::phasing-plan for . roadway construction; 4) That architecture for the outparcels be determined and coordinated with the center; ~ That signage treatment be resolved; ~ ...:That' Proper _ screening of the service area and views along the public streets be better _ . . incorporated into the design; 'n That -the design of the center. include more pedestrian amenities and appear less like a conventional L-shaped shopping center; and 8) That the plan include provisions for a pedestrian and bikeway system. Mr. Fishman seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Mr. Ferrara, yes; Mr. Peplow, yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mr. Rauh, yes; Ms. -Chinnici = Zuercher, yes; .and Mr. Fishman, yes. ('T'abled 6-0.) Mr. Rauh called afive-minute recess. y8-U24Z ~.,, Revised Development Test Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMIVIISSION RECORD OF ACTION TY OF DUBLIN NOVEMBER 2, 1995 s>soo s~ Roan Du6Gq, ON 43016-1236 +N/tOD: 614/161~6SS0 Fa~c 614/161.6506 :The;.Planning and .Zoning Commission -took .the-following. action at.its :'regularly_ scheduled meeting: 2. Preliminary Plat and Development Plan -Riverside Hospital PCD -Retail Subareas Location: 25.346 acres and 3.159 acres located on the west side of Avery Road, approximately 600 feet south of Post Road. E~risting Zoning: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Riverside Hospital Plan). :Request: Review and .approval<of-the preliminary plat under the provisions of Section 1103 and of the development plan under the provisions of Section 1181.07 of the Planning and Zoning Code. Proposed Use: Extension of Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road to the west of Avery Road and construction of a 230,000 square foot retail center. Applicants: Lucas Land Development c/o -Don Canto .Organization, 209 East Town Street, :Columbus, Ohio 43215 and Hospital Properties, Inc. c/o Frank T. Pandora II, 3535 Olentangy River Road, Columbus, .Ohio 43214 represented by Ben W. Hale, 7r., Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4199. Staff Contact: Barbara M. Clarke, Planning Director MOTION: To table this preliminary plat and:developmentplanappli+cation.as-requested by the applicant. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: After much discussion, .this case was tabled. The Commission urged the applicant to further address a number of issues including design of the center, .Perimeter Drive .treatment, .preservation plan, for..landmark tree,. possible :ramp to US 33, pedestrian amenities, signage, and appropriate notes on the plat. STAFF CERTIFICATION 1 / l • ~J~t~/~i Barbara M. Clarlae 98-0242 Planning Director Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B ` 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -November 2, 1995 Page 9 Mr. S hen asked about the erald Pazkway landsca ing and consistency with the already approv section. Ms. Clazke ex fed this to be resole ,but the plant palette has not been replicated. Mr. Sutphen wants it to absolutely coordina and consistent. ~~ Mr. Sutphen 'd that the David Road eighborhood also parts ' fed in a major commercial rezoning pmpo and got the type of b er they wanted. He 'd he thought this should be commercial of o type and not apartmen He thought the R development would have. - been wrong, and th idents said .at that ' :that .they;did :not wan ants either. ,- •- Mr. ~~Peplow mention •that there was ~not?a-~ 'feature: ~Mr. Pis said this developer •~:: . ~Qromiised one .at this si t a .previous hearing, p ferably one -of signifi t size. Mr. Hunter. skid he would work with a staff on this issue. Mr. low expressed conce about traffic, curb cuts, d the Emerald Paz landscaping. He sai ore than just the land ses need to be resolved. Ms. Chinni '-Zuercher -also commen ed the residents on edu ' g themselves and 'cipating. She thought veryone needs to be eard, better plans- are uilt from various in ut and compromise. a urged Mr. Hale to time to. negotiate. -She uggested a subcommi to study these issues ' depth. .Rauh said the Co mission Rules and R ulations require that no coon be taken on any ' ormation that is races ed less than 15 days p 'or to the meeting. rocess may have to slo down a bit to work t the issues. ~" °'' Mr. F said the appli did not present wh er any or all of the nditions were ~~ ., Mr. Hale he always tries to co mmise. He said er negotiation would fruitless without partici lion of the Commissio He said some form multi-family could be ' luded. . .The Southwest Plan.includes.non 'dential ~with_transito al::form, etc.. ,. - -. -~ Ms. Chinnici-Zuerch made a motion to tabl ' ~rezoning;applicaa >Mr:~Sutphen seconded. The vote was as follow •; Mr.:Zawaly, yes; SiFerrara~~yes;~~?' yes• Mr. Peplow, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuerc r, yes; Mr. Rauh, y ,and Mr. Sutphen, y ('Tabled 7-0.) Zawaly -.made a motion. establish a subcom 'flee to work on thi application. Mr. F seconded. Thee su mittee is to be com of Ms. Chinni '-Zuercher, Mr. ~: F' ,- andJohn. Ferrara, and - of its -meetings will and .published . orehand. Mr. Fishman, es; Mr. Peplow, yes; Rauh, yes; Mr. Za yes; Ms. Chinnici- archer, Yes; Mr. F yes; and Mr. Sutphen, (Motion approv 7-0.) 2. Preliminary Plat and Development Plan -Riverside Hospital PCD -Retail Subareas Ms. Clarke presented this combined pmliminary. plat and development plan for about 30 acres ~"~ located on the west side of Avery Road. She said the property has been zoned PCD fora multi- use commercial development for about siu years. The property owner is Riverside Hospital. Y- The central area is zoned for retail uses, and that is the only portion under consideration. It is 9a-OZ4Z ' Rivez~ide Hospital PCD, Subarea B De..i~e.i i1.....J........._.a T..~a ~....- ~..... ~ _ Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -November 2, 1995 Page 10 the first phase for construction. Ms. Clarke said the preliminary plat and the development plan require separate action by the Commission. The case was heard on September 21 of this year and tabled by the Commission. Slides of the site, surrounding area and the plans were presented. Ms. Clarke compared the approved. zoning plan with the current submittal. The easternmost sections . of both Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road are to be constructed with this =;, application: -Perimeter:Loop.Road is shown~asa cul de sac terminating some•distance from the .. _.:. western. property .line, and the. alignment for..Perimeter Drive has not been established> beyond the shopping center: As proposed, neither road will not be extended to the property line, and ,. na phasing plan has. been addressed by .the-applicant. - Ms. Clarke said the retail site is still planned as a strip center. The two outparcels on Avery- - Muirfield Drive will not .have. direct access only-any -public street but will use a service road. There are two wet ponds included: at the northwest corner and at the southern entrance. The landmark oak tree is located near -the Perimeter Drive entrance. She said the center is in two .buildings and is very linear in its form. The center's square footage and parking have been somewhat reduced -since -the last hearing. The center is shown as 224,000 square feet with several anchors, the largest of which will be a grocery store of 66,000 square feet. She said the signage has been changed. The four anchors will have fairly standard internally illuminated signage. All .other tenants will- have -less obtrusive, externally illuminated signs. Perimeter Center, by comparison, only has the Big Bear sign is a standard internally lit sign. Ms. Clarke said the staff has examined the preliminary plat application carefully and cannot ...recommend~approval.due.:to-xhe:need:for additional.information on future road:extensions. She said the application has not been substantially. changed and staff recommends disapproval of the development plan as well. Bikepaths have not been addressed, not any connection to the Convalarium. The, Staff believes :that .the landmark.: tree ..has .construction shown all .the way around it, and it is not a good candidate for :survival :in..xhis -.plan..-. The~..plan:-eliminates the possibility of an on-ramp to US 33 through the: ite. Overall, • the application -is short-sighted, and the community needs to look further ahead~~.to~lan~forts%future~and~trafficneeds:~ Ms. Clarke .said the center is very linear and is not appropriate for a gateway into the community.. The design of the. center has its. service area along Perimeter Drive, and the rear of~~that~structure is not aproper front door for-the major east-west street that Perimeter Drive ...will :become.- :..The.. andscaping .and buffering shown on .the plan .: do not .meet code, the development text, or match the adopted Avery-Muirfield frontage treatment. Also, the center is lacking any landscape treatment to enhance the pedestrian setting. The plan does not meet the parking code. The standards for the outparcels do not conform with the approved development text or the code. The center signage still need modification as well. She said staff must recommend disapproval of both the preliminary plan and the development P~• 98-OZ4Z Revised Development Text `~~~_~ Riverside Hospital PCD, Subaru 1 6335-7100 PerLneter Loon RAAd Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -November 2, 1995 Page 11 Mr. Sutphen said it is premature to even heaz this case without the roadway issues being settled. He especially believes the potential ramp needs to be included. Ben Hale, 7r. represented the applicant. He said substantial changes have been made, including modifying the signs, adding water features, adequate tree protection for the landmark oak, dropped square footage, made the building more interesting, including its backside. He said that . ~ he and .the staff disagree on the process that should be used to resolve some of the issues, and . -the .timing. He thinks it is .inappropriate to establish roadway alignments beyond the limits of •. .•; =the:retail ~area~~now. 'The-alignment issues,can be'dealt~with later: =°He said the hospital had .' ~ ~ - `-w thought the property sale at cost deal had already expired, but.it is in force until 1997. Mr. Hale said he is entitled to file an amended preliminary plan whenever the applicant so desires. -.: , He :.said Dublin ..may < construct - a~ .bamer median along .Avery Muirfield :.Road, ~ ~ across -the ~ - Perimeter Loop Road intersection, effectively_ blocking their. southern :entrance. This would be terrible for the hospital development. He said the property owner to the west wants the point that Perimeter Drive will intersect the west property line. He does not want to set any alignment beyond the limits of this retail development. He does not want to make a commitment as to size and.location of any pond for the future phases. He does feels this should be done if and when those phases develop. He said the project has been criticized because it is-not just like Perimeter Center. He said the Riverside and the Perimeter zonings were done separately. This is compatible with Perimeter and a good approach, but it is not subject to the same standazds. Mazk Ford, Ford Beery Architects, presented the azchitectural details and changes in the project. He noted-the addition of the ponds, and that the driveway had moved to save the landmazk tree. '~ ~ He said pedestrian. amenities were addressed at the pond. He said that they have agreed to build . ahe road .as .fiveaanes in width to ae west property line-of the center. There will be low stone - " ~ walls at each of the entrances. .: He.said the:grocery store<has gotten smaller,. and both overall buildings.are.now shorter. He said -this center is about 600 feet long, and Peruneter::Center zs~ about::700<.feetlong. - He said their storefront system has been .used to move the .building front.in and~.out...He does not-have trees in.front of the .center and suggested that~~'erimeterrmay:~have: leasing;difficulty as a~ result of their trees. He made comparison between the signage proposed and that at the Kingsdale Center. The grocery and other anchors tenants need to have internally lit signs, and he described it as "a mazket necessity." He showed the front and rear elevations and several perspectives with landscaping overlays. The same materials are used on both. The rear also has tower elements. Awnings will be used also. He said they have not put storefronts facing Perimeter Drive, but the building will have the "storefront treatment" for the first 65 feet along its backside. Mr. Ford said the landscaping includes 4-5 foot mounding and materials that are installed in groups of throes. He showed the pedestrian amenities around the landmark tree. Mr. Hale said the true was shown inoorrectty on the plan. lVir. Sutphen said the developer was not being adequately sensitive to the tree. He suggested that the major road be X98-0~Z v from the Revised Development Teat Riverside Hospital P'CD, Subarea F 63ZS-71(Nl Perimeter Loon Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -November 2, 1995 Page 12 tree. He felt this was asked at the last hearing, and the applicant should have been better prepared. Lack of preparation was inconveniencing everyone else on the Commission's agenda. Mr. Reeds, of Myers-Schmallenberger, a landscape azchitectural firm, said a landmazk tree is best protected by appropriate construction practices. .. Mr.. Ferrara said- shrinking the center by 6,000 square feet did not seem to -address the issues. - He felt Mr. Hale had a point rggazding the preliminary plat issues. The construction practices are -also an issue for tree protection. Mr. Fishman said comparisons between retailers on both sides of a street come up often, and :~ are sometimes raised by Mr. Hale or his :clients. - He said signage -was 'a very.contentious issue : ~ ~ ~~ at Perimeter, and four conventional plastic signs will be an issue. He would like this to be as - nice as the Perimeter Center. Mr. Hale said treating the rear of the center is being done in a manner similar to the Toys 'R' Us/Kids 'R' Us west elevation. He said they have -made big progress on the building, but there are still big platting issues with the plat. Mr. Zawaly said that platting Perimeter Loop Road beyond the site did not seem reasonable to him. He saw some good faith effort to resolve the issues since the last meeting. He finds repeated tabling frustrating also. Mr. Hale said the engineers report on the US 33 interchange and Avery-Muirfield Drive should be submitted soon. Mr. Sutphen thought a • simple on-ramp to US 33 was absolutely wrong and very shortsighted. He feels a cloverleaf will be needed eventually.. Because this site is .currently vacant, the city is not handicapped, as it the case in the southwest quadrant. Mr. Kinds said that the city is ~ contemplating a barrier _ median-: at Perimeter -Loop-Road. He said the city does have the right to consider such an option in the future if a safety problem arises. Mr. Kinds said the study underway -is not a ~ major : tudy, ~ but ~it':is ~a preliminary assessment. There will be more studies later. Mr. Sutphen said the city needs to get such studies completed quickly, not wait till its too late. He said he believes ramps will be needed. Mr. Kinds said the study has to be able to be implemented, and it is being so designed. Mr. Rauh said he was concerned about the traffic improvements needed, .especially a cloverleaf, but understood the developer's position regarding platting. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher could not understand why the study had not been completed some time (Y~) ago. 9s-o2az .~, Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Su 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -November 2, 1995 Page 13 Mr. Fcegler responded that the study would determine the specific improvements were needed between Shier-Rings Road and Post Road, including the interconnecting roadways. He said the level of service can be expected to drop significantly in the neaz future. Council has preliminarily funded for 1996 a traffic signal at the unsignalized ramp and improvements to the Shier-Rings Road intersection. He said the previous study did not recommend a cloverleaf but merely an on-ramp. The Raymond Keyes (Jacobs' Mall) study said it was not needed. This study will balance the conflicting reports to date. <~ >Mr.-:Fcegler~~said:the.Emerald~Parkway,overpass is~funded in'the five-yeaz CIP. The Avery=' `' - -. Muirfield overpass:is not.. The Avery interchange will probably need improvement within five - years, but Dublin is seeking state and/or federal funding. In order to add it to the CIP, a -:preferred improvement that he statewill accept, needs to be.identified..-Withinawo months, the preferred alternative should be known. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher said..that the citizens-uniformlycomplain that the infrastructure often lags behind the development. For the Commission to make a good decision on this application, the city needs to produce more information. The study underway is tazdy. Mr. Hale reminded the Commission that the Avery Road frontage was improved following the passage of the rezoning, and Riverside Hospital was cone-third contributor to that. Ms. Clarke said that approval of a preliminary plat sets forwazd exactly what improvements a land owner is required to do. Those things not mentioned are legally not required. She felt that it is reasonable to conclude that further improvements, beyond those shown on the preliminary plat, are needed to provide an adequate level of service. The retail center is the most intensive part of the Riverside PCD plan, and the development of it should tie down .the improvements by the developer. Mr. Hale disagreed. However, he said his client fully expects to continue roadways westwazd at some future .point.. Also,. if the city requires any sort. of freeway ramp, Perimeter Loop Road is in the wrong place. He will work with the city. Mr. Zawaly suggested putting .notes on the plat~to.~ddressrthes.ou-:~of ~Perim~eter Loop, etc. Ms. Clarke said notes have been discussed, but none have been proposed to date. Mr. Rauh restated that the center turns its back on Perimeter Drive and suggested relocating the northern entry farther to the northwest. The diagonal emphasis of the zoning plan might be considered, removing the northwest entrance. The entry could be more dramatic. Mr. Ford said the keeping the service areas screened from all major views was a challenge. Also a convention "L" shaped center puts the major part of the building, the apes, where the least amount of parking is located. Mr. Rauh said the building had come a long way. He thought the plat issues would be more difficult to resolve. ~,.~ 98-0242 Revised Development Teat ~.,. Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea E 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -November 2, 1995 Page 14 Mr. Ferrara said the residual parcels do not get a good view of the center either. Especially the parcel left to the west of the building (behind) would be very difficult to develop. He suggested that the design team consider a different shape for the center. Mr. Ford said the land is zoned for 10,000 squaze feet per acre, and the proposal is under that. Their site is 25 acres, but providing enough pazking for the structure is tough. . Mr. Fcegler said the staff will work with the developer on appropriate plat notes and .: ~> =-commitments ~ <~The goal t is not ~ to ~ eliminate - he developer's ~ flexibility and- address the' ° ~ - ~ ' ` responsibility issues and what determines the location of .extensions, etc., and we will work on such language. Mr. Hale asked for the application to be tabled. Mr. Zawalyasked for. some.traffic.impact information.:: He related seeing°the~overpass. backed up past Post Road on one occasion, and he is concerned. Mr. Sutphen said the area to the south and west will have the highest growth now and in the future. Staff said traffic information will not be available for the next meeting. Mr. Fcegler said the Tuttle Mall and other expected development will have an impact here and elsewhere. That is the reason that Council is taking the lead in getting a study underway, rather than waiting for the state to do so. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher moved to table the application. Mr. Fishman seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Ferrara, yes; Mr. Peplow, yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes; Mr. Zawaly, yes; Mr. Rauh, yes; Ms. Chinnici Zuercher; and Mr. Zawaly, yes. (Tabled 7-0.) The Chair called for a brief recess. 3. Final Plat - Ha 's Nest -Section 1, 1 [ 'application was r ved from the agenda. p ' r~to ahe:hearin$..,-~~3ies unding property rs were notified by t of the postponement. There was no discussio or vote taken. 4. Zones Code Amendment Tom Rubey 'd at the October 5, 95 meeting, the Commi 'on approved the majori of the sign code c es. Tonight's discuss n is limited to signage slecial events. The c es include defining mmunity events, suc a school play, and events are those suppo by Dublin, such the Irish Festival. -site promotional signs be limited to one per event. Communi ants may have up to directional signs to be ' stalled by the city. All of these signs wool be approved by the Events office. promoters would be responsible for the cos of removal. Mr. Zawaly asked if these~ncluded events that ar~bed tax supported. 98-O'1.4Z '""'~! \\ Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital pCD, Su ~zzc~t INl Perimeter Loop Road :ITY OF DUBLIN DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMIVIISSION RT;CORD OF ACTION DECEII~ER 7, 1995 .....The Planning .and ..Zoning .Commission took the following ,action at its ..regularly .scheduled meeting: 3. preliminary Plat and Development Plan - Riversiide HospitalPCD -:Retail Subareas Location: 25.346 acres and 3.159 acres located on the west side of Avery Road, approximately 600 feet south of Post Road. Eaasting Zoning: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Riverside Hospital Plan). Request: Review and approval of the preliminary plat under the provisions of Section 1103, and of the development plan under the provisions of Section 1181.07 of the Planning and Zoning Code. Proposed Use: Extension of Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road to the west of Avery Road and construction of a 230,000 square foot retail center. Applicants: Lucas Land Development c% Don Casto ~Irganization, 209 East Town Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215 and Hospital Properties, Inc. c%. Frank T. Pandora II, 3535 Oleatangy River Road, .Columbus, Ohio 43214 represented by Ben W. Hale, Jr., Smith and Sale, 37 West Broad_Street, .Suite 725, Columbus; Ohio 43215-4199. Staff Contact: Barbara M. Clarke, Planning Director. MOTION: To table this preliminary plat and development plan. * Bea W. Hale, Jr., requested tabling this case. VOTE: 6-0. RESULT: This case was tabled after much discussion. STAFF CERTIFICATION .~ ~. r~ ~F . 1 % ! .~ I ~~SCti Barbara M. Clarloe Planning Director 98-0242 Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road Uublin Planning and Zoning Commission Mceting Minutes -December 7, 1995 Page 10 3. Preliminary Plat and Development Plan -Riverside Hospital PCD -Retail Subareas Ms. Clarke said this combined preliminary plat and development plan was tabled previously on September 21 and November 2. A shopping center of 225,000 square feet is proposed on the west side of Avery-Muirfield Drive on a site of 28.5 acres. She presented several slides of the site, surrounding property and the proposed plans. Thesite contains a -landmark oak tree, a barn and substantial open land.. The site is zoned PCD - - . ; :.under.the-Riverside;Hospital:plaafora.mixed_use commercial.development. The planhas two ~~outparcelsalong Avery-Muirfield Drive. They •will.have internal access only.. . The revised site plan has relocated the Perimeter. Drive access point westward. The landmark . a , ~., tree will-be to xheeast of this drive, and' it can Abe 'betterprotected'there. ~ pia ~atlditional~cub scut ~ . ` ~: _. , _Chas.beenadded(now.four.proposed).oa Perimeter:Driveao~separate customer-:~and~service traffic. There are two cuts on Perimeter Loop Road. The°:grocery tore :is to be located on its own site, ::and a~~ new of line ~ is ~ howa through= the-center of the common parking lot. .. ~ _ The road configurations have changed somewhat since the time of zoning. The roads will be .; .built:only in .front- of ~ the ~ shopping :center; :not to the :we$t-property line. ~ .The ataff ~is most concerned. because the plat does not indicate when, and under what circumstances, the applicant will build -the. balance of the two -public roads, whether those roads are -subject to further - . adjustment as to alignment and length, and no bikepath connection is shown to Post Road. Also access restrictions should be noted on the preliminary plat. Ms. Clarke said the arclntech~re of the center has a variety of roof lines, colors and materials to break up the building.. The. Commission's concern about its linear nature has not changed substantially.. The northern building has a stepped facade, but the: western building (which contains the grocery -store) has notchanged much. Ms. Clarke said this is very. complicated largely .because. it includes the simultaneous ~-:consideration of the macro:: issues,°~~~such -as :master storm 7~lrainagec~ndstreet~::eatensions, `and ..detailed issues, .such as signage .and. tree species:°: :She-: aid~~that ~in aieu-~of:-a~~graphic of road .improvements, the Commission had suggested ,using:anotes:~.on:3he.plat::~°~'he:a staff fords that „~~acweral:major:issues-area-simply;snot=addressed~hroughmotes~+nrt~therwise~~l;~'he~site~.pl~n-was ~ . _ ~ i, - redrawn to add 100 parking spaces, about 1,000 square feet of building area, a lot of landscaping and additional pedestrian amenities. The signage still does not conform to the ..restrictions at Perimeter Center. -.. = > .~..~ Staff~is~recommending disapproval because a number of the.issues>which~ were raisedearlier still ~. ': need to be addressed. She noted that the code does require the filing of a master plan for all developments over 50 acres; this overall site is about 117 acres. She said the bases for the staff recommends disapproval of the preluninary plat based on;the following: 1) The preliminary plat -fails to include Post Road right-of-way as indicated is the Community Plan, or include right-of-way along Avery-Muirfield Drive consistent with the study currently underway. 98-0242 . Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B { 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road '^'~ Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -December 7. 1995 Page 11 2) The preliminary plat fails to provide for the possible extension of Perimeter Loop Road to the western property line, and it fails to provide for the street reconfiguration in any substantive way due to possible freeway ramp construction. 3) The proposed preliminary plat fails to include the Cape Cod Inn site as part of the plat. This Inn site is part of the overall Riverside development, has no other street access, should be combined with the adjacent parcel through the plat, and is shown as providing most of the. land for the potential ramp or a planned major storm water facility. . ~ 4) - The submission does not identify a phasigg plan for die ~constniction of the extensions - .:: .. =of either :Perimeter Drive or Perimeter:Loop Road. ~Extensions.of.the.roadways should be bonded. 5~ ~ .The. plat has ~ not;,addressed the::biloepath ;needs of the ~ adjacent :area :or ahe Community Plan. ~~ ~-~-~ r.'Ihepreliminaryplat doesnot;include~access::restric~ions~alongA~reryjMuirfield~Drive~or -~ _~ , Post Road. 'n No cross-sections of the proposed.roadways:~(~PerimeterDrive,,Perimeter.:Loop Road, and ~ahe_service :road behind..:the ° outparcels} -havebeen submitted ;for consideration. ~ Such cross:sections should include adequate treelawns, eight-foot bikepath, five-foot sidewalk in addition to pavement, curb and gutter. >. 8) ...Street lighting has.not .been addressed. Ms. Clarke said the staff recommended disapproval of the development plan for reasons which are different from those listed above. These -are much more detailed, architectural issues. For example, the finished floor elevation of the center is a frill six feet above the elevation of Perimeter Drive, and it is unclear how this service area will be .screened from the road. Perimeter Drive will be an important east west collector, and the view is important. Signage ~`~ needs to be consistent on both sides of Avery-Muirfield Drive, and it is not as yet. The pedestrian. amenities are not :well _ detailed.. She said that :the staff report is in error regarding _ ._.>.oonditioa~#7 below;~and~a~text-was:ia~.fad submitted by the`applicaat. Also;.-the developer's rodesiga of the site, plan is much improved regarding the landmark .oak tree.. She said staff recommends disapproval of the development plan based on the following: 1) _ The design of the center~~is-very linear and~do~esmotxepresent~a~deweiap~ment.appropriate... - for a gateway into the Dublin community. . _2) :.'The ;:plans:for~~~the:~eenter:~dor°aot;=~includ .,.' 'orn=fregarding~°~grading, ..especially around the landmark.tree and:ponds, proposed.mounding, pond elevation and edge treatment. 3) The site: plan.. does : not :provide for..adequate detail .of.. pedestrian .amenities within .the center or a bikepath linkage to the balance of the community. 4) -The :center -is ~ designed -with. the service ; side ~ of the.: aorthern~ building .facing Perimeter Drive. The overall treatment of this elevation including building orientation, finished floor elevation, usage, grading, landscaping, etc. needs modification to provide for a proper view from and .relationship to Perimeter Drive. S) The landscape screening along Perimeter Drive does not appear to meet Code or the requirements of the development text or to incorporate an imaginative design consistent with an important arterial roadway. 98-0242 .. K:• 11 ::... Revised Development Tent Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -December 7, 1995 Page 12 6) The plan inadequately addresses the Avery-Muirfield landscape treatment, street trees, landmark tree preservation, buffering and screening. 'n No standards were submitted for development of the outparcel sites along Avery- Muirfield Drive. +s 8) Adequate signage information has not been submitted for review. Signage and several other development standards do not conform to the text or are not comparable to those in place at Perimeter Center immediately across Avery-Muirfield Drive. 9) - ~ Outdoor sales, ~as proposed to the south of the •grocerystore, •~are not permitted ~by the ~ : - ; °~ .development text. • ~.:. ,::_,:.Mr:~Peplow.:asked :if:the.~staff has met:with the-applicant .because:~ae.issues have not:changed ~ ~ - -~;- Ms. Clarke responded that two meetingswere held plus several phone conversations. She said 'atafB~had strongly recommended:•to the •applic~C~that this :be:=tabled~ntil.next~nonth after~several • - .: ~ - ' , .~ ~ moreissues were: resolved. She ~ said the combined ~~application°makes <•it rmore difficult. ~ _ _ . ,; ., , ; -.irZr;-BeaHale, Jr:;~ representing: the applicant,aaid that the hospital and its consultants met-with . the :staff.:. He left -the .meeting -thinking that all. of the issues were being successfuuy addressed. He said another meeting was held since the staff report was issued. He said a number of .changes had been or will be made. Post Road should be platted with a 30- foot right-of-way from the centerline of Post Road. The Cape Code Inn was not shown on the plat, and this has been corrected. He said a note was requested on the alignment of Perimeter Loop. Road depending upon a new freeway ramp and other. issues. There is still substantial disagreement on the potential extension of Perimeter Loop Road to the west property line. The hospital is concerned about a potential barrier .median on Avery Muirfield Drive. The longer ..:that road, the greater-.the potential for a barrier median. This would be a very big problem to ..the .hospital.. _He said the plat will .conform to the city's. bikepath desires, including a temporary ;P~. ~He• ought~that the-plat that was-submitted addressed these issues. Mr. Hale said there were never to be any access restrictions onto Post Road for this ~. • ;development. -: ~Exoept~-for -this ~ and the ~extensionrof:Perimeter..LAOp.•Raad,~he,:believes there is . :.substantial agreement:with~thestaff.. He•said street~lighting~will~be°included ,:.~.-- -._.... <.~Mr:~Fishman.saidhe:did<.aot~aee a ~lot.ofprogress .,~..=He~suggrsted~revisions-be-made. The .. signage for Perimeter Center should be used as a guideline. Mr. Hale responded that this site . ~ .has different standards for signs than Perimeter-Center. - He also said the shape of the center is • -°~ ....,..an„"L"_~andwill<always•:beso.~.Mr.::Fishman.~said~Mr.~-Hale~kn+ows.the.importance of .treating . ..- the.two retail identically oa,the issue of.signs, and Mr. Hale represents both developers. Mr. Fishman said he cannot vote for this without staff support. He said Mr. Hale should be sensitive to the changes that have taken place since the rezoning. Mr. Hale said they spent X660,000 to improve Avery Road several years ago, and they have the right to build a shopping center. He had hoped for closure before now. He requested tabling. 98-0242 ~ Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B ,,,,~ 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -December 7. 1995 Page 13 Mr. Zawaly said he wanted a clarification on the extension of Perimeter Loop Road. He thought it would be extended when the adjoining land is developed. He wants this reconciled. He noted that the plans in his packet were different from those being used for presentation. Mr. Hale responded that Perimeter Loop Road will have to be reconfigured if a freeway ramp is built. The hospital has never agreed to extend the road to their west property line. Mr. Fishman made a motion to table this application based on the•information in•the staff report. Ms.. Clunnici-Zuercher .seconded the motion. . • ::Jeff ~~ McInturf, represe;ating : BJL -property:owners ~ immediately to • ~ the ~ west,.:is ~hapPy' to -see .::::~.development:finallycoming=to.this site:.. He:expretsed concern=about~the°road alignment. ;.w . - ~,-- ;;Thewote-~onthe motionwas~as follows: x~Mr.~Fishmaneyes;:Mr:;Ferr~na{=yes,:Mr~Peplow, yes; .'~., ~.Y: _ .:~Mr.,:Rauh, yes; .Ms.:Chinnici-Zuercher,;:yes; :and Mr. Zawaly,::yes.:(Tabled X6-0.) _ 4. Final Developm -Metro Center - 'Office Building Tom Rubey p ahis:finaldevelopment p which was tabled.. on the N ember 2, 1995 _ _ , - agenda without ion. -This is .a final de opment plan for. athree- ry, 90,000 square foot structure o -5.386 acres on the south s' of Metro Place South. ~ . Rubey said Metro Centex is ximately 130 acres and 80 nt developed. A porn of -the site falls within the 100-y flood plain of the Cos Ditch. Metro Center is ned PUD, Planned Unit Devel nt District. Metro Cente has been developed with 'ed architecture, large set backs building materials a substantial amount of ing. Slides of the site, - "° area and the propo were displayed. _.• . e said staff has concerns ~ t the site -plan. This plan . represents a` 70 :percent t ' " coverage. The parking the structure on four sides. Staff has the applicant either e ' parking in excess of Code ents (27 parking spaces) or velop ., ,. ~:•a~~unique~s~ubstantial~ :~tc+eatment. They :;hasRsuggest~d:< :caliper ,. trees ia•front ofah 'ding. ;Staff..believes: in: r!der~to•~oompensate-for:~~e~ite~ep.which is ~ . . ~ :different from rest of Metro:: Center, _ a sol on-~vould~;be~~osupgrade bland ing within the area. / ~: The:.pred to building material, po concrete, is a lighter slade on _ ~ Slade :o .the .bottom of the.building. tall is also concerned .with; he fe tree nt. The first floor windows recessed, on the. second there is o the top ~ they change again. ~ Staff ants a more. consistent or refined mdo sttucttrre. Staff is also conce with the metal roof top scree ' The nt ill stro er than ro riate for this uilding e -top and der anon or•: ow detailing, on screening treatme w ng aPP P something more subdued loch could be achieved a number f ways. The incorporates a col shaped entrance design. Mr. Rubey said sta~ is recommending approval of this ~,.. ie .for the. ,. ... of that would like h elevation with four conditions: Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road I'1'1'' UN' D(~131~1i\ 5800 S~ Rings Road Dublin,.ON 430161236 ioaR/IOD: 614/161.6550 Fa~c 614/161.6506 DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMIVIISSION SPECIAL MEI',TING RECORD OF ACTION JANiJARY 18, 1996 The Planning and Zoning Commission took ahefollowing:;action;:atalts~'speClala:lleeting:.. 1. Preliminary Plat and Development P.Iaia~,R~iverside33ospital;P!CD =Retail Subareas Location:- 25.346 acres -and 3.159--acres located on -.the west side of Avery Road, approximately 600 feet south of Post Road. Existing Zoning: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Riverside Hospital Plan). Request: Review and approval-of the:preliminary plat under the provisions of Section 1103, and of the development plan under the provisions of Section 1181.07 of the Planning and Zoning Code. Proposed Use: Extension of Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop Road to the west of Avery Road and construction of a 234,000 square foot retail center. Applicants: Lucas Land Development c/o Don Casto Organization, 209 East Town Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215 .and Hospital Properties, Inc. c/o Frank T. Pandora II, 3535 Olentangy River:Road, Columbus, Ohio 43214 represented by Ben W. Hale, Jr., ""'~! Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, .Ohio 43215-4199. <' ..Staff .Contact:: Barbara M. Clarke, Planning Director. ""' MOTION #1: To approve this application because it meets the preliminary plat requirements, provides -for :all applicable ~.traffic<improvements; ~:~ana:,complies .with the Thoroughfare Plan, developmeat~text~andthe currentroadvva~widening:plans, with the following eight conditions: 1) That the preliminary plat include adequate right-of-way or appropriate easements to accommodate the ultimate projected widening, in accordance with the Avery interchange study currently underway; 2) That the ~stormwater pond design be modified to .provide for less freeboard and a broader surface area; 3) That permanent provisions be made at the development plan stage for a bikepath connection through the site between Perimeter Drive and Post Road; 4) That the extension of Perimeter Drive be bonded or secured by another surety acceptable by staff; Page 1 of 2 98-OZ4Z Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING CONIlVIISSION SPECIAL MEETING ~-- RECORD OF ACTION JANUARY 18, 1996 1. ..preL'minary Plat .and. Development: Plan -Riverside. Hospital PCD -.Retail Subareas (Cont.) ,;~ That the design flf Perimeter Loop Road, as it is extended :beyond the. retail .site, be . - determined at_a later-date; 6) ..That Post.;Road access be. discouraged and subjectao .the discretion of the Planning -Commission at the -time uses along Post Road uses ~are~ developed; ... '~::-That street lighting:be-designed~toahesp~cifications;of.the-Gity°Engiaeer; and 8) That the landmark oak tree be protected:by a sturdy,-,protective~feace, as approved by Staff, during all phases of the development. * Ben W. Hale, Jr. agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: This preliminary plat was approved. MOTIQN #2: To table this .development :plan for: the reasons cited in the staff report. VOTE: 4-3. RESULT: This development plan was tabled to permit fiuther refinement of the plan, especially .. - ~ ~ ~regardiag the western building~~reral~3ommission~sdndi~hat~they~will not ..entertain further abling of this -application; :a+evisioasshould~e~aade in line with recommendations made at the meeting. STAFF CSRTIPICATION ~ . C~~~ Barbara M. Clarke Planning Director Page 2 of 2 98-0242 Revised Development Text `"'"'"' Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -January 18, 1996 Page 3 inventory of the buildings review of financial statements to make sure ey have performed. Ms. Chinnici-Zuerch load what the time commitment was. ms. den said they met once a year and a was submitted to the State of Ohio by Marc 1st. Ms. C ' 'ci-Zuercher welcomed the many students o ' g this meeting. She explain dents who the Commission members and S ere and the purpose of the P g and nine Commission. ..:.S ..,;~rMr:.=Sutphen<made-ahe~~motion~aoap a the January~4: ~1996,~meeting tes. Mr.-;;Ferrara ::.:~ ~ F;~ `•~~,., :seconded themotion and. the wo -asfollows: ~ Mr. Peplow, yes• . Sutphen;~-yes; Mr: - <.Rauh;.~:abstain; GMs.: Chinni ' archer, yes; -Ms.:Boring,:.abs .Ferrara, .yes; and:Mr. . . Harlan, abstaia..(App 4-0-3.) Mr. ~: Ferrara a the motion to accept. all documea 'ved : into-:the:record sand Mr. ~ Harlan ...seconded. motion. The .vote. was as :follow =Mr. >Hatian;:::yes; :Mr. Ferrara, ,yes; Mr. Peplo yes; Mr. Sutphen, .yes; Mr. Rauh, ; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher yes; and Ms. Boring, . (Approved 7-0.) `~. _ 1. - ~ . Prelimiinary Plat and Development Plan -.Riverside Hospital PCD -Retail Subareas ~C Bobbie Clarke presented this Preliminary Plat and Development Plan fora 225,000 square foot .retail-center located oa the west side of Avery-Muirfield Drive, between US 33 and Post Road on approximately 28 acres. -The property is owned by Riverside Hospital and has been zoned PCD since 1989 specifically for a shopping .center. Ms. Clarke said there would be a traffic. -: _signal installed at Perimeter Loop: ~ BothPerimeter Loop and Perimeter Drive will be extended westward.:iato ..the. subject site.. Ms..Clarke. said a low-key:-look existed along .Avery.-Muirfield Drive with~residential roof pitches and very subdued architecture. Signage is highly controlled ..: in ahe . area.:.:The -proposal.: includes :two outparcels .which. could : be used for banks, fast-food restaurants, of daycare centers, etc.. The development plan for the 25-acre.site includes_a major . ,anchor;; a: gY. store,. andseveral.other~large~userswer•~13;000:5quare~afeex~ch; :and-.minor ~:; - .tenants. There is a building _on -the. west side aada~a~rbuilding.on .the'.northwsideraaf.ahe: ite. The 1989 zoning plan shows the extension of Perimetex~DriverandP~erimeterrlU:oop.Road, a:possible ... ~ •, ,.addition~~to the ramp gat US- 33,:.and-a:'connection to Post Road: ~ : The~~preliminary platincludes .the overall stormwater design,: all, the. utilities, and all of the. roads to be constructed. Ms. Clarke said the architecture. included varied materials. She said the rear elevation of the center ,.had= been ~ upgraded .and .did not look. typical :for the back of a center. Ms..Clarke said this application was before the Commission in September, November, and December 1995, and staff recommended disapproval. Staff is now recommending approval of the preliminary plat and tabling of the development plan. The preliminary plat is an overall master plan which sets both the alignments and expectations with regards to the provision of infrastructure on the site. The development plan is a much more specific review and all of the final details of the building are addressed, the architecture, materials, signage, heights of mounds, types of landscape materials, etc. 98-0242 Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perimeter hoop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -January 18, 1996 Page 4 Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat subject to a number of conditions. There are copious notes on the preliminary plat and Ms. Clarke said everything that could be addressed „ had been. The following eight conditions are recommended: 1) That the preliminary plat include adequate right-of-way or appropriate easements to accommodate the ultimate projected widening, in accordance with the Avery mterc ange study currently underway; 2) ~ ..: ~ "That the stormwater-pond design be modified to provide for lessfreeboard. and a broader - surface~area; : -3) :That-perm~anent°provisions be _made::for, abilaepath °connection~ through ,the site to~Post '~' ~~ ~: •4) . That the.extension of Perimeter.:Drive be bonded to the satisfaction of.the.City Engineer; - ~.~ ,That the design of, Perimeter Loop Road; as::it is.~extended~beyond~.#he°~retail nits, be determined at a later date; ~. :..That Post Road .access be discouraged:-:and:~ubject~.toathe~~discretioa~f •fihe :Planning Commission at the -time the Post Road uses are developed; 'n That street lighting be designed to the specifications of the City Engineer; and 8) That the landmark oak tree. be protected during all phases of the development. :Ms. Clarke said regarding the development:plan, the Commission-.:had previously had several concerns about. the linear nature of the building. The building has not changed substantially in the last two months, but there .have been upgrades to the rear of the building, particularly on the northern building. The west side of the west building had not received the same detail. Staff -feels the west side of the west building will be of substantial importance as therest of the area develops. ,~ : Ms.-~ Clarke :said .the ,Staff .Report .includes.: references- ao the specific,. language :within the development tent .for Riverside ~ Hospital which:. related: to the architectural expectations for the area. The. buildings _ should .have residential character, subdued colors, with elements such as :.porticoes, .dormers, .recesses, .etc. to break up the mass. Blank rear facades are not. permitted. . _ ::;The text:requires ~ that architectural elements b~~ressed-~equally,~ti~e~saau~~deg of finish) on .all sides: of the structure.: - =Flat roofs are not penntted~xcept-f~ ted and - :specifically approved by ae Commission.. Ms'9~~.~arlae~ud~n>fiais.~case,~id~19B9there .was not . ~ •=-~a+model~of architecture=ready~~to go. ~~T'he~textwas-worded;~~however;~~~hat-the•c~ter needed:to ~. pick up a series. of soft. characteristics. In staff's view, while this is agood-looking center by any reasonable .standard, it falls short of the requirements of the text. . "Staff is recommending: that ~ the development .plan be tabled in ~ order to give the opportunity : to address the following six issues: 1) The design of the center is very linear and does not represent a development appropriate for a gateway into the Dublin community. Additional.modification is recommended to break up the mass. 2) The requirements of the text include that all sides of all structures be equally treated with regard to design. The side and rear elevations fail to fully reflect this. 518-0242 • Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B ,,~, 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -January 18, 1996 Page 5 3) The issue of residential scale, especially with regazd to the western building has not yet been successfully addressed. 4) Appropriate gathering spaces should tie included in the center's design. 5) Signage standards reflect inadequate control. 6) Outdoor sales, as proposed to the south of the grocery store, are not permitted by the development text. Ms. ~ ~ Chinnici-Zuercher~ asked :Mitch Banchefsky to review this case for ~ the students ~ in the .- ;audience ~~Mr.~-Banchefsky;said:~this~~site~was~;zoned~ a Planned~Commerce~District which~was a •- ~- ~~.,: *~ ~rY- ::: two:phase process.:<.The.first:phase, .the Composite Plan,;appmved.in1989, is~the actual zoning . _ ,phase of ;the =application:.°~ When ~ahe ~ applicants is <,ready~ to 5 develop, ~ the -Planning :Commission ~ - . `~ '~-- ~:~-. reviews ~ development plan. =The review.is limited to .determine:whether:the~developmentplan _.as presented, -complied..:with-the composite:plan4ahe:zoning~text,.,which:has~~beea previously- ~approved - ~It is -held up to the light to see if it matches ~ ..Mr.:~Banchefsky read-:the:provisions of the Code.:. In the-eventthere is disapproval,ahe:reasons~must bespecifiedrand°;~the.applicant has - an appeal right to City Council. Ms. Boring asked if Perimeter Loop Road as shown was final. Ms. Clazke said it was not. A note on the plat indicated that the street would be "set" only along the frontage of the shopping - center.. Ms. Boring. asked if an option to .provide. for -the traffic of. adj oining property was left open, if necessary. Ms. Clarke said yes. John Ferrara asked .about the 7-foot freeboard of the pond. Ms. Clarke said the water level would rise by seven feet during a heavy storm. The actual standing pool of water during dry times is much smaller-than the area being graded for the pond. Ms. Clarke said it was mainly . ~ : an aesthetic consideration.This is a~ water feature •which was to be a very strong visual amenity. .:.°.She,~said:there are•several.examples .in_the community where the water level was. a lot~lower.than the adjacent street, .and these are unattractive. Staff wanted the water level-to be higher and for there to be less fluctuation within the pond. ~; Joe~Harian~asked •if the.bikepath connecting to Post~Ra~ad-~as~et=:~1s Oia~ke~aid'~he bilge path shown -is -temporary. ~ There should be a convenient~~vay#orapedestraans~~or~kers<~to get°from :Post Road to the shopping center. °The~ ~ath~.Kperananenta#lo~tions::-~itbinyreason,•, is not ~~important:~. ,Itcould: be.relocated when the land is~:developed ~witti~'offices. Staff believes the need for the path will be permanent. Ms. Clarke said the path would be constructed now. .~ ~ ~<Ben~W~:Hale;~~Jr::,=~representing~the~applicant;:-agreed° o~the conditions of the~preliminary~plat approval. ~ He said the hospital had -previously. contributed $650,000 towards road. infrastructure .:::with the:agreement.that:no further.contribution:would be~required of the applicant. ~He.said.that they would dedicate any easements necessary back to their parking set back line for waterlines, utilities, etc. handy Bowman said that was acceptable. Mr. Hale said the pond could be expanded behind the building. He said freeboard could be reduced to five or 5 1/2 feet. He said visually, steep banks with rip rap at the'top were not attractive. He demonstrated the slope of 4:1 with of a five-foot freeboard as gradual. It was intended to be attractive. Slt3-0242 Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -January 18, 1996 Page 6 Dave Tindale, BMH&T, said surface water would be routed into the pond. He said the 5 1/2 foot differential would represent a much flatter slope. By doing so, the area of the pond will ,~. ~ be increased also. Mr. Hale said the pond was along the entry road. Mr. Hale said substantial revisions had been made to the development plan to protect the landmark tree. The road had been relocated and the size of the building was reduced. He said the dripliae of the tree would not be disturbed in any way. An urban forester and a couple of arborist had been consulted about the tree. . _, .: n 1 Mr. Hale. uggested ahat the aocation of-.the. bikepath could- be-determined by the Commission. at .. -_ development plan review. Mr..~ale°asked..if°Condition::#4 could.include-languageaaying.~that3.another•~ermaneat.surety _... • satisfactory to the Law- Director would be acceptable. Mr: Hale agreed'that access onto Post~Road should be limited.- The Presbyterian Church might use these parking lots for overflow parking. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked that the preliminary plat and development plan be separated for consideration. Dan Sutphen asked Mr. Hale if he accepted Condition #1 as listed is the Staff Report. Mr. Hale said they had right-of-way dedicated, but an easement back to the set back lines to accommodate the City's needs would be given. . ~Mr. Sutphen asked :about-the amount of .land it would take .to ::build. xhe northwest access ramp _ , ; ._ to US 33 off of Avery Muirfield Road. He did. not want to allow a shopping center to go in and -_ ~ .later have.to buy properiy~for the ramp. He wanted to hear there wasplenty of room for ODOT . .~:: ~aad ~Dublin.to work to get a northwest boundentrance onto the freeway and allow for an eut ~ ~ -- r off of to go southbound. :: -,Mr.- •Kindra said; the :URS interchange, report~~va ~ust~r~ved~todal-.~and~the~ 'had not =.totally _ examined it. Several options .were examined ~ncluding~thealoop~mps:aand ,the previous :.: < -:options ~that.had beenmentioned: ~:It~seemsthat`the-situation~on i=~90~ndSR~~~16:1 was tied with ~,. .= what was done on this ramp. Mr. Kindra said ODOT officials indicated that they would not approve any redesign or improvement of this ramp that would adversely impact SR 161 and I- .... >.::.-270.~::-The:~:consultant.:recommendation was to maintain the existing: configuration of .the ramps . . ::.with traditional lanes, .signalization or some other changes. - This is ~believed to be the best option ~ , _ , which ODOT would accept. Mr. Sutphen said this was unacceptable. He would not vote for it then. He said he asked the question about the ramp at the past hearings. Mr. Hale said this had nothing to do with this application. A previous agreement had been made by Riverside Hospital gives Dublin the option to buy whatever land was necessary for the ramp 98-0242 Revised Development Text ~..~.. Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 PerLn~er hoop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -January 18, 1996 Page 7 at the original cost. He said until the option ends, it is difficult for the hospital to decide what will be built. Mr. Sutphen said Council should move soon, or it would not happen. Mr. Sutphen asked why it could not be decided, working with District 6. It should have been done six months ago. Mr. Foegler said City Council had never, on any .capital improvement .budget or otherwise -authorized .any work on this -project until hree months ago when a study:was undertaken. It ~:; ::examinesahe feasibility-of various :ramp, improvements-and configurations. He said.there: were _:.-, . ~ .... . . ~ .:numemus~ ways thatahis..interchange:could.be-addressed..:When;the~;rezoning for~.tl}isproperty ~ ' :: ~ ::. :-~ ~- -.-- ....yr~tookjplace;=~the~City-wanted;ao:preserve-the option::. If:the.preferred:aolution~~iav~lved~ram~ps~on ~ ::., ;^y ~~: this- northwest quadrant ~of the intersection, this developer will. cooperate. The commitment-was ~~made and is'-preserved by virtue of this plat. ~ Mr. Foegler~said 7t;is>totallyconsisteatwith ahe . :::commitments ~. and requirements made at the. time : of .:rezoning..> .;He~ said it:::has not been _ . -determined that ramps at that location.: are the best.: ways. to ~solve:~.-this::problem.: -The:- most comprehensive traffic study, the one for Jacob' ~°Mall, clearly<suggested .~thatthe ramps-would - ,. : ~: : - ~ not help: that interchange. ' Mr. Foegler said the findings. of the ~study;would be~ presented soon to Council with various options. He said this would not be a.Dublin decision. The existing US ..33: right-of-way ~ .was acquired- -with federal funds and is regulated by the .federal highway ...administration and the state. Their strict regulations must be met. -Mr. Sutphen understood, but knew something other than signalization was needed. He said he knew something needed to be done now. It was unacceptable. Mr. Foegler clarified that the federal, state, and Dublin administration were working very seriously on this project. It clearly will have a very high priority with Council but it will be designed by the Federal Highway . Administration.. If it .makes access onto I-270 easier, they will.. not improve. it. They. do not want the added traffic to get. to I 270 sooner to relieve local congestion issues. ~Ms:'~Boring said:.Council :had =made a strong .commitment:to infrastructuresimprovements;nnd- -a•_, - have had to limit pmjects that were picked. She. said they had recognized the traffic backup .on _ . ~. _- • ~, is-intersection~.and does not want~~another Sawmill;Road;.andI-.270.~.:;She~„want~d to make~sure~ , ~ ;. -that the opportunity was not lost. She supported:Mr. Sutphen. ~:.~Mr: _~Fenara~asked if the detention pond was part.of~thiscapplicativn :~ Mr~<.Hale~said:no,but a ~ , `detention pond was necessary with.the design~:andlocation:.to be determined, at the-time~of-the :. . final ~ development plan. He said the plan indicated the proper size. Ms..Chinnici-Zuercher asked for verification that a favorable vote with the conditions will not . - =i;=limit:any~f.~the+options:~of~ and purchase;for~any interchange>or~other.traffic:decision.a::Mr~ .,,.,, 5~_, ,: Foegler said no options would be limited by this plat. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if anything more than the stmng suggestion to Council could be done to ensure that decisions were made within the guaranteed option period to move this forward. Mr. Banchefsky said other than a motion to Council or through the Council representative, no. It involved the expenditure of funds which is clearly a Council responsibility. 98-0242 Revised Development Text Riverside Haspftal PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -January 18, 1996 Page 8 Ms. Clarke said the option to purchase necessary land at cost expired January 1, 1997. After that date, the City still has the right to purchase the property but at market rate. Ms. Boring asked if penalties could be applied if the trees were not preserved. Mr. Hale said snowfencing would protect the trees. He said they would do a three-rail board or chainlink fence to protect the landmark tree. Mr. Banchefsky said the zoning text did not include any penalties, and there was no mechanism to provide for them. He said the tree preservation plan could be as approved by Staff. Mr. Hale agreed. ,. ~ . -, >~Joe Harlan asked:if-the retention poad~would be;fully;visible.,at;5.1/2;;feet.- :Ms.. Clarke said no ~.::... ~.._. - -°such :plans =have..been,:Prepared.,<:and>needed Ito be-.reviewed. - - -:.Mr.Sutphen-~ made° a:motion to: appmve~.this~ application:because_~it~meets~the~preliminary Plat ..:.- ;:.-requirements,- >-provides : for.:.all_ applicable -traffic, T~mprovements-:and{rcomplies. ;with the_. , . ;:,..:. Thoroughfare .Plan, development text and ~ the~curreat.~roadwag~;widening~plans, with the following eight conditions: 1) ~ That the .preliminary plat include- adequate right-of-way .or appropriate easements to . ~ ;accommodate the ultimateprojected :widening, in accordance with the Avery interchange . study currently underway; 2) That the stormwater pond design be modified to provide for less freeboard and a broader surface area; 3) -That permanent provisions be .made at the. development plan stage for a bikepath connection thmugh the site between Perimeter Drive and Post Road; 4) That the extension of Perimeter Drive be bonded or secured by another surety acceptable ~" by staff; 5) That the design of .Perimeter-Loop Road, as it is extended beyond the retail site, be °"' determined at a later date; ~ That Post Road access be disoouraged~ and subject to the discretion of the Planning .Commission at the time uses along... Post .Road uses are developed; _ .... TJ , ~ That ~streetaighting?be-°desrgaed -ao theyspeG~ficatlonsf~~ther~:EAgirteear.,,and....~.,. . :. - 8) : That the landmark oakaree:be~pmtected~by~aaaturdyyxprotective~ence,eras:approved by Staff, during all phases of the development. Mr.. Rauh seconded the .motion and he vote .was.. as. follows:: Mr. Ferrara, yes; Mr. Peplow, .. .yes; .Mr. Rauh, yes; -Ms...Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms..Boring, yes;.Mr. _ Sutphen, yes; and Mr. Harlan, yes. (Approved 7-0.) Development Plan Mr. Hale said a pond had been added at the entry. A variety of architecture had also been added to give the building interest and more of a residential scale. He said the large building, a Kroger store, had been brolaea up with a number of entries. Mr. Hale said a dramatic change in the rear elevations had been made and their architecture had been upgraded. There is a separate drive now. The corners have been upgraded. 51~-UZ4G Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -January 18, 1996 Page 9 Mazk Ford, Ford Berry Architects, said that the linear nature of the center had been changed by creating alcoves and recesses in the storefronts. He said brick, stone, and a synthetic slate roof were to be used. Copper dormers with windows, porticos, collonades, arches, and a internally lit cupolas, and a focal element of the center, an octagonal feature, on the south will be used. He said the highest eave lines at the anchor stores are similar to those on large houses in Dublin. At the back of the building, the parapet height is 24 feet. Appropriate gathering `" spaces have been included throughout the center. Landscaping areas have-been located flanking ~~trances to stores.. ~;A~ :.large gathering spaces is located by,. the ,water feature. . - - '_.:. =.Mr..Ford~-said-'they-agreedao limit-signage..text style.and.construction..type: -:They have.aahree _ ... ;~:_ _ :c~,page=graphic~~critera:~package:` -All3amall~teaants would~have~a~signexternally::illuminated~with~ . ~z rrr ~ 1-x.~; a gooseneck' light -with pin mounted letters against the brick, stone; or stucco backdrop. The - .-larger~;fourstores as~~proposed,~would bepermitted~an:,internally~lluminated~signsx•~Siga,color . _ ::will _ belimited ~to:.a ~ palette ~.of ;six-':colors. Mrs:Ford~~aid-~hesea-~rould.;be>one color: per. tenant ~ . _ - ...:. _--. , -~~ with no logospermitted. =The tenant signage is proposed-.~o:~eunit~Jhe=dirst~aetter~:of :a word- to - ~ ~be `three ~feeta high and awo-foot high ~ lettering..above the tenant storefront. Mr. Ford said the outdoor. sales azea proposed by the grocery store ..had been eliminated. Mr. Hale<saidoutdoor:sales~,as pazt ofRthe original zoning, was not~permitted. The applicant would ~- - need to file a rezoning. Mr. Ford said there are recessed docks on the back of the north building. A parapet will screen all the rooftop units. -Slate has been added between the projections of the buildings. He said drawings of elevations on the west side submitted to-Staff had the same detail applied. Slate was _ not used on the west. side of the building. -Landscape screening_includes amixture of evergreen and deciduous materials behind the building. . ' Mr: `Rauh said ` he did not have ~ in his packet the colored westernmost building as presented at ~.. ahe ~neeting.> ...Mr.:Rauh <said..the -west::elevation.as presented looked good. • , ~•w.~ ° Rauh~;wasconcerned~~ about;theewest buildingrnot~matcping.~theaothear-,~eleXations:;.~He.asked -what was being done:for-gathering places on the:;westa=Mr:~Ben?y~aid~theri~t~~sspaces::.were located between entrances. •Mr: Rauh asked if signage had.been. addressed appropriately. Ms. Clarke said it is still broader . in ~~terms of~ signs than ° Perimeter ~ Center. From the centerline of -Avery Muirfield Drive, both . .. ...~centers~~should,-be:-able;to:competewith.,one another:~on.<an..absolutely level playing field.. At - Perimeter Center, there is onesiga for the major.tenant, Big. Bear, .that has internally illuminated. - ._. -:_ ~.~iettering' -Everything ~ else ~RS .brass,: ~ lettering ~ on a series ~of •sign~ boards ~ which .are ~black;~.navy . ~; . =~: ::: . blue, dark purple, shaded spruce, and a dark reddish-orange color called Algerian. No logos, etc, are permitted. In the Riverside center there are four major tenants and the text permits all four to have internally illuminated signs. The other signs within the center, would be one of six unidentified colors. Ms. Clazke did not feel this made an even playing field, but it was getting closer. . Jtf-U!AG Revised Development Text Riverslde Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -January 18, 1996 Page 10 Ms. Clarke said the dormers on the upper tier of the Perimeter building were permitted to be illuminated, but the lighting was to imitate candlelight. "Lit cupolas" here need to be similar. "` ` Ms. Clarke said the centers should not be identical, but have the same advantages and disadvantages in public appeal from Avery-Muirfield Drive. More work is needed. Mr. Hale said the architecture in this center was designed to be enduring. Mr. Hale said they wanted to do more than just comply to the Sign Code as agreed upon in the text. .. ~ Mr.; Rauh, asked ~if Mr. Hale>agreed. to~work with Staff-on the signage. Mr. Hale agreed. <, Ms.~.Chinnici-Zuerchersaid thesignage needed ao-give.the:center its own personality, but needed - to be .complementary to the center across the street. She also wanted to see the rear elevations. ~Mr. Peplow:~said the east~side~of ~the-west building~neededwvork:=-$e~.did~not~HVant~~screening~to hide, but to complement what was there. Mr. Sutphen said the rear of the west elevation should be similar to the north elevation. He asked what the height of the trees shown were. Future development should not be adversely effected by the-rear of the building. Mr. Harlan liked the front of the building. Mr. Ferrara disagreed about the back of the building. It was a large block. Grocery store ~. ~ buildings usually do not have alcoves in the rear. Mr. Hale agreed that something could be done. Mr. Ferrara asked about the street signage and the entry feature. Mr. Berry said the - the straight up and down sign had no appeal and he preferred the original signage. Mr. Berry said the 15-foot high center identification sign was located off Perimeter Loop Drive. Mr. Ferrara asked about the sidewalk details shown on detail L-4 submitted. Mr. Berry said it was plain concrete. Mr. Ferrara liked details and texture to be used on the sidewalks. Ms.°Boringsaid~if different~signage~rights were~~grantedafrom~.thoseat<Perimeter•~(~ente~~t.~vould result in a variance application. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher asked if Mr. Hale agreed to table-this application and come back with more definitive responses to the concerns raised as well as those things verbalized that the Commission did not ..have. Mr. Hale said yes, and that they appreciated the input and would address the concerns. Mr. Sutphen made a motion to table this development plan and Ms. Boring seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Mr. Ferrara, yes; Mr. Harlan, yes; Mr. Peplow, yes; Mr. Rauh, no; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, no; Ms. Boring, yes; and Mr. Sutphen, no. (Tabled 4-3.) Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher said a dynamite response to the feedback received in the past five months. Mr. Rauh said he would not table this case again. Several other commissioners said ~.. these issues should have ah~ady bey handled by the applicant. 9t3-U24L Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Stibarea B 6335-7100 PerLneter Loop Road CITY OF Dl!LiLIN SS00 Shier Rings Road Da6bq, OH 43016-1236 M~oM/IDD: 614/761 6550 Fmc 614/161-6506 DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING C011~IIVIISSION RECORD OF ACTION March 14, 1996 Thee-Planning and Zoning Commission took the:following=action:attsregular meeting: 1. Development Plan -Riverside Hospital PCD - Retail-Subareas Location: 25.346 acres aad 3.159 acres located on the west side of Avery Road, approximately 600 feet south of Post Road. Existing Zoning: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Riverside Hospital Plan). Request: Development plan approval under the provisions of Section 153.058. Proposed Use: Construction of a 230,000 square foot retail center. Applicants: Lucas Land Development c% Don Casto Organization, 209 East Town Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215 and Hospital Properties, Inc. c/o Frank T. Pandora II, 3535 Olentangy River Road, Columbus, Ohio 43214 represented by Ben W. Hale, Jr., Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4199. MOTION: To approve this development plan with the following 13 conditions: 1) .That. the proposed sign limitations . (Qnc internally illuminated sign) be submitted in writing and incorporated.part of the development.plan approval; 2) That the proposed colors foraenaat.signage:be:submitted:~at the Commission meeting and be subject to approval; 3) .That any and all mechanical equipment be shown in elevation on plans submitted for building permits, and that the equipment be totally screened in compliance with Code with materials harmonious with the building; 4) That the plans for development of the out parcels incorporate materials, colors, and architectural detailing consistent with the center; 5) That signage and landscaping for the out parcels be coordinated, controlled and consistent with those of the center; ~ That the parking lot lighting be designed to meet the Dublin Lighting Guidelines and with light fixtures of the same design to be used on all parcels; 98-0242 Page 1 of 2 Revised Development Text ~: , Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea "' 6335-7100 PerLneter Loop Road DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COIVIIVIISSION RECORD OF ACTION March 14, 1996 1. Development Plan -Riverside Hospital P.D. -Retail Subareas (Cont.) 8) 9) 10). 11) 12) 13) .....That: ~outdoor.:or.;;drive-through:.uses,.:be subject ~to.-:further. review by .the::,.. . . Commission as conditional uses; That the landmark oak tree be protected by sturdy fencing during all phases of ahe development; That .the ponds - be modified. with regard ° to:.freeboard ao ~ improve their appearance subject to Staff approval; ..That. the. landscape plea be:~modified to completely: conform to' the .Code, and be consistent with the Avery-Muirfield landscape treatment plan (1995 plan designed by Mary Newcomb; That:-all mounding to be used to meet screening requirements- be shown on the grading plan is addition to the landscape drawings; That the developer install the signal upgrade, aad fund half the cost of designing and installing a signal at Perimeter Loop Road and Avery- Muirfield Drive; and That the eastern entrance into the retail center be limited to right in/right out movements at a future date. * Ben W. Hale, Jr. agreed to the above conditions. VOTE: 6-0. RESULT: This development plan was approved. STAFF CERTIFICATION Barbara M. Clarlae Planning Director 98-0242 Page 2 of 2 RevLsed Development Tent Riverst~ Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -March 14, 1996 Page 2 1. Development Plan -Riverside Hospital PCD -Retail Subareas Bobbie Clarlae presented this development plan for 28 acres split of the 117 acres known .., as the Riverside Hospital PCD. The preliminary plat was approved at the February 14th ......Commission:meeting..:~,She.said this~is the.retail center.piece.of the. site and has-access - from :Perimeter Drive and Perimeter Loop .Road. The proposal .is fora 225,000 square ;,~foot~•r~etail: ~center,~plus ,the;establishment• of <~-two outparc~is ~located~~on :the.west ~side~~f ~ _ ~..` ~-'~ =;-Avery:Muir~ield~Drive.=,Outparcel~:development will-be presented-for consideration:at a later date. . Ms: ,Clarke said-there is a landmark tree on,the~~northern;third of .the site J Perimeter Drive - will:be extended through:this.site and continueoutSurther:~to-.the-west.~~Perimeter Loop will~alsobe extended -at least partially through this site. The "L"-shaped shopping center will be in two buildings. Modifications have been made to the architectural treatment along the .back .side of .the west. building.. The .landmark _ tree. is being.- substantially - protected. There are two wet ponds, one located at the extreme northwest corner of the site: and one at the main entrance.. The surface area of the pond and the freeboard (the amount of water fluctuation during heavy rainfalls) have been concerns. Staff believes these issues can be resolved with the applicant by placing in the parking lot, etc. The .roof lines and elevations on the back sides have been. changed as a result of the Commission's concerns. Staff is now recommending approval because of the modifications. One of the large issues outstanding.was the tenant ignage.-~ Staffand the Commission have taken the position that :.:~rboth<sides.of,Avery~Road-=should be treated::equally°regarding~sgns ;.The-applicant•has ,t verbally agreed. to limit the signage within ths~+center:;~o+~Yinteraaliyrnated~~sign for the major (grocery) tenant.. All other signs-w,ithinahe~hopping.~eenter:wall be externally • ~.~_~ - -:illuminated~with~ooseneck fiixtures~ on the~outside of#he`building~ y~Theirsigns-will.:be °cut'•_ -~.: ..,..:.. plastic letters in one of several. preselected subdued colors. The color palette has not been submitted.. While this is a different approach to signage, Staff feels it is about equal to ~~~ °-- 'erimeter-Center:-•.~Ms. •Clarke•reviewed the Perimeter Center sign restrictions. Staff is recommending approval of this development plan with the following 13 conditions: 1) 2) That the proposed sign limitations (internally illuminated sign) be submitted in writing and incorporated as part of the development plan approval; That the proposed colors for tenant signage be submitted at the Commission meeting and be subject to approval; 9s-o2az Revised Development Text ,~,,, Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -March 14, 1996 Page 3 3) That any and all mechanical equipment be shown in elevation on plans submitted for building permits, and that the equipment be totally screened in compliance with ~: Code with materials harmonious with the boil g; 4) That the plans for development of the outparcels incorporate materials, colors, and architectural detailing consistent with the center; 5)::_ .:That~signage~:andaandscaping~forthe-outparcels:~be coordinated, controlled and _.,.:.... ~_.;. consistent with those of the center; . -. . -: ~6) _ :_::That~#he :parking lot~lighting::berdesigned`to-meet the Dublin: Lighting: Guidelines .' ~ v .. - .and with light fixtures of the. same design to be used on .all parcels; 7) That outdoor or drive-through uses be subject to further review by the Commission as conditional uses; < 8) - That the landmark oak-tree°be protected;during~allrphase.sof the~evelopment; . 9) -That the ponds ~:be, modified with regard~to :freeboard Ito mprove•~.their appearance subject to Staff approval; 10) ~ That the landscape plan be modified to completely conform to the Code, and be consistent with the Avery-Muirfield landscape treatment; 11) -~ That all mounding to be -used to meet screening requirements be shown on the grading plan in addition to the landscape drawings; and 12) That the developer install the signal upgrade, and .fund half the cost of designing and installing a signal at Perimeter Loop Road and Avery Muirfield Drive; and 13) That the eastern entrance into the retail center be limited to right in/right out ~' movements at a future date. .: Mr::.S~itphen:-aslaed;if7aaetter:~had:been sent:to,=Council;#rom-ahe Commission-regardingahe ._. ~~°~~. .` -r -. '.Avery Road/US 33 Inteirhange. Ms. Chinnici Zuercher indicted it had. Ms. Boring said money had-been appropriated for-full review of the area and-the traffic needs. Council ~ - .;~r: -::;.will=consider:thatdesign.when:it:,is:presented~Sh~said;Cauac~L~w.as,aware.~that<the:option - -....-.-<. expired in less than a year. ..,=; ., ~ :Mr:Sutphen~asked about~Condition~#10 regarding,laadscaping: ~IIe asked .which:of the .... four treatments along Avery-Mwrifield Drive was to be used. Ms. Clarke said it would be the .last :changes designed by Mary Newcomb.. It includes 3 1/2 foot pilasters with _•~~:.~~hedging.~material between~~them.~ Staff believes Muirfield Drive should have~thesame •- ~'~~y'~ ~ ~~~ . _....::.:.appearance onbothaides.and .this-,goal has:.generally beeniacorporated in this plan,.but.- .. Staff wants to make sure that the same species,is used. Mr. Rauh asked what kind of adjustment was needed for the handicap parking. Ms. Clarlae said Peter Lenz, Dublin Chief Building Official, had indicated that some of the spaces needed to be located next to the building side. `~ Ben W. Hale, Jr., attorney, the applicant, agroed to the above 13 He provided ~' Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -March 14, 1996 Page 4 signage criteria to the Commissioners. He said the signs had been reduced on the buildings and blade signs had been placed along the walkways. The color palette for the letters was included in the booklet provided to the Commission. He said the signage was equal to that across the street. Mr. Hale_said ahe, one:pond .had been reduced to a minimum of.5 1!2 feet of freeboard.- - •-~•~ ~ <• The pond should be an aesthetic amenity, not just a detention. pond. -:Mark Ford, :Ford Berry -Architects, .presented the west elevation Hof .the western, building... ~. A manufactured slate:~roof and parapets. which will :help screen the rooftop. units,. have been ~--gadded ~on~the rear of he west.building..:More~detail includimg~~circularabrlck-elements such as was::.on the north :building-were added:Mr w: Halesaid rthis;area~~where the. trucks .loaded/unloaded, would be behind a brick wall. Dick Rauh said this was a tremendous improvement from the previous development plan. John: Ferrara asked about the color, "Stone Lion" . Mark Ford said it was not yellow, but a Glidden stain used wood gates on the dumpster enclosures for previous projects. It will only be used on the dumpster enclosures, not the gates themselves. Mr. Ferrara asked what the color of the stucco would be. Mr. Berry said it would be a warm buff color. The overall flavor of the center is the natural stone color, clay and putty, it is a warm-tone scheme, but very neutral scheme. .: ~ ~ -::Cathy:Boring ashod ifgoldcolored lettering-would:be:.used in: this_center.. Ms. ; Clarke said .the gold lettering was part of the sign package for Perimeter Center with different sign .background colors... Here, the background is standard and the letter color will vary. Mark :... ~; ~ ~?ordaaid he~background of ahe~signs would.~be.;a~taa~±color.,and..individual.appliedaetters: proposed:would be as-submitted at the meeting . ~e~gvosene~kd~aterns:a~ili~ be they same as used at Perimeter Center. J Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher said all the concerns raised at the previous meetings had been .addressed and she appreciated it. She said it looked like a much better project than,it did . - -•° in May 1995. • She said>~ a ~ eeter wader-her signature .had .been submitted to Council ..... _ .::.regarding the `Pun;hasing of the nand around this. area.. The. rate of purchase offered. expires. _ on January l 1997. Council has a very limited time left •to malae-decisions about the ~ • amount of land needed for the interchange. The Commission strongly recommended that the land be purchased before the expiration because the price will raise substantially after that time period. Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher understood that this issue did not impact the building of this center now. Revised Development Tezt Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -March 14, 1996 Page 5 Ms. Boring asked that Condition #10 be changed to. reflect which landscape buffer was to be matched. Ms. Clarlae said it was the Newcomb 1995 plan. Mr. Hale agreed to use the 1995 Newcomb plan. Ms. Boring asked that Condition #8 be modified to say "to be protected by sturdy fencing." Mr. Hale agreed. . -. Mr.- Ferrara anade the =motion. to ~ approve -.;this development-plan -with. the .following modified 13 conditions: 1) That the proposed siga~limitations (~~intemally_:illumiaated~~sign)::~e~submitted in writing and incorporated part of the development.~plan:approval, = .. :. -- 2)That the proposed _colors for tenant-: signage=.~e=~submitted~at,ahe Commission meeting and be subject to approval; 3) That any sad all mechanical equipment be shown in elevation on plans submitted forbuilding permits, and that-the equipment be totally screened in compliance with Code with materials harmonious with the building; 4) That the plans ~ for development of the. out parcels incorporate materials, colors, and architectural detailing consistent with the center; 5) That signage and landscaping for the out pazcels be coordinated, controlled and consistent. with those of the center; ~ That the parking lot lighting be designed to meet the Dublin Lighting Guidelines and -with light fixtures of the same design to be used on all parcels; ~ , That outdoor ordrive-through uses be subject to further. review by the Commission as conditional uses; 8) That the landmark oak ree be protected by sturdy fencing during all phases of the development; 9) : . -That the ponds be:modified~.;with:regardao~eeboard:~bounprove~thei~:~appearance .subject to-Staff approval; 10) That- the landscape plan bemodified to~=completely conform-to the ~Code;~ and be consistent with the Avery Muirfield landscape treatment plan (1995 plan designed by Mary Newcomb); 11) ~ That •~ all .mounding to be used o meet screening requirements be shown . on. the grading-plan in addition to the. landscape drawings; 12) • That the developer • install the signal upgrade, and fund half the cost of designing and installing a signal at Perimeter Loop Road and Avery-Muirfield Drive; and 13) That the eastern entrance into the retail center be limited to right in/right out movements at a future date. Mr. Sutphen seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Rauh, yes; Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Boring, Yes; Mr. Sutphen, yes. (Approved 6-0.) , . Mr. Peplow, yes; Mr. Ferrara, yes; and Mr. 98-024z RevLsed Development Teat Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perlm~er Loop Road RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 7 Meeting 16. That landscape euements be icatesi on the plat for those u between the development d contiguous property owners eadlee and Pagiieri). Mra. Stillw eked how the stream bed clean issue in condition 9 would aff the overall stream cleaning pr since it hu been determined tha ome clearing of streams can a ly be injurious to the stream Mr: ICindra respon that this stream bed wu not p of the :cream survey. Mrs. Stillwell noted that page l 1 of the January 19. 199 tall report. It states that a str tree piss must be aubmiued for ff review and approval. It wu t part of the conditions, and ndera whether a meat tree wu submitted. .Zimmer confirmed that a m tree plan hu been submitted. Mc. bell moved approval of the nal plat of Muirfield Village Ph 44~ Sections 1 do 2subject to the ditions of Planning do Zonin Mr. Zaw seconded the motion. •. Mr.-Campbell, - Ms. Hide Pittaluga. yex~ tx. Boring yes; Mr. McCash.: yes; Mr. Zawal es; Mayor Kranstuber, yes; . Stiliwell~ yes. Ms. puke noted that this property was rezoned back in 1989. and subsequent to the Placating Commission hearings of January and February of this yeti. a traffic study for the wideaing of Avery Road hu indicated that additional fight-0f--way will be needed. The developer agreed u part of the conditions of PdcZ to accommodate the projected wldating is accordance with the Avery Road interchange study currently underway. and has gives the City the right to use the 30-foot puking setback to accommodate the road widening. Staff is concerned that if the landscape setback becomes roadway easement, the perimeter landscaping would be reduced. The Avery-Muirfield buffer plan requires the full 30-foot setback. At this-time. the City estimates needing 15 feet of the setback for additional right-of--way, which would adjust the setback 1'me to 45 feet to ensure adequate green space. The compromise reached with the developer wu to reduce the requirement for rear yard setbacks for the outparceis at the western edge, allowing for more greatspace u the Avery Road frontage. and providing for the same net developable area for the project. The problem with this solution is that i< requires a Coning text amendment which would require the recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission and that Council approval. Staff has submitted to Council tonight a revised preliminary plat with the setback lines .reatove~ from the Avery Road frontage and along the rear-yard. The developer has ~_~ommitted to .submit a rezoning request. and on behalf of stiff. Ms:'Cluke has assured the developerthat staff will support the request. Mr. Smith commented thu the solution proposed by staff involves Council approving the plat this evening without tetback lines bued upon staff t ceoommendation~ and allowing the public improvanents and ptivue improvements to be initiued. An additional factor involved is that in 1988 agreements were troached with the landowners whereby the landowners provided 5650000 for improvements to Avery Road with the understanding that additional right-of-way would not be required. 'they are, however. willing to provide the additional right-0f-way. and immediately following this process. they will file the rezoning which will effectively move the entire project west by 15 20 feet. The law depatttnatt recommetels this solution for a development project which has already been designed and engineered. Mr. Campbell pointed out that the outpucels actually back up to parking lot. so the puking lot screening would be reduced. Mr. Hale pointed out thu the setbacks la Perimeter Center for Bank One and McDonald't tie 8 feet, while the Kroger development will have l5 feet. nearly double what h; accost the ttreet. .~ Mc. McCash asked aboutthe purpose of a no-build ties of 180 feet u shown betwnon outlets A and~~~Z B• RCVfsed Develoi Mt. puke responded that this is Kroga's proteetbn of the visual oorridorto their slgttage. It Is ' e pgp Mr. N~idd~ed t~tat k provides fa:epuation of the buildittt: and provides an uchitetxttcal control ~3P~ ~ P~tl~~ fature in site planning. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~Nwnlae .,r Dublin City Council Meeting A ril 2Z 1996 19 Nnld I Mr. Zawaly asked if there ue use restrictions for the outlets A and B. ~'. Ms. Ctuke responded that they are restricted to service uses -fast food, a bank. a Btu station. ~ rtunit to review the uchitecture for the I' Mayor granstuber asked if Council will have the oppo Y I project ~• Cluke responded that Council reviews architecture in the rezoning action. within theslasth6 architetxural eommiuaeats were contained in the text in the 1989 rezoning. roved. •~ '- `months; developmentplans were •submltted ~to Planning Comn-ission ..and have bees app ~e~lo meat will have the sameWl el of quality tthe Perimetu Center across the street. that the ' dev p ~~ Y sal constitutes a good {i Regarding.the setback issues Mr. Hale stated that the believe tonIght's propo ,,~~ solution. -They will fdethe plat to make the setback adjustments. i' Discussion then followed about the runifications of approving -the preliminary plat with the assumption that the setbacks proposed in the solution will be approved by Coundl at a later -date. 1 I< was emphasized that if PdrZ -does not recommend approval of the rezoning. Council would have ~~ to approve it by a super m4jority. Mr. Hansley emphasized that it is important to ucertain tonight that at least five members of Council I~ support the proposed solution. ~ Ms. Cluke pointed out the worst case scenuio where the widening could possibly require all 30 feet 1 of the setback which would result in a shortage situation. She emphasized that the Avery Road I alignment is still preliminary, and staff also rupports a median construction along Avery-Muirfield ' Drive in this uea. I ~ Disatssion followed about the available setbacks from Avery and from the western edge Ei of the project. ~ ~ aye them a certain Ms. Cluke emphasized that Mr. Hale maintains that the 1989 zoning g i' developable uea in the two outparcels. ate throughout the engineering and development plan protxss. he hu operated with the understanding that the developable uea will be the same. Mr. ~I ` Hale is iaterected isexploring u-y compromises or.solutioas which wilt not contract the developable ~I area. ll Mayor Kraosdtber commented that in his opinion. he does act believe the existing 989bzonin t ~ McDonald's is adequate. He eked about what legal rights the developer has based on g considering that many factors have ttow changed. Mr. liansley responded that the developer donated right-of--way-twice, Yttd alder a thte~-party agreement. the road was built and the right-of way was.donated -they paid one third of the cost of the total road project which extended beyond Post:Road. ~i Mayor-Kranstuber commented that they'a-ade`the oontributions-because they wanted~to develop in the City of Dublin. It is important that this gateway to Dublin be green, with a tree•liaed boulevard. Ha added that if they need more land is order to accommodate the road widening the developer can either buy more land or scale down the projetx. Mark Ford fiord Beery Architects presented architectural renderings to Council of the project. He noted that the caning text of 1989 dictates thu it be of residential scale. with porticos sari columns. The Center will be primarUy brick and stone. There ue lantern and decocuive oolutna elements which repeat throughout rite project. They have worked with staff on criteria for sigttage. and ind[vidual tenants will be limited to 24' high externally Uluminued letters. Kroger the anchor j store. is the ody tenant which will be allowed to have internally illuminued letters and it will comply with the Dahlia limitation of 60 square ket for graphltx. He noted Wu the brick and stone have bees brought to We rrarr of We sltoppiag center in contpilance with We zoafat text, and a slate ~! roof has been incorporated. The owttea have agreed to preserve We loge tree oa the rite. Mc. Campbell asked who wUl ocatpy We two outlets. N Mc. Hale toted that ao deckba hu been anade to due. He noted that the outpaeoels have no entry ~-0~Z off of Perimeter oc Peclateter Loop which will Nmit the typo of tenant:. RCijSCd DeVCIO~ Ms. HWe Pituluja trued West the pcoJea is well done. attnetive tad adheres to hilt uaadacds. She ~ asked If Cottt-dl can cesave We right in tonight's atxbn a object to older portions of the plot u ~~ ~ ~e anoWee time. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of Dublin City Council Meeting Page 9 Meeting Help April 22, 1996 19 !' Mr. Hale confirmed that they will still have to return to Planning Commission for final development ,, plan approval. The setbacks on this plat have been removed, so there is no commitment on the j~ City': part u to what the setbacks are. They will have to go through a rezoning process to adjust I; the subacks. ;I 4 Mayor Kranstuber pointed out that the worst cue scenario is that there may not be enough area ~I available w~ accommodate a median In the future. ;~ ~~ Ms: Clarke stated that Wetonsultant hu recommended 9 lanes for Avery Road. If a median is also added, . Wls :ire would have W be complete re-engineered. . :, ~' Mrs. Boring stated that perhaps the lanes could be made smaller in order to preserve the greenspace. !~ The developer hu been very. accommodating in terms of greenspace. ~= Mrs. Stlllwelt added that in terms of traffic In 2020. [hero are solutions on .the supply side and ;; demand side that could be a factor In the future plans.- She is satisfied with We solution proposed :j tonight. ,, ;j Mr. Campbell commented Wu experts acknowledge that cities can sever build enough roads and :i have to constrict other solutions to traffic problems. He believes the greenspace proposal preserves I~ the green feeling along Avery Road. He favors the solution proposed tonight, subject to the d conditions of Pdc2. a :' Mayor Kranstuber suggested another alternative -reducing the parking. Ms. Clazke responded that Kroger has Its own requirements for parking which are more restrictive ;~ than Dublin's Code. ~~ Discussion followed about the vazious areas where setback could be taken from and added to the Avery-Muirfield setback -the parking lot screening, etc. Reducing the parking would also free up space. Mr. Hale summarized that the eommignent they will make Is to make the front yard setback u lazge u they can make work while still having the appropriate buffering for the parking tots for the outpazcels and driveways. Unless there is some reason it does not make sense, Wey aze willing to adjust the parking lot screening to add more setback to the front. Mr. Zawaly they moved to approve the revised preliminary plat, dated April 22. 1996, subject to the 8 oondittons of P6c2 u contained in the Record of Action of January 18. 1996, with the additional condition that the front setback on Avery-Muirfield Drive be established in conjunction with staff to maximize green spas, and that to do so, ~We~enttre-footprint ~of the autparcxls will be moved back toward the parking Jot, and .that Wenumber:of~spaces-In Wat: parkingaiot will be reviewed in conjuatxtoa wiW~We maximizing-of<they4vety,-Muirfield green~spaa. Mrs. Boring seconded the motion. Following brief discatsaton, Mr. Zawaly amended his motion to state, "that the front setback on Avery-Mulrtield Drive be established at not less than the 30 feet of granspace that is shown on the green highlighted exhtbtt (marked Exhibit "A7 submitted by staff to Council on April 22, 1996, and Was in .We effort to maximize those greenspaces,. the footages shown on such exhibit be used u minimum requiremetts.' Mr. Campbell seconded We amended motion. Mr. Hale agreed to We conditions. Vote on We motion - Mr. Catttpbell, yes; Mr. Zttwaly~ yes; Ms. Hide Pittaluga, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Kranstuber~ ao; Mr. M h, yes; Mrs. Stillwell, yes. - -~ - -- - ~ Ms. CI a explained Wu We T'I(aatas let property it now called, ' le Crossing NotW, I Sectba 2" ooasists of 111 acres aorta t of 1270 and Rings. This iminary plat was cevleMred by Oommissba oa Apctl • 1996 and hu been fo to Council expeditiously is to meet the oommittneats of nttaCt trogarditt6 We pubik I vemetus. :, The flr:t phase of vemeats will bdude the etu atSth of i3tttecatd Paticway. dt :' pottlon of Woecaa le betwedt Emerald Parkway We west propagr lilts ' tteocWWertuttoK piece of Drive a the loop toad. The Imiauy plat estsblisbes as ovRCV1SCd DevelopmeDt Te stostnwatec plan sad penvides rite overall utility setvice~ shows the layout of a!1 d . streets. This plat has Rote: wbldt ttGdnxs the Ettphteec'a oot-catts. ~ Riverside Hospital PCD, +- reoo apptot-at of the plat fart ooaditloas listed In the tnpott Ie me Reoa6335-7100 Perimeter Loop ) Aexba a Platuting (~otntglttba April la, 1996. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of e~blia-6ity-Geancil-Meeti ~$ Meeting ~; ~I ' Heh September 3, 1997 ~ t g j ~~ Mr.W brook stated that a two reserve ar will be deeded to th Homeowners ~~ As ' lion for Phase 5. ~' Mayor ber moved a prove( with the lions of P8c2. Mrs. B seconded the lion, and asked if name change needs o be addressed at this tune. , Mr. S stated.thataince th applicant:has:met all e.conditions of preliminary puu, they will need prove( from staff the name change approval from the ecxetary of State's office to the name of plat. The name a will not affect th conditions of the '~ PAY lat. ~~ Mr. Westb k stated they will a the name on th let to something ' ar, but a little ~~ differert. to have the a change approv the City staff an by the existing homeowners 'on ';' :Mayor amended his mo 'on to include this co ition. Mrs. Boring nded the motion -Mrs. Stillwell, es; Mayor ICranctu yes; Mr. McCash, ; Ms. Hrde Pittaluga, Yes; • Boring, Yes; Mr. bell, Yes; Mr. R er, yes. IGndra noted _~ the next three it on the agenda relat to easement and ' of way ications for dev opmerrts. The plats ere forwarded in the ouncil packet with inunendations f acceptance. ror Kranstuber approval of the let for Martin Comm Campbell second the motion . Boring asked if a setback has been red to ensure that is a minimum of 3 feet. Reiner agreed that a setback should checked as some of th setbacks in the too small for a of the buildings Campbell, Yes; Mr. ' er, yes; Ms. Hide uga, yes; Mrs. ' yes; Mr. yes; Mrs. Stillwell, ;Mayor Kranstuber, Mayo ber moved of the plat. ~ Ms. Pittaluga the motion. - Mrs. S ' Yes; Mayor ber, yes; Mr. yes; Ms. Hide Pittalu yes; Mrs. Boring, ; Mr. Campbell, yes; .Reiner, yes. Mayor ber moved app val of the plat. ~ Mr. Reiner nded the motion -Mr. yes; Mr.-Reiner, Mrs: Boring;yes; yes; Mrs. Still Yes; Mayor ,Yes; Ms. Hrde Pi uga, yes. Mrs. Stillwell if the City has y recourse when boil legs are not built to the specifications ' the plans, i.e., aetb are less than that o the plat. Mr. Smith nded that the City d have recourse and old, in fact, requu~e the the building be mov to conform to the lat. ,+ FoUowiag brief 'oq h was the nsensus of Council to ve staff measure the acka I~ for Martin Co sad report back t Council. 1~ Ms. Hide Pittaluga oted that she is py with the Mtllco d opment at Bright and i `~ Sawmill setbacks iu ' of the fact that is as entry point to blip. Additional ~~ should have bees ~ ,! Mr. Reimer noted way to maintain errs( look is to have setback:, and can be addressed in Community Plan. IardcBgmclds, smith dt Hale, represertdrtg the applicant stated that lire signt~ge for the Avery 98-0242 Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B ~i~~S-71(lfl PPrimPtPT T nnn Rnarl F7ECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of ,,,,bk~G~ e e Meeting Held September 3, 1997 ' 19 Road Retail center was tabled at the August meeting so that Council could be shown some mock-ups of the proposed signage. Gharl_ie Fro g representing the Don Casto group, showed slides of the proposed aignage for the shopping center. The sign is designed ao that the base of the Avery Square sign is even -with the base of the elevation of the center. He then described the pavement sad the right-of- way needed for the mad widening, and how this impacts the shopping centers on Avery Road. Mr. Campbell noted that the Law Director has informed him that the issues related to Wendy's on this site have been resolved, and tonight's issue is separate. Therefore, he will be able to partiapate in the discussion as he no longer has a conflict of interest. Mr. McCash indicated that he does not support additional signage clutter on Avery Road and does not believe this signage is needed. The sign as proposed is also too large. The Perimeter Center does not have a sign, and a sign at this venter is not warranted. Mr. Reynolds added that the goal is to identify the shopping center, especially for those new to the area and for visitors to the area. Ms. Newcomb stated that both of the centers, Avery Square and Perimeter Center have similar zoning texts. The Perimeter text does allow an identification sign at the northeast corner in front of McDonald's, but there was not room for such a sign after the parcel was sold to McDonald's. Mr. Reynolds stated that fiom an economic viewpoint and in order to attract retailers to this site, he can't emphasis enough the importance of this sign Mrs. Boring stated that she thinks the brick adds some dignity to the sign and the sign is important in view of this heavily trafficked roadway. Identification of the center is an important goal Ms. Idide Pittaluga stated that she would prefer that the height be reduced for the proposed sign. Mrs. _Stillvwell stated that it is important to allow foridentification, but it is equally important that the corridor remain visually intact without sign proliferation ~ She would like to find a compromise. Mr. Reynolds stated that they are willing to reduce'the'heaght and leave it in that general tocation. Mr. McCash stated that his concxrns are not related to the heighth or physical aesthetics of the structure itself but rather to the overall location and visual impact on the Avery corridor to having an addtional sign at this location given the lotxtion of future signage for the adjacent outparcels. Discussion followed. Mr. Campbell stated that in view of the fact that the Wendy's sign has been mentioned in this discussion, he will now abstain from this matter. Diacuaaioa contiared. Mayor ltranstirber rrmved to approve the sign with the modification of reducing the height to 11 to 12 feet by elimirtating the brick, and with the sdpulation that the dgn ramairt in the general at~ea proposed. Ma. ITide Pittaluga seconded the motion veto en the metiers . Mr, Rainer, no; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mr. MCCash, no; Ma. Htde 1'Ittahtga, ya; Kranatuber, ye:: Mn. StittweQ ye:. 98-0242 Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of r+~.blinJCity~Council-A4~.: ^ ~~„ Meeting Held_ September 3, 1997 ig Mayor I{ranstuber announced that the signage was approved by a vote of 4 to 2. commented: Thee are storm water ' es related to the B' ' ey ditch is her Helwig resp~ ed that Camp, McKee is inclu ' this in their atu and solutions be provided the end of the He added that this basically a private perry issue, the Community lan that is forthco will address th scenic watenva 'the 2. -Thanks to for their prompt nse to the acad ton Coffman Ro near the high school. May r Kranstuber ask when the Co Road project will a completed to the dent p lot. Mr. wig responded by the end of th week, traffic lanes be operational direr ns on the ude of the 'era to the no ost parking lot. western half of a road still must dug out, curbed d completed. Th contract calls for of Co Road widening t be completed by ecember 31, 1997. Discussi n followed regar ' the time fi:am for the Coffman wi erring project and e apparent ck of construcxi activity for peri s of time. Mr. Hand responded that 'ties award comra to the lowest q ed bidder, and th bidders pro ose a time fiarne Staff then eval time flame versus 'ce. In this case, gel & Co. were ed the co with a time a for completion December 31. Th entire Co us region is 've with projects, and th ore the market is competitive. Mrs. Boring fed that the W s of Indian Run meowners n have requested time frame for. a project as very with the onoo-way c situation. Disarssion folio ed. Mr. Helwig that since this is major roadway in community whi affects established neigh r><wda, perhaps speaficatioas uld have been wr`ttt a little er+ently. Staff bring Council speafi 'ens in the firdrre such projects. In meantime, staff provide a ule of the project:for tha er of the identifying arty which beimpleaiented lessen:the impact: a:the - . ed with her cots: 3. Resarding the vement markers r Riverside she was aurprisd the cost of 53,700 as ' in IVtr. Kindn'a .Perhaps me disarssion is ed. Ivtr. stated that a orders can w~ensive in an contract. then -alt five would be to ' de these in the 'fie constructio project. Folio discussion, Ms. de Pittaluga ved to include avemait marker a change „~ order the exksting co Mra. S well ucorsied the • lvtr. Yes; Mr. ' er, Yes; Ms. Hi reported: 1. in north Dub ' d opment which is o that developer wata 2. N 20 redderrts are He naked that a pro • The City- ~ Yea: Mra. 1?ittaluga, yea; coacana aC ~ oftheDubl e ofthe rou with a bank bck on thin to ooadder ~, Yom; Mr, i Kraastuber, e the dual g uiadicdon. He some ofthe Bt red Muirfleld h tar. He will pa elation to ilroe no; Mn. d if staff could nest ~~ ~~a II B ~' that the 98-0242 1 °~" Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes Of T~i~blinLlty (:n~~nril Meeting p~c~S Meeting ., is Held September 15, 1997 ' - lg ~i ~! Council on M day, September 22. I` Mr. Campbell conded the motion. I - Mr. Reiner, yes; Mrs. Stillwel . -- II Boring, yes; May r Kranstuber, yes; Mr. pbell, ,a r,an - i~~i-yy Mrs. Stillwell, Ad ' 'strative Committee chair, , the Whole regarding to proposed plan. Folio until members fo d aay suggested changes as related to realtor t rs included in the plan. s. Stillwell recommen ed that Council move fc co terns regarding the r for tour portion of the Mr Boring indicated that he, too, has.concerns~ vie f the many demands the Community Rol I, yes; Ms. Hide 'ttaluga, Yes; Mrs. Yes; Mr. yes. orted that they have et as a Committee of the meeting, the Co 'ttee asked that ~ them. The only than brought forward and with the Plan, ackn lodging the it 'ncluding realtor tours.' the Plan in ion division. Dtscu sion followed. ~ Mrs. 'well moved to adopt a strategic communicati plan absent the realtc section. Mrs. Bo ' g seconded the moti - Mr. Reiner, es; Mrs. Stillwell, yes; or ICranstuber, yes; McCash, y s; Ms. Hide Pittaluga, es; Mrs. Boring, Yes; Mr. ampbell, yes. I additional 550, 00 been determin by Road. Mr. Reiner seco Ms. Sonora stated desires additional .Boring asked es visibility and . Sonora reapon 've for saf has uch more visi Mr: einer added th Mr. Ma has put Mayor; h Bugg designs nsgrber and Mr. Ra lations of the Arts ~I Mrs. Stillw t stated that she is portive of an addition 550,000 in funding fora ' h I) quality art p jest. Mr. Campbel commented that this 's an opportunity fora 'bate to the individual who ado i Dublin what it today. He is sup of spending S 120, for this purpose, as !i recommended the Arts Council p fessionals. ~! -Mrs. Stipwell, ; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. cCash, yes; Mr. Campbel ;. yes; Mayor bet, yes; Mra. Bori yes; Ms. ITide Pittalu yes. it '' Mrs. Stillwell mo that Council adopt he memo of Septem 0, 1997 which identifies t e I! location of the art rk and the artist as ected by the Committ Mr. Campbell sewn the motion. Vote en the motion - ,Reiner, yes; Mr. cCash,. no; Mr. Cam ll, yes; Mayor Kranstuber, yes; Ms. Hide PitWug yes; Mn. Boring, ; Mra. Stillwell, yes. Ms. Hide Pitteluaa moved that Council reconsider the Avery Square signage matter reviewed at the lut meeting. - II Mr. Smith noted that in Courtcil'e Rules of Order, Section 11.10, a member who voted on the prevailing tide at the last mceting has the right to move for reconslderation of the acQon. The 98-0242 Revised Development Text RAiversideMHospital PCD, Subarea B fl l 1S-"I1 ~ 11 ~ UPM~1'1P~Pr T Mn ~nn~ for the special pub art project honoring J the Arts Council to eon Muirfield/Avery d the motion. t the plea includes th design and ' soaping, that would a separate and ad the Post Road/F 'te was not the sure at Post and F tied the 161/Framz site not recd ety aa. It also lacks availability bility m both dirxtions. at the. estion at 161/Fran was: anothe ested that until consider.addido altirndini and pro together. moved to appropriate 1 Nicklaus. The location ~evard south of Brand mstallation of ~ ditional recomm art piece. ff Council st. led one in view of the ~~ ~n~g fi d Drive location .reason that srte was not ~ I at a~later_date. enthe artist the mmended . The IA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of fl,~fj~~p~~jjM~rlino Ang~ ~ Meeting Hela September 15, 1997 19 ~ second can come from either side, and four votes will be required to bring this back for consideration. Mr. McCash seconded the motion. Mrs. Stillwell commented tltat she opposes reconsiduation -this matte has gone through the process, Council and Phtntvrtg Commission have made their deasions, and bringing the developu back is not fair in terms of the process. She will vote against a motion for reconsideration Mr. Campbell stated that he will abstain from this matte for the same reasons he abstained from discussion at the last hearing. Vote on the motion - Ms. Hide Pittaluga, yes; Mrs. Boring, no; Mr. Reims, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Mrs. Stillwell, no; Mayor ICranstubu, yes. Ben Hale_ representing the applicant stated that he was unable to attend the-last hearing:on this matte. He noted that the Avery Squue cerrtu is located on a substantial grade and will not be as visible from Avery Road as is Perimeter Centu. At the last meeting, they agreed to take the base off the sign which lowers it by 3 feet. They also agreed to set all of the uea back to comply with future widening needs of the City on Avery Road. Therefore, the Avery Squue centu will sit substantially furthu back from the roadway than the Perunetu Centu across the street They have also agreed to do substantial landscaping in the setback area, and he showed drawings of this to Council. They have included goose neck lighting on their signage in the Centu, restricted the colors, and have used a similar typeface to the Perimetu signs. He noted that from a public policy perspective, Council will want to have signage on Avery Road for the Avery Squue centu. It is a safety issue for those trying to find businesses located in the ~ Centu. He emphasized that the proposed sign on Avery is very tasteful, includes heavy landscaping, and will not overpowu the street. He asked that Council not reconsider the Ij approval given at the last meeting. +~ Ms. Clarke stated that Mr. Hale has outlined the facts as she undustands them Staff ~ recommended approval of the sign package at the time of the rezoning and still supports it. Mayor I{rartstubu asked for verification of the size of the sign as proposed and the amount of signage that Perimetu Center is entitled to have on the frontages. Ms. Clarke responded that the proposed sign is approximately 50 Squue feet which they are entitled to have. .. 0 Mr. Smith added that Perimeter Center is allowed 66 Squue feet pu sign face for the two main identification signs they ue allowed to have undo their zoning. Perimetu has not constructed either sign at this time, however. Mayor ICranstuber asked for furthu information.about how the McDonald's sign affects the +' signage allowed for Perimetu Center. Mr. Smith responded that Perimetu is entitled to two main. identification signs, not to exceed 15 feet in height, 19 feet inwidth-arid 66 square feehpu-sign -He .does:not agree with the interpretation that the McDonald't sign on•thaouvpucelreduces the+availability ofsignagel'or the Perimeter Centu. The location of the aignage for the Centu would have to change, but not the amount they are pumitted to have. Mr. McCash asked Mr. Hale why the Avery Square site does not the same visibility as the Perimeter Center from Avery/Muirfield. ~i Mr. Hale responded that the Perimetu site is at grade. The Avery Squue site has a 7-foot bank in conformance with the approved grading plan. ~~ Mr. McCash pointed out that the 7 feet of fiU was done with the development of the site. When the plan was previously reviewed by Council, there was discussion of a SO foot strip between the two outpucels which 1:Crogu had requested in order to provide visibility of the Center's uchitectural details from Avery/Muirfield. The 7 foot of fill has now precluded the visibility of the Center behind the two outparcels. Mr. Hale responded that the only setbacks which wee changed for this Center were in front of ~. the buildings to aa:commodate any future widening of Avery/Muirfield. Mr. McCash noted that the issue hero is the 7 feet of fill and its impact on the SO feet of green space between the two outparcels which wu intended to provide visibility from Avery/Muirfield. Mr. Hale stated that the grade is not a factor in the visibility from the tooth to the Getter. He emphasized that the sign package they have had approved by Coundl is good public policy, is 98-024Z W»- Revised DevelopmeAt Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B F~4S-71f1f1 APrimPtar T nnn l?n~ri RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Minutes of n„bl;n [`.it_~_;n,_c11.Me~~g p,o~ Meeting Held September IS, 1997 19 ,. j, not intrusive, and includes generous landscaping. I~ Mrs. Stillwell stated that she believes signage is necessary for identification of the Center. The I signage as proposed is not intrusive - it is functional. .Mrs. Boring commented that in fairness to the applicant and ell of the work they have done to modify their aignage to conform with the Perimeter signage, she believes they deserve to have the sign as approved at the last meeting. , Ms. Hide Pittaluga stated that the Perimeter Center signage on Avery/Muirfield will probably ~ not be installed because of the small amount of space available. It is a business decision to jI utilize the outparcels, and if the outparcels decrease the visibility for the Centers, the solution is j• not additional signage. She would prefer attractive signage identifying the Centers to having iI ~ businesses on the outparcels..She wouldaupport:the signage as proposed for Avery Square if it were moved around tha corner on Perimeter Loop. ~ j Mr. Reinerstated that-he agrees with Ms:=Hide Pittaluga. A customer will hav6 to-drive into the Center to.find the tenants. This is not a~ debate about whether or not to have signage, but - about the location of the signage. ij i, Mayor ltranst~iber stated that he is struggling with the aesthetics of the sign. The developer I' II has been very cooperative in trying to find a compromise. j I Mr. McCash added that if Council approves the signage as requested, it almost certainly i guarantees that Perimeter Center will come back and ask for their sign to be relocated along • ~ Avery/Muirfield in a location other than the primary entrance to Perimeter Center. The argument will be made that this is only fair. Discussion continued. Mr. Smith confirmed that if a motion is made to vacate the previous action of Council on this I ~I matter, the signage would then have to be located on Perimeter Loop with a 15-foot height ~ . ! limitation. The Council action of two weeks ago approved moving the sign to i~ Avery/Muirfield. i Ms. Hide Pittaluga moved to vacate the Council action of September 3, 1997 regarding the . i~ sign package for Avery Square. I Mr. McCash seconded the motion. i Vote on the motion - Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor ICranstuber, yes; Mrs. Stillwell, no; Mr. McCash, j yes; Mrs. Boring, no; Ms. Hide Pittalu8a, Y~• ~ ' noted she received call today from Mr. orose who is concerned {~ bout deer on his p operty. He is requ a written respo a from the City on 'ts position ! li this matter. . Smith respond that.this-matter.w ~iscussed~reviously y Council, and he- ntacted ;. i~ Amoroseat shat. a to tell him Co ' :had ~o:~desire, to r the hunting•b within the ~ C' limits~orao:mod' ae;weapons-ordin ~ 3vir.::Almorose led that he wou[d'~ a to '"' ' .. ;j hav this information' wri ' r.Iiewill .. tmg._ tfyMr.Amorose in ling of Council: s " "on !~ on t matter, usumin that their opinion snot changed. ! It w the consensus of ouncil to have Mr. mith communicate th 'r position on these '• it matter which has not ed since the last cession. I? ~' stated that: 1. attended the Bu ni y done. 2. He as faxed Council add ed in the Com road ays, ensuring th maim mina site ameni Mr•. Campbell sled that he serve board presently nd has noti5ed th t running for re coon to Council. Council serve in position. If a . ~ asked that they him in the ra meeting is Decem 11. Awards program on Council's b~alf. The program bens and copied .Clarke about seve items to be !! ry Plan, includin setbacks for roadway retrofitting old li raatructure needs re taken into account 'th rezonings, protecting rural ar and including art o public buildings. on the Central Ohi Transit Authority of n advisory of his intent to r ign in view of the fact at he is not Board would li to have someone &o Dublin City n Council member is terested in volunl couple of days. The oard meets qua 98-0242 Revised Development Text Riverside Hospital PCD, Subarea B 6335-7100 Perimeter Loop Road ~'