The URL can be used to link to this page

68-02 OrdinanceRECORD OF ORDINANCES 68-02 Ordinance No ................................................................... Passed .................................................................., ....................... AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FOR APPROXIMATELY 13.422 ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN PERIMETER LOOP DRIVE AND MERCEDES DRIVE (PRIVATE), APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET NORTH OF US 33/SR 161, FROM PCD, PLANNED COMMERCE DISTRICT, TO: PCD, PLANNED COMMERCE DISTRICT (CASE NO. 02-0322 -TEXT REVISION - PERIMETER CENTER, SUBAREA I -CROWN DEALERSHIPS - 6350, 6400, AND 6520 PERIMETER LOOP ROAD). /"f C1" f }~-~t i NOW, THEREFORE, ~E IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, Tye 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 zoned PCD, Planned Commerce District, a composite plan that shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21-70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances) the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 2. That application, Exhibit "B", including the list of contiguous and affected property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Exhibit "C", are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance therewith. Section 3. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law. Passed this day of Q , 2002. G~G n~ ayor -Presiding Of icer Attest: ~/~ ~ Jerk of Coun 1 Sponsor: Planning Division I hereby certify that copies of this Ordinance/Resolution were posted in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 731.25 of the Ohio Revised Code. (,1,0,x" , rk of Council, Dublin, Ohio CITY OF DUBLIN Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway -Dublin, Ohio 43017-1006 Phone: 614-410-4400 -Fax: 614-410-4490 Memo To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Marsha Grigsby, Interim City Manager ~h~~,~-- Date: May 16, 2002 Re: Perimeter Center, Subarea I -Crown Dealerships (Case 02-0322) Initiated by: Chad D. Gibson, AICP, Senior Planner CC~ I~'~'"" Subarea I of Perimeter Center is 13.42 acres located between Perimeter Loop Road and Mercedes Drive (private). The site is zoned PCD, Planned Commerce District, and an auto dealership is a permitted use. There are three parcels within this subarea, and there are two auto dealerships (Chrysler and Mercedes) currently operating on the western and central parcels. A third dealership building on the easternmost undeveloped 4.6 acres of Subarea I is under constriction. That development plan application was approved in error by the staff (99-073RDP), as it does not meet the PCD text requirement for the minimum 25-foot pavement side yard. This side yard deficiency was only identified at the building permit review. The plan that was approved by the Planning Commission on November 15, 2001 necessitates a minor text modification. The staff has been attempting to keep this project moving, and the building is currently well along in its construction. The Planning and Zoning Commission hearing was very long and quite complicated. In its own attempt to keep the project moving, it rejected the text as submitted because it involved quite a number of changes that could not be handled quickly. The Planning and Zoning Commission then recommended approval of a much more simplified version of the text revision on May 2, 2002 with no conditions. The Commssion voted unanimously to reduce the minimum sideyard pavement setback for the easternmost parcel from 25 feet to 10 feet. The rest of the existing PCD text is unchanged. If this revision is approved by City Council, the project can proceed to completion based on the November 15, 2001 plan. AS SUdMRTEO TO CQUNCIL J ~ ~~ FOR MEETING ON `~ Z'D ~ 2 ,~_ 1 ~t~'~ h.~ R-1 ~ Fi ~ PAD ~' PCD ~rjl7 C~YS PfL ~~. ~ ~ ~ R-1 rc i ~,.-- R-1 R 1 R-1 _ _ __ --- ~ - _ - SO _ -.- - *,. POSTRO - --- ---~ PUD PEwM -. ~ I v N R-12 ~ ~ ~ } PCD =-~ `~", ~ ~ m "`l~ C m LI ~~ ~ ~ _ ,,a~ _~`_ 31 _- - ~~ - z cD ~ ~>~~ ~\ PCD ~~ ~~ a 4 _ --- -_--_ T~. _-,~-- - - --- - -- _ - ~ ~ c,_ _- __ _ - - l GI PIP -- RI RI SHIER RINGS RO ____.__.. .,~_~_.____.. LI - - ------_-'_.°.. ~ 1 _ + .~: , s~ ~- ~ 9f ------~--~ Pao ~, - RI C ~ SO R-1B II _ ~ x - J PL-/ \ ~ ~ RI 7 ' ~~~~ -~ VI E R °- ~ ~ 1~4~ t _ ~~ -- .y __ ~ . - _ °_~ Y 1 t3 1 _ 9 _ -__ ~ - Y RI 2 -i` ~ ' i _ __-_ - ~ t I T \z Q - t .:,- 4 m 3 I ~ ~~ ~ L - Perimeter Center Subarea I J Crown Text Revision R ~ 6400/6520 Perimeter Loop Road _ - 7 ~ _ a ~ e~~F -, R-1 R.. ~~- - - f` ~~ti.,.~ 5800 Shier Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 Phone/TDD: 614/761-6550 Fax: 614/761-6566 REZONING APPLICATION (Code Section 153.234) TO EXPIRE Ordinance No. •~Z City Council '1st Reading ~ o`Z ~ O ~-- City Council Public Hearing City Council Action FOR OFFICE tlSE ONLY Amount Received: Application No: _. P8Z Dates : P8Z Action: _ '; Receipt No: MIS Fee No: Date Received:: 3 Z~ o _ Received By: f Type of Request: ' ^ PLEASE SUBf~AIT TWO {2) ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATIONS - PLEASE PK]NT - AND THIRTEEN (13) COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLlCAT10N and CHECK THE TYPE OF APPLICATION ^ Composite Plan(Code Section 153.058) ^ Preliminary Development Plan (Code Section 153.056) Other (DescriLe) Text revision, pursuant to Staff r~ zuPst I_ PROPERTY INFORMATION TAX ID NO/ 273-0~1021Q/273-007004 Parcel Size: I; 1 DISTRICT PARCEL NO: 273-05562 (Acres) 13.~'IZZ ~ Property Address: 6520, 6400, 6350 Perimeter Loop Road Property Location: ~ Subarea I of Perimeter Center Develo ent ~ Side of Street:~1 S, E, W) I Nearest Intersection: Perimeter Loop Rd. and Perimeter Dr. j i Distance from Nearest Intersection: 416 N, ~ E, W from Nearest Irtersection Existing Land UselDevelopment: I Automotive dealerships Proposed Land Use/Development: Sa ~ _ ~~~ me ~, Current or Existing Zoning District: Requested Zoning District: No. of Acres to be Rezoried: ~ PCD, Subarea I Same, text revision 13.,~;ZZ.~ y ~~~~ ~.~ Page 1 of 4 Rezenc Application RECORD OF ORDINANCES AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING ',!~ FOR APPROXIMATELY 13.422 ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN PERIMETER LOOP DRIVE AND .MERCEDES ~'~,l DRIVE (PRIVATE), APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET NORTH OF US 33/SR 161, FROM PCD, PLANNED COMMERCE DISTRICT, TO: PCD, PLANNED COMMERCE DISTRICT (CASE NO. 02-0322 -TEXT REVISION - PERIMETER CENTER, SUBAREA I -CROWN DEALERSHIPS - 6350, 6400, AND 6520 PERIMETER LOOP ROAD). Deyton Legel Blank C_o.____ _ __ -- - - ~-~ 68-02 ~,~ Ordinmzce No. _ _ - _ ,.-. - 1._ - - - - - ----- _-- i'. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, of the elected members concurring: Section 1. That the following described real estate (see attached map marked Exhibit "A") situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby zoned PCD, Planned Commerce District, a composite plan that shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21-70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances) the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 2. That application, Exhibit "B", including the list of contiguous and affected property owners, and the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Exhibit "C", are all incorporated into and made an official part of this Ordinance and said real estate shall be developed and used in accordance therewith. Section 3. That this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law. Passed this day of , 2002. Mayor - Yrestamg vtncer Attest: Sponsor: Planning Division ' A$ 8UdMRTEO ?O COUNpI '' I,I ~''~ 5 ~ ~'' ZfOR MEE11N6 ON ~L~ Passed _ __.. --- ----v~.u3..- ~~1~ ~& n ~ C^ ~ CURRAGH ~G T 'M 1 ~ OR ~ MAm PLUME OR CT DESMOND p µx~~ ~ H cT ~~ ~ ~ y ~~.~ sEtLS w ~G~ ~ sAaTawT CT ~ ~~ °ct ~ 9~ uuNaE ~5 `L_ CT ~ ~ W ~./~ ~dt0 Hy ,. ~ ~J~ ~ o ~ Y PETOENTx PARK DR ~ < ~ < ~i CAVAIITY asrN ~< ~ ~.~r vF y'~C ~ ~Er oTTAwA ~~'~q~AVAC 3 NEYRxtANCE Dft '~,T, T ~ ac ~Yj~~ ~ "~' ~ ARAPAHOS CT G`T ~ ~ awRE ~ F.a CT ~i ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~, r ~ ~. ~o 3 ~-' o P ~0~~ N s~~ ~~ a o OLD POND DR ~< ~b~ 3 a.ASSICS ~ ~ CT 0 ti U STE1N H ~o ~ 2 ~ TT1R£ OR ~~ 2Zo GORO FARMS PKWY ~~ ~~ ~y ~~~' ¢ = y ~'/ a v ~ I 22b OGE W W FAE1F~'I d~ G .{~. 22d Frt1D DR E ~ CT~,G TARA HU1 OR DO' 22eELMf1ET1) DR W 'V _~___i 22f DUKNOOO IN {_ t POST RO Ota Q Wµ15T V PERt1,lETFR DR PE~. DR °~ ~ r Ott V ~ 1 J LOOP ~ NEw CR ~ ~ ~ a ,~Q- ~ PETnM~ ~ ~ ~ ~pc c 2 fp_ F ~; ' '~ O ~ A P v Vt?/l1JRE DR v Te SITS COIUNEtt1S uARYSVILLE ft0 o ~ o <_ ~ D J =~ ~~ m j D ~~ p SHIER RWGS RD °? F STTIER RINGS RD _ ~ V~} ~ w1LCQ% PL & - b X ~ O ~µ ~ J U K F TUSMEIL DR ~ ~, • ryOL MEAGHAN ~ 1NNOVATI~ KENOAEJ_ o CT ~ L~ ~ ~ ~ CZ ANNA DAN-SHERRI AV£ ~ < WAY ° INNOVAnoN DR oRTTlaI ~oT~RCrT ~d LOOP KENDALL p NOY Ri'IGS IN ~' RIDGE BLw o ' ~ ~ , o ,°-u FIEATHER ~> ~ PIRTM~~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A = aFl! CT rat CGETILY p(t at ~ ~ ~ -+ ~ TSIIAN ~ RU1N Z CT ~c lOTH1AN ~ ygFlTTTER TEYPIE RD ANN CT ~ SCOTIA CT -~ ~ HEATHER CT ~ I Sa lAKE90C (R059NC = BUTF OR b A~FRY BLW ~ g k ~ Perimeter Center SuUarea I ~ u ~` ~ a Crown Text Revision 3 d NA,HAwY GT 6400/6520 Perimeter Loop Road STATEMENT: State briefly how the proposed zoning and development relates to the existing and potential future land use character of the vicinity. The parcels in question are presently developed as automotive dealerships and/or are . currently zoned forsuch use. Final development plans for the parcels have previously been approved. The parcels while separate due to franchise agreements, have been reviewed and .treated as a single parcel-under prior development plan approvals and construction. Plai~`r~[ing staff, subsequent to the .latest final development approval, has determined that the approved plan does:moit.conform to'bhe technical language of ' the Subarea I text and'~has asked the Owner to amend the text to reff.lect the actual conditions present within the Subarea. Prior applications are included far r~f.er.ence. STATEMENT: " State briefly how the proposed zoning and development relates to the Dublin Community Plan. I' The area is identified. as retail under the Community Plan and the exiting zoning development. is consistent with the plan. The overall concept of Perimeter Center II has changed from the original Perimeter Mall- with a loop road to one of individualized ~~ development of a generally less intensity. The automotive uses are a lesser intens.icy retail use. i PREVIOUS APPLICATION? ~' Has an application for rezoning the property been denied by the City Council within the last two (2) years? YES ^ NO ~ I~ IF YES, WHEN? State the basis of reconsideration: I IF A PLANNED DISTRICT IS REQUESTED, !S COMPOSITE OR PRELIMINARY PLAN ATTACHED? YES ~ NO ^ 1F A PLANNED DISTRICT IS REQUESTED, IS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT ATTACHED? YES ~ ~~70 ^ PLEASE INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: 14 COPIES OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ~ , Legal desuiption of the property to be rezoned cansists of ~ page(s). jt ~ /-~}C.1-t ! ~j ~ ~ - L ~ PLAN REQUIREMENTS: 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, elc.) e. Existing and proposed zoning district boundaries f. Size of the site in acresJsquare 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") II 14 COPIES OF COUNTY OWNERSHIP MAP: (NOT LESS THAN 8%' X 11"AND NOT MORE THAN 16" X 20') Showing contiguous property owners within 500 feet from the perimeter of the area to tie rezoned. Pagc 2 of J Rezo~c Application III. 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 accordancewith the County Auditor's current tax list- (Use additional sheets as necessary.) Labels formatted for Avery 5160 may besubmitted as labels or on a computer disk. PROPERTY OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE (not Mortgage Company or Tax Service) See attached list I ~ ~~}-~ ~ ~~ ( ~r ~ 2 IV, PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION Name of Current Property Owner(s): Dwayne Hawkins 6001 34th St.g •~ 33714 Mailing Address: Petersbur , (Street, City, State, Zip Code) St- Fax: 727_522_4539 Daytime Telephone: 727 _527 _5731 Victoria L. Newell, AIA Name of Contact Person', (ex. Attorney, Architect, etc): 'Please complete the Agent Authorization, Section VII, below. 43017 6161 Riverside Dr., #A Dublin, OH Mailing Address: (Street, City, State, Zip Code) ~~ .~ Fax: 614-764-0237 Daytime Telephone: 614-764-0401, Which of the above is the primary contact person? Architect lication. The Owner/Applicant hereby authorizes City V. AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROP bR C re resentatives in order io process this ipcation. Site visits to the property are necessary Y ~ p described in this app representatives to visit, photograph and post a notice on the property VI. UTILITY DISCLAIMER rovide essential services to the property as needed. However, the rapidogrpo bhnom y ~ ~ able boi make The City of Dublin will make every effort top royal of this request has stretched the City's capacity to provide these serviceslt~nv lOwn r hereby acknowledges that app northwest Franklin County licant until some future date. The App all or part of said facilities available to the app licant. nin b the Dublin Planning and Zoning CommissiosuchdasrwDatelr and sewer facait es whenneteded by said App or binding ~ mmitment t a for rezo g Y y /~ Q _ the Ciy of Dublin will be able to provide essential services See attached affidavit ~/~ Tf ~ U VII. OWNER AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRESENTATIVE licant, hereby authorize _, the owner and app ~- I, rtainin to the processing and approval of this appli~tion including modifying tfie project, and to ad as my n:presentaCNe and agent in all matters pe 9 ent. agree to be bound by all representations and agreements made by the designated ag Date: - rT Dwner. - -.M. Signature of Current Prope 1 Date: Signature of Current Property Dwner: VIII. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT - 'Ij STATE OF OhlO ~~ Franklin - COUNTY OF _______, the applicant or the applicant representative, have._read ~~ 1 Victoria .L. Newell lication, attached exhibits and other inforriation submitted is ~~ and understand the contents of this application. The informationk ow~edge and ibel'~efp. complete and in atl respects true and corned, to the best of my Dat2e: Signaturo of Applicant or • J ~~ ~ ~/II' Authorized Representative: ~(~/ ~~ ~~ day of Subscnbed and sworn to before me this _ ~ f /~ ~, / I, ,,,,,,,,,,,u,,,, eta Public __ `~~o~PP1AL SF~,~ rl^ fy ~° ` ''- AMY E. VARNISH *`=_ NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE Of OHIO " ` ~"p'~. MY COMMISSION IXPIRES FE8.11, 2003 ' ~ 7 .3~: ? ".qrf OF O ~.. ti• • _ =_ - ~HC. ~ ~-- CC~NSI~I,TING ENGINEE}3S &. SURVRYORS May 24, 1989 tar, Terry Andrews 1'lamned Communities'; Inc. • 150 4lest Wilson Bridga P,oad 4torthington, Ohio 43085 Uear Terry: At year request, we have prepared th ~e fellc~ring r~t~.s ~.~~.~! hounds description of a proposed S.fiOC: act`es tract at th; southeasterly corner of proposed Pericnat~r loop P.o~d ara - proposed service road in your Perimeter Center C~evelcrmer.F i^: bublin, Ohio. Situated in the State of Qhio, County of trar:!:lir,, Ci}y of Dublin and i n V1 rgi ni a t~1i 1 i tart' Survey t,c. 29~~, costa i r, i r;,. 5, ~C~~~: 2.Gres of land, more or less, sGi~ 5.000 acres being ou¢ cf teat tract of lava conveyed to PC/McKii:rick ~inited'. Par kr;2rsi:ip by d^ed record in Official Record 11422F04, said S.OOC -acres o; 13n; G41•,'i a~ore partic~slarly bounded and described as follo•as: 8egi nni ng! Far reference, ~~t a rai 1 read sp i k~ at tE:e outheasterly corner of the 1 end conveyed tr~ ~C,~t~1ciC1 irri ck bi,:, tGc' Partnership by s,iid dezd of record i Of•ficill Record 1 i~~2`~u, the same being at an angle pa1nE in the northerly limited acce~_s night-vf-Kay boundary of U, S, Route 33; St;~te f~qute 161 anal _* t4-;_, northeasterly cc~rngr of that 21.001 acres tract of land designa~~c Parcel No. 7-Wl. ~Highway~ and described in ~'ranklln Gounty %_r~. of Common Plea; case number. 232353; thencQ, 1`;°om said refer~nre point of beginning, r~ith the southerly bo~.~r.dary of sal PC/McKitrick Li~1i tea Partnership tract, w1 t}? ,;tha rartheriy l ;rn~ t e~ access right--of-..ray boundary of ,aid ti, S. Route 33/Stai:e Rout:. ; 5' and with the northerly boundary of said ~1, O01 acres. }ra,c, :.'•;s follo~.ring threQ courses aid dista~:crs; 1 j iiortn 896 16' d9" :•test, J 30.1' feet; 2) North 88° 35' 20" West, 5-55.22 r88~; 3j tsorth ;~;° ~i S5` 53" west, 106,98 feet; the;ticeV North 4° 1J' LC`S ~:~'~ _ ,~ distance of 99.50 feet to ar, ~ir•~^ pin at the t:r•LO point; ~_ beginning; thence, from said true point of beginning, 1rcri.h 8s° 5~' 31'" k'est, .parallel with and 98.00 feet norti~erly from, as t~easurd cc. ri ht an les a. southerly. ' 9 9 ~ ,i Partnership tract , a distance ~ 'a ns c. said PC/,,cli c~F 14;.87 feet to sr: ~ ~ :. ~~- ,== tr,c~. i,,,~ _. ,. irc;~ r:;, ~~ ,~ . point of curvature; ~~~~ Continued.... C.tlANC t1C('1tl?'A!?'7` tiAlNft! S'T/'1:J .!. TtlTfl~ !.i' " 10112/199© 1S:~q plan ed Communtt:-~; '° .05 " _, T, , Planned Communitie<,, Inc. Mr. Tarry Andreurs :4ay 24, . ~$ Paa.a Two thence northwastwardly, Frith the arc of a ~urVG to thQ rtry~,~ riavtng a rng1U5 aT 3IU,vUe*6et, 4 central dr,gle of 4.S `' ?7' Ki" ar,L a chord that bents North 62 76 54" 1`Jest, ~ chord distar~oe c 273,41 fcct to nn iron pi+~ at t1~+a point of t.ang6ncy; thane North QO° 37' ~o" ~,fo.-~. ,. in y., dl3vanGG ~f 30~•.~~ ~~~t ~~1 .j~ ton p dt tho point of CurVxt.G~~~ thence northt~rnr'~ly, with the arc of z cu'r-ve :,o T};- ,~~ haying a . r•atl f us of 34, b0 t~eflC, a Cf)ntrdl ar,bl e: of 9Cr° 00' x94" ~ ~r^ n chord that bears 1'lorth Q° 2?.' G'4" 'vast; a c?~ord d;sti•nc~ of 42.43 feet to an iron pin at. th,Q palr:t a; tan3e~~c~y; thence North r-9° 22' G4" East; 3 6lstarca of a2.7g tAP_t. `, r, ~~, iron pin at the point of curvaturQ; .. thence eASewerdly, With the arc or" a cur'F~o }o :tho ;.~~:h;. -., 1 a radius of 180.Gg feet, a contral ~,nglcyof 3n°r,~l`~ ~~~~'~~rd''r chord that bears North 57° 34' zl" ~o;t, ~ c~•,ord d5star,c~ ,~:~ 112,d? feet to an irpn pin at thQ point of trsngo;;~y; i:hence Borth 86° 4b' 38" {vast, a distance cf. 405:2 ;ee+. tc ~n 1 ton pin; thence Sniff:}; d° 13' ?,~" Fast, s diikanc~ of 52•b.11 fc•;t tc tie true point of beginning and contair+fn~ S.GQC+ a~Gras of la^~, ~;or,~ a~r lass. Subject to all rights~of--vray$, easements encf ~ rastrici.i;;rs, ;* any, of previc~a$ racc~rd, u The bearings iii the foregoing dascrlption• era basFd cn ~-~~ me meridian as t~td b~aringE in the r„step and bdc:nd; ,-,esca`ipti~, said 27.G0', acr'ag tr~Gt (Farcdl No. 7,~:L Nigh~;ay) dascrlbed ;n Franklin County Court: _of Caintaan P1 aAS caso :~umhar 2 3235.s: ;I T~~e officla~ raccrd rei'crrad to if, t}~,~ . fo,~;,~oing d~scrip'<1 fr; 1 :~ of rocord d n the Aecordgr's OTf i co, f"r~~7k 1 i n Co;,;nty, ufi i u. N -~c- F~ Sincerely, ~~ • u c, p+, c . ~F~~~: ~RoM ~VA~iS, MECfi;~;a-`~, HA~i~i.={e,ti & 'rz:~T~~+, ~r;c, 273- ,~'~58 ~" ~dc~'r!~;-~f~~ ~+.7 pe~ix Fc. '60rc .+~ Professionnl:'S~~~~.~r'~ri'%1ibj,~,a;5~ s ..~+; f ~ , f . '. r• .. ~~~' 3 ~ril.l-Q d ~ J .~ ~ _ / y rte.,,- ~ .,.. ~ .a r Bird+BuU c o n t u l t i n g e n g i n e e r t. t u~r v e y o r t June 28, 1993 DESCRIPTION OF 2.850 ACRE TRACT TO BE REZONED ON PERIMETER LOOP ROAD, DUBLIN, OHIO FOR DWAYNE & PEGGY HAWKINS Situated in the-State of Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Dublin, in Virginia Military Survey No. 2999: Being a portion of Reserve "A" in Perimeter Center, as shown of record in Plat Book 72,.Pages d+R~suuinc 47 and 48, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio, and being a portion of 44.482 acres in said Reserve "A" conveyed as Parcel 1 kit [)ub1~n~GranvAle Rd to ~Muirf field Drive Partners b deed of record in Official Record ngton, Ohw x3235 y .1661 lac-6ta76t.t328 19322, Page B 09, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio, and bounded and described as follows: Beginning, for reference, at a point at the southeast corner of said Perimeter Center., at an angle point in the north limited access right-of-way line. of U.S. Route 33-Ohio Route 161 and at the northeast corner of a 21.001 acre tract of land designated Parcel No. 7-WL (Highway) and described in Franklin County Court of .Common Pleas Case No. 232353; thence' N 89° 15' 49" W along a south line of said Perimeter Center, along a north limited access right-of-way line of U.S. Route 33-Ohio Route 161 and along a north Iine of said_21.001 acre tract a distance of 30.13 feet to a point at the southeast corner of Reserve "B" in said Perimeter Center; thence N 88° 35' 26" W along a south line of said Reserve "B", along a north limited access right-of-way .line of U.S. Route 33-Ohio Route 161 and along a north line of said 21.001 acre tract a distance of 566.22 feet to a point; thence N 83° 55' S3" W along a_portion of a south line of said Reserve "B", along a portion of a north limited access right-of-way line of U.S. Route 3.3-Ohio Route 161 and along a portion of a north line of said 21.001 acre tract a distance of 106.98 feet to a point; thence N 4° 13' 22" W crossing said Reserve "B" and crossing Perimeter Loop Road (60 feet wide) a distance of 99.60 feet to a. point in the north line of Perimeter Loop Road, in a south line of said Reserve "A'; at the southeast corner of a x.000 acre tract of Page 1 of 2 C~arle~t. F Bud PE PS ~ f e ~.., eT«~,.~ / . 0.icMrd 1.8~11.PE PS terry l Turner PE - v<. w.wr..~ . - Cnxln ! Coghlan PE Omd M Bray PE Ted ~ Rob~~ton PS 1 irtd WKker Jr PS ».sa P~"±at# _ June 28, 1993 e land conveyed out of said Reserve "A" to Dwayne and Peggy Hawkins by deed of record in Official Record 15975, Page B O1, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio, and at the true place of beginning of the tract herein intended to be described; thence continuing N 4° 13' 22" W along- the east line of said 5.000 acre tract a distance of 526.11 feet to a point at the northeast corner of said S.OOfl acre tract; thence N 85° 46' 38" E along the north line extended easterly of said 5.000 acre tract a distance of 228.00 feet to a point; thence S 4° 13' 22" E parallel with and 228..OO.feet easterly by perpendicular measurement from the east line of said 5.000 acre tract a distance of 558.45 feet to a point in a north line. of Perimeter Loop Road and in a south line of said Reserve "A"; thence N 88° 35' 26" W along a portion of a north line of Perimeter Loop Road and along a portion of a south line of said Reserve "A" a distance of 70.22 feet to a point of curvature; thence westerly along a curved north line of Perimeter Loop .Road, along a curved south line .of said Reserve "A" and with a curve to the right, data of which is: radius 970.00 feet and delta = 4° 39' 33", a chord distance of 78.86 feet bearing N 86° 15' 40" W to the point of tangency; thence N 83° 55' S3" W along a portion of a north line of Perimeter Loop Road and along a portion of a south line of said Reserve "A" a distance of $1.33 feet to the true place of beginning; containing 2.850 acres of land more or less and being subject to all easements and restrictions of record. The above description was prepared by Richard J. Bull, Ohio Surveyor No. 4.723, of C.F. Bird & R.J. Bull, Inc., Consulting Engineers &. Surveyors, Worthington, Ohio, from best available Court House records in June, 1993, and not from an actual field survey. Basis of bearings is the bearings of the north limited access right-of-way lines of U.S. Route 33-Ohio Route 161, as shown of record in Plat Book. 72, Pages 47 and 48, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio. ,.,,,,~ Richard J. Bull Ohio Surveyor 14723 Page 2 of 2 v/~~ ,` ~. 0 F. O `~. ~ ~ Duos ti o =- _ y • ~.. ~ }= « ' F 5-4123 ~ ° . _ •. .• Bird-~ Buil ' t o n t° I t i n q e n g i n a f I t~. t u t•• y 0/ e- November 15, .1994 DESCRIPTION OF 0.968 ACRE TRACT ON PERIMETER LOOP ROAD, DUBLIN, ,OIiIO FOR DWAYNE & PEGGY J. HAWKINS, TRUSTEES '. R1 Bult Ind amp o~~~ an xt Otvo a]]]S ~) }L 611./61.1I2Y Situated in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Dub1Yn, in Virginia Military Survey No. 2999: Being a portion of Reserve "A" in Perimeter Center, as shown of record in Plat Book 72. Pages 47 and 48, Recorder's Office, Franklin County. Ohio, and being a portion of• an original 44.482 acre tract of lard in said Reserve "A" and conveyed as Parcel 1 to Muirfield TJrive Partners by deed of record in Official Record 19322, Page $ 09, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio, and bounded and described as zollcrrs: Beginning, for reference, at a point at the south;east corner of said Perimeter Center, at an angle point in the north limited access right-of-way line of U.S. Route 33-Ohio Route 161 and at the northeast corner of a 21.001 acre tract of land designated Parcel No. 7-WL (Highway) and described in Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 232353; ' thence' N 89° 15' 49" W along a south line of said Perimeter Center, alonb a north limited. access right-of-way line of U.S. Route 33--Ohio Route 161 and along a north line of said 21.001 acre tract a distance of 30.11 feet to a point at the southeast corner of Reserve "B" in said Perimeter Center; thence N 88° 35' 26" W along a portion of a south line .of said Reserve "B"., along a portion of a north limited access right-of--way line of U.S. Route 33-Ohio Route 161 and along a portion of a north line of said 21.001 acre tract a distance of 442.89 feet to a point;. thence N 4° 13' 22" Perimeter Loop Road (60 point in the north line o said Reserve "A", at the o~..k, ~ t~.a K K U....... l.w... ~-..~.. /•^y L turner K ae• ~..,e..K d~.rie~ 1 GngM.n rE !a, 4.a. W»E H tray K kd t Roewon .`S 1 {nQ WKIH k n w crossing said Reserve "B" and crossing feet wide) a distance of 98,48 feet to a f Perimeter Loop Road, itt a south line of southeast corner of a ?.850.acre tract of Page s~~q ' November 16. 1994 land conveyed out of said Reserve "A" to Dwayna a:~d Peggy J. Hawkins,- Trustees, by deed of record in Official Record 26647, Page I 18, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio. and at the true place of beginning of the tract herein 'intended to be described; thence continuing N 4° 13' 22" W along the east line of said 2.850 ' acre tract a distance.of 558.45 feet to a point at the northeast corner of said 2.850 acre tract; thence N 85° 46' 38" E along the north line extended easterly of said 2.850 acre tract a distance of 75.00 feet to a point; thence S 4° 13' 22" E parallel with and 75. perpendicular measurement from the east line tract a distance. of 565.85 feet to a point Perimeter hoop Road and in a south.line of said thence N $8° 35' 26" W along a portion Perimeter Loop Road and along a portion of.a Reserve "A" a distance of 75.36 feet to beginning; 00 feet easterly by of said 2,850 acre in a north line of Reserve "A"; , of a north Line of south line of said the true place of containing 0.968 ecre of Land more or lose and being subject to all easements and restrictions of record. The above description was prepared by Richard J, Bull, Ohio Surveyor No, 4723, of C,F. Bird & K.J. Bull, Inc., Consulting Engineers ~ Surveyors, Worthington, Ohio, from best available Court House records in November, 1994, ar.d not from an actual field survey: Baeis of bearings. is.the bearings of the north limited access right-of--way lines of U:S. Routs 33-Ohio Route 161, as shown of record in Plat Book 72 ,.Pagee 47 and 48, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio.. Ric rd J. Bu11 Ohio Surveyor 04723 ~ • RICAAAa ~ :: o s =_ ~ PA1L F F 5-4123 ~,~ • "` ~'; GR• ......•'~ ~. Page 2 of 2 c~/i ~ Bird+Bu(i cons~ltinq °~ 7 i n t c t s s i r° y o t, ~~ Dacembez.l3.,. 19y5 DESCRIPTIOR OF 0.268 ACRE TRitCT F1R 21E?CEDES DRIVE (i'^",YL'n1=.) , D:IELZ~, O'r',T,7 FOR 13ALLMAIZri CO,~•iJNZTT'cS, It1C, .ird t fiJ B~,11 Int w.~t C*,b::n.Grandr kd h:.ty`4in• oha:3?i5 61.l61it }d1 6u )gt,l?i3 Situated in th~~ State of Oh•!o, County of crank_lin, City e~' P;,1bt ir, in Virginia i•1=?i*_Arv Surva-t No. 20GO. ~ ~... Bei7g a poztion. of ResBYvE rt~tt in Perimetc.z Ccrater, ~s st,o.,s., vP '~ecorr~ 7. ii Pl;:t Bc:,k 72. Pd~;es 47 erd 4f3, Rsr_ardEr's Gffice; Fza7~.i;n Ct~unt;~., Ortio, a>Zd uei_.5u portion oi_ an orsginal 44.482 -acre tract of land conveyed as ^rarcel 1 to 2luirfield Drive part. ors i,y deed of record ir. Gfficia? Record 14322, Page B C9, pecozder's Ofiic~, Prarklir Co;znty, Ohio, and bot!nded and dtrscrlbed as follows; Beginning, for reference, at a P.K. A;ail fo:~"d 4t t(12 incer,secri^r, of the curved _ centerJ~ine of Per.i:~,ecer Drk~,e (1.00 fee; wide) ~;i.cn the centerline of perimeter Loop Road (.6G feat c7ide-to the sou;,!;) ar+d t;~e centerl:~ne of WiZca~: Road {6C- fe~;t w;dc_to the r+crth) thence S 4° 1_3T ?2" E along tee centerline of Per~;neter Loop Road a distance o= 41E3,47 fe;?*_ tc a point; thence ~ S $5° 4b' 38" W perpendici:l.R: to the cer,cerline of pprs- meter. Loop Road a distance of 30,t"~,~ feet to a 3/4-inch I,D, ~.ron pipe set ir! the ~•est Lire of Peri>retez Loop Road, in the ease 1_r_e of said Reserve "A", In ar .ads ~ T s t IlL_ O_ ~5,d czi~in,a1 44.w8~ ncr2 tract 2nd at the t;;ue place of r,Pgin;:;.ng aZ the tract hFre1_n ircended to be described, sated iror..pipe being 5 4° 13' 2,,' .- distance of 37.00 feet frox a 3/4-incl-, I.D: iro;, ~, - ~ u ~ p'p~ .aec at the southeast canner of a 1.On3 a-c?-e trsc+_ cf land covey°d to Randolph ar.!d Erendira Gibbs by deed o` rtico,d ir. 0`zicial 'rtiecord 18233, kage T. X9, F2cord?z'e Uf~ica, F~aakin Ccui;ty, Onic; the^ce continui^G S $5.' L;~' 3g" (•, perp2rd:~cular to the •w:_sr line of Perimeter Loo Road er '- p ~ P pr.ndlcul~r to the .east line ~~% =aid R2=ErV? n~t1 aP_!~ ;Oc%i.cr±.~..iC:t~3r tr an eGSt line Or said pr•~c 44.482 acre tract a °ir.a1 distance cf 3.16.00 feet to a 3/4--ir.~~i; I.D. iro^ pipe sec; Page 1 of 2 ` t • Ou't 7E P•i `// f• •r'D£ ... i,.. Ua.le• s :pghlatt /f [..N ~ a David ti. ~•ar K i-' i Ilobf~aa: PS I ftcd WI<tt. L •; ,.~~ December 18, 19y6 thence iV 4° 13' 22" W parallel a~ith the LrrFst ?~r.:~ cf r^erzmet.r Loop P\oad., parallel cra~th th_ east 1ir.~_ of_ sa'.d1keservG :'~," F.,d parallel with ar. east lira of slid ozigyn3l 44,0;82 aczc r_rac,: ,; distance of 37.00 feet to Q 3; t;~_r.c'r e I . D. iYC;~ pig E 5•_.t dt ta4 soutnFrest corn~_r of said 1.O~J3 a.cze tract; thence N $5° 46' 38" E alcr_g r}o so,ith line a- said 1.0'03 acr tract a ~1iStance of 31E.O0 fleet tc a 3/4-i~c~, I.D. i.ror.pip: +~t in the LaE3~ li.rz of Perir:eter Locp~ P,oad, n .he =ast 11.rz cif s,i:' ... P.eservz "~" j , at a corner of said original 4'+.4$2 a; re 'tract zn3 at the southe,ist c.ornex of sa'd 1.00 acre. tract; thence S [i ° 13' 22" E along the wee, ;,i~;e cf Pzri.meter icop 1voad, along a poztio~i of the e2s _ lire ow said Rese_-ve "r'_`' a.:3 a1Q g a portion of an east line of said arigin.~l 44.482 acre. Crsct d dis- tance of 31.00 feet to the true place of b~gircniag; containir:g 0.208 acre of lama ~;~erc ar less and be?,,~; subject to .all easements ~zd restrictior;s ,;f Tcc:OYn. The above desr_r.iption s.>as gr~:pared bj• Ricc:arc~ J. Bull, nhio Surveyor No. 472.3, of C.l'. Ri.rd & R. ~ . rul1, Iro. , Corsulti:?g Engineers & Surveyors, Oolumbus, Ohio, fron en actual f~.eld survey performed under- his s.:pGrcisic:r, ir. Dec?~ber, 19;0. Easis of bearings a.s a centezl.ir~e o.f Per,imetnr %oop Road, bQinQ S 4° 13' 22" ~;, as shown of record 3s, Pl.ac $ao~ 72, rages 47 and 48, ?~ecorde:_'s Gffice, Franklin County, Ohio, r Ric and J . F;u11 - ~ `~`~`^`- Ohio Surveyor 3'r`4123 ~ Q r ~: %~,~, •• ;~~ RiCHx4ti ••' ~ ~~'- .~ ~ r 7 ~ ~• L. - s - * 8fi ~ r F S~;13 ~°; '` G•' ~I~ ~ •••I. -.1 •I•h \\ Paga 2 of 2 ~~~ y ,. ," ~~ _, Bird;-Bull r o n f u l r i n g engfee~r~ :~,.~yur: ~~~ ^ _ U.~ce~ber i8, 1996 IIESCRIPTZON OF 4.564 tyC~Re; ~F~C`i G:v ~'ERZI-IETE'F, LOOP F;GAD, DUBLZid; OHIO -FOR H~,I.I,'ri~~ CQ~li':L11I~TIES, ihC. , SituaCed in the State of Or;ia, County of Frt:t:klin, City or Luh.tin in V_rgiaia M=-litary Survey .Ic. ?~g~ . , r. rr ~. Beira, a pc;rti^~~ t, r" R ~.: ~ in Perimet<~r Cettt2r, as shc~ni o.-~ ,-a`G^d e,~rve ra+a:e~u~~c. 47 and 4d; F.E:corder's :~ Plat Back 7t, P_ges Office, Frar:l~;liu Cou; .`v. G:~io, sr.d heinh a portion of 2Tt on^' .va:I.t::b,;~-:,:.nva(ea.~ 1;=nat. 44.482 acre nyl_.oh;oa::yg PnrCel 1 to `2uj.rfiel tx:~ct of land conveyed as ~~.~.si t~,61~15t.r320 RzCOrd 193?2 d brive Farcrie:s bV re~_o_ , , Pa3e B 09, Recorcer' l_, de_d or *-d n Oific~al az>d bounded and s t=fic>_, Fran?~clin Ceun^}-, Ohio, .described as zoil~w~; Beginning, for refezence, a[ a P.~;, taxi]- r.oYtnd ~=t o.f the curved cen*__ ~ Chz ?ne.rs.~crion Crli:tc of F=r:l~eter L'~~iv~ ~--~ the centerline of Fer1>reter •i.ocP b_. T~,(10O L~.C` ~iee) with and the Read ( ^ ec.t widA-to bA certerline of 6~ t t- song,) Wi~co~ nos;? t ze~-t: wide--tc the rori:h; thence S 4° 13r 22'~ E alor_g the ceater].ne of Peri:~eter L;,ap Roan` a distance of 4+3.47 feet to a point; thence S 85 ° 45' 3E" n* pezPenr?iculzr to thz center?.:~.µe of P meter Loop Road a distance of 30.OG fFet L eri- pipe ser in the west Iirte o~ Per; .6~_,- a a 3J4--~T:E:}; ,I, b, ircn , , n rr P of said Reser~ E_ A in art e• ~~ `~_ Leo k.ozrd, ir: the east l,i _,~ dst inE f,f sazd ox{ ginai 44 , ~. ~ .~~ txa;:t and st the tzue ~- ='~-~ intended t,~ be Place of beg=;ning a~ thA tract ra r described, said iron rte.,, distance o.E i_r.-e nexng S 4` 13' ~~" 37.00 feet.~rom a 3/4-inch T.li. southeast cornea of 3 it°h Pipe se.t st the Randol h a, 1i003 sc_a tract of lard convEy-sd to P id Erandira Gibbs by de_3 of record .in Official ~': 16233, Page Y 19, Recorder's Office, Fra~;klin Court c pitio; ecorc thence S 4° 13t 22" E al o ~ the ~ 1 a:.:~ng 2 Po=t{G=1 02 t~ ast lineecf lne of ge.t':~t:.i tLT Loop orti o:~ ~ na e- said `~id' P O:. .~CdS?,--~le ~P." dZd a 1 :;.r.s ar, east line of said crS.gir_ai 44,452 acre tract ^. distance of 359.15 feet ~a paint of -cur :•ature; ircr: pupa sct st a Page i o° 2 <n..l., r e,m rE n r...~.w r...... ~,~~ ~ ~tl<n.,a 1 Bull of n ter. a.wr lt.ry t turner If Nt. A.nf.wf ~~a•It. 1 CogMan IS f.cr n... Ca.d M Qray,E k! l Md~ton ~; 1 ffb wKtrr ar n - ---~ .December 18, 1996 .thence s-~uth~.~ester.iy a1o;~g t ha curved no:thpo~ Loop Roa ~ 1 3t ~..ne of Yer along ta~:yr, ~. on° Ca1e curved so~ctheast ~iir:z o ~.,{ ~::ret.ar ., 1~VE`.d SGCit~leaSi. Iin~ OF SB:,~ p .,'.f ..%iQ 1ES~_'r~le ""'` and crith s curve tc the , .- rig- ~1 4•,..~8~ `~ ' feet and r~gL:" ~?aL3 of aor° trace dells . = 93° , vr'nicn is: radius ~ . ;, •, ~C bearir.- ~~ °. 3~` 36 37 56 a c ~ d•-. ~ (.'.C ~ h,,rd ca point of t:a 43 ; - " ;~' to a a /'+°i~.~h T D, f nee of 32~; .4%+ feet regency; j;rJ;l Y~P~ 5,.~ 2±` %fiz thence N 88° 35' 26" r,~, along Q.n~rtin~ ~ r:eter Locp Road, aloe a T o` a :?orth ' i::e t~f pa--s ~ arLd. alor_ g pc.. cion og a sc,lth li re - 1__ acre tr2,ct ~' a portion or a south line c °` 'aid P•eserve a cisstance of L s4_d original ~t-.482 124.76 feet to ~ 3 fL_ir~ch ~_t~. aeE at tht sct:tnzast cM1rnzF of 2 i-or. i%ir;~ o"t of said G•968 acre tract ~ original 44.452 0- la:,d co~.v'..,ed 'rawkins, 'rrustee~ acre tract to Dcryre an3 paag~'J; Paee F "' oy dead c,z record in Offic.al g~ D7, Recorder's 2.. 3J Office, ~'ra_•tk2ir. ,-,-.. --cord o7 Coa,~j , Gain; thence N 4° 13' 22" r along she Best a distancE~ o£ 565,84 feet to a ~ ~~•line of said 3.968 acre tree*~ northeast i:orner o~` s ~/i inet; T.y, ire;: lid G. 968 acre tract; pxpr set at th4 thence Al 85° 'cE' 38" E along the no*th said G.g58 acre tract a Zin= °°_xteded Easterly by .perpendicular measured par".tei With aad 37. GC feet seuti~erll acre .trait a went from the sosth lire of sal distance of 355 c ,.. t70~_ beginning; •75 feet to the tr„c 1b r' F_..ce c,. containing 4.604 acres of landtore or all esse~~nts and rests . less and being sib, actions of record, -~`cr t~. The above description T,7z; Pr2pered o Serve o~ •' 472s Y i,o- , of C. F. Y R.i.charc J. Ball, Clio Engineers & suz-veyors, C,l; Bird & R. J, Buil, Tnc, , Conau3_zir,z P tinder his su erformed Pe~visia0hion from an act;:al field survey. bearings is a Dace~ber ?956. S L•° 13' ~2„ ~ ceZterlina of Ferimeter r.oo Basis of : 2s sho;.~c of reccz-d i:i P12t acok P Fond, bein.G 48, Recorder's Office, Fran''--lire Count ~Z' gg`s __...._. y, Ohio. 47 and Ric;~ard J. Bu~ -r-x.--~ .~`` ~; J ~ "', Ohio SurweYo r ~4' 3 ? ~ AiC~~`~D ~ ~ J. G ' ~r +•1~~1 - - ,~ ~; c S-4123 ~~,° ~ ~ - ~- U•.,~S~ti '~e- Pages 2 of t '~~•.~.,,~~„~.~. lD/j ~f Joseph W. Testa, Franklin Count, _ auditor ~iEd~iR,4rMlf. INF~RM.~TIE11~ S~'S~EM JOSE~?~ . ~tSta rltxdifar, Franklin CQUnt~~, ~~~ia DUBLIN, OH 43017-3203 Page 1 of 1 v ~ ~ - 1' n Q ~ ~ ~ a, ,I r 'Rim ~ `v,enJr(r5 r ~-~j--j~ ~-'_ ~ .~W~.~-.- ~= ~ ~, r- Irrk=S S ~` ;~---~ ~ tai 4~ ~~ ~~ t ~,~ ~ ~L~ ~ ` ~ F St _- _ ' 3 C -- ' y S.-~: \~ ~. '] y ~ ~, if `v- I }~h~~'< ~y ~` ;~ ~ `-~. `~ \ ~ ~ b _~ r ~ ~.Jr } 1. I ~ ,jai y` 1 ~ ~ TlJ{ ~ ~~~~. `~ t JJJ ~ 'K :- "~" ~ ~ r~ 1 ,~ ~~ L' ..~.~~_~l z_>, i~4~~ ~~. _ Ski ~R-%~ Lam. ~_ •J_ _ 1_ ' G~ ' ,~ _ ~ ~ _ -_-,-ter- 4 ~' ~ _ J, .j ~_ L ~- J- _ _ _ _ ,~__ '____~ ~~~ X ~_. k s ~ .Ci .~~ ~ i ti ~ i Image Date: Thu Mar 28 13:38:08 2002 Disclaimer This map is prepared for the real property inventory within this county. It is compiled from recorded deeds, survey plats, and other public records and data. Users of this map are notified that the public primary information source should be consulted for verification of the information contained on this map. The county and the mapping companies assume no legal responsibilities for the information contained on this map. Please notify the Franklin County GIS Division of any descrepancies. ~~/~~ Joseph W. Testa, Franklin Cour Auditor ~E4GR,4PHIG INFORMATlQf~i $YST~M .~OSE'~~ . YCStr'~ ~ i~uditar, Franklin Cauu~T, Qho PID: 273-005562 HAWKINS FAMILY 6520 PERIMETER LOOP RD DUBLIN, OH 43017-3203 Page 1 of 1 aa.~ ~ ,~ _ ~~ ~ :~ ~~ tF ~r ~ ~ -: T? ~ ~~ ~.~ ~"t~ ~~t. ~ fir. i~ z ~~ .i~_E~ s 11 i ~t",,4 a'rt' ' ~4 ~~ba J~IS'ay 3t< r~--. 2~ zi~ e~~~ z~ j .5r ~L ~i,_ Via, ~ ~ ~~ ` 2i 3'~ ~ Y k ~ - "F +~7r `\\ ~ ,~ +.+`-fir ~ +~. ~~ ~ ~~ ;~ 1 ~ § •~ • ~-`-~~ . :~~~1 ~, i .t ~~ l It'd ~N L . ~ ' _ C~i~ ~ ~~ f y}" Aj~y ~~„v ~ 'f ~ 1 tax ri! ~.; ~~~:~~ ~~. Image Date: Tue Mar 26 12:08:44 2002 r,.,:.; Disclaimer This map is prepared for the real property inventory within this county. It is compiled from recorded deeds, survey plats, and other public records and data. Users of this map are notified that the public primary information source should be consulted for verification of the information contained on this map. The county and the mapping companies assume no legal responsibilities for the information contained on this map. Please notify the Franklin County GIS Division of any descrepancies. ~z~,4f ... i~nnn r, ,nom n^~i- -._i._... -. _in.__------__nen~~nco-`-_m___ w~r_._ ~/ in.no.~~ nnn~ ~i~~inn Joseph W- Testa, Franklin Cour Auditor GEC~uRAPNIC INF©RMAT1GItE SYS~EMI ,~ose~~ 111l. Testa Auditor, Fr~rtklin ~aunt~j, Ohio PID: 273-007004 HAWKINS FAMILY 6400 PERIMETER DR 43017 Pagelofl _~ ~ ~ It~ISFN ~) - _y._ ~ - ~~,-_~} ~-~ =~'~ f i ~t 3~- _ N ~~~~ . . -9eL~ Y~ tiy'~ „ d 4 r~ ``~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ *~r ~ Y ~ ~, ~~~ ~ r.. ~- ~ ~~ f: ~-' _ t ~ .~ ~` ~ ' ~ ~~ _~ Image Date: Tue Mar 26 12:09:07 2002 .~ ~,~ Disclaimer This map is prepared for the real property inventory within this county. It is compiled from recorded deeds, survey plats, and other public records and data. Users of this map are notified that the public primary information source should be consulted for verification of the information contained on this map. The county and the mapping companies assume no legal responsibilities for the information contained on this map. Please notify the Franklin County GIS Division of any descrepancies. i:~/~~ ~...._ . iv.nn c. , n-. c,~ i_ ..-:._•_ ~---_°` --~~-------.._ocnn<~< D_.,.-~r-._,. r T,._ -ice i -i.nn.n-i -~nnn ~ ins inn Joseph W. Testa, Franklin Cour Auditor " ~EbGRAFMIG INF4RM.ATiGh SYSTEM ~aseph lit. Testa ~~ Auditor, Franklin Counter, Ohio PID:273-010210 HAWKINS FAMILY PERIMETER LP 43017 Page 1 of 1 ;t ~ ~ _ . a ~zrt ~ t ~' S~, } _ - ~ x t"_~~ r ~t r y-, ~ ~~_ t `~ - -~ ^~~• 2 . '~~ ;~ r e~ l ~ - i .` -a--: '' r :'tom :.~ . .. .,~~~ - - ~ - .,t> ~ k? w5 e ~ t~. =j :. Image Date: Tue Mar 26 12:09:23 2002 ,w Disclaimer This map is prepared for the real property inventory within this county. It is compiled from recorded deeds, survey plats, and other public records and data. Users of this map are notified that the public primary information source should be consulted for verification of the information contained on this map. The county and the mapping companies assume no legal responsibilities for the information contained on this map. Please notify the Franklin County GIS Division of any descrepancies. ('f/l ~f t_.~_..ii~nnc~ ~n~ o~i__..:...~,.i...~:_.~_i~_....._,.,.-c-~co~ti o_~.._~r""_ ~,~_"_ ~~ in-i,~-nom "n..,. ~v,~rn-. `m O Q N ~ ~ U a U N --. n ~ I~ M M ~ O w U ~ U N n ~ h M M ~ O w U ~ U N ~ , ~ h M M ~ O ll ~ ~ N M d' I ~ O_ L p I I I h 0 M ~ O L 0 ~ I h 0 M ~ _ L 0 I 1 h 0 M ~ _ L 0 ~ I i N f- V ~ _ L 0 ' M N M ~ _ L 0 ~ O V ~ a' I I _O L 0 I I ~ ~ ~ I O (O O M ~ -O C = I -i I i I I h O M ~ I O_ L O _ V h M M ~ O w _ D O M d' _ L O ~ ~ ~ N ~ h I O (6 X N ~ Ili it i I t O I (D 0 0 M M d' ~ i I ~ O I O ._ ._ L L 00 1 I O N !~ N i U Z i i ~ l I V' ~ N (O ~~ ~ ~ _ L} OZ D1 ~ ~I Y m. I w > ~ > rn 7 m ~ .O o ~ O ~ 7 ~ I I I I c -- ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ o 3 ~ U o! - ~ i o m. cin S O d N a O d ~ C C C L U ~ N ~ ~ C O d C to 0 C C C O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i a ~ m ~ ~ ~` ~~= ' ~ n i U O O o m U m ~ o n oo =i 1~ o~ cn c n c U m , o I ~ . l ~ ~ I I ~ ; I~ I I I , y _ N ~ I TI ~ O ~ it I I I v Z Z ZI ~ -'- ° -'-'- ° YI I a~ o Z `.~-' ~I~ ISI ! 3 a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q J ~ N ~ i~! ~ N N N N N O to d ~J.. N N N ~~ ~i.~'O NSW ._ C ~ _ Q7 _ 0 O` w M _ 0 X~ ~~ N I~ ' (n (n (n (O U E E Q ~ O E U O~ N N I p) ~ L ~ ~ O m (0 O O ~ C (9 7 ~ X N L _ O ~~ i ~ X .O N L L ~ M V M V M N J W Q. W N f- O O O m d ~ M >> Z > ~ O (n (n m ;. m. 0 O O O O M M t0 O N > > O M O (D M N ON OmiO O (O O (O O CO l0 ~- O OJ O (O O (D M M i N N N ~ d M M O M M M cD ~ lOitD COO M I O d i M ~ N T _- j-~_- I Q ~ , W I ~ I I t ~ I I I ~ o I I ' I II a I 'I I ~' O j ~ ~ ~ w t I , ~ a N ~~ I ~' I , C c Y C ~C C Y 6 O O C C Y Q I ~~ '" co 3 3 3 I I 7 3 I U c c c °~ ~ m ' ~ ; i ~ 3 3 3 o ~ 3 > i i ui c~ . I ' I ~ ~~ I ~ j I I IU ~ I ~_ I,I I I ~ J J J I i J J J ~O 'i. ~ o_ L O_ L ~ o_ IL I I N ~ I I ~ i p Q p U I ~ I I ~ ~ C h ~ ~ ~U IC ~.Q O ~'C IL I ~~~ 'U ~ U C ~,U ,N I ~ N I ~ I ~~~~ i ' C i C IJ i d ~ a d d °~ ~ a p a O W d m~ io~ I m C. >+ T T ~ N W U ~ ~ C i c_q ~ i N T A ~ I ~ I 'O ~I' ~ I I N O a E ~ E i E i E ~ us ~° ~ N ~ Q ~ O .~ . I~ ~ ~ ~ i I «slp N I ipi~ ola~ i t O U 'L d C N (~ I C 0 . C W U J O N ~ I ~ C I CICL-J -m C C C _ O U p - U J Q X _ ~ V1 7 X O N XX OO O Y 3 Y 3 Y 3 ~ Q ~c ~ ` ~ ~ O ~~ H W c Y 3 m~ ~~ ~~ c (0 (0 (D . ~ (D L L ~ a~ = a ~ co c o a~ a~ O ~' o S - 2 S - D - ~ O - fn ~ _ m tL _ m - m 2 °~~ -~- ~~~H~ - L a I E . 3 ~ O N (O O M 1~ O M V M h O M M O M M M I M N r m lf) ~~ OO OJ I M O M N lf') N V N a0 h Z O ~ N M h h V M M M h N M ~~ ~ O M B ~t m h o In o O ~ 0 ~ 0 In 0 lf) 0 h 0 ~ 0 ~fJ 0 IO 0 a0 0 In 0 In In 0 0 l0 r O CO h 0 0 0 0 0 L O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O R d M h M h M h M !~ M h M h M h M h M t~ M t~ M h M h M h M M h h M M M M M h 1~ h h h N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ~~ I t~-T G-3 ~ ~~~ COQ ~a-D~~ .. \ ~,c, t, . C -crn uF~ l-l ltl.l~ ^ivision of Planning 800 Shier-Rings Road in, Ohio 43016-1236 Phone/TDD:614-410-4600 Fax: 614-761-6566 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.uz PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION MAY 2, 2002 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Rezoning 02-0322 -Perimeter Center, Subarea I -Text Revision - Crown Dealerships - 6350, 6400, and 6520 Perimeter Loop Road Location: 13.42 acres located between Perimeter Loop Drive and Mercedes Drive (private), approximately 200 feet north of US 33/SR 161. Existing Zoning: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Perimeter Center plan). Request: A rezoning to PCD, Planned Commerce District under the provisions of Section 153.058. Proposed Use: A text revision for one proposed and two existing car dealerships. Applicant: Dwayne Hawkins, 6001 34th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33714; represented by Victoria Newell, Meacham and Apel Architects, Inc., 6161 Riverside Drive, Suite A, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Chad D. Gibson, AICP, Senior Planner. MOTION #1: To disapprove this rezoning application as submitted. VOTE: 6-0. RESULT: Motion to recommend disapproval passed. MOTION #2: To amend the existing Subarea I text to reflect aten-foot minimum sideyard pavement setback along the west boundary of parcel #273-010210 (6350 Perimeter Loop Road) because it allows development to proceed uninterrupted, recognizes an existing condition, and is consistent with the November 15, 2001 approved conditions. * Ms. Newell agreed to this text amendment. A3 SUSMtf'fFp)'~p ta0ltNCIt ,^ VOTE: 6-0. 1 `" ~ Kt?R MEE'11Nt3 ON ~ Z~7 D ~ r RESULT: The above motion to amend the Subarea I text was approved. STAFF CERTIFICATION Barbara M. Clarke, Planning Director STAFF REPORT DUBLIN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 2, 2002 r.rn t-r n1 t~i,i~ Division of Planning 5800 Shier-Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016-1236 Phane/TDD:614-410-4600 Fax: 614-761-6566 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us 1. Rezoning 02-0322 -Perimeter Center, Subarea I -Text Revision - Crown Dealerships - 6350, 6400, and 6520 Perimeter Loop Road Location: 13.42 acres located between Perimeter Loop Drive and Mercedes Drive (private), approximately 200 feet north of US 33/SR 161. Existing Zoning: PCD, Planned Commerce District (Perimeter Center plan). Request: A rezoning to PCD, Planned Commerce District under the provisions of Section 153.058. Proposed Use: A text revision for one proposed and two existing car dealerships. Applicant: Dwayne Hawkins, 6001 34`h Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33714; represented by Victoria Newell, Meacham and Apel Architects, Inc., 6161 Riverside Drive, Suite A, Dublin, Ohio 43017. Staff Contact: Chad D. Gibson, AICP, Senior Planner. BACKGROUND: Subarea I was created specifically for an auto dealership in 1989. This subarea was expanded to over 13 acres, and currently includes a Chrysler and a Mercedes dealership. A third dealership building on the easternmost undeveloped 4.6 acres of Subarea I is under construction (99- 073RDP). That development plan application was approved in error by the staff, as it does not meet the PCD text minimum 25-foot side yard for pavement requirement. This side yard deficiency was identified at the building permit review, and the approved plan (as submitted) to the Planning Commission on November 15, 2001 necessitates a minor text modification. This has caused some clear inconvenience to the applicant, and the staff does apologize for that. This application focuses only on the development text changes requested for the entire Subarea I, that is, all three dealerships. As proposed, Chrysler will relocate to the new building; Mercedes will relocate to the western building (its original location); and Kia will occupy the center building. The PCD provisions of Section 153.058(E) establishes criteria for approval of a composite plan (rezoning): • The development is consistent in all respects with the purpose, intent, and applicable standards of permissible land uses; Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -May 2, 2002 Page 2 The density of the proposed plan is in conformance with appropriate comprehensive plans such as the Dublin Future Land Use Plan and the Thoroughfare Plan; The preliminary site layout maintains the image of Dublin as a planned community; • The orientation of critical open space and linkages, buffer areas, entry ways, and other elements having a bearing on the overall acceptability of the composite plans, contribute to the orderly development of land within the City; • The development provides and maintains a safe, convenient, and non-conflicting circulation system for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians; and • The development standards for the proposed development, which may vary from the requirements in the Dublin Code when warranted, are found to be desirable for the implementation of the composite plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission must make a recommendation on this rezoning request. The application is then returned to City Council for the final vote. Atwo-thirds vote of City Council is required to override a negative recommendation by the Commission. The rezoning will become effective 30 days following Council approval. CONSIDERATIONS: Site Characteristics: The 13.42-acre site comprises all of Subarea I and is located between Perimeter Loop Road and Mercedes Drive (private). It is irregular in shape, with about 1,800 feet of frontage on Perimeter Loop Road and 1,127 feet of frontage on Mercedes Drive. The site is generally flat and contains two car dealerships on the westernmost two parcels (Mercedes and Chrysler). The easternmost parcel is currently under construction for a third dealership. Upon completion, the dealerships will "exchange" buildings. All surrounding properties are zoned as part of the Perimeter Center plan. To the north, across Mercedes Drive are the Ginza restaurant (Subarea F3) and the Craughwell Village apartments (Subarea G-1). To the south, across Perimeter Loop Road are Reserve "B" and US 33/SR 161. To the east, across Perimeter Loop Road is the MAG auto dealership (Subarea J). Land Use/Zoning/Community Plan Issues: ~` ~~ The proposed text indicates that commercial uses are permitted. These include car • dealerships and related retail sales/ancillary uses, offices, hotels, and institutional uses. The text also permits special events on an "occasional" basis. Staff recommends this use be clarified or deleted from the text. Auto bodywork and outside loudspeakers are not permitted. The Future Land Use Map within the Community Plan designates this site as "existing non-residential" and "mixed use-employment emphasis." The text has been re-written in its entirety for Subarea I. The submitted text shows underlined words as new and deleted words with a "strikethrough." For adoption purposes, a clean copy of the revised subarea text is needed. Access Considerations/Traffic Management: The site has multiple access points along both Perimeter Loop Road and Mercedes Drive (private). Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -May 2, 2002 Page 3 Unloading new vehicles on the public street has been an ongoing problem. The construction of the third dealership and related service road should resolve this problem. Code Enforcement action will result if the practice continues. Mercedes Drive is a private east-west service road that separates the auto dealerships from the other Perimeter Center uses. The condition of Mercedes Drive has deteriorated in recent months, and staff recommends re-paving it. Development Standards: • Lot coverage is unrealistically high in the text. Staff recognizes this repeats the original text language, but it seems terribly outdated. It permits buildings and parking garages to cover up to 75 percent of the lot area. The text should be revised to indicate a maximum of 70 percent impervious coverage per site. • Along Perimeter Loop Road, the building setback will remain SO feet and the pavement setback will remain at 25 feet. The proposed text does not require anX side yard setbacks, and considers the entire subarea as one development. The required rear yard will remain at 25 feet for pavement and buildings. Along the majority of interior property lines, there are existing landscaped areas. Staff believes eliminating the side yard standard from the text is not appropriate. • Maximum building height in the subarea remains at 65 feet, with a minimum height of 20 feet. Staff believes the maximum height should be reduced. • A number of "Development Standard" issues (on page 3 of the proposed text) have been moved to the "Specific Development Issues" section on page 4. It is important to note that auto bodywork is not permitted. The prohibitions against signs, balloons, streamers, etc. have also been moved to this section. Landscaping/Tree Preservation: • A legally executed landscape easement is outstanding for the western property line of the new dealership building. This was a previous development plan condition of approval. The landscape plan submitted with latest building permit application can be approved otherwise. Utilities and Storm Water: • The entire site needs to meet the current Stormwater Regulations. The text does not address this issue. Utilities are adequate to service the development. Water is available to the site via an eight-inch line along Perimeter Loop Road. Sanitary sewer service is available to the site via an eight-inch sewer line along Mercedes Drive. Architecture: The text states that all buildings shall be designed to reflect the architectural quality of the current development within Subarea I and the immediate area of Perimeter Center. Depictions of the buildings should be submitted to indicate the required quality of architecture. Lighting/Signage: • The text states that Signage will be per Code. The text allows each dealership to have an individual ground sign. The signs are permitted to be 15 feet in height and cannot be less than 250 apart. Staff recommends amending this language to limit the total number of .~ Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report -May 2, 2002 Page 4 signs for the entire subarea. Signage for the entire subarea was specifically addressed at the development plan stage for the new dealership. All Signage is subject to review and approval by the Commission. That sign package is to remain as approved. The general standards for lighting contained within the Perimeter Center Text are to remain. Staff recommends adherence to the Lighting Guidelines. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This development text revision is necessitated by an error made in association with the 2001 development plan (Kia). This is officially a modification of the composite plan in the Planned Commerce District, or a rezoning. This is a change in the "rules" by which future development plans will be judged for this site. Several non-central text issues were also modified as part of this proposal, largely as housekeeping items. The staff believes this modification is reasonable. Staff recommends approval with six conditions: Conditions: 1) That the text be revised per the comments made by the Commission and within this report, and that a "clean" copy of the text be submitted within seven days; 2) That the text be modified to require high quality architecture that emphasizes coordination between the three sites, in keeping with high community standards and the Perimeter Center development; 3) That a legally executed landscape easement be submitted for the western property line of the new dealership within seven days, subject to staff approval; 4) That the existing side yard standards not be eliminated from the text, but be modified to articulate existinglapproved conditions; 5) That the text be revised to indicate a maximum number of signs and that all Signage is subject to review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and 6) That the maximum height indicated in the text (65 feet) be reduced to 45 feet. Bases: 1) The proposal meets the requirements for revising the development text under the Planned Commerce District provisions of Section 153.058. 2) The proposal, as amended, maintains the original character expectations for the area. 3) The proposal corrects an error made at the development plan stage. PERIMETER CENTER PCD SUBAREA PLAN c ! ~ ie~ 1 i~ ~ --------------~~~,~x~m,~----------- ,~ _ _ --, ,~,~ ~~ ~. ~'~ ~\ ~~ ~~ '1 xi i ~ rn ~ ~ m ''i '=1 t I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~~ • ~~ ~~ ~ ~ m:~ ~ ~ ~I ~ i ~ ~~. m i ~ ~ ~.~~._ _ , ~tNff11H~HQfHN+}li+>}1}Hfiifiil0 ~ t '~ ~~ I ~~ ~ 1;; ~ x I ~ ' ~~~ t~ ~ ~ •, i ~~ ~ ~. \ ~\.. ~ .~ .. .; ~~~~ ,, . ~ .. ~. ~~. _ ~~ - _. ~ ~ '~~ '~ ~ ~ ~~ URiL~`~ :I] 1:1::1: ~~.~ ~ ~ ,..,~~ ~ ~ rim . ~ \ / DdJ DRIP PRfYATL \~ / .~`\` \\ } ,~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~_\ _ __ ~~_ ~ 'i X ~i r ,_ _~ -~~ ~i F ,. ~ ~ ,~ ,. . ~~ _, ~ - j; > ~,~ I I ~I j t / i i 02-0322 Perimeter Center Subarea I Crown Dealership Text Revisioir~,,, SITE PLAN a: r.= ' ~; . ~" `~, ,. /' /~ rc: - j • ~: l,., / yc;. ~: i;= ~ . ~;: / 1,-' / " i~"~ /~ ti /~'~ 1,-"~ "~ /. ri" /' u /~ ~' d < _• i c~ ;~::: / 1. r; i /,~ ~ , !; % ~' ~ 1 j '---- l ~~1 ~ ~I~ ~~ ~~ ll1111~ ~ ~ ~ 0 N ~I (n ~~ ~: V' • ~~ I L; KR ~; .~~ } .' ~i ~ C. j ~ _ E ii r -~ - ;~E~ ~, i - a~. I III t~ rr JI } gfl I * f i 5f ~ )) rs, ~' F ~~F SF~ /a' ~ : ai T 71 i~ 3 3~9 j as ~~. ~~ a ~ag~ a} Ii ~ t~:t G~;, ~ i r~G,, ~~ ~ .4, \ \, ~ !. ;~: \,. S~ ~;;,, ~ \., aA ~... \ ~ ~ - l~ ~ ~ \_~ ', `• ` ' '~-. \ ~~ ~'-s. - ~_-- t ~yY_ --- --- ..ra~ ~ :a I ~' I I ~ _, I =51 -F~! - i _ I - ~ -~, - ~- ~~~F$E SFz ~o ei a}R~ F ~Q E°e ~.._ ._._..- - - --- - - -- __ J !~ 1.. a~ . _._..___ ._. i a __ ______________ _______~--T~ -- I ~_ t a -~. _____-_-I -__-___.-.__- I6 -_ ~ 'a -~ - - --- - - - - - - - e: t~_sa ~~ Ft I - 1~ a I 02-0322 Perimeter Center Subarea I Crown Dealership Text Revision :~ I fY Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -May 2, 2002 D~~~~ Page 3 1. Rezoning 02-0322 -Perimeter Center, Subarea I -Text Revision -Crown Dealerships - 6350, 6400, and 6520 Perimeter Loop Road [Ms. Boring recused herself and left the room due to a conflict with this case.] Chad Gibson said this rezoning application would amend the existing Perimeter Center Subarea I text. This application is necessary because Development Plan 99-073RDP was approved in error. That site plan did not meet the minimum sideyard setback for pavement of 25 feet. Mr. Gibson said that car dealership is under construction and grading is complete. He said it is staff's goal to facilitate this text amendment to allow the applicant to continue with construction without delay. The proposed text submitted by the applicant contains a large number of changes addressed in the staff report. However, in the interest of simplicity, staff would like to focus discussion on this sideyard issue as the sole issue under consideration this evening. He showed several slides of the site. The 13.42-acre site is located between Mercedes Drive (private) and Perimeter Loop Road, and it is zoned PCD, Planned Commerce District as part of the Perimeter Center Plan. A property line exists between the easternmost and central parcels. The service road is located ten feet from the property line. Mr. Gibson said the building meets the sideyard standard. He noted the existing dealerships will be changing buildings and Kia will be added. Mr. Gibson said based on the submitted text, staff is recommending approval of this text amendment with the six conditions from the staff report: 1) That the text be revised per the comments made by the Commission and within this report, and that a "clean" copy of the text be3 submitted within seven days; 2) That the text be modified to require high quality architecture that emphasizes coordination between the three sites, in keeping with high community standards and the Perimeter Center development; 3) That a legally executed landscape easement be submitted for the western property line of the new dealership within seven days, subject to staff approval; 4) That the existing side yard standards not be eliminated from the text, but be modified to articulate 4exiwsting/approved conditions; 5) That the text e revised to indicate a maximum number of signs and that all signage is subject to review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and 6) That the maximum height indicated on the text (65 feet) be reduced to 45 feet. Mr. Gibson said staff suggests a more simplified application which solely relates to the sideyard issue in the interest of facilitating this application through the system. Victoria Newell, Meacham and Apel Architects, representing the applicant, said she did not know where to begin and she did not know what was being discussed. She said they went through the rezoning process, and they received plan approval, including a very long drive that was ten feet off the property line. The approved text states that it has to be 25 feet from that property line. She said they agreed at that Commission meeting that they would do a landscape easement, addressing that condition. Ms. Newell said Dublin denied their building permit because they were in violation of that 25- foot sideyard access. To get them off ground zero, she said they were asked to clean up the text Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -May 2, 2002 ~~ Page 4 to address the non-compliant issues. Some changes were not properly documented. She said this was not the only issue. The text had gone through many revisions, but it had never been retyped. For example, in the beginning of the text, it states that cars are to be parked on this site in single rows, side-by-side, or tail-to-tail, but not both. However, parking has been approved twice for stacking the cars together as storage. She said the Commissioners had been provided with a strikeout copy where the original text was shown with modifications. She said at least twice they had been before the Commission to make changes to the text and the ges have really never been reflected in the print for the text. She said the City did not have the latest text which reflects changes made at least twice. The text was never retyped. Ms. Newell said they agreed with very few of the conditions listed above. Several readdress issues that have already been resolved, it seemed foolish for them to reopen them. Mr. Sprague said it seemed there were two components being considered this evening. One was an expedited review of the text revision to address the setback and the other is the text clean up and conditions that perhaps could be done between staff and the applicant later. Ms. Newell agreed, as long there was nothing that held up the permitting process and they were not renegotiating something already in place. She said their intention was to clean up the text so that the record was clear. She said that was exactly what the Commission had in front of them. Mr. Sprague asked if the Commission were to address the 10-foot setback tonight, and defer the other issues, would Ms. Newell agree that that would probably allow them to proceed with the permitting process. Ms. Newell agreed. However, the way the text is addressed, the landscape easement would no longer be required. To complete the process with the Building Division, her rejection letter said that they have to have that landscape easement in place. She wants this resolved. Mr. Gibson said Mr. Sprague's suggestions were acceptable to staff. He said the landscape easement along the property line between the easternmost and central parcels (the existing Mercedes dealership and the site under construction), is required landscaping between sites. Due to the fact that there is an existing mound along the property line of the central car dealership, it did not make sense to add another mound directly adjacent to it. The landscape easement provides for landscaping and screening into perpetuity. If the mound were removed, it will be the applicant's responsibility to provide screening along that eastern property line. Ms. Clarke asked if that meant that with a landscape easement, that the one mound could serve for two separate properties. Mr. Gibson agreed. He said staff had the applicant augment the screening along that mound instead of constructing an additional mound. Ms. Newell disagreed. She said they added trees to the mound because there are service entrance doors that are being screened. She said she thought if the sideyard went away, there was no reason for the landscape easement. Mr. Gibson said the sideyard was not going to go away. Ms. Newell said it had to go away. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission ~~ Minutes -May 2, 2002 Page 5 Ms. Newell said they had an existing building on the Mercedes site where there was no landscaping between the two pieces of property. She said if the text is being cleaned up, it is five feet off of its property line. Mr. Gibson suggested to resolve this problem, that it be inserted into the text that sideyards are based on previous development plan approvals. Mercedes, for example, got approval of a development plan with a building, showing some distance along the side property line. That would be an acceptable sideyard, based upon that development plan approval. Ms. Newell asked if that would apply across the entire site. Mr. Gibson said no, individually. Ms. Newell said they could not accept that because the text applies to each of the three parcels. If something has been allowed to occur already on a site in Subarea I, then that should be applied to all three parcels. Each building should not have a completely different setback. Mr. Gibson said the issue would have to be resolved. Ms. Newell agreed. Mr. Gibson said he believed the sideyard issue was caused by staff's oversight at the development plan. Resolving the setback issue will allow construction of the dealership to continue tonight. He said staff still wants a landscape easement to be provided. Mr. Sprague asked Ms. Newell if she wanted action tonight on the sideyard and landscape easement issues in order for them to go forward with the permitting process. Ms. Newell agreed. Ms. Newell said the existing building that houses the current Mercedes dealership will be a Kia dealership. It is currently constructed five feet off the property line to the west. Mr. Saneholtz asked if that was the same property line where the service drive is located, or the opposite property line between the two existing developed properties. Ms. Newell agreed it was along the service drive. Ms. Newell said each property had the same subarea text. She said before they rezoned the site, it was agreed that all three sites would be viewed jointly. She noted the Crown Mercedes site does not even have curb cuts. They had to remove them. Access is through either of the two adjacent sites. She said the property lines are only a matter of semantics, but they are not imaginary lines to the dealerships. She said there is a leasing agreement between each of those dealerships. For example, in each individual agreement, it says the dealership has full control over its site. The property lines serve as delineation for the owners only. Ms. Newell said they went before the Commission and asked them to approve these three parcels being considered united, still leaving the property lines in place and it was approved. Mr. Saneholtz asked if the business agreements were necessitate maintaining the three separate properties. Ms. Newell agreed. This would be very easily fixed if the three lots were combined. She said if that were possible, it would have been done, but they cannot without violating the leasing agreements. That is why they are before the Commission tonight. Mr. Gibson said on October 15, 1998, during the minor revision to a development plan hearing, there was discussion about combining these parcels which would have done away with any Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -May 2, 2002 Page 6 interior sideyard requirement. He said it showed up as a condition. Subsequent to that date, the applicant returned and said that they did not wish to combine the parcels. Mr. Sprague asked when did the applicant indicate that they were unable to proceed with the consolidation. Mr. Gibson said it had been mentioned that it was last year. Mr. Sprague asked if it were a fair statement that when the Commission was considering the parking implications for all three parcels, in a "unified" manner, there was still a thought that the applicant would proceed in an attempt to combine the parcels. Mr. Gibson agreed. Ms. Newell said the only parcel that she remembered that they had ever made the commitment to combine, was when they added additional parking area. She said that had been done twice. Mr. Gerber asked if the sideyard and landscape easement issues need to be approved to continue with the permitting process. Mr. Banchefsky said he did not believe that to be the case. Ms. Newell said it was a condition of her rejection letter from the building division that the landscape easement had to be executed to proceed with the permit process. Mr. Gibson confirmed that on November 15, 2001, the development plan approval for this site required a landscape easement to be issued regarding that property line. It has not been done yet, so it is an outstanding issue that would prevent issuing a final building permit. Ms. Clarke said the purpose of that landscape easement is to show that the property on each side, east and west, of that line meets the Landscape Code. . Ms. Newell said it did not meet the Landscape Code on both sides. She said she and her client wonder why they were providing the landscape easement. If should not be needed if the sideyard issue is resolved. The existing required landscaping will not go away. The sideyard issue is being resolved in the text. She believed that only one of the issues needed resolution. If the landscape easement is provided, she did not feel a text revision was necessary. ~""° Mr. Gibson read the condition from the last revised development plan: "That a legally executed landscape easement be submitted prior to the issuance of a certificate of zoning plan approval." He said the intent had been to eliminate the need for two side-by-side mounds. The Code requires screening between sites. It does not matter if the sideyard is adjusted. No mound is being provided on the east side of the property line. Ms. Newell noted the mound was still required. Mr. Gibson said that was correct, but it cannot be guaranteed if someone else purchases the site. Mr. Messineo said that was the key. These are still separate real estate parcels, and the mound does not straddle the property line. It is on one side. He said he understood this request was to preserve the ability to have one landscape mound even if the property was subsequently sold. Ms. Newell said their text modifications set out the things the applicant must do if the property is sold. She did not believe they could really separate these properties from each other, but the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission ~ "~° Minutes -May 2, 2002 ~~. Page 7 protections are there if it occurs. They cannot sell it without addressing the landscaping and cross-access easement issues. She said as the text is being written, it is for Dublin's protection. Mr. Saneholtz said if the sideyard issue is .finalized, only the easement language for the landscaping remains. Ms. Newell agreed if the other conditions, like building height, are not being addressed now. 1 Mr. Saneholtz understood that if the sideyard is remedied and the applicant provides an easement for the landscaping, then the permit could be issued. Mr. Banchefsky agreed. Ms. Newell said the proposed text would not require an easement in addition to the modification to the sideyard. It requires the easement to be addressed if the owners sell or divide the properties. As long as this applicant owns all of the properties, the easement is not needed. She said they were not doing anything to change the conditions placed in front of the Commission. Ms. Newell said it was not right to open up the text again and submit a revision. She noted there are still other issues that will remain in violation because of~the way this has been handled and approved in the past. It is not clean, clear, or fair to her client. She said access easements have been allowed on different adjoining properties in the past. Instead of addressing the landscape easement by rewriting the entire text, they were done as cross access easements. Ms. Newell said she felt they thoroughly addressed these issues when they came before the Commission last time. She said they should not have been asked to come back and revise the sideyards. Frank Ciarochi clarified that if the Commission resolves the sideyard and the easement, then its recommendation goes onto City Council. This would permit the staff to continue the process so that the applicant is not slowed down and does not have to de-mobilize. Mr. Sprague said essentially, Ms. Newell and Mr. Gibson are almost in complete agreement. The Commission's expedited recommendation will facilitate the building process and applicant's timetable. The core issues for both sides of the issue seem to be closely aligned. Mr. Messineo asked about page 5 where it covered yards and setback requirements. He noted item 3 stated there shall not be sideyards whatsoever. He asked if this were correct. Ms. Newell said yes, because they thought that was the easiest way to clean things up. The Mercedes building was constructed five feet from the property line. It went through the plan review process. Now they have a condition requiring the building to be 25 feet from the line and the driveway is 10 feet from the line. It is an issue now, but it was not an issue in the past. They have done what was asked repeatedly. She thought removing the setbacks in their entirety resolved it. It would bring everything into compliance. It should be simple to understand. Mr. Messineo asked if making the setback zero had anything to do with needing the extra ten feet. Ms. Newell said the site was approved with a driveway ten feet away from the property line, but the situation on the Mercedes site is different. It has no pavement setback. Mr. Messineo asked what was the rationale for allowing the Mercedes dealership within five feet of its property line. It might have been anticipated that it would be one parcel. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -May 2, 2002 W Page 8 Ms. Newell said the records indicate that they were combining parking areas. There was nothing addressed at that time regarding landscaping between parcels. In her several years working on this project, she has made four presentations. It was never an issue that the building was too close to the property line. The staff never requested combining lots or moving the building. Regarding permits, Ms. Newell said the City had tried to accommodate them as best they could. They got a foundation start and a shell permit. They can proceed with .the outside of their building only. They cannot construct the driveway as shown unless the setback is resolved, and the driveway should be built in one or two months. She said her client needs to occupy this "~"" building by June 1. The building's tilt-up concrete panels facilitate speedy construction. Mr. Messineo read from the text, page two, paragraph one, "Interrelationships of Rezoning for Existing Development Plans." It says, ":..As a result, it is a condition of the text revision rezoning that any future use of Subarea I by unrelated entities will require submission of appropriate cross access and shared parking agreements to Planning Staff and the Law Director's office to address the interrelationships of the separate parcels within the overall concept of the single site utilization requirement set out in this text." He was concerned about defining "unrelated entities," and it just required "submission," not approval. Ms. Newell said they would be happy to modify it in any way. Mr. Messineo asked if staff wanted to have landscape easements set now. Mr. Gibson said yes, as reflected in the November 15, 2001 Record of Action. It would be a carryover condition. Ms. Newell said the landscaping easement was not needed if the sideyard issue was resolved. Her client should not be delayed. Mr. Messineo noted this applicant had been issued all required permits to date. Ms. Newell said their permitting process was delayed for two months. Mr. Sprague said the Commission would act reasonably to expedite the applicant's timeline. He said the parcels are not combined and could be sold. A future landowner would be required to pay for a mound (landscaping) to be placed on the adjoining parcel, with that owner agreeing to this in advance. Ms. Newell agreed. Mr. Sprague said then all that is being asked is for an ~~'" easement to be executed from one owner to another for a fee or consideration. Ms. Newell said the record indicated that the easement also concerned the driveway only ten feet off the property line. If they did the landscape access easement, and they addressed the 10-foot issue for the driveway as one issue, she would have no reason to be before the Commission tonight. They would have simply done the landscape easement, but that would not resolve the text sideyard clearance of 25 feet. If the text is revised for the sideyard clearance, then the landscape easement is no longer required. Mr. Messineo said if the sideyard issue and the easement are handled tonight, the permitting process can continue. Ms. Newell was not sure she understood what he was saying. Mr. Messineo said this is quite complex, and he is most concerned about continuing the process. If the sideyard is reduced and the easements are handled, this allows the applicant to continue. The balance of the text could be handled at another time. Ms. Newell agreed, but did she need the landscape easement or not? She did not know what was needed to resolve the sideyard issue this evening. She asked for a clarification. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -May 2, 2002 Page 9 i Mr. Sprague said he heard that Ms. Newell wanted the sideyard pavement easement reduced to ten feet. Ms. Newell said, no, she wanted a zero setback. She said she wanted the setback to be applied consistently for all sites. Mr. Sprague understood and said he was trying to be fair in this very complicated process. It is a moving target. He said they need to fix their view of the three existing parcels. Ms. Newell disagreed and said the Commission previously viewed all three sites jointly. The Chrysler site would violate the parking Code. Parking and lot coverage are balanced among the sites, and she did not want them viewed separately now. The setback requirements should be the same for all sites under the subarea text. Ms. Newell said they have been brought before the Commission to revise the text. They are asking for it to clearly apply to each parcel. Mr. Sprague said he did not know if there would be prejudice in allowing the five-foot setback to remain, and then allowing aten-foot setback, and still requiring the continuation of the condition to provide a landscape easement between two parcels. They are still two legally separate parcels. He said all that is needed is execution of a piece of paper between two owners, per the Landscape Code. He said it would keep them on target and suggested working out additional text concerns with the staff. The text could come back for a Commission hearing later. Ms. Newell did not want to leave it with a different setback for each parcel. She said she had done several rezonings to add dealerships, but not when there was a building addition. She said she was asked to incorporate standards into the Subarea I text, so they was applied the same to each parcel. Now, the Commission was saying the opposite. They would not agree to that. Mr. Ritchie asked about the height limit on the western site (original building). Ms. Newell said 65 feet. Mr. Ritchie said he needed time to understand the inconsistencies as outlined. Mr. Sprague wanted to keep the applicant on track with the building and to create compliance with the condition to which have already agreed. Mr. Gibson said the staff is proposing that the text formally allow the unique setback arrangement for each dealership, based on the previously approved development plans. For example, however the Commission approved the western building, those setbacks would apply to that site. The middle parcel was approved with the building five feet from the property line, and that would be permanently established, etc. Mr. Sprague re-stated this. He said that for plans that have been approved and are now legally enforceable, the Commission would change its approach. Instead of saying they want uniformity for all three sites in the text, the sites would be permitted to continue to utilize legally compliant and enforceable conditions and approved plans as their overarching organizational theme. Ms. Newell preferred eliminating the sideyard in the text. Mr. Sprague said he understood that the applicants attempted to combine the three parcels but were rebuffed by the franchised dealerships. Ms. Newell agreed. Mr. Sprague said legally, these are distinct parcels and the Commission had to operate under that. Ms. Newell said having a variety of setbacks in all in Subarea I made absolutely no sense. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -May 2, 2002 ' _ ~b Page 10 Mr. Banchefsky suggested that these three parcels be deed restricted so that they only could be sold as a unit. Ms. Newell did not think her client would agree to that. Mr. Sprague said it seems that they are just recognizing a legal and factual set of conditions that are already in existence. This seems easiest to keep the building on track. He said the applicant can always come back later and seek an amended text. Ms. Newell said she did not want to go through this repeatedly. Mr. Saneholtz asked if this separate parcel had been sold to him for a business, would he have a zero lot line, or 25 feet? Ms. Clarke responded the existing text requires a 25-foot setback. Mr. Saneholtz said the approved ten-foot setback was a staff oversight, so the property owner has benefited by using the additional 15 feet of property. Now, the applicant wants to reduce to zero. It seems as if they are asked to view these as one parcel, but the owner retains the right to transfer them individually. This seems inconsistent to him. He said the applicant can meet its business requirements, and he supported the option presented by the staff. Ms. Newell they asked about this at the Commission meeting that approved the third site. She said the staff report covered the issues. Their site could not meet the lot coverage and parking requirements. They had asked the Commission to give them direction, and they were directed to view it in its entirety. They would have modified the design to meet the 25-foot setback in the text, etc. She said staff asked them not only to address certain items, not just on the third site, but on all three parcels. Ms. Newell said now, after they reviewed them as a single site and they had an approved plan, the City wants the parcels to be treated differently. The access drive was discussed at great length at the meeting, and it was noted that the driveway would be ten feet off the property line. It was never raised as an issue. The Commission agreed to review all three parcels as one site. Signage was discussed for all three sites and that became an issue. Mr. Sprague asked if Conditions 3 and 4 above were approved, allowing the permit process to continue, he understood the remaining conditions could be addressed between the applicant and staff. Mr. Banchefsky agreed. Ms. Newell felt the City was asking for double standards of her applicant. She wants to follow through as previously approved. If they look at all three parcels together, they should not be appearing before the Commission. She said this was previously resolved, and they should be allowed to continue according to that. If the sideyard clearance is being readdressed, it should be done fairly for her client. She wants it reduced to zero on all sites. Mr. Banchefsky asked how Ms. Newell's client is damaged if this is treated as separate parcels. Ms. Newell said at the last meeting, issues arose for the other two sites that would not have arisen otherwise. If they needed to meet a 25-foot setback, they could have redesigned it then with lower square footage and balancing the parking count. She had asked the Commission for clear direction. Staff had asked, with the third parcel, for combined access to the middle site. They agreed to this, but then more things were requested for the other sites, such as Signage. Ms. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -May 2, 2002 ~~ ~ ~x ~ ~ `~ Page 11 Newell said if the setback had been the issue on the third parcel, she would have met it, and those other areas would not have been discussed. Things would have been limited. to the third site. Now, a change in that agreement is asked. Her client wants the same text for all three sites. Ms. Banchefsky again asked how Ms. Newell's client would be damaged if the Commission approved site-specific setbacks that reflect reality and what actually is built. Ms. Newell said they had already made many concessions in the review process that they would not have had to do. The record cannot be separated and changed. They might not have made those same concessions. If they were just limited to that third parcel, they would have approached it differently. With executed access easements, no sideyard adjustment is needed. She said it could have been addressed in the access agreements they agreed to provide. Mr. Messineo asked about the building under construction. Ms. Newell said there is a ten-foot pavement setback, but the building complies with the 25-foot requirement. Ms. Newell said the landscape easement was undefined, and that was part of the problem. Mr. Messineo thought the landscape easement would be attached to the middle parcel. Ms. Clarke agreed. She said there are two separate Code issues. One is the physical separation, the sideyard. The other is a landscape requirement to screen the edge of a parking lot. Mr. Messineo asked about the physical distance intended not to be pavement, assumed to be green space on the western site. Ms. Clarke said that is currently a requirement fora 25-foot strip, and unless the sideyard is reduced by City Council, the driveway cannot be constructed as shown. A text revision reducing it to 10 feet would solve the problem discovered during the plan review. Ms. Newell believed they had been asked at the Commission meeting to provide a landscape easement and a cross access easement, both to address the position of that access drive. If they already agreed to a cross access agreement addressing the position, why are they here? Mr. Sprague said that the applicant had already agreed to a condition regarding the landscape easement. He said Conditions 3 and 4 should resolve the permitting problem, and then Ms. Newell and staff could work out the rest of the text issues later. Mr. Gibson said in order for the middle parcel to use the eastern parcel for parking and access, etc., cross access easements were needed. He said, however, there was also a condition from the November hearing that required a legally executed landscape easement. Mr. Ritchie noted only one of the two easements had been discussed. He wanted to know if there was another resolution other than a text revision. Mr. Gibson responded, no. The current text has a minimum sideyard for pavement and building of 25 feet. The site plan shows the drive aisle ten feet from the side lot line, and that cannot be overcome with an easement document. Mr. Sprague's motion for approval of this rezoning application was interrupted by more discussion about the conditions. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes -May 2, 2002 ~ Page 12 Mr. Gibson said staff did not request a wholesale modification to this text. It requested solely a change involving the sideyard requirement. Mr. Sprague made a motion to approve this rezoning because it meets the requirements for revising the development text under the Planned Commerce District provisions of Section 153.058, maintains the original character expectations for the area, and corrects an error made at the development plan stage, with two conditions (renumbered from above): 1) That a legally executed landscape easement be submitted for the western property line of the new dealership within seven days, subject to staff approval, and that the existing side yard standards not be eliminated from the text, but be modified to articulate the existing/approved conditions; and 2) That the text be revised per the comments made by the Commission and within this report, and that a "clean" copy of the text be submitted within seven days, that the text be modified to require high quality architecture that emphasizes coordination between the three sites, in keeping with high community standards and the Perimeter Center development, that the text be revised to indicate a maximum number of signs and that all signage is subject to review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and that the maximum height indicated on the text (65 feet) be reduced to 45 feet, subject to staff satisfaction. Mr. Messineo seconded the motion. Ms. Newell did not agree to the above conditions. She said the conditions from staff change the previously approved text. The vote began:- Mr. Ritchie, yes...and was interrupted. Mr. Banchefsky suggested holding an executive session before the vote due to the complexity of the case. Mr. Messineo made the motion to adjourn into executive session, and Mr. Zimmerman seconded. The vote was as follows: Mr. Ritchie, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; and Mr. Messineo, yes. [The Commission adjourned into executive session at 10:05 p.m. They were gone about 15 minutes.] Mr. Sprague made the motion to disapprove this rezoning application. Mr. Messineo seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Mr. Ritchie, yes; Mr. Gerber, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; and Mr. Messineo, yes. (Motion to recommend disapproval passed 6-0.) Mr. Sprague made a motion to amend the existing Subarea I text to reflect aten-foot minimum sideyard pavement setback along the west boundary of parcel #273-010210 (6350 Perimeter Loop Road) because it allows development to proceed uninterrupted, recognizes an existing condition, and is consistent with the November 21, 2001 approved conditions. Mr. Gerber seconded the motion. Ms. Newell agreed to the above text amendment. The vote was as follows: Mr. Ritchie, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Mr. Sprague, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Messineo, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 6-0.) Mr. Sprague thanked Ms. Newell for her patience. ..., • - • AS APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/42. ~_ _: _ EXISTING TEXT SEE PAGE 47 IN TEXT REDUCING SIDE YARD I'I:ItIMII'I:It (~I:N I'1•:It I)I:V1:1.c 11'h11iN~1~ •I•I:X I' Suba~rca 1 -'t'ransitiniiAl /lr a The Transitional Nature of Subarea I: The area proposed for Subarea I was contemplated to be general office, corporate headquarters, hotels, etc. It was further contemplated that this site would form an important part of the entrance impression of not only Perimeter Mall but Dublin itself. Because of specific high quality retail use fulfilling this purpose, the original concept for Perimeter Center was altered to allow creation of Subarea I permitting automobile dealerships under strict development standards, in addition to the standards set out for Subarea D. Subarea I will additionally serve as an •architectural transition,-.incorporating elements of the Perimeter Ma11, while at-the same dme,easing~~into the~higheracale-uses~of Subarea D, where common•architectural themes are not contemplated. Interrelationships of Rezoning and Development Plan: To create the new Subarea ~ a rezoning was naarssary. This rezoning is agreed by the initial end user of Subarea I (the Mercedes automobile dealership), the City, and the developer of Perimeter Mall to be specifically conditioned on the development plan presented for the parcel and the rezoning and development plan are presented concurrently. It is further agreed that a s'unple rezoning to a retail use for this parcel would.be inappropriate. In effect, the rezoning amounts to •a •variance; the development •plan, •the architecture, building materials, and development standards of the specific rezoning and development plan proposal presented are integral parts of the rezoning. Taking all of these matters together, the particular retail use presented at the time of the rezoning of Subarea I is appropriate for this site. However, it does not follow that any other use deviating in any respect from the development plan presented would be appropriate for the site. It is a condition of the rezoning of Subarea I that any future use of Subarea I must meet the requirements set out in this text. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted within Subarea I: a) Those uses listed in Section 1159.01 and 1175.01 of the Zoning Code. b) Corporate offices. c) Hotel and motel. d) .Institutional uses. e) Drive-in facilities developed in association with a permitted use. ~ Ancillary commercial uses within a structure primar 02-0322 Perimeter Center Subarea I 45 Crown Dealership Text Revision EXISTING TEXT I'Ii1:IMli flit: (~1•:N'i lil: Ol:Vl•:I.( 11'MIiN-i' •I•li\-i' b) Use listed in Section I 1 G3.01 (a) (3) (551). Ncw car dealer, developed to provtdc a retail-to-ofTice transition and in accordance with, accompanying standards. Development Standards for Automobile Dealerships: ' The development shall be limited to .the highest caliber auto dealership which shall exhibit an extraordinary visual quality. Construction shall be limited to one building which does not exceed ~- 44,000 square feet in area. Auto display, sales-and service, shall-be.pernutted and may not include - : - --a body shop; or storage of damaged vehicles nor-other activities which:maydetract from the higher • visual quality intended here.. This site will be~treated_as.an:important:gateway.into Dublin and the - - -design will reflect both high quality and a-coordination with surrounding development. No automobile bodywork permitted on site. No damaged automobiles stored outdoors on site. Automobiles stored outside of buildings and awaiting sale are limited to number of approved parking spaces, and may be displayed in s'u~gle rows only;. i.e.; automobiles maybe .displayed nose . to tail or side to side; but not both. Display pad areas outside of parking areas are not included in foregoing requirement, providing same is finished with concrete, brick pavers or other permanent material and is located behind building setback line. No outside Loudspeakers permitted. No balloons, banners, flags, blimps or helium air devices or similar devices, maybe used on site for any purpose. All building materials must be of equal quality all four sides. Display.information on vehicle not a part of the vehicle itself is limited to stickers required by federal or state law and in addition, one additional sticker not larger than 3 by 6 inches, not an iridescent color, and listing the year and type of car. Where will be no slogans, prices or other , information :painted or added to the windows, .either on .the interior .or exterior side, of automobiles held for display on site. _ No loading docks are permitted on site... All curb cuts on public streets shall require brick pavers or concrete finished in a brick pattern at point of entry into site. Treatment of hazardous materials on site: 1. Waste oil and waste anti-freeze must be stored above ground in concrete vault within the primary structure. 2. All hydraulic lifts shall use only biodegradable vegetable oil as a hydraulic medium, or future EPA approved material. ~'- 3. New (as yet unused) oil will be stored above ground indoors within the building. 4. No automobile gasoline or diesel fuel storage tanks ~ the purpose of fueling autos. 02-0322 Perimeter Center Subarea I Crown Dealership Text Revision'"""" PERIMETER CENTER DEVELOPMENT TEXT Mechanical: All mechanicals must be so located or screened so as to not be visible by automobile from either State Route 33, the exit ramps to Avery Road, Avery Road, or the interior roads of the center. Architecture: All buildings shall be designed to reflect the architectural elements of Perimeter Mall and reflect the image and scale of an office building. Materials must be complementary and compatible with the mall as determined by the Dublin Planning and zoning Commission. This standard does not require exact duplication of the themes, materials or elements of the mall. The goal is to achieve total site compatibility within Perimeter Center. Yard and Setback Requirements: Setback along Perimeter Loop Drive shall have a 25' pavement setback and 50' building setback. 2. All other publicly dedicated local streets shall have a 25' pavement setback and 50' building setback. 3. Side yards shall be 25' for pavement and buildings, except on Parcel #273-010210 (6350 Perimeter Loop Road which shall be 10 feet along the west boundary. 4. Rear yards shall be 25' for pavement and buildings. 5. Total ground covered by all buildings shall not exceed 25% of the total lot area. However, parking garages and buildings shall cover no more than 75% of the total lot area. Height Requirements: 1. The maximum height for structures in Subarea I shall be measured per the Dublin Zoning Code and have a maximum height limitation of 65'. A minimum height of 20' shall be required for all primary structures. Parking and Loading: 1. Sizes, ratio and type of parking and loading and other facilities shall be regulated by Dublin Code Chapter 1193. Development plan will reflect Phase I and Expansion Layout for parking. 2. Bank drive-thru requirements as per the Columbus Zoning Code. 47 EXISTING TEXT I~IiItlMl~l~l:it (~I~:NII:I: I)IiVlil.()1'MIiN'1'~I~1:\'1' CII'CUTAtlOIl: 1. Perimeter Loop Road shall have a 60' right-of--way and a 36' pavement width. 2. Curb cuts on Perimeter Loop Drive shalt be spaced,a minimum of 200' (as measured from the driveway's centerline) with opposing 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 frorri 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. Storage of automobiles displayed for sale is regulated by.specific requirements for automobile dealerships. See Development Standards. Landscaping: 1. All landscaping shall be according to theDublin Landscape Code Chapter 1187. 2. Tn addition and within the required building setback, a 3'- 4'.earthen landscaped ~.~ mound shall be provided along~Peri_mg~~r Drive wi~,stree trgis planted 50' on center and located -t-1' from RO.W. line within RO:W. 3. Along SR 161, a 6' landscaped mound shall be provided with trees planted a minimum of 1 tree per 30' O.F.T.O. (trees may be grouped). . 4. Street trees shall be planted along Perimeter Loop Road. Trees shall be planted one (1) per 30' along the RO.W. (trees may not be grouped). The minimum caliber shall be 3" per tree. Stgnage: Signage shall be in accord with Dublin Code and the Development Standards contained in Qencral section of tcsct. The signagc for the initial automobile dealership us an nrchitcctucally integrated pylon sign within the display arcs. f 02-0322 exceod Code Standards and consistent with other signs for the Math t Perimeter Center Subarea I Crown Dealership Text Revision`"""'" .~ _ ~ - ~ EXISTING TEXT I~Ii1tIM1:l'lil: (~I:N-I'lilt I)I:Vlil.c)I'n11:N'i'~I~I:X'I' at tlic driveway. Lighting: General standards for lighting are contained in the general text. Lighting for automobile ,~: dealerships must comply with the general standards. Further, lighting for automobile dealership display if of a higher intensity than surrounding parking lot lighting must make a smooth transition to lower intensity lighting on surrounding uses. Applicants for this type of land use must show specific fixtures to be used and specifications, and further must=proyide'lighting engineering plan showing actual intensities of light falling.orLilluminated:areas and'cutoff~reas.~~-Higher intensity .display lighting may be used only in association-:with-sales activity;-=limited. fo the hours of the showroom operation. A secondary lower intensity lighting level consistent with the adjacent parking lot(s) will be used at other times. If fixtures .selected for surrounding uses in Perimeter Center are not suitable for blighting for automobile dealerships, then s'unilar and visually compatible designs must be used. Fixture finish and color will be the same as Perimeter Center standard. - - City of Dublin PERTEXT.WPD 3/14/95 - CONPER.TXT 3/3/95 revised 4/2197 G:10FFICE\WP~D O CS\TEXTS~PERIMCTR.2 02-0322 Perimeter Center Subarea I Crown Dealership Text Revision ~n PROPOSED TEXT DISAPPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2002 Perimeter Center Development Text Subarea I Version Date: March 28, 2002 Subarea I -Transitional Area The Transitional Nature of Subarea I: When the original Perimeter Center Development text was established, the area identified as Subarea I was contemplated to be general office, corporate headquarters, hotels, etc. It was further contemplated that this site would form an important part of the entrance impression of not only Perimeter Mall, but Dublin itself. With the elimination of Perimeter Mall as a viable development within the Center, the overall development plan has changed from one centered around the Perimeter Mall to one of more individualized uses contained within an overlaying development text. Subarea I was originally permitted to be Reea~tse~fcreated due to the specific high quality retail use f'''f",- ~"is ese;contemplated by the originalser~sept-#er Perimeter Mall plan but under strict development sta~da~-in standards. To the east of this Subarea is Subarea J which is a Subarea carved out of the original Subarea D for an auto dealership commonly known as Midwestern Auto Group. Many of the same requirements required of Subarea J have been incorporated into this Subarea text for consistency of application. Subarea I will additionally serve as an architectural transition, ~nnnrnnr~+inn °Inm°ntcbetween the common architectural themes of the Perimeter Matt-while; afan„,~in °, °^c~^n ~n+^Center shopping center and the higher scale uses of Subarea D where common architectural themes are not ser~ten"+plated: contemplated. Interrelationships of Rezoning and :Existing Development Plans: Subarea I as originally contemplated has been expanded over the years to now contains a total of 13.422 acres of developable land. This development parcel area ,is bounded on its northern boundaN by Mercedes Drive, a private service drive, and has its frontage on the west, south and east by Perimeter Loop Road, a public road,. This Subarea is further defined as three separate development parcels which are presently owned by a common/related owner/entity. Due to franchise agreements and restrictions, the development parcels must remain as separate parcels. While on paper these are separate parcels, then act together as a single individualized campus complex with interconnected parking areas, drives, and curb cuts. Past final development plan approvals have reviewed the submitted proposals reviewing the development of the three parcels as a single parcel relative to side yard setbacks, landscaping, lot coverage and parking ratios. The present complex currently has buildings within 5 feet of property lines and pavement areas that cross parcels. A recent final development plan for the easternmost 4+/- acres provides for 02-0322 Perimeter Center Subarea I Pape 1 of 8 Last printed 03/28/02 1:33 PM Crown Dealership Text Revisiorr~~ PROPOSED TEXT DISAPPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2002 Perimeter Center Development Text Subarea t Version Date: March 28, 2002 pavement setback from a common side yard boundary of 10 feet which under a strict reading of the prior Subarea I development text violated the side yard setback provisions of darts--e#-tlae prior text and Planning Staff has requested this new text be prepared to reflect the actual development of the complex. While these parcels are under the same ownership and are operated as a single unified complex, it does not follow that separate ownership of these parcels by unrelated entities would be appropriate for the site s+te-ltwithout necessary cross access agreements and shared parking agreements. As a result, it is a condition oft#e this text revision/rezoning that any future use of Subarea I by unrelated entities will require submission of appropriate cross access and shared m~ pct mon~~ch parking agreements to Planning Staff and the Law Directors office to address „.F~~~ ---:-the interrelationships of the separate parcel(s) within the overall concept of the sinale site utilization requirements set out in this text. It is further stipulated as part of this text revision that the Final Development Plan as approved by the Planning Commission on November 15 2001 for the easternmost portion of the site is m compliance with these text revisions and will not require subsequent submission for approval by the Planning Commission Further nothing herein shall be considered as creating anv non compliance situation relative to the prior site development plan approvals and all pnor Final Development plans which have been submitted under the previous development text and approved by the Planning Commission shall be considered to be in compliance with the provisions and intent of this revised text without further review or submission by the Planning Commission. Conditions related to cross parking or cross access agreements or easements of anv kind between the parcels which may have bean required with those prior submission approvals will no longer be a requirement upon approval of the text provisions contained herein. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted within Subarea I. a) Those uses listed in Section 153.026 and 153.034 of the Dublin Zoning Code. b) Corporate offices. c) Hotels and motels. d) Institutional uses. e) Drive-in facilities developed in association with a permitted use. f) Ancillary commercial uses within a structure primarily devoted to office uses. g) Uses listed in Section .153.028(A)(1)(c)(551). New car dealer, developed to provide retail-to-office transition and in accordance with accompanying Pape 2 of 8 Last printed 03/28/02 1:33 PM 02-0322 Perimeter Center Subarea I Crown Dealership Text Revision PROPOSED TEXT DISAPPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2042 Perimeter Center Development Text Subarea 1 Version Date: March 28, 2002 standards. i) automotive service ancillary use. Body work shall not be permitted. ii) retail sales of manufacturer branded retail accessories and lifestyle items and automotive related retail items as an ancillary use, provided, the use is internal to the permitted use. iii) coffee shop selling beverages and minor food consumption items, as an ancillary use provided the use is intemal to the permitted use. iv) special events on an occasional basis, utilizing the site for theater, orchestra gallery civic meetings or similar entertainment or assembly uses. Development Standards: The development within Subarea I shall be limited to the 'auto dealerships which shall exhibit an extraordinary visual quality of development consistent with the provisions of the architectural standards set forth in this Subarea text. Auto display, sales, and service shall be permitted, but may not include a body shop or storage of damaged vehicles or other activities which may detract from the higher visual quality intended #~ere:for the area. This situ ~e~eatedis located in the northeast quadrant of an interchange which is identified as an important gateway into Dublin. While the Subarea does not border or have frontage on State Route 161/33, the Subarea is visible from B~tblir~State Route 161/33 and the design of buildings and the site will reflect both a high visual quality and an integration with the surrounding development. All automobiless"~" ~° c+^r°,~ stored outside of buildings and awaiting sale are limited to the number of approved parking spaces and may bedisPl,aTea-ire-eingle-rew~ ~r~l~~,~~^~ ~+les r~~a; Qe-disPlaye~ ^^~° +^ +~~' ^r side-te sid~fst stored in rows not exceeding three deep. Display areas outside of parking areas and near buildings are not included in foregoing requirements, provided the same are finished with concrete brick pavers or other permanent materials and located behind building setback lines. • , .All building materials must be of equal quality and design detailing_on all four sides. 02-0322 Perimeter Center Subarea I Pape 3 of 8_t_ast printed 03/28/02 1:33 PM Crown Dealership Text Revision ~+. PROPOSED TEXT DISAPPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2002 Perimeter Center Development Text Subarea I Version Date: March 28, 2002 Treatment of hazardous materials on site: 1. Waste oil and waste anti-freeze must be stored in accordance with approved environmental standards in above ground in a concrete vault within the primary structure. 2. All hydraulic lifts shall use only biodegradable vegetable oil as a hydraulic medium, or future EPA approved material. 3. New (as yet unused) oil shall be stored accordance with approved environmental I standards above ground within the building. 4. No automobile gasoline or diesel fuel storage tanks for the purpose of fueling autos shall be permitted on site. Specific Development Issues: a) No balloons flaps streamers metallic wind vanes or similar visual attractions on site are permitted for any purpose Other attention petting ploys such as turning on displayed vehicles headlights or emergency flashers, is also prohibited. b.) No oaintina or other surface graphics_of prices, slogans or other advertising on displayed vehicles is permitted Display information on vehicles not a part of the vehicle itself is limited to stickers required by federal or state law. In addition, one additional sticker listing the year and type of car shall be permitted but shall not be larger than 3" x 6" or of an iridescent color. There shall be no slogans prices or other information painted or added to the windows, either on the interior or exterior side of automobiles held for display on site. c) Bodywork is not permitted on site. If damaged vehicles are delivered to the site for repair they will be stored out of site of any public roadway and will be removed as soon as possible. d) No outside loudspeakers for the purpose of broadcasting messages telephone calls or sales information are permitted Aground level musical background system is permitted provided that it is inaudible at the public right of way or along Mercedes Drive. e) Corporate identity special event flaps are permitted on an occasional basis provided appropriate municipal approval is obtained, if required. f) Loading docks must be fully screened and integrated into the architecture of the buildings and fully screened from roadways and adioining properties Loading docks are not permitted to face directly north towards the residential property. 02-0322 Perimeter Center Subarea I Crown Dealership Text Revision Pape 4 of 8 Last printed 03/28/02 1:33 PM PROPOSED TEXT DISAPPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/2002 Perimeter Center Development Text Subarea. l Version Date: March 28, 2002 Mechanical: All mechanical equipment must be effectively screened in accordance with the provisions of the Dublin Zoning Code so as to not be visible from either State Route ,161/33, or the interior roads of the center. Architecture: All buildings shall be designed to reflect the architectural quality of the current development in Sub area I and the immediate area of Perimeter Center Development. Additions to existing buildings shall compliment the existing structure and shall incorporate similar features and architectural detailing. New buildings shall compliment architectural styles in the Perimeter Center development while maintaining the ability for aesthetic creativity to avoid monotonous duplication of building styles. Building materials will reflect the same palette as existing materials or will compliment the existing building(s). Yard and Setback Requirements: Perimeter Loop Drive shall have a 25' pavement setback and 50' building setback. 2. All other publicly dedicated local streets shall have a 25' pavement setback and 50' building setback. 3. .Between the three development parcels there shall not be required any side yard setback for both buildings and pavement areas. Existing development on the sites provides for areas where buildings and pavement either cross the parcel lines or are closer than the prior development text requirements. The areas contained within Subarea I shall be considered as a single development parcel with no required side yard setback for building or pavement areas. 4. Rear yards shall be 25' for pavement and buildings. 5. Total ground covered by all buildings shall not exceed 25% of the total lot area. However, parking garages and buildings shall cover no more than 75% of the total lot ar-ea~: area. Existing development on the sites provides for areas where buildings and pavement either cross the parcel lines or are closer than the prior development text requirements. The areas contained within Subarea I shall be considered as a single development parcel and lot coverage provisions shall be calculated based on the entire Subarea. At the present time all three development parcels are owned by a common or related personlentity if any portion of the Sub area is sold to an unrelated person or entity cross parking, access and development limitation agreements shall be submitted to the Law Directors office and the Planning Director for approval prior to any transfer of land to a third party. Review of these agreements are intended to assure that any future development and usage of the sites remain 02-0322 Perimeter Center Subarea I Page 5 of 8 Last printed 03/28/02 1:33 PM + Crown Dealership Text Revision PRQPQSED TEXT DISAPPROVED BY PLANNING C~MMISSI4N 5/2/2002 Perimeter Center Development Text Subarea I Version Date: March 28, 2002 consistent with the standards set forth herein. Height Requirements: The maximum height for structures in Subarea I shall be measured per the Dublin Zoning Code and have a maximum height limitation of 65'. A minimum height of 20' shall be required for all primary structures. Parking and Loading: 1. Sizes, ratio, and type of parking and loading and other facilities shall be regulated by Dublin Code Chapter '1-1~3. Dev~!oPmer ~;a,^„~ilnen~est °;ac~-ana-~~s.~,-~;,~t ~r n 153.200 et al. Existing development on the sites provides for areas where buildin s and pavement either cross the parcel lines or are closer than the prior development text requirements. The areas contained within Subarea I shall be considered as a single development parcel and parking provisions shall be calculated based on the entire Subarea. At the present time all three development parcels are owned by a common or related person/entity if any portion of the Sub area is sold to an unrelated person or entity cross parking, access and development limitation agreements shalt be submitted to the Law Directors office and the Planning Director for approval prior to any transfer of land to a third party. Review of these agreements are intended to assure that any future development and usage of the sites remain consistent with the standards set forth herein. 2. Bank drive-thru requirements shall be per the Columbus Zoning Code. Circulation: 1. Perimeter Loop Road shall have a 60' right-of-way and a 36' pavement width. 2. Curb cuts on Perimeter Loop Drive shall be spaced a minimum of 200' (as measured from the driveway's centerline) with opposing cuts offset no less than 100', or directly aligned wherever ;~es~~".~:~-ee~'~stent-vrith-~Qenr-tra~,,,s-eng+neen^,-,oiP;es ~d ~rastie~possible. 3. Internal circulation connections between the three parcels should be provided and maintained in order to minimize use of public roadways for distribution of vehicles between the dealership areas. Future circulation patterns may be modified if areas are no longer owned by a common or related entitylperson and would be subject to review of appropriate cross access agreements between the parties. Waste and Refuse: 02-0322 Perimeter Center Subarea I Crown Dealership Text Revision Page 6 of 8 Last printed 03!28/02 1:33 PM PRC~P4SED TEXT DISAPPROVED BY PLANNING C4MMISSI4N 5/2/2002 Perimeter Center Development Text Subarea 1 Version Date: March 28, 2002 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, other than new or used vehicles for sale, shall be stored or permitted to remain on any portion of the parcel outside the permitted structure. ~ar~dseapiit~e Landscaping and Public SidewalkslBike Paths: 1. All landscaping, mounding and screening shall be according to the Dublin Laradssape .Zoning Code Chapter 153.130 et al. unless otherwise modified herein. ~-:2. Street trees shall be planted along Perimeter Loop Road at 1 tree per 30' along the ROW (trees may not be grouped). The minimum caliber shall be 3" per }rte tree. Nothing herein Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing shall prohibit or prevent the utilization of 25% of the site perimeter for display parking as permitted in the Dublin Zoning Code. In case of conflict with street tree requirements and permitted display parking= trees within the 25% display area may be grouped. 3. Public sidewalks or bike paths shall not be required along the northern side of Perimeter Loop Road. A public sidewalk shall be required to be constructed in Reserve B south of Subarea I along the southern side of Perimeter Loop Road connecting into existing sidewalk/ bike path locations. Signage: Signage shall be in accordance with the Dublin Zoning Code and Development Standards contained in the general section of the Perimeter Center text unless otherwise 02-0322 Perimeter Center Subarea I Page 7 of 8 Last printed 03!28/02 1:33 PM Crown Dealership Text Revision PROPOSED TEXT DISAPPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION 5/2/242 Perimeter Center Development Text Subarea I Version Date: March 28, 2002 specifically provided herein. Each dealership shall be permitted to have an individual ground sign in accordance with the size requirements of the Dublin Zoning ^°^ ~ +°^+ ,.,;+t, n+ti°r ^,n°^ fnr +F~° .Code. Each parcel shall be treafed as a separate parcel in determining the number of and size of the sign area. ' Permitted ground signs shall have a maximum height of 15'-0" measured in accordance with the Dublin Sign Code ~r°~^c°~' ~^ ''~ °Q1and shall be spaced not less than 250 feet from an adioining parcel sign within the complex. Lighting: General standards for lighting are contained in the general sections of the Perimeter Center text. Lighting for automobile dealerships must comply with those general standards. Further, lighting for automobile dealership display areas, if of a higher intensity than surrounding parking lot lightingl must make a smooth transition to lower intensity lighting on surrounding uses. Applicants for this type of land use must show specific fixtures to be used and specifications, and further, must provide lighting engineering plan showing actual intensities of light falling on illuminated areas and cut-off areas. Higher intensity display lighting may be used only in association with sales activity and shall be limited to the hours of showroom operation. A secondary, lower intensity lighting level consistent with the adjacent parking lot(s) shall be used at other times. If fixtures selected for sun-ounding uses in Perimeter Center are not suitable for automobile dealerships, then similar and visually compatible designs must be used. Fixture finish and color will be the same as Perimeter Center standard. 02-0322 Perimeter Center Subarea I Crown Dealership Text Revision Page 8 of 8 Last printed 03/28/02 1:33 PM