The URL can be used to link to this page

Ordinance 04-10RECORD OF ORDINANCES rOMITIMIT&I o 04 -10 Passed 20 AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 0.53 ACRES LOCATED AT 4056 WEST DUBLIN- GRANVILLE ROAD, AT THE INTERSECTION WITH DAVID ROAD, FROM R -4, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (KUMON LEARNING CENTER— CASE 09- 067Z/PDP). NOW, THEREBE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, of the elected members concurring: Section 1. That the following described real estate (see attached map marked Exhibit "A ") situated in the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, is hereby rezoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District, and shall be subject to regulations and procedures contained in Ordinance No. 21 -70 (Chapter 153 of the Codified Ordinances) the City of Dublin Zoning Code and amendments thereto. Section 2. That the 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. Attest: O -K_ c, oto"t' � Clerk of Council Passed this day of 12010. CITY OF DUBLIN_ Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1090 Phone: 614410 -4400 • Fax: 614 - 410 -4490 To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Terry Foegler, City Manager -r Date: January 7, 2010 Memo Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director, Land Use and Long Range Planning Re: Ordinance 04 -10 — Rezoning— Kumon Learning Center, 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road (Case No. 09- 067Z /PDP) Summary Ordinance 04 -10 is a request for approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan to rezone approximately 0.53 acres from R -4, Suburban Residential District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District for an approximately 5,000- square -foot commercial building and associated site improvements. The site is located on the north side of West Dublin - Granville Road, west of the intersection with David Road. Description The rezoning would permit the development of a single -story commercial building oriented toward West Dublin - Granville Road, with a 22 -space parking lot located north of (behind) the building. The proposed development text includes educational, retail, office, personal service, and other similar uses. The Community Plan Future Land Use Map designates this site as General Commercial, which includes existing retail and commercial development and anticipates a mixture of retail, restaurant, personal services, offices, lodging, and other commercial uses. Access to the site is from a single curb cut on David Road. In order to reinforce connectivity and the integration of this site with the future Shamrock Crossing development (for which the rezoning and preliminary development plan have been approved for the adjacent parcels west of the site), the applicant is providing space for a future cross - access drive in the northern portion of the site. The proposed development text notes that the architecture is intended to be traditional in look and feel and allow for consistency and cohesiveness with any future building constructed with Shamrock Crossing. The proposed building materials include masonry, stone, cementitious siding and wood trim, with colors selected from an historic color palette. The single -story building gives the appearance of one - and -a -half to two- stories comprised of individually articulated tenant spaces, which coordinate with the future Shamrock Crossing development and in Planning staff s opinion will reinforce the streetscape on both West Dublin - Granville Road and David Road. Memo re. Ordinance 04 -10 — Rezoning — Kumon Learning Center January 7, 2010 Page Two Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission The Planning and Zoning Commission tabled this case at the October 8, 2009 meeting to allow the applicant to refine the architectural concept and modify the site layout to improve circulation. On December 10, 2009, the Commission recommended approval to City Council of the rezoning /preliminary development plan with ten conditions (Record of Action attached). Subsequent to the Planning & Zoning Commission hearing of December 10, the applicant has modified the preliminary development plan to address condition #6 related to a sidewalk on David Road by extending to the existing sidewalk on Banker Drive. The applicant has also addressed conditions #7 and 49 regarding technical issues raised by the Planning Report with minor modifications to the proposed development text and the preliminary development plan. Given the timing of this project, all remaining conditions will be addressed at either the final development plan or the building permitting stage. Recommendation Planning recommends City Council approval of Ordinance 04 -10 at the second reading /public hearing on January 25, 2010 with the conditions listed in the Planning & Zoning Commission Record of Action of December 10, 2009 (attached). CITY OF DUBLIN. Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone / TDD: 614- 410 -4600 Fax: 614- 4104747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us Creating a Legacy RECORD OF ACTION DECEMBER 10, 2009 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Kumon Learning Center 09- 067Z /PDP 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Proposal: An approximately 5,000- square -foot commercial building for a 0.5 -acre parcel located on the northwest corner of the intersection of David Road with West Dublin - Granville Road. Request: Review and recommendation to City Council for a rezoning and preliminary development plan under the Planned District provision of Code Section 153.050. Applicant: Sudhir Jindal; represented by Aaron Underhill, Smith & Hale. Planning Contact: Rachel S. Ray, Planner I. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4656, rray @dublin.oh.us MOTION: To recommend approval to City Council of this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan because it complies with the rezoning/preliminary development plan criteria and the development standards within the area, with ten conditions: 1) That the applicant continue to work with the City on the traffic study and determine any necessary improvements with the final development plan; 2) That the applicant pay the City of Dublin no more than $6,986 for the improvement of David Road prior to obtaining a building permit unless other arrangements are made by the City and agreed to by the applicant; 3) That the applicant demonstrate compliance with the City's stormwater management requirements with the submission of the final development plan; 4) That the applicant continue to work with Planning and Engineering to identify a future cross - access point in the northern portion of the site that will provide better vehicular circulation and cohesive parking lot cross - access prior to final development plan approval; 5) That a sidewalk is constructed between the building and the parking lot to provide pedestrian access to future development to the west; 6) That the sidewalk along David Road be extended to the existing path on Banker Drive; 7) That the development text is revised to address comments in this report prior to scheduling the preliminary development plan/rezoning public hearing at City Council; 8) That a landscaping easement must be obtained, and a copy of the easement must be provided to the City of Dublin, if the Code - required landscaping for this site is not accommodated within the bounds of the property; PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Page 1 of 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION DECEMBER 10, 2009 1. Kumon Learning Center 09- 067Z /PDP 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 9) That the plan and text be modified to rectify minor inconsistencies prior to scheduling the preliminary development plan/rezoning public hearing at City Council; 10) That the final development plan include signs that are architecturally integrated and incorporate a variety of styles. * Ben W. Hale, Jr. agreed to the ten conditions. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: This Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan was recommended for approval to City Council. STA E TI I TI chel S. Ra Planner I Page 2 of 2 cc cc cc cc cc PDD � UD PcD PGD cc PUD R„4 PUD PUD cc R-4 r :rn. PUD R -4 SIT PUD cc LID UD + PUD PUD PUD '� PUD d tPub ,'+ , PUD PUD� CPU PUD PUD I R -21 R_2 R -2 R -2 R -2 4 -2 AS SU MIrT [:) TO cOU - 1 ID FOR MEE i ING ONE PUD PUD 1 cc PUD / PUD R -2 09- 0677JPDP NN City U Dublin Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan /\ A Land Use and Kumon Learning Center Long Range Planning 4056 West Dublin- Granville Road 0 250 500 Feet IF rlR:!�FtttrFEe rV daft FFQ OVA ILI FYI x c , a _ f i r �f r F e 0 • 1a 1 , r t . • _ - - - - -- - ---------------- - • - ------- B • _ - y - o ---- ---- - ---- -- - - FI _ 1 � �.� -_�- i 1. • ^� . � " 'F RFI) F�it�tl� � �- �:.. � ,:. � �, _ I s -T: k teE r f F1 (f 111p I.F _ — ��r 4 • f , � Yom. �F" ° s �• � z G� rd L ' { C � y � W y � Fw '-: a�t�. `}" p �9 t :, y P• rr �.I �'. f. � r' F x �. N 09- 0672 /PDP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan City of Dublin Kumon Learning Center Land Use and 4056 West Dublin- Granville Road 0 250 500 Long Range Planning Feet 7 CITY OF DUBLIN Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone /TDD: 614 -410 -4600 Fax: 614 -410 -4747 Web Sile: www.dublin,oh us April 2008 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPLICATION (Code Section 153 232) I. PLEASE CHECK THE TYPE OF APPLICATION: :E] Preliminary Development Plan / Rezoning ❑ Final Plat (Section 152.085) (Section 153.053) ❑ Standard District Rezoning ❑ Minor Subdivision (Section 153.018) I ❑ Informal Review ❑ Right -of -Way Encroachment Concept Plan (Section 153.056(A)(1)) ❑ Final Development Plan (Section 153.053(E)) ❑ Amended Final Development Plan (Section 153.053(E)) ❑ Preliminary Plat (Section 152.015) ❑ Conditional Use (Section 153.236) ❑ Corridor Development District (CDD) (Section 153.115) ❑ CDD Sign (Section 153.115) ❑ Other (Please Specify): II. PROPERTY INFORMATION: This section must be completed. PropertyAddress(es): 4056 Dublin— Granville Road Tax ID /Parcel Number(s): 273- 008305 Parcel Size(s) (Acres): 0.53± Existing Land UselDevelopment: Single— family home IF APPLICABLE, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: Proposed Land Use /Development: Learning center /office or retail space Total Acres to be Rezoned: 0 .53± AS SUBMITTED TO CO U NCI L III. CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER(S): Please attach additional sheets if needed. FOR MEETING ON (`� 1 6 Name (Individual or Organization): Abha Jindal Mailing Address: (Street, City, State, zip Code) 7949 Stonehurst Drive, Dublin, OH 43016 Daytime Telephone: (614) 644 -3568 Fax: (614) 889 -9027 Email or Alternate Contact Information: sudhirji JUL fry UM G Page 1 of 3 LAND USE & 0LI LONG RANGE PI ANIMNG IV. APPLICANT(S): This is the person(s) who is submitting the application if different than the property owner(s) listed in part III. Please complete if applicable. Name: Sudhir Jindal Organization (Owner, Developer, Contractor, etc.): Smith & Hale LLC Applicant is also ro p p e rty owner: yes ❑ no Organization (Owner, Developer, Contractor, etc.): A &S Enterprise, Inc. Mailing Address: 6530 (Street, City, State, Zip Code) Riverside Drive, Dublin, OH 43017 Daytime Telephone: (614) 644 -3568 Fax: (614) 889 -9027 Email or Alternate Contact Information: sudhirji @yahoo.com V. REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF APPLICANT / PROPERTY OWNER: This is the person(s) who is submitting the application on behalf of the applicant listed in part IV or property owner listed in part Ill. Please complete if applicable. Name: Aaron L. Underhill, Esq. Organization (Owner, Developer, Contractor, etc.): Smith & Hale LLC Mailing Address: (Street, City, State, Zip Code) 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, OH 43215 Daytime Telephone: (614) 221 -4255 Fax' (614) 221 -4409 Email or Alternate Contact Information: aunderhill@smithandhale.com VI. AUTHORIZATION FOR OWNER'S APPLICANT or REPRESENTATIVE(S): If the applicant is not the property owner, this section must be completed and notarized. Ahba Ji nrla 1 , the owner, hereby authorize �U ' to act as my applicant or mpresentative(s) in all matters pertaining to the processing and approval of this application, including modifying the project. I agree to be bound by all representations and agreements made by the designated representative. Signature of Current Property Owner: Date: ry11�16 /� 7 ❑ Check this box if the Authorization for Owner's Applicant or Representative(s) is Subscribed and sworn before me this ` day of I w 20 State of i J #"t 1 ` 3 v County of l v0h� �1 h Notary Public rate document AIAttOM w o �gi1 E>gftOn soon 147.03 R.C. VII. AUTHORIZATION TO VISIT THE PROPERTY: Site visits to the property by City representatives are essential to process this application. The Owner /Applicant, as notarized below, hereby authorizes City representatives to visit, photograph and post a notice on the property described in this application. Aaron L. Underhill, attorney , the owner or authorized representative, hereby authorize City representatives to visit, photograph and post a notice on the property described in this application. Signature of applicant or authorized representative: Page 2 of 3 JU 2 1 2009 fil it- LONG RANGE PLANNING VIII. UTILITY DISCLAIMER: The Owner /Applicant acknowledges the approval of this request for rezoning by the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission and /or Dublin City Council does not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able to provide essential services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by said Owner /Applicant. I Aaron L. Underhill. attorney , the owner or authorized representative, acknowledge that approval of this request does not constitute a guarantee or binding commitment that the City of Dublin will be able to provide essential services such as water and sewer facilities when needed by said Owner /Applicant. Signature of applicant or authorized representative: /� 1— Z _W I Date: IX. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT: This section must be completed and notarized. I Aaron L. Underhill, attorney , the owner or authorized representative, have read and understand the contents of this application. The information contained in this application, attached exhibits and other information submitted is complete and in all respects true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature of applicant or authorized representative: a T Date: Subscribed n�sworn to before me this f tom- day 20 0 State of U1 bit County of Notary Public NOTE: THE OWNER, OR NOTED REPRESENTATIVE IF APPLICABLE, WILL E CONFIRMIVJHIS APPLICATION i € MV m11 , FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Amount 13e ei ed: Application No:cliq-oc,"7 P &Z Date(s): (�1 1df� P&Z Action: A M W Receipt No: _ Zone: Date Received: 7•�I.O� Received By: CZ 4 City Council (First Reading): �1 tj� City Council (Second Reading): City Council Action: Ordinance Number: i'1� .� 1 0 v 1 V Type of Request: 44 �'C''i• 14 � 1'GI iY'Y1. � +tJV . �" Q�►'1 S, E, W (Circle) Side of: �/ • i� u61. n • G r ar% V E. N, S, E,I&(Circle) Side of Nearest Intersection: �t 1 C � Distance from Nearest Intersection: t Existing Zoning District: Q- t, Requested Zoning District: NOTE: All applications are reviewed by Land Use and Long Range Planning for completeness prior to being processed. Applications that are incomplete will NOT be accepted. Applicants are strongly encouraged to can U nge Planning for assistance and to discuss the Planning and Zoning Commission approval process, and if r''�� Lon r Flament for a pre - submittal review prior to submitting a formal application. L,,I i < < Page 3 of 3 JILL 2'1 200 Cify Ur uuu" LONG RANGE PLANNINC� Preliminary Development Plan Statement Kumon Learning Center PUD 4056 Dublin - Granville Road Franklin County Parcel No. 273 - 008305 July 21, 2008 A. Please briefly explain the proposed development The subject property consists of 0.5f acres located to the northwest of and adjacent to the intersection of Dublin - Granville Road and David Road. An aging home is currently situated on the property. The applicant seeks to remove this residence and replace it with a small building comprised of approximately 4,200 square feet that is intended to facilitate the operation of a private educational use as well as additional space for uses that are consistent with those that are permitted in the Shamrock Crossing development to the west. The private educational user, Kumon Learning Center, offers educational programs that seek to enhance the reading and math skills of students. The center operates outside of school hours and is intended to supplement the educational offerings of private and public schools. At the present time this use operates out of leased space at the Village Square shopping center on Riverside Drive. This user desires to relocate to operate out of a facility owned by the business owner and to find a permanent location due to the very real possibility that the City will redesign the intersection of Riverside Drive and Dublin - Granville Road in a manner that eliminates the Village Square shopping center. The proposed development has gone to great lengths to mimic the same development standards as were approved for Subarea C of the Shamrock Crossing PUD to the west. For instance, in addition to private educational uses, the permitted uses in this proposal mirror those which are allowed in Shamrock Crossing. Similarly, the applicant has pushed its building close to the Dublin - Granville right -of -way and placed parking to the rear of the stYucture in an effort to accommodate the City's vision for this area. Per the request of staff, the applicant has located the building extremely close to the adjacent property to the west in order to allow for a feeling of cohesiveness when that adjacent property,is redeveloped in the future. While the staff has indicated that it would be desirable for the applicant to acquire this adjacent parcel so that it could be developed contemporaneously with the property that is the subject of this application, the applicant's conversation with the neighboring property owner have proven that the asking price for that property is prohibitively high and would not allow for development of a project that makes economic sense. It is the applicant's understanding that a similar conclusion was reached by the developer of Shamrock Crossing a few years ago. B. Briefly state how the proposed land use relates to the existing and future land use character of the vicinity. p The general area near the subject property " L g � p perty has seen an uptick m development and re eve opment Co in recent years. Of particular application here is the Shamrock Crossing PUD, which was approved recently and has yielded the development of Leo Alfred Jewelers to the southwest and the Germain Lexus Auto Service Center to the north. Heavy retail uses are found to the east. This proposal seeks Lo aintain ECE W E D N ) U1 W - 1.0 lmo LAND USE & LONG RANGE PLANNING the character of the Shamrock Crossing development as it moves to the east. C. Briefly explain how the proposed development will relate to the Dublin Community Plan and other applicable standards /resolutions such as Conservation Design and the Residential Appearance standards. The city's future land use map, updated in 2007, designates the subject property as "General Commercial." The Community Plan as it relates to the SawmilUSR 161 Area also provides the following guidance on Pages 118 -119: "Redevelopment of vacant or underutilized areas should be encouraged to re- establish the Dublin side of Sawmill Road as a vibrant and active place. Redevelopment of the Village Center and other retail areas should avoid new strip commercial development that has a short lifespan and focus on longevity by pursuing a town center development that can serve as an entertainment center with a coordinated mix of activities that promotes interaction, educational opportunities unique housing opportunities, and pedestrian activity." Certainly staff can agree that, given the proper adjustments to the site plan and architecture under my client's proposal, the redevelopment of this site is certainly preferable to the aging residence that is currently found on the subject property and is an eyesore. Redevelopment is encouraged by the Community Plan. The Plan indicates that a mix of uses is the community's long -term goal and even specifically references a desire to promote educational opportunities in the area. The Kumon Learning Center represents a clear example of an educational opportunity. D. Briefly address how the proposed rezoning and development meet the review criteria for Preliminary Development Plan approval as well as the criteria for Planned Districts. The proposed development meets the criteria for planned districts by implementing development standards that are stricter than that which are generally applicable to straight zoning districts. The use of the PUSD designation in this instance allows the developer to construct its project in accordance with the long -term vision of the municipality as set forth in its Community Plan. The proposed uses are consistent with that which exist or are approved in the general vicinity of the subject property. Jindal David Road pdp stmt.doc (alu) (7/20/09) ' 1968FO3 EXHIBIT "A" Situated in the County of the State of Ohio, and in the Township of Perry, i7anhing[on Township School'Diserict and' bounded and described as follows: Being in Section Three (3), Township Two (2), Range Nineteen (19) U.S. Military Lands and more particularly described as follows: Being a part of a twelve (12) acre tract of land conveyed to David E. and Hazel L. McIntyre as recorded in D.B. 1671, page 115, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio, and more particulavy described as follows: Being Parcel No. 2 of an unrecorded survey made by C.F. Bowers and A.J. Friemoth, Registered Surveyors, dated April 1953, and more particularly described as follows: Beginning at an iron pin which is S. 85' 30' E. 102.5 feet from a point in the center of the Worthington - Dublin Road, said point is the south west corner of the 12 -acre tract of land mentioned above; thence N. 4' 30' E, 293.19 feet to an iron pin; thence S. 85' 30' E, 130 feet to a stake in the center line of the 60 ft. roadway easement passing an iron pin at 100 ft. thence S. 4' 30' W. 293.19 feet to an iron pin; thence 85' 30' W. 130 ft. to the place of beginning containing 0.874 acres of land more or less. Together with the benefit of and subject to the burden of an ease- ment for roadway purposes in and through a private driveway, sixty ft. (60') in width running in a northerly direction from O.S. Route 0161 (Dublin- Worthington Road) through the approximate center of said twelve (12) acre tract as described in D.B. 1671, page 115, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio, of which Parcel Two (2) is a part as shown on the unrecorded survey made by C.F. Boners and I.J. Friemoth, Registered Surveyoru, doted April, 1953. Said roadway consits of thirty (301) feet off the earn end of parcels 05, 6, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20: and thirty (30 ft. off the west and of Parcela 07, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19: and thirty (30 ft. off the west side of Parcel 03, and thirty (30') ft. off the east side of Parcel 02. The Grantees assume the obligation of paying their pro -rata share, the same equalling one- eighteenth (1/18) of the cost of maintenance and repair of said roadway. The Grantors reserve herein the right to dedicate said private roadway to the Public upon the acceptance of same by the County Commissioners of Franklin County, Ohio. r' r�, a Exception: Dedication of David Road being .1843 acres `n 'r. RE. P S. .� FILE COPY JuLG 1 2009 CITY OF OOHLIN LONG RANGE PLANNING EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWINGY ATTACHMENT A PARCEL NO. Being a parcel of land lying on tho left side of the centerline of a survey, made for tho Ohio PWauitn jMaW�? natiott acrd recorded in Plat Book , Page , the records of Franklin County and being located within tlrc follovnng described points in Um boundary thereof: Situate in the State of Ohio, County of Franklin, City of Dublin and being a part of Quarter Township 3, Township 2 North, Range 19 West, United States Military Lands, and being a 0.159 acre portion of 0,6897 acre tract as conveyed to Pierce S.L. Enterprises, LTD., by deed of record in Official Record 33968F01, Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio and being wre par&Warly bounded and described as follows: Commencing at a point of reference at the intersection of the centerline of said S.R. 161 with the centerUne of David Road, said point being at station 48+47.70; f Thenet- North 86 dcgrcas 41 minutes 19 seconds West, a distance of 0,03 feet, along the centerline of said S.R -161 to apoint (S.R.161 Station 4g+47.67); said paint being the so'Acasterly corner ofthe said 0.6897 acre tract, said point being the southwesterly corucr of a 0.6897 acre tract (Parcel 1) as conveyed to James M. Harkness and Lois H. If arkness by decd of recorA in Deed Book 1875, Page 276, Recorder's office, I'ruti;clin Count. Ohio, and said point being the Time Paint of Beginning of the herein described tract of land; Thcocc North 86 degrees 41 minutes 19 seconds Wcst, a distance of 129.81 feet, along the southerly line of the said 0.6897 aert tract, and also continuing along the centerline of said S.R. 161 to a point (S 8.161 Station 47 +17.86) said point being the southwesterly corner of the said 0.6897 acre tract, and said point being also the southeasterly comer of a 0.6119 ara'c tract as convcved to Donnabclte Scott, Trustee by dcod of record in Official Record 19003B10. Recordcr's Office, Franklin County, Ohio; Thence Norio 02 degrees 32 minutes 53 seconds East, a distance of 60.50 feet, along the westerly line of the said 0.6897 acre tract, and also along the easterly line of the said 0.689 acre tract to a point (S.R.161 Station 47+17.05,60.50 fat left); Thence crossing the said 0.6897 acre tract by the following described two (2) courses: 1. South 86 deg = 41 minutes 19 seconds East, a distance of 74.47 feet to a point of curvature (S.R 161 Station 47 +91.52, 60.50 feet left); 2. Along the arc of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 25.00 £act, a delta angle of 90 degrees 45 minutes 48 seconds, the chord of said curve that bears North 47 degrees 55 minutes 47 seconds East, 35.59 fees to a paint of tangccy, (S.R.161 Station 48+16.52. 85.83 fat left), said point being in the easterly line of die said 0.6897 acrc tract, and said point being also in the %vesterly right -of - -way line of said David Road; Thence along a easterly line of the said 0.6897 acre tract, and also along the westerly right -of -way line of said David Road by the following described two (2) courses: 1. South 02 degrees 32 minutes 53 seconds West, a distance of 30.49 feet to a point of curvature (S.R.161 Station 48 +16.92, 55.34 feet tell); 2. Along the arc of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 25.00 foot, a delta angle of 90 degrees 45 minutes 48 seconds, the chord of said carve that bears South 47 degrees 55 minutes 47 Seconds West, 35 59 feet to a point of tangency, (S.R.161 Station 47+91.93, 30.00 feet left), said point being in a southerly line of the said 0.6897 acre tract, and said point being also in the northerly right - of - -way line of said S.R_16I; Thence South 86 degrees 41 minutes l9 seconds East, a distance of 55.34 feet, along a southerly line of the said 0.6897 acre tract, and also along the northerly right -of -way line of said S.R.161 to a point, (S.R. 161 Station 48+47.27,'30.00 Cat left), said point being a southeasterly corner of the said 0.6897 acre tract, and said point being also a southwesterly corner of the said 0.6897 acre tract (Parcel 1); Thence South 02 degrees 32 minutes 53 seconds West, a distance of 30.00 fat, along the easterly line of the said 0.6897 acre tract, and also along the westerly line of the said 0,6897 acre tract (Pared 1) to the True Point of Beginning, containing 0.159 acres, more or less, subject to all easements, restrictions, and rights -of -way of record. "Bearings were transferred by a field traverse originating on Franklin County Control Monuments "FRANK 73" and "FRANK 173% and are based on the Ohio State Plane Coordinate System, South Zone and the North American Datum of 1983." It is understood the above contains a total of 0.159 of an acre, more or less including the present road which occupies 0.089 of an acre, more or less. The above described area contains 0.159 acre take from Auditor's Parcel No. 273.8305 and is carried on the Tax Map as 0.6897 acres. This description is based on a survey of S.R. 161, made by Woolpert, Columbus, Ohio, for the State of Ohio in 1999 under the direction and supervision of Steven W. Newell, Ohio Registered Surveyor No. 7212. Said stations being the Station numbers as stipulated in the hercinbefore mentioned survey and as shown by plans on file in the Department of Transportation, Columbus, Ohio. Grantor claims title by instrumcnl(s) of record in O.R. 33968F01. Recorder's Office, Franklin County, Ohio. DESCHWh DEAANnC RfNGLF p.g�� V4 t DATE. CD j Fir ES w•e>� 0r.,c: I APPLICANT OWNER ATTORNEY A &S Enterprise, Inc. Attn: Sudhir Jindal 6530 Riverside Dr. Dublin, OH 43017 Abha Jindal 7949 Stonehurst Dr. Dublin, OH 43016 Aaron L. Underhill Smith & Hale LLC 37 W. Broad St. — Ste. 725 Columbus, OH 43215 Stoneridge Medical Office Center LLC 4051 Dublin Granville Rd. Dublin, OH 43017 Germain Real Estate Co. LLC 4250 Morse Crossing Columbus, OH 43219 Aaron Rents Inc. 309 E. Paces Fer;ry Rd, NE Atlanta, GA 30305 SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNE Donnabelle Scott TR P.O. Box 191 Dublin, OH 43017 Shamrock Auto Spa LLC 12100 Tollgate Rd. Pickerington, OH 43147 Lowes Home Centers Inc. P.O. Box 1111 N. Wilkesboro, NC 28659 Benchmark Development 4053 Maple Rd. Amherst, NY 14226 Shamrock Crossing LLC 565 Metro Place S. — Ste. 480 Dublin, OH 43017 FILE COPY jindal.lbl (pvp) 7/20/09 Fdocs s &h labels 2009 RE�V�Q� W i ur VUOL{N LONG RANGE NNING R C -I l< 1 �Y l . vu R6:FR�{ Disclaimer Scale =200 Grid This map is prepared for the real property inventory within this county. It is compiled from recorded deeds, North survey plats, and other public records and data. Users of this map are notified that the public primary information sources 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 discrepancies. FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITOR REAL ESTATE DIVISION MA ID: au DA TE: 7/16/09 0 G� U14 p� Tl� -�, �o� j2?{l/la9tr g + S_V �'' Real Estate / GIS Department PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Modified to Reflect Planning and Zoning Commission Conditions of Approval KUMON LEARNING CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) December 21, 2009 I. General Overview The Kumon Learning Center PUD is intended to facilitate the development of a single building that will accommodate a private educational use as well as additional space for uses that are consistent with those that are permitted in the Shamrock Crossing development to the west. Kumon Learning Center will offer educational programs that seek to enhance the reading and math skills of students. The center operates outside of school hours and is intended to supplement the educational offerings of private and public schools. The proposed development is consistent with and complimentary to Subarea C of the Shamrock Crossing PUD in terms of allowable uses, architecture, and setbacks. While the anticipated use of the building in the Kumon Learning Center PUD is the educational use described above, this planned district also will accommodate office and retail uses that will allow the site to have comparable standards to other zoning districts in the area. Basic development standards are being provided for this site relating to density, circulation, signage, and architecture to ensure consistency and quality along the Dublin - Granville Road corridor. II. Site Description The subject property consists of 0.53± acres found immediately to the northwest of the intersection of West Dublin - Granville Road and David Road. III. Uses a. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in this PUD: 1. Private educational facilities 2. Patios shall be subject to administrative approval in association with a permitted use in this PUD provided that any patio furniture shall be stored inside the tenant space or off -site when the patio is not in regular use, and that the use of umbrellas be limited to a subdued color with no logos or text. Use of the patio shall require conditional use approval in the event that the tenant or building owner wishes to include outdoor entertainment, including but not limited to live music or an outdoor speaker system. 3. Permitted uses listed in the City of Dublin Zoning Code Sections 153.026, 153.027, and 153.028, pertaining to the Neighborhood ,2N5 �UE3MITTED TO COUNCIL I _FOR MEETING 0N1 _l tO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Modified to Reflect Planning and Zoning Commission Conditions of Approval Commercial District, Community Commercial District, Suburban Office and Institutional District, or equivalent, with the exception of restaurants or other dining uses, which shall be conditional uses. b. Prohibited Uses: For purposes of clarification, in addition to any other use not listed as a permitted use in this subarea, the following uses shall be prohibited anywhere within this PUD: (1) auto service (2) auto repair (3) gas stations (4) tire and/or automobile battery stores (5) muffler or brake shops (6) automobile dealers (7) lumber and other building materials dealers (8) heating and plumbing equipment dealers (9) electrical supply stores (10) farm equipment stores (11) sexually oriented business establishments IV. Density This PUD shall contain: a. One (1) building that shall not exceed 4,921 square feet of gross floor area. b. Exterior patio space not exceeding 800 square feet in total area. V. Yard and Setback Requirements:, Building and pavement setbacks shall be as follows: a. Dublin - Granville Road: 1. Building: There shall be a "build -to" line of 19 %2 feet as measured from the Dublin - Granville Road right -of -way. A portion of the building to be constructed in this PUD shall be required to be located at this build -to line. Pedestrian activity to the front of the building shall be encouraged and the development of usable outdoor spaces (e.g., dining patios) to the front of the build -to line shall be permissible provided that the location of the outdoor space is both safe and aesthetically appropriate. 2. Pavement: There shall be a minimum parking setback (excluding patios and sidewalks) of 50 feet from the right -of -way of Dublin- Granville Road. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Modified to Reflect Planning and Zoning Commission Conditions of Approval b. David Road: There shall be a minimum parking setback of fifteen (15) feet and a minimum building setback of twenty (20) feet from the right -of -way of David Road. Patios shall be permitted to encroach up to 5 feet within the required parking setback. c. Western Property Line: There shall be a 5 -foot building setback as measured from the western boundary of the PUD. There shall be a minimum parking setback of 25 feet from the western boundary of the PUD. In the event that the property owner in this PUD enters into a cross access and /or joint parking agreement with the owner of the property located immediately to the west, then there shall be no minimum parking setback from the western boundary line. d. Northern Property There shall be a zero setback for parking and a dumpster enclosure from the northern boundary of the PUD. There shall be a minimum building setback of 20 feet from the northern boundary of the PUD. VI. Parking and Loading: a. The minimum number of parking spaces to be provided in this PUD shall be as follows: 1. In the event that a private educational use occupies at least 40% of the total square footage of the building (excluding patios) and there is no restaurant or other dining establishment located in the building, then a minimum of 21 parking spaces shall be provided in this PUD. 2. Parking for restaurants shall be in accordance with the Dublin Zoning Code unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission as a part of a conditional use application. The owner shall be permitted to provide evidence of a shared parking arrangement with another property owner in order to meet the minimum parking requirements for restaurant uses on this site. 3. Unless otherwise set forth herein, the number of parking spaces provided in this PUD shall be in accordance with the requirements with the Dublin Zoning Code. b. All parking shall be located to the rear (north) of the building. In the event that the property owner within this PUD enters into a cross access and /or joint parking agreement with the owner of the property located immediately to the west, then the required parking on this site may be reduced to the extent agreed upon through the shared parking agreement. In order to be entitled to such a reduction, the parking agreement shall be administratively approved by the City of Dublin. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Modified to Reflect Planning and Zoning Commission Conditions of Approval VII. Lighting: Lighting shall comply with the City of Dublin exterior lighting guidelines and shall utilize decorative light fixtures with pole heights not greater than twenty -eight (28) feet from grade of the parking lot. Painted concrete bases shall be utilized and shall be at least six (6) inches in height above finished grade. Decorative light fixtures, including gooseneck lights, shall be consistent with light fixtures utilized for commercial development on adjacent properties. VIII. Circulation: a. Vehicular Traffic: Traffic shall access this PUD from a single curbcut on David Road. In the event that the property owner within this PUD enters into a cross access and /or joint parking agreement with the owner of the property located immediately to the west, then vehicular access to this site also shall be permitted to occur through driveway access to the west. b. Pedestrian Traffic: The existing bike path in the Dublin - Granville right -of- way shall be preserved in conjunction with this development. IX. Waste and Refuse: All waste and refuse shall be contained and fully screened from view by a solid wall or fence as required by the City of Dublin Zoning Code. X. Storage and Equipment: No materials, supplies, equipment or products shall be stored or permitted to remain on any portion of a parcel outside a permitted structure. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground, or buildings shall be screened from public view unless prohibited by a public utility, using landscaping and /or materials that are harmonious with the building and surrounding development as required by the City of Dublin Zoning Code. XI. Architecture a. Design: The architectural design of the building in this PUD shall be traditional in look and feel and shall allow for the feeling of cohesiveness with any future building that may be constructed on the property immediately to the west. The architecture is complimentary to that which was approved for Subarea C of the Shamrock Crossing PUD and seeks to give the appearance of numerous small tenant spaces. The attached architectural drawings illustrate the architectural design. The final architecture for this subarea shall be in accordance with that which is approved as a part of the final development plan for this PUD, provided that such architecture shall be similar in form and design to that which is illustrated in these exhibits. 4 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Modified to Reflect Planning and Zoning Commission Conditions of Approval b. Height: The maximum building height may not exceed thirty -five (35) feet. c. Materials: Permitted exterior materials shall include stone /synthetic stone, stone veneer, Hardi -plank siding or similar product, and stucco. Wood or engineered wood composite material (e.g. Hardi -plank or Smartside siding and trim) shall be permitted trim materials. Exterior finish materials must be used to complete massing elements. The building generally shall have a similar degree of exterior finish on all sides. All exterior colors shall be selected from a historic color palette. d. Roofs: 1. A material portion of all buildings shall have a pitched or sloped roof (whether hipped or gabled, full or appropriately affixed to a parapet wall). Roofs may provide open areas to house and permit the functionality of mechanical and other typical rooftop equipment. 2. All structures shall contain roofing material consisting of dimensional asphalt shingles, cedar shakes or shingles, prefinished standing seam metal, or slate (synthetic or authentic slate). 3. The use of dormers, cupolas, vertical vents, and other architectural treatments is encouraged. e. Doors: 1. All exterior doors on the northern and southern elevations of the building shall be functional and operational. XII. Signage and Graphics: a. Unless otherwise detailed hereinafter, all signage shall comply with the City of Dublin Sign Code — Sections 153.150, et seq. In the event of a conflict between the City of Dublin Sign Code and this text, this text shall control. b. Location and Type: 1. Signage on public street frontage shall be limited to either (A) one monument sign along Dublin - Granville Road and one monument sign along David Road in accordance with this text, or (B) wall signage on each of these frontages in accordance with this text. 2. Building /Tenant Signs - Wall Signage: _ Wall signs, when utilized, shall be subject to the following requirements: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Modified to Reflect Planning and Zoning Commission Conditions of Approval A. Wall signs shall be integrated into the building facades to compliment the architectural character of this PUD. B. Each tenant shall be permitted one (1) wall sign on each of its storefronts, which shall be defined as any fagade which faces a public right -of -way. C. Each tenant shall be permitted one (1) wall sign at its rear (parking lot) entrance. 3. Each wall sign on the West Dublin - Granville Road /S.R. 161 frontage and David Road frontage shall be limited to a maximum of 22 square feet in area. Final design details for these signs shall be submitted and approved as a part of the final development plan. 4. Each wall sign on the rear (north side) of the building shall be limited to a maximum of 18 square feet in area. Final design details for these signs shall be submitted and approved as a part of the final development plan. 5. A maximum of three (3) wall sign colors shall be permitted, utilizing low - chroma, subdued color tones. 6. All wall mounted signs may be externally illuminated using similar gooseneck light fixtures throughout the PUD. e. Ground Siege: Ground signs, when utilized, shall be subject to the following requirements: 1. Ground signs shall be permitted only if there is a single tenant occupying the building in this PUD. 2. All ground signs shall have landscaping around the base of the sign as required by Dublin Code. 3. The area of each ground sign base (if any) shall not exceed the area of its sign face. The base shall not be included in the overall area permitted for the sign face. 4. The maximum overall height of each ground sign shall be eight (8) feet above top of adjacent street curb. 5. All ground signs shall be externally illuminated with ground- mounted fixtures. 6 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Modified to Reflect Planning and Zoning Commission Conditions of Approval 6. Except as otherwise described above, the setback for all ground signage shall be no less than eight (8) feet from the right -of -way consistent with the City of Dublin Code. XIII. Landscaping a. All landscaping shall meet the minimum requirements set forth in the City of Dublin Zoning Code and shall be in conformance with that which is approved as part of the final development plan. b. Property perimeter landscaping shall not be required along West Dublin - Granville Road. Vehicular use area perimeter screening shall not be required along the western property line. d. If Code - required landscaping is not provided along the northern boundary of the property, this requirement may be met through the installation of such landscaping on adjacent property provided that the developer obtains a landscaping easement from the owner of said property. XIV. Stormwater a. Pervious concrete shall be permitted (but not required) to assist with stormwater management on this site to supplement the use of a stormwater detention swale. Pervious concrete shall conform to the strength and stability standards as required by the City Engineer. b. The use of a green roof or bioretention basins to assist with stormwater mitigation on this site is encouraged (but not required). Bioretention basins or detention swales must be landscaped and well- maintained to be consistent with the character of the landscaping in this PUD and surrounding development. Andal David Rd PUD Text(6) 12 18.09 (aln) (12/18/09/09) KuMON LEARNING CENTER ARCETTECTCRAL REvmw DE=ER 2009 Architectural grade asphault shingles n �r Simulated divided lite windows Hardi-Plank siding Synthetic stone M� �\ E:i and brick veneer r : : TM n: G — @ —mp a _yl•� xti J BRUN KENT JONES ARCHITECTS. INC. KuMON LEARNING CENTER NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1 /8.. - 1,0.. WEST ELEVATION SCALE 1/8" = 1'0" BANN KENT JONES ARCHITECTS. INC. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DECEMBER 2009 KUMON LEARNING CENTER ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DECEMBER 2009 ROOF PLAN SCALE: 1/8 "= 1'0" BRIAN KENT JONES ARCHITECTS, INC. NOTES. RE SION& n. wwm /i+w wo- 0 I c Z� z m m D 0 y A 6 I O � I w v � I ----------------- O r 6 I A DAVID ROAD (60') +' PROPOSED SITE PLAN WITH FUTURE CONNECTOR w 0 0 4 DATES OF APPROVAL: SIGNATURE: SIGNATURE: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPLICANT PLANNING& ZONING COMMISSION SECRETARY CITY COUNCIL Q K d ' Y Z m yY o Y fr B a � � 3 c� o q O � � C � V ----------------- O r z _ I I 2 z C �p O _ � I w V W F L U '., W r v... r A DAVID ROAD (60') +' PROPOSED SITE PLAN WITH FUTURE CONNECTOR w 0 0 4 DATES OF APPROVAL: SIGNATURE: SIGNATURE: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPLICANT PLANNING& ZONING COMMISSION SECRETARY CITY COUNCIL Q K d ' Y Z m yY o Y fr B a � � 3 c� o q O � � C � V y O r z v 2 2 z C �p O w V W F BID OOC. N0. OATS: SHEET NO. �o /aylae su 2P CITY OF DUBLIN, Land Use and Long Range Planning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone / TDD: 614- 410 -4600 Fax: 614- 4104747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us Creating a Legacy RECORD OF ACTION DECEMBER 10, 2009 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Kumon Learning Center 09- 067Z /PDP 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Proposal: An approximately 5,000- square -foot commercial building for a 0.5 -acre parcel located on the northwest corner of the intersection of David Road with West Dublin - Granville Road. Request: Review and recommendation to City Council for a rezoning and preliminary development plan under the Planned District provision of Code Section 153.050. Applicant: Sudhir Jindal; represented by Aaron Underhill, Smith & Hale. Planning Contact: Rachel S. Ray, Planner I. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4656, rray @dublin.oh.us MOTION: To recommend approval to City Council of this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan because it complies with the rezoning/preliminary development plan criteria and the development standards within the area, with ten conditions: 1) That the applicant continue to work with the City on the traffic study and determine any necessary improvements with the final development plan; 2) That the applicant pay the City of Dublin no more than $6,986 for the improvement of David Road prior to obtaining a building permit unless other arrangements are made by the City and agreed to by the applicant; 3) That the applicant demonstrate compliance with the City's stormwater management requirements with the submission of the final development plan; 4) That the applicant continue to work with Planning and Engineering to identify a future cross - access point in the northern portion of the site that will provide better vehicular circulation and cohesive parking lot cross - access prior to final development plan approval; 5) That a sidewalk is constructed between the building and the parking lot to provide pedestrian access to future development to the west; 6) That the sidewalk along David Road be extended to the existing path on Banker Drive; 7) That the development text is revised to address comments in this report prior to scheduling the preliminary development plan/rezoning public hearing at City Council; 8) That a landscaping easement must be obtained, and a copy of the easement must be provided to the City of Dublin, if the Code - required landscaping for this site is not accommodated within the bounds of the property; PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Page 1 of 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION DECEMBER 10, 2009 1. Kumon Learning Center 09- 067Z /PDP 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 9) That the plan and text be modified to rectify minor inconsistencies prior to scheduling the preliminary development plan/rezoning public hearing at City Council; 10) That the final development plan include signs that are architecturally integrated and incorporate a variety of styles. * Ben W. Hale, Jr. agreed to the ten conditions. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: This Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan was recommended for approval to City Council. STA E TI I TI chel S. Ra Planner I Page 2 of 2 Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 10, 2009 — Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 28 1. Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road 09- 067Z /PDP Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan Chair Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan application to rezone a half -acre parcel from R -4, Limited Suburban Residential District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District and to develop the site with an approximately 5,000- square- foot commercial building and other site improvements. She explained that the Commission's role with this application is to make a recommendation to City Council. Rachel Ray reported that this application had been reviewed and tabled by the Commission on October 8, 2009. She explained that the Commission discussed three main issues at the October meeting, and said that the first issue was that there were concerns with the proposed vehicular circulation and future cross- access to Shamrock Crossing. She continued that the Commission was also concerned with the developability of this site and the adjacent parcel due to an existing power line easement. She noted that the Commission also commented that the architectural detailing should be more refined and developed in a manner that is more consistent with the approved Shamrock Crossing preliminary development plan. Ms. Ray reported that the applicant had revised the site plan and architecture. She explained that with some modifications to the site plan, the future cross - access would be functional. She presented renderings of the previous architectural concept and the proposed architecture and stated that it was Planning's opinion that the proposed architecture is consistent with that approved for Shamrock Crossing. Ms. Ray clarified that regarding the adjacent property, a ten -foot easement is located along the parcel's west property line, and not on the adjacent property as previously thought. She said that it was Planning's opinion that the property will still be developable, even if not developed in concert with this particular parcel. She said another 5,000- square -foot or similar -sized building could still fit on that parcel and allow for adequate circulation. Ms. Ray said it was Planning's analysis that this proposal will help assist with establishing the pedestrian- oriented streetscape along SR 161 and help connect future development west of Shamrock Crossing and east of David Road, and will assist with creating a transition into the Historic District. She concluded that Planning has evaluated this proposal based on the review criteria for rezoning /preliminary development plan applications, and based on the criteria, Planning recommends approval with the nine conditions listed in the Planning Report with the modification to Condition 2 as noted: 1) That the applicant continue to work with the City on the traffic study and determine any necessary improvements with the final development plan; 2) That the applicant pay the City of Dublin a fee of $6,986 toward the improvement of David Road, or as otherwise directed by the City; 3) That the applicant demonstrate compliance with the City's stormwater management requirements with the submission of the final development plan; 4) That the applicant continue to work with Planning and Engineering to identify a future cross - access point in the northern portion of the site that will provide better vehicular circulation and cohesive parking lot cross - access prior to final development plan approval; AS SUBMITTED TO COUNCIL FOIR MEETING 0 N I LLLO Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 10, 2009 — Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 28 5) That a sidewalk is constructed between the building and the parking lot to provide pedestrian access to future development to the west; 6) That the sidewalk along David Road be extended to the existing path on Banker Drive; 7) That the development text is revised to address comments in this report prior to scheduling the preliminary development plan/rezoning public hearing at City Council; 8) That a landscaping easement must be obtained, and a copy of the easement must be provided to the City of Dublin, if the Code - required landscaping for this site is not accommodated within the bounds of the property; and 9) That the plan and text be modified to rectify minor inconsistencies prior to scheduling the preliminary development plan/rezoning public hearing at City Council. Ben W. Hale, Jr., Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, representing the applicant, said that they believed that the plans were very consistent with Shamrock Crossing and were of the same quality, design, and materials. He wanted it clear that there is a strip of land between Banker Drive and the site's northern property line, and if an easement could not be obtained to extend the sidewalk, it would need to be extended into the right -of -way. He pointed out that the building's exterior currently indicates three tenants spaces, but they did not want to commit to how many tenants there could be in the interior of the building and they would take the signage into consideration with the final development plan to anticipate a potential for more tenants. Mr. Hale said that they believe they meet the community's desire for high standards, and that this is a good addition to the community. Ms. Amorose Groomes invited public comments. [There was none.] Kevin Walter commended the applicant on the significantly improved architecture. He asked how many parking spaces would be sacrificed if the cross - access was moved south. Ms. Ray estimated that since more spaces could be provided along the northern property line, they would probably end up with one additional space. Mr. Walter thought the circulation worked much better, and overlaying it over the potential development to the west was very helpful. He suggested that Condition 2 be reworded so that the dollar amount was not completely left open in order to protect the applicant. Mr. Walter continued that he supported the addition of more square footage to the patio on the southeastern corner of the building. Ms. Ray said the proposed development text allows up to 800 square feet in total patio space area, so it could be reconfigured to allow more patio space as part of the final development plan. She said the existing site plan showed approximately 200 to 300 square feet of patio space. Richard Taylor agreed that the patio area should be increased for any future tenant or owner who might want access to a patio on the east side of the building. Mr. Taylor commented that this was a spectacular building. He asked if the green area on the south fagade was the only location for a sign on that side of the building. Ms. Ray explained that the sign locations were conceptual, and the actual sign locations, sign dimensions, and height would be included as part of the final development plan. Dublin Planning and Zoning Conunission December 10, 2009 — Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 28 Mr. Taylor said he would like the final development plan to show the sign locations on the building very well integrated into the architecture of the building. He encouraged the applicant to have a variety of styles and not limit themselves to signs with scalloped corners and gooseneck light fixtures. Ms. Ray said that Planning is proposing a square footage limitation instead of actual sign dimensions at this time to allow a greater degree of design flexibility at the final development plan when the architecture is less conceptual than it is at this stage. Mr. Taylor reiterated that there should be a variety of sign styles. John Hardt agreed that the proposed architecture was a substantial improvement. He asked if anything could be seen through the faux second story windows. Mr. Hale said they would have the window details available at the final development stage. Mr. Hardt asked if the architecture had been developed with mechanical equipment in mind, and where would it be located. Mr. Taylor pointed out that ground mechanical units were shown on the west side of the building. Ms. Ray confirmed that air conditioning units were shown on the west elevation, and Planning would ensure that any roof mechanicals would be screened on the final development plan. Todd Zimmerman suggested a condition to require that the patio furniture be removed from the patio between April and November. He added that he would like to see more brick or stone instead of Hardiplank® so that the architecture is balanced on all four sides. Ms. Ray said the proposed development text specifies that any patio furniture will be stored inside the tenant space or offsite when the patio is not in regular use. Mr. Zimmerman said that was fine, he just wanted it treated like all the other patios in the city. Warren Fishman confirmed that the sidewalk easement issue would be solved at the final development plan. He also confirmed that there will be a cross access drive between this site and future development to the west. Amy Kramb said that since it was unknown when the parcel to the west would be developed, a temporary solution should be identified for the future driveway space until it is used. Steve Langworthy suggested that it could be used for temporary parking. Mr. Hale said that they still needed to work on accessibility for garbage trucks, and those details would be included with the final development plan. Mr. Fishman asked about the size of the vegetated swale. Ms. Ray said she was not sure of the exact square footage, but it was sizeable since it extended along the side property line. Mr. Fishman asked if there could be a water feature instead of a swale. Ms. Amorose Groomes said that when the adjacent property is developed, it might be possible for some other arrangement should the two sites utilize a shared stormwater management system. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission December 10, 2009 — Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 28 Motion and Vote Mr. Walter made the motion to recommend approval to City Council of this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan because it complies with the rezoning /preliminary development plan criteria and the development standards within the area, with ten conditions: 1) That the applicant continue to work with the City on the traffic study and determine any necessary improvements with the final development plan; 2) That the applicant pay the City of Dublin not more than $6,986 for the improvement of David Road prior to obtaining a building permit unless other arrangements are made by the City and agreed to by the applicant; 3) That the applicant demonstrate compliance with the City's stormwater management requirements with the submission of the final development plan; 4) That the applicant continue to work with Planning and Engineering to identify a future cross- access point in the northern portion of the site that will provide better vehicular circulation and cohesive parking lot cross - access prior to final development plan approval; 5) That a sidewalk is constructed between the building and the parking lot to provide pedestrian access to future development to the west; 6) That the sidewalk along David Road be extended to the existing path on Banker Drive; 7) That the development text is revised to address comments in this report prior to scheduling the preliminary development plan/rezoning public hearing at City Council; 8) That a landscaping easement must be obtained, and a copy of the easement must be provided to the City of Dublin, if the Code- required landscaping for this site is not accommodated within the bounds of the property; 9) That the plan and text be modified to rectify minor inconsistencies prior to scheduling the preliminary development plan/rezoning public hearing at City Council; and 10) That the final development plan include signs that are architecturally integrated and incorporate a variety of styles. Ben W. Hale, Jr., on behalf of the applicant agreed to the ten conditions. Mr. Fishman seconded the vote. The vote was as follows: Mr. Zimmerman, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Taylor, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; and Mr. Walter, yes. (Approved 7 — 0.) SECTION I — CASE INFORMATION 1. Kumon Learning Center 09- 067Z/PDP 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Proposal: An approximately 5,000- square -foot commercial building for a 0.5 -acre parcel located on the northwest corner of the intersection of David Road with West Dublin - Granville Road. Request: Review and recommendation to City Council for a rezoning and preliminary development plan under the Planned District provision of Code Section 153.050. Applicant: Sudhir Jindal; represented by Aaron Underhill, Smith & Hale. Planning Contact: Rachel S. Ray, Planner I. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4656, rray @dublin.oh.us Update This Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan was tabled at the October 8, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to allow the applicant to revise the proposed architectural concepts and site layout. The Commissioners requested that the applicant return with architecture that included refined architectural detailing and demonstrated consistency with the high- quality design approved for the Shamrock Crossing preliminary development plan. The applicant has addressed the concerns related to architecture and provided a revised site plan. Case Summary This is a request for review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a rezoning/preliminary development plan to rezone a 0.53 -acre parcel from the R -4, Suburban Residential District, to PUD, Planned Unit Development District. The rezoning would allow construction of an approximately 5,000- square -foot commercial building with up to three tenant spaces and associated site improvements. Based on Planning's analysis, the proposal meets the review criteria for rezonings /preliminary development plans, and approval is recommended. Site Description Location The 0.53 -acre site is located on the north side of State Route 161/West Dublin - Granville Road at the northwest corner of the intersection with David Road, south of Banker Drive, approximately 500 feet east of Shamrock Boulevard. PLANNING REPORT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY []F DUBI,1N- LWW US* MW DECEMBER 10, 2009 LOW mowe 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016.1236 Phone / TDD: 614310 -4600 Fax: 614.410 -4747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us SECTION I — CASE INFORMATION 1. Kumon Learning Center 09- 067Z/PDP 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Proposal: An approximately 5,000- square -foot commercial building for a 0.5 -acre parcel located on the northwest corner of the intersection of David Road with West Dublin - Granville Road. Request: Review and recommendation to City Council for a rezoning and preliminary development plan under the Planned District provision of Code Section 153.050. Applicant: Sudhir Jindal; represented by Aaron Underhill, Smith & Hale. Planning Contact: Rachel S. Ray, Planner I. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4656, rray @dublin.oh.us Update This Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan was tabled at the October 8, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to allow the applicant to revise the proposed architectural concepts and site layout. The Commissioners requested that the applicant return with architecture that included refined architectural detailing and demonstrated consistency with the high- quality design approved for the Shamrock Crossing preliminary development plan. The applicant has addressed the concerns related to architecture and provided a revised site plan. Case Summary This is a request for review and recommendation of approval to City Council for a rezoning/preliminary development plan to rezone a 0.53 -acre parcel from the R -4, Suburban Residential District, to PUD, Planned Unit Development District. The rezoning would allow construction of an approximately 5,000- square -foot commercial building with up to three tenant spaces and associated site improvements. Based on Planning's analysis, the proposal meets the review criteria for rezonings /preliminary development plans, and approval is recommended. Site Description Location The 0.53 -acre site is located on the north side of State Route 161/West Dublin - Granville Road at the northwest corner of the intersection with David Road, south of Banker Drive, approximately 500 feet east of Shamrock Boulevard. Planning and Zoning Commission December 10, 2009 — Planning Report Application No. 09- 067Z/PDP — Page 2 of 11 Character The site, zoned R -4, Suburban Residential District, has approximately 100 feet of frontage on West Dublin - Granville Road and 230 feet of frontage on David Road. A 23 -foot wide strip of land is located between the site and Banker Drive along the northern property line. The site has a vacant, 1,500- square -foot single -story home with a two -car garage and a driveway to David Road. The site is relatively flat and contains no significant vegetation. Surrounding Zoning and Uses The R -4 zoned site and surrounding properties are in the Corridor Development District. A nonconforming single -story home to the west is located approximately three feet from the property line shared with the site and is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District as part of the future Shamrock Crossing. A narrow strip of land between the site and Banker Drive to the north is also part of Shamrock Crossing. The Stoneridge Medical Offices, zoned PUD, are located south of the site across West Dublin - Granville Road. East of David Road are two undeveloped R -4 parcels, which were the subject of a recent concept plan application for the Shamrock Auto Spa car wash. Community Plan Sawmill /SR 161 Area Plan Objectives This site is part of the Sawmill /SR 161 Area Plan (Community Plan, page 118), which states that redevelopment and infill should capitalize on establishing a sense of place and a pedestrian- friendly environment. The Area Plan encourages buildings to be oriented to the street with connections between uses, distinctive architecture, and pedestrian- oriented design. Although still in progress, preliminary findings from the current Bridge Street Corridor Study show a significant increase in residential capacities north of SR 161. It is anticipated that the greater residential presence in this area will contribute significantly to the pedestrian presence within this corridor. Accordingly, both the uses provided and the design of the sites should begin to encourage and incorporate a stronger pedestrian design along this corridor. Future Land Use The Future Land Use Map designates this site as General Commercial, which is characterized as a land use typical of existing retail and commercial development. This land use classification anticipates a mixture of retail, restaurant, personal services, offices, lodging, and other commercial uses. Plan Description Overview & Site Layout This proposal includes a one -story building oriented toward West Dublin - Granville Road, with a 22 -space parking lot located north of the building. The building, which is approximately 5,000 square feet, is planned for three tenant spaces and a patio located at the southeast corner of the building. The driveway for the site is from David Road, and a vegetated swale is shown in the western portion of the site to manage stormwater. Planning and Zoning Commission December 10, 2009 — Planning Report Application No. 09- 067Z/PDP — Page 3 of 11 Adjacent Parcel At the October 8, 2009 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission members expressed concerns with the relationship of this site to the adjacent parcel to the west (4070 West Dublin - Granville Road) and whether development on this site would negatively affect development on the adjacent parcel. Testimony was provided stating that although the property at 4070 West Dublin - Granville Road was rezoned as part of the Shamrock Crossing preliminary development plan, the property was still privately owned and occupied. It was noted that one of the challenges with developing the property at 4070 West Dublin - Granville Road was a 10 -foot wide easement located along the western property line on the adjacent parcel to the west. Although the existence of the easement does not preclude development on the adjacent parcel, it may limit the future building location. It is Planning's opinion, however, that the size of the parcel (0.55- acre), which is comparable to the proposed Kumon Learning Center site, will still be developable even if buildings cannot cross the easement (see attached exhibit). Development Standards The applicant has submitted a development text which addresses in detail the proposed development standards. Major elements include the following. • Uses Permitted uses include private educational facilities and permitted uses listed in the City of Dublin Zoning Code Sections 153.026 -028 (Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, and Suburban Office and Institutional Districts), which include a variety of retail, office, and personal services. Patios are permitted in association with a permitted use. Dining establishments require conditional use approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission to ensure adequate parking and circulation. • Setbacks A 19.5 -foot "build -to" line is proposed along West Dublin - Granville Road to enhance the streetscape and encourage pedestrian activity, and a five -foot building setback is proposed on the western site boundary. Patios are permitted forward of the build -to line and may encroach up to five feet within the parking setback from David Road. Required pavement setbacks are 50 feet from West Dublin - Granville Road, 15 feet from David Road, 25 feet from the western site boundary, and a zero setback is proposed from the north property line for parking and a dumpster enclosure. Code - required landscaping will be accommodated either within the bounds of the property, or within a landscaping easement obtained from the owner of the small strip of land between the property and Banker Drive. • Ste The development text states that signs shall comply with the Zoning Code unless otherwise specified. The text permits each tenant one, two -foot wide and nine -foot long wall sign on each fagade facing a public right -of -way, and one sign of the same size oriented toward the parking lot. A maximum of two ground signs (one on each public right -of -way) are permitted as an alternative to wall signs if a single tenant uses the entire building. It is Planning's opinion that because the architectural concept is intended to individualize each of the tenant spaces, the wall signs should be rectangular wall plaques, but should not necessarily be identical throughout the tenant spaces. Planning recommends that wall signs be limited to 22 square feet each for the south and east sides of the building facing SR 161 and David Road, with the final design details submitted with the final development plan. Planning and Zoning Commission December 10, 2009 — Planning Report Application No. 09- 067Z/PDP — Page 4 of 11 Planning also recommends limiting the size of the wall signs on the north side of the building 18 square feet, since the signs on the north side of the building are oriented toward the parking lot and not a right -of -way and are therefore more pedestrian- oriented by nature and should be at a smaller scale. Access & Vehicular Circulation Access to the site is from a single curb cut on David Road. In order to reinforce connectivity and the integration of this site with the future Shamrock Crossing development to the west, the applicant is providing space for a future cross - access drive at the northernmost portion of the site, adjacent to the property line. However, Planning is concerned that because the Shamrock Crossing preliminary development plan shows parking spaces along Banker Drive directly across from the proposed cross - access drive, the proposed driveway would not function properly without an awkward curve. The driveway should be moved approximately 20 feet south. Planning and Engineering will continue to work with the applicant to identify an appropriate location and design for cross - access, which will be finalized at the final development plan. Pedestrian Access There is a 10 -foot asphalt bikepath located along West Dublin - Granville Road, and five -foot sidewalks are proposed to connect each of the three tenant spaces to the bikepath. A five -foot sidewalk is proposed along David Road, with a walkway connecting the sidewalk with the proposed building. Planning recommends installing a five -foot sidewalk on the north side of the building to connect this site to future development to the west to increase pedestrian connectivity. Additionally, the sidewalk along David Road must be installed to extend to the existing path on Banker Drive. Parking Twenty -two parking spaces, including one ADA- accessible space, are provided. The proposed development text requires a minimum of 21 parking spaces, provided that a private educational use occupies at least 40- percent of the total building square footage; if not, then parking must meet the Zoning Code. The text requires a conditional use approval for restaurants and dining establishments to ensure sufficient parking is available and on -site circulation is adequate. Additionally, the text stipulates that required parking may be reduced if a cross - access and/or joint parking agreement is reached with the future Shamrock Crossing development and approved by the City of Dublin. Architecture The proposed development text notes that the architectural concept is intended to be traditional in look and feel and allow for consistency and cohesiveness with any future building constructed with Shamrock Crossing. Like Shamrock Crossing, this single -story building will be designed to give the appearance of one - and -a -half to two -story buildings comprised of multiple individually articulated tenant spaces. The proposed building materials include masonry, stone, cementitious siding, and wood trim, with colors selected from a historic color palette. Roof materials shall consist of dimensional asphalt shingles, cedar shakes or shingles, standing seam metal, or slate (authentic or synthetic). Dormers, cupolas, and other architectural features are encouraged to provide visual interest and lend authenticity to the building design. The text states that the building will generally have the same degree of exterior finish on all sides, and includes a provision that all exterior doors on the northern and southern building Planning and Zoning Commission December 10, 2009 — Planning Report Application No. 09- 067Z/PDP — Page 5 of 11 elevations shall be functional and operational. This will allow pedestrians to enter both the front of the building from the bike path along West Dublin - Granville Road, and the rear of the building from the parking lot. This provision reinforces the importance of pedestrian interaction with the building accessed from West Dublin - Granville Road as a contributing factor to a high quality, active streetscape. Since the October 8, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the applicant has refined the architectural concept, including increased detailing and individualization of the tenant spaces. A concerted effort has been made to coordinate the architecture with the architecture approved as part of the Shamrock Crossing preliminary development plan (shown below). The applicant has also reevaluated the elevation facing David Road, recognizing the importance of addressing and "turning" the corner with the building's design, and reinforcing the streetscape along both SR 161 and David Road. Approved Shamrock Crossing Proposed Kumon Learning Center Landscaping The proposed development text requires landscaping to meet the Zoning Code. The text states that property perimeter landscaping is not required along West Dublin - Granville Road since excessive mounding and screening would detract from the pedestrian- oriented streetscape desired by the Community Plan and the Bridge Street Corridor Study. Vehicular use area perimeter screening is not required along the western site boundary since development to the west is also planned for a parking lot. Traffic Impact Study The applicant has submitted a traffic impact study for review by Engineering. Preliminarily, the study shows that the applicant will be responsible for improving the western half of David Road to current street standards. This work will include mainly roadway improvements such as pavement replacement, curb and gutter installation, and minor storm sewer system work. Sidewalk installation is not included. The City is requesting that the applicant contribute $6,986 in lieu of constructing the improvements. Planning and Engineering will continue to work with the applicant to finalize the traffic study and determine any other required improvements prior to the final development plan. Utilities There is an eight -inch waterline on the west side of David Road and a 24 -inch water line on the south side of West Dublin - Granville Road. There is a 10 -inch sanitary sewer line on the north side of West Dublin - Granville Road. Stormwater Management A drainage swale is located west of the parking lot to accommodate stormwater. The preliminary stormwater calculations that were submitted do not match the current site plan. The site plan shows stormwater routing along the west side of the building adjacent to the air conditioning Planning and Zoning Commission December 10, 2009 — Planning Report Application No. 09- 067Z/PDP — Page 6 of 11 units and the residence on the adjacent property. The final development plan will need to include a stormwater management report that complies with the City's requirements. SECTION II — REVIEW STANDARDS Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan The purpose of the PUD process is to encourage imaginative architectural design and proper site planning in a coordinated and comprehensive manner, consistent with accepted land planning, landscape architecture, and engineering principles. The PUD process can consist of up to three basic stages: 1) Concept Plan (Staff, Commission, and/or City Council review and comment); 2) Zoning Amendment Request (Preliminary Development Plan; Commission recommends and City Council approves /denies); and 3) Final Development Plan (Commission approves /denies). The general intent of the preliminary development plan (rezoning) stage is to determine the general layout and specific zoning standards that will guide development. The Planning and Zoning Commission must review and make a recommendation on this preliminary development plan (rezoning) request. The application will then be returned to City Council for a public hearing and final vote. A two - thirds vote of City Council is required to override a negative recommendation by the Commission. If approved, the rezoning will become effective 30 days following the Council vote. Additionally, all portions of the development will require final development plan approval by the Commission prior to construction. Evaluation and Recommendation based on Preliminary Development Plan Criteria Section 153.050 of the Zoning Code identifies criteria for the review and approval for a rezoning/preliminary development plan. Following is an evaluation by Planning based on those criteria. The criteria are arranged in the following categories and may be in a different order than listed in the Code: Adopted Policies and Plans (Criteria 1, 2, 3, and 4). The proposed development is consistent with the Dublin Zoning Code; is in conformity with the Community Plan; advances the general welfare of the City; and the proposed uses are appropriately located in the City so that the use and value of property within and adjacent to the area will be safeguarded. Criteria are met: The Community Plan encourages development and redevelopment along the West Dublin - Granville Road corridor that ensures long -term viability and promotes interaction and pedestrian activity (pages 118, 120) to support the creation of a sense of place and a distinctive eastern gateway into Dublin leading up to the Historic District. Given this Community Plan objective, the development standards for this project should make certain that the proposed building is well integrated into its development context and helps establish the sense of place strongly recommended by the Community Plan. Since there is currently no surrounding development from which to guide the architectural concept for this site, Planning and the applicant have agreed on the importance of developing this site in a manner that is harmonious with Shamrock Planning and Zoning Commission December 10, 2009 — Planning Report Application No. 09- 067Z/PDP — Page 7 of 11 Crossing, which will be located immediately to the west as well as to the south across SR 161. In Planning's opinion, ensuring consistency between this site and Shamrock Crossing will assist with completing the street edge formed by the planned Shamrock Crossing buildings and encourage the creation of a sense of place through cohesive, high - quality, and pedestrian- oriented architecture. Parks and Open Space (Criteria S and 6). The proposed residential development will have sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives of the Community Plan; and the proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and protects the natural resources of the site. Criteria are met: The proposal includes a provision that permits a small patio for this development that will provide an outdoor gathering space for building patrons and will assist with activating the streetscape as the Community Plan recommends. Traffic, Utilities and Stormwater Management (Criteria 7, 8, and 11). Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and /or necessary facilities have been or are being provided; and adequate measures have been or will be taken to minimize traffic congestion on the surrounding public streets and to maximize public safety and to accommodate adequate pedestrian and bike circulation systems so that the proposed development provides for a safe, convenient and non - conflicting circulation system for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians; and adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site so as to maintain, as far as practicable, usual and normal swales, water courses and drainage areas. Criteria may be met with conditions: The development has adequate utility service. The proposed driveway from David Road and future cross - access with Shamrock Crossing will provide sufficient access to and through the site. Although a draft traffic study has been submitted, it will need to be finalized and approved by the City of Dublin prior to approval of a final development plan (Condition #1). The applicant will be required to pay $6,986.00 to the City of Dublin to be applied to the improvement of David Road prior to obtaining a building permit, unless a more appropriate fee is determined and agreed to by both parties (Condition #2). A preliminary stormwater management study has been submitted which will need to demonstrate compliance with the City's stormwater management requirements prior to approval of a final development plan (Condition #3). Once the cross - access location is finalized, a location for stormwater facilities will need to be reflected in the final stormwater management plan. Development Standards (Criteria 9, and 10). The relationship of buildings and structures provides for the coordination and integration of this development to the community and maintains the image of Dublin as a quality community; and the development standards, and the design and layout of the open space systems and parking areas, traffic accessibility and other elements contribute to the orderly development of land within the City. Criteria may be met with conditions: The building location in this PUD is consistent with the development pattern established by the approved Shamrock Crossing Planning and Zoning Commission December 10, 2009 — Planning Report Application No. 09- 067Z/PDP — Page 8 of 11 development. The proposed development standards contribute to the orderly development of this site, including proposed uses, setbacks, and density. While future cross - access is shown on the plans, Planning recommends that the applicant continue to work with Planning and Engineering to identify a future cross - access point in the northern portion of the site that will provide better vehicular circulation and cohesive parking lot cross- access prior to final development plan approval (Condition #4). Although sidewalks are shown throughout the site, a sidewalk is needed between the building and the parking lot for pedestrian access to future development to the west (Condition #5). The sidewalk along David Road must also be extended to the existing path on Banker Drive (Condition #6). Design Standards (12 and 13). The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed development justify any deviation from the standard development regulations included in the Code or the Subdivision Regulations; are consistent with the intent of the Planned Development District regulations; and the proposed building design meets or exceeds the quality of the building designs in the surrounding area and all applicable appearance standards of the City. Criteria may be met with conditions: The development text outlines applicable development standards for this proposal. The 22 parking spaces satisfy the parking requirements for this site as outlined in the development text, and the provision of space for a future cross - access allows the opportunity for a functional shared parking arrangement between this site and Shamrock Crossing. The development text requires that all landscaping meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning Code with the final development plan. However, as previously noted, the text stipulates that property perimeter landscaping shall not be required along West Dublin - Granville Road. The text states that property perimeter landscaping is not required along the west property line; however prior to scheduling a hearing at City Council this should be changed to read that vehicular use area perimeter screening is not required along the west property line (Condition #7). The proposed development text allows a zero setback from the northern property line, which is adjacent to the narrow strip of land between this parcel and Banker Drive. Planning recommends that if Code - required landscaping is not accommodated within the bounds of the property, a landscaping easement must be obtained from the owner of the small strip of land between the property and Banker Drive, and a copy of the easement must be provided to the City of Dublin (Condition #8) The plans currently depict a variety of sign shapes and sizes, generally ranging from two feet by seven feet to two- and -a -half feet by eight- and -a -half feet. It is Planning's opinion that because the architectural concept complements the individualization of the tenant spaces, the wall signs should not be required to be identical. Planning recommends that the wall signs be limited to 22 square feet in size, while the final design details will be submitted for approval at the final development plan. To this end, prior to scheduling a hearing at City Council, the text should be modified to stipulate that wall signs may be a maximum of 22 square feet, and that the final design details will be approved with the Planning and Zoning Commission December 10, 2009 — Planning Report Application No. 09- 067Z/PDP — Page 9 of 11 submission of the final development plan (Condition #7). Planning also recommends modifying the text to require that wall signs on the north side of the building be limited to 18 square feet, since the smaller scale is more appropriate for signs oriented toward parking lots rather than rights -of -way (Condition #7). There are a few inconsistencies on the plans between the proposed architecture and the proposed site plan. Prior to scheduling a hearing at City Council, the plans should be modified to correct these minor inconsistencies (Condition #9). Infrastructure (Criteria 14, 15 and 16). The proposed phasing of development is appropriate for the existing and proposed infrastructure and is sufficiently coordinated among the various phases to ultimately yield the intended overall development; the proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing or planned public improvements; and the applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service the new development. Criteria are met: There are adequate services in place for the proposed development, and the applicant's contribution toward the improvements to David Road (Condition #2) will be sufficient to service the new development. Evaluation and Recommendation based on the Land Use Principles Quality and Character (Principles 1, 6, 7, and 9): High quality design for all uses, recognizing density has important economic implications, but is essentially an outcome not a determinant of creating a quality place; preserving the rural character of certain areas of the community, including the appearance of roads, as well as the landscape; developing streets that create an attractive public realm and make exceptional places for people; and creating streets that contribute to the character of the community and move a more reasonable level of traffic. Land Use Principles may be met through conditions 7 -9 The proposed use of this site and general layout may be conducive to achieving these Land Use Principles and the objectives of the Community Plan. The building and parking lot are positioned so that a street edge is established along both SR 161 and David Road, which will encourage pedestrian activity once the development standards crafted for this site and the recommended conditions are properly implemented. Connectivity (Principles 2, 8 and 10): Creating places to live that have a stronger pedestrian environment, connections to convenient services, and are conducive to multi - generational living and social interaction; creating better connected places, in part, to improve the function of the street network and also to better serve neighborhoods; and providing opportunities to walk and bike throughout the community. Land Use Principles may be met through conditions 4 -6: This proposal includes appropriate parking locations, and future parking lot cross- access. Adding a sidewalk to connect this site with the future Shamrock Crossing will contribute to efficient traffic and pedestrian movement. Integration (Principles 3, 4, and S): Creating places with integrated uses that are distinctive, sustainable and contribute to increasing the City's overall visibility; providing some retail services in closer proximity to residential areas as an important amenity to residents; and creating a wider range of housing choice in the community, as well as in new neighborhoods. Planning and Zoning Commission December 10, 2009 — Planning Report Application No. 09- 067Z/PDP —Page 10 of 11 Land Use Principles met The site layout and architectural concept are designed to coordinate with the approved Shamrock Crossing development. Proper integration of this site with Shamrock Crossing is critical to creating the consistent sense of place desired by the Community Plan. This project will enhance the SR 161/West Dublin - Granville Road corridor and contribute to the area's long -term sustainability through appropriate application of the proposed development standards. SECTION III — PLANNING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan This development, along with Shamrock Crossing, will help establish the pedestrian- oriented environment along the SR 161 corridor anticipated by the Community Plan to connect future redevelopment west of Shamrock Boulevard with future development east of David Road. This site also contributes to establishing a relationship and transition into the Historic District. In Planning's opinion, with the conditions outlined below this proposal complies with the rezoning/preliminary development plan criteria and the development standards within the area. Planning recommends approval of this rezoning/preliminary development plan with the following nine conditions: Conditions 1) That the applicant continue to work with the City on the traffic study and determine any necessary improvements with the final development plan; 2) That the applicant pay the City of Dublin $6,986 for the improvement of David Road prior to obtaining a building permit unless a more appropriate fee is determined and agreed to by the applicant and the City; 3) That the applicant demonstrate compliance with the City's stormwater management requirements with the submission of the final development plan; 4) That the applicant continue to work with Planning and Engineering to identify a future cross - access point in the northern portion of the site that will provide better vehicular circulation and cohesive parking lot cross - access prior to final development plan approval; 5) That a sidewalk is constructed between the building and the parking lot to provide pedestrian access to future development to the west; 6) That the sidewalk along David Road be extended to the existing path on Banker Drive; 7) That the development text is revised to address comments in this report prior to scheduling the preliminary development plan/rezoning public hearing at City Council; 8) That a landscaping easement must be obtained, and a copy of the easement must be provided to the City of Dublin, if the Code - required landscaping for this site is not accommodated within the bounds of the property; and 9) That the plan and text be modified to rectify minor inconsistencies prior to scheduling the preliminary development plan/rezoning public hearing at City Council. Planning and Zoning Commission December 10, 2009 — Planning Report Application No. 09- 067Z/PDP — Page 11 of 11 Rezoning/ Preliminary Development Plan Review Criteria In accordance with Section 153.055(A) Plan Approval Criteria, Code sets out the following criteria of approval for a preliminary development plan (rezoning): 1) The proposed development is consistent with the purpose, intent and applicable standards of the Dublin Zoning Code; 2) The proposed development is in conformity with the Community Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, Bikeway Plan and other adopted plans or portions thereof as they may apply and will not unreasonably burden the existing street network; 3) The proposed development advances the general welfare of the city and immediate vicinity and will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding areas; 4) The proposed uses are appropriately located in the city so that the use and value of property within and adjacent to the area will be safeguarded; 5) Proposed residential development will have sufficient open space areas that meet the objectives of the Community Plan; 6) The proposed development respects the unique characteristic of the natural features and protects the natural resources of the site; 7) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, retention and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided; 8) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on the surrounding public streets and to maximize public safety and to accommodate adequate pedestrian and bike circulation systems so that the proposed development provides for a safe, convenient and non - conflicting circulation system for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians; 9) The relationship of buildings and structures to each other and to such other facilities provides for the coordination and integration of this development within the PUD and the larger community and maintains the image of Dublin as a quality community; 10) The density, building gross floor area, building heights, setbacks, distances between buildings and structures, yard space, design and layout of open space systems and parking areas, traffic accessibility and other elements having a bearing on the overall acceptability of the development plan's contribution to the orderly development of land within the city; 11) Adequate provision is made for storm drainage within and through the site so as to maintain, as far as practicable, usual and normal swales, water courses and drainage areas; 12) The design, site arrangement, and anticipated benefits of the proposed development justify any deviation from the standard development regulations included in the Dublin Zoning Code or Subdivision Regulation, and that any such deviations are consistent with the intent of the Planned Development District regulations; 13) The proposed building design meets or exceeds the quality of the building designs in the surrounding area and all applicable appearance standards of the City; 14) The proposed phasing of development is appropriate for the existing and proposed infrastructure and is sufficiently coordinated among the various phases to ultimately yield the intended overall development; 15) The proposed development can be adequately serviced by existing or planned public improvements and not impair the existing public service system for the area; and 16) The applicant's contributions to the public infrastructure are consistent with the Thoroughfare Plan and are sufficient to service the new development. FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION Residential Low Density Residential Madium Density Residential High Density Mixed Residential Rural Density Mixed Residential Low Density Mixed Residential Medium Density ® Mixed Residential High Density Nelghborhwif Office Standard Office Premium Office High Density011ice /Research & Development Low Density Office /Research & Development ® General Commercial Mixed Use Neighborhood Center Mixed Use Village Center ® Mixed Use Town Center Public Institutional /Civic _ Private Institutional Parks /Open Space - River Planning Area Boundary Future Roadway Railroad 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoiung/Prelinunaly Development Plan Kunlon Leanling Center 4056 West Dublin- Granville Road FUTURE LAND USE MAP Sawmill/ SR 161 Area Plan r SawrnIVSR 161 Area Recommendations: j Establish Soo- foot re4tuks topmvide a green corridor along the hirer Cardukafteruldentid ms into topmophy Incorpaute a Hneu aMMMyto provide reddential aaoeu m all mai d the plan Extend streets to provide Beater co®ectivityand access Mconrage high dendty hoaeing inclose pra dmity to the Historic DLtrid for eommerdd support r ' Emphsaimpedestrien connectivity Ram the liver A .ran i f r� i _ f , EstebU a dearly defined entry Point to Historic Dublin 'P Srteod Stoneddge lane for greater access and mobility Place architecture in cammerdd nods to street with ik to 2o400t aetkcke Provide gremerreddentid setbub (to feet) to emphasize street vWAIity and commadAVodres nods Etnphisiie Future efforts with Cola Mbus to prm`ide road 09- 067Z /PDP cormection to swut£er W Rezolllng/Prelhninaq DeN Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin -Gram ille Road Design Recommendations COMMUNITY PLAN F. Sa 11 /SR 161 Area Existing Character Planning boundaries for the Sawmill/ SR 161 Area generally include lands south of I -270, west of Sawmill, north of Stoneridge Lane and east of the Scioto River. Areas near Sawmill Road are generally flat, but proximity to the River provides opportunity for hillside development and outstanding views as land slopes down to the floodplain. Significant portions of the study area include older commercial zoning that permits a wide range of uses. The area includes a mix of entertainment uses, corporate headquarters (Wendy's International), hotels, flex office/ warehouse space, car dealerships and various types of residential development. In general, the area is disadvantaged by a decline in strip retail. As other areas along Sawmill have redeveloped, many commercial storefronts have remained empty. Vacant centers with few tenants have utilized parking lots for overflow car dealership inventories, and the broad mix of uses along State Route 161 and Sawmill Road have resulted in no clear Future retail should be integrated with office or resfdential uses to create a more vital, longlastingdevelopment. City of Dublin, Ohio zoo? Dublin Community Plan identity for the area While promimate to a major interchange, access and visibility for many commercial areas have been compromised through land subdivision, and a better balance of residential and non - residential uses is necessary. Focus for future success of the area will be in targeting redevelopment and infill efforts in a way that capitalizes on a thematic idea or niche and establishes a sense of place. As one of the few areas of the City where high density should be encouraged, significant levels of residential units should be encouraged to support area retail and facilitate a more pedestrian friendly environment. Clearer visual and physical connections should also be sought to link the area with Historic Dublin and to raise awareness of the Scioto River. Planning Challenges and Issues Encourage redevelopment that ensures long -term viability Redevelopment of vacant or underutilized areas should be encouraged to re- establish the Dublin side of Sawmill Road as a vibrant and active place. Redevelopment of the Dublin 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Prehininary Development Plan Kunion Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road COMMUNITY PLAN t IM Village Center and other retail areas should avoid new strip commercial development that has a short lifespan and focus on longevity by pursuing a town center development that can serve as an entertainment center with a coordinated mix of activities that promotes interaction, educational opportunities, unique housing opportunities and pedestrian activity. Create street edge and character Buildings should be oriented toward main streets, public courtyards and plazas to create a sense of identity and visual orientation. Unique, high quality architecture should be used to define the street "space" and as clear focal points of interest at the terminus of viewsheds. Parking areas should be visually secondary to the rear or side of the building, and architecture and building setbacks should be deliberately used to impact the feel of the streetscape. Mixed use areas of office and commercial should be placed close to the street for visibility and to identify a node of activity. In contrast residential uses should be setback to provide increased landscaping and a sense of change as one moves along the street. Dublin Village Center provides the perfect opportunity for mixed use development. City of Dublin, Ohio soo7 Dublin Community Plan Integrate parkingareas to minimize visual impact Alternate parking configurations should be used to better integrate uses and promote pedestrian streetscapes. Parking areas should be relocated from the edge of the public right -of -way and reduced in scale to the side or rear of buildings. Within development, on- street parking should be emphasized to enhance pedestrian orientation and to facilitate nodes of activity. In addition, parking structures should be encouraged to serve a broad mixture of uses and maximization of land to facilitate a pedestrian center /focus. Establish a clear connection to the River The Scioto River provides a unique feature within the Sawmill and SR 161 Area that should be incorporated into the overall layout and design of the area. Efforts should be made to increase physical linkages and visibility. New development along the western edge of the planning area should be oriented towards the River with overlooks, terraces, and views of the riparian corridor. Consideration should be given to how buildings and development are viewed from Riverside Drive. In addition a hierarchy of open spaces should be created to connect the area. Planning Goals ...To develop a coordinated mix of office, retail and mixed residential uses while establishing a stronger sense of place and central focus. This plan should facilitate pedestrian movement between uses and enhance the approach to Historic Dublin from the east. 0 9- 067Z/PDP Rez.otling/prelilninary Development Plan Kuluon Learning Center 4056 Wesl Dublin-Granvi lie Road PROPOSED SITE PLAN CIVON NEDINVt3 q N 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road RELATIONSHIP OF PROPOSAL TO SHAMROCK CROSSING APPROVED PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN & ADJACENT PROPERTY +� r � � - NOtSlriln lAlld�� • `` I x 4070 W. Dublin - Granville Road Existing Residence I t o �I � 1 f Proposed Kumon Learning Center 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoiung/Preliminary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road Approximate location of the 10 -foot AE Easement BANKER DRIVE PLAT 1 0 -Foot Easement 9 nai.r SANJEER DRIVE �51 6 -law 0 W1W P lot. Z-02 I ' � � ev,.. «,i�.t -i c r : � � r � Ft. ..�,. �i�r fl. ..C.'.`f. ;. ,.. I 4� K� 4 4070 W. Dublin-Granville Road Proposed Kumon Learning Center Site 09-067Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Kunion Learning Center •056 West Dublin-Granville Road PRnPOSED ARCHITECTURE SOUTH ELEVATION 1 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoinng/Prelin - nary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin -Gram ille Road NORTH ELEVATION PROPOSED ARCHITECTURE EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road APPROVED ARCHITECTURE FOR SHAMROCK CROSSING DEVELOPMENT AND PROPOSED KUMON LEARNING CENTER ARCHITECTURE r � a 9 PROPOSED KUMON LEARNING CENTER 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Kumon Leaming Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road Strootmape looking north from Dub lin Cr amillo Raid PROPOSED SHAMROCK CROSSING PROPOSED SHAMROCK CROSSING PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT KUMON LEARNING CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), November 19, 2009 I. General Overview The Kumon Learning Center PUD is intended to facilitate the development of a single building that will accommodate a private educational use as well as additional space for uses that are consistent with those that are permitted in the Shamrock Crossing development to the west. Kumon Learning Center will offer educational programs that seek to enhance the reading and math skills of students. The center operates outside of school hours and is intended to supplement the educational offerings of private and public schools. The proposed development is consistent with and complimentary to Subarea C of the Shamrock Crossing PUD in terms of allowable uses, architecture, and setbacks. While the anticipated use of the building in the Kumon Learning Center PUD is the educational use described above, this planned district also will accommodate office and retail uses that will allow the site to have comparable standards to other zoning districts in the area. Basic development standards are being provided for this site relating to density, circulation, signage, and architecture to ensure consistency and quality along the Dublin- Granville Road corridor. H. Site Description The subject property consists of 0.53± acres found immediately to the northwest of the intersection of West Dublin - Granville Road and David Road. III. Uses a. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in this PUD: 1. Private educational facilities 2. Patios shall be subject to administrative approval in association with a permitted use in this PUD provided that any patio furniture shall be stored inside the tenant space or off -site when the patio is not in regular use, and that the use of umbrellas be limited to a subdued color with no logos or text. Use of the patio shall require conditional use approval in the event that the tenant or building owner wishes to include outdoor entertainment, including but not limited to live music or an outdoor speaker system. 3. Permitted uses listed in the City of Dublin Zoning Code Sections 153.026, 153.027, and 153.028, pertaining to the Neighborbarm 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT Commercial District, Community Commercial District, Suburban Office and Institutional District, or equivalent, with the exception of restaurants or other dining uses, which shall be conditional uses. b. Prohibited Uses: For purposes of clarification, in addition to any other use not listed as a permitted use in this subarea, the following uses shall be prohibited anywhere within this PUD: (1) auto service (2) auto repair (3) gas stations (4) tire and/or automobile battery stores (5) muffler or brake shops (6) automobile dealers (7) lumber and other building materials dealers (8) heating and plumbing equipment dealers (9) electrical supply stores (10) farm equipment stores (11) sexually oriented business establishments IV. Density This PUD shall contain: a. One (1) building that shall not exceed 4,921 square feet of gross floor area. b. Exterior patio space not exceeding 800 square feet in total area. V. Yard and Setback Requirements: Building and pavement setbacks shall be as follows: a. Dublin - Granville Road: 1. Building: There shall be a "build -to" line of 19 Meet as measured from the Dublin - Granville Road right -of -way. A portion of the building to be constructed in this PUD shall be required to be located at this build -to line. Pedestrian activity to the front of the building shall be encouraged and the development of usable outdoor spaces (e.g., dining patios) to the front of the build -to line shall be permissible provided that the location of the outdoor space is both safe and aesthetically appropriate. 2. Pavement: There shall be a minimum parking setback (excluding patios and sidewalks) of 50 feet from the right -of -way of Dublin - Granville Road. 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoninp/PrClinunan,' Development Plan Kamon Learning Center 4096 West Dublin - Granville Road PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT b. David Road: There shall be a minimum parking setback of fifteen (15) feet and a minimum building setback of twenty (20) feet from the right -of -way of David Road. Patios shall be permitted to encroach up to 5 feet within the required parking setback. c. Western Property Line: There shall be a 5 -foot building setback as measured from the western boundary of the PUD. There shall be a minimum parking setback of 25 feet from the western boundary of the PUD. In the event that the property owner in this PUD enters into a cross access and/or joint parking agreement with the owner of the property located immediately to the west, then there shall be no minimum parking setback from the western boundary line. d. Northern Prope Line: There shall be a zero setback for parking and a dumpster enclosure from the northern boundary of the PUD. There shall be a minimum building setback of 20 feet from the northern boundary of the PUD. VI. Parking and Loading: a. The minimum number of parking spaces to be provided in this PUD shall be as follows: 1. In the event that a private educational use occupies at least 40% of the total square footage of the building (excluding patios) and there is no restaurant or other dining establishment located in the building, then a minimum of 21 parking.spaces shall be provided in this PUD. 2. Parking for restaurants shall be in accordance with the Dublin Zoning Code unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission as a part of a conditional use application. The owner shall be permitted to provide evidence of a shared parking arrangement with another property owner in order to meet the minimum parking requirements for restaurant uses on this site. 3. Unless otherwise set forth herein, the number of parking spaces provided in this PUD shall be in accordance with the requirements with the Dublin Zoning Code. b. All parking shall be located to the rear (north) of the building. c. In the event that the property owner within this PUD enters into a cross access and/or joint parking agreement with the owner of the property located immediately to the west, then the required parking on this site may be reduced to the extent agreed upon through the shared parking agreement. In order to be entitled to such a reduction, the parking agreement shall be administratively approved by the City of Dublin. 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliniinary Development Plan Kumon Leanting Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT VII. Lighting: Lighting shall comply with the City of Dublin exterior lighting guidelines and shall utilize decorative light fixtures with pole heights not greater than twenty -eight (28) feet from grade of the parking lot. Painted concrete bases shall be utilized and shall be at least six (6) inches in height above finished grade. Decorative light fixtures, including gooseneck lights, shall be consistent with light fixtures utilized for commercial development on adjacent properties. VIII. Circulation: a. Vehicular Traffic: Traffic shall access this PUD from a single curbcut on David Road. In the event that the property owner within this PUD enters into a cross access and/or joint parking agreement with the owner of the property located immediately to the west, then vehicular access to this site also shall be permitted to occur through driveway access to the west. b. Pedestrian Traffic: The existing bike path in the Dublin - Granville right -of- way shall be preserved in conjunction with this development. IX. Waste and Refuse: All waste and refuse shall be contained and fully screened from view by a solid wall or fence as required by the City of Dublin Zoning Code. X. Storage and Equipment: No materials, supplies, equipment or products shall be stored or permitted to remain on any portion of a parcel outside a permitted structure. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground, or buildings shall be screened from public view unless prohibited by a public utility, using landscaping and/or materials that are harmonious with the building and surrounding development as required by the City of Dublin Zoning Code. XI. Architecture a. Design: The architectural design of the building in this PUD shall be traditional in look and feel and shall allow for the feeling of cohesiveness with any future building that may be constructed on the property immediately to the west. The architecture is complimentary to that which was approved for Subarea C of the Shamrock Crossing PUD and seeks to give the appearance of numerous small tenant spaces. The attached architectural drawings illustrate the architectural design. The final architecture for this subarea shall be in accordance with that which is approved as a part of the final development plan for this PUD, provided that such architecture shall be similar in form and design to that which is illustrated in these exhibits. 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Prcliminary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT b. Height: The maximum building height may not exceed thirty-five (35) feet. c. Materials: Permitted exterior materials shall include stone /synthetic stone, stone veneer, Hardi -plank siding or similar product, and stucco. Wood or engineered wood composite material (e.g. Hardi -plank or Smartside siding and trim) shall be permitted trim materials. Exterior finish materials must be used to complete massing elements. The building generally shall have a similar degree of exterior finish on all sides. All exterior colors shall be selected from a historic color palette. d. Roofs: 1. A material portion of all buildings shall have a pitched or sloped roof (whether hipped or gabled, full or appropriately axed to a parapet wall). Roofs may provide open areas to house and permit the functionality of mechanical and other typical rooftop equipment. 2. All structures shall contain roofing material consisting of dimensional asphalt shingles, cedar shakes or shingles, prefinished standing seam metal, or slate (synthetic or authentic slate). 3. The use of dormers, cupolas, vertical vents, and other architectural treatments is encouraged. e. Doors: 1. All exterior doors on the northern and southern elevations of the building shall be functional and operational. %I1. Signage and Graphics: a. Unless otherwise detailed hereinafter, all signage shall comply with the City of Dublin Sign Code — Sections 153.150, et seq. In the event of a conflict between the City of Dublin Sign Code and this text, this text shall control. b. Location and Type: 1. Signage on public street frontage shall be limited to either (A) one monument sign along Dublin - Granville Road and one monument sign along David Road in accordance with this text, or (B) wall signage on each of these frontages in accordance with this text. 2. Buildinglienant Signs - Wall Signage: Wall signs, when utilized, shall be subject to the following requirements: 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT A. Wall signs shall be integrated into the building facades to compliment the architectural character of this PUD. B. Each tenant shall be permitted one (1) wall sign on each of its storefronts, which shall be defined as any fagade which faces a public right -of -way. C. Each tenant shall be permitted one (1) wall sign at its rear (parking lot) entrance. 3. Wall signage on the West Dublin- Granville Road/S.R. 161 frontage and David Road frontage shall be located on a standard wall plaque of a consistent size and profile. 4. Each wall sign on Dublin - Granville Road and David shall measure a maximum of 9 feet in length and 2 feet in width. Each wall sign on the rear of the building shall measure a maximum of 6 square feet in area. 5. A maximum of three (3) wall sign colors shall be permitted, utilizing low- chroma, subdued color tones. 6. All wall mounted signs may be externally illuminated using similar gooseneck light fixtures throughout the PUD. e. Ground Signage: Ground signs, when utilized, shall be subject to the following requirements: 1. Ground signs shall be permitted only if there is a single tenant occupying the building in this PUD. 2. All ground signs shall have landscaping around the base of the sign as required by Dublin Code. 3. The area of each ground sign base (if any) shall not exceed the area of its sign face. The base shall not be included in the overall area permitted for the sign face. 4. The maximum overall height of each ground sign shall be eight (8) feet above top of adjacent street curb. 5. All ground signs shall be externally illuminated with ground- mounted fixtures. 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TEXT 6. Except as otherwise described above, the setback for all ground signage shall be no less than eight (8) feet from the right -of -way consistent with the City of Dublin Code. XIII. Landscaping a. All landscaping shall meet the minimum requirements set forth in the City of Dublin Zoning Code and shall be in conformance with that which is approved as part of the fmal development plan. b. Property perimeter landscaping shall not be required along the western property line or along Dublin - Granville Road. XIV. Stormwater a. Pervious concrete shall be permitted (but not required) to assist with stormwater management on this site to supplement the use of a stormwater detention swale. Pervious concrete shall conform to the strength and stability standards as required by the City Engineer. b. The use of a green roof or bioretention basins to assist with stormwater mitigation on this site is encouraged (but not required). Bioretention basins or detention swales must be landscaped and well - maintained to be consistent with the character of the landscaping in this PUD and surrounding development. Andal David Rd PUD Text(5) 10.19.09 (alu) (10/19/09) 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road CITY OF DUBLIJ�.. Land use and Long Range Nanning 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone/ TDD:614- 410 -4600 Fax: 614 -410 -4747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION OCTOBER 8, 2009 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 2. Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Proposal: To rezone a 0.53 -acre site from R -4, Suburban Residential District to PUD, Planned Unit Development District to permit educational and commercial uses located at the northwest corner of the David Road and West Dublin - Granville Road intersection. Request: This is a request for review and approval of a rezoning and preliminary development plan under the Planned District provision of Code Section 153.050. Applicant: Sudhir Jindal; represented by, Aaron Underhill, Smith & Hale Planning Contact: Rachel S. Ray, Planner I and Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner II Contact Information: (614) 410 -4600, nay @dublin.oh.us and chusak @dublin.oh.us MOTION: To table this Rezoning /Preliminary Development Plan application at the request of the applicant, to allow reconsideration of the site design and architectural concept. VOTE: 7-0. RESULT: This Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan application was tabled. STAFF CERTIFICATION t� l chel S. Ray Planner 1 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 8, 2009 — Minutes Page 6 of 17 Motion a ote Mr. T or made the motion to a ro ment ve this Corridor Deve District applicatio ecause th roposed fence modificati complies with the Corn Development District r ew criteria d coordinates with the d ign of the existing rests t. Ms. Ray confirm at the gate sZ not a condition. Mr. Zimm an seconded the mo was as follows: r. Tishman, yes; Mr. W er, yes; M . amb, no; Mr. Hardt, yse Groomes, s; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; 2M. Mr. Ta r, yes. (Approved 6 — 1.) 2. Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin- Granville Road 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Chair Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this rezoning/preliminary development plan application to rezone a parcel from R -4, Suburban Residential District, to PUD, Planned Unit Development District, to permit construction of a commercial building. She said the property is located on the north side of West Dublin - Granville Road, west of the intersection with David Road. Rachel Ray presented this request for review and recommendation of approval to City Council for an application to rezone this half -acre parcel to allow a 4,921- square -foot commercial building with up to three tenant spaces and associated site improvements. She described the site, the proposed site plan, and how it relates to the Shamrock Crossing preliminary development plan, which was approved in 2007 for the four acres to the west of this site. She explained that the proposed development text states that the architectural concept is intended to be traditional in look and feel, while also allowing for consistency and cohesiveness with any future buildings constructed with Shamrock Crossing. She noted that the building is designed to give the appearance of a one - and -a -half to two -story building like Shamrock Crossing, and is also comprised of three individually articulated tenant spaces. Ms. Ray stated that the purpose of a preliminary development plan is to establish the overall design concept and building materials and permit the details to be refined and approved with the final development plan. She explained that although the architecture demonstrates general consistency with Shamrock Crossing, several significant details typical of Shamrock Crossing's design have not been effectively translated with this proposal as shown. She listed more differentiation and articulation of the individual tenant spaces and reevaluating the locations of exterior building materials as architectural features that are essential to creating a consistent character that should be addressed prior to final development plan approval. Ms. Ray concluded that Planning has reviewed this proposal based on the review criteria for rezoning and preliminary development plan applications, and it is Planning's opinion that the criteria have either been met, or may be met with conditions. She reported that this development, along with the future Shamrock Crossing, will assist with establishing a pedestrian oriented streetscape along the State Route 161 corridor, which is consistent with the Community Plan and the objectives of the Bridge Street Corridor Study currently underway. She added that this site will also help connect future redevelopment west of Shamrock Drive and east of David Road, and will also contribute to establishing a transition into the Historic District 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 8, 2009 — Minutes Page 7 of 17 Ms. Ray said that based on the review criteria, Planning is recommending approval of this proposal with the following eight conditions: 1) That the applicant continue to work with the City on the traffic study and determine any necessary improvements with the final development plan; 2) That the applicant pay the City of Dublin $6,986 for the improvement of David Road prior to obtaining a building permit unless a more appropriate fee is determined and agreed to by the applicant and the City; 3) That the applicant demonstrate compliance with the City's stormwater management requirements with the submission of the final development plan; 4) That the applicant continue to work with Planning and Engineering to identify a future cross - access point farther north that will provide better vehicular circulation and parking lot cross - access prior to approval of the final development plan; 5) That a sidewalk is constructed between the building and the parking lot to provide pedestrian access to future development to the west; 6) That the sidewalk along David Road be extended to the existing path on Banker Drive; 7) That the development text is revised to address comments in this report prior to scheduling the preliminary development plan/rezoning public hearing at City Council; and 8) That the applicant continue to work with Planning to implement and refine the design details discussed in this report prior to final development plan approval. Aaron Underhill, Smith and Hale, representing the applicant, said that they had worked very diligently with staff on this application over the past seven months. He thought this proposal meets the spirit and intent of the Community Plan and the Area Plan for this property. He explained that the Kumon Learning Center would be the primary tenant, but they were trying to attract other tenants as well. He described the use of the Kumon Learning Center, which he characterized as very low intensity, with hours of operations between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. every day. He said there are typically just a few students at a time, and parents often drop off students and pick them up later. He said they expect this use to occupy at least 40 percent of the building as the primary use, and that is why the need for parking is much lower. He added that if they occupy less than 40 percent of the building, they agreed to increase the parking to meet Code. Mr. Underhill pointed out that the closest and most recent zoning in the area is the Shamrock Crossing development, which the applicant has used to guide their development proposal. He said they pushed the building closer to SR 161 as shown on the Shamrock Crossing preliminary development plan, which he thought was the City's goal and they are happy to coordinate. Mr. Underhill commented that they had created a development with a lot of pedestrian connectivity, and they are setting the stage to permit future development to connect with this site. He recalled that he had worked on the Shamrock Crossing development text during their rezoning, and their intent with this current application is to take those same uses allowed in Subarea C, the subarea closest to this site, and apply generally the same uses. He realized however that this is a smaller site with different development constraints. He said that with respect to cross access, they are more than happy to move the future driveway to the north. Mr. Underhill stated that they had been through several iterations with staff on the proposed architecture, and although he thought there could be some improvements based on staff's comments, he thought they were very close. He asked for the Commission's consideration to 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin- Gram Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 8, 2009 — Minutes Page 8 of 17 allow them to continue working with staff to make some of the remaining improvements before they return for the final development plan. Mr. Underhill expressed his general agreement with the conditions, although he mentioned that they had a few concerns. He referred to Condition 1, regarding signs, and noted that the Zoning Code would base the permitted sign area on the amount of store frontage on the right -of -way, although he recognized that would be too much for this site. He pointed out that the approved Shamrock Crossing signs can be up to 40 square feet, but the proposed development text for this site allows only 22.5 square feet. He said they would like to increase that area to about 30 square feet, if the Commission was willing, which would still be 25 percent less than what is allowed for Shamrock Crossing. Mr. Underhill continued that the signs for Shamrock Crossing oriented toward their parking lot are allowed by their development text to be up to 24 square feet per tenant. He said that they were only proposing 18 square feet, again about 25 percent less than Shamrock Crossing. He said that Planning has asked them to reduce the sign area on the parking lot side of the building to six square feet, which they feel is too small and inconsistent with Shamrock Crossing. Mr. Underhill said that regarding the condition requiring the sidewalk on David Road to connect to Banker Drive, they do not necessarily have an issue with paying their share to get this done, but they believe that the grade change will make difficult. He said they will be giving the City about $7,000 toward improving David Road, and they would prefer the City to take care of the sidewalk extension with some reasonable contribution instead of the applicant. Mr. Underhill added that the other issue they had regarding sidewalks was with the connection to the property to the west. He said they have provided quite a bit of sidewalks, and they are concerned with providing sidewalks to the next site when they do not know where the building will be located. Mr. Underhill said they assumed it would be close to SR 161 like this building, but exact location is unknown. He requested further discussion on this issue as well. Mr. Underhill concluded that he would like further discussion from the Commission regarding Conditions 5, 6, and 7, but they were fine with the rest of the conditions. Ms. Amorose Groomes invited public comment on this application. Kevin Scott, representing his mother, Donnabelle Scott, who resides at 4070 West Dublin - Granville Road, pointed out that the Shamrock Crossing development does not currently include his mother's property. He referred to a statement made in the last paragraph of Section A in the application statement that the price of his mother's property was prohibitively high. He said that the owner of this particular site paid $217,000, but the Shamrock Crossing developers previously had his mother's property in contract at $250,000. He noted that they reduced the price on October 1 to $230,000. He continued that the application stated that the developers of Shamrock Crossing backed out of the contract with his mother because of the exorbitant price, which was not the case. He said that it had been in contract, but an existing AEP easement was found between the properties, which stopped them from being able to build a building across the property line. Mr. Scott said that this property and his mother's property to the west should be developed at the same time. 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 8, 2009 — Minutes Page 9 of 17 Kevin Walter confirmed that the AEP easement ran north and south and asked about the dimensions of the easement. Mr. Scott said he did not know the dimensions of the easement, but thought that nothing could be built over it. Ms. Amorose Groomes invited further public comment. [No one had comments.] Ms. Ray brought to the Commissioners' attention that a statement from the owner of Shamrock Crossing had been placed on the dais before the meeting. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked for clarification regarding the AEP easement and the approved Shamrock Crossing plan. Ms. Ray explained that the Shamrock Crossing development had only a preliminary development plan approved thus far, so they would need to come back for final development plan approval, and the final building layout would be determined at that time. She said a building was conceptually shown over the easement, but there was intent to have some breakup of that building, so the conceptual layout could change. Claudia Husak clarified that the property Mr. Scott was referring to is included in the Shamrock Crossing preliminary development plan, so it is zoned PUD; however, the owners of Shamrock Crossing do not own Mrs. Scott's property. She said that Mrs. Scott was a co- applicant at the rezoning. She said the existence of the easement was not known when this was approved. Mr. Walter asked if the AEP easement had active lines located in it. Ms. Husak said she was not sure, but they would look at what type of development would be feasible within the easement at the final development plan. She said the buildings were approved with a certain square footage, but exact location was unknown. Ms. Kramb asked how many parking spaces would be required for this site if the Kumon Learning Center did not occupy 40 percent of the building. Ms. Ray said that it would depend upon what the uses were, and they would be required to meet Code. Ms. Kramb asked how many spaces would be needed at maximum, since there is not much room to add more parking spaces. Ms. Husak said they would need approximately 20 parking spaces. Ms. Ray added that there might be enough room to add a few extra parking spaces or work out a joint parking agreement if cross - access to the future Shamrock Crossing parking lot to the west was provided. Ms. Kramb asked why the development text did not require property perimeter landscaping from SR 161. Ms. Ray explained that per Code, the property perimeter landscaping requirement along major arterials like SR 161 is a six -foot mound or screen. She stated that because such a large amount of screening would not contribute to the pedestrian- oriented streetscape desired on SR 161, they were proposing to eliminate this requirement from the development text. John Hardt asked what would happen to the stormwater swale if cross - access is provided to the adjacent property. Ms. Ray said that at the final development plan, the actual location of the access will be finalized, and either an easement on the adjacent property would be required, or they would have to reconfigure the stormwater swale. She noted that the proposed development text permits pervious pavement and a green roof, so the applicant could use any combination of these stormwater management methods as long as they comply with the Code. 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 8, 2009 — Minutes Page 10 of 17 Mr. Fishman asked if this site meets the Zoning Code parking requirements based on the proposed permitted uses. Ms. Ray confirmed that the parking would meet Code. Mr. Walter said that this is a classic infill development, and he did not really like this application. He thought they were trying to force too much onto a small site. He said he did not care about the parking in this particular case because he would like to see this parcel more densely populated with a building and significantly less parking, perhaps with a shared parking arrangement with Shamrock Crossing. Mr. Walter said he was sensitive to the neighbor to the west and how it will be impacted by what happens on this parcel. He said that because they might end up with a gap between buildings due to the easement, it makes sense to try to incorporate the parcel to the west into this development, although he realized that the Commission cannot require that of the applicant. He said the architecture was bland, and he did not like the parking layout in the back because it does not seem functional. Ms. Kramb asked for clarification of the development text section A -2, regarding the administrative approval of patios. She asked if it meant that the use of the patios will be subject to administrative approval, not what they look like. Ms. Ray answered that the appearance and layout of the patio would be part of the final development plan approval, and then as new tenants came in, use of the patio would be administratively approved if the criteria in the text is met. Ms. Kramb said she did not understand why patios would be allowed since restaurants are not permitted. Ms. Ray clarified that restaurants are permitted as a conditional use. She mentioned that the patio was intended to help reinforce the pedestrian oriented streetscape. Ms. Kramb said she was okay with the wall signs as described by Mr. Underhill; however, she was unsure about the ground signs. Ms. Kramb agreed that since they do not know what will be built to the west, a sidewalk connection to the west should not be required, and she did not think the architecture had to look like Shamrock Crossing. She concluded that she was okay with this proposal, but she was not thrilled with it. Warren Fishman said this was complicated for him because this is part of Dublin's gateway and he hated to see a small shopping center on this site, with a car wash across David Road from this site. He agreed with the other Commissioners' comments that combining this site with the adjacent lot could allow something of substance to be built. He said that cross access and shared parking would be fine if they had a project that looked great and coordinated with Shamrock. Todd Zimmerman said he had no problem rezoning this parcel for this particular use. He referred to Condition 8, stating that the applicant would continue working with staff on the architecture. He said he was not yet comfortable with the architecture to the point where he was ready to approve this as a preliminary development plan. John Hardt said that he did not have a problem with rezoning this property either, specifically putting a relatively small building on it. He said that in the context of Shamrock Crossing and the other projects in the area, he thought a variety of smaller buildings could be very nice. Mr. Hardt agreed with some of the other Commissioners that the architecture has to be consistent and of similar character to the Shamrock Crossing, and this application does not accomplish that. 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Prcliminary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 8, 2009 — Minutes Page 11 of 17 Mr. Walter suggested a plaza or a green in between this site and the adjacent parcel that could lend more of a village -feel to this site. He thought that this looked like a strip mall with parking in the back instead of the front, and a couple of smaller buildings on the site might actually add some character and maybe preserve the idea that there used to be single - family homes here. Richard Taylor said that although "pedestrian- oriented design" is in the Community Plan and the Corridor Development District, he does not think that sidewalks and pseudo- historic building facades alone make something "pedestrian- oriented." He explained that in his reading of the Community Plan, the intent in this area is to cluster buildings as Mr. Walter described, so that the pedestrian- orientation is more interior to the site. He did not believe that the point of pedestrian- oriented design is to push pedestrians toward SR 161. Mr. Taylor said that he could not support this project as presented. He thought that the Community Plan and the CDD requirements specifically require a very high level of architecture here, as shown with Shamrock Crossing. Mr. Taylor said this is a weak imitation of Shamrock Crossing, and has a long way to go. Mr. Taylor said what needs to be done is way beyond minor changes, and he thought they could do much better. Mr. Taylor said that regarding the signs, this is an opportunity on a very visible site to do something different than the typical, flat, scalloped -edge signs with gooseneck light fixtures. Ms. Amorose Groomes agreed with Mr. Taylor's comments. She reiterated that the Commission must utilize the review criteria in evaluating applications. She referred to Criteria 3, that "the proposed development advances the general welfare of the City and immediate vicinity, and will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding areas." She said she did not know how this proposal had come before the Commission in its current state, because the outstanding issues have a profound impact on orderly site development. Ms. Amorose Groomes said they also have to consider the impacts on the adjacent property. She concluded that the Commission seems to agree that this proposal does not meet Criteria 3, and therefore, if it does not meet the criteria, she cannot support this application. Ms. Amorose Groomes clarified that she did not have a problem with rezoning the property, but she did not want to create an isolated development on this site, because then the Commission will be painting themselves into a corner from which there will be no way out. She asked Mr. Underhill how he would like to proceed, given the Commission's comments this evening. Mr. Underhill said they would be happy to return with modified architecture and he would not ask for a vote tonight. He said from the applicant's perspective, they thought that they were meeting the spirit and intent of the Community Plan by pushing the buildings toward SR 161, even though they do not care where the building is located. He pointed out that they meet Code regarding lot coverage and parking requirements, and 9,000 square feet per acre is not an intense density. Mr. Underhill thought this could work with some modifications. He recalled that when Shamrock Crossing was approved, they were not required to buy this particular property before it was approved, and unfortunately, with infill sites, they often have little pieces of land that they have to try to develop appropriately. He requested that the Commission table this case. Ms. Amorose Groomes reiterated that the Zoning Code is only one component of their review, since the Code, the Community Plan, the review criteria, and the uses all play a role. Mr. 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission October 8, 2009 — Minutes Page 12 of 17 Underhill understood, but clarified that he did not think they were forcing too much onto this site, since the proposal meets Code. Steve Langworthy pointed out that Mr. Hardt had questions regarding the signs. Ms. Amorose Groomes surveyed the Commissioners to see if they at a point where they were ready to discuss signs for this application, because it is her opinion that the application was not ready yet. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if Mr. Underhill had any other questions that would help continue this process. Mr. Underhill said he understood that architecture is a problem. He asked if there was consensus that the use was appropriate and consistent with the Community Plan. Ms. Amorose Groomes said there is no issue with the use. She said that the applicant is a good corporate citizen, and they welcome this establishment and will work with them toward that end. Mr. Underhill requested that the Commission to consider with an open mind whether or not they have to acquire Mrs. Scott's property in order to get this development approved, because he thought this site could work without that parcel. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that Mr. Underhill was requesting the application to be tabled. Motion and Vote Mr. Taylor made the motion to table this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan application at the request of the applicant, to allow reconsideration of the site design and architectural concept. Mr. Zimmerman seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: Ms. Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; Ms. Kramb, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Taylor, yes. (Tabled 7 — 0.) 3. giver ' e Drive Animal Care rater 6924 Riverside Dr` e 09 9CDDS Corr' or Development Distric ign /aerinary is Amorose Groomes i oduced this application replace an existing gro sign for care center loca on the east side of Riv ide Drive, north of the ' ersection of oad. She swore those who intended to ak in regards to this c e including the applicant, James Hard , Signcom, Inc. and City presentatives. Claudia Hus resented this Corridor evelopment District (C)^ sign application. S explained t the purpose of the nridor Development Di ict was to overlay a z rag require a rat to ensure that that e ' ing and future commer ' development is of hig uality. She td all signs within the C require review and ap val by the Commission, Zich is the 1 step before obtaimn sign permit. Ms. H explained that this si was recently annexed into Dublin an one of the requirements the annexation agreeme as that the signs would come into co liance with Code and re ive through this CDD pro ss. Ms. Husak s that the City was gea ' up for the construction Emerald Parkway Phas , and this is in that vicinity that impact of the turning 1 She said a significant ce of right- -way is being acquired t ough the annexation pro ss. She said therefore, the existinc 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Prelinunary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road CITY OF DUBLIR. LW Use and long Rur F 5600 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone: 6144104600 Fox: 614.4104747 Web Site: www.dublin.oh.us PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF DISCUSSION AUGUST 20, 2009 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Shamrock Auto Spa 4012 West Dublin- Granville Road 09 -066CP Concept Plan Proposal: A carwash with four lanes for a one -acre parcel located on the north side of West Dublin- Granville Road, east of the intersection with David Road. Request: Review and feedback of a concept plan under the Planned District provisions of Code Section 153.050. Applicant: Shamrock Auto Spa, LLC; represented by Michael Close and Thomas Hart, Wiles, Boyle, Burkholder & Bringardner Co, LPA. Planning Contact: Jennifer Rauch, AICP, Planner II. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4690, irauch @dublin.oh.us RESULT: Most Commissioners supported the proposal and did not believe that the pedestrian- oriented development shown o the Community Plan's Area Plan can be accomplished for this particular site. While the Commission would have preferred a larger development incorporating more land, the Commission provided the applicant with feedback regarding the site layout, landscaping, and architecture for incorporating it into a rezoning application. STAFF CERTIFICATION Claudia D. Husak, AICP Planner II 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoiung/Preliminary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin- Granville Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 20, 2009 — Minutes Page 2 of 23 Administrative Business Ms. Amorose Groomes announced there were no consent items and that the cases would be heard in the order of the published agenda. 1. Shamrock Auto Spa 4012 West Dublin - Granville Road 09 -066CP Concept Plan Chair Amorose Groomes explained that this was a discussion about a concept only, and the applicant will be provided with feedback from the Commission and no action would be taken. Claudia Husak presented this request for review and feedback on this Concept Plan for a proposed carwash. She said in July 2007, the Commission reviewed a similar proposal from the same applicant for the same site. She said some Commissioners were not supportive of the proposed use on the site as it did not meet the Future Land Use Map or the Area Plan, and some Commissioners thought that with some modifications, this use might work on the site. She said the applicant is back to hear additional comments from the new Commissioners not present in July 2007. Ms. Husak said the site is approximately one acre, located on the northeast corner of West Dublin - Granville Road, east of David Road. She said to the west there is one lot between this site and the Shamrock Crossing development, approved in early 2007, which includes commercial uses oriented toward the road on the north and south sides of West Dublin - Granville Road. She said this site and the property to the west are zoned R -4 which is a high density residential designation, and the land to the south, farther to the north, and west are all zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District, and to the west is Lowe's and vacant land both zoned CC, Community Commercial District. Ms. Husak presented the proposed site plan showing a 5,000- square -foot carwash oriented toward West Dublin - Granville Road, which includes four carwash bays and stacking. She explained that Code requires 12 spaces per lane for a carwash. She said the building is set back 40 feet from West Dublin- Granville Road. Ms. Husak said an escape lane is provided to the south of the building. She said there is an access point off Banker Drive and landscaping has been provided around all sides of the site. Ms. Husak presented the SR161 /Sawmill Road Area Plan that states that the planning goals for the area are to develop a coordinated mix of office, retail, and mixed residential uses while establishing a stronger sense of place and central focus. She said that the plan should facilitate pedestrian movement between uses and enhance the approach to Historic Dublin from the east. She said that was one of the focuses of the Shamrock Crossing development where there was a lot of discussion about was where the buildings should sit and what type of uses would be permitted there. Ms. Husak said Planning's concern is that the nature of a carwash is not in any way pedestrian oriented, and the way the building is oriented and the use of the building prevents any pedestrian activity and therefore, it is Planning's opinion that the Area Plan is not met for this particular use. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 20, 2009 — Minutes Page 3 of 23 Ms. Husak said on the Future Land Use Map within the Community Plan, this site is designated as General Commercial, which is intended to account for many of the existing commercial uses within this area that currently predominately depend upon the automobile for access. She said the Community Plan considers this category somewhat outdated and not envisioned to be used for future development in this particular area. Ms. Husak said the General Commercial category as a broad use category includes auto - oriented uses, however with the Area Plan, auto oriented use was not contemplated to be part of the General Commercial area or as part of the General Commercial use on this particular site. Ms. Husak said the applicant included architecture for the carwash building. She said the building has been turned to have the doors face east and west rather than south, which was the 2007 proposal. She said the applicant is trying to put some elements together that would be reminiscent of the Shamrock Crossing architecture. However, she said it was still Planning's concern that having the garage doors facing both roadways as you approach is not the most desirable view on this roadway. Ms. Husak presented some Preliminary Development Plan elevations submitted in 2007 of Shamrock Crossing that Mr. Taylor had requested be shown. Ms. Husak said based on the findings discussed in this presentation, it was Planning's belief that even though the Future Land Use Map is technically met, the Area Plan is not met, and the Land Use Principles that are also part of the Community Plan are not met with this particular use on this particular site. She said Planning is basing the findings on the fact that the building is set back too far from the street to create the street edge that Planning is envisioning here and in the Area Plan. She said it hinders any pedestrian- oriented activities, it does not meet the recommendation and design intent of the Area Plan, and the architecture is not compatible with what is envisioned along West Dublin- Granville Road, particularly because of the presence of the garage doors. Ms. Husak said that Planning also believes that the proposal is inconsistent with what was approved for the design, intent, and uses of the Shamrock Crossing development. Mike Close, Wiles, Boyle, Burkholder & Bringardner Co., LPA, representing the applicant, Shamrock Auto Spa, LLC said that when they were before the Commission informally in July 2007, the building was set in the center of the property, oriented with the bays open on the north and south ends of the property. He said they heard loud and clear the Commission comments about architecture. He said this plan moves the entire building closer to SR 161 /Dublin - Granville Road, to the building line, with the exception of a 15 -foot escape lane on the south side of the property. Mr. Close said generally, the architecture and waterfalls on the front of the property do a significant amount of screening to this project so that the cars will not be seen, as staff believes they will be seen. He said it was interesting that Planning's comments on this report, compared to what was done in 2007, were almost line for line identical, so if nothing, they have been consistent on what they said. He said he thought the whole issue with this particular project was that he did not agree that this architecture is not high quality and not consistent with what was going on in Shamrock Crossing. He said from his perspective, the whole deal is what is the intent and use as Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 20, 2009 — Minutes Page 4 of 23 far as this pedestrian- oriented area is concerned. He said they all knew that in that area with nothing to the east for miles but commercial, and nothing to the west for miles but commercial, and no particularly large businesses like a Cardinal, Wendy's, or OCLC in the area, that this is not going to be an area where there will be hoards of people walking east and west on those sidewalks. Mr. Close said the issue then really is, does the fact that they are going to have essentially right turn in onto this property really hinder the pedestrian flow, and he did not think that it does. He said it would be seen also from the last plan, that instead of entering the project from David Road, that they moved the access so that they enter from Banker Drive. Mr. Close said it seemed to him that the real issue here was that pedestrian issue. He said they are within the Community Plan. He said by definition, this project would go into the Community Plan as a General Commercial use. He said the question was really, what kind of impact they have on the pedestrians; what kind of impact does it have visually when you have this kind of landscaping and waterfalls in front of the project for those few pedestrians that will be there to walk through. Mr. Close said additionally, given the fact that this is a one -acre site that was not developed with Shamrock Crossing, he did not know how else it could be developed. Mr. Close said in that regard, he thought this kind of proposal was absolutely the kind of thing that does not detract from the appearance, detract from the connectivity, or interfere with the pedestrian traffic any more than any other project would because he thought anything you could get there, cars would have to turn back in to get to the project. Mr. Close said for all the reasons he mentioned, he respectively disagreed with the analysis of staff as far as those kind of impacts go. Ms. Amorose Groomes asked for Commission discussion. Todd Zimmerman said he was present the last time and he remembered that the building had been pulled forward. He asked how close the buildings from SR 161 were originally planned for Shamrock Crossing. Ms. Husak said the Shamrock Crossing text leaves the exact number open, so that was something that was to be determined at the final development plan stage. However, she recalled that in some instances, there were numbers like 15 feet, 30 feet, or 20 feet, something within that area discussed. She said they really wanted to have some relief to that, so there might be patio space that is a little bit further set back within kind of a recess. Mr. Zimmerman asked what the distance was from Dublin - Granville Road to the building edge. Mr. Close said the only thing that they had allowed for the bypass lane was 15 feet. Ms. Husak said it was around 45 feet total. Mr. Close agreed, but said that two - thirds of that is landscaping. He said simply put, if they did away with the escape lane, they would still be roughly 30 feet back. Mr. Zimmerman asked if an escape lane was required. Mr. Close said he did not think they were required to, legally. Mr. Zimmerman said his biggest concern was the Community Plan. He said he thought it would be based upon what they Commissioners thought about the Community Plan. He asked if they are going on how Planning looks at the Community Plan, that will be one way, or if they feel that this is part of the Community Plan. He said he was undecided a little either way to be very honest. He said it was going to be a classic infill, and there were two sites to the west. He asked if this was what the Community Plan wanted to fill it with, and what the whole thought was that they worked Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 20, 2009 — Minutes Page 5 of 23 so many hours on doing the recent Community Plan. Mr. Zimmerman said he wanted to hear the other Commissioners' thoughts. Warren Fishman said it was the wrong use. He said the architecture was lovely and as carwashes go, it is a great- looking carwash. He said there are plenty of places in this area for development. He said there is a house across the street and other available lots. Mr. Fishman said in Dublin, properties are accumulated and put together as one parcel. He said however, in his opinion, once the carwash is on this site, it sets the stage, and it would not set the stage for high -end office or retail office or whatever. He said it is Dublin's corridor. Mr. Fishman said he agreed with Planning's recommendation. He said they fought to make that corridor look beautiful and it has a long way to go for development. He said they wanted to set the stage with some high -end use, not that carwashes are not needed and used. Mr. Fishman said regarding pedestrians, he agreed that right now, people will not be walking there, but if someone accumulates all that property and puts something there, then we will have pedestrian use, and that is kind of what was envisioned in the Community Plan. He said coming in off Dublin's side of Sawmill Road, coming into the corridor of Dublin we should have something that is high -end and attracts people, and so on, is needed, and a carwash will not do it. Mr. Fishman wanted it to be understood that the carwash was welcome in Dublin, that it was very well thought out, and he liked the way it was switched, but he thought it was the wrong place. He said the minutes provided had not changed his mind. Kevin Walter said he had a problem with the use because of the location of where it was because it was kind of a gateway element for the City. He said a lot has been done in the last few years to bring the east side of the river into more of a neighborhood feel. He said when Mr. Close talked about them "not hindering pedestrian flow" he did not think that was the intent of pedestrian orientation. He said making a sidewalk and a nice path to go through is one thing. He said it was a nice sidewalk and the waterfall looked great. Mr. Walter said that things for pedestrians to do are needed. He said across the street, some sort of residential living is being contemplated, there is Wendy's Headquarters, Shamrock Crossing is being built, and things are being done to try to draw people to that side of the river. He said he had trouble with the pedestrian orientation, and that was one of his concerns. Mr. Walter said the garage door sort of architecture was another concern. He said he liked that it was turned, but the garage doors will be seen from the road and that was problematic. He said it would be horrible in the winter when there is no activity on the site and you will just see the garage doors. Mr. Walter said he did not believe this was classic infill. He said classic infill to him would indicate that there were no available parcels anywhere around there. He said if something is put on the parcel without accumulating land around it will make the parcel directly to the west undevelopable, not that it is the applicant's responsibility to accumulate land. Mr. Walter said it was the Commission's responsibility to try to look at things like that. He agreed the carwash was needed and if he were the owner of a carwash, he would want to be on SR 161 too. Mr. Walter said he would prefer to see the facility maybe back off Banker Drive if something were available there. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 20, 2009 — Minutes Page 6 of 23 Mr. Zimmerman asked if Mr. Walter was talking about the garage doors or the openings. Mr. Walter noted that there were no garage doors shown on the plan. Mr. Walter said regarding the escape lane, should at some point this concept moves forward, it would actually be beneficial to cover that escape lane and make it a non- functioning carport. He said that would pull it a little closer, so if there is some agreement that could be there, that might be an addition that might be helpful. Mr. Close asked Mr. Walter if the parcel directly to the north, on the north side of Banker Drive would meet Mr. Walter's location problem. Mr. Walter said he thought that was a great suggestion. Mr. Close said if they moved back a lot, the position might be a little different. Mr. Walter said even if it were on Village Parkway it would have to be reconfigured. He said he was not trying to move them away from an area that does not have flow, because it is needed for the facility; he said he thought right in front of the City is probably problematic. Mr. Close said he was not arguing with Mr. Walter. He said he was appreciating his comment for what it was. Ms. Amorose Groomes clarified the location of the two detention basins. Ms. Husak said there is some development potential for the eastern half. She said there is an outlot available. Mr. Close pointed out that was still on Dublin - Granville Road, so that would be the same problem. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was trying to figure out how much land could be accumulated here to put something together. She asked if the sliver might have some possibility. Ms. Husak said there was just one site to the west of this and an application has been received for a learning center and maybe some other commercial use for the lot. Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested the two parcels be tied together to get more land. Ms. Husak said even though there is the other lot; it is currently residential, and included in Shamrock Crossing. She said it is still for sale. Mr. Close said that would require a vacation of David Drive. Ms. Husak said she did not believe that Engineering would have any qualms about that. She said David Road had already been vacated to the north. Ms. Amorose Groomes confirmed that the parcel could be tied together as 1.5 -acre, or this could go to Shamrock Crossing. Ms. Husak said there was a possibility. Mr. Zimmerman asked if the house west of the gray house was part of Shamrock Crossing. Ms. Husak said there were two houses west of David Road. She said the house immediately to the west of David Road was the one that an application has been submitted and now it is a half -acre site. She said another single - family house is part of Shamrock Crossing. Mr. Fishman pointed out that if someone wanted to accumulate land for an office, they could also regrade that retention and put the retention on the other side of it, and then there would be two acres there, and then if David Road were vacated and Shamrock Crossing wanted to expand their use, they could have probably five acres there. Ms. Husak said that was speculation at this point. Mr. Zimmerman said at least in the front, there could be two acres and the width of David Road. Ms. Husak said there was definitely vacant land around the site. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 20, 2009 — Minutes Page 7 of 23 Amy Kramb said she was okay with this. She said she thought it was far enough east, there were the retention ponds to the north and east of it, and you come up and see Lowe's, and this is much more attractive than the sign and entry into Lowe's. She said that with the mounding, landscaping, and waterfall, it would be the best - looking carwash in Dublin. Ms. Kramb said there would be pedestrians from Shamrock Crossing, but there is nowhere else to walk. She said she could not think what could be put on a one -acre spot that will draw that many more pedestrians. She reiterated that she was okay with it. Ms. Kramb said she thought it was an appropriate use for that small parcel. She said there were too many unknowns to assume requiring more land, retention basins, and that Lowe's would sell anything, and whatever. Mr. Walter asked when the point would be reached where sprawl from Sawmill Road is enough. He asked how far into Dublin are we going to do this. He said they have to think further down the road about what happens across the street, what happens to Stoneridge Medical, and what happens to the big parcel of land that is to the east. Mr. Walter said Lowe's to him, felt like it should be the end of the real heavy commercial corridor, and he did not like it creeping in a little more, and a little more. Ms. Kramb said that was the other side of the street, and she did not see people crossing SR 161 here. She said she was okay with it being just one acre. She said you would see the difference and know that you are in Dublin. She said it will look very different and be landscaped. Richard Taylor said his biggest issue is with the description of the area as being pedestrian - oriented. He said this is why he asked Ms. Husak to show the elevations. He said there was a difference between "pedestrian- oriented development" and "pedestrian- oriented looking development," and in his opinion, this was a "pedestrian- oriented looking development." He said the buildings are on the street and there is a narrow sidewalk, but if you look at the site plan, 100 percent of the access is by car from the back. Mr. Taylor said no one will park in the back and walk around the front. He did not think cafes and umbrellas would be seen in front of the shops here. He said in fact, given the location, he speculated that there would not be much retail opening in these places. Mr. Taylor said there was no question it would look good on the street, but he did not see that as something that generated pedestrian activity. Steve Langworthy said he absolutely agreed with Mr. Taylor. He said Planning talked with Shamrock Crossing before any final development plans are prepared, and it was requested that they create locations where pedestrians could move from the front to the rear because activating the street does not do any good unless you give people access to the street in some manner other than coming through a retail or restaurant space. Mr. Langworthy said Planning expects that when the final development plan is submitted, there will be something created that people go through that way. Mr. Taylor said that was helpful, but as you look up and down the street there are so many already developed places that are not going to be pedestrian - oriented, but Historic Dublin is attempting to be and hopefully will be developed more that way in the future. He said starting down Riverside Drive, obviously there is development on the corner that things could change there. He said Wendy's headquarters will remain as a corporate office where there is a sidewalk and beautiful landscaping, but it is not a pedestrian- oriented development. Mr. Taylor said across the street, the Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 20, 2009 — Minutes Page 8 of 23 Shops at River Ridge development, which was done either before or during the publication of the Community Plan. He said it has that same pedestrian- oriented appearance to it, but it has the site plan and development as another strip center. He said it was internally oriented, the parking lot is in the front, and all the shops are at the back. Mr. Taylor said had that place been turned the other direction so that those shops were out on the street, and the parking was in the back the way that Shamrock Crossing is intended to be, there would be a large chunk of streetscape being developed at that end of the street. He said coming a little farther to the east, there is La Scala, Oakland Nurseries, Leo Alfred's, and the limited access drive that comes across there and all of those things in his opinion are barriers to pedestrian orientation. Mr. Taylor did not think there was any pedestrian orientation for this to continue. Mr. Taylor said more specifically, the idea that pushing the building toward the street is going to enhance the pedestrian orientation only makes sense if this building has the kind of business that people are going to come and go from the street, and clearly, they are not. He said this building is designed so that you do not get out of the car, so there is no pedestrian use of that. He said he thought if the building were to appear here that the "pedestrian- orientation" would be better served by shoving it back to where it was before, not turning it, but pushing it back on the lot and taking the area in the front and developing that further as landscaping and maybe a little pocket park, or something that enlivens that if that is going to be a pedestrian area. Mr. Taylor said he thought that was one way to take a step towards the pedestrian orientation. Mr. Taylor said comments about the architecture were warranted because it was mentioned in the Planning Report. He said that the building is compatible with the buildings on the street; however, he did not think that was a good thing. He said he thought this building was trying too hard to look like Historic Dublin and old buildings. He said that Dublin has a number of very attractive buildings that have no or very little historic imageries of them, and yet fit wonderfully in this community. Mr. Taylor said the three most obvious examples were the new hospital, the MAG building, and Cardinal Health which were buildings that fit very well in Dublin that stand well as known architecture and do not try to imitate anything else in Dublin. He said he would have made these comments on Shamrock Crossing if he had been on the Commission at the time it was presented. Mr. Taylor said that this is not Historic Dublin and he did not think they should try to make it that. Mr. Taylor said the building should be good architecture and something that is of high quality. He said it just does not have to be a hip roof, a tower, arches, little gooseneck lamps, rounded dormers, and things that try to imitate that look. He mentioned the carwash that existed in Historic Dublin a few years ago. He suggested a building that was much less obvious that did not have a big, tall hip roof on it, hid itself behind the landscaping, had nice signage out front to indicate that the carwash was there, and let that building be a nice architectural object on its own without trying to imitate something else. He commented that this kind of project of this size and scale is the kind of thing that is presented to third -year design students to do something with, take an otherwise mundane project, and see what exciting things they can do with it. He said if the architects thought about it from a "how can this be a special building" as opposed to "how can it be a building that duplicates and replicates and fits in with everything else on the street," you might get something that is attractive in its own right. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 20, 2009 — Minutes Page 9 of 23 Mr. Taylor said he thought the tower is a non - starter, and certainly, because of recent discussions the Commission has had, there is no way that the sign is going to go up 25 feet into the air as shown. Mr. Taylor summarized that he did not buy the pedestrian- orientation aspect of this and he thought that the community and the building itself are going to be better served by making it less visible, less obvious than what is drawn. Mr. Walter asked about the Leo Alfred building's red tower that was massive in scale compared to what was around it. He said he hoped that when the rest of that develops that it will look better and like it belongs in that space. He asked if there was a way to tie this building to that building to better integrate those pieces. Mr. Taylor said they were pretty far apart. He said one of the things that we have in Dublin, as discussed a few weeks ago about the Germain project, is that we tend to have low buildings that do not stand out and the signage does not predominate, but they still seem to do okay and still attract business. He said the earliest example he was aware of was the old BP station on Bridge Street that is now a Mr. Tire. He said when it was built, it was behind mounding, very low key, and you did not see the bays from the street. He said signage was low to the ground, out the front and it worked out very nicely. Mr. Taylor said at a gas station that was integrated in Lakewood, Ohio on a major street in a very residential area, the only sign it was a gas station was a ground sign and the building itself was in the background, and yet people still find it and use it successfully for years. He said that he thought there were ways to integrate this into the overall streetscapes that do not necessarily require it to replicate and imitate what is there. Mr. Taylor said this was a great example of where less would be more here in a big way. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she was not opposed to this and did not feel the use is counter to the Community Plan. She said while the Plan is a moving and breathing document, she did not have any fundamental problems with this being a carwash. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she shared Mr. Walter's concern with the property immediately to the west and certain that it is not Mr. Close's or his client's problem, but it should cause the Commission pause to figure out what it is that they can do with that particularly because their access is coming in from Banker Drive that they would really need David Road to stay in place for their access. She said once this would go through, abandoning David Road would be very problematic for this application. Ms. Amorose Groomes said her hope would be that the resident there might enter into some discussions with Shamrock Crossing if they ever had any interest in not residing in that home. She said she did not have tremendous problems with this being a carwash. She said she liked the way it was oriented. She said the Commission asked that it be changed, and they did. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not like the architecture. She said she saw a lot of roof, and every time she looked at the Leo Alfred building, all she sees is roof. She said she would like to see the building be of all natural materials. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she liked the arches and would like to see them on both sides. She said she would like to see a little more stone and less roof. She said the sign would never go that high in the air, so whatever building was designed, a place for the sign should be built that is in a reasonable elevation because the Commission does not like to put billboards in the air. Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission August 20, 2009 — Minutes Page 10 of 23 Ms. Amorose Groomes asked if anyone from the public would like to speak to this application. [There was no reply.] Mr. Walter explained that his problem was with the use, which might be solved by the orientation of the building, but he did not know. He said so far they have provided a building that goes horizontal and a building that goes vertical, so they are either stuck with looking at the bays when driving by or struck with looking at the bays. He said he did not like coming up from the hill from the river and at the top seeing car wash bays for the next 50 years. He said maybe an orientation to the building that may cantilever it into the site might do something to eliminate that view shed and with proper screening and things like that, that may eliminate it. Mr. Walter said when Historic Dublin came in for the Bridge and High Streets development, the Commission looked at a series of view sheds and had some triangulation of what it would look like when sitting in the intersection. He said it would be interesting to see what it looks like coming from the east and west to get a better sense of what you may see. Mr. Walter said he suspected that if the building was oriented the opposite way and the eastern edge of the property were screened, it would eliminate seeing the bays when coming up the river, and when coming from Sawmill Road side of it, screening might handle that. Ms. Amorose Groomes said the landscape plant palette had a long way to go. She expected a carwash like this to have a higher end plant selection than Purple Leaf Sand Cherries and things that seen at a gas station in the City of Columbus. She said she would like to see a nice plant palette if it were to move forward. Ms. Amorose Groomes encouraged mounding on the east and west corners that could taper down where the waterfalls and things are out in the center and it would come gently down which would help visually. She said she liked the orientation because only the first two bays would be seen, whereas if the building were oriented in the other way, all four bays would be seen all the time, screaming at you in the face. Mr. Zimmerman asked everyone to remember that this carwash will be open 24/7. He said regarding the carwash on Avery Road between Rings and Woemer Temple Roads, at the time, the Commission had no choice because it was in the text that the carwash was permitted. He said when seen at night, the inside of the building is white and it is a beacon that really shines. He said it was not the parking lot lighting. He said it was big and glowed. Mr. Zimmerman said there would be four bays here that are going to glow. He asked if that was what they wanted to look at 10 to 12 hours a day, depending upon what time of year it was. He said that was part of the orientation for pedestrian traffic. He asked if that was the vision wanted because of the orientation and traffic. Mr. Zimmerman said he thought the vision someday was for the restaurants and businesses they wanted to see. He asked that the Commissioners think about that. Mr. Walter said that was a good point, and hoped that some of the concerns will be worked out if this comes back to the Commission. Mr. Zimmerman recalled that the Avery Road carwash landscape plan included a lot of extra tree caliper because they took many trees down and the Commission made them keep everything on site. He estimated it was 60 to 80 more caliper inches. He said it was vast with the trees and what all is there, but when you see it, it is nothing special. Dublin Pluming and Zoning Commission August 20, 2009 - Minutes Page I I of 23 Mr. Walter encouraged the applicant to think through the stacking, the vacuum island, and how a car could join back into the lane. He said everyone wants to pick the short lane, so thinking through the site plan is important. Mr. Fishman clarified that he did not want to give the impression that he was against this because of the walking corridor. He said he was against it because he thought it was the wrong use for an entrance. He said, as Mr. Walter had commented, where is the commercial going to stop. He said they did not want this to look like Hamilton Road, they wanted it to look like the entrance of Dublin. Mr. Fishman said however beautiful this building is made, a carwash will still be seen when coming up and down the hill, and he thought that probably was not the best use for this property. He referred to the Community Plan where the spirit of this corridor is something that reflects Dublin, and said whether it is office architecture or something that looks like the hospital, or something, he did not think anyone envisioned a carwash, gas station, or something like that. Mr. Fishman said he thought something that looked like Shamrock Crossing or Stoncridge Medical Center was envisioned, and that was why he was against this. He said if there is a need for a carwash, there are other properties elsewhere in the area on Shamrock Boulevard and so on where it could be built. Mr. Close thanked the Commissioners for their comments and attention. 2. Tartan Ridge —Section 3 09- 036FDI' /FP Final Development Plan/ Final Play Ms. Amorose Groomes explained that this application i�for a Final Development Plan/ Fin l 'Plat for 26 lots in the Tartan Ridge neighborhood in t northern portion of Dublin. Sh� wore in those who intended to speak in regards to t 's application, including Charles risco11 who represented the applicant, Tartan Ridge, LL , and City representatives. Claudia Husak said this is a Final evelopmcnt Plan and Final Pla or the third section of a residential development within ' artan Ridge, and the Final Plat quires a recommendation to City Council for final appr al and the final approval of the "nal Development Plan rests with the Commission. She s� Tartan Ridge is located in the n ernmost portion of the City and it is a Planned Unit De opment that shares its southern oundary on McKitrick Road with T ftan West. She sai o the east is Jerome Road and n Tartan Fields, which is outside o rc City boundary, ock Road is to the north and t he west is Hyland -Croy Road. M . - lusak said Glacier idge Elementary school is locat d within a portion of this developmen he presented a ph graph, which indicated the subjoet site, which are the proposed lots i ediately adjacent to fire school. She said the slide it 'cated the approved 2007 Preliminar evelopmcnt Plan. She said the whole developm includes 246 single-family lots, out 68,000 - square -feet of commercial developme m the southwestern corner, 24 town4oirise units, and approximately 70- acres of open spac !She indicated where the II home, hick were included as part of the Parade of Horries July was north of these, proposed Ws. Ms. Hi , jsAc presented the proposed Final Plat Section 3, which includes 26 single- family lots, nu eyed 145 through 170, and includes Aeserve `O' which is 20 feet in width and many existing ature trees. She said the lots are accessed by Glacier Ridge Boulevard to the north that provides RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 22, 2007 Page 3 Ms. Puskarcik stated that this information is published. When the City's programming begins in February, that service will be included. The City plans to include their schedule, together with the City's production schedule. The City's web site will have that information prior to the February start -up of the broadcasting. LEGISLATION SECOND READING /PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCES Ordinance 01 -07 Rezoning Approximately 18 Acres, Located at the Intersection of West Dublin Granville Road and Shamrock Boulevard, from SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District, R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District, and R -4, Suburban Residential District, to: PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Shamrock Crossing — West Dublin Granville Road — Case No. 06 -076) Ms. Husak provided a condensed presentation of the rezoning application for a 136,000 square foot commercial development located north and south of W. Dublin- ] Granville Road (SR 161). The ordinance was introduced on January 9, and at that meeting Council Members discussed the proposed architecture, the list of permitted uses and whether this area is appropriate for those uses. She showed renderings of the subareas and the proposed preliminary plan. Included in the Council packets was a condensed list of uses, excluding certain uses for each subarea. The applicant has also provided a rendering of the architecture for the proposed car wash, demonstrating high quality architecture and materials. Planning is confident that the proposed changes in the text and the architecture of the car wash will enhance the overall development. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance at this time. She can respond to questions, and the applicant is present for questions as well. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher noted that a thorough discussion of the proposal took place at the last Council meeting, and staff has responded with the information requested at that time. Vice Mayor Lecklider noted he appreciates the inclusion of the elevations for the car wash. There was some discussion, however, about the potential for relocating the car wash. Has that been addressed? Ms. Husak responded that Planning is confident that can be considered at the final development plan stage. Due to time constraints, it has not been discussed in the two weeks subsequent to the introduction of the rezoning. Ms. Salay noticed there is a substantial tree row along the site, running north and south. Will those trees be eliminated with this development? Ms. Husak responded that certain areas have landscaped islands that are relatively wide that will accommodate some of those existing trees. The applicant has taken care in designing the site to accommodate larger islands for some of those trees. Detailed tree preservation plans will come at the final development plan stage. Ms. Salay disclosed that she met with the applicant at his office in October or November, where he presented the architectural proposals in order to receive feedback on the land use and the project. Mr. McCash stated he appreciates the information about the permitted uses. In regard to the car wash drawing, it depicts the west elevation and the south elevation. What about the east side that faces the rest of David Road? Mr. Hale introduced John Oney, architect who works with Germain. Mr. Hale noted that the east side of the car wash faces the detention basin and the back of Lowe's and therefore was felt to be the less sensitive area. John Oney, Architectural Alliance commented that the initial opportunity to purchase the other three properties allowed a separation of the prep and car wash functions from the main Germain building. It made sense to locate the prepping and the car wash facility on the eastern end of the property. With this orientation, there is a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 22, 2007 Page 4 jl separate lane for the car wash that will allow separation for the customers. To the western portion of the prep and car wash building would be the preparation functions of the new cars — six preparation bays. All the doors on the western elevation would face inward to the site and be properly screened. I' Mr. Hale summarized that the question seems to be whether the four sides of the building will be equal in terms of architecture at the final development plan. Mr. Oney responded they will be equal. There was an emphasis on increasing j buffering and screening from the eastern side. Mr. McCash noted that it appears that in each subarea, both a ground and wall sign would be allowed. Mr. Hale responded that to the extent that this is a center, a center sign is permitted. Wall signs are also permitted. The only location in which there is both a wall and ground sign is at the Germain service facility. The southern entry sign is intended to identify this to the customers. Typically, they are allowed either ground signs or wall signs, but in this situation, because of the road system, they believe a wall sign and a small ground sign are warranted and an exception is needed. Mr. McCash stated that from the public street, the only sign visible to identify this is the ground sign at the corner. Once a customer is in the site, only directional signage would be needed. Mr. Hale stated that the ground sign at the corner will be angled, so that those on Banker Drive can see it as well. Mr. McCash responded he does not see the need for both a wall and a ground sign. The service area is a destination location. A customer will turn from 161 onto Shamrock Boulevard to access it. The architecture of the car dealership will be mirrored in this building, so there is already a visual cue that it is part of the dealership. With the ground sign and the overhead doors, it is clearly the service center for Germain. Mr. Keenan asked about the size of the ground sign. Ms. Husak stated it does not have a maximum height, but must be smaller than 50 square feet. Mr. McCash stated that the sign could then be 50 square feet and 15 feet in height. The 50 square feet is for the graphic area. He is interested in the height limitation. Ms. Husak stated the Planning Commission will review this at the final development plan stage and it could conceivably be 15 feet high. She does not believe the applicant is proposing a sign of this height. Mr. McCash responded that the text language indicates, "in accordance with the Dublin sign code." Mr. Hale responded that the Planning Commission made it clear they would not approve a sign of the size that the Code allows. The Commission believed the sign should be smaller than what is permitted under Code. This is not a high speed road and therefore does not warrant the maximum size allowed under Code. Mr. Keenan asked staff to identify the various locations of the signage on the plan. Mr. Hale pointed out that the sign was angled to allow it to be viewed from the various roadways. Mr. Keenan noted there is a similar situation with his building at Post and Avery. There is a ground sign on Post Road, but it is a small sign that provides some direction for access into the parking lot. He does not see a problem with approving such a sign, assuming agreement or compromise can be obtained about the size and square footage of such a sign. Mr. McCash asked if Mr. Keenan would be willing to change Dublin's sign code to allow this for other areas. Mr. Hale noted that he recalls only one other location where a similar situation occurred — PetsMart on Sawmill Road. There was a large setback and the sign was not visible to those coming to the site. With tonight's proposal, the applicant is not asking for signage in excess of Code; they agreed that the ground sign would be RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 22, 2007 Page 5 Held 20 smaller than that allowed by Code. Instead of having two wall or two ground signs, they are requesting one wall and one ground sign. Mr. McCash noted the City is effectively pushing the buildings up along 161 for the j walkability component, but then allowing signs above each of the tenants and allowing a center identification signage. Typically, center identification signage would be allowed because a building is setback from the roadway. Therefore, it seems that the development is being over signed by having both ground and tenant signage. Mr. Hale responds that the tenant signage is allowed under the Code. Mr. McCash stated that the parking is behind the buildings, so having the Center signage seems redundant and not necessary. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher asked about the location of the ground sign. Mr. McCash noted that under the text, this sign could be located in the right -of -way. Mr. Hale responded that they would not do so without approval from the City. They are not asking to violate the Code, but asking to have either two wall signs or two ground signs. If Council will not allow one of the ground signs to be located in the right -of -way, they will then ask for two wall signs. The applicant understands that the ground sign in the right -of -way is not on the agenda for consideration tonight. Mr. McCash stated that the buildings are fairly close to 161. What is the maximum size of the Center signs? Is it per the Code? Mr. Hale responded affirmatively. The buildings are linear and there is a desire to identify the Center as a destination. The concept was to have a ground sign, conforming to Code, indicating the Center name. Mr. McCash responded that his concern is with the location of the ground sign in relation to 161, the buildings and the public sidewalk. For example, on Avery - Muirfield, Wendy's and McDonald's have the same size signs, but there is a different relationship to the public sidewalk and to the street. One blends in with the streetscape, while the other is not attractive. The concern with this sign is how it will fit in with both buildings up front and the Center signage pushed up close to that. Obviously, the sign will not be placed far enough back — as there is a desire to have the sign visible from both sides — it will really push the sign up toward the right -of- way. Mr. Hale responded that they will have to comply with Code in terms of setback for this sign. They have not requested any variances. They will commit that the sign will be architecturally compatible with the buildings, subject to Planning Commission's review in terms of the location at final development plan. j Mr. McCash stated that the signage will have to be integrated into the plan itself if it remains in the text. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher suggested that he frame a motion to adopt this as a condition as part of the vote. Mr. Hale stated the applicant would agree to that condition. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked about the service center ground sign. Did he understand correctly from staff that the height of that sign has not been determined? Ms. Husak corrected her previous statement, clarifying that the sign is restricted to eight feet in height. Vice Mayor Lecklider stated there does seem to be some redundancy with this sign. He understands that the applicant is committing that the background sign will be something less than eight feet. Is that correct? Mr. Hale responded that the Planning Commission indicated they would not approve the size of sign which is permitted under the Code. The applicant will submit some mock -ups for that hearing to persuade them that the sign is appropriately sized. The final determination of the size of the sign will be made by the Commission. Mr. McCash clarified that the graphic area of the size is what will be determined. The maximum height of the sign is eight feet. Mr. Hale responded they believe the sign is discreet in size and fits the purpose. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 22, 2007 Page 6 Vice Mayor Lecklider stated his first concern is with height, given the fact that a wall sign is also included. He would prefer something less than eight feet. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher stated that the sign should be in proportion to its purpose. Mr. Hale agreed, stating that the lower speed on these roadways does not warrant a tall sign, such as would be necessary for a higher speed area. The applicant agrees with a condition that the sign would be subject to Planning Commission's review at final development plan stage for its size and height. Council's clear expectation is that the sign will not be eight feet in height. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher invited public testimony. Linda Merchant - Masonbrink, 3168 Lilly -Mar Court read a letter into the record and provided a copy for each Council Member. She noted that the Shamrock Crossing proposal is immediately north of their property. She spoke before the Planning Commission in September and October of 2006, expressing objections to the proposed rezoning. They are as follows: • It will allow the proliferation of retail and commercial development in close proximity to their peaceful neighborhood. • They have concerns with noise, excess pavement, loss of green space, instability in the retail base and retail sprawl. • The solid retail corridor along 161 is unimaginative and does not create a grand entrance to Historic Dublin. • Concern with music and outdoor entertainment associated with restaurant patios. • Loud speaker announcements which continue to exist at the Lexus dealer to the east, despite assurances from Mr. Germain to the Commission that they would cease. • Inadequate buffering and protection of their community's tranquility. She summarized by asking Council to protect their neighborhood. Steve Masonbrink, 3168 Lilly -Mar Court stated that he opposes the rezoning of these parcels, based on the following: • There is little green space remaining in Dublin, and there is an abundance of blacktop. He is aware he is in the minority, as green space does not bring municipal revenue as does a retail development. • There are failing businesses including the Dublin Village Center and the Village Center where Capriano's is located. • The wildlife corridor, with mature trees will be lost because of this development. • If the parcels are to be rezoned, it is imperative that the development can support the retail businesses. Placing the buildings close to the street will not be conducive to incoming business, and will not be aesthetically appealing. • In terms of signage, he believes the Dublin Village Center is empty because no one is aware it exists. Signs are definitely needed in front of the buildings for the retail areas. At 45 mph speed, he wants visible signs which identifies the tenants in the Center. Signs will be very important to the success of the businesses. The signage shown in the plans for the Germain facility are not adequate, in his opinion. He summarized that if the green space is to be lost and the wildlife corridor, he doesn't want it to become an empty parking lot. He supports his wife's comments, noting that they want to maintain the quiet community as it now exists. They want strict limits on outdoor speakers and excessive light pollution. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road indicated that because his testimony is focused on the larger picture, he does not want to single out this proposal. He will therefore withdraw his request to testify. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 22, 2007 Page 7 Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher asked staff to address the issues of noise and lighting and !I how the Commission and developer have dealt with this. Ms. Husak responded that there are additional parcels to the south of the extension of Stoneridge Lane that are not shown on the site plan. These are zoned SO and could be developed as office, with required buffering. The development will be required to meet the Dublin lighting guidelines. In terms of the noise levels, staff had discussion with the applicant regarding PA systems. The applicant has indicated they are used very minimally if at all. In terms of impacting residents further to the south of the site, staff does not believe the noise from that use will travel that far south. Mayor Chinn ici-Zuercher asked staff to respond to the fact that Mr. Germain had testified at the Commission meeting that the PA noise at the current site would be stopped and yet it has not. Ms. Husak responded that staff has not received any requests for Code enforcement or reports of noise violations. Ms. Salay asked what the Code states regarding sound that travels off of the site. Ms. Husak responded that code enforcement addresses noise issues during the City's office hours; after City offices are closed, the Police would have to be contacted. It is complaint driven. Ms. Readler added that the noise restriction is established as that which can be heard 50 feet from the property line. It does not involve a decibel level. Ms. Salay noted that the Germain site from which the residents report noise emanating is further away than this site will be. It is certainly 50 feet away from the neighborhood. Ms. Husak responded that the existing Germain business is closer to the Masonbrink property than the property proposed for rezoning. Ms. Salay stated that the retail development on the south side of 161, however, would be closer to the Merchantbrink home. Ms. Husak confirmed this. Ms. Salay commented that she does not see a noise provision in the text. Ms. Husak responded that there is no provision about noise in the text. It is dealt with during the conditional use process at the Planning Commission. All outdoor patio uses are required to have a conditional use. Whether or not speakers would be appropriate would be something evaluated at that time. Ms. Salay asked for clarification that the auto oriented use in the Service center will not require approval of a conditional use, per the text, but any future patio use would require approval of a conditional use. Ms. Husak confirmed that is correct. Ms. Salay stated she would like to hear from the applicant about the existing noise issue described by the residents. Mr. Hale indicated that Mr. Germain has committed that he will immediately ensure that the existing noise issue is addressed. If Council wants to make this a condition of the rezoning, that is also acceptable. If this rezoning is approved, Germain will soon file an application for corridor review for the existing dealership. The Germains have agreed to take the existing dealership and completely remodel it in keeping with the other buildings. At that time, the Commission could provide that no outdoor speakers are permitted. Council could also include a condition related to the speakers in this rezoning action. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher asked for clarification that the existing dealership will house only the sales facility in the future, if this plan is approved. Mr. Hale confirmed that is correct. The service portion and the car storage will be moved to the north side of 161. The fact that the Stavroffs were able to purchase the five properties on David Road made this an improved proposal from the earlier renderings. It also allowed Banker Drive to go through. He summarized that Mr. Germain will agree to a condition that the speakers not be used at the existing facility. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 22, 2007 Page 8 Mr. Keenan stated he is aware that the Community Plan provides that the corridor ! has buildings close to the roadway, but he personally does not support this. He j understands this is to be a pedestrian - friendly area, and will have restaurants and patios. Therefore, he would not want to rule out some type of speaker systems to support the outdoor dining areas. Mr. McCash pointed out that the speakers would have to be loud enough to overcome the vehicle noise from the street. Mr. Keenan noted that his understanding is the patios would not be located along the street, but in the back of the buildings. Mr. Hale commented that they envision patios in two places, with activity in front of the buildings and some outdoor seating for the summer. He invited architect Brian Jones to comment. Brian Jones, Brian Kent Jones Architects noted they met recently to consider the relationship of the faces of the buildings to the streetscape. They are interested in studying that dimension between the curb to the right -of -way and the right -of -way to the building face. The dimensions currently vary between 35 and 50 feet and they are looking at landscape terracing strategies to handle this appropriately. They desire a cogent system to separate the vehicular traffic from the pedestrian traffic and have some good solutions in mind. Ms. Salay stated that some type of physical barrier is needed. The experience of sitting in front of Starbucks in Historic Dublin is not peaceful, in view of the potential conflicts between pedestrians and traffic. Mr. Jones stated that the Starbucks example has a narrow right -of -way due to the existing historical conditions and no setback. They don't envision every use as having terrace components, but want a cogent strategy to ensure insulation to the pedestrian quality along the street. Vice Mayor Lecklider pointed out that this activity will face north in terms of noise generation — not to the south where the residents are located. Mayor Chinn ici-Zuercher emphasized that the patio use will be reviewed by the Planning Commission, and the noise element will be considered based upon the user. However, it is important that Mr. Germain address the noise situation with the PA system at the existing dealership. Rick Germain, Germain Lexus apologized for the oversight. It was his intention after the Commission meeting to address this problem. Germain can conduct business on the site as currently set up without outdoor paging. He is not personally in favor of such paging, but over the years, this policy has lapsed. With service moving off this site, there is no reason for outdoor paging to continue. Mayor Chinn ici-Zuercher summarized that Council is appreciative of Germain's continued presence in the community and their decision to expand their dealership in Dublin. Mr. McCash asked Mr. Hale if the applicant would be opposed to reducing the lighting levels in the parking lot by 50 percent during non - operating hours. Mr. Hale agreed to this. Mr. McCash moved approval of the ordinance as recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission with the following two additional conditions: • That all Center identification signage in all subareas be subject to review and approval by the Planning & Zoning Commission in regard to location and size. • That the lighting in all the parking areas be reduced by 50 percent during non - operating hours. Vice Mayor Lecklider seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 22, 2007 Page 9 Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. !) INTRODUCTION /FIRST READING — ORDINANCES Ordinance 03 -07 Amending the Annual Appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2007. Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Ms. Brautigam stated this is an amendment to the appropriations for 2007. Staff is j recommending this be held over for second reading /public hearing on February 5. There were no questions. There will be a second reading /public hearing at the February 5 Council meeting. Ordinance 04 -07 �j Declaring Improvements to Certain Real Property to be Developed by Shamrock Crossing to be a Public Purpose, Describing the Public Infrastructure Improvements to be Made to Benefit those Parcels, Requiring the Owner Thereof to Make Service Payments in Lieu of Taxes, Providing for the Franklin County Treasurer to Distribute Service Payments to the Dublin City School District in the Amount it Would Otherwise Receive Absent the Exemption, Creating a Municipal Public Improvement Tax Increment Equivalent Fund for the Deposit of the Balance of Such Service Payments, and Authorizing the Execution of a Tax Increment Financing Agreement. Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. Ms. Grigsby noted this legislation provides for the establishment of a non - school tax increment financing district for approximately 22 acres, most of which will be included in the rezoning Ordinance 01 -07 approved by Council tonight. As part of that rezoning, the development is approved for up to 136,000 square feet, comprised of retail, office and service uses. Based upon the projections of the value of the private improvements, staff has also compared that to the existing information. Staff has determined there will be a private investment of approximately $20 million with regard to the assessed valuation that will be determined by the county auditor's office. This valuation will generate approximately $210,000 annually in service payments. In terms of job projections, the developer has provided information that estimates 224 additional jobs in the City, with additional income tax revenue of $160,000 per year. In considering the establishment of this TIF, staff reviewed the area infrastructure improvements needed, and this TIF provides for many connections of roadways in this area, specifically the Stoneridge Lane extension, Banker Drive extension, both of which connect to Shamrock Boulevard, and the extension of Shamrock Boulevard to the north and to the east to connect with Village Parkway. In addition to these major roadway connections, staff has also identified the intersection further to the west of 161 and Riverside Drive, as well as some minor improvements such as the removal of curb cuts on SR 161. Another focus of the discussion which was critical to this project was that the applicant was able to incorporate the residential properties on David Road. This was a major component considered in determining some of the improvements to be included in the TIF, specifically the extension of Banker Drive. There is additional information regarding the school district and the impacts on other government jurisdictions who are impacted by the deferral of property tax revenues. She emphasized that the City has successfully used tax increment financing districts to address growth and economic development needs. Staff recommends this ordinance be held over for second reading /public hearing at the February 5 Council meeting. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher asked about the timing projected for the roadway improvements. Ms. Grigsby responded the Shamrock Boulevard extension is programmed for construction in 2007; Banker Drive and Stoneridge Drive will be constructed as part of the development for this site; and the intersection at 161 and Riverside is currently programmed for design in 2007, acquisition in 2008 and construction in 2009. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS _. __A4e 1 mg— ._...— January 9, 2007 Held - -'° —_ Mayor Chinnici Zuercher called the Tuesday Janup�ry 9, 2007 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. at the D blin Municipal Building. Present were: Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher, Vice ayor Lecklider, Mrs, Boring, Mr. Keenan, Mr. McCash, Mr. Reiner and Ms. S ay. Staff members present were: Ms. Bra gam, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. Smith, Mr. cDaniel, Chief Epperson, Mr. Hahn, Ms. Pus rcik, Ms. Ott, Mc Hammersmith, Hoyle, Mr. Earman, Mr. Harding, Mr. Lan orthy, Ms. Husak, Ms. Keller -Wil r. Burns and Ms. Wawszkiewicz. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANC j Mr. McCash led the Pie a of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Regular I1v eting of December 11, 2006 Mr. Reiner mo ed approval of the minutes of De mber 11, 2006. Ms. Sal ay s onded the motion. Vote on tb motion: Mr. McCash, yes; Mr. finer, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Vice LecklidTr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Sala ,yes; Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher, y C ZESPONDENCE here was no correspondence re firing action from Council. SPECIAL PRESENTATION / Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher pr sented a framed photo of the Da int Hares -- a ' sculpture located at the trance to Ballantrae -- to Charles riscoll, who was representing Peter Ed ards. The Mayor provided a bri istory of the artwork, which was commis ned by Peter Edwards in 2001 t serve as the centerpiece of the Ballantrae de elopment in southwest Dublin. q behalf of City Council, Mayor Chinnici -Zuerc er thanked Mr. Edwards for his g erous donation of the sculpture to the City of D lin's public art collection. Mr, Drisc thanked the City for their help in e% eloping Ballantrae Park, and particul ly to Mr. Hahn and staff for their going maintenance of the park. CI ZEN COMMENTS T ere were no comments from citizens. LEGISLATION SECOND READING /PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCES Ordinance 81 -06 Vacating High School Road as a Public Road in the City of Dublin, Ohio. Ms. Brautigam stated there is no additional information to report at this time. Vote on the Ordinance: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mrs. Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. McCash, yes; Vice Mayor Lecklider, yes. INTRODUCTION /FIRST READING — ORDINANCES Ordinance 01 -07 Rezoning Approximately 18 Acres, Located at the Intersection of West Dublin Granville Road and Shamrock Boulevard, from SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District, R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District, and R-4, Suburban Residential District, to: PUD, Planned Unit Development District. (Shamrock Crossing — West Dublin Granville Road — Case No, 06 -076) Vice Mayor Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Ms. Husak stated this is a request for rezoning to a planned unit development district for a proposed 136,000 square foot commercial development located north and south of West Dublin- Granville Road (161). Planning & Zoning Commission approved the application on December 7, and Planning staff recommends Council approval the rezoning at the second reading /public hearing on January 22. The 18- acre site consists of several parcels that include portions of the Sharp property to the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 9, 2007 Page 2 Held 20 south, the Warner /Betz property to the north, and David Road parcels along David Road to the west. She identified recently approved developments in the vicinity, including Greystone Mews to the north and the Shoppes at River Ridge Lifestyle Center to the west. The Wendy's headquarters is directly west of the site, the Lowe's store is to the east of the site and to the west is the Stoneridge Medical Center. She showed a conceptual drawing of the vision of the 161 Corridor, which was discussed during various work sessions of the Community Plan Update. The direction from these work sessions address the overall character of the corridor, which included a building orientation toward the street and creating a higher density mixed use environment. She noted that the proposal for the site contains four subareas as outlined on the plan, and the proposed preliminary development plan shows the potential layout of each of the subareas in greater detail. The final details will be determined at the ! final development plan stage. Subarea A The preliminary plan indicates an office /retail building oriented toward Sharp Lane with parking areas to the south and east of the building. Subarea B The preliminary plan shows a proposed extension of Stoneridge Lane to the south. The plan indicates buildings facing 161 with head -in parking behind the building as well as a smaller building located along Shamrock Boulevard. Per Condition 12 of the P &Z approval, the development text has been modified to require buildings with frontage along 161 to be located in close proximity to that right -of -way, with the specific setbacks to be determined at the final development plan stage. The text states that the goal in this area is to encourage pedestrian activity and outdoor activities. The Planning division believes this language will allow for future flexibility to create such spaces and to differentiate this area from the environment that currently exists along 161. In this development, a drive - through is envisioned for a bank, dry cleaner or pharmacy and the development text limits drive - throughs to a maximum of one drive - through for the entire site, in either subarea B or C and does not allow it to serve an eating or drinking establishment. Subarea C This is located to the north of 161 with the extension of Banker Drive as the northern boundary of this site. The text addresses setbacks and other development standards similar to Subarea B. Subarea D This is located to the north of Subarea C and has frontage along the Banker Drive extension to the south as well as the proposed extension of Shamrock Boulevard to the north and east. The plans indicate an auto service facility located in the western portion of the subarea as well as a detached carwash in the eastern portion of the subarea, which will exclusively serve customers of the auto service facility. Planning staff has determined that the proposed use in this subarea is appropriate, as it is located adjacent to the existing AEP substation and is also removed from the 161frontage. The development text includes provision for a combination of wall and ground signs in this subarea, the details of which will be determined at the final development plan stage. The applicant is working with the Finance Department on a tax increment financing agreement, which addresses the participation in the road network which is to be extended with this project. This includes the extension of Stoneridge Lane to the south, as well as Shamrock Boulevard north and east and Banker Drive from David Road toward Shamrock Boulevard. The City may also consider vacating David Road north of Banker Drive, which will require Council action in the future. The development text requires that structures have a common architectural theme, which is described as a traditional Irish town, with common building materials throughout the development. The proposed architecture provides for interesting and RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 9, 2007 Page 3 Held 20 appropriate building types, which Planning staff believes coordinate well with the Shoppes at River Ridge as well as are complimentary to the Historic District. (i She displayed an elevation of the proposed auto service center, and the applicant �j has worked with staff to achieve the same quality of architecture shown for the other subareas. She then displayed views of the proposed development from the various locations around the site. The applicant has worked extensively with Planning and Engineering as well as the Finance Department on this proposal. The text and preliminary plans, as well as the architectural renderings successfully address the desire for a more identifiable streetscape, with buildings and pedestrian spaces oriented toward the road. The (� proposal includes interesting architectural components and appropriate uses and the ii high level of development quality desired in this area is likely to be achieved by this proposal. Planning staff therefore recommends approval of this rezoning at the second reading /public hearing of January 22. She offered to respond to questions. Mr. Reiner asked if there is a firm commitment from the developer on the architectural renderings enclosed in the packet. Will this tower be built? Ms. Husak responded affirmatively, noting the text has been revised to address this. The applicant has stated that the drawings represent the intended architecture. Mr. Reiner stated that in the presentation, she indicated the architecture will be similar to River Ridge. Do these renderings reflect the final product? Ms. Husak responded that she meant to state that the architecture will complement River Ridge, but the intention is for the architecture to be very similar if not the same as shown in the preliminary text. Mr. Reiner asked for verification that it is four -sided architecture. Ms. Husak responded affirmatively. Mayor Chinn ici-Zuercher invited the developer to testify. Ben Hale, 37 W. Broad Street noted he represents the developer, Mr. Stavroff who is present tonight. In response to Mr. Reiner's question, the developer has committed to this architecture. They have hired Brian Jones for the project, and there will be four -sided architecture. He shared that Germain has been told by Lexus that they need a new service facility and need to upgrade their existing facility. Although it is not a part of the zoning, Mr. Germain attended the Planning Commission meeting and they have committed as a part of this to take their existing dealerships — the used and new car — and will do architecture that is very comparable to what has been shown tonight. They will soon come to the Planning Commission with a corridor review. Therefore, not only these buildings will have high quality architecture, but Germain's architecture will be upgraded. It has not been upgraded since it was originally opened in 1988. They've also given Planning staff drawings of that building, and it is compatible with this architecture. In addition, they have been able to assemble the David Road property which has been a long standing goal of the City. This will allow Banker Drive to go through to access Lowe's and completes the rearrangement of Shamrock with the new roundabout. Mr. Reiner noted that the Lexus dealership has outgrown its facility and has stacked automobiles for their carwash. Is there enough space for them to accommodate their client base? Ms. Husak responded it appears there is adequate space. The Code has large numbers of parking spaces required for auto service facilities, and with the addition of the David Road parcels, this site is expected to function well with the parking provided. Mr. Reiner asked about the total height of the buildings as shown in the elevations. Mr. Hale responded these are 2 -1/2 story buildings with towers. At the time of final development plan, those renderings and drawings are what will be built. Mr. McCash noted that when this case was presented to the Planning Commission, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 9, 2007 Page 4 signage. Mr. Hale responded it identifies the building, but also informs how to enter the site to drop off their cars. Mr. McCash asked about the text of the sign at the street. Will it indicate, "Germain Lexus Service Center" or "Entry /Exit ?" Mr. Hale responded it will likely state "Germain." Mr. McCash stated that directional signs are exempt under the Dublin sign code. Mr. Hale responded that the sign will be larger than the size directional signs are permitted to be. They are trying to inform those southbound on Shamrock, westbound on Banker Drive that this is the Lexus dealership service center. Mrs. Boring asked which direction the garage doors will face. Mr. Hale responded they will face south. Mrs. Boring asked if there has been any consideration about defining hours of operation for the subareas. Ms. Husak responded there has not. Mrs. Boring asked if there are such restrictions on property in the vicinity. Ms. Husak responded she is not aware of any. Mrs. Boring noted that during the Community Plan process, a consultant provided information about the amount of retail development which could be supported. Most of the potential future retail development was not located in this area. At one time, when working with the residents of David Road, Council wanted more office use than what is presented tonight. Ms. Husak responded there are provisions for office and retail uses in the development text, however it is leaning toward more retail in certain subareas as A and D. Staff has looked at those uses and believes they are appropriate in this area. Mr. Hale clarified that the southern portion of 15.8 acres is to be office use. They are aware of the concern about retail, and talked with a retail consultant, Robin Warms I' he abstained due to a conflict relating to his employment. He is no longer working for that employer and can therefore participate in this discussion. His question relates to the extent of uses permitted. Is there a way to reduce the size of this list? Mr. Hale responded that what has been done in other zonings in the City is to review the uses and eliminate the more objectionable ones. They are willing to review this list with staff to consider which uses could be eliminated. Ms. Husak commented that this text reflects the Code language. Mr. Hale noted there is a universal Code that has standard industry classifications. He would prefer to specify the uses allowed versus having the large list. Mr. McCash commented that perhaps it could be viewed as a general category without reference to the SIC Code. His other question relates to the drive through. If the goal is to create a pedestrian - friendly environment, having a drive - through seems counterproductive and encourages vehicular traffic. Mr. Hale responded they are aware of the requirement to have a conditional use reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission. At this time, they don't have a proposed use requiring a drive - through, but there is potential for that in the future. They would have to demonstrate how a drive - through could work with the buildings. It would likely result in losing some parking spaces behind the buildings. They have tried to purchase the corner piece on David Road, but have not been successful. They are aware of the challenge of obtaining the conditional use, but would want the opportunity to pursue it. Mr. McCash noted there are some issues with the combinations of wall and ground signs. It is unusual for the City to deviate from its base standards. Mr. Hale responded that sign specifically relates to the auto use. Because the auto use faces a couple of streets, it could have wall signs, but they also have an entry sign. Although they are permitted to have another sign on the other side of the building, they do not want to confuse people about which way to enter. They have therefore requested a small sign at the corner. There are some physical constraints with how the site works and a wall and ground sign are needed. j Mr. McCash responded that the signage is therefore being used as directional signage. Mr. Hale responded it identifies the building, but also informs how to enter the site to drop off their cars. Mr. McCash asked about the text of the sign at the street. Will it indicate, "Germain Lexus Service Center" or "Entry /Exit ?" Mr. Hale responded it will likely state "Germain." Mr. McCash stated that directional signs are exempt under the Dublin sign code. Mr. Hale responded that the sign will be larger than the size directional signs are permitted to be. They are trying to inform those southbound on Shamrock, westbound on Banker Drive that this is the Lexus dealership service center. Mrs. Boring asked which direction the garage doors will face. Mr. Hale responded they will face south. Mrs. Boring asked if there has been any consideration about defining hours of operation for the subareas. Ms. Husak responded there has not. Mrs. Boring asked if there are such restrictions on property in the vicinity. Ms. Husak responded she is not aware of any. Mrs. Boring noted that during the Community Plan process, a consultant provided information about the amount of retail development which could be supported. Most of the potential future retail development was not located in this area. At one time, when working with the residents of David Road, Council wanted more office use than what is presented tonight. Ms. Husak responded there are provisions for office and retail uses in the development text, however it is leaning toward more retail in certain subareas as A and D. Staff has looked at those uses and believes they are appropriate in this area. Mr. Hale clarified that the southern portion of 15.8 acres is to be office use. They are aware of the concern about retail, and talked with a retail consultant, Robin Warms RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 9, 2007 Page 5 about whether the market would support these buildings, and the kind of tenant mix possible. He believes this will be a very successful center and that there is adequate demand for this. Mrs. Boring responded that her concern is not with support of this retail development, but with what will not be supported in the process — creating other empty storefronts in the area. For example, in filling the new retail space at the Kroger Center on Sawmill, what will remain empty along Sawmill Road? It is important to support the existing businesses in the community as well. Mrs. Boring asked if the Lexus auto dealer would leave in the future, could the site automatically become big box retail? Ms. Husak responded no, adding there are uses other than auto service outlined in that subarea. Mr. Keenan commented that the streetscapes are very similar to Perimeter. In reviewing the signage portion of the development text, will there be signage on the front of the buildings similar to what has been done at Perimeter Center? Mr. Hale responded affirmatively. The applicant believes signage is needed on the front, and there is signage that is interior on the parking lot as well. This has been addressed in the text. Ms. Salay noted that part of the presentation referenced the 161 corridor vision that Council discussed in the Plan update and agreed to. She shares Mrs. Boring's concern with the amount of retail in this proposal. While there is some office use, it is primarily a retail site. She supports the quality of the architecture which has been shown and would be pleased with having this architecture in the future, should the uses change. She asked for staff's opinion on tying together the vision for the 161 corridor and this proposal for a largely retail use and how it dovetails. Ms. Husak responded that staff has reviewed the current office uses at Stoneridge and Wendy's headquarters and believes the vision of the 161 corridor will be achieved with this development. Staff also looked at the residential development existing in this area and believes there is a customer base for the services. Ms. Salay summarized that staff is then completely comfortable with this proposal and how it dovetails with the Community Plan update. Ms. Husak responded affirmatively. Ms. Salay asked about future parking, with Subarea D going to the existing David Road. Will all of this area be parking? Ms. Husak responded it will not all be parking area. At the time the plans were submitted, the details of Subarea D had not been worked out. The intention is for the subarea to be developed where the carwash is actually detached. The parking will be more interior to the site. Ms. Salay asked if the architecture of the carwash will be of the same quality as the remainder of the development. Ms. Husak responded the details will be reviewed at final development plan, but it is expected to be of the same quality. Mrs. Boring noted that in the permitted uses, it indicates storage of new and used automobiles and that no automobile sales shall be permitted. She is concerned about this becoming a massive used car lot in the future, similar to what currently exists at Dublin Village Center. Is there a safeguard that will prevent this? Ms. Husak responded that the Germain site currently being used for retail on 161 is small in view of the entire inventory. The intention is to have the overflow stored on this site. The provision in the text regarding no retail activity is so that customers will not be on the site looking at cars. Mrs. Boring asked about screening of the car storage area. Ms. Husak responded that screening and landscaping will be required to meet Code. Mayor Chinnici - Zuercher noted that a similar issue exists for another dealership on Sawmill Road, which has not complied with the screening required in the text. It will RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 9, 2007 Page 6 20 be very important for staff to hold the developer accountable for installing and maintaining the screening. She shares Mrs. Boring's concern about the hundreds of �j cars parked in the vacant lot at Dublin Village Center, which is aesthetically unappealing. In regard to the car wash, it is not a matter of "working toward" the same architecture as the other properties; it needs to be the same architecture as those other buildings, as Council is permitting a carwash to be part of this proposal. This is not something that Council believes is desirable. It is important to remember that the Wendy's corporate headquarters is adjacent with beautiful and well maintained property. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked for clarification regarding subarea D and future parking. Does the text limit automobile storage in this location or not? Ms. Husak responded that the text allows such storage. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked about the future plans for David Road. Ms. Husak responded that Engineering and Planning staff have contemplated vacating David Road north of Banker Drive. To the east of David Road is a retention pond for Lowe's, and the AEP substation is to the north. There is no need for the roadway to exist in this area, and there have been discussions regarding vacating this it Vice Mayor Lecklider noted that it seems to be an odd placement for the carwash. However, he appreciates the need a car dealer has for a carwash. Mr. Keenan pointed out the carwash is exclusively for the dealer's use — it is not a public car wash. Mr. Hale agreed, noting that it is used only by customers of the dealer and not the public. One reason for this car storage is the amount of cars on the existing dealership site. They want the lot along 161 to be uncluttered by removing the car storage. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked why the carwash cannot be part of the main building. Mr. Hale responded that the desire was to have the garage doors off of Banker Drive. The location next to the detention basin and substation seemed appropriate for this use. They are willing to comply with a condition that the architecture of the carwash meets the architecture of the rest of the service facility. Ms. Salay asked if it would be possible to flip the carwash so it is oriented east and west. The side of the carwash would then be the visible portion from the backs of the buildings along 161. Ms. Husak stated this could be reviewed as part of the final development plan. Mr. Hale agreed it could be considered. Their thinking was to locate the carwash near the undesirable portions of the site. Vice Mayor Lecklider commented that Ms. Salay's suggestion is interesting and should be considered. Mr. Keenan asked how the cars enter and exit the carwash. Mr. Hale responded there is a dedicated drive for this purpose. Mr. Reiner added that currently, the Lexus dealership has problems with the queuing for the carwash which results in a dangerous situation in terms of ingress and egress. Ms. Salay noted that she understood only the employees of the dealership would be driving the cars into the carwash. Mr. Hale responded that owners of a Lexus vehicle can also use the carwash. But most of the car wash activity is for the dealer preparing new cars for delivery. Vice Mayor Lecklider reiterated Mr. McCash's concern about the potential for conflicts with the drive - through uses. He appreciates that these will be designated as non -food uses. He asked staff to comment regarding the proposed tax increment financing agreement. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS January 9, 2007 - - - - -� Page 7 Held 20 Ms. Grigsby responded that as part of the discussion regarding the development and the use of tax increment financing, staff reviewed the infrastructure needs in the ' area, specifically the extension of Shamrock Drive and Stoneridge Lane. As the discussions continued, and there was a possibility of incorporating and redeveloping the residential properties, it made sense to consider the extension of Banker Drive and include that in the TIF. To summarize, what is being considered is a funding source or mechanism to provide for those infrastructure needs in that area. Vice Mayor Lecklider asked if a TIF will absolutely occur with this development application. Ms. Grigsby responded that for a developer contribution for Banker Drive and Stoneridge Lane, the TIF would be the funding source for those improvements. The extension of Shamrock Drive and anticipated intersection improvements at Riverside Drive and State Route 161 are already included in the City's five -year CIP. Mrs. Boring noted that in essence, this text allows a conditional use without undertaking the current conditional use process. Ms. Husak responded that for the carwash specifically, that is correct— with the understanding that the carwash serves only this user. Mrs. Boring noted that the text does not indicate this, but rather references "associated with an automobile service facility located in this subarea:" What would be defined as an "automobile service facility "? Could that be a gas station? It does not specifically state it is to be used for an automobile sales showroom or service center. Mr. Hale responded that when they meet regarding the issues Mr. McCash has raised, they will make the text clear to indicate it is only for this user — not a commercial, available to the public carwash. Mrs. Boring asked if there are other items of concern which should be addressed by appending conditions at the next reading. Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher suggested that Council Members give further consideration to any desired conditions before the next reading on January 22. Mr. McCash asked about the new auto storage component. The intent with the landscaping is that it is screened as a typical parking lot — it doesn't have the 30 or 20 percent perimeter display space area. Ms. Husak responded it is not the intention, as there is no sales activity to take place on this subarea. The second reading /public hearing will take place at the Monday, January 22 Council meeting. Ordinance 02.07 Amending Section 73.01 "a Dublin Codified Ordinances Regarding wing Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs, and Section 73.03 of the gublin Codified Ordinanc egarding Physical Control of Vehicle ftUdUnder the Influen 6claring an Emergency. (Request to dispen cfwith the public hearing) Vice or Lecklider introduced the ordinance. Mr mith explained this is a housekeeping measurer o include the drug provisions ' pproved by the State in 2006 in the City's Co c� Staff is requesting passage by emergency to have conformity with the st code immediately upon passage. Mrs. Boring asked about the defi ' #' n of a vehicle within the Code, for example, a motorized vehicle. Mr. Smith responded tha motorized vehicle operated on the street is coi ered a vehicle for purposes o he or example, if someone is drinking a driving a golf cart on the s bet, it is considered a vehicle. Mrs. Boring asked about a motorized wheelchair crossing a p c street. Mr. McCa stated that it is interesting that a motorized wh Ichair is listed, but a CITY OF DUBLIN_ Office of the City Manager 5200 Emerald Parkway • Dublin, OH 43017 -1090 Phone: 614 - 410 -4400 • Fax: 614 - 410 -4490 To: Members of Dublin City Council From: Terry Foegler, City Manager s /< Date: January 21, 2010 Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director, Land Use and Long Range Planning Memo Re: Ordinance 04 -10 —Rezoning — Kumon Learning Center, 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road (Case No. 09- 067Z /PDP). Summary Ordinance 04 -10, a request for approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan to rezone approximately 0.53 acres from R -4, Suburban Residential District, to PUD, Planned Unit Development District for a 5,000- square -foot commercial building and associated site improvements, was introduced at the January 11, 2010 City Council meeting. Council Members requested that an unrelated conceptual development plan for an adjacent parcel be removed from the context map as part of the packet materials since the development has not been approved. The proposal otherwise remains unchanged from the January 11 meeting. Description The site is located on the north side of West Dublin - Granville Road west of the intersection with David Road. The requested rezoning would permit the development of a single -story commercial building oriented toward West Dublin - Granville Road with a 22 -space parking lot located north of (behind) the building. The proposed development text includes educational, retail, office, personal service, and other similar uses. The Community Plan Future Land Use Map designates this site as General Connnercial, which includes existing retail and commercial development and anticipates a mixture of retail, restaurant, personal services, offices, lodging, and other commercial uses. Access to the site is from a single curb cut on David Road. In order to reinforce connectivity and the integration of this site with the future Shamrock Crossing development (whose rezoning and preliminary development plan have been approved for the adjacent parcels west of the site), the applicant is providing space for a future cross- access drive in the northem portion of the site. The proposed development text notes that the architecture is intended to be traditional in look and feel and allow for consistency and cohesiveness with any future building constructed with Shamrock Crossing. The proposed building materials include masonry, stone, cementitious siding, and wood trim, with colors selected from a historic color palette. The single -story building gives the appearance of one - and -a -half to two stories comprised of individually articulated tenant spaces, which coordinate with the future Shamrock Crossing development. In Memo re. Ordinance 04 -10 — Rezoning — Kumon Learning Center January 21, 2010 Page 2 of 2 Planning's opinion, this will reinforce the streetscape on both West Dublin - Granville Road and David Road. Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission The Planning and Zoning Commission tabled this case at the October 8, 2009 meeting to allow the applicant to refine the architectural concept and modify the site layout to improve circulation. On December 10, 2009, the Commission recommended approval to City Council of the rezoning /preliminary development plan with ten conditions. Subsequent to the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing of December 10, the applicant has modified the preliminary development plan to address condition #6 related to a sidewalk on David Road by extending to the existing sidewalk on Banker Drive. The applicant has also addressed conditions 97 and 49 regarding technical issues raised by the Planning Report with minor modifications to the proposed development text and the preliminary development plan. Given the timing of this project, all remaining conditions will be addressed at either the final development plan or the building permitting stage. Recommendation Planning recommends Council approval of Ordinance 04 -10 at the January 25, 2010 Council meeting with the conditions listed in the Planning and Zoning Commission Record of Action of December 10, 2009 (attached). PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AMENDED RECORD OF ACTION DECEMBER 7, 2006 CITY OF DUBLIN- Land Use and Long Range Handing 5800 Shier -Rings Road Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236 Phone: 6144104600 Fax: 614410 -4141 Web Site: www.dubtm.okus The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 2. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 06 -076Z — Shamrock Crossing — West Dublin Granville Road Location: 18 acres located at the intersection of West Dublin Granville Road and Shamrock Boulevard. Existing Zoning: SO, Suburban Office and Institutional, R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District and Rte, Suburban Residential District. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning for 24.12 acres to Planned Unit Development District, under the provisions of Code Sections 153.050 and 153.234. Proposed Use: A 136,000 - square -foot development comprised of retail, office, and service - oriented uses. Applicant: Tall Pines Holdings, Ltd., 3473 Mildred Drive, Falls Church, Virginia 22042, Charles W. Warner and Edward E. Belz, 2226 Atlee Court, Columbus, Ohio 43220; Jerry and Linda Berg, 5709 West Alexandria Road, Middletown, Ohio 45042, Mary Warner, 6595 David Road, Dublin, Ohio 43017, Ima Moore, 7055 Shier Rings, Road, Dublin, Ohio 43016, Virgil Schnell, 839 Liverpool Place, Westerville, Ohio 43081, Donnabelle Scott, PO Box 191, Dublin, Ohio 43017 -0191; represented by Ben W. Hale and Aaron L. Underhill, Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Claudia D. Husak, AICP, Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410 -4675 /Email: chusak @dublin.oh.us. MOTION: To approve this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan because this proposal addresses the desire for a more identifiable streetscape, includes interesting architectural components and appropriate uses, the high -level of development quality desired in this corridor is likely to be established and furthered by this development, and the proposed zoning and subsequent development will provide appropriate development standards for the site and will advance the general planning intent of this area, with 12 conditions: 1) That the text be revised to accommodate future connectivity along all property lines; 2) That the applicant work with staff to eliminate the provision for signage in the right -of- way and clarify the signage provision in the development text; 3) That drive -thrus be limited to a maximum of one drive -thru in either Subarea B or C and not be allowed to serve an eating or drinking establishment and that the stacking requirement language be revised; Page 1 of 2 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION DECEMBER 7, 2006 2. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 06 -076Z — Shamrock Crossing — West Dublin Granville Road (Continued) 4) That the alternate layout for Subarea D be pursued for the final development plan and that the text be modified to clearly define the association of a detached car wash with the service facility; 5) That the development text provisions remain allowing a combination of wall and ground signs for a single tenant in Subarea D with the maximum square footage of the ground sign subject to review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission at the final development plan stage; 6) That the text be modified to include a requirement for buildings to be of two- to three - story design similar to the architectural renderings for Subareas B and C; 7) That the applicant continue to work with staff to finalize the traffic study prior to submitting for final development plan and that the recommendations required by the study be completed; 8) That the design of private drive pavement meet the approval of the City Engineer; 9) That the rights -of -way and any necessary easements be dedicated by a plat prior to the issuance of any building permits; 10) That stormwater management is in compliance with the current Stormwater Regulations, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and 11) That, as outlined in the Tax Increment Financing Agreement, the applicant participate financially in the Shamrock Boulevard Roadway network, and the Banker Drive and Stoneridge Lane extensions to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; 12) That the development text be modified to eliminate the setback requirements along West Dublin Granville Road; *13) That all center identification signage in all subareas be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission in regard to location and size; and *14) That the lighting in all the parking areas be reduced by 50 percent during non - operating hours. * As amended by City Council on January 22, 2007. Ben Hale, Jr., agreed to the above conditions. 1L�T111�'Sl� RESULT: This Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan was approved. STAFF CERTIFICATION Claudia D. Husak, AICP Planner 09- 067Z/PDP Page 2 of 2 Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road imoun riammng ana Gomng Uommission Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2006 Page 3 of 27 Motion and Mr. Fis movXaiFcant s Corridor Devel ment District Sign view because the existi awning nsion to the exist` g building and coo es with the othe bu' tng in the aret has worke " " ently with staff to rdinate the awnings e surrounding pone co 11t 1) That the ap the new g within 45 da of this approval. Mr. Zimme an seconded the m on and the vote w as follows: Mr, S oltz, yes; Mr. McCash es; Ms. Jones, . yes; Walter, yes; Mr. erman, yes; Mr. rber, yes; and Mr. Fish ,yes. (Approved 7 } 2. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 06 -076Z — Shamrock Crossing — West Dublin Granville Road Claudia Husak said this request is for review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan to PUD, Planned Unit Development District for a proposed 136,000- square- foot commercial development located north and south of West Dublin - Granville Road along Shamrock Boulevard. She said this application was tabled at the October 5, 2006 meeting, and the applicants have continued to work with the Planning and Engineering Divisions in order for the proposal to achieve the character envisioned during the Community Plan Update meetings. She said that the plans have been revised to address comments previously discussed and additional acreage has been included in this application, consisting of 2.5 acres. She said the staff report erroroneously stated that 8.5 acres had been added, however a total of 18 acres are to be rezoned. Ms. Husak presented slides of this case, stating that the site consists of several parcels divided by West Dublin - Granville Road with Shamrock Boulevard running north/south along and through the site and portions of the site also having frontage along Sharp Lane, Stoneridge Lane, and David Road. Ms. Husak said the site contains four proposed subareas: Subareas A, B, C, and D. Subareas A and B are located to the south of West Dublin - Granville Road with Subareas C and D to the north of that roadway. She said the proposed preliminary development plan indicates the locations of building envelopes and parking. She said more detailed site plans will be reviewed at the final development plan stage. Ms. Husak presented a slide of the preliminary layout of Subarea A, located south of West Dublin - Granville Road, with frontage along Sharp Lane, Shamrock Boulevard, and Stoneridge Lane to the south. She said an office retail building is shown oriented toward Sharp Lane with parking areas to the south and east of this building. She said to address the Tuller Road Area Plan and the vision for the West Dublin - Granville Corridor, the development text has been modified to reduce the minimum building and pavement setback requirements. She said that the access point on Shamrock Boulevard was limited to a right -in only to address previous concerns. Ms. Husak said the plan shows and the text states that ground signage along West Dublin - Granville Road shall be permitted within the right -of -way which is indicated on the preliminary plan for this subarea. She said that signs proposed in the right -of -way require the consent of the City Engineer and approval by City Council, and that while staff recognizes that this monosed 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Prelin inary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 1056 West Dublin - Granville Road uuumi riammng anu coning t- ommisston Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2006 Page 4 of 27 sign location is due to the alignment of Sharp Lane, Planning does not support the proposed location in the right -of -way. Ms. Husak presented a slide showing the preliminary layout of Subarea B, located south of West Dublin - Granville Road, with frontage along Shamrock Boulevard to the west and a proposed extension of Stoneridge Lane to the south. She said that the preliminary plans have been revised to indicate a building facing West Dublin - Granville Road with head -in parking located behind the building. Ms. Husak said a smaller building is shown facing Shamrock Boulevard with parking located to the east and south of that building. She said as stated previously, the development text has been modified to specify a built -to -line to which a significant portion of the buildings will have to adhere to. She said patios and outdoor spaces are encouraged to be located in front of buildings, and the final location of buildings and patios will be determined at the final development plan stage. Ms. Husak said that parking is located interior to the site with landscape islands accommodating existing trees. She said the text lists drive - thrus as conditional uses in this subarea, provided that they are integrated and designed to minimize the negative impact on pedestrian movements. She said drive - thrus do not contribute to a pedestrian- friendly environment, however, the significance of this use for certain tenants and the positive impact a drive -thru may make to the sustainability of this development are important factors to consider. Ms. Husak said the drive -thrus envisioned in this area are generally to serve banks, dry cleaners, or a pharmacy, therefore Planning recommends that drive -thrus be limited to a maximum of one drive -thru in either Subarea B or C, and not be allowed to serve an eating or drinking establishment. Ms. Husak presented a slide of the layout for Subarea C, located north of West Dublin - Granville Road with the extension of Banker Drive as the northern boundary. She said access for the subarea will be provided by the extension of Banker Drive which has been revised to extend from Shamrock Boulevard to David Road. She said the preliminary plans have also been revised to eliminate a previous curb cut along West Dublin - Granville Road, as David Road will now function as the right - in/right -out access point. Ms. Husak said the City will consider vacating David Road north of Banker Drive as part of the final development plan for this project, which will require action by City Council. She said the plans and the text have also been revised in regard to the building and pavement setbacks as previously discussed for Subarea B, and the text lists drive -thrus as conditional uses in this subarea. She said the recommendation regarding this provision is the same as for Subarea B. Ms. Husak showed a slide of the preliminary plans for Subarea D, located north of Subarea C which has been revised to include additional parcels to the east. She said the subarea fronts the Banker Drive extension to the south, as well as the proposed extension of Shamrock Boulevard to the west and north. She said the plans indicate an auto - service facility located in the center of the site with the majority of the parking interior to the site, behind the building. Ms. Husak said the proposed use is appropriate for this area, adjacent to the existing AEP substation. She said the text proposes both wall and ground signs for the subarea, but Code does not allow the proposed signs for a single tenant, and the text should be modified accordingly. Ms. Husak showed an alternative layout for Subarea D, which was included as an exhibit in the development text. She said the layout shows the car wash detached from the main facility located along the eastern property line, utilizing the newly acquired parcels. She said this alternative layout is appropriate for the site as the location of the car wash is smith of the exictina 09- 067ZAPDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road Y•- •••••• • •••.......� �..... _..,luug l..ullulllJSlu Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2006 Page 5 of 27 AEP substation. She said the layout also utilizes improved site design and successfully screens the intensely used portions of this facility, such as overhead doors. Ms. Husak said staff supports this alternative layout; however, the text should be modified to clearly define the association of a detached car wash with the service facility. Mr. Gerber confirmed that the text modification regarding the detached car was included as a condition. Ms. Husak said the development text requires that structures have a common architectural theme which is described as a traditional Irish town with common building materials throughout the development. She said that the development text specifies that the maximum height of the buildings in all four subareas will be 35 feet and the architectural elevations submitted by the applicant indicated a variety of one- and two -story buildings will be constructed on site. She said the buildings for this site should be two stories or more in height to create the massing needed for an identifiable streetscape and the text should be modified to include this requirement. Ms. Husak said the applicants have worked with planning to revise elevations for the auto - service facility in Subarea D to achieve the same quality architecture shown for the other subareas. Ms. Husak said the applicant has continued to work with staff regarding the issues previously associated with this development and revisions have been made to the text, preliminary plans, and the architectural renderings to successfully address the previous concerns. She said this proposal strives to address the desire for a more identifiable streetscape with buildings and pedestrian spaces oriented along the road. She said the proposal includes interesting architectural components and appropriate uses and the high level of development quality desired in this corridor is likely to be established and furthered by this development. Ms. Husak said the proposed zoning and subsequent development will provide appropriate development standards for the site and will advance the general planning intent of this area. She said approval of this preliminary development plan/rezoning application is recommended with the 12 conditions as listed in the staff report: 1) That the text be revised to accommodate future connectivity along all property lines; 2) That the applicant work with staff to eliminate the provision for signage in the right -of- way and clarify the signage provision in the development text; 3) That drive -thrus be limited to a maximum of one drive -thru in either Subarea B or C and not be allowed to serve an eating or drinking establishment and that the stacking requirement language be revised; 4) That the alternate layout for Subarea D be pursued for the final development plan and that the text be modified to clearly define the association of a detached car wash with the service facility; 5) That the provision for a combination of wall and ground signs for a single tenant in Subarea D be eliminated from the development text; 6) That the text be modified to include a requirement for buildings to be of two- to three - story design similar to the architectural renderings; 7) That the applicant continue to work with staff to finalize the traffic study prior to submitting for final development plan and that the recommendations required by the study be completed; 8) That the design of private drive pavement meet the approval of the City Engineer; 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road uunim rlammng and Gong Commission Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2006 Page 6 of 27 9) That the rights -0f - -way and any necessary easements be dedicated by a -plat prior to the issuance of any building permits; 10) That stormwater management is in compliance with the current Stormwater Regulations, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and 11) That the applicant participate financially in the Shamrock Boulevard Roadway network; and 12) That the applicant build the Banker Drive and Stoneridge Lane extensions to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Mr. Gerber asked that Condition 11 be explained. Ms. Husak said the applicant was working with the Finance Department on a TIF, and the TIF will most likely take care of all the road network issues, but the details have not been finalized, so the condition was to take care of that. Mr. Gerber thanked Ms. Husak and said it was a good report. Ben W. Hale, Jr., the attorney representing the applicant, said they have agreed to bring these buildings forward. Mr. Hale said they agreed with Conditions 1, 4, and 7 through 10. He said they believed that Conditions 11 and 12 should be combined to read "That the . applicant participate financially in the Shamrock Boulevard, Banker Drive, and Stoneridge Lane extensions," because the arrangement they believed they had with the City was that the City will build all those. He said Condition 12 did not accurately reflect the arrangement made. He said they are going to participate, but they thought most of these roadways will be built by the City. Subarea D Mr. Hale said that Lexus has allowed the applicant to deviate substantially from the branding they typically require. He said the architecture is going to be consistent with the other architecture. He said the service facility and the other buildings will come back to the Commission as part of a Corridor Review Application maybe with the Final Development Plan and with those, the dealership will also be remodeled in conformance with the overall architecture. John Oney, architect for Subarea D, representing the applicant, said the plans presented on October 5 were approved by Lexus and they have worked with the exterior elevations to bring them more in harmony with the Shoppes at River Ridge. He said they are anticipating Lexus will approve the architecture and exterior modifications. Mr. Oney said they now have additional acres with the David Road properties, which allowed several site improvements. He said they maintained the proximity of their structure to Shamrock Lane, pushing it up as far as they could, consistent with the other buildings. He said they were able to begin to take the congestion away from traffic areas in the back of the building and put the service doors to the eastern side, away from Shamrock Lane, which was a high priority. Mr. Oney said it enabled them to handle the parking more efficiently and also separate the car wash functions from the service facility. He said this remote facility is part of the Lexus facility and there would not be any independent operation. Mr. Oney said in regards to Condition 5, this facility was a service center, and it has to perform and function in that way. Mr. Hale demonstrated on plan boards where signs could be located on the building. He said they could get two signs on the building legally. He said one of their problems was identifying the drop off entrance /exit area. He said the entry is going to be signed with the Germain/Lexus logo, but they did not want the same thing at the exit. He said someone coming from the nnrth 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road ""USUa I &,UUHLi8 auu "Rmg l.OmmisslOn Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2006 Page 7 of 27 cannot see that sign. He said they thought this was a very unusual situation where there is a justification for allowing them a combination of wall and ground signs. Mr. Hale said they thought it was very important that they have a sign at the corner of Shamrock Boulevard and Banker Drive and also very important to have a sign over the entry so that people know how to get in and out. He repeated that they thought this was a very unusual situation where truly the public would not be served properly if just the Sign Code were followed. Mr. Oney said the ground sign on the corner really cemented that this is the Lexus service center and this is the entry point you have to go down to Bankers Drive. Mr. Walter recalled that at the last meeting, they discussed incorporating the same village feel with the architecture. He said he could see the elements from a coloring perspective and some similar use of the stone, but he did not pick up an old village feel. He said it still appeared very Mediterranean, and he suggested it was because it had a flat roof or it was the curve over the windows. Mr. Gerber said he liked the architecture. Mr. Walter he said he clearly liked it better than what they saw before from an architectural side, but he did not think it looked integrated. Mr. Oney said they added materials to the facade and another material, brick and two types of roof shapes with a hip and a gable, wainscoting, and different window details. He said they are working with Lexus to leave the horizontal band on the building, integrating it with ribbing. Mr. Walter asked if something could be done at the most prominent comer of the building to tie it together more. Mr. Saneholtz said he had the same initial reaction to the service center. Mr. Oney said the scale of this building was different and he said there may be the opportunity to raise the buildings at least in height. Mr. Saneholtz asked if it was a situation that if the elevation was raised, it had to be done across the entire building. Mr. Oney said if there was an opportunity with Lexus where at least that line could be changed somewhat, it may solve the issues. He said they have not received a response from Lexus. Mr. Gerber said although he was not at the last meeting, he had read the report and felt that a remarkable job had been done. He said he saw that a lot of the characteristics with the matching stone and the banding were consistent with what they were trying to accomplish for this area. He said he feared that when elevation is added to some of the buildings, they will stick out more than what is wanted. Mr. Gerber said some of the renderings do not give the full affect. Ms. Jones agreed and said_that if it was on SR 161 where they were trying to create some mass, she would agree, but considering where it is and the placement on that property, she thought it was a terrific - looking building and it captures some of the elements. She said it was a very progressive high -end looking building and she liked it as proposed. Mr. Fishman pointed out that every Lexus dealership did not have the band. He suggested that if the band was removed, it would make a substantial change. Mr. Oney agreed that there are branding variations on Lexus dealerships. He said Lexus has allowed them to basically take everything away except the banding and the ribbing. Mr. Walter said this was not an unattractive building; however he said that one main focal point that will be seen from SR 161 seemed understated. Mr. Oney said they would be more successful with Lexus if they kept incorporating some of the banding and maybe tried to deal with a little more height or possibly a little variation. 09- 067Z/PDP Rezor ing/Prelinunary Development Plan Kumon Learning Censer 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road uuLPilu r1a11111119 anu GOmng Uommission Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2006 Page 8 of 27 Mr. Saneholtz asked if there was a two -story portion of this building in the parts section. Mr. Qney said the rear portion is not two - story, but there are lifts and there is service activity which requires a height of 16 feet and space above for mechanicals. He said this facility will be 20 to 24 feet high in the rear. Mr. Saneholtz said he was suggesting a three- or four -foot change in the elevation at prominent points just to attract attention. Mr. Oney said this was probably for a service facility, the furthest from any piece of branding Lexus has done. He said it was by far their most high -end looking building, Mr. Zimmerman said this was a vast improvement of what the Commission had seen a month ago. He said for an auto - service building, this was nice. He said he thought they had done what the Commission had asked them to do_ Mr. Gerber agreed. Mr. Saneholtz said he was okay with pushing the buildings forward, but he was curious about the landscaping, and the breakup of that immense expanse of parking lot that will now be on th left and right, and as soon as he is past Lowe's, that is what opens up in front of him. He asked if others had concerns about the mounding, and landscaping to break it up visually. Mr. Saneholtz suggested it be a higher mounding than that in front of the Sawmill Kroger Center because this was a beautiful facility and it would be even more beautiful to the residents if they did not have to see the expanse of the parking lot from the street. Mr. Gerber confirmed that the landscaping package will be seen at the final development plan stage. Mr. Saneholtz said he wanted to discuss it now, before it is too late. Ms. Jones asked if the Commission was amenable to the ground sign for way finding inside the Lexus site. Mr. Gerber said that was an issue for the final development plan stage as well. Mr. Hale said it had to be at the preliminary stage as there were options and this was exceptionally important. Ms. Husak said the text allows what the elevations show and the condition either has to be fulfilled or be eliminated. Ms. Jones confirmed that the Commission was to decide if they wanted to keep Condition 5 or eliminate it. Ms. Husak said if the Commission agrees with the recommendation in Condition 5, then they would not be allowed to have a combination of a ground and a wall sign and the text would have to be revised to take that provision out. Ms. Jones said she was open to having both types of signs because due to the curvature of the road, some way finding would be helpful. Mr. Saneholtz said they all wanted the same goal — maximum visibility for the ground sign to help drivers find the right entrance to the facility. Mr. Fishman asked if the sign details could be dealt with during the final development stage. Ms. Husak said it could be. Mr_ Gerber asked if they would be supporting Condition 5. Mr. Walter said they would not support the condition because it said they could not have a mix of signs. Mr. Hale said the Commission would still have the right to review the sign package. Mr. Gerber asked how the Commissioners wanted to change Condition 5. The Commissioners indicated that they wanted it eliminated. Mr. Hale said then, the text would rule which meant they would get a ground sign up to 50 square feet. Mr. Fishman suggested Condition 5 be replaced. Mr. Gerber suggested that a ground sign up to 50 square feet be allowed and then when it comes back at the final development plan, the Commission can determine then if it is too big. Mr. Fishman said he was afraid that the sign 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Prehininary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road iJuolul Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2006 Page 9 of 27 would be the maximum 50 square feet. He suggested instead they eliminate the 50 square feet, and add "as approved by the Commission." Steve Langworthy said he did not think they needed to nail down a size, but they had to nail down an idea. He said the idea is the applicant wants the sign to be visible, and the Commission wants the sign to be as minimal as possible — the applicant needs to work on what size they can get below 50 square feet that still meets their needs, then bring that back to the Commission at the final to see what works. Mr. Oney agreed. Mr. Gerber said they were changing Condition 5 to read: That the text be amended to eliminate the maximum square footage of the ground sign in Subarea D, subject to staff approval and final plan approval. There being no further discussion regarding this subarea, Mr. Gerber asked to move on to the next subarea. Subarea A h Mr. Hale said they understood that the Commission can not approve the sign in the right -of -way and that Council had to approve it. He said they wanted the sign there because there are buildings in front and they wanted to communicate to the public traveling the road that this building is here and what its use is. He said their intent is to ask Council to allow them to have the sign -and they do not want anything in the text that would prevent them from getting that. He said to the extent that they are going to eliminate that from the text, that is okay, but they do not want anybody to think that they will not ask for it. Mr. Gerber said the Commission could address the street that had not been discussed with staff thus far. He said they had to address it now, at the preliminary. He asked what Mr. Hale was requesting. Mr. Hale said they had moved the building as far forward as they could possibly get it. He said there was no issue, except when the building next door comes back, he wanted the Commission to pay attention to where the building comes in terms of that location. Ms. Husak said there was Condition 2 to consider: That applicant work with staff to eliminate the provision for signage in the right -of -way and clarify the signage provisions in the development text. Mr. Gerber said they had already discussed that they would have to go to Council on that issue anyway. Subareas B and C Mr. Hale then discussed the other two subareas. He said the buildings had been moved forward. Mr. Gerber asked what the setback was. Ms. Husak said the way that staff has envisioned the setback to work would be that not the entire facade of the building would be up to the 12 -foot build -to -line, but there would be recesses that could accommodate public spaces. Mr. Hale asked if they could go back to 20 feet. Ms. Husak said staff was not concerned about the difference between 18 and 20 feet. Mr. Hale said they wanted some flexibility to be able to have enough room to make things work. Mr. Gerber asked if the setback was going to be between 18 and 20 feet from the roadway. Ms. Husak said it would be between 12 and 20 feet from the right -of -way. Mr. Gerber said that was real close. He asked what the staff objective was. Ms. Husak presented an illustration done by staff showing how build - to-lines with the building and entire streetscape ' ° -'- "' -- — 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Prehininary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road LJ 4t/1111 L uuuuug auu c,urung %,ommission Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2006 Page 10 of 27 said the previous proposal was shown on the top illustration with parking in front of buildings and a 30 -foot setback off West Dublin - Granville Road. She said on the bottom of the illustration was the build -to -line indicated at between 12 and 18 feet. She said 12 feet is actually indicated. She said the objective is to create something similar to Historic Dublin where the buildings are located close to the sidewalk. Ms. Husak said she agreed that the Starbucks Coffee patio was located directly on the sidewalk, but staff would want that to be accommodated during the final development plan where the public spaces could be incorporated into the building footprint. Mr. Gerber said he understood about eliminating the parking up front, but he asked if staff was comfortable with the buildings so close up. Ms. Husak said they were. She said the final development will take care of the building location details. Mr. Saneholtz said some of the activity up front, from his understanding, is going to be accommodated by relief off of that potential 20 -foot line, but then relief back from that is also possible. He said the main wall of the building does not have to be dead straight across. He said there could be a five- or ten -foot step back. Mr. Hale said it was a build -to -line so if it is set at 20 feet, they can not go beyond 20 feet. He said they could not shove a building back 30 feet to accommodate a patio. Mr. Walter said he thought they were fooling themselves when they looked at the illustrations that showed people walking along the front of the building. He said it just was not going to happen, and he was not comfortable. He said this is different than Historic Dublin; it is a median road and speeds are higher, He said he thought there was a huge difference by having those buildings pulled back a little. Mr. Gerber said it was unrealistic to think that there was going to be a walkway people will use on SR 161. He said he liked the idea of eliminating the parking up front because it was an eyesore. However, he said 18 feet is not much. Ms. Jones said she agreed with Mr. Walter and Mr. Gerber. However, she said in some of the discussion groups in the last few months, staff had been given different direction or they had talked different sentiments, so she did not want to go contrary to those. Mr. Walter said he did not think they had. He asked if when they said "pulling it up to the road," meant pulling it up the road or did it mean to move it forward. Mr. Gerber said it was subject to interpretation. He said they were trying to get rid of parking and some asphalt, and as a result, it would be moved up a little. Ms. Jones said she agreed. Mr. Gerber said staff had done a wonderfiil job working on this, and his comments were in no way meant to be contrary to that whatsoever. He said the good thing with a preliminary is it is going to go to City Council and they will decide this. He said he thought the buildings were too close. Mr. Walter said he also felt that the back of the buildings were being abandoned by doing that. He said they had Stoneridge lane there, and the same is going to happen here on the north side with Banker Drive -- they are going to end up with the back of these buildings looking like a much larger sea of parking. Mr. Hale said they thought there should be a little parking in front, and last time they agreed to work with staff and when they saw that would not work, his client said they will put it on the street. Mr. Saneholtz confirmed that the signage will be placard only with no vertical. Ms. Husak said there was a shopping center identification sign proposed that would identify the name of the center, not any individual tenant. 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2006 Page 11 of 27 Mr. Saneholtz said 12 feet was illustrated, and the text talks about 18 feet, and now we are okay with 20 feet, because it was two feet. Ms. Husak agreed. Mr. Saneholtz said part of the concept the Commission heard professed was to give the people the feeling of closeness where actually they are trying to create a visual. He said he did not want to lose sight of the fact that the 20 feet is not where the entire building is going to be stopping, but there are going to be setbacks as much as 30 feet. He said 40 percent of this building could be back 30 to 35 feet. He said it was difficult to understand what this is going to look like until the final development plan and footprints are seen. He said he was envisioning the ability to have some of these storefronts up at 20 feet to create a feel, but there is not going to be anything else there except a small stoop, a couple steps. Mr. Gerber said he agreed with the concept of changing the streetscape where they eliminated parking up front. He said it would be a prettier image for the whole area. However, he questioned how close to the road it should be. Mr. Saneholtz agreed, and said especially on SR 161. Mr. Gerber said when the text states that a majority has to be at the 18- or 20 -foot line that is 50.1 percent. Mr. Hale read the actual text language: Buildings with their primary frontage on West Dublin - Granville Road shall be required to have a significant portion of the structure located at the build -to -line that will be established between 12 feet and 18 feet from,the right -of -way. Subject to this requirement, the final location of buildings from Dublin- Granville Road right -of -way shall be approved by the Planning Commission at the time of final development plan with the exceptions that patios and outdoor spaces are encouraged to be located in front of the buildings. Mr. Saneholtz noted that it said "significant portion," not majority, although significant was not ten percent either. However, he asked if this was backed up to 30 feet, would it really make the front of these buildings anymore attractive. Mr. Gerber said it might make it a little more usable and maybe a little safer. Mr. Walter said he also thought it would tie together better. Mr. Zimmerman said when they were at the Community Plan work sessions working on the SR 161 Corridor, he did realize they had this much discussion about it. He said now, this is the key. Mr. Saneholtz said for many of the visuals presented at the work session, the conversation was that this was not going to happen overnight, but they had to start somewhere. He said he was not wed to the idea that it has to be 18, 12, or 20 feet. He said he agreed that you have to take into account what is already there and what is likely to be there for a while, but you also have to anticipate that we can eventually do this, but it is going to take a lot of redevelopment. Mr. Zimmerman said he thought they needed to get it right now where this is going to be because once that line begins, it can not keep going. Mr. Saneholtz said not to back it up so much that if the City gets an opportunity in the future to actually fill it in, that they do not lose the effect entirely. He said he thought they all were saying the same thing. He said perhaps there is some room in here — 5 or 10 feet, that aesthetically seems more compatible with what is there but also could be compatible with what could be there 60 years from now. Mr. Gerber agreed with the streetscape concept, however he questioned how close the buildings should be. He said he did not want to be back 90 yards. He asked if 18 feet was safe, because it was not Historic Dublin Road where traffic went 20 mph. 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road "uvaui i aaiuuiig aim L.uuulg iAmmisslon Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2006 Page 12 of 27 Brian Jones, Brian Kent Jones Architect, representing the applicant, said he did not think that the 12 -foot line needed to be increased: He said if they gave some leniency to allow for some variation from 12 to 30 feet, it is going to allow for steps in and out of the building, which are going to help. He said it is not 12 feet from the front face of the building to the curb. Mr. Jones said there is a considerable amount of space that occurs between the right -0f -way line and the curb itself. He said he thought an investigation would result in something that is responsive to the issue. Mr. Saneholtz said some Commissioners were envisioning something very similar to Starbucks in Historic Dublin, and here, they were not in an area where the speed limit was reduced to 25 or 30 mph. He asked how far back from the curb are the buildings in Historic Dublin and if some were right to the right -of -way. Mr. Gunderman said some were at the right -of -way and others were not. He said Town Center I on the corner would probably lie right at the right -of -way line. He said about 30 percent of the buildings down the street were the same way. He said the rest are set back from two feet to ten feet. Mr. Fishman suggested that the developer be given some flexibility. Mr. Walter said he thought the problem was staffs direction to the applicant. Mr. Fishman said that at 20 feet, they had two more feet and staff said that was fine. He confirmed where the 20 -feet begin. Mr. Phillabaum clarified that the 12 feet staff has shown as the build -to -line is to the right -of- way. He said at a minimum, from the edge of pavement of SR 161 to the closest face of a building would be 27 feet. He said it could increase from there another eight to 35 feet. Mr. Fishman said that was assuming another lane was not added to SR 161. Mr. Gerber asked if the State could add another lane in the right -of -way. Mr. Phillabaum said yes, in theory. Mr. Walter asked about the southern line of Sharp Lane which Mr. Jones indicated is probably eight to 12 feet again past that. He asked if the building could be oriented so that from Sharp Lane, all the way to east, and those buildings would set at the same level. He said it gives a visual corridor that is similar, and it is far enough away from the street. He said if a lane were added, it would not go on top of Sharp Lane, so it would provide a good visual appeal all the way down, without the parking in front. Mr. Jones said it appeared to be about 40 feet, taking the right -of -way on Sharp Lane and projecting it. Mr. Hale said he was not sure they wanted to push the building back that far. He said maybe 30 feet. Mr. Walter said 30 feet would give variation and ten feet on the other side. Mr. Hale said they were happy at 30 feet. He agreed to work with staff to make sure it works right. He said 40 feet would impede too much on the parking. Mr. Gerber said this would go next to City Council and they could change what the Commission recommends. He said he thought 12 feet was too short. He said it was unsafe and if there are patios there, it was very unsafe and too close. He asked for an expert opinion about safety, aside from politics, etc. Steve Langworthy said he told staff that they were talking about the wrong things. He said in his view, he looked at the other side of the building and he put himself on the ground and said what is the difference between this and any other suburban shopping center he had ever seen - other than maybe some nice looking buildings which you get anyway - nothing. "II r ____4_t_ _4_t._. 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road uumm riammng ana zomng Lommission Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2006 Page 13 of 27 the first question he asked staff was if Dublin was not supposed to be a special place that builds special places where people want to go, or does it build suburban shopping centers that happen to look like some nice buildings. He said the second question he asked staff" was why we are putting the buildings up to the street. He said staff replied that the consultant told them they should do that. Mr. Langworthy said he used to be a consultant, and that was probably the worst person to listen to. He said the idea was that you cannot do these things in singularity. He said what the Commissioners saw on their field trip was buildings up to the street, but they also saw a street that was in scale to buildings up to the street. He said these things had to be done in combination. Mr. Langworthy said he thought they could find another way to create a place where people will actually want to go as opposed to just another suburban shopping center along the highway. Mr. Fishman asked where to go from here. Mr. Langworthy said his non - political honest answer was that they should scrap this plan. However, he said he was coming in late in the game, so it was not fair for him to say that. Mr. Gerber said he appreciated very much Mr. Langworthy's honest answer. Mr. Fishman suggested that this be tabled to let the applicant work with staff and come back with something that staff and the Commission can live with. Mr. Langworthy said that was really unfair to the applicants now because they had gone so far down the road - unless they are completely in agreement to rework the plan. Mr. Gerber said he very much appreciated that too. He said there were many aspects of this that he liked. He said he was concerned how close these buildings are to the road. He said he thought they were dreaming and it was poor planning. He said although he was not an expert in planning, he was a resident and stakeholder and he knew what he liked when he saw it. Mr. Gerber said this was something he thought would be inherently very dangerous and will not be very functional that close to the road. Mr. Saneholtz said he would like to understand how far this concept can back up before running out of parking spaces. Ms. Husak said the intention is that the uses would offset parking needs and in general, the Code does have very suburban, auto - oriented parking standards. However, she said, there are office, restaurant, and retail uses of varying intensities envisioned here, so parking use would be offset at peak times. Mr. Walter said he was concerned that these were strip centers on both sides of SR 161. He said while he liked the architecture, style, and placement of the Lexus service center which was absolutely appropriate and worked well on the site. Mr. Walter said he was not convinced that this is the best thing to do for this part of the area and he also was not convinced that a drive -thru in Subarea B would fit in at all. Mr. Fishman said he did not think this could be designed tonight, and he was in the favor of a tabling so that the applicant can get with staff and Mr. Langworthy who seemed to have some new, fresh ideas. Mr. Saneholtz said he would support a tabling. He said they were not quite ready to deal with this yet because more information was needed. Mr. Walter said there was a mix of opinions amongst staff to be resolved before they can direct the applicant on a major project. Mr. Langworthy said staff was trying to follow the Commission's earlier direction. Mr. Saneholtz said he thought there was a mix of opinion between what staff interpreted from the Joint City Council/Planning Commi ' 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Prelin inary Development Plan Kennon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road cal [�/allll�' �tr11ll11IJ5lUR Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2006 Page 14 of 27 Mr. Hale said they first took this to the Commission in September 2005, and they were encouraged to improve the architecture, they were encouraged to bring these buildings up to the street, and to get involved on the other side of the street. He said then, they were encouraged to work with the other owners. He said they had done eveoLffiing anybody had asked them to do and they had spent $250,000 doing that. He said this was a great project in terms of everything they have heard. He said he was just flabbergasted. Mr. Gerber said he was not inclined to table this case for those reasons. He said the City had been leading the applicant down the road for a long time. He said he thought they needed to decide where the setback was to be. Mr. Gerber said it is going to City Council and to let them decide this issue. He said this had been brought up by their consultant, and in the joint work sessions. However, he said in order for him to support or make a recommendation to City Council, he thought the setback needed to be back a little more. He said he thought it was too close. He told Mr. Hale if they could come up with language to facilitate that, to take his case to Council. Mr. Saneholtz asked how much further back. Mr. Gerber said he sensed it would be that 40 feet was too much, perhaps 30 feet which is ten yards from the back of the curb. He said if he had it to do over, he agreed with what Mr. Langworthy said. He said he had been a proponent of gateway features and he envisioned nice fences, etc. Mr. Saneholtz said he wanted everyone to understand what he thought he heard. Mr. Langworthy suggested not worrying too much about the numbers and maybe the Commission could tell staff what they wanted to occur in that space between the street pavement and the actual front of this building. Mr. Gerber said his objective was that he did not want to see a tunnel all the way down. He said he wanted to see vistas. Mr. Gerber said he wanted to preserve the fact that this City was proud of its open space and at the same time, he was very concerned about safety, and the utility of the shopkeepers, should they chose to put a patio out there, that they would have enough room to do that in an aesthetic and safe way. Mr. Langworthy confirmed that Mr. Gerber wanted room for some outdoor activity to occur in the front that was a safe distance from the edge of the pavement of the roadway. Mr. Gerber said he wanted it mixed a little. He said the parking in front took away from the vista. Mr. Gerber asked what kind of language could be put in here. He asked if this could be done as a condition. Mr. Hale said yes, and that he thought they could say that the build -to -lines will not exceed 30 feet, and they will work with staff at the final development plan to bring a building design back to the Commission. He agreed that Mr. Langworthy had a point that they were all worried about this adjacency, and perhaps they will talk about the right kind of wall to make it feel more separated. He said that might be a good thing so that when you are on that busy street, there is something that separates you from the street. Mr. Hale said they would do some mock -ups so they can see what they look like and feel like on the street. Mr. Gunderman said if all the Commissioners were feeling comfortable enough of essentially addressing these issues at the final development plan stage and if the things they are willing to consider are broad enough, then he thought they could simply eliminate the numbers from the paragraph that talk about the setback in the text for Subareas B and C where it discusses building pavement setbacks from the adjacent right -of -way. He said it could read: Buildings with their primary frontage on West Dublin - Granville Road shall be required to have a significant Portion 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Prelinunary Development Plan Kunion Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road uumm riammng ana "ning wmmission Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2006 Page 15 of 27 of the structures located at a build -to line... Mr. Gerber confirmed that a period should be placed after that sentence. He asked to make that a new Condition 12. Mr. Hale agreed. Ms. Husak suggested a general: That the text be modified. Mr. Gunderman agreed and said the new Condition 12 should be: That the text be modified under yard and setback requirements for Subareas B and C to eliminate the phrase "between 12 feet and 18 feet from the right -of- way." Mr. Fishman agreed and added that the decision would be made - at the final development plan stage when the Commission sees the details. Mr. Fishman said Condition 3 should remain as it was and Mr. Walter did not. Mr. Hale said they were okay with Condition 3. Mr. Fishman confirmed that Condition 3 should be left alone and that only one non -food, drive -thru would be permitted. Mr. Fishman confirmed with Mr. Hale that all these buildings would have four -sided architecture. Mr. Hale said they would have the same quality and materials. He said the only other issue was Condition 6 regarding the predominately two- and three -story buildings which would be similar to the architectural renderings. Mr. Jones said the hierarchy at the corner, the town center piece, where these two are really facing the intersection is where the highest elements are proposed. He said because what is occurring through the corridor, they think that trying to build up to this hierarchy at the center is probably the most rationale way to try to mimic what might have occurred 100 years ago or more. He said they thought it was really important to maintain some of the l yz -story components along with the two -story, as well as along with some of three -story tower and some of the references even get above the 2V2-story framework. Mr. Walter said he did not think the condition made sense with Subarea D, because it does not talk about two- or three -story buildings. Mr. Hale said it only applied to Subareas B and C (buildings along SR 161). Mr. Walter said that was not how Condition 6 read. Mr. Hale said they wanted to make it clear that they are going to bring back architecture very consistent with what was seen in the renderings with the same quality. Mr. Gerber asked for Ms. Husak's reply regarding the purpose of Condition 6. Ms. Husak said the concern was that these architectural elevations are part of the preliminary development plan and staff did not want to see the buildings decreasing in height from what is shown on these plans. Mr. Gerber asked if the concern was just Subareas B and C. Ms. Husak said yes. Mr. Fishman suggested that Subareas B and C be added to Condition 6. Mr. Hale agreed. He said they would not come back with something radically different. Motion and Vote: Mr. Gerber moved to approve this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan because this proposal addresses the desire for a more identifiable streetscape, includes interesting architectural components and appropriate uses, the high -level of development quality desired in this corridor is likely to be established and furthered by this development, and the proposed zoning and subsequent development will provide appropriate development standards for the site and will advance the general planning intent of this area with 12 conditions: 1) That the text be revised to accommodate future connectivity along all property lines; 2) , That the applicant work with staff to eliminate the provision for signage in the right -of -way and clarify the signage provision in the development text; 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Prehininary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road .�.- ........auuwL� Luau LMILLLlr, <.V111llLLbblun Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2006 Page 16 of 27 3) That drive -thrus be limited to a maximum of one drive -thru in either Subarea B or C and not be allowed to serve an eating or drinking establishment and that the stacking requirement language be revised; 4) That the alternate layout for Subarea D be pursued for the final development plan and that the text be modified to clearly define the association of a detached car wash with the service facility; 5) That the development text provisions remain allowing a combination of wall and ground signs for a single tenant in Subarea D with the maximum square footage of the ground sign subject to review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission at the final development plan stage; 6) That the text be modified to include a requirement for buildings to be of two- to three -story design similar to the architectural renderings for Subareas B and C; 7) That the applicant continue to work with staff to finalize the traffic study prior to submitting for final development plan and that the recommendations required by the study be completed; 8) That the design of private drive pavement meet the approval of the City Engineer; 9) That the rights -0f - -way and any necessary easements be dedicated by a plat prior to the issuance of any building permits; 10) That stormwater management is in compliance with the current Stormwater Regulations, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and 11) That, as outlined in the Tax Increment Financing Agreement, the applicant participate financially in the Shamrock Boulevard Roadway network, and the Banker Drive and Stoneridge Lane extensions to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and 12) That the development text be modified to eliminate the setback requirements along West Dublin Granville Road. Mr. Hale agreed to the above conditions. Mr. Fishman seconded the motion and the vote was as follows: Ms. Jones, yes; Mr. Saneholtz, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. Zimmerman, yes; and Mr. Gerber, yes. (Approved 6 — 0.) (Mr. McCash recused himself at the beginning of the meeting from this case due to a business association conflict.) /cond itions evelopment P Amended /6-115F evelopment Pla 0DP /AFDP r West PCD ubarea 1— Pest Office Par — 6700 wore in representative of t, Rob Rya who then agreed to a seven amen Motion and We: Mr. Gerber oved to approve inal Development an because the pro sal provides ahigh- quality 5ce building that tinues the standar of development w' n the Perimeter st PCD he site plan and ociated design ele nts comply with C e and text modifi ions re ain consistent to th riginal intent of the uirements of the P , with seven coed' ons: That the I cape plan be revi prior to buildin ermit submittal to dress the cornmen d recommendatio in the staff report, s jest to staff approv ; 2) That applicant utilize th gional stormwate asin approved wi a National City Fi evelopment Plan d show conforman with the City's St( 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road CITY OF DUB1.1N- laid Use eyed tm 1-F Ph -ing 5800 Shierav Rood D", Ohio 43016 -1236 Phwe- 614410x600 Fm 6144104741 Web Site_ WMWAbkoh.us PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECORD OF ACTION OCTOBER 5, 2006 The Planning and Zoning Commission took the following action at this meeting: 1. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan • 06 -076Z — Shamrock Crossing — West Dublin Granville Road Location: 15.56 acres located at the intersection of West Dublin Granville Road and Shamrock Boulevard. Existing Zoning: SO, Suburban Office and Institutional and R -1, Restricted Suburban Residential District. Request: Review and approval of a rezoning for 15.56 acres to Planned Unit Development District, under the provisions of Code Sections 153.053(D)(b) andl53.234. Proposed Use: A 1 10,000- square -foot development comprised of retail, office, and service- oriented uses. Applicant: Tall Pines Holdings, Ltd., 3473 Mildred Drive, Falls Church, Virginia 22042, and Charles W. Warner and Edward E. Belz, 2226 Atlee Court, Columbus, Ohio 43220; represented by Ben W. Hale and Aaron L. Underhill, Smith and Hale, 37 West Broad Street, Suite 725, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Staff Contact: Claudia D. Husak, Planner. Contact Information: (614) 410- 4675/Email: chusak @dublin.oh.us. MOTION: To table this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan at the request of the applicant. VOTE: 4-0. RESULT: This Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan was tabled. STAFF CERTIFICATION Claudia D. Husak Planner 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminaq Development Plan Kttmon Learning Cetuer 4056 Wes! Dublin - Granville Road uunnn manning and Coning Uommission Minutes — October 5, 2006 Page 2 of 8 Mr. Zi ennan noted that e 3 had requested be tabled and 2 was on thZCoent Agen . No one asked to 11 the Consent Ag da case. Mr. Zi rman announced r of night's cases: Case , 2, and 1. [The mi tes are in the order the published Age 1. Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan 06-076Z — Shamrock Crossing — West Dublin Granville Road Claudia Husak presented this case and said it is a request for review and approval of a rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District for a proposed 110,000 square foot commercial development, located north and south of West Dublin- Granville Road at Shamrock Boulevard. She said this case was tabled August 17, 2006 at the request of the applicant. Ms. Husak said the southern portion of this site is zoned SO, Suburban Office and Institutional District and the northern portion is zoned Rl, Restricted Suburban Residential District. The current zoning districts permit medical office, professional office, institutional facilities and residential uses and the proposed development which includes mixed office, retail and restaurant uses is not permitted. Ms. Husak reviewed the preceding zoning applications for this site and said regarding a 2005 Concept Plan for the undeveloped land to the south, members of City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission expressed concerns regarding a desire to protect the existing tree rows, and the mix of uses proposed with particular emphasis on drive -thru restaurants. She said additional concerns included whether the proposal fits with the concept of the West Dublin - Granville Corridor discussed at recent Community Plan Update work sessions. Ms. Husak said Subarea A and B are south of West Dublin - Granville Road and Subarea C and D are located north of the roadway. The preliminary development plan indicates building envelopes and parking areas along West Dublin - Granville Road in each of the subareas and along Sharp Lane and Shamrock Boulevard. Ms. Husak said Subarea A has frontage along Sharp Lane and Stoneridge Lane to the south. The plan indicates an office retail building oriented toward Sharp Lane with parking areas to the south and east of the buildings. She said an access point is proposed off Shamrock Boulevard to the east, which staff does not support and will require that this access be moved to the north to Sharp Lane. Ms. Husak said Subarea B depicts the extension of Stoneridge Lane westward to meet Shamrock Boulevard. The plan shows a retail building facing West Dublin - Granville Road with two aisles of parking located in front of the building, and a smaller office building facing Shamrock Boulevard, to the southwest of the retail building. She said the development text states that parking within this subarea will be provided at a ratio one space per 200 square feet which is less than outlined by Code, but which staff believes may be appropriate as peak hours of the different uses proposed may differ allowing for shared parking. Ms. Husak said ground signs are depicted within the right -of -way along West Dublin - Granville Road, and noted that signage within the right -of -way requires the consent of the City Engineer as 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Developinent Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — October 5, 2006 Page 3 of 8 well as City Council. Staff recognizes that the proposed sign location is due to the alignment of Sharp Lane, however staff does not support the proposed location of signage within the right-of- way- Ms. Husak said Subarea C shows the westward extension of Banker Drive as the northern boundary of this subarea The plans indicate a retail building facing West Dublin - Granville Road with parking in front of the building. A restaurant building with a drive -thru is shown facing Shamrock Boulevard to the west. She said staff does not believe that the drive -thru use as depicted is appropriate in this context as it fails to promote the pedestrian environment envisioned throughout the Joint Work Sessions. Ms. Husak said however, if the drive -thru were designed properly as part of an urban streetscape and located interior to the site, staff may support the use. The plan indicates a curb cut access point along West Dublin - Granville Road which is not supported by staff and should be eliminated. Ms. Husak said Subarea D is located north of Subarea C with frontage along the extensions of Banker Drive and Shamrock Boulevard. She said the plans indicate an auto service facility located in the center of the site with parking located around the building to the north, east, and south. Ms. Husak said staff believes that the use is appropriate for the site because the site is located adjacent to the AEP Substation, however staff's ultimate approval of this use will be dependent on the architectural design of the building and location of the proposed parking. Ms. Husak said staff does not support the combination of wall and ground signs. Ms. Husak said that staff believes that the overall proposed site layout does not address the creation of an urban and pedestrian friendly environment envisioned for this area. To create an identifiable streetscape the buildings should be placed at a build -to line closer to West Dublin - Granville Road with the parking located behind. Revising the layout in this manner would be consistent with the comments made during Joint Work Sessions, the concept contained in the Area Plan, and the previous conceptual submittal for a portion of the development. Ms. Husak said that staff believes that the proposed architecture provides for interesting and appropriate building types. She said the development text specifies that the maximum height in all four subareas will be 35 feet. She said the architectural elevations indicated a variety of one and two -story buildings will be constructed on site. Ms. Husak said staff recommends that the buildings be two -story or more in height in order to create the spatial dynamics and massing needed for the desired streetscape. She said the auto service facility does not achieve the same architectural character for the subareas and staff believes that the architecture should more closely match the standards for the other areas and that this development will set a style for future commercial architecture in this area. Ms. Husak said the site contains a large number of existing trees located mainly along the fence rows, and the development of the site will remove a number of these trees six inches in caliber and over. She said the need to preserve the existing trees was discussed at the Concept Plan stage, and staff recommends that the final layout of the site integrate as many existing trees as possible. 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission M'mutes — October 5, 2006 Page 4 of 8 Ms. Husak said that staff has worked extensively with the applicant regarding the issues associated with this development and believes this project contains interesting architectural components and appropriate land uses for this area. She said however, several significant planning matters are still outstanding that are integral to the creation of an urban and pedestrian- friendly environment, and until such modifications are made, staff can not support this application and respectfully recommends disapproval of this request. Ben W. Hale Jr., Smith and Hale, representing the applicant, said there were a number of issues within the staff report that they are willing to concede to, but did not expect a vote tonight. He said many people were interested in this case at the Concept Plan stage. He said the main issue was with the architecture of the center. He said they hired a new architect, Brian Jones. Mr. Hale said they are working on a TIF with the City for the extension of Shamrock Boulevard to the north. He said another issue was with moving Lexus' service center to this site, and picking up the overall architecture of the center to make it look unified. Mr. Hale said another goal was to finish Banker Drive and to include properties from David Road into this development. Mr. Hale said the remaining houses on David Road are difficult to sell because of the detention areas. He said they are working with the property owners and think with the help of the City, they can make them work. Mr. Hale said they propose a fast food use on the comer next to Wendy's International which they would only make a Wendy's. He said if it is not a Wendy's, it will be an attached- building and will not be fast food with a drive dnu. Mr. Hale said for the buildings on the south side of West Dublin- Granville Road, they are trying to make a uniform setback with parking off Sharp Lane in front of the building. He said they believe that it was a mistake not to extend Sharp Lane with a pedestrian- friendly street. He said they need a small amount of parking in front of the building with most of the parking behind the building. He said if they pull the building all the way, up it would be a false front and believed pedestrians would not use the front doors. They want to bring life onto the street by creating a comer patio area at the southeast corner of Shamrock Boulevard and West Dublin - Granville Road. Mr. Hale said the other issue is with City engineers regarding Shamrock Boulevard and access points. and in order to do that they have to move the building. They want to keep the building up in line with the existing La Scala restaurant and have right -in right -out only access along Shamrock Boulevard. He said that they are going to work with the parcels on David Road to complete Banker Drive, fix the architecture, eliminate the drive -thru unless it is a Wendy's, and move the buildings forward appropriately but not have them as fake fronts. Brian Jones, architect, said that the architectural style based on that of Irish Towns. They are trying to capture the "Hill Town" concept at this intersection, and to make this central node an introduction into Dublin. He said the overall plan is trying to get a relationship along the streetscape where certain buildings are pulled very close to the street. He said compared to the other approved shops further to the west, the scale of the architecture which is one to one and a 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin- Granville Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — October 5, 2006 Page 5 of 8 half story architecture, is drastically different than anything else in the corridor. They feel strongly that a mix of building heights from one and half to three or three and half stories, with elements that really pull into the intersection will develop a hierarchy that will accentuate that corner and give a sense of vitality and urbanism at this intersection. Linda Merchant- Masonbrink, 3168 Lilly Mar Court, said they had met with the developer to discuss concerns and the developer made revisions based on their comments. She said they are still concerned that the small parcel left with suburban office zoning will eventually be re -zoned to retail. She said they are concerned about the noise from the patio associated with the proposed restaurant with their outdoor speakers and bands as they currently hear announcements on speakers from Germain. They are concerned with the excessive amount of retail in the area and the impact on Historic Dublin. She said retail development between 161 and their quiet community would adversely impact their neighborhood, with frequent turnover, which is the usual for retail in this area, they are not assured that future retail uses will be protective of their neighborhood. The proposal will adversely impact wildlife and the serenity they enjoy. She said the current office zoning would add variety to an otherwise overpopulated retail base. It would also be a less intense use of the land, with less blacktop needed for parking. This would allow for more green space to maintain a more appealing upscale suburbanized, "Dublinized ", feel with preserving the green trees. She asked that they protect their neighborhood by saying "no" to retail on Shamrock Crossing parcel to the south of SR 161. Steve Masonbrink, 3168 Lilly Mar Court, said he enjoys the area that he lives in and the developers have listened to their concerns • and they have been told that development of this parcel of land is going to be retail. He said the developers have changed their plan not to rezone all of the parcels to retail, however he is fearful that the remaining portion would be open to rezone to retail in the future. He stated the areas of retail that are currently just empty blacktop sites, such as Dublin Village Center. He said that dealerships should not be close to neighborhoods, the light pollution and outdoor speakers are bad and they should move to Dublin Village Center. He said the wildlife will be affected and he would hate to see that happen and affect their serenity. He said the development is trying to look like the hills of Ireland and they should make sure the fire hydrants stay green because it will be the only green left, and all there will be left is blacktop and the retail. He said they need a parking buffer in front of the building and he does not want parking in the back because it will disturb the neighborhood behind it. Deno Duros, Stoneridge Medical Center, said his main concern is with the placement of the building adjacent to his site and that it should be no further forward than their existing building. Mr. Hale said there had been a number of discussions about this property and they all know that someday this would be developed, but there are private ways to make sure that the parcel of concern will remain and change to retail in the future. He said they will make sure there will not be outside speakers and bands at the restaurant site and they will do everything they can to alleviate their fears. Rick Germain said they do plan to move their service operation to deal with their facility requirements and they are satisfied with the options that Mr. Jones has presented and it is important to them to tie the two buildings together and make them similar to what they have 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — October 5, 2006 Page 6of8 done at Easton, because it is a cleaner and neater retail environment and more like a jewelry store than automobile dealership. Mr. Germain said they were to use silent pagers at their current location and for some reason they have gotten away from that. He said they would not be using an outdoor speaker at their new site and would not have outdoor paging at either location. Ms. Jones asked about the architecture with the existing building and the new facility. Mr. Germain said they will have a common look and identity for the two buildings. Mr. Zimmerman said during Community Plan Update work sessions, Council and the Commission agreed to bring the buildings forward as the vision for future developments. Ms. Jones said she agrees that the north side should be brought forward, but because Sharp Lane exists on the south side she believed it was okay to have the buildings on the south side back behind Sharp Lane. Mr. Walter said that he agrees with the applicant on the south side to have the buildings back for pedestrian use of the front. Ms. Jones said she would agree with one row of parking on the south side. Mr. Fishman agreed that staff and the applicant should work this out so that the applicant has the approval of staff prior to the Commission making a decision. Mr. Jones said they have learned that bringing a retail environment up to the road system that exists with a 45 mile per hour speed limit is a drastic mistake without a buffer of the parking either by head in parking or parallel parking which will provide a security to the pedestrian environment. Mr. Gunderman said staff has had that discussion with the applicant and that they understand what the position of staff is. The applicant's points are valid and reasonable and the issue is that this is the urban image that was agreed upon at the joint meetings. The question to the Commission is whether there can be a compromise in achieving this objective. He said the issue is they are looking for the appearance of an urbanized area and not the suburban feel. He said they are looking at Shamrock Crossing as setting the precedent for the redevelopment of the West Dublin - Granville Road corridor. Mr. Zimmerman said they worked on the work sessions of the Community Plan and they have talked about it and they agreed this is the direction for the future and it has to start here. Mr. Walter said during the work session he did not appreciate the configuration and did not think they would be so rigid. Mr. Fishman asked if the argument of the applicant is valid that bringing the buildings forward would make the front of the building worthless. Mr. Gunderman said they are not insisting that the entire front edge of each building be set up to the property line, but that the building facade can be varied creating open spaces that can be made into the types of pedestrian oriented environment that they are looking for. Mr. Zimmerman said he agrees with staff and asked for other comments. Ms. Jones said the only way she would be in favor of the parking in front of the buildings is if staff supported the proposal. Mr. Fishman said they would need to work it out with staff, however he does agree 09- 067Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes — October 5, 2006 Page 7 of 8 with the applicants' comments and prefers parallel parking. Mr. Walter said he would have a hard time if the buildings were pushed up to the build line. Mr. Zimmerman asked for feedback on the architecture for the auto dealership and whether it should blend with the rest of the development. Ms. Jones said it has to come close. Mr. Fishman said it does not match now and it needs the Old Irish Theme. Mr. Zimmerman said they all agree that the architecture has to match with regards to the dealership. [Everyone agreed.] Mr. Zimmerman said they now need a consensus of the building heights--two to three story buildings. Mr. Fishman said with regards to density if they go higher they will have more room for green space and he would like to see two to three story buildings and have more green space, walking space and patios. Ms. Jones agreed that in the section east of Shamrock would like to see the buildings taller. Mr. Walter said he likes what he sees and recognized that it is not what is perceived and it should have an overriding look and would like to see the same style continued with the renderings and they should see what they look like coming up. Mr. Zimmerman said he agreed with the taller buildings. Ms. Jones said she really liked the proposed architecture and supports the connectivity and agrees with staff on the curb cuts and the urban streetscape and is not supportive of fast food on this site. Mr. Fishman agreed with Ms. Jones comments and said this site will be upscale and he would like to see a Wendy's without a drive -thru and thinks that it would fit within the buildings. Dan Carducci, representing Wendy's International, said they would not build a store without a pickup window. Mr. Fishman said there are lots of places to build stores and that he did not think it had to be here. Mr. Carducci understood. Mr. Walter said he does not think that a drive -thru is appropriate on this site. Vote and Motion: Mr. Zimmerman made a motion to table this Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan at the request of the applicant. Mr. Fishman seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: Ms. Jones, yes; Mr. Walter, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; and Mr. Zimmerman, yes. (Approved 4 — 0.) 2. Amend /Final Developmo Plan 06- 130AFD/ Perimeter Cen r, Subarea G1 — Cra well Village Gar a Additions — Peri ter Drive Mr. erman asked if gone in the audien was present to /spZ, regar ds to this re being none, h swore in the ap cant's representati all Reger, )e chitecture, who th agreed to the two c ditiow Vote and Mot' n: Mr. Zimnwill made the / pprove this modifie provide amenity to area ro located o d match tl as listed in t st/ause ne V Final Duse the e redents of tgarage �cisting on the sits: 09- 067 Z/PDP Rezoning/Preliminary Development Plan Kumon Learning Center 4056 West Dublin - Granville Road